Latest news with #Littleproud
Sky News AU
15 minutes ago
- Business
- Sky News AU
'Wake up to the reality': Nationals leader David Littleproud claims 2050 net zero goal not possible without nuclear energy
Nationals leader David Littleproud has claimed Australia's goal to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 is not possible without nuclear energy and other 'pragmatic approaches'. Speaking to Sky News host Chris Kenny on Tuesday night, Mr Littleproud said the Labor government's 'all renewables approach' would bring a 'far more harsher' experience for Australians than just energy bills going up. 'We're living with the physical consequence of our prime agricultural land being ripped up with transmission lines, solar panels and wind turbines, and the actual natural environment's also being destroyed in trying to achieve this,' he said. On Sunday, Energy Minister Chris Bowen recommitted to expanding renewables developments across the country in order to meet ambitious emissions reductions targets and reach net zero by 2050. Mr Bowen also suggested Australia could soon introduce targeted tariffs on imports deemed emissions-intensive. Mr Littleproud said his party, which represents regional Australians, had been 'sensible' with its technology agnostic approach. 'We should have nuclear energy as part of that solution. But you should also look at countries that are looking at having a mixed energy grid, not an all renewables approach,' he said, referencing Japan. 'Japan's importing our coal and gas, burning it, capturing it, and bringing it back here and storing it here in Australia.' Asked if it was possible for a developed economy to achieve net zero by 2050, Mr Littleproud said it would not be a realistic goal 'without nuclear energy or carbon capture storage', as well as other 'pragmatic approaches' like using methane for agricultural purposes. 'Unless we see that, then obviously I think the world is going to have a realisation that's going to be very difficult. In fact, they're realising that now,' he said. 'Many of the countries that have made these grand commitments are now saying, 'look, the easy stuff has already been done, the hard stuff now is costing us a lot' and there is going to be a realisation at some point.' Mr Littleproud said Australia was 'blessed' to have sovereignty of its resources but insisted a mixed grid and 'sensible economy' was within reach. The Nationals leader added a mixed grid would give Australia with a healthy environment and create a 'far wealthier country', but called for the extreme parties in the energy debate to 'lay down their arms' and 'wake up to the reality'.
The Age
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Coalition of the unwilling: Climate wars will soon eclipse reunification relief
That gets close, but, in truth, Ley didn't even go that far. All she agreed to was that the Coalition would support an end to the moratorium on the building of nuclear power plants. She emphatically did not agree to finance and build seven nuclear power plants. Not even one. On the other three areas that Peter Dutton's Coalition had taken to the election and that Littleproud insisted remain, Ley has agreed but so hedged them with conditions that they are almost meaningless. Loading And what of Littleproud's other early demand – that Nationals' members of a Coalition shadow cabinet should not be bound by the principle of solidarity? He quickly abandoned that when it was roundly rejected. He achieved nothing he couldn't have accomplished with a quiet conversation behind closed doors, as is customary between the Libs and Nats. All he's managed to do is make himself a laughingstock with a limited leadership lifespan. And diminish the entire Coalition in the process. So far, the Liberals have done two things right since the election. First, they elected a woman as leader. Second, that woman handled the Nat spat with calm and steely grace. But the really hard part lies ahead, and the Coalition ruction was the opening act. 'It wasn't a fight about four policies,' says a Liberal. 'It was really about us being totally fine with them running all over us in three or six months' time when we reach a policy on climate change.' The climate wars are over. And the Coalition lost. But it will have great difficulty in accepting this fact. The Liberals have undertaken to review their policy; it will be traumatic. Ley will want to bring the party to a recognition that climate change is not only real but a reality that the party must embrace in its policies: 'You won't see any climate denial from Sussan,' says a Liberal from her camp. 