Jennifer Westacott, CEO of the Business Council of Australia, said this legislation “brings Australia one step closer to ending the climate wars that have slowed progress and become a serious barrier economic”.
John Connor, chief executive of the Carbon Market Institute, an industry association of companies leading the transition to net zero, says: “It’s a historic moment and now it’s exciting to move into policy reality.”
This reality must include a boom in investment. The National Australia Bank released research last week estimating that roughly half a trillion dollars in new net investment will be needed in Australia to reach the goal of net zero emissions by 2050.
The Liberal Party, however, chose to sit out of all this: out of unification politics, out of consensus, out of the business community and out of the new half a trillion dollar investment.
Peter Dutton made a captain’s call months ago that the Liberals wouldn’t oppose the 43 per cent and net zero targets, but they wouldn’t vote to legislate them either. Instead, the Liberals decided to follow their coalition partner, the Nationals, into a fringe fetish.
The Coalition has decided to investigate nuclear power. Not that this is marginal to the global energy system. It’s just not realistic in this country. Nuclear power has never been cheap in Australia. It could not compete with cheap Australian coal; it can’t compete with even cheaper Australian solar power.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese approved the government’s climate change bill in the lower house on Thursday. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
The Liberals’ decision opened them up to Albanese’s ridicule. Not only did he mock them for ignoring the power of the “biggest nuclear reactor ever” as he pointed to the sky, he also brought The Simpsons into question time.
Giving opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien an inquiry into nuclear power “bears an eerie resemblance to Burns putting Homer Simpson in charge of nuclear power safety in Springfield”, he said albanian “No one loves a reactor like a reactionary.”
He continued: “Remember when the Liberal Party used to have a relationship with business? remember that But what we saw today isolated and alone, stuck in the same old trench fighting a fight that happened to them. They were alone with their arms crossed and saying: ‘No, no, no'”.
The May 21 election showed that Australia was ready for more active climate policy. In opposing it, the coalition government chose oblivion. Now that he has refused to negotiate the climate bill, he has opted for irrelevance.
If liberals ever hope to win another election, “they have to have the conversation about restoring the broad church,” a church that embraces moderates and not just conservatives, Walter argues. “They can’t just follow a small segment of new people” on the populist fringe.
“They need to be able to win back the disgruntled Liberals who voted for Blue Green candidates, and still manage to persuade the people of the region that they have their best interests at heart.”
Even after Captain Dutton’s call, the leaders of the moderate faction of the Liberal Party argued that they should change their position and support the 43% target. It would be a sign that they had listened to the voice of the electorate. But Simon Birmingham, Marise Payne and Paul Fletcher lost the argument in the shadow cabinet on Monday night.
One moderate said: “We have picked the wrong fight: the fight should not be about the 43 percent target, but how we reach the target.” Because that will be the hard part.
Is Dutton missing the unmissable message of the electorate? Not entirely. For him, it’s about priorities. Are you trying to win the next election today, or trying to hold the Coalition together as it regroups after a devastating defeat?
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton addresses his Coalition colleagues in Canberra on Tuesday. Credit: James Brickwood
“Dutton’s calculation was that if we supported 43 per cent we would have more trouble with the Nationals and the Liberals crossing the floor than we will have with the moderate Liberals opposing it, and he was right.” Only one Liberal, Tasmania’s Bridget Archer, crossed the floor to vote with the government on the emissions target.”
“The next election will not be contested with the 2030 emissions targets,” observes the liberal. Indeed, the government will soon have to start work on Australia’s 2035 targets, which are due in 2025. “If it suddenly looks like we’re struggling to meet the 2030 target, then the landscape changes “.
The other major force in Parliament now is the tricks. How did they behave? They, like the Greens, campaigned for more ambitious goals, but chose to support the government’s bill as the only avenue available for any progress.
All this tells us what to expect from all these groups in the future. The Greens will continue to push for more, but committed to serving practice over ideology.
loading
So, for example, on Albanese’s draft proposal for an indigenous voice in Parliament, “we’re going to do the same approach to voice that we did on climate,” says Senate Greens leader Larissa Waters. “We said we want to progress all elements of the Uluru Declaration from the heart, and the minister is encouraging us. [Linda Burney] saying it’s possible
Waters tells me that “we will push for improvements and for practical progress for Indigenous justice,” including deaths in custody and the Bringing them Home report. It goes without saying that the Greens will not veto possible gains in the pursuit of the impossible.
Mr Albanese will continue to operate from the political centre, seeking to advance centre-left priorities such as climate policy and the Voice, while working in centre-right areas such as staunchly defending Australian interests against the demands of the Chinese Communist Party. Work aims to dominate the center; the intention is to force the Coalition to support the government or move more towards the right wing and ineligibility.
And Dutton will continue to do everything he can to hold together a shattered Liberal party, to survive as leader long enough to regroup and refocus on the next election. Leading a government defeated by the opposition is a high-risk task. For Dutton, survival, not relevance, is today’s imperative. Three years is a long time in politics.
The Opinion Newsletter is a weekly collection of viewpoints that will challenge, defend and inform your own. Register here.