November 18, 2025 • 17 mins
The Coalition has announced it will abandon Australia’s target of net zero by 2050, to instead focus on affordable energy.
On Sunday, they promised they would bring down energy bills for Australians, by removing the renewable energy targets enshrined in law by Labor.
It’s the biggest policy announcement from the Coalition since their loss at the last election in May.
Today, TDA sits down with Sussan Ley, leader of the Liberal Party, about the reasoning behind the decision.
Interview by: Billi FitzSimonsGuest: Sussan Ley, Opposition LeaderProduced by: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this this is the Daily Off.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
This is the Daily OS. Oh, now it makes sense.
Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Wednesday,
the nineteenth of November.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
I'm Billy fitz Simon's I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
The Coalition has announced it will abandon Australia's target of
net zero by twenty fifty to instead focus on affordable energy.
On Sunday, they promised they would bring down energy bills
for Australians by removing the renewable energy targets enshrined in
law by Labor. It is the biggest policy announcement from
the Coalition since their loss at the last election in May. Today,
(00:45):
I sit down with Susan Lee, who is the leader
of the Liberal Party, about the reasoning behind that decision.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Billy, firstly, I'm really excited for people to listen to
this chat. I think it was a really interesting interview.
But I do think that there's a lot of concepts
that come up during the chat that we need to
get our head around so that we can understand exactly
what you guys are talking about. Why don't we start
with net zero as a key concept?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
So net zero refers to balancing the amount of greenhouse
gases we produce with the amount that we then take
out of the atmosphere. And what you need to know
is that Australia currently has a plan to reach net
zero by twenty.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Fifty and so over the weekend the coalition announced it
will abandon that target. Will let the opposition leader explain
their thinking behind that and how they got to that decision.
But to be very clear, that wouldn't happen unless they're
elected to government, right.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
No, So just be clear. We're talking about the coalition.
They are made up of the Liberal Party and the Nationals.
Susan Lee, who I am interviewing today is the leader
of the Liberal Party. She took over from Peter Dutton
after their loss at the last election, and so they
are currently in opposition. So all of their policy and nenouncements,
the one that we heard on the weekend and the
(02:02):
ones that they i'm sure will continue to announce, is
them saying this is what we would do if we
are elected at the next federal election, which isn't due
until twenty twenty eight, so we have a while.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
So we've got about two and a half years until then. Yes,
but if they won and Susan Lee were still in
power as the leader of the Opposition, she would then
be the Prime Minister exactly. One last thing to note
is the Paris Agreement. It comes up a bit in
the interview quickly talking through what that is.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
So the Paris Agreement is an international treaty on climate change.
It was signed by countries around the world in twenty fifteen,
and under that agreement, countries agreed to limit global warming
to one point five degrees above pre industrial levels. Now
to do that, there are specific targets that need to
be met, but we get into all of that in
the interview.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
A really helpful outline. Why don't we get straight into
that chat with Billy and the Opposition leader here.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
It is Susan Ly thank you for joining the Daily Oz.
It's a pleasure talking today because on Sunday the Coalition
announced that it would abandon Australia's net zero by twenty
fifty target. For anyone who missed that announcement, do you
want to just take us through it first?
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Thank you, Billy, And I said when you and I
caught up last time, soon after I became leader, that
I wanted to meet with young Australians wherever they are
and listen to them. And I have, and I've made
a decision, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain it.
Our plan that I'm talking about today is about affordable
energy and responsible emissions reduction, and I know that a
(03:34):
lot of young people are really struggling with the cost
of living right now, and that's one of the reasons
we've made affordability of energy central to the plan. But
emission's reduction is still important. And when you talk about
net zero you mean a long term target that the
government has signed up to. Unfortunately, they're not going to
meet that target, and the costs that they've incurred so
(03:56):
far haven't really bought emissions down either.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
So you're saying that you have gone away, you've listened
to young people, and as a result of that, you
have decided to abandon net zero.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Not quite in the terms that you've just presented. What
I've done is listen to young people and they've told
me they care about the climate, and I care about
the climate.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
But with this decision, abandoning net zero bad for the climate.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
It's a target that unfortunately the government is not going
to reach and already if you look at where they've
come from and where they're going, their emissions from Australia
are flatlining. But most importantly, energy prices are going up.
