MARK RILEY: Barnaby Joyce says net zero promise ‘insane', but ditching the plan is not an option

West Australian

5 days ago

Restraint is a rare and elusive quality for an opposition leader to exercise in the early days of a new parliament.
But Sussan Ley has done that this week.
And not everyone is happy about it.
It is natural that some in the Coalition would feel uncomfortable about not being able to dive hell-for-leather into the Government trenches with all guns blazing.
It has been a painful, frustrating 11 weeks since they were so comprehensively smashed at the ballot box.
And it is only natural that they would want to take out their anger and frustration on someone. Preferably the Government.
But in politics, as in life, you only get one chance to make a first impression.
And Sussan Ley is intent on making a positive one.
She has maintained since becoming leader that the Liberal and National parties must demonstrate that they have not only heard the messages from the people but are responding to them.
One of those messages was that voters have had enough of the reflexively confrontational model of politics.
Our 'Washminster' system of democracy is fundamentally adversarial in nature, but not every idea has to be contested in a bare-knuckled fight.
Sometimes being supportive is the best option.
That doesn't mean simply saying 'yes' to everything.
Oppositions can still say 'yes, but.'
They can support an issue in the broad but still propose ways of making it better.
And they can and should still say 'no'. But just not to every issue for the hell of it.
It is about choosing your battles wisely.
Matters of principle need to be defended.
There are times when oppositions must go to the mat to demonstrate to voters what they really stand for.
But if they do that on every issue, they will only be seen to stand for one thing — standing in the way.
And that won't work. Figuratively or practically.
The Labor Party has a 51-seat majority in the House of Representatives.
The Coalition parties cannot stand in the way of any measure against that weight of numbers.
But they can make statements of principle that can be defended more effectively in the Senate, where the Government needs either their numbers or the Greens' to pass legislation.
Barnaby Joyce is taking a different approach, as is his want.
His view, explained in multiple interviews this week, is for the Coalition to pick one big point of difference with Labor and then pull on a big fight over that.
The issue he chose didn't surprise anyone who has been around Parliament House for the 20 years that he has walked its halls.
He wants yet another episode of the climate wars.
And he wants to apply the same template he used to fight Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and Julia Gillard's Emissions Trading Scheme.
Remember his startling claim that pricing carbon would send the cost of a leg of lamb skyrocketing to $100?
More than a decade later, it's still $35 at Coles or Woolies.
This time Joyce is going after the shared commitment by the Government and the Opposition to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
According to him, the promise is 'insane.'
But arguing to ditch that commitment doesn't just establish a point of difference between Labor and the Coalition.
It also has the potential to split what is left of the Liberal and National parties. Again.
Not everyone on the conservative benches buys into Joyce's almost religious zeal to smite the 'climate crusaders.'
A backyard brawl over the issue won't just pit the Coalition against Labor.
It will also set Nationals against Nationals, Nationals against Liberals and Liberals against other Liberals.
At a time when Sussan Ley desperately requires unity, a Barnaby barney over net zero would give her net zero chance of achieving it.
And the potential consequences of that for a new Opposition Leader are the opposite of restrained.