logo
Coalition is wedging itself on climate crisis with net zero debate, warns Liberal MP in Scott Morrison's former seat

Coalition is wedging itself on climate crisis with net zero debate, warns Liberal MP in Scott Morrison's former seat

The Guardian6 days ago
One of the Liberal party's two surviving inner-metropolitan MPs has warned voters see the Coalition as unserious on climate change, suggesting the opposition could lose more seats to Labor if it opposes policies for net zero by 2050.
Simon Kennedy, the member for the Sydney seat of Cook, previously held by Scott Morrison, told a closed-door meeting of Liberal and Nationals MPs at Parliament House that the Coalition should be 'wedging' Labor on energy policy, not backsliding on efforts to cut carbon emissions.
The previously unreported comments were prompted by former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce's private member's bill to overturn net zero, announced last week.
After a series of anti-net zero statements from Joyce and climate sceptic MPs including Barker MP Tony Pasin, Joyce, and Nationals senator Matt Canavan, Kennedy was the only Coalition MP to speak up for net zero policies. His intervention prompted calls of support from a range of Coalition MPs across parliament.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
Both the Liberals and the Nationals are reviewing net zero policies after their May election loss. A review of the Coalition's 2022 federal election defeat noted perceptions of the Morrison government's response to issues including the climate crisis had seen it lose voters, including to teal independents.
'My personal belief and the community's belief is that we need to be serious on climate and reducing energy prices,' Kennedy told the meeting.
'There's a debate on net zero and they [the public] interpret us as not being serious on climate.'
Party room deliberations are traditionally kept confidential.
Kennedy described climate and energy policies as 'Labor's weakest point,' predicting the Albanese government would miss its targets for renewables uptake and emissions reductions.
'It's a false dichotomy that we have to choose between lowering energy prices and lowering emissions,' he said.
'We should be wedging them on their own plan, not ourselves.'
Guardian Australia approached Kennedy about his comments. He said the Coalition should be leading a robust debate about 'Labor's mess' naming the energy and emissions minister, Chris Bowen.
'Bowen's lie of lower energy prices is wrecking Australia's economy and we've still failed to meet targets,' Kennedy said.
'The politics and policy line up for us. We can set a clear, credible framework that drives investment in the technology already being developed by the private sector.
'The Liberal future should be built on innovation: delivering cheaper, cleaner power and a stronger economy powered by Australian ingenuity, not empty promises.'
South Australian Liberal senator Andrew McLachlan the Coalition's comprehensive policy review, being led by the shadow energy minister, Dan Tehan, was warranted.
'It is also important to note that while some members have begun publicly advocating for the abandonment of our net zero by 2050 commitment, that is in no way a fait accompli in our party room,' McLachlan said.
'There are many in favour of continuing our emissions reduction targets, both for environmental and economic reasons.'
One MP present for the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there were frustrations the policy reviews were being overshadowed by the small but vocal group opposing net zero. They said Kennedy's comments 'solidified support' behind the party process.
'It [the net zero debate] has caused frustration towards that small group, and probably lost them some support [internally].'
Another Coalition member, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said MPs should let the policy reviews run their course.
'People should respect the process. The process is important to have their [Coalition members'] opinions be heard and for us to come up with a considered position.'
Labor used its majority on Thursday to allow debate on Joyce's private member's bill in the House of Representatives next month. Joyce was the only Coalition MP to vote with the government and members of the crossbench to allow debate.
Former Liberal minister Simon Birmingham told the Australia Grains Industry Conference in Melbourne that Labor and Climate 200 were successfully weaponising Nationals' positions on climate against the Liberals.
'It is a problem. There's little point shying away from it,' the newly appointed Australian Banking Industry chief executive said on Thursday.
'If you look at the way things that are said by National party figures or leaders are then deployed in campaigns against Liberal candidates in those urban electorates, it has clearly real cut-through.
'The real debate that the Coalition can and should be having in terms of talking to voters today is about the five- to 10-year horizon: around their power prices, their fertiliser prices – the pressure points that are happening on the journey to net zero.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Reform threatens to pull solar subsidies over ‘desecration of countryside'
Reform threatens to pull solar subsidies over ‘desecration of countryside'

Telegraph

time3 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Reform threatens to pull solar subsidies over ‘desecration of countryside'

