Will Ley survive the climate wars?

ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

She was warm, funny, every student's favourite teacher.

No one ever suspects a woman could do such a thing, especially one with kids.

The parents trusted her, too.

I felt that the school was a safe place.

If anything was to happen, there would be somebody there.

But it was all a smokescreen.

She was brainwashing us from the start.

The Favourite, a five-part five-part investigation from Background Briefing.

Search Background Briefing on the ABC Listen app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Coalition frontbenchers are warning of a mass exodus if the party adopts net zero at any cost.

Senior Liberal MP Andrew Hastie has threatened to quit the frontbench if the coalition doesn't abandon the target in what is yet another test of opposition leader Susan Lee's authority so soon in her tenure.

So as Labor prepares to unveil its long-awaited 2035 emissions reduction target later this week, where the Coalition's internal climate wars threaten to overshadow it.

Welcome to Politics Now.

I'm Brett Worthington, filling in for PK on the podcast.

And I'm Raf Epstein from ABC Radio in Melbourne.

And RAF, as the government's 2035 emissions reduction target looms this week, we are again seeing, as they have for the best part of the last 15 years, the Coalition's climate wars are again spilling into the public arena.

What fascinates me is that we should really be having a conversation about at 65% do we need

something closer to a carbon tax or is it only at 75%?

Those numbers, what do they mean?

How much will it cost the government?

How much will it cost business?

The Business Council would love to have that conversation.

I think they said $500 billion if we have a 70%

aim to cut emissions from 2005 levels over the next 10 years.

And we're not talking about that at all.

In Matt Canavan's words, we are talking about the biggest government-led socialist project that has ever been attempted.

And according to Andrew Hastie,

who I think has to be said, took a really principled stand full of integrity when it came to war crimes, those sorts of issues.

He's a former SAS veteran.

He is using language like this.

The climate report we got this week is climate alarmism put together by politically compromised public servants.

And there are grifters and foreign businesses who benefit from the net zero transition.

I just think the coalition is using language and speculating about sort of nefarious public servants running government agendas.

I interpret that as vacating the field.

That is just vacating the field.

Yeah, it seems like an interesting one where Andrew Hasties' contribution this week almost felt like it fell out of his mouth, not sort of accidentally when you hear the kind of full interview.

He's talking to a Radio Perth.

He's asked a question and he essentially says, well, I'll be out of a job because I have said net zero is a straitjacket and it's just not a position that I can support.

I think what's been fascinating about this, though, is then you've got Jon O'Duniam, the Tasmanian senator, he's a frontbencher, has come out and said there would be a mass exodus if net zero was pursued at any cost.

Well, I don't think anyone's really suggesting this is coming at any cost, but we've talked a lot about the coalition, the Liberal-National divide, about net zero, but this is showing the tension within the Liberal Party itself.

You've got Jane Hume down in your state.

You've got Keith Woolahan, who lost a seat in the parliament, who are saying, of course we need a net zero commitment if we are to be anywhere near electable.

What are you seeing?

What are you hearing down in Victoria?

Well, the first thing I did was ask some Victorian Liberals if they were going to dump net zero.

And they're like, absolutely not.

So they do seem very confident.

And these are people, I guess, who are sort of closer and would back Susan Lee.

And then I asked them things like, well, doesn't it mean if you stick with net zero, you've got to split with the Nationals?

Nope.

So there are some confident voices that think the media is making more of this than is in reality.

But I see it very, very differently.

I think you actually need a bit of history.

You have to go back to 2013.

Tony Abbott was very, so successful with Acts the Tax.

But ever since then, the divide on whether or not,

it's not a policy divide.

Is climate change a significant enough problem?

Is the science solid enough for us to take action?

That divide's run through the middle of the Liberal Party room, I would argue, since the middle of the last decade.

And we are seeing this play out.

It's Tony Abbott's government that signs up to a concept around net zero in Paris.

