One major consequence of the disarray within the opposition is that it grants the government significant freedom to act without much pushback. Combined with a commanding electoral majority, this freedom can easily cross from confidence into complacency.
Labor is effectively navigating politically sensitive issues while the Coalition’s internal dysfunction continues to dominate headlines.
To be fair, the Coalition’s ongoing fragmentation is newsworthy. Australians voted for a House of Representatives that is overwhelmingly progressive — with up to 110 of 150 seats falling into that category — leaving conservatives in the minority.
Yet Coalition leaders Sussan Ley and David Littleproud have chosen to revisit and potentially scrap their net zero emissions commitment, a move at odds with public sentiment.
Political consultant and former Liberal candidate David Gazzard summed up the misreading of the electorate: “Do we really think voters were crying out for a right-wing culture war?”
While the Coalition re-evaluates its climate and energy platform over the next several years, the real political focus lies with Labor — particularly in decisions like the recent approval of Woodside’s North West Shelf gas project extension.
The Woodside Gas Project and Political Timing
Labor smartly delayed the controversial decision on Woodside’s project until after the election, avoiding backlash in electorates vulnerable to climate-focused independents and the Greens.
The project’s approval wasn’t unexpected. Woodside had been working through environmental and regulatory approvals for years. Supporters, including WA’s mining sector and manufacturing unions, welcomed the move. The Minerals Council of Australia argued that competitively priced gas is essential to develop rare earth and critical minerals needed for clean energy technologies.
Environment Minister Murray Watt, who succeeded Tanya Plibersek after the May 3 election, is set to finalise conditions for the project. While concerns exist about local impacts—particularly on Indigenous rock art—most of the emissions concern stems from the energy-intensive process of liquefying gas for export and from fugitive emissions like leaks and flaring.
These emissions could contribute up to 10% of Australia’s annual greenhouse gases, according to the Climate Change Authority.
Labor’s Climate Contradictions
This should be politically awkward terrain for Labor. With Australia bidding to host the next UN climate summit and young voters increasingly anxious about climate inaction, the optics of greenlighting a massive fossil fuel extension are problematic.
The Coalition, however, is too distracted debating whether net zero should remain in its platform to exploit this weakness. If it were more focused, it could press Labor hard on its climate credibility and emissions performance.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen is awaiting new recommendations from the Climate Change Authority on a 2035 emissions reduction target. Chair Matt Kean, a former NSW Liberal energy minister appointed by Labor, is working on modelling that aligns with the Paris Agreement’s targets — which could mean cuts of 65–75% below 2005 levels by 2035.
Notably, current modelling does not yet factor in emissions from Woodside’s extension or potential future development of the Browse Basin — dubbed a “carbon bomb” by environmentalists.
Can the Safeguard Mechanism Handle It?
A key question is whether Labor’s Safeguard Mechanism can meaningfully address emissions from projects like this. The policy penalizes large emitters unless they adopt low-carbon alternatives or buy carbon offsets.
Kean may recommend that Woodside be required to power its operations with renewables rather than fossil fuels — a costly but necessary step if net zero is to remain a serious goal.
Watt hasn’t included such a requirement in the project conditions so far. But the issue won’t fade. Labor is also pushing to pass new environmental protection legislation next month, which the Greens are likely to challenge unless emissions from big new projects are more tightly regulated.
Labor insists the Safeguard Mechanism is the appropriate tool, but voters have yet to see it deliver measurable results.
The Numbers Tell the Story
Newly released figures show Australia’s emissions barely budged in 2024, falling just 0.05% to 446.4 million tonnes — the fourth consecutive year of stalled progress.
To meet the 2030 target of 350 million tonnes, emissions would now need to drop 3.6% annually for the next six years — a steep climb.
What little reduction occurred was due to declining agricultural output. Meanwhile, energy emissions rose due to increased coal use, and transport emissions spiked as air travel hit record levels. Only the industrial sector posted a notable drop, thanks to process changes in chemical and metal manufacturing.
Critics Say the Government Is Falling Short
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, says Labor’s Safeguard Mechanism isn’t strong enough — especially with fossil fuel expansion like Woodside’s.
“You can’t offset all these emissions,” she said. “If you don’t put strict targets on fossil fuel projects, other sectors like transport and agriculture will have to make up the difference.”
She rejects the idea that emissions from gas exports are an “offshore” issue. “Fossil fuel extraction here is an Australian responsibility,” she said.
It’s a point the opposition could be hammering. But instead, it remains caught in an internal ideological debate, offering little more than inertia while the government presses ahead.