And remember they told you that renewables were the cheapest
form of power and your energy bills would come down,
(04:44):
and they've gone up forty percent. So because energy is unaffordable,
everything is unaffordable. So we have to get the cost
of energy affordable. But we do need to play our
part in reducing emissions, which is why I've said that
a coalition government would stay signed up to the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Okay, so you're saying we need to abandon climate targets
to bring down the cost of energy bills. But experts
have said that there are a mix of reasons for
higher energy bills. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an example
of one of those reasons. So what is the evidence
that higher energy prices are caused by renewable energy.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
The government told you that your energy bills would go
down because of renewable energy, and your energy bills have
gone up by forty percent. This is all after the
Ukraine War. Any effects from that have washed out.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
And while that war is still ongoing. So we are
still seeing the effects of that.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Yes, but the effects that Australia is seeing are from
the renewable energy build and the government's energy policy. So
the government has said we're building eighty two percent of
the grid to be renewable by twenty thirty. They're woefully
off track with that. That actually is not going to happen,
and the government privately, I think would admit this too.
(06:02):
They're failing to do what they said they would do,
which is to keep prices down.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
I want to move on just quickly. I've heard you
say before that you do believe in the science behind
climate change.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
You were standing next to National's leader David littl Proud
on Sunday as he explicitly said that this decision is
not based on science. Is that right.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
I don't believe that's what he said. He said that
the economics is what we need to focus on.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Say, this debate is not about science.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Mister bib is not one predicated on science, It is
one predicated on economics. He's certainly not walking away from
the science of climate change. There may have been a
misunderstanding there because I've heard him on other occasions and
we're very clear that we accept the science of climate change,
which is why we're staying with the Paris Agreement, because
that's what the Paris Agreement is about.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Let's look at the Paris Agreement. You say that you
will remain committed to it, but to reach the goals
set out in that agreement, countries need to achieve net
zero by twenty fifty. So if you're serious about ditching
net zero, why not leave the Paris Agreement as well.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I'm going to disagree with you about the net zero
by twenty fifty being in the Paris Agreement. What the
Paris Agreement says is that countries must submit their nationally
determined contributions and they can resubmit them or as some
have changed the baseline accounting to make them look a
bit different.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
It's more specific than that, though, because so it has
the target of limiting global warming to one point five degrees,
and in order to scientifically achieve that, net zero is required.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
So believe it is the only way to achieve that target.
How much can Australia achieve if we're only one percent
of those global emissions?
Speaker 2 (07:45):
But are you saying if we can't one hundred percent
get there, then we shouldn't even try.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
I'm saying that we should responsibly play our part in
the ways that I've said, which is bringing down our
own emissions, because that's what we should do.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Lok.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I know the lots of disagreement about what it means,
but let's take a step back. Does anyone in Australia
really think that we would let an international agreement determine
a policy that will crash Australia's businesses, that would make
our young people inherit a lower standard of living, that
would even then not make an appreciable difference to the
world's climate. Now, I appreciate that Labours put this target
(08:17):
on the table and they've talked a big game, but
when you look at where they are now and where
they are expecting to land, it's almost impossible.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Let's get back to the specifics of the Paris Agreement.
It is specific in saying that countries targets can't go backwards.
Under this policy that you've proposed, Australia's targets would go backwards.
So is the coalition strategy to remain part of the
Paris Agreement but then actively breach it.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Well, we'll sit at the table in the forum that
is the Paris Agreement, and we'll talk about what our
nationally determined contributions will be in our national interest when
that time comes. And when you say that, so, what
other countries are doing right now, because because many of
them have realized it's not possible to reach targets that
they set, is they're changing their baseline accounting, so they're
watering it down, or they're taking certain things out and
(09:09):
saying we're still there, but we're not counting this, this,
and this. So plenty of countries are changing what they're
prepared to do in.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
W they're not going backwards on the targets.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
They are because well, countries that are saying our nationally
determined contributions are now going to be calculated in a
different way.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
But who's going backwards on that time?
