Greens leader Adam Bandt claims the federal election offers “an opportunity for real change”, saying his party would use the balance of power in the next parliament to help deliver serious policy reforms.
In a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, Bandt outlined the party’s election priorities and said the poll represents:
A once-in-a-generation chance to create a country where everyone has a right to the basics – food, health, and a home. A safe climate and a healthy environment. An economy which puts people before the profits of the obscenely wealthy and the excessively profitable.
The Greens broke new ground at the last federal election, snatching three new lower house seats and winning the balance of power in the Senate. The gains suggested the Greens were moving beyond their roots as a party of protest, and becoming a true policy force.
But the Greens broadly failed to make the most of its greater political presence this term. In the next parliament, it should focus on building political capital and picking its battles more wisely.
Meagre parliamentary success this term
As a traditional party of protest, the Greens have historically tended to stick firmly to the party’s policy agenda rather than make major concessions to the government of the day.
However, as the new Labor government focused on delivering its mostly modest reform agenda this term, the Greens party was forced to negotiate on its demands, much as the Teals have done.
The Greens helped Labor pass its signature climate change policy, the safeguard mechanism, which seeks to limit emissions from Australia’s most polluting companies. In return, Labor agreed to the Greens’ call for a hard cap on emissions under the scheme. But it refused to bow to Greens demands for a ban on new gas and coal projects, and limiting the use of carbon credits.
The Greens were then tested by Labor’s housing agenda – specifically, two schemes to make buying or renting a home more affordable.
The Greens initially teamed up with the Coalition to block the laws, arguing they would drive up housing prices and give tax breaks to property developers. The party’s opposition was at odds with public opinion, including most Greens voters.
The party eventually waved the housing bills through in November last year without winning any concessions from Labor, and after burning much political capital.
The chastened Greens helped pass a flurry of other legislation late in 2024, including Reserve Bank governance reforms and a supermarket code of conduct. In return, Labor offered Greens fairly piecemeal concessions, including more money for social housing electrification and a ban on fossil fuel subsidies under the Future Made in Australia scheme.
The Greens also offered to help salvage Labor’s troubled proposal to reform Australia’s environmental protection laws. It shelved its calls for a “climate trigger” – which would force regulators to consider the potential climate damage of a proposal before it was approved. Instead, the Greens insisted only on stronger protections for native forests.
All this suggests the Greens party is yet to strike the right balance between pursuing its own policy agenda and supporting Labor to the extent that a healthy working relationship is achieved. So far, it has gained only meagre concessions, and its policy grandstanding has not worked.
Flare-ups outside parliament
Scoring political points outside parliament can be easier for the Greens than influencing policy within it.
The Gaza conflict triggered significant ruptures between the Greens and the pro-Israel movement. There were also reports that a new Muslim political movement may siphon votes from the Greens and hurt them electorally.
There is no ready formula, then, for the Greens to shore up – let alone expand – its vote outside parliament.
What’s next for the Greens?
The Guardian’s polls tracker suggests the Greens’ primary vote has increased since the 2022 election, from 12.3% to 14%.
However, the party faces several tough political contests to retain or extend the gains it won in 2022. And its disappointing results at recent elections in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory suggest the party has its work cut out.
As ABC election analyst Antony Green has noted, Labor holds three seats with margins below 5% where the Greens have a chance. However, the Greens also hold seats on slim margins that Labor or another candidate could win.
The Greens’ lower-house gains at the last election came in the inner-Brisbane seats of Ryan, Brisbane and Griffith. The Greens will have to fight hard to retain all three next month.
The most recent polls suggest Labor will be returned by a narrow margin at the May 3 election – probably helped along by the return of United States’ President Donald Trump.
On Wednesday Bandt said the Greens “are within reach of winning seats right across the country and, in the minority government, we can make things happen”.
However, seven new Independents won lower house seats at the last election. Should that trend continue, and if Labor does need to form a minority government, the Greens may find themselves fighting for the balance of power on a crowded crossbench.
Picking fights or delivering policy?
If the Greens party wants to be seen as a serious political force, it must decide if its traditional political approach – hard-nosed policy opposition and picking political fights – is still the best strategy.
Bandt’s mentor, former Greens leader Christine Milne, got results from minority pacts with both sides of politics. She believed the Greens’ role was to build political capital and then, when an opportunity such as minority government arose, to spend that capital on achieving significant policy outcomes.
On Wednesday, Bandt indicated a willingness to work towards meaningful policy outcomes in the next parliament. He claimed the Greens were willing to compromise in the event of minority government, saying:
we understand the need to cooperate and to come up with an arrangement that forms stable, effective and progressive government […] We will go into any discussions with goodwill and with [an] open mind.
