12 June 2024

Not all Liberal MPs are happy campers about Dutton's climate comments

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
20
woman witting with two older people in a cafe

Liberal MP Bridget Archer has spoken out against Peter Dutton’s intention to water down climate targets. Photo: Bridget Archer.

Peter Dutton is being criticised by some within his own party over his latest vow to water down Australia’s commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The Opposition Leader has described Labor’s legislated emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 as unachievable and said the Coalition won’t set targets until after the next election.

“In terms of the targets or otherwise, we’ll make those decisions when we’re in government,” Mr Dutton said.

“We’ll look at the prevailing economic conditions after the next election, and we’ll make announcements in due course.”

In a subsequent interview, he added that he remained on board for the target of net zero by 2050 and that the Paris Agreement would stay under a government he led.

He would even have some yet-to-be-revealed 2030 target, he said.

READ ALSO Dutton says he’s focussed on Australian economy, not international carbon targets

But right now, he was more concerned about Australia’s economy.

“We’ve got a strong commitment to net zero by 2050, but we’ve got to be realistic about where families are at the moment,” Mr Dutton said.

“The amount of hurt and pain that people are feeling in their own budgets, the number of business failures and an economy which has really tightened dramatically … When the Prime Minister made the commitment of 43 per cent, the economy wasn’t in the state that it is now … When he talks about signing up to international agreements – I know he likes to rub shoulders with all the international leaders and be popular within that group – but his first responsibility is to take care of Australians, and I think he’s taken his eye off that ball.”

Anthony Albanese immediately jumped on Mr Dutton’s earlier remarks and called the Opposition Leader divisive.

“The Coalition are divided and there’s no detail about what they would pursue,” the Prime Minister said.

“They’re the three D’s of the Coalition – divisive, divided, detail, which gives them a big F for fail when it comes to climate policy.

“So, instead of chasing investment in new industries with new opportunities and new jobs, he’s chasing them away.

“No action until 2040 means energy shortfalls, it means higher costs and it’s something that Australia should not pursue.

“The Coalition had 22 different energy policies when they were in government and didn’t land one of them.”

It seems some in Mr Dutton’s own team agree with the PM.

Liberal MP Bridget Archer has publicly talked down her leader’s comments.

She said if the 2030 target were weakened, it would be a regressive step, but regardless, the Coalition should put its alternative plan to the electorate before the campaign began.

“The current targets are already legislated. They are the targets,” Ms Archer told the ABC.

“If we were planning to change that, I think it would be reasonable to put it to the Australian people at an election.

“Of course, I also think it would be a regressive step.”

But while Ms Archer appears to be the only Coalition backbencher willing to state her concerns publicly – as she has on a number of occasions over climate change, even crossing the floor on the issue two years ago – others in Liberal ranks are privately asking what their leader is up to.

READ ALSO National Anti-Corruption Commission comes out of the blocks and lies down

Region canvassed a small number of Federal Liberal Party members on Wednesday (12 June), with some expressing alarm at the Opposition Leader’s comments.

No one else, however, was willing to comment on the record.

Others expressed “absolute support” for Mr Dutton’s remarks and intentions.

The Climate Change Authority released information in December, projecting Australia to be on track for a 42 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 – one percentage point lower than the target.

The Prime Minister noted that since releasing that information, Australia has likely moved closer to being on track to meet the 2030 target.

“Since then, we’ve had production tax credits for critical minerals and green hydrogen. We, of course, will continue to look towards policies that make a difference, that make sense for our economy, but also make sense for our environment,” he said.

“For Peter Dutton to walk away from any 2030 commitment, to be clear, is walking away from the Paris Agreement.”

Join the conversation

20
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Long time voter, and tend towards the coalition. (my first time voting was Hawke/Fraser. Frase’s local member got my vote vote) but for the third or fourth time I am conflicted. I recall I voted against a Liberal candidate in the Brisbane City Council elections and I, like most thinking people, voted to get rid of that useless fool Zed. Albanese is a barely competent PM. But at least he is barely competent. Dutton is not fit to run a fish and chip shop…let alone a country.

Agree with all your comments. We need a decent alternative. Looks like the cross bench will grow.

HiddenDragon7:22 pm 13 Jun 24

In spite of the bulldust from Albanese and others, the “climate wars” are by no means over in Labor, either –

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/09/anthony-albanese-faces-internal-revolt-from-inner-city-labor-mps-over-gas-strategy

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2024/02/24/plibersek-sidelined-over-gas-project-approvals#hrd

We’ve done the easy stuff, most of which thus far has been posturing, tokenism and making life difficult for the people who middle and upper-middle Australian urbanites don’t care about or approve of, but the choices are getting harder and closer to home in a way which will increasingly cut across existing party lines.

So far, the global bien-pensant’s record of being proven right, ever since Bruce Pascoe and his towns and broadacre farming claims, BLM vs the actual statistics on deaths in custody, through mRNA gene therapies stopping virus transmission, the effectiveness of lockdowns, masking, electricity prices vis renewables, polar bear extinction, global “boiling”, etc etc etc, is zero. Why at this point would anyone place any further faith in whatever global elites are pushing? As someone here just said, it’s The Voice 2.0. Other than inner-city holier-than-thou types, nobody is listening to elite pablum. The Boy who Cried Wolf.

@Rustygear
Instead we should listen to QAnon conspiracies?

Let’s listen to the scientists instead!

@psycho
I agree we should listen to the scientists – if only the denialists would do so.

In the 10,000 years of temperature changes since the end of the last ice age there were quite large temperature swings, much greater than what has been observed in the last 150 or so years. Each one of those moves up or down were caused entirely by natural forces. Those promoting the notion that man’s actions are the primary driver of recent temperature changes require that you believe that these natural forces suddenly and inexplicably ceased functioning at the beginning of the 20th century and that human emissions are now responsible.

No they don’t. They just require us to believe that trashing the planet has had an additional impact. You can’t turn a healthy diverse environment into a rubbish tip without consequences.

Liberal party MPs expressing concern at Dutton, but not willing to go on record – now that’s disturbing for two reasons. (1) There is an obviously divided party and (2) there are too many MPs busy protecting their own cushy positions or too weak to do what they see as right.

(3) it’s made up.

@Ken M
Another fine example of your inability to provide anything other than “I say so” –
Ken M modus operandi = total absence of verifiable fact + a healthy dose of cliched drivel

Stephen Saunders11:05 am 13 Jun 24

Actually, Australia is on track for 2030 emissions to be not that much different to 2005. You only get the “42% reduction” if you employ increasingly-desperate accounting tricks for Land Use emissions.

So you agree that the Land Use rort argued by the L-NP in 2005 should be set aside in favour of more serious action on emissions reduction, especially in the energy sector. Good.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.