17 November 2025

Coalition agrees on its energy policy, promising to do the same with migration

| By Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
48
Sussan Ley on Sunrise

Sussan Ley out selling the Coalition’s energy policy on Sunrise this morning. Phtoto: Sussan Ley Facebook.

Nuclear energy remains part of the Coalition’s policy platform and so, too, it seems, is a crackdown on Australia’s immigration intake.

After the Liberals’ and Nationals’ energy policy meeting on Sunday (16 November), which was followed by a virtual joint partyroom meeting, the Coalition has now formally dumped its commitment to net zero, promised to lift the moratorium on nuclear power, and flagged a tough immigration policy.

Sussan Ley has left no doubt that the right wing is steering the Coalition’s policy direction, and she is presenting a tough persona in an effort to ward off any challenges to her leadership.

During a press conference to outline the Coalition’s energy policy, the Opposition Leader made it clear immigration policy was next.

Ms Ley said migration was “another priority of mine” and that shadow immigration minister Paul Scarr and shadow home affairs minister Jono Duniam have been working on developing the policy.

“In the coming weeks, we will release a migration policy, the broad principles of such a policy, that demonstrates what I have said from the get-go, which is that this country’s migration numbers are far too high, and this needs to be addressed as a priority,” she said.

“But today is about energy, affordable energy, responsible emissions reduction, and playing our part globally exactly as we should.”

READ ALSO Liberals dump net-zero commitment following party infighting and marathon meetings

Beyond committing to quitting its commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the Coalition’s new energy policy promises to ensure no premature closure of coal plants.

It would achieve this by removing the ban on nuclear power and pursuing investments in technology, including carbon capture and storage, solar, biofuels, and low-emissions metals – adding uranium to the list of critical minerals.

In the first meeting of the national cabinet under a future Coalition government, an amendment would be moved to remove emissions reduction as a national electricity objective for the Australian Energy Market Operator.

The Coalition’s plan aims to create a long-term technology-neutral reliability mechanism for new and existing generation, such as a “technology-neutral capacity mechanism”, exclusively focused on delivering affordable and reliable power.

It supports more gas supply by unlocking investment in new gas supply and infrastructure, streamlining regulations and committing to an annual offshore acreage release.

The Coalition will also establish an east coast gas reservation scheme, provided that the scheme guarantees supply to Australian consumers, protects contracts with the nation’s trading partners, and puts downward pressure on prices.

“Australians deserve affordable energy and responsible emissions reduction, but under Labor we’ve seen a trifecta of failures: reliability’s coming down, prices are going up, and emissions are flatlining,” Ms Ley said.

“We will prioritise affordable energy for households and businesses, and this is just so important.”

Nationals leader David Littleproud said the Coalition’s policy wasn’t concerned with science but with economics.

He said families are hurting, businesses are under pressure, and productive farmland was being “carved up” for projects that make no sense.

“Net zero is not the only way to actually address climate change and to actually do our fair share,” Mr Littleproud said.

“We’re saying to the Australian people, let’s have a conversation … We want to actually say to the Australian people there’s an alternative way, and we have to show that.

“We demonstrated that today, and the fact that we can bring our two party rooms together in a constructive way, that has real solutions for Australians, shows the maturity and strength of our Coalition.”

READ ALSO Libs’ net-zero move a political gift to everyone but themselves

Shadow energy minister Dan Tehan said the Coalition’s policy was “all about energy affordability” and doing the “responsible thing” when it comes to emissions reduction.

“Can I say to the Australian people, every time you hear the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Energy Minister Chris Bowen attacking us, you should know they’re doing that not being focused on doing the right thing by you, and that is bringing your energy prices down,” Mr Tehan said.

“Every time they attack us, you should know they’re doing it because they don’t have an answer when it comes to energy affordability and reducing emissions.”

Mr Albanese described the Opposition as a “rabble and clown show”. He said the Coalition’s decision to abandon its commitment to the net-zero target will negatively impact investment in renewable energy and ultimately harm consumers.

“Australians shouldn’t pay the price of Coalition chaos because that is what we are dealing with now, is their failure to put in place any energy policy,” Mr Albanese said.

“If anyone thinks that there is certainty in the Coalition going forward, then they’re not paying any attention to the rabble and clown show the Coalition have become when it comes to energy policy and climate policy.”