Like, it's Tony Abbott who signs up to it.

And then I think the Tasmanian senator's comments are really interesting.

He's using words like mass exodus.

Matt Cadavan calls it a socialist project.

Andrew Hastie's been having a fight with his...

WA colleagues, anybody who's not on board with net zero, he's willing to sort of to not shout down, but, you know, dismiss them.

The party has moved not to the center on the science of climate change, they have moved to the right.

I see and hear all of the

social media conversations in their rhetoric.

So does it make them, you know, does it stop them being electable?

Certainly looks like that.

Like

how many times do they lose seats in the cities and in the regions before they realize that not most of Australia don't agree with Sky After Dark?

You know, that's the only only liberal branch they've got at the moment, are the people on Sky After Dark.

All the other branches seem to be empty.

So it seems like an ideological cul-de-sac to me, but

I don't know.

Is there a risk the Canberra Press Gallery and shows like mine have got that wrong and the country's going to switch on the basis of, I don't know, opposition to power lines through farmland or something?

Well, I think if you listen to someone like Matt Canavan, he was today suggesting that the coalition needs to adopt a policy that that reflects where the membership is at.

And I think that's an interesting, into interesting development because the membership, you wouldn't want to be doing anything based on memberships of any political party at this point.

They are dwindling in their numbers.

They look nothing like what broader Australia looks like.

When you look at the biggest victims politically of what the coalition's approach to net zero in many ways has been, they will all tell you the only way back to getting their seats, one back in suburbs around cities like Melbourne, cities like Sydney, is to have a serious policy on climate.

And what you will do for someone like Jane Hume's perspective is net zero is the bare basic.

Now,

how you approach that, if you want to be treated seriously, though, as a party that is concerned about the business stresses that both the farm sector will face, but businesses right across this country as a result of doing nothing to tackle climate, then how do you win back the votes of your traditional heartland before you then even worry about trying to win back seats you might have want to take off Labor?

Because ultimately, isn't isn't the point of this project to be in government?

And so if you want to.

So that's where I disagree with you.

And I want to go back to what you mentioned about Matt Canavan.

I don't think the project is about being in government.

I think the Liberal Party and the National Party have fallen into a trap of ideological purity.

So Matt Canavan is right that the members don't want net zero.

I was trying to tally it up.

Queensland LNP, the Victorian Liberal Party the last weekend, the South Australian Liberal Party, the WA Liberal Party, most of the state branches have voted to dump net zero.

So Matt Canavan

has a strong point that a significant part of the Liberal and National's base don't like net zero, don't want net zero.

But I'm not sure they are interested in government.

I just see zero questions being made,

being put to the federal government.

I think actually the PM's interview with Patricia Carvelis yesterday on afternoon briefing, that was really interesting.

He was like, oh, well, you can't do stuff where, you know, you flick the switch and the lights don't come on.

So that's right, okay, the Greens.

And then he specifically said, oh, well the Greens don't have to do anything.

So I don't need to listen to what the Greens say.

And then he's got the Coalition.

Oh, well, they don't believe in climate change.

So any of the debate that is actually going on between businesses and the government, which is why I mentioned the Business Council, the Coalition are just completely absent from that.

I think you get to the heart of it.

Do the coalition care about

what I would call ideological purity?

Or do they care about winning government?

And look at, I mean, look at the converse side to that.

Does anybody think the labor party's interested in ideological purity right now like is that is that at the top of their agenda or you know they have this there was this saying that i first heard about with dan andrews state labor government we get stuff done but you know s four letter word right that's what labor does labor gets s stuff done

that's what anthony albanese is he's totally happy to pick up that mantle and you just have the right and the left flanks of australian politics just seeding seeding ground have i got that wrong no well i think you're absolutely right the prime minister will pitch himself as the sensible centre.

He will be nowhere near as ambitious as what he's left for.