'It's about respectful engagement, so voters understand that we are believers.' The pollster Jim Reed of Resolve Strategic says that this is an irreducible minimum for any party that hopes to win power. 'In the early to mid-2000s we regularly asked a question in our polling – do you believe in climate change? Very quickly, over two or three years, it became redundant,' he tells me. 'Speaking to tradies in focus groups, a no-nonsense group who, in the past, would have had some of the doubters in it, today, they say 'yes, and we can see it happening, we see the effects.' The ship has sailed.' Yet climate disbelief runs deep in the surviving members of the Coalition. In the Nats, certainly. Littleproud says he supports the pre-existing Coalition commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan, Michael McCormack, Colin Boyce and Llew O'Brien, at a minimum, will fight to defeat it. Loading But climate scepticism also runs strongly through the ranks of the Libs, as Andrew Hastie reminded us this week: 'I think the question of net zero, that's a straitjacket that I'm already getting out of,' the new shadow minister for Home Affairs told the ABC. 'The real question is should Australian families and businesses be paying more for their electricity?' Other Liberals, even climate sceptics, think it's time for the party to bow before the electoral reality. 'Some of the colleagues still haven't absorbed the magnitude of our loss,' says one who, like Hastie, is a frontbencher from the party's conservative side. 'When they walk into the House, and they're confronted with the wall of Labor MPs, it will be a reality check for them. We'll see the final numbers and see what we have to do if we want to get back into government – it'll be of the order of 30 seats or around a 7 per cent swing.' A daunting prospect and extraordinarily difficult to accomplish in a single term. 'I can't think of a single seat in the country that we'll be able to win without a commitment to net zero.' Liberal Zoe McKenzie points to a statistic that should rivet the party's attention. Of the 151 seats in the House, 88 are metropolitan. Of those, the Coalition occupies just eight. This is, in effect, the banishment of the Liberal Party from the cities of Australia. Even if the Coalition can hold those eight and win all the other 63 city seats in the parliament, it would hold a total of only 71. In other words, it's mathematically impossible for it to win a majority, which is 76, without returning to metropolitan Australia. And belief in climate change is the price of admission to city seats. McKenzie, factionally non-aligned and freshly elected to a second term in the seat of Flinders covering Victoria's Mornington Peninsula, hopes that the party retains its net zero commitment. As it debates the policy, she wants the party to 'keep the voices of the ghosts alive,' meaning all the moderate Liberals who lost their seats in recent elections. The former MPs who'd be arguing in favour of net zero and climate-friendly policy. Loading Overarching all of this is the larger question of the party's political philosophy. Fundamentally, the Liberals have to decide whether they are the party of Robert Menzies or Rupert Murdoch. Menzies was a great pragmatist, principled but not ideological, who adapted to his times. He was preoccupied with the concerns and interests of the suburban middle class, not the capitalist class but the ordinary men and women of aspiration. Murdoch is a right-wing populist interested in pressing always further rightward to build constituencies favourable to his own business interests. The Liberals have to choose. Once they decide whether to continue following the Murdoch pied piper to electoral irrelevance or to rediscover the Menzian attachment to middle Australia, all their other choices will become clearer. And the Nationals? They are now reduced to four senators. The same number as One Nation. And, like One Nation, the Nationals won a touch over 6 per cent of the national primary vote for the House. 'We, as Liberals, would never allow One Nation to determine our policies,' points out a Lib. So, his logic runs, why should the party accept the Nationals' terms?
