It’s a hard job being environment minister. Here’s an insider’s view of the key challenges facing Murray Watt

by bpckle | May 13, 2025 | Media

Australia’s new environment minister, Murray Watt, is reported to be a fixer. That’s good, because there’s a lot to fix.

Being environment minister is a hard gig. It often requires difficult choices between environmental and economic priorities. In cabinet, the minister is often up against a phalanx of ministers with economic portfolios and overriding political imperatives such as jobs and growth. I saw this repeatedly over the 16 years when I held senior leadership roles in environment departments at territory and federal levels.

In Labor’s first term, this tension played out again. Former environment minister Tanya Plibersek came to the role with big ideas. To that end, she tried to make Australia’s national environment laws fit for purpose and introduce a federal environmental protection agency (EPA).

A cumbersome approach to consultation didn’t help, but ultimately it was development concerns led by big mining companies and West Australian Premier Roger Cook that saw the reform can kicked down the road. Perversely, the only legal reform we saw was an amendment to protect not a threatened species, but the salmon farms threatening it.

Now it’s Watt’s turn. He has a reputation for getting things done and may drive a bargain to get some version of the EPA through. But that’s only one piece of the reform jigsaw and he’ll have to return to the mammoth task of reforming Australia’s national environment laws. He will have to push back against efforts by the Greens in the Senate to broaden the agenda to include climate and forests, and weather opposing pressures from industry and environment groups.

Stalled reforms

Watt’s largest challenge will be to revive the stalled Nature Positive Plan. This was the government’s response to the 2020 Samuel Review, which found Australia’s natural environment and iconic places were declining and under increasing threat, while national environmental laws were no longer fit for purpose.

Samuel’s solution was groundbreaking: create new, legally enforceable national environmental standards to deliver better environmental protection. Last term, Labor committed to introducing the standards, reforming laws and introducing an EPA. Unfortunately, Plibersek ran out of time and most of the reforms were put on the backburner.

Plibersek pitched an independent EPA as a tough cop on the beat, but it wasn’t independent enough for many environmentalists.

Industry didn’t like it either. WA miners used their influence to attack the EPA for being unaccountable. Their lobbying worked and the EPA was pushed back. As one mining figure told the Australian Financial Review: “The heat [industry pressure] was no one’s first preference; it was just required because there was no other way to influence the actual policymaking.”

Miners and other big businesses are likely worried the proposed independent EPA would reduce their influence. At present, the environment minister has near-complete discretion over approvals. Much of this discretion — and the political influence associated with it — would disappear with an independent EPA making decisions based on national environmental standards.

More challenges are looming. Here are two:

Gas extraction on the North West Shelf

Watt will soon have to decide on Woodside’s application to expand gas extraction off Australia’s northwest coast. If approved, the North West Shelf Extension Project would be Australia’s largest resource project. Environmentalists hate it, describing it as a climate bomb. The WA government approved it last year.

If Watt follows the pattern of his predecessors, we can expect to see the development approved subject to numerous conditions, pitched as strict environmental safeguards. Despite such safeguards applying to operations in Australia, the real damage done by the project will be global, not local, as the gas will be burned overseas.

Murray-Darling Basin Plan

The delayed ten-year review of the Murray-Darling basin plan is due in 2026. It will reopen old wounds. The basic problem is there’s not enough water for both the environment and irrigators.

When the draft plan was first released in 2010, angry irrigators burned a copy of it. The government backpedalled furiously, eventually approving a plan with a lot less water returned to the environment. Experts say the plan hasn’t actually helped the environment.

Watt is a former agriculture minister and will have insight into both sides. But he’ll need the wisdom of Solomon to come up with a successful approach.

It’s hard to fix systems

Making environmental headway is downright hard. The underlying problem is that politics is about trade-offs, but nature doesn’t negotiate. Nature is a system of systems, and if we take too much from it those systems begin to break down – usually irreversibly.

In previous decades, governments often dealt with environmental problems by creating national parks and World Heritage areas. If only things were still that simple.

Peter Burnett is affiliated with the Biodiversity Council, an independent expert group founded to provide evidence-based solutions to Australia's biodiversity crisis.

From nuclear to nature laws, here’s where new Liberal leader Sussan Ley stands on 4 energy and environment flashpoints

by bpckle | May 13, 2025 | Media

Sussan Ley has been elected Liberal leader after defeating rival Angus Taylor in a party room vote on Tuesday. Now the leadership question is settled, the hard work of rebuilding the party can begin.

In the wake of its election loss, the Coalition has foreshadowed a sweeping policy review. Where the Coalition lands on the contentious nuclear energy policy will be keenly watched.