Did you mention Anthony Albanese and John Howard in the same sentence yesterday on the podcast?

Yes, I think you did.

I think you did.

But it's relaxing.

That's exactly where.

And what does that mean for John Howard?

A long tenure as the Prime Minister of this country?

Because if you can dismiss both sides of you because they are ridiculous and I'm here looking out for you in the middle, then it does make that task of, sure, Anthony Albanese has to find a way to sell this to the business community while also winning over his backbench.

But by and large, he's got political support around him and clout clout to use.

And

the business council don't hand out leaflets at elections.

Well, but also, if the business council understand who is most likely to form government in this country based on where numbers are in the House of Representatives and where polling is suggesting things are going, they know they have to dance with the government ultimately.

Before we move on from it, I am fascinated, though.

Opposition leader, worst job in federal politics.

What does this mean, do you think, for Susan Lee?

Because if you approach ideology and you say, well, we need to be where the membership is, that is not Susan Lee's approach.

She's saying we need to meet Australians where they are.

She's not talking about the membership.

She's talking about voters.

I think it was Malcolm Turnbull when he was Liberal leader.

I think this is right.

I hope I'm not breaching confidences.

I think he was the one who started talking about the fact that he had to negotiate with terrorists when he was talking about negotiating with his backbench.

And Susan Lee's in entirely the same place.

I think most political observers, I heard you and PK and others say, you know, like sort of hat to sack Jacinda Price.

You've got to sack someone if they don't back the leader.

But how do you, I mean, it goes back to what you said about, are you interested in government or, you know, are you interested in what I called ideological vanity?

If people are more interested in ideological purity than winning seats, I don't know what Susan Lee does.

And just if I can, I mean, I know it's a politics podcast, but let's bring it back to the National Climate Risk Assessment.

Like, it's just worth thinking about.

This is the thing that was described as over-regged in a socialist project by Matt Canavan and dismissed as, you know, produced by a biased public service by Andrew Hastie.

I went back and had a look at the National Climate Risk Assessment, right?

They got their data from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO and the Bureau of Stats.

There's 2,000 scientists.

It took them two years, 40 workshops.

So it's not, like, it's not hastily cobbled together.

I think it is fair to say it's the most detailed look at, okay, the climate data says this, what's the impact.

The two ones that I was really hung on, a $600 billion worth of value wiped from property, $600 billion,

and we would spend five times as much on bushfires and floods, quite apart from 1.5 million people being at risk from rising sea levels.

So if you've got a substantial argument with that, then let's hear that argument.

But if you've got the coalition dismissing that as, well, it's just socialism.

I just think that leaves Susan Lee, who'll be coming down my way, I think actually, in Melbourne this week, trying to sort of do the big reset, sort of put out the placard and put out the stall and say, hey, come with us.

I just think it puts her in an impossible situation.

It's not invidious.

It's not difficult.

It puts her in an impossible position.

Is it impossible?

Have I gone too far?

No, I think that's absolutely right.

And it's little wonder that Bob Hawke had probably the best approach to being opposition leader where the minimal time possible because you want to be the prime minister.

And so I suspect no matter what is happening, that is a debate that's going to be played out over many months and years.

Let's have a look at PNG.

Prime Minister is there.

The deputy prime minister is there.

Pat Conroy, cabinet minister, is also there.

there today to take part in the 50th anniversary since independence, but they're also meant to be signing a treaty with Papua New Guinea that would see the integration of PNG's military and the Australian military.

This is something we learn more so from the PNG side than we have from the Australian side.

Now, it was never really meant to be signed today, but it has hit a late snag with the cabinet in PNG not having a quorum to be able to sign off on it.

The Prime Minister insists that it's going to be happening.

How important do you think an announcement like this is?

I've got lots of thoughts on how important it is.

I want you to tell me, answer this question.

Is it going to get signed?

Is it going to be...

So I'm learning languages.

I'm learning some specific languages, right?

