Prime Minister Scott Morrison has continued to warn against voting for so-called “teal” independents—backed by the Climate 200 group—saying it would destabilise the government.
“Over the last three years, in particular, we’ve had the strength of a majority government,” the prime minister told reporters on Perth on May 6. “If each and every day we had to go and negotiate for the government’s existence with a cavalcade of independents or being pushed to-and-fro by others, then Australia would not have had the strength to push through the pandemic.”
“My warning is very clear to those seats where people are thinking about independents; I would say this: if they won’t tell you how they would vote, how could you vote for them? Not just on who they support in government, but we can’t have a government that’s a weathervane,” he added.
A day earlier, the prime minister said the independents posed a threat to Australia’s security and economy, saying a “vote for independents is a vote for parliamentary chaos.”
“We don’t support a 60 percent reduction in emissions that would be catastrophic for our economy,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on May 5.
This comes as the Climate 200 group are backing 22 “independent” candidates for the next federal election—many of whom will contest once strong Coalition-held seats including North Sydney, Wentworth, Kooyong, and Goldstein.
Climate 200, backed by billionaire Simon Holmes à Court, are hoping to leverage growing sentiment among highly educated and affluent Australians for more ambitious climate change action policies including a 60 percent reduction in emissions by 2030—the government’s current policy is a 26 percent reduction target.
A more ambitious emissions reduction target would mean Australia would have to reshape its entire economy and power generation system to rely on new, untested energy sources.
Further, the prospect of a hung Parliament after the May 21 election could also see Climate 200-backed candidates wield considerable influence if the major parties fall short of the required 76 seats to form government.
“Taxpayers would also have to fund the costs of massive socio-economic disruption, unemployment, workforce re-training, and bankroll brand new bureaucracies needed to administer green subsidies and climate change action planning,” he said.
