Climate Change

Canavan supported the motion, arguing that promises of cheaper power and new jobs under net-zero had failed, with electricity prices rising 31 per cent and gas prices up 40 per cent over three years. Canavan highlighted the loss of 10,000 jobs in Western Australian critical minerals due to competition from countries like Indonesia that continued using coal. Canavan noted that major emitters such as China and India had increased coal mining, suggesting the global transition was not occurring as promised. Canavan credited Barnaby Joyce for initiating legislative action to repeal the target in the House of Representatives.

Ghosh opposed the motion, warning that ignoring climate change would reduce Australia's economic growth by three per cent annually over 50 years, according to Deloitte estimates. Ghosh cited Dr Ken Henry's view that environmental degradation threatened productivity and noted predictions of up to 27 per cent wheat yield loss in northern Victoria. Ghosh referenced the Business Council of Australia's support for decarbonisation to seize competitive advantages in low-emissions technologies. Ghosh highlighted that renewable energy generation had reached 46 per cent of the national market by the end of 2024.

Waters opposed the motion, arguing that scientists recommended reaching net-zero within 10 years rather than 25 to ensure a safe climate future. Waters cited ABARES data showing average broadacre farm profits had fallen 22 per cent over 25 years, with cropping sector profits down 35 per cent. Waters claimed that continued fossil fuel approvals by the government undermined renewable investments and that emissions were not decreasing. Waters urged Australia to set a 2035 net-zero target to limit global warming to under two degrees.

Stacey supported the motion, interpreting the Treasurer's comments on reshaping resource revenue as an admission that fossil fuel exports would be eliminated. Stacey stated that coal and LNG royalties contributed approximately $28 billion in the 2024 financial year, which was vital for the economy. Stacey argued that 82 per cent of global primary energy demand was still met by fossil fuels, making wind and solar insufficient replacements. Stacey claimed the net-zero agenda was an economic catastrophe that would lead to higher taxes and reduced services.

Walker opposed the motion, linking extreme weather events such as algal blooms in South Australia and droughts to global warming. Walker highlighted that one in three Australian households had solar panels and that the Cheaper Home Batteries Program aimed for one million new batteries by 2030. Walker noted that global clean energy investment reached $2.2 trillion in the current year, double that for fossil fuels. Walker argued that renewables provided economic competitiveness and cost-of-living relief compared to volatile fossil fuel markets.

Roberts supported the motion, attributing rising costs for groceries, power, and insurance to net-zero policies. Roberts compared electricity prices from 2004, when they were around 4c per kilowatt hour, to the current average of 33c, noting Australia now paid more than Japan. Roberts claimed manufacturing industries, including steel and copper smelting, were closing or struggling due to high energy costs. Roberts argued that despite increased renewable infrastructure, electricity costs continued to rise, leading to job losses and economic decline.