The PNG one is the Pukpuk Treaty, which is the Pigden word for crocodile.

The other one that hasn't been signed.

is the one with Vanuatu.

We were also told that one was going to be signed, hasn't been yet.

That's the Nakamal Agreement.

That's the traditional word in Vanuatu for a communal meeting place.

So I'm loving that I'm learning a bit about the culture.

Do you think the PNG thing will be signed?

If the PNG one doesn't happen, I don't think we can underestimate the pressure of a prospect of a Donald Trump meeting.

If in the course of a week, you have had three of these things that you imagined would be all lined up, would be all part of telling a broader story about Australia's role within the Pacific and globally.

It tells a story about climate, it tells a story about national security and the ways in which Australia will look with its allies.

That will have been a shocking week for the Prime Minister.

Now, the confidence within the government is that this will be signed off, but one of the realities of Papua New Guinea is you have got people spread out in a lot of different parts to take part in these celebrations.

This is a very important moment today in marking this anniversary.

I don't understand, though, how if that cabinet does not sign off on the treaty, and it does have a sense of support within the opposition, but there are concerns about the prospect of handing over sovereignty to another nation in terms of Australia and the role that Australia could have in influencing military forces throughout the region.

But if it's not signed off, I have no idea what the Prime Minister does tomorrow because it makes for quite the awkward day.

I just found some really interesting echoes in the way people in PNG are talking about this.

So the ABC's reporting is that it's effectively between Australia and PNG, there's something like NATO's Article 4 thing.

So NATO, Article 4, attack one, attack all.

Now, we don't even have that with America, right?

The ANZUS Treaty that Australia has with America is signed in the 50s.

It's not nearly as strong as Article 4.

So that's a really strong piece of, you know, something that binds the two nations together.

And I just found it fascinating.

There was someone on the ABC spoke to who used to be the commander of PNG Defence Forces from 2001 to 2010.

Tell me if this sounds anything like Malcolm Turnbull or Paul Keating questioning the submarines deal that we have with America.

The most important question here, this is the PNG guy, the most important question here is who takes ownership of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force?

Loyalty number one must be to Papua New Guinea.

If that is guaranteed, I will then by all means sign a treaty.

I mean, it's exactly the same.

This treaty also involves, I presume, what is, you know, immediate access to things like ports and airports.

People in PNG feel the same way people in Australia feel about those submarines.

Like, if we're using American submarines, do we have control over them?

If Australia is using airports and ports in PNG, does PNG have control over it?

I just, it fascinates me that the same currents are running through.

And you've got the Australian Prime Minister who's a a really big fish in the Pacific and a really tiny little goldfish in the broader Pacific when he talks to the Americans.

Like he's on two very different sides of that conversation.

But do you think voters

care about what goes on with PNG?

I very much get the impression from the government.

I'm not sure how much they care about how this is heard about by Australian voters.

Yeah, I think that the story that's happening in PNG, I think, is a way in which the government can tell a broader story, one of which they view that treating close allies in the Pacific is something that the former coalition government overlooked and did not do enough work in this area.

And as doing that work in this area, be it through climate action, be it through helping to support the region, you can then help to tell a story to the United States about the role that you are playing in the region to counter Chinese incursion throughout the Pacific.

I think you're right that in parts of, in large swathes of Australia, they probably won't even notice that Australia has signed a treaty with PNG.

And when you're the bigger fish in that arrangement, it probably doesn't matter so much to many Australians what this is.

What I find really intriguing is, you know, Anthony Albanese answers every single question about the Pacific with, no, no,

Vanuatu is a sovereign nation.

PNG is a sovereign nation.

But actually,

if, and this is ABC reporting of a cabinet document in PNG, I think, and it's a draft of the treaty from, I think, three or four weeks ago.

But if Australia really does have immediate access to the most important things in PNG, like a port or an airport, that actually, like,

do you still have sovereignty?