Reform UK accused solar farm developers of 'desecrating' the British countryside and threatened to pull their subsidies if it wins power. Richard Tice, the party's deputy leader and energy spokesman, has written letters to solar investors to warn that their money would be at risk under a Reform government. It follows a similar warning to wind farm developers last month. In a letter sent to Island Green Power, which is planning the 2,700 acre East Pye solar farm project in Norfolk, Mr Tice wrote: 'Let me put you and your investors on formal notice. Reform UK does not support this or any similar Net Zero driven industrialisation of the British countryside. 'We are now leading in all national polls, and intend to be the government in the next general election. When elected, we will immediately begin the process of ending taxpayer subsidies for large-scale solar and related infrastructure projects, and we will reassess all net zero related contracts signed under the current government. 'The renewables agenda no longer enjoys cross-party support. The environmental, economic and social costs far outweigh the benefits. 'We do not consent to the desecration of our countryside, the financial burden on working families or the subversion of our energy independence for the benefit of foreign capital and unelected green lobbies.' It follows a decision by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, to grant development consent orders to seven massive solar farms, with more than 30 others in the planning pipeline. Last week The Telegraph revealed that Mr Miliband had also given the same solar developers compulsory purchase powers, allowing them to acquire or take rights over any privately held land they might need for panels or cables. Several people living on or owning land in areas earmarked for solar farms have already been sent letters warning that they may have to surrender their property or allow cables to be run beneath it. All developers have stressed that they would prefer to buy or lease the land as part of a negotiated settlement. However, the letters have triggered a backlash has seen an estimated 150 protest groups spring up in affected areas. Mr Tice represents Boston and Skegness in Lincolnshire, the county targeted for five of the seven giant solar farms so far approved by Mr Miliband. He said the developments were turning into a rural land grab. Mr Tice said: 'We are writing to solar farm and battery storage developers and investors, warning them that they seriously risk losing money under a Reform government. All options are on the table. 'They are bullying landowners with threats of compulsory purchase orders; we hope to scare these developers in return with our position. We will stop this expensive net stupid zero madness.'

University of Sydney removes Palestinian flag from academic's window after accusing him of breaching policy
University of Sydney removes Palestinian flag from academic's window after accusing him of breaching policy

The Guardian

time4 hours ago

  • The Guardian

University of Sydney removes Palestinian flag from academic's window after accusing him of breaching policy

The University of Sydney has removed a Palestinian flag hanging outside an academic's office after accusing him of breaching its new flag policy. The 13-page flag policy, revised in June and formerly referred to as flag guidelines, sets out the university's requirements for flying and displaying flags and using university flagpoles. Under the policy, 'unapproved flags' must not be flown permanently, including flags that represent unlawful activities, aren't consistent inconsistent with university values, represent a political party or are considered to be 'otherwise unsuitable'. Dr David Brophy, a senior lecturer in modern Chinese history, arrived on campus on Tuesday to find his flag, which had been hanging from an external window of a large campus building, had been taken. Prior to this, he had received an email from the dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Prof Lisa Adkins, advising him the university was 'aware of a flag' they believed he had displayed on the outer wall of the A18 Brennan MacCallum building. 'We consider that the ongoing display of the flag is inconsistent with clause 2.8(1) of the Policy which confirms that unapproved flags can be displayed in such areas on a temporary basis only,' Adkins wrote on 26 June. 'To this end, we require you to remove the flag from the outer wall of the building by 4 August 2025. Should the flag not be removed by this time, it will be removed by Central Operations staff and will be treated as lost property.' Sign up: AU Breaking News email The flag policy notes flags must not be flown from university infrastructure without approval from the brand team, and that 'no structure or fixture may be attached to any building to allow a flag to be displayed without approval'. Staff will remove flags that are 'unapproved' considered 'inappropriate, dangerous or offensive' or contravene 'any university policy', the policy notes. A breach of the rules can be considered as misconduct. Adkins noted in her email to Brophy that if he wished to continue to display the flag he could do so in a 'non-shared indoor space', or apply for approval to display the flag outside. After receiving the email, Brophy replied to Adkins, along with the university's vice-chancellor, Prof Mark Scott, saying his conscience 'won't allow me to comply'. 'I go through the day now with gruesome images of emaciated children running through my mind,' Brophy wrote on Monday. 'At a time like this, ethical obligations far outweigh any ad hoc institutional policies, particularly those transparently aimed at stifling opposition to an ongoing genocide. 'I'd like you both to reflect on the moral weight of what you're doing and withdraw the instructions to remove the flag.' Brophy told Guardian Australia he had received no 'direct explanation' as to why 'it's such a bad thing to have this flag up'. The flag was removed when he was not in the office, he said, and as of Wednesday afternoon he was yet to receive a response to his email. 'I've filed a lost property report, and I'm hoping security will be able to locate my flag,' he said. 'I'd like to think the outer facing window of an office at a university was a place where some kind of display of opinion was still possible. 'But the whole flag policy was introduced precisely in response to people like me hanging Palestinian flags … they're hiding behind their policy to justify the action.' A spokesperson for the University of Sydney, who echoed the rules laid out in the email initially sent out to Brophy, said Palestinian flags had not been banned from campus and that the flag was removed from his office because 'unapproved flags of any kind can only be flown from university infrastructure on a temporary basis'. 'The flag is being held safely for collection,' they said. 'We expect Palestinian flags to continue to feature on our campus, including as part of [Thursday's] planned National Student Strike for Palestine.' The national president of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), Dr Alison Barnes, said university leadership 'should be standing with staff to defend and uphold these cornerstone principles, not introducing policies that undermine them'. Barnes said there had been increased reports 'across the country' of new measures which had a 'chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom at universities'. The University of Sydney introduced a string of new measures on protests after commissioning an external review into its processes, following the disbanding of a pro-Palestinian encampment, and amid concern from Jewish bodies, including the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS), that it had not adequately addressed antisemitism on campus. The measures, which included requiring three days notice for demonstrations and banning staff and students from holding banners on campus without prior permission, faced backlash over curtailing freedom of speech. The NTEU's University of Sydney branch president, Dr Peter Chen, said the university's new policies had 'reduced freedom of expression, academic debate, and rights to industrial organising on campus'. Peter Wertheim, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's co-chief executive, said academics who displayed visible flags and political symbols on campus were not just making a statement about their own views. 'They are deliberately confronting other people who share their working and learning environment with those views, even against their wishes,' he said. 'Such coercive behaviour is a grounds for disciplinary action in most workplaces, and the same rules should apply at universities.' Wertheim said freedom of expression did not include the right to make campuses 'threatening and exclusionary for other employees or impressionable students'.