Kate Crowley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The price of energy is a focus of the election campaign. We’ve asked the experts what they think are some of the solutions to help households with their bills now.
About 90% of the nuclear generation capacity the Coalition proposes to build would not have access to enough water to run safely, according to a report commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear.
The report authored by Prof Andrew Campbell, a visiting fellow at the Australian National University, assessed nuclear energy’s water needs and the available supply across the seven sites where the Coalition has proposed new reactors.
A coral 'rope' nursery in the MaldivesLuca Saponari/University of Milan, CC BY-ND
Coral reefs are much more than just a pretty place to visit. They are among the world’s richest ecosystems, hosting about a third of all marine species.
These reefs also directly benefit more than a billion people, providing livelihoods and food security, as well as protection from storms and coastal erosion.
Without coral reefs, the world would be a much poorer place. So when corals die or become damaged, many people try to restore them. But the enormity of the task is growing as the climate keeps warming.
In our new research, we examined the full extent of existing coral restoration projects worldwide. We looked at what drives their success or failure, and how much it would actually cost to restore what’s already been lost. Restoring the reefs we’ve already lost around the world could cost up to A$26 trillion.
Bleached Acropora corals in the Maldives.Davide Seveso/University of Milan
When sea temperatures climb above the seasonal average for sustained periods, corals can become bleached. They lose colour as they expel their symbiotic algae when stressed, revealing the white skeleton underneath. Severe bleaching can kill coral.
Over the past 40 years, the extent of coral reefs has halved. As climate change continues, bleaching events and coral deaths will become more common. More than 90% of coral reefs are at risk of long-term degradation by the end of the century.
Dead corals in the Maldives following a bleaching event.Simone Montano/University of Milan
But by far the most common type of restoration is “coral gardening”, where coral fragments grown in nurseries are transplanted back to the reef.
The problem is scale. Coral restoration can only be done successfully at a small scale. Most projects only operate over several hundred or a few thousand square metres. Compare that with nearly 12,000 square km of loss and degradation between 2009 and 2018. Restoration projects come nowhere near the scale needed to offset losses from climate change and other threats.
Conservationists work to garden coral and help preserve these unique life forms.
Sky-high costs
Coral restoration is expensive, ranging from around $10,000 to $226 million per hectare. The wide range reflects the variable costs of different techniques used, ease of access, and cost of labour. For example, coral gardening (coral fragments grown in nurseries transplanted back to the reef) is relatively cheap (median cost $558,000 per hectare) compared with seeding coral larvae (median $830,000 per hectare). Building artificial reefs can cost up to $226 million per hectare.
We estimated it would cost more than $1.6 billion to restore just 10% of degraded coral areas globally. This is using the lowest cost per hectare and assuming all restoration projects are successful.
Even our conservative estimate is four times more than the total investment in coral restoration over the past decade ($410 million).
But it’s reasonable to use the highest cost per hectare, given high failure rates, the need to use several techniques at the same site, and the great expense of working on remote reefs. Restoring 10% of degraded coral areas globally, at $226 million a hectare, would cost more than $26 trillion – almost ten times Australia’s annual GDP.
It is therefore financially impossible to tackle the ongoing loss of coral reefs with restoration, even if local projects can still provide some benefits.
Rope nurseries nurture coral fragments until they’re ready to be planted out.Luca Saponari/University of Milan
Location, location, location
Our research also looked at what drives the choice of restoration sites. We found it depends mostly on how close a reef is to human settlements.
By itself, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But we also found restoration actions were more likely to occur in reefs already degraded by human activity and with fewer coral species.
This means we’re not necessarily targeting sites where restoration is most likely to succeed, or of greatest ecological importance.
Another limitation is coral gardening normally involves only a few coral species – the easiest to rear and transplant. While this can still increase coral cover, it does not restore coral diversity to the extent necessary for healthy, resilient ecosystems.
Measuring ‘success’
Another sad reality is that more than a third of all coral restoration efforts fail. The reasons why can include poor planning, unproven technologies, insufficient monitoring, and subsequent heatwaves.
Unfortunately, there’s no standard way to collect data or report on restoration projects. This makes it difficult – or impossible – to identify conditions leading to success, and reduces the pace of improvement.
Succeed now, fail later
Most coral transplants are monitored for less than 18 months. Even if they survive that period, there’s no guarantee they will last longer. The long-term success rate is unknown.
When we examined the likelihood of extreme heat events immediately following restoration and in coming decades, we found most restored sites had already experienced severe bleaching shortly after restoration. It will be difficult to find locations that will be spared from future global warming.