Sydney Morning Herald
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Coalition of the unwilling: Climate wars will soon eclipse reunification relief
That gets close, but, in truth, Ley didn't even go that far. All she agreed to was that the Coalition would support an end to the moratorium on the building of nuclear power plants. She emphatically did not agree to finance and build seven nuclear power plants. Not even one. On the other three areas that Peter Dutton's Coalition had taken to the election and that Littleproud insisted remain, Ley has agreed but so hedged them with conditions that they are almost meaningless. Loading And what of Littleproud's other early demand – that Nationals' members of a Coalition shadow cabinet should not be bound by the principle of solidarity? He quickly abandoned that when it was roundly rejected. He achieved nothing he couldn't have accomplished with a quiet conversation behind closed doors, as is customary between the Libs and Nats. All he's managed to do is make himself a laughingstock with a limited leadership lifespan. And diminish the entire Coalition in the process. So far, the Liberals have done two things right since the election. First, they elected a woman as leader. Second, that woman handled the Nat spat with calm and steely grace. But the really hard part lies ahead, and the Coalition ruction was the opening act. 'It wasn't a fight about four policies,' says a Liberal. 'It was really about us being totally fine with them running all over us in three or six months' time when we reach a policy on climate change.' The climate wars are over. And the Coalition lost. But it will have great difficulty in accepting this fact. The Liberals have undertaken to review their policy; it will be traumatic. Ley will want to bring the party to a recognition that climate change is not only real but a reality that the party must embrace in its policies: 'You won't see any climate denial from Sussan,' says a Liberal from her camp. 'It's about respectful engagement, so voters understand that we are believers.' The pollster Jim Reed of Resolve Strategic says that this is an irreducible minimum for any party that hopes to win power. 'In the early to mid-2000s we regularly asked a question in our polling – do you believe in climate change? Very quickly, over two or three years, it became redundant,' he tells me. 'Speaking to tradies in focus groups, a no-nonsense group who, in the past, would have had some of the doubters in it, today, they say 'yes, and we can see it happening, we see the effects.' The ship has sailed.' Yet climate disbelief runs deep in the surviving members of the Coalition. In the Nats, certainly. Littleproud says he supports the pre-existing Coalition commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan, Michael McCormack, Colin Boyce and Llew O'Brien, at a minimum, will fight to defeat it. Loading But climate scepticism also runs strongly through the ranks of the Libs, as Andrew Hastie reminded us this week: 'I think the question of net zero, that's a straitjacket that I'm already getting out of,' the new shadow minister for Home Affairs told the ABC. 'The real question is should Australian families and businesses be paying more for their electricity?' Other Liberals, even climate sceptics, think it's time for the party to bow before the electoral reality. 'Some of the colleagues still haven't absorbed the magnitude of our loss,' says one who, like Hastie, is a frontbencher from the party's conservative side. 'When they walk into the House, and they're confronted with the wall of Labor MPs, it will be a reality check for them. We'll see the final numbers and see what we have to do if we want to get back into government – it'll be of the order of 30 seats or around a 7 per cent swing.' A daunting prospect and extraordinarily difficult to accomplish in a single term. 'I can't think of a single seat in the country that we'll be able to win without a commitment to net zero.' Liberal Zoe McKenzie points to a statistic that should rivet the party's attention. Of the 151 seats in the House, 88 are metropolitan. Of those, the Coalition occupies just eight. This is, in effect, the banishment of the Liberal Party from the cities of Australia. Even if the Coalition can hold those eight and win all the other 63 city seats in the parliament, it would hold a total of only 71. In other words, it's mathematically impossible for it to win a majority, which is 76, without returning to metropolitan Australia. And belief in climate change is the price of admission to city seats. McKenzie, factionally non-aligned and freshly elected to a second term in the seat of Flinders covering Victoria's Mornington Peninsula, hopes that the party retains its net zero commitment. As it debates the policy, she wants the party to 'keep the voices of the ghosts alive,' meaning all the moderate Liberals who lost their seats in recent elections. The former MPs who'd be arguing in favour of net zero and climate-friendly policy. Loading Overarching all of this is the larger question of the party's political philosophy. Fundamentally, the Liberals have to decide whether they are the party of Robert Menzies or Rupert Murdoch. Menzies was a great pragmatist, principled but not ideological, who adapted to his times. He was preoccupied with the concerns and interests of the suburban middle class, not the capitalist class but the ordinary men and women of aspiration. Murdoch is a right-wing populist interested in pressing always further rightward to build constituencies favourable to his own business interests. The Liberals have to choose. Once they decide whether to continue following the Murdoch pied piper to electoral irrelevance or to rediscover the Menzian attachment to middle Australia, all their other choices will become clearer. And the Nationals? They are now reduced to four senators. The same number as One Nation. And, like One Nation, the Nationals won a touch over 6 per cent of the national primary vote for the House. 'We, as Liberals, would never allow One Nation to determine our policies,' points out a Lib. So, his logic runs, why should the party accept the Nationals' terms?