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Well, several countries are doing things differently because of this.
And i'll get your list.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Gone backwards, well, look forward to them.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
It depends, It depends what you mean by going backwards.
The Labor Party has given a target, so they've given
forty three percent by twenty thirty and they've said between
and twenty thirty five it'll be sixty two to seventy percent.
There is no way that that can be reached. So
they're going to have to go backwards if they're still
in power, because there's no way they can reach that.
(09:54):
There's no way that number will work at all. But
it's not just about a target and an international agreement.
Important though international agreements are. It's about what's in the
best interest for our country.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
We're going to get back to that chat between Billy
and the opposition leader Susan Lee in the SEC. But
here's a quick message from our sponsor.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Okay, so we've established what you're not doing, Let's look
at what you would do. Can you say, in really
clear terms, how would a future coalition government bring energy
prices down.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
By getting more supply into the system. I talked about
a balanced energy grid. At the moment, the grid is
out of balance. There are too many renewables at it.
Renewables are good, but by the time you firm them
with dispatchable, reliable base load power, and by the time
you build the transmission systems, by the time you put
all that in there, it's incredibly expensive. And the delays
(10:47):
in that equipment coming to Australia is a year to
three years behind, so that's pushing up prices. So what
we're saying is, yes, renewables in the right place, but
let's bring gas into the system.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
But you're confident that you could increased supply of gas
and at the same time bring down emissions.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Well, we've got probably the second or third largest resource
of gas in the world. We're the second or third
biggest exporter of LNG. Renewables cannot operate without base load
power to what we call firm the grid. So in
Spain and Portugal a few well not that long ago,
(11:26):
they tried to run the whole Iberian Peninsula off renewables.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
They said that they were.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
Going to be able to do it. So if you
like an experiment, it didn't work. One part of the
grid got out of frequency and there was a cascading
series of shutdowns. The whole peninsula went dark. Eleven people
lost their lives, and it was.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
The Spanish government said that wasn't because of renewables.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
It was it was because renewables were unable. The generation
of electricity was too renewable to keep the grid stable.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
But the official report on that there is no evidence
that that was because of renewal.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
The honest answer to this is that's what happened. But
back to the LG, well maybe not, back to the
fact that you can't. You do need to have baseload
and dispatchable power and that helps renewables and it's a
good thing. Now, the only way you can get zero
emissions is to have nuclear.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
The Coalition still supports nuclear energy as part of this policy.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
We are completely technology agnostic and that includes nuclear. And
when I talk to a lot of young people, and
I know there's quite a movement of young people in
Europe to be very pro nuclear because it's zero emissions,
and it's baseload power, and it's reliable and what it.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Takes it at least fifteen years to build.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Well, look, you know there's different technologies being built all
the time and being explored, and I know some of
those are micro nuclear reactors which are very small, and
I know that overseas in the US they're considering how
they might be applied to data centers and AI. Now
the technology is not their.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Explaining of policy on technology that you don't know will exist.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Well, we have to be technology agnostics. So whatever's there,
whatever it can provide, should be part of our plan.
That's the critical thing. Now we're agnostic about what the
technology is, but it needs to fit in with our
affordable electricity scheme and it needs to do the job,
because ultimately we can't have power that people can't pay for.
(13:25):
But I would encourage you to do some more research
on some research. No, no, I'm not suggesting you have
it on zero emissions nuclear people don't think about it.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
I've also done some research on that because.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
A lot of young people are talking to me about
about nuclear and yeah, I mean people my generation obviously
have the memory of military grade nuclear and some of
them that's not a good memory, and I understand that.
But your generation is, well, this is interesting. It has
no emissions and if we we want to look after
the planet, and we do, we should definitely consider it.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Just lastly, I want to turn to the space around
your leadership. Your colleague Sarah Henderson recently said I can't
pretend things are good. I do think Susan is losing support.