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

48
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

As much as I hate to admit the Liberal Party does have a point, Net Zero isn’t a realistic goal. But then again, achieving Net Zero is like achieving the state of Nirvana; highly unlikely to be achieved but a good goal to at least attempt.

Of course we can get to net zero.

https://research.csiro.au/tnz/

The impacts & costs of missing will be bad, the impacts & costs of not trying will be disastrous.

Why do you say net zero is not a realistic goal, Karl Herzog? Do you understand what it is?

Stephen Saunders8:36 am 18 Nov 25

Every reliable poll during and since COVID says Australians are fed up with the massive immigration. Albo’s gone an unbelievable 70-80% higher than Rudd’s triennial record.

Much lower migration wouldn’t be a “crackdown”, Chris, it would just be “democracy”. The more the Coalition leans towards voters, the more Albanese and Burke will respond with the rhetoric of division. Check under your bed – those “neo nazis” – they’re everywhere.

Immigration is back to pre-Covid levels after the Covid collapse and compensating post-Covid peak.

Immigration is unexceptional compared with historical rates.

Stephen Saunders, or his ancestors, migrated here, so what is his motivation for blocking others coming at the same sort of rate? What are his criteria for acceptance?

I knew an Egyptian lady that migrated to Australia decades ago. But even she was against migration. Her POV was that the country let her in but they should cap the limit of migration after that.

‘Shadow energy minister Dan Tehan said the Coalition’s policy was “all about energy affordability” and doing the “responsible thing” when it comes to emissions reduction.’

So like last time they were in government, do nothing on energy or affordability or emissions.

All the while paying through the nose to keep our aging coal fleet struggling along whilst they try to magic the economics of nuclear power in Australia work and fail.

Only this time it will be an LNP government with the bonus idiocy of being both in the Paris Accord which requires emissions reduction targets whilst refusing emission reduction targets.

Of course they could just pull us out of the Paris Accord, and with no emissions targets bring us into line with international pariahs Egypt and Iran. I’m sure that will go down a treat with a Pacific neighbours and trading partners. Just genius stuff.

Another Coalition government about nothing. Hard pass.

I see in various press this morning that industry generally and electricity generation companies in particular are very unimpressed with the LNP plan not to have a plan.

Mining companies, especially those invested in coal, think it might be good for them [add emoji of choice here]. They will have noticed that South Korea, our third largest market for coal, plans to kill off all its coal-fired plants by 2040. Our major market, China, is heading for decline given its far greater investment in renewables while India has announced similar plans.

Capital Retro10:08 am 18 Nov 25

Tell the full story, Axon.

South Korean nuclear generating capacity is expected to increase from 24.7 GWe in 2022 to 28.9 GWe in 2030 and to 31.7 GWe in 2036. It also confirmed the target for exporting 10 nuclear units by 2030 as well as the development of a Korean small modular reactor (SMR).

The LNP can’t plan for nuclear because the current government is still maintaining the ban.

Very true.

And let’s not forget China and India have coal reserves and there’s no point burning ours whilst sitting on theirs .

I don’t who how many times this has to be pointed to you Capital but South Korea is not Australia, they already have a nuclear industry since 1978, the govt has already sunk the huge public investment into nuclear, they are not starting from scratch like us…you cannot compare the two as if they are the same.

There are currently also only two commericalised SMRs in the world, both massively subsidised, both in totalitarian state (China/Russia). The problem with SMRs is they cost about as much as full scale reactors to build but don’t generate enough electricity to justify the cost.

The Energy Generators & Retailers did not reject nuclear for Australia because they are “woke” greenies or whatever culture wars nonsense you want to spout…these for profit companies rejected it because it was too slow, too expensive and too risky…especially when they can roll out gigawatts of renewable energy generation and storage capacity quickly and cheaply.

PS. You’re also wrong about the “current government is still maintain the ban”…there’s no “ban” by this government, you’re talking about legislation put in by Howard. Which this government did NOT run on over turning, but you know who did? Peter Dutton and he’s out of work now. Talk about “tell the full story”.

PPS. It’s not just the federal legislative changes, there are also state legislative changes….and I can’t see that happening when even the hard right QLD LNP govt have said no nuclear in QLD.

