Buying access and lobbying ensure fossil fuels
are central in Australia’s climate politics
| Key points |
|---|
|
Donations, disclosure thresholds and the power of “unknown sources”
Electoral disclosures show Australia’s major parties continue to receive large sums from sources that are partly undisclosed due to high thresholds and delayed reporting. [1]
For 2023–24, the Australian Electoral Commission reported tens of millions in receipts for Labor and the Coalition, with substantial amounts categorised as from “unknown sources.” [1]
Analyses in February 2025 estimated about $67.2 million in “dark money” flowing to parties in 2023–24, facilitated by disclosure rules that exempt donations under the threshold. [2]
The disclosure threshold was $16,300 in 2023–24 and indexed to $16,900 in 2024–25, allowing multiple sub-threshold gifts to evade timely public scrutiny. [9]
The government has proposed reforms to lower the threshold, introduce real-time disclosures and cap donations, but Parliament has yet to settle the final package. [2]
Policy settings that entrench gas during the transition
Canberra’s Future Gas Strategy states that gas will support decarbonisation, energy security and Australia’s role as a reliable trading partner through the transition to net zero by 2050. [3]
The ministerial release accompanying the strategy reaffirmed the intention to secure affordable domestic gas supply while maintaining investor confidence in export markets. [4]
These settings shape subsequent decisions on infrastructure, exploration and approvals, and they reflect sustained industry advocacy for a continuing role for gas even as renewable generation expands. [7]
At the same time, the reformed Safeguard Mechanism commenced on 1 July 2023 to drive emissions cuts at large industrial facilities, with decade-long caps and trajectories overseen by the Clean Energy Regulator. [10][11]
The co-existence of industry-friendly gas policy and emissions obligations underlines the contested nature of Australia’s pathway, which is heavily negotiated between government, industry and civil society. [3]
Subsidies and tax concessions keep fossil energy competitive
Independent research estimates that federal and state assistance to fossil fuel producers and major users reached about $14.5 billion in 2023–24. [5]
Updated figures indicate support of roughly $14.9 billion in 2024–25, with forward estimates increasing to a record $67 billion. [6]
A major component is the Fuel Tax Credits scheme, which the Australia Institute notes costs nearly $10 billion per year and disproportionately benefits heavy mining and resources users. [12]
ATO guidance shows rates are regularly adjusted and interact with the road user charge, underscoring the complexity and durability of the concession architecture. [13]
The scale and persistence of these subsidies create powerful budgetary and regional development incentives to maintain fossil fuel operations despite economy-wide decarbonisation goals. [5]
Lobbying muscle: peak bodies, submissions and the revolving door
The peak oil and gas lobby rebranded from APPEA to Australian Energy Producers, but its core mission remains to influence policy via submissions, research and high-intensity advocacy. [14][7]
Its policy portal shows an active program of submissions across taxation, approvals, infrastructure and market design, shaping ministerial advice and regulatory drafts. [7]
The federal Register of Lobbyists provides formal transparency, but civil society groups argue Australia still lacks strong real-time disclosure, cooling-off rules and caps comparable to best practice. [8]
Transparency advocates have jointly pressed for federal political finance reforms to curb hidden influence and align disclosures with democratic expectations. [15]
In practice, this ecosystem translates into privileged access to ministers and departments at crucial moments in the policy cycle. [7]
Where big projects meet politics: the Middle Arm test case
The proposed Middle Arm industrial precinct near Darwin has become a flashpoint for debates about gas expansion, public health and public funding. [16]
The Commonwealth had flagged a $1.5 billion equity investment, but Infrastructure Australia rejected the Northern Territory’s business case in February 2024, and deadlines for environmental documentation were pushed back. [17][18]
In April 2025, federal MP Marion Scrymgour said governments were “not anywhere near” agreeing on a funding model, reflecting lingering feasibility and accountability concerns. [19]
This contest illustrates how public money, lobbying and emissions policy collide in decisions that will lock in infrastructure for decades. [16]
It also shows how federal-territory dynamics and investor signals can slow or redirect large fossil-linked precincts under greater public scrutiny. [17]
Environmental law reform and industry pressure
The Albanese Government’s “Nature Positive” agenda to overhaul the EPBC Act has repeatedly stalled, with ministers seeking consensus amid competing demands. [20]
Briefings in mid-2025 signalled a renewed push to legislate within 18 months, while environmental groups warned against watering down standards and called for a climate trigger. [21]
Earlier updates in 2024 carved out elements such as new federal environmental agencies, but the core standards and assessment reforms remain politically contested. [22]
The legislative stop-start pattern highlights how resource-sector interests, state development priorities and national climate commitments are continuously traded off. [20]
Until durable reforms pass, discretionary decisions on fossil projects will continue to be shaped by the prevailing balance of influence. [21]
What would rebalance influence?
Lowering disclosure thresholds to $1,000, enforcing real-time reporting and capping donations would reduce avenues for hidden influence and level access. [2]
Strengthening lobbying rules with meaningful cooling-off periods and detailed meeting diaries would normalise transparency across the policy pipeline. [8]
Phasing down fossil fuel subsidies while targeting transition support at workers and regions could reset incentives without compromising fairness. [6]
Embedding a climate trigger in federal environment law would ensure new coal and gas projects face robust, science-based scrutiny of their emissions impacts. [21]
Ultimately, Australia’s climate decisions will reflect how effectively democratic institutions and public finance are insulated from concentrated industry pressure. [1]
References
- ABC News — AEC reveals donors to political parties, 2023–24 disclosures.
- The Guardian — ‘Dark money’ totals in 2023–24 and proposed reforms.
- Department of Industry — Australia’s Future Gas Strategy.
- Minister for Resources — Media release on Future Gas Strategy.
- The Australia Institute — Fossil fuel subsidies in Australia 2024.
- The Australia Institute — Fossil fuel subsidies in Australia 2025 (media & report).
- Australian Energy Producers — Policy submissions and reports.
- Attorney-General’s Department — Australian Government Register of Lobbyists.
- AEC — Disclosure threshold amounts (indexed): $16,900 in 2024–25; $17,300 in 2025–26.
- DCCEEW — Safeguard Mechanism reforms factsheet (commenced 1 July 2023).
- Clean Energy Regulator — 2023–24 Safeguard data insights.
- The Australia Institute — Fuel Tax Credits scheme overview and cost.
- ATO — Fuel Tax Credits rates 2024–25 and road user charge notes.
- Australian Energy Producers — APPEA rebrand announcement.
- Transparency International & Centre for Public Integrity — Joint statement on finance reforms.
- SBS News — Middle Arm industrial hub explained.
- PS News — Infrastructure Australia rejects Middle Arm business case (FOI).
- NT Independent — FOI shows business case rejection and EIS delays.
- ABC News — Federal MP casts doubt on Middle Arm funding model (Apr 14, 2025).
- ABC News — Nature Positive law reforms delayed (Aug 21, 2024).
- The Guardian — Renewed push for EPBC overhaul amid concerns (Jun 14, 2025).
- Allens — Second stage of EPBC Act reforms announced (Apr 2024).
No comments :
Post a Comment