What's your response to that.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I'm not going to comment on the commentary of colleagues
or others who tend to then comment on that commentary,
except to say that we as a team signed off
on this affordable plan. And you know what, well, I
get these questions and obviously understand why people have to
ask them. I am not going to lose focus for
(14:32):
a single second on what is really important to me,
which is how we develop and deliver an affordable and
reliable energy system for Australians.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
I understand that you're focused on it, and I believe
that you're focused on that policy. But the thing is
that your colleagues don't seem to be focused on it,
because every single day in the media there is speculation
that your colleagues don't want you to be the leader anymore.
So how do you respond to that.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
I just don't comment on commentary, and you know, there's
all sorts of things in the media about who said
what to whom. I pay no attention to it, because
I genuinely am focused on this. And you know one
of the reasons I am because I remember how as
a young mum I had three children I was parting
them into the car. One of the things that really
worried me was my energy bills because they were pretty steep.
(15:22):
For you if you're managing on a small budget and
when you don't know how you're going to meet your
expenses week to week is something that sure it was
many years ago for me, but I've never forgotten you're
facing Young people are facing increased cost of living, which
is why your report pass pivot. It's not quite as
(15:45):
fifty nine percent.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Look at that graph, great graph, that question speculation.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
I just want to read it that when young Australians
say I love it, they trust themselves over the system.
I don't love that. That worries me. This is what
they mean. They're earning more than their parents did at
the same time, yet they're feeling less secure, working harder,
falling further behind on the milestones that defined Australian's success.
Fifty nine percent, this cost of living is their single
(16:13):
biggest concern, more than all the other issues combined.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
I don't dispute that can't be. Young people are concerned
about host of living.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
And to be a responsible leader in this country, we've
got to address that.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Have you spoken to your colleagues like Andrew Hasty who
potentially want your job.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
That's your observation, and as it said, I don't think
being quite clear about it, but I talked to all
of my colleagues we were all involved in developing the plan,
we were all involved in having our say and now
we really want to talk to Australians about how they're
being let down by this government.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
You're confident you'll be the leader of the Opposition at
the next selection. Yes, I am seasonally. Thank you so
much for don't thank you.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
That's all we've got for today's podcast. Thank you so
much for listening. Thank you to the Opposition leader for
coming into TDA, and for Billy for doing that interview
for us. We'll be back this afternoon with your evening headlines,
but until then, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bungelung Kalkudin woman from Gadighl Country.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on
the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to
all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay
our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both
past and present.
Already and this this is the Daily Off.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
This is the Daily OS. Oh, now it makes sense.
Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Wednesday,
the nineteenth of November.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
I'm Billy fitz Simon's I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
The Coalition has announced it will abandon Australia's target of
net zero by twenty fifty to instead focus on affordable energy.
On Sunday, they promised they would bring down energy bills
for Australians by removing the renewable energy targets enshrined in
law by Labor. It is the biggest policy announcement from
the Coalition since their loss at the last election in May. Today,
(00:45):
I sit down with Susan Lee, who is the leader
of the Liberal Party, about the reasoning behind that decision.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Billy, firstly, I'm really excited for people to listen to
this chat. I think it was a really interesting interview.
But I do think that there's a lot of concepts
that come up during the chat that we need to
get our head around so that we can understand exactly
what you guys are talking about. Why don't we start
with net zero as a key concept?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
So net zero refers to balancing the amount of greenhouse
gases we produce with the amount that we then take
out of the atmosphere. And what you need to know
is that Australia currently has a plan to reach net
zero by twenty.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Fifty and so over the weekend the coalition announced it
will abandon that target. Will let the opposition leader explain
their thinking behind that and how they got to that decision.
But to be very clear, that wouldn't happen unless they're
elected to government, right.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
No, So just be clear. We're talking about the coalition.
They are made up of the Liberal Party and the Nationals.
Susan Lee, who I am interviewing today is the leader
of the Liberal Party. She took over from Peter Dutton
after their loss at the last election, and so they
are currently in opposition. So all of their policy and nenouncements,
the one that we heard on the weekend and the
(02:02):
ones that they i'm sure will continue to announce, is
them saying this is what we would do if we
are elected at the next federal election, which isn't due
until twenty twenty eight, so we have a while.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
So we've got about two and a half years until then. Yes,
but if they won and Susan Lee were still in
power as the leader of the Opposition, she would then
be the Prime Minister exactly. One last thing to note
is the Paris Agreement. It comes up a bit in
the interview quickly talking through what that is.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
So the Paris Agreement is an international treaty on climate change.