Capital Retro2:31 pm 18 Nov 25

Tell me the other times you have pointed that out to me about South Korea, Seano.

I think he was having a go at you Axon. Remember, he is an “above average” guy.

“Tell me the other times you have pointed that out to me about South Korea, Seano.”

I’ve explained with references the problems with nuclear energy in Australia many times Capital. The fact that you refuse to put aside your ideology to deal with issues on facts and evidence is on you.

The calculations for nuclear in Australia don’t work and comparing our non-existent nuclear energy program with those in the US, UK, South Korea or anywhere is beyond silly.

As I keep pointing out to you, the Energy Generators & Retailers are not a bunch of “woke” lefties, they are for profit power companies with shareholders they have to answer to and they have rejected nuclear as being too slow, too expensive and too risky.

Time to live in the real world Capital.

Tell the full story, Capital Retro.

I was talking about coal, but since you want to raise nuclear then of course we can consider that. It is low emission apart from the toxic waste for which there is no current effective solution. Seano has explained why nuclear is irrelevant here, based simply on economics.

You speak of an increase of 17% in nuclear capacity from 2022 to 2030, reaching 28.9 GWe and by 2036 31.7 GWe. Wonderful news for them.

So why did you not mention that they have today 35GW of renewable capacity, investing to reach over 78 GW by 2030 (100 GW by some report), an increase of more than 120% compared with your 17%?

One of the things that has held them back is lack of infrastructure, so they are investing in what they call an “energy superhighway” to distribute energy rather than it all being localised. They also have negligible wind power at present but about 600 GW of potential, and an existing industry making parts for them so that is an announced focus too.

Nobody sane here is planning for nuclear. The Koreans, recognised as leaders in the field, are shifting their investment to renewables. You almost said it yourself.

Capital Retro6:15 pm 18 Nov 25

It’s a Swiss cheese situation with you Axon.

While everyone else sees cheese, you only see holes.

Pointing out the facts on energy is just water off a duck’s back to you huh Capital?

What a way to be, to refuse to deal in reality when reality imposes on your worldview.

Capital Retro, if your arguments were Swiss cheese, they would still be found underweight.

As the LNP scrambles to pick up the racist vote it lost to Pauline Hanson, it is hard to believe it was only 8 months ago we saw the Liberals suffer the party’s worst defeat since 1943, losing its most high profile and affluent seats to the teals and other independents (9). Swings were also recorded against the Nationals in nearly every seat where it proposed a nuclear plant (except Flynn in QLD). The former National Party seat in Calare in mid-country NSW, with an area of 32,648 km2, recorded the biggest swing of 17% to former National Party MP and now Independent Andrew Gee, who switched his allegiances over the party’s failure to tackle climate change.

Recent research published by CSIRO reveals renewables as the lowest cost new-build electricity generation and nuclear small modular reactors currently the costliest, with private investment shifting from fossil fuels towards renewables.

A weekend newspaper article highlighted the anniversary of the Whitlam dismissal. Drawing comparisons with Sussan Ley’s leadership, Whitlam led his party in similar circumstances. Ley, who has chosen career advancement over conscience, Whitlam was fearless and successful in leading from the front and imposing himself on his party at the risk of expulsion.

The Nationals are setting the agenda and now the senior coalition partner. On a high after its recent win over energy, the party is now preparing itself to stoke further division over immigrants!

Recent findings from the Whitlam Institute suggest Gough Whitlam was faultless and blameless in the 1975 dismissal. The ABC agrees.

I’m sure Jack D. will treat this comment with the respect it deserves….but I have to laugh after you made such a big deal when I accidently posted a comment in the wrong thread earlier in the week Penfold….funny stuff.

If you’d read Jack’s comment you might have noted he referenced the dismissal in it. Yours was just a howler 🫣

Not the point of the comment but fair enough, you should go back to correct grammar using the incorrect “your”.

When she took the leadership Ley promised to “meet the people where they are”, to step back from Dutton and his policies so strongly rejected by voters.

The naturally authoritarian deep conservatives prefer to impose their ideology without regard for knowledge or reality. They really are competing with Pauline Hanson’s One Retirement Fund, no interest in Australia.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.