In the polarised arena of Australian politics, where climate policy has long served as both a wedge and a sacred cow, the National Party's 2025 decision to abandon its commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 marks a seismic shift. Announced formally on November 2, 2025, following a unanimous party room vote, this move — hailed by Nationals leader David Littleproud as a pivot toward "climate adaptation" over rigid emissions cuts — had ignited fierce debate, now overshadowed by the race hate law. However, it challenges the bipartisan consensus forged under the Morrison era, exposes fractures within the Coalition, and underscores a growing populist backlash against what critics deride as virtue-signalling environmentalism at the expense of economic reality. The discussion on Paul Murray Live on Sky News Australia, featuring Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) Deputy Executive Director Daniel Wild and One Nation candidate Lee Hanson, crystallises this moment: a raw, unfiltered dissection of net zero's flaws, delivered with the unapologetic fervour of those who see it not as salvation, but as a straitjacket on Australia's prosperity.
The Nationals' Revolt: Breaking the Back of a "Dead Man Walking" Policy
At the heart of the interview — and the broader controversy — is the Nationals' bold repudiation of net zero. Wild, representing the IPA's long-standing crusade against what it terms "economically destructive" climate mandates, frames this as nothing short of a death knell. "We've now broken the back of net-zero and net-zero is now a dead man walking," he declares, likening it to the failed Indigenous Voice referendum: a policy that crumbled under public scrutiny once exposed beyond elite echo chambers. This isn't hyperbole. The Nationals' platform overhaul, ratified after grassroots votes and state-level precedents, proposes repealing the 2022 Climate Change Act, scrapping net zero from Paris Agreement commitments, and aligning Australia's reductions with OECD averages — roughly halving the current pace to avoid "running harder than the rest of the world."
Wild's optimism stems from polling and electoral maths. Net zero, he argues, is the "number one cause" of skyrocketing energy bills, a claim echoed in IPA research highlighting how renewable subsidies and coal phase-outs have inflated household costs without commensurate global impact. (Australia's emissions, after all, constitute less than 1.2% of the world's total.) By forcing a public contest, the Nationals have weaponised authenticity: voters, Wild contends, can smell inauthenticity, much like they did with the Liberals' 2022 embrace of net zero to defend teal seats in affluent urban enclaves. That gambit backfired spectacularly — Josh Frydenberg lost Kooyong, and the Coalition haemorrhaged inner-city ground.
Hanson, kicking for One Nation in Tasmania's Bass electorate, tempers her applause with scepticism. "Great to see common sense starting to prevail," she says, but warns it's "lip service" without action. Her litmus test: Will the Nationals oppose "ridiculous" solar and wind farms — often foreign-funded — that blanket farmland, or defend industries like the Tomago aluminium smelter, crippled by net zero's regulatory vise? This pragmatism resonates in regional Australia, where net zero's abstractions collide with lived hardships: blackouts, job losses in coal communities, and energy poverty amid bills up 20-30% in recent years.
Critics, predictably, howl apocalypse. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young decried it as abandoning Australia's "role as a serious player," while the government's inaugural National Climate Risk Assessment warns of amplified disasters — sea-level rise displacing a million, doubled heat deaths — if inaction persists. Of course they do. Yet these rebukes ring hollow to net zero's detractors. As Littleproud notes, the world is "re-pivoting," with even signatories like the UK and EU dialling back timelines amid energy crises. IPA data bolsters this: net zero's $7-10 trillion price tag by 2050 dwarfs adaptation costs, which could fortify infrastructure against inevitable change without fetishising unattainable purity.
Populism's Surge: One Nation as the Authentic Alternative
The interview deftly weaves net zero into One Nation's narrative of inexorable growth, positioning the party as the uncompromised voice of the dispossessed. Hanson touts a 100% national membership spike post-election, exploding to 300% in Tasmania, where she just launched the party's first branch in Bass (Launceston) to thunderous turnout. Branches in Lyons (November 15) and beyond signal a ground game: door-knocking volunteers for early voting marathons, amplifying grievances on immigration, housing, education, and cost-of-living squeezes. Net zero fits neatly here — not as abstract eco-orthodoxy, but as a synonym for elite disregard, fuelling rural alienation.
Paul Murray probes the paradox: Labor's two-party preferred lead has widened to 57-43 since their May 2025 "mega win," yet the Right's fragmentation benefits One Nation. Wild attributes this to anti-Coalition revulsion, not pro-Labor fervour — a "reluctant defensive vote" against Dutton's perceived timidity on net zero and immigration. The Liberals' teal-chasing authenticity flop, he says, proves the policy toxic: "It is not a vote winner... people know whether you're being authentic." Hanson concurs, crediting One Nation's "absolute clarity" for the surge; they've "led the way," forcing the Nationals' hand. In Tasmania, this manifests in plans for state and council contests, despite hurdles.
Tasmania's Privacy Farce: A Microcosm of Bureaucratic Overreach
Hanson's aside on registration barriers steals the show, exposing a uniquely Tasmanian absurdity. Unlike any other Australian jurisdiction, Tasmania demands parties publish founding members' names and electorates in newspapers — a public shaming that Hanson brands a "breach of privacy laws." This archaic relic, enforced by the Tasmanian Electoral Commission, stymies challengers: One Nation, despite robust support, faces a Catch-22, as legislative repeal requires parliamentary allies unlikely to empower their foe. (Historical precedents abound; One Nation faced deregistration threats in Tasmania as recently as 2020 for paperwork lapses.) It's a stark emblem of net zero's kin: rules rigged for incumbents, silencing the grassroots roar. Hanson vows defiance — "we're getting our stat decs" — but it underscores One Nation's underdog ethos, turning obstacles into rallying cries.
Whither the Coalition? A Mandate for Argument
Murray's devil's advocacy — probing buyer's remorse amid Labor's consolidation — elicits Wild's sharp riposte: the election was a Coalition rout, not a mandate for more net zero zeal. Revival demands "making the case": tying emissions dogma to wallet pain, as Senator Matt Canavan did, reshaping discourse from fringe to mainstream. If executed, Wild predicts poll rebounds; if fumbled, a splintered right hands Labor perpetuity.
This Paul Murray Live exchange, raw and revelatory, isn't mere punditry, it's a harbinger. Net zero, once unassailable, now teeters as "fringe" voices like the IPA and One Nation drag it into sunlight. The Nationals' gambit risks Coalition implosion and global isolation, yet it validates a core truth: policies must serve people, not abstractions. In a nation grappling inflation, blackouts, and border strains, authenticity trumps aspiration. As Wild urges, communicate the costs, then watch the cliff-fall begin. Good riddance, indeed.
https://ipa.org.au/latest-news/daniel-wild-on-paul-murray-live-sky-news-australia-2-november-2025