It was signed by countries around the world in twenty fifteen,
and under that agreement, countries agreed to limit global warming
to one point five degrees above pre industrial levels. Now
to do that, there are specific targets that need to
be met, but we get into all of that in
the interview.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
A really helpful outline. Why don't we get straight into
that chat with Billy and the Opposition leader here.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
It is Susan Ly thank you for joining the Daily Oz.
It's a pleasure talking today because on Sunday the Coalition
announced that it would abandon Australia's net zero by twenty
fifty target. For anyone who missed that announcement, do you
want to just take us through it first?
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Thank you, Billy, And I said when you and I
caught up last time, soon after I became leader, that
I wanted to meet with young Australians wherever they are
and listen to them. And I have, and I've made
a decision, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain it.
Our plan that I'm talking about today is about affordable
energy and responsible emissions reduction, and I know that a
(03:34):
lot of young people are really struggling with the cost
of living right now, and that's one of the reasons
we've made affordability of energy central to the plan. But
emission's reduction is still important. And when you talk about
net zero you mean a long term target that the
government has signed up to. Unfortunately, they're not going to
meet that target, and the costs that they've incurred so
(03:56):
far haven't really bought emissions down either.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
So you're saying that you have gone away, you've listened
to young people, and as a result of that, you
have decided to abandon net zero.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Not quite in the terms that you've just presented. What
I've done is listen to young people and they've told
me they care about the climate, and I care about
the climate.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
But with this decision, abandoning net zero bad for the climate.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
It's a target that unfortunately the government is not going
to reach and already if you look at where they've
come from and where they're going, their emissions from Australia
are flatlining. But most importantly, energy prices are going up.
And remember they told you that renewables were the cheapest
form of power and your energy bills would come down,
(04:44):
and they've gone up forty percent. So because energy is unaffordable,
everything is unaffordable. So we have to get the cost
of energy affordable. But we do need to play our
part in reducing emissions, which is why I've said that
a coalition government would stay signed up to the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Okay, so you're saying we need to abandon climate targets
to bring down the cost of energy bills. But experts
have said that there are a mix of reasons for
higher energy bills. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an example
of one of those reasons. So what is the evidence
that higher energy prices are caused by renewable energy.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
The government told you that your energy bills would go
down because of renewable energy, and your energy bills have
gone up by forty percent. This is all after the
Ukraine War. Any effects from that have washed out.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
And while that war is still ongoing. So we are
still seeing the effects of that.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Yes, but the effects that Australia is seeing are from
the renewable energy build and the government's energy policy. So
the government has said we're building eighty two percent of
the grid to be renewable by twenty thirty. They're woefully
off track with that. That actually is not going to happen,
and the government privately, I think would admit this too.
(06:02):
They're failing to do what they said they would do,
which is to keep prices down.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
I want to move on just quickly. I've heard you
say before that you do believe in the science behind
climate change.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
You were standing next to National's leader David littl Proud
on Sunday as he explicitly said that this decision is
not based on science. Is that right.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
I don't believe that's what he said. He said that
the economics is what we need to focus on.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Say, this debate is not about science.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Mister bib is not one predicated on science, It is
one predicated on economics. He's certainly not walking away from
the science of climate change. There may have been a
misunderstanding there because I've heard him on other occasions and
we're very clear that we accept the science of climate change,
which is why we're staying with the Paris Agreement, because
that's what the Paris Agreement is about.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Let's look at the Paris Agreement. You say that you
will remain committed to it, but to reach the goals
set out in that agreement, countries need to achieve net
zero by twenty fifty. So if you're serious about ditching
net zero, why not leave the Paris Agreement as well.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I'm going to disagree with you about the net zero
by twenty fifty being in the Paris Agreement. What the
Paris Agreement says is that countries must submit their nationally
determined contributions and they can resubmit them or as some
have changed the baseline accounting to make them look a
bit different.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
It's more specific than that, though, because so it has
the target of limiting global warming to one point five degrees,
and in order to scientifically achieve that, net zero is required.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
So believe it is the only way to achieve that target.