Sometimes the young coral is bleached before the restoration project is complete.Davide Seveso/University of Milan
No substitute for climate action
Coral restoration has the potential to be a valuable tool in certain circumstances: when it promotes community engagement and addresses local needs. But it is not yet – and might never be – feasible to scale up sufficiently to have meaningful long-term positive effects on coral reef ecosystems.
Other conservation approaches such as establishing, maintaining and enforcing marine protected areas, and improving water quality, could improve the chance a coral restoration project will work. These efforts could also support local human communities with incentives for conservation.
Reinforcing complementary strategies could therefore bolster ecosystem resilience, extending the reach and success of coral restoration projects.
Corey J. A. Bradshaw receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Clelia Mulà receives funding from the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Giovanni Strona does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Australia has huge reserves of coal and gas – but very little oil. Before the 20th century, this didn’t matter – trains ran on local coal. But as cars and trucks have come to dominate, Australia has become more and more reliant on imported oil.
Imports now account for around 80% of total refined fuel consumption, the highest level on record.
If the flow of oil stopped due to war or economic instability, Australia would have about 54 days worth in storage before we ran out. That would be a huge problem.
But as more drivers switch from petrol and diesel to electric cars, this equation will change. We can already see this in China, where a rapid uptake of electric vehicles has seen oil demand begin to fall.
On one level, ending Australia’s dependence on foreign oil makes sense at a time of great geopolitical uncertainty. But on the other, going electric would lead to more reliance on China, now the world’s largest manufacturer of EVs.
Reducing reliance on oil makes clear sense for climate and national security reasons. But going electric has to be done carefully, to ensure Australia isn’t reliant on just one country.
The last two refineries rely on imported crude oil, as Australian oil from the North-West Shelf largely isn’t suitable for local refining.
As a result, Australia is more reliant than ever on importing fuels from large refineries in Asia such as South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. In 2023, around 45,000 megalitres of fuel were imported from these nations.
Almost three-quarters (74%) of these liquid fuels are used in transport, across road, rail, shipping and air transport. But road transport is the big one – our cars, trucks and other road vehicles use more than half (54%) of all liquid fuels.
In January, Australia had 30 days worth of petrol. Our stores of all types of oil are a bit higher, at 54 days worth. But that’s still well short of the 90 days the International Energy Agency (IEA) requires of member nations.
Electricity made locally
Shifting to electric vehicles promises cleaner air and far lower ongoing costs for drivers, as electricity is much cheaper than petrol or diesel and maintenance is far less.
But there’s another factor – the energy source. Australia’s electricity is all produced and consumed inside its borders, using local resources (sun, wind, water, coal and gas).
In this respect, electric vehicles offer much greater energy security. A war in the Middle East or a trade war over tariffs would not bring Australia to a halt. This is one reason why China has so aggressively gone electric – to end its soaring dependence on foreign oil.
Mainstreaming EVs in Australia will mean accelerating production of renewable electricity further so we can power not just homes and industry but charge cars, trucks and buses, too.
Doing this would boost our energy security, break our dependency on imported oil and drive down emissions.
Ending our dependence on oil will be slow. Australia Institute research estimates 8% of imported fuels could be replaced by local electricity once EVs make up 25% of the passenger car fleet. At 100% EVs, we would reduce oil demand by 33%.
The other two-thirds of demand is largely from trucks, planes and ships. Electric trucks are coming, but the sector isn’t as mature as electric cars. It’s a similar story for planes and cargo ships.
All electricity in Australia is produced locally. For transport, that’s a boon to energy security.Marian Weyo
Energy security and EVs
Australia doesn’t manufacture EVs at scale. As a result, we import EVs from the top manufacturing nations. China is far and away the leader, building 80% of Australia’s new EVs.
Australia is a major producer of critical minerals essential to the manufacture of EVs, as well as other green technologies such as lithium, cobalt and nickel. But China dominates much of the global supply chain for refining these minerals and manufacturing batteries.
There’s a risk in relying largely on one country for EVs, especially given the present geopolitical instability.
EVs unquestionably offer large benefits for Australia’s energy security by steadily reducing our reliance on imports from volatile global oil markets.
But this has to be balanced with other security concerns, such as a heightened reliance on China, as well as the privacy and security risks linked to data collection from digitally connected EVs.
A balanced approach would see authorities emphasise energy independence through renewables and strong support for vehicle electrification through legislative and regulatory frameworks.
This approach would reduce new security risks while unlocking the environmental and economic benefits of widespread EV adoption.
Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.