Donald Trump's war on statistics is an authoritarian attack on democracy and countries like Australia should call it out
Donald Trump's war on statistics is an authoritarian attack on democracy and countries like Australia should call it out

The Guardian

time4 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Donald Trump's war on statistics is an authoritarian attack on democracy and countries like Australia should call it out

Whether it be the judicial system, universities, or health organisations, Donald Trump cannot abide by anything that does not confirm his world view. So it was not a shock when late last week he came for statistics – or, more pointedly, the person in charge of the economic statistics. On Friday, the US's Bureau of Labor Studies released the July US employment figures. They were not good. Just 73,000 non-farm jobs were added and annual employment growth was the worst it has been since the GFC years (excluding the pandemic): If the graph does not display click here In response, Trump did what any autocrat would do when told bad news: he shot the messenger – at least only figuratively. Trump argued that Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of labor statistics, had faked bad figures purely to hurt him. And so he fired her. But this should not be dismissed as 'oh that's just Trump', nor should we just sigh and say we have been in a fact-free era for nearly a decade. Reality might be hanging on to the political debate for dear life, but this move threatens to fling it off the cliff. The BLS data is vital for understanding not just what is going on in the USA but to guide other nations – like here in Australia. For example, Australia is doing very well compared with the US. Unlike the US, our employment rate is higher now than it was before the pandemic: If the graph does not display click here These comparisons can influence future policies. For example, we did very well during the GFC; the US did not. We also did much better during the pandemic than the US. They also give insight into the future. The US is still the world's biggest economy and – as we have seen with inflation – what happens there, often happens here, in Australia: If the graph does not display click here If Trump doesn't like weak employment growth numbers, you think he'll be happy with inflation data that shows his tariffs are causing higher prices? And this is not just some academic exercise. US welfare payments are indexed to inflation, so the official data vitally affects the livelihood of many people. Trump thinks when he closes his eyes the rest of the world disappears. But not measuring inflation or unemployment or global temperatures doesn't disappear the problems. And loss of trust in official data will affect business investment decisions, borrowing costs and – as with all attacks on institutions – faith in democracy. For example, in Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has revealed that in the past year the cost of living for all households except 'self-funded' retirees rose faster than did inflation: If the graph does not display click here This is not the greatest news for the Australian government – no politician likes data that says things might be worse than what they previously argued. Cost of living, unlike inflation, includes mortgage repayments. Despite falling interest rates, repaying a mortgage is still around 4.4% higher than it was a year ago, and since March 2022 mortgage repayments have accounted for nearly half of the increase in cost of living: If the graph does not display click here Does it help the Australian government for the ABS to reveal this? Not really. It could blame our Reserve Bank, but generally governments are blamed for high interest rates. It certainly doesn't help the government for the ABS to release figures that some journalist like me can use to show that the value of wages are 8.6% lower than they were in March 2021 when you use cost of living rather than CPI: If the graph does not display click here That type of information makes life hard for the government – but so it should! In a democracy you have to face your critics, argue your case and convince voters you have the best plans and way forward. Political parties are already working hard to make you question reality. But at least till now, even in the US, where Trump would like there to be a new kind of maths where prices can fall by more than 100% (1,000%, 1,100, 1,200, 1,300!!), reality has been counted and presented. The end of impartial economic data would not just be another case of Trump 'flooding the zone'. It would be a fundamental attack on democracy, designed to ensure those who are suffering from his polices are not able to demonstrate that things are worse – either for them or for the nation. They are the actions usually associated with authoritarian regimes, and we should not shy away from making that clear. Greg Jericho is a Guardian columnist and policy director at the Centre for Future Work

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store