How much can Australia achieve if we're only one percent
of those global emissions?
Speaker 2 (07:45):
But are you saying if we can't one hundred percent
get there, then we shouldn't even try.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
I'm saying that we should responsibly play our part in
the ways that I've said, which is bringing down our
own emissions, because that's what we should do.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Lok.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
I know the lots of disagreement about what it means,
but let's take a step back. Does anyone in Australia
really think that we would let an international agreement determine
a policy that will crash Australia's businesses, that would make
our young people inherit a lower standard of living, that
would even then not make an appreciable difference to the
world's climate. Now, I appreciate that Labours put this target
(08:17):
on the table and they've talked a big game, but
when you look at where they are now and where
they are expecting to land, it's almost impossible.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Let's get back to the specifics of the Paris Agreement.
It is specific in saying that countries targets can't go backwards.
Under this policy that you've proposed, Australia's targets would go backwards.
So is the coalition strategy to remain part of the
Paris Agreement but then actively breach it.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Well, we'll sit at the table in the forum that
is the Paris Agreement, and we'll talk about what our
nationally determined contributions will be in our national interest when
that time comes. And when you say that, so, what
other countries are doing right now, because because many of
them have realized it's not possible to reach targets that
they set, is they're changing their baseline accounting, so they're
watering it down, or they're taking certain things out and
(09:09):
saying we're still there, but we're not counting this, this,
and this. So plenty of countries are changing what they're
prepared to do in.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
W they're not going backwards on the targets.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
They are because well, countries that are saying our nationally
determined contributions are now going to be calculated in a
different way.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
But who's going backwards on that time?
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Well, several countries are doing things differently because of this.
And i'll get your list.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Gone backwards, well, look forward to them.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
It depends, It depends what you mean by going backwards.
The Labor Party has given a target, so they've given
forty three percent by twenty thirty and they've said between
and twenty thirty five it'll be sixty two to seventy percent.
There is no way that that can be reached. So
they're going to have to go backwards if they're still
in power, because there's no way they can reach that.
(09:54):
There's no way that number will work at all. But
it's not just about a target and an international agreement.
Important though international agreements are. It's about what's in the
best interest for our country.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
We're going to get back to that chat between Billy
and the opposition leader Susan Lee in the SEC. But
here's a quick message from our sponsor.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Okay, so we've established what you're not doing, Let's look
at what you would do. Can you say, in really
clear terms, how would a future coalition government bring energy
prices down.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
By getting more supply into the system. I talked about
a balanced energy grid. At the moment, the grid is
out of balance. There are too many renewables at it.
Renewables are good, but by the time you firm them
with dispatchable, reliable base load power, and by the time
you build the transmission systems, by the time you put
all that in there, it's incredibly expensive. And the delays
(10:47):
in that equipment coming to Australia is a year to
three years behind, so that's pushing up prices. So what
we're saying is, yes, renewables in the right place, but
let's bring gas into the system.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
But you're confident that you could increased supply of gas
and at the same time bring down emissions.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Well, we've got probably the second or third largest resource
of gas in the world. We're the second or third
biggest exporter of LNG. Renewables cannot operate without base load
power to what we call firm the grid. So in
Spain and Portugal a few well not that long ago,
(11:26):
they tried to run the whole Iberian Peninsula off renewables.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
They said that they were.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
Going to be able to do it. So if you
like an experiment, it didn't work. One part of the
grid got out of frequency and there was a cascading
series of shutdowns. The whole peninsula went dark. Eleven people
lost their lives, and it was.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
The Spanish government said that wasn't because of renewables.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
It was it was because renewables were unable. The generation
of electricity was too renewable to keep the grid stable.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
But the official report on that there is no evidence
that that was because of renewal.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
The honest answer to this is that's what happened. But
back to the LG, well maybe not, back to the
fact that you can't. You do need to have baseload
and dispatchable power and that helps renewables and it's a
good thing. Now, the only way you can get zero
emissions is to have nuclear.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
The Coalition still supports nuclear energy as part of this policy.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
We are completely technology agnostic and that includes nuclear. And
when I talk to a lot of young people, and
I know there's quite a movement of young people in
Europe to be very pro nuclear because it's zero emissions,
and it's baseload power, and it's reliable and what it.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Takes it at least fifteen years to build.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Well, look, you know there's different technologies being built all
the time and being explored, and I know some of
those are micro nuclear reactors which are very small, and
I know that overseas in the US they're considering how
they might be applied to data centers and AI. Now
the technology is not their.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Explaining of policy on technology that you don't know will exist.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Well, we have to be technology agnostics. So whatever's there,
whatever it can provide, should be part of our plan.
