Comment

John Hewson
Coalition puts internal politics above all else

Two thoughts come rushing to mind as I attempt to follow the ridiculous and irresponsible machinations of the two opposition parties over Australia’s climate targets, especially net zero by 2050. The first is the scornful philosophy of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass, who tells Alice: “When I use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” The second is that most people would like to go to heaven, but no one wants to die to get there.

The Coalition’s tortuous decision to abandon the climate target was built on a big lie, that the recent increases in power prices are the result of the transition to renewables – even though wholesale electricity prices have been falling. This was generalised to assert that Australia can’t afford the transition to net zero, in terms of the impact on the cost of living and on the broader economy.

Recent columns by Michael Keating, Ian McAuley and Sophie Vorrath on the website Pearls and Irritations have drawn attention to the hard evidence disputing these claims, and Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest has taken the argument further, committing his businesses – including mining giant Fortescue – to “real zero by 2030”. This campaign aims for a complete transition from fossil fuels across the sectors that are the biggest users: electricity supply, transport and mining. Forrest argues it is both technically feasible and economically preferable to do so.

How embarrassing for us as a nation that the opposition parties are still deliberately ignorant of the science and evidence and prefer to operate on the prejudices of climate deniers and political opportunists such as Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce in the National Party, and Liberal leadership wannabes such as Angus Taylor and Andrew Hastie. The anti-net zero crowd has skated over questions surrounding potential conflicts of interest related to mining interests and fossil fuel donations to their parties. The Coalition has also chosen to ignore the commitments of other nations: about 145 countries have announced or are considering net zero targets, according to the Climate Action Tracker as of October 2025, including big emitters China and India. Indeed, on the day the Coalition announced its backdown on the target, Bloomberg reported on the rapidly increasing number of corporations and institutions moving to commit.

The justifications and semantic distinctions offered in support of the Coalition’s decision are even more embarrassing. Specifically, it claims it can still support the Paris Agreement. How vacuous is this, when the principal element of this agreement is a clear commitment to targets for emissions reductions, to be increased over time? In a similar vein is the Coalition’s claim to now “focus” on the “affordability” and “reliability” of power supply, without offering any substance as to how either is to be achieved, when all the evidence is that renewables win on both counts. Words clearly mean whatever Sussan Ley and David Littleproud claim them to mean. There they sit on the wall, like Humpty Dumpty, alongside United States President Donald Trump. That company alone should be scary enough, let alone the prospect of a great fall.

To make matters worse, the two Coalition party leaders have also made clear they don’t want to lead the world on climate – against global expectations that Australia should, given our abundance of relevant national resources, necessary technologies and finance to exploit them effectively. Surely, our success as a middle-ranking yet influential nation ought to be a source of significant pride to our leaders, proven as it is over many decades and in so many ways. Our standing on the world stage is not something to be sacrificed, nor squandered by visionless internal politicking, bickering and partisanship.

Adding insult to injury, the opposition even sought to trivialise the significance of any emissions reductions, claiming they would happily “accept” net zero as an outcome if it happened to occur. That is, they are happy to take any credit but not willing to do what is required to earn it. While they have been silent on exactly what policies they would adopt, their sleight-of-hand arrangement is that they will fund the extension of existing coal-fired power plant operations beyond their technical life, as well as possibly approve new coal-fired and gas projects that would make emissions significantly worse. Their silence on policy detail remains deafening.

The Coalition boasts it is now listening to modern Australia, after its drubbing at the last poll. Yet, since the election, its poll standing has continued to decline to historical lows and shows little prospect of recovering to a point where the Coalition can be realistically seen as a viable alternative government. It has learnt nothing from the past two elections, in which community independents won many of the Coalition’s most-prized seats by taking strong stands on integrity in government and the urgency of significant climate action.

Support for net zero and targets in general was widely seen as proof of the Coalition’s desired seriousness on climate under former prime minister Scott Morrison. The decision to ditch those targets will make it very difficult for the Coalition to capture the city seats it will need to win government, and even to retain the few seats it holds.

Realistically, it is highly likely to lose more to the independents and Labor, including seats presently held by the Nationals. This may not concern the deliberately disruptive junior Coalition partners, who seem to prefer the Pyrrhic victory of dictating Liberal policy to winning. What a cheek, especially when the farming community that they claim to represent could help ensure an effective transition to net zero. This can be achieved with adjustments to farming techniques to improve the carbon capture of soil, and by recycling organic farm waste to develop renewable gas as a zero emissions substitute for natural gas – which is also fundamental to the move away from fossil fuels that the climate challenge requires.

A truly incredible aspect of the Coalition’s mismanagement of climate policy has been the reticence of the Albanese government. The ground has been fertile for a detailed explanation of the lower costs of renewables versus alternatives as Australia works to hit its climate targets, especially given the misinformation the opposition has tossed about daily. The government has, however, referred to Treasury modelling suggesting that scrapping net zero would both lower growth and increase power prices. It has also emphasised that on all available evidence, both global and domestic, renewables are by far the cheapest form of electricity generation.

The opposition has conspicuously avoided discussion of its nuclear option. This probably reflects the lack of support for the policy at the last election, as well as some recently released costings of a nuclear alternative to generate electricity. Building on the CSIRO GenCost survey that called out nuclear as by far the most expensive form of generation, with a very long construction timeline, a more recent analysis by Tim Buckley suggests the Coalition’s proposal would cost north of $4.3 trillion and gut much of Australian industry. This analysis from the director of Climate Energy Finance – a highly credible organisation – worked off the modelling done by Frontier Economics for the Coalition. Buckley’s key insight is to capture the total flow-on costs to the economy, an aspect that had been neglected.

The indisputable conclusion in respect of the Coalition’s decision to abandon the climate target, and its failure to detail credible climate policies, is that internal politics rank well above Australia’s national interests. The decision was taken at the cost of our wellbeing and that of our environment, as well as our economic performance and our global reputation. It has betrayed not only a stunning lack of ambition and vision but also generations of Australians to come.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on November 29, 2025 as "Embarrassment of ditchers".

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.

Send this article to a friend for free.

RELATED READING