Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025; Second Reading

Miller-Frost opposed the bill, characterising the coalition's energy plan as lacking detail and substance. Miller-Frost argued that the opposition had no strategy to replace closing coal-fired power stations or address the unreliability of ageing infrastructure. Miller-Frost highlighted the risks of climate change to regional industries such as agriculture and tourism, stating that a lack of targets demonstrated a disregard for these sectors. Miller-Frost contended that abandoning net zero would leave communities without a credible path forward.

Haines opposed the bill, warning that it would dismantle the emissions reduction framework without offering an alternative. Haines noted that repealing the legislation would close the Net Zero Economy Authority and remove vehicle efficiency standards, potentially increasing fuel costs. Haines emphasised the economic benefits of the energy transition for regional communities, citing billions in projected payments and job creation. Haines argued that business leaders and regional voters supported the shift to renewables and called for constructive engagement rather than repeal.

Comer opposed the bill, stating that the government's energy plan had successfully lowered wholesale electricity prices and increased renewable capacity. Comer contrasted this with the previous government's record, noting that 24 coal plants announced closures without replacement plans. Comer cited Treasury warnings that abandoning net zero would lead to higher prices, lower growth, and fewer jobs. Comer argued that delaying renewable investment would result in higher electricity bills for households and businesses.