That's the critical thing. Now we're agnostic about what the
technology is, but it needs to fit in with our
affordable electricity scheme and it needs to do the job,
because ultimately we can't have power that people can't pay for.
(13:25):
But I would encourage you to do some more research
on some research. No, no, I'm not suggesting you have
it on zero emissions nuclear people don't think about it.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
I've also done some research on that because.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
A lot of young people are talking to me about
about nuclear and yeah, I mean people my generation obviously
have the memory of military grade nuclear and some of
them that's not a good memory, and I understand that.
But your generation is, well, this is interesting. It has
no emissions and if we we want to look after
the planet, and we do, we should definitely consider it.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Just lastly, I want to turn to the space around
your leadership. Your colleague Sarah Henderson recently said I can't
pretend things are good. I do think Susan is losing support.
What's your response to that.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I'm not going to comment on the commentary of colleagues
or others who tend to then comment on that commentary,
except to say that we as a team signed off
on this affordable plan. And you know what, well, I
get these questions and obviously understand why people have to
ask them. I am not going to lose focus for
(14:32):
a single second on what is really important to me,
which is how we develop and deliver an affordable and
reliable energy system for Australians.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
I understand that you're focused on it, and I believe
that you're focused on that policy. But the thing is
that your colleagues don't seem to be focused on it,
because every single day in the media there is speculation
that your colleagues don't want you to be the leader anymore.
So how do you respond to that.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
I just don't comment on commentary, and you know, there's
all sorts of things in the media about who said
what to whom. I pay no attention to it, because
I genuinely am focused on this. And you know one
of the reasons I am because I remember how as
a young mum I had three children I was parting
them into the car. One of the things that really
worried me was my energy bills because they were pretty steep.
(15:22):
For you if you're managing on a small budget and
when you don't know how you're going to meet your
expenses week to week is something that sure it was
many years ago for me, but I've never forgotten you're
facing Young people are facing increased cost of living, which
is why your report pass pivot. It's not quite as
(15:45):
fifty nine percent.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Look at that graph, great graph, that question speculation.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
I just want to read it that when young Australians
say I love it, they trust themselves over the system.
I don't love that. That worries me. This is what
they mean. They're earning more than their parents did at
the same time, yet they're feeling less secure, working harder,
falling further behind on the milestones that defined Australian's success.
Fifty nine percent, this cost of living is their single
(16:13):
biggest concern, more than all the other issues combined.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
I don't dispute that can't be. Young people are concerned
about host of living.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
And to be a responsible leader in this country, we've
got to address that.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Have you spoken to your colleagues like Andrew Hasty who
potentially want your job.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
That's your observation, and as it said, I don't think
being quite clear about it, but I talked to all
of my colleagues we were all involved in developing the plan,
we were all involved in having our say and now
we really want to talk to Australians about how they're
being let down by this government.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
You're confident you'll be the leader of the Opposition at
the next selection. Yes, I am seasonally. Thank you so
much for don't thank you.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
That's all we've got for today's podcast. Thank you so
much for listening. Thank you to the Opposition leader for
coming into TDA, and for Billy for doing that interview
for us. We'll be back this afternoon with your evening headlines,
but until then, have a great day.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bungelung Kalkudin woman from Gadighl Country.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on
the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to
all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay
our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both
past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.