Epoch Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Nationals Leader Must Decide: Soften on Beijing or Stand Firm on Security: Report
The Nationals Party leadership faces a choice on whether to take a firmer stance on Beijing, or to continue 'moderating' their rhetoric to avoid apparently offending local Chinese-Australian voters, says one report. 'The Nationals have long contained divergent views on the PRC (People's Republic of China). Some figures favour dialogue and trade restoration, while others have pushed a more security-driven and sceptical approach. Party leader David Littleproud has attempted to reconcile both these impulses,' according to the Australia-China Relations Institute at UTS. The Institute noted that on some matters, Littleproud had adopted a more conciliatory tone towards the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—akin to the Liberal Party—in its report, ' While he previously accused Labor of being weak on the CCP during the 2022 election campaign, Littleproud welcomed the Albanese Labor government's moves to restart trade with China following Beijing's arbitrary decision to bar Australian exports from entering the country. Littleproud He also supported negotiated WTO (World Trade Organisation) dispute settlements, and met with senior CCP officials, including head of the CCP International Department, Liu Jianchao, and Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian. At the same time, Littleproud has also outlined national security and human rights issues. He strongly He also called the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to the Chinese-owned company Landbridge 'a mistake' and supported The party leader also criticised communist China's military pressure on Taiwan, and condemned the treatment of journalist Cheng Lei during CCP Premier Li Qiang's 2024 visit. While endorsing peaceful dialogue on Taiwan, he has emphasised self-determination and cautioned Beijing against 'sending missiles one over one another.' The China 'Hawks' Some of the tougher voices within the National Party include Senator Matt Canavan and New England MP Barnaby Joyce. For instance, Canavan, in response to the CCP's live fire exercises in the Tasman Sea, He also called for Trump-style tariffs, stating it was 'not safe' to do extensive business with the CCP. Joyce, as National's leader in 2021, He described the CCP's live fire exercises as 'practicing for war' and urged Australia to 'wake up.' He also suggested future parliamentary visits to Taiwan should include government officials or ministers. Littleproud meanwhile has pledged not to shift the Nationals 'to the left or the right.' Rather, his approach has been 'not to chase extremities, but to use common sense … and to actually be the sensible centre.' The brief break up of the Liberals and Nationals threw into starker relief some of the conflicting views within the parties on China policy, according to the research.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
‘That's politics': Barnaby reacts to brutal exile
Barnaby Joyce says it is 'a bit disappointing' he learned of his exile to the opposition backbench via the media but that he saw 'it coming for a while'. Opposition leader Sussan Ley unveiled her shadow cabinet on Wednesday after striking a new Coalition agreement with David Littleproud, officially ending the historic, albeit brief, separation of the Liberal and National parties. Mr Joyce, one of the staunchest pro-Coalition MPs in the National Party, was not among the names in the Opposition Leader's new-look shadow executive. He said on Thursday he 'read about it about a week before it happened, but that's politics'. 'That's life — move on to other things,' he told Nine. Mr Joyce was among several senior MPs Ms Ley reached out to in an effort to save the Coalition and maintained his support for the 80-year-old political partnership both publicly and through backchannels. He said it he did not know why the Nationals leader sent him to the backbench, but said it was Mr Littleproud's 'prerogative'. Though, he did dismiss Mr Littleproud's framing as 'generational change'. 'It's not about generational change,' Mr Joyce said. 'There are people who are older than me now. I'm 58, I'm not 103.' He pointed out Mr Littleproud, 48, would be the youngest. 'So it's not generational change, it's politics and personalities,' Mr Joyce said. 'Let's call it for what it is, let's be straight. '(I'm) a little bit disappointed that I think everybody in the (shadow) cabinet … voted for David. 'It's hard to bring back unity because you're going to have to have some authority over every corner of the room, and that's difficult. 'But nonetheless, that's the prerogative, that's happened.' More to come.
