Topics: Net zero policy, Coalition future

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC:  Well, as we've been reporting today, it's a hot one again in Canberra today, particularly for the Liberal Party, as it moves to lock in its position on net zero, although that is likely to be abandoned following the numbers that we're aware of yesterday. Joining us live is the Liberal senator, the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Dave Sharma. Dave, it's good to be with you this morning, as always. So let's start off with the meeting. How do you think it went?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Good to join you, Pete. I think we had a very good discussion yesterday amongst the Liberal Party room. Every member got to have their say and offer their perspective. But there was a lot of unity around the view that Labor's so-called energy transition is failing on its own terms. It's pushing up power prices, it's lessening reliability, and it's not lowering emissions. And we think there is a better way to deliver affordable, reliable energy to Australians that brings down energy prices and brings down emissions.

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC: Okay. will net zero be junked?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I think there's... Look, I'm not going to pre-empt the policy cause there's still several steps in the process to play out. But I believe we are going to stay committed to the Paris Agreement. Uh, the Paris Agreement commits the entire world to aim for net zero as a global goal, if you like, or balancing of emissions and sinks by the second half of this century. And it also commits countries to submit five yearly targets for emissions reduction. So Australia will remain part of that process under a coalition policy.

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC: Okay, so Paris stays in, but net zero is out?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well no, I can't confirm either of those things, Peter, but I can say that I don't believe there's support within the party room for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. exactly the formulation we land on when it comes to net zero, I think we have to wait and see. But let's just keep in mind that at the moment, um, no country around the world, and certainly not the globe as a whole, is destined to hit net zero by 2050. I think viewers need to be aware of that fact.

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC: Yeah they sure are, uh, those who watch this program anyway. it's been said, Dave, that by proxy, canning net zero is linked to climate denialism. that is going to be an argument that your opponents no doubt use. So how will you argue against that?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: We'd argue, I think, that let's examine Labor's record on their own terms. I mean emissions today are about 28% below what they were in 2005 levels. When Labor came to office three and a half years ago, they were about 28% below 2005 levels. So they've had three and a half years of governing. They haven't brought down emissions. They can announce all the ambitious targets they want, whether it's 82% renewable energy in the grid by 2030, whether it's 62 to 70% emissions reduction by 2035. But if they're not anywhere close to meeting those, they are not delivering on their commitments. And we are saying that we want to emissions come down. But we also want to see prices come down, and we also want to see industry able to afford energy so they don't go offshore.

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC: Okay. Just looking at the list of votes yesterday, Dave, if, if we know that your vote was keeping net zero, how will you then support junking it if you're asked by constituents, or dare I say, members of the media?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I'd say I'm a member of a political party, Peter. I'm not an independent. Which means that I will go and argue my views within the party room about what I think is in the best interests of us as a political movement, but more importantly, what is in the best national interest of Australia. And I respect that, that my colleagues may have different views, may have the same views. But whatever the party ultimately and the Shadow Ministry ultimately decides, I'm a team player, I'm going to go out and prosecute and sell that message. And look, it's the same if you're in government and if you're in cabinet. I mean, I'm sure, Penny Wong when she was a shadow of minister rather in the Gillard government, didn't support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman within the cabinet. But when the Labor government said that was the policy they were pursuing, she went out and sold it. So, if you're a team player, you respect the views of your colleagues.

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC: So if you're a team player and you're a party man, you wouldn't protest or, or give up your role as it's been suggested that others might?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: No I wouldn't plan to do that. I don't intend to do that. That's not the sort of person I am. As I said, I respect the party processes, and I respect that I'm here because I was elected under the Liberal Party banner. And ultimately, we are a team, and I will the decision of the team, whatever it is. I mean, it's like you can't go out on a football pitch and have 11 players all choosing a different strategy, right? You need to settle the strategy and then play to that strategy. It's the same in politics.

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC: Is Sussan Ley's position safe?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Yes, I believe it is. I don't think, I concede that this has not been a particularly tidy process, and I, I think it's unfortunate that, we, the Liberal Party has become a political story in and of itself. Because our role is to hold the government to account, to be a credible opposition, and to be a credible alternative. So, I would like to see this issue put to bed as quickly as possible. So we can focus on the main game here, which is the failings of Australia under the Labor government.

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC: Sure. Will she be leader at the next election?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Look, I don't have a crystal ball, but Sussan's leadership is secure, and as far as I'm aware, there are no challenges.

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC: Okay. Can I just, close on this point? Uh, we've already got an attack line, I'm seeing here in The Australian from the Treasurer Jim Chalmers, and Penny Wong actually just mirrored this, Dave, and I'll just get your response to it. So what he says, "If you dump net zero, it would mean less investment, fewer jobs, higher power prices." Um, "Not pursuing net zero by 2050 risks lower economic growth and reduced investment," it goes on to say, and again, Penny Wong said a similar thing. So how would you argue against that?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I'd say look at Labor's energy policy. That's delivering higher prices and less investment. I mean, you know, power prices are up about 30%  over the past three years. We've gone from having wholesale electricity prices that were a quarter those of Japan about 20 years ago, are now higher than Japan. They're higher than Canada. They're higher than nearly any other OECD country. So for Labor to accuse our policy of doing exactly what theirs is doing is a little rich.

‍

PETE STEFANOVIC: Okay. Dave Sharma, Liberal senator. Thanks as always for your time. Appreciate it.

‍

[ENDS]

‍