The majority Labor government is likely to easily push legislation through the lower house. However, the Senate numbers mean Labor needs backing from either the Greens or the Coalition to pass bills into law.

So where does Ley stand on nuclear energy and other pressure points across the environment and energy portfolios? Ley’s stance on four key issues, including during her time as environment minister in the Morrison government, provides important insights.

1. Nuclear power and gas

The resounding Coalition election defeat suggest the prospects for nuclear power in Australia are now poor. But the Coalition’s nuclear policy may yet resurface, given the Nationals still support it.

During the election campaign, Ley backed the Liberals’ call for nuclear power in Australia, arguing nuclear can provide a zero-emissions option that’s needed in the shift to renewables.

In a 2023 speech, Ley suggested nuclear power had a big future in Australia, saying:

The fact is the latest technology reactors in nuclear-powered submarines in operation today don’t need to be refuelled for 30 years. And the money being invested into research and development is only going to make these new nuclear technologies even better.

Ley has also argued Australia needs to keep gas in the system for longer, rather than “trying to do everything with renewables”.

2. The energy transition

A second-term Labor government will further progress its existing energy policies, including measures to reach its target of 82% renewable energy in the the National Electricity Market by 2030.

Ley has accepted the need for a renewable energy transition, but says it should be led by nuclear power and gas.

She has suggested enormous wind turbines and large-scale solar farms are dominating the landscape in rural areas. She also claims renewable energy projects generate insurance risks because battery storage increases fire risks.

Ley has consistently voted against increasing investment in renewable energy, and is likely to seek to ensure policy addresses rising energy prices and reliability.

3. Nature law reform

The Albanese government intends to complete reform of Australia’s federal environment laws, known collectively as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (or EPBC Act). Labor’s proposed reforms stalled in the Senate last term.

The independent review that preceded the reform, led by Graeme Samuel, was initiated by the Morrison government under Ley, who served as environment minister from 2019 to 2022.

An interim report from the Samuel review was released in July 2020. Ley seized on recommendations that suited her government’s agenda – notably, streamlining the environmental approvals process to speed up decisions on proposed developments. She vowed to start working on them even before the review was finalised, and before public comment on the draft was received.

Ley put bills to parliament in August 2020 and February 2021 seeking to amend the laws. The first sought to hand powers for environmental approvals to the states. The proposal was criticised for lacking environmental safeguards.

This prompted Ley to introduce a second bill which sought to ensure state agreements were monitored and audited. It also provided for new “national environmental standards” to guide approval decisions.

But both bills lapsed before the 2022 election after failing to secure Senate support.

National environmental standards were a key recommendation from the Samuel review, and also a centrepiece of Labor’s proposed reforms. However, Labor’s proposed standards were more robust and focused on outcomes.

The bills Labor introduced to parliament in 2024 also sought establish Australia’s first national environment protection agency to carry out compliance and enforcement. This body would have had more power than Ley’s proposed commissioner.

So while Labor’s proposed reform package was bolder, both Ley and her then Labor counterpart Tanya Plibersek’s proposals were comprised of similar ingredients. Given Ley has shown support for some elements of Labor’s reform package before, namely devolving powers to states and implementing standards, there may be some grounds for negotiation.

4. Coal and climate change

As environment minister, Ley welcomed the Coalition’s approval of the huge Adani coalmine in central Queensland. She also gave the green light to other coal projects. Plibersek took a similar approach to coal projects in her time as minister.

In 2021, the Federal Court found Ley, as environment minister, owed a duty of care to future generations to avoid causing climate harm through her decisions. Ley successfully appealed the ruling.

Separately, Ley has also claimed climate change is not part of the environment portfolio.

When the Coalition reflects on the resounding defeat at the election, Ley’s hard stance on climate may soften.

Finding common ground

Ley brings a deeper understanding of nature law reform to the position of Liberal leader than her predecessor Peter Dutton. This raises the prospects for overhauling the EPBC Act this term.

However, Ley’s priority is likely to be streamlining the environmental approval process rather than increasing protections afforded to threatened species and ecosystems.

On the topic of gas playing a significant ongoing role in Australia’s energy mix, Ley will find many like minds in the Labor government.

When it comes to the energy transition, much rests on the party room decision on whether to persist with a nuclear power policy. Nevertheless, with or without nuclear, Ley’s previous statements suggest she will continue to argue against wind and solar generation energy on cost and reliability grounds.

Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

Samantha Hepburn 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.

Range anxiety – or charger drama? Australians are buying hybrid cars because they don’t trust public chargers

by bpckle | May 13, 2025 | Media

Range anxiety has long been seen as the main obstacle stopping drivers from going electric.

But range isn’t the real issue. The average range of a new