I mean, it is the same as the announcement that PM made this week about the Henderson base south of Fremantle.

Like, let's just say 10 years from now, there's an Australian nuclear-powered submarine, an American nuclear-powered submarine, and there's real tension in Taiwan and they're running patrols.

Who gets to use the dry dock in Henderson?

Do the Americans get to use it or do the Australians get to use it?

So those, you know, we love to insist that it's all about sovereignty, but whenever a politician insists it's all about one thing, it's usually about something else.

And that's what the sovereignty line is all about, I think.

If you think back to the, well, a couple of months ago, there was all that debate about the Americans wanted greater control or influence over how the submarines could and would and should be used.

To what extent the outrage that was experienced here, you can understand the reverse of that in PNGs and saying, you wouldn't allow that of the United States.

I don't think we should allow that of you, Australia.

I think it also shows just how fiendishly difficult this is.

How it all gets heard about by somebody who's worried about just how expensive their later shop is at Kohl's, I'm not sure.

But you can see the government spending a lot of time on it.

Well, speaking of those household concerns, if I talk to any friend who's a parent, anyone who's got younger people in their lives, they're genuinely terrified about what is happening on those devices that are in

classrooms, in homes right across this country.

We know come December 10, the government's social media ban will come into force where anyone under 16 will not be allowed on TikTok, on Instagram, on Twitter.

I don't don't think anyone's probably using Twitter anymore.

I know, I'm certainly not YouTube.

It's going to be wide-reaching.

There is a high-stakes game that the Australian government is playing here.

It's being watched around the world.

We saw today, essentially, the government say that, look, we're not going to tell you what technology you have to use, but come December 10, you need to kick those under 16s off and you need to be showing enough steps that you are able to verify these accounts.

And if you're not, you're at risk of $50 million.

in fines.

What's the reaction you hear when you talk about this topic on your radio show?

It is overwhelmingly popular.

We have been speaking about it for more than a year.

I actually asked maybe to maybe the question was too critical, but I said to both Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese during the election campaign, I said to them, you are pandering to parents' fears by entertaining a social media ban.

I put that to the Premier as well.

But they both refuted that vehemently.

They do see it like the alcohol or the tobacco conversation.

You've got to give parents a weapon.

It's not perfect, but you've got to do something.

So there is definitely a significant, like, not more than significant, there's overwhelming support.

I reckon if you looked at the text and the calls, it'll probably end up being about sort of 75% at most and sometimes only sort of, sometimes two-thirds, sometimes three-quarters of people who think it's a fantastic idea.

I think the test will come in how intrusive it is.

If I can just drill down into one line, Annika Wells had, the communications minister, when she said this.

And when she was announcing sort of a bit more of the nitty-gritty of the rules that come in on December 10th.

Just have a listen.

I see lots of wiggle room in what she's saying.

So here she is, the minister.

We are not anticipating perfection, so therefore, okay, if they don't do everything, fine.

We are requiring meaningful change.

Meaningful is a broad term.

They need to take reasonable steps, again, a broad term, that will seek cultural change to keep kids safe.

So

there's just so much.

You can drive a truck through that, right?

You can drive a truck through that sort of wiggle room.

So how intrusive is that?

It's obvious that the easiest way to check someone's age is put your passport or your driver's license number or your learner's permit, stick that in the computer.

Now, most people don't want to do that.

But they're also not going to accept that as cutting it.

Just having standard government issue ID, even though the studies found that was the most effective, the government saying, no, no, that's not enough.

You need to be using technology as a way to test this.

I think the success of the policy will

will rest on how

much the social media companies feel the pressure.

There's also parallel rules coming in about porn sites.

I think that could have, like, you know, that can also blow back in the government's face.

They are not as stringent tests, but there are obligations there to prove people's age.

A lot of people are fine with the idea that you're checking to see that the person who isn't 16 yet isn't on social media.

