Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025

High-Level Summary

The Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025 proposes to abolish Australia’s current Net Zero emissions framework by repealing key legislation and removing legally binding greenhouse-gas reduction targets. It aims to relieve projected cost-of-living pressures and restore economic and industrial capacity.


Summary

The Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025 amends the Commonwealth’s climate and energy statutes as follows:

  • Schedule 1, Part 1 repeals the Climate Change Act 2022; the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Act 2024; the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Act 2024; the Net Zero Economy Authority Act 2024; and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act 2024.
  • Schedule 1, Part 2 removes all references to “net zero” from the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 (items 6–13) and the Future Made in Australia Act 2024 (items 14–26), and dismantles the Safeguard Mechanism by amending the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (items 27–51).
  • Clause 2 provides that the Act commences the day after Royal Assent, and clause 3 confirms that each schedule item takes effect according to its terms.

From the explanatory memorandum of the Bill:

“The purpose of this Bill is to remove the massive damage to the economy and to the cost of living that has been inflicted on Australia, by reason of the Net Zero Policy, its associated targets and supporting legislation.”


Argument For
Normative Bases
  1. Utilitarian Ground Truth
  2. Hobbesianism
  3. Propertarianism

Australia’s Net Zero policy has imposed substantial hidden and explicit costs on energy-intensive industries and consumers, contributing to higher household power bills and manufacturing offshoring [Judgment]. In a context of rising inflation and fiscal strain, repealing the Net Zero framework redirects billions of dollars in subsidies and compliance expenses back into productive uses, boosting economic output and relieving cost-of-living pressures.

Strategic and national-security considerations counsel against further hollowing out of Australia’s industrial base. Dependence on intermittent, subsidised renewables without reliable baseload alternatives weakens the resilience of critical infrastructure and our capacity to sustain defence production [Judgment]. Restoring a policy environment that allows coal, gas and dispatchable power to compete on market terms supports a stable energy supply and underpins sovereign capability.

Furthermore, treating the right to property and enterprise equitably requires ending privileged government guarantees for selected energy sectors. Under the current scheme, multinational developers enjoy taxpayer‐backed revenue guarantees that no other industry receives—a distortion that undermines fair competition and imposes hidden liabilities on future generations [Judgment]. Removing these distortions realigns the economy with market principles and individual property rights.

  1. ^

    Institute of Public Affairs, “Net Zero Costs Report,” 2025, est. total expenditure to date.


Argument Against
Normative Bases
  1. Environmentalism
  2. Legal Principle [Paris Agreement]

Repealing Australia’s Net Zero framework would abandon our commitments under the Paris Agreement and other international accords, undermining the rule of law in foreign relations and our credibility on climate action. Consistent, economy-wide measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are essential to limit global warming and protect vulnerable ecosystems.

Empirical evidence shows that transitioning to renewables and improving energy efficiency creates long-term cost savings and new employment opportunities in emerging industries [Judgment]. Curtailing these incentives risks locking in high-emission infrastructure and forfeiting our competitive advantage in the global green economy.

Climate change disproportionately affects disadvantaged and indigenous communities through rising sea levels, extreme weather, and public-health hazards. A stable Net Zero policy provides regulatory certainty for adaptation planning and investment in resilient infrastructure, mitigating social and environmental injustices [Judgment]. Removing it would harm those least able to bear the costs.


Date:

2025-07-28

Chamber:

House of Representatives

Status:

Before House of Representatives

Sponsor:

JOYCE, Barnaby, MP

Portfolio:

Unspecified

Categories:

Climate Change / Environment, Energy Policy, Financial Regulation

Timeline:
28/07/2025
25/08/2025

Comments (0)