Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025; Second Reading

Templeman opposed the bill, arguing that climate change impacts such as fires and floods were real and required urgent action. Templeman highlighted that renewable energy generation had increased significantly, accounting for 46 per cent of the national energy market by the end of 2024. Templeman noted that households were benefiting from battery subsidies and that global investment in clean energy was doubling fossil fuel investment. Templeman argued that doing nothing posed a greater threat to agriculture than net zero targets.

Hamilton supported the bill, arguing that net zero policy forced technologies through commercialisation before they were ready, leading to failures like green hydrogen and offshore wind. Hamilton described this as the 'technology valley of death' where projects lose social licence due to premature implementation. Hamilton claimed that emissions reductions in Australia were primarily due to land-use changes rather than industrial decarbonisation. Hamilton advocated for nuclear energy as a proven technology that was being blocked by current policy.

France opposed the bill, stating that voters had chosen Labor's renewable energy plan over the Coalition's nuclear proposal in the recent election. France argued that net zero targets were essential for maintaining competitiveness with trading partners in Europe and Asia. France highlighted that rooftop solar was saving households money and that climate change was already reducing farm profits. France characterised the bill as an attempt to undermine the government's agenda and ignore the will of the people.