Are they going to be really cranky if they're 19 and they're trying to get on their YouTube account and every month they have to prove their age and give up actually, I mean, I can see your face right now.

You can see mine, but that.

There'll be no doubt I am not under 16 with this face right me too especially with a grey beard but once you've got my face and my name connected on a database that's probably one of the most valuable pieces of data you can have about me so if you're storing that and it gets hacked if I have to hand that over a lot if I do need to attach an image of my face the unique identifier of my face and actually attach it to something heaven forbid like my driver's license number or my passport number I think that's going to really that has the the potential to be something that is very socially disruptive.

I think things

in Britain are instructive.

They've basically said you've got to prove your age in a much tougher way on porn sites.

So all that's happened as a result is there's tons of virtual private networks.

So the sale of the VPNs is just sort of off the charts and people just sort of move around it, get on with it.

Government can say they tried.

Media companies can say they tried and everyone moves on.

But there's no doubt this is like, this is overwhelmingly supported.

Whether or not there's a blowback I don't know like do you think the government with a $50 million fine do you think the government wants the social media companies to be intrusive

I agree with you it does think that it's on a winner here and it's why there was bipartisan support I think if you hear some of the awful stories of what are happening across this country that the government views this as the cost of inaction much like we heard earlier this week with climate change the cost of inaction is more costly than action and hearing parents say my ability to say it is illegal for you to have an account account potentially does help in households to try and try and prevent someone getting on there and of course people will find workarounds and I think the government is pretty upfront about that the Prime Minister says well yes of course people find a way to drink and people find a way to drive but by and large you are able to have people not driving until they are of the legal age.

You know that the government thinks that they're on to a winner because the Prime Minister wants to put this up in lights when he goes to the UN later this month.

He's holding a meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations to talk about this.

We know the Europeans Europeans are closely watching it.

France is having a look at it.

There's a lot on the line at a reputational level.

Now, there's a cultural cringe that says, oh, we're little, small Australia, we can't do anything.

Well, Australia made the polymer note, it created Wi-Fi, it led the world with plain packaging and tobacco.

At some point, someone needs to plant a flag.

And I think in politics, we are so quick to dismiss and ridicule and say, you don't stand for anything, you're not doing anything.

Is there not a value in having a crack, at least?

And of course, accepting that people will find ways around it.

But is there not something in the value in saying this is what we believe is in the best interest of children across this country?

And I think other countries do care what we do.

Other countries do have an eye on this.

A whole lot of states in America are trying it.

You know, Britain's actually had two goes at something similar to this.

So on the one hand, we're not, I mean, we're not really outliers.

Maybe it will make a big difference.

I'd love those tech companies to actually be accountable for something, for anything, just for one day.

That'd give me a great deal of satisfaction.

Hey, Raf, one of the great satisfactions of my career is when we used to sit near each other in Melbourne, we'd have conversations like this off air.

And then coming to Canberra, I got to talk with you every week on the radio to have these kind of conversations.

I had hair on my head when I first came here many years ago to Canberra.

It has been an absolute treat to get to do this on the podcast as well.

You're an absolute legend and we appreciate you joining us.

I'm just going to, I am keen to listen and know what you're doing to the furniture in the house while Patricia is away.

I just want to know, he's put the TV here.

He's moved the lounge room room chairs into the kitchen, he's turned off some of the lights when Patricia has them on.

So I'm just keeping an eye on Brett Worthington's interior design of the Politics Now studio just for that short interregnum while Patricia Carvelis is away.

It's just more flattering lighting.

That's all it is.

And we will happily hand it back over to PK when she's back in a few weeks.

Always a pleasure to chat to you, Brett.

And tomorrow I'll be joined by Claudia Long to bring you the latest developments.

If you have a question for us, please send a short voice note to the partyroom at abc.net.au and Mel Clark and and I will be able to answer it for you on the party room.

See ya, Raph.

See ya.