Barnaby Joyce has labelled the estimated cost of net zero “utterly untenable”, further undermining the Coalition’s commitment ahead of a motion at the Nationals conference to abolish its policy of reaching net zero by 2050.
In a speech before question time on Thursday, Joyce, a member of the shadow cabinet, encouraged debate on the motion put by his federal electorate council in New England and likened the estimated $7-$9tn cost of net zero to the Marshall plan after the second world war.
The deputy leader of the opposition in the Senate, Michaelia Cash, rejected the push, telling reporters that “our position is very, very clear”.
“Under Peter Dutton, we are committed to net zero,” she said. “Full stop, that’s it.”
But the leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Bridget McKenzie, added fuel to the controversy by noting net zero is “pretty expensive” and accusing Labor of carpeting regional areas with solar panels and transmission lines.
The deputy Nationals leader, Perin Davey, took a more cautious approach, suggesting the conference debate should be allowed but noting the importance of keeping access to markets that demand net zero commitments.
The motion – which some party sources interpret as a strategic strike intended to destabilise David Littleproud’s leadership – has alarmed moderate Liberals because the Nationals abandoning net zero would reopen an acrimonious internal Coalition discussion about climate policy.
Joyce told the House of Representatives that “power prices are the cement that keep the economic house together”.
“If they are not viable the economic house falls over.
“Net Zero Australia, which includes University of Queensland and the University of Melbourne, have put the cost of 2050 2060 target at $7tn to $9tn. That is more than the redevelopment cost of Western Europe after the second world war under the Marshall plan. It is completely and utterly untenable.”
In its How to Make Net Zero Happen report, released in July, Net Zero Australia projected a $9tn cumulative cost over 37 years for the economic transition, including investment in renewables, transmission and storage, and use of gas peaking plants to phase out coal.
This would come mostly “from business, and some from households”, it said. “Governments will need to spend billions to unlock trillions.”
Joyce targeted the blowout in Snowy Hydro 2.0 costs from $2bn to $12bn as an example of the “untenable” cost of net zero.
“I know little about watts but lots about politics – and the sentiment towards this renewable nirvana is completely and utterly changing,” he said.
“The battle will be lost over time, because that is the example all around the world.”
McKenzie told reporters in Canberra that although she had “never argued the science” of climate change she had asked “who pays”.
“It will be rural and regional communities and industries that have to do the heavy lifting as we move to net zero over coming decades.
“To ignore that … [to say] that it was somehow going to be net zero is net zero pain was a farce.”
McKenzie said she was glad the public debate had shifted to how to assist communities “take advantage of opportunities” and overcome “real challenges” of the transition.
McKenzie declined to say if the net zero target should be retained, but accused climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, of “running around the country saying we’re going to carpet you with wind farms, solar panels and transmission lines”.
She said that Labor had “slashed” regional funds that the Nationals had secured in negotiations to adopt the net zero target in 2021, a move she called “offensive”.
Earlier, Davey told Guardian Australia that the Nationals are “great” and as a “grassroots party” would have a “robust debate” on net zero at their conference.
“I welcome any motions that are brought forward by the branches … It will be interesting, I’m particularly looking forward to hearing the views of my state parliamentary colleagues.”
“[Our policy] is still officially net zero and it will be a very interesting debate to see where it lands.”
Davey said a “key” issue at play was ensuring “we can continue to have access to international markets, and [they] are demanding countries have a net zero target”.
But she said she “completely” understood the argument that transmission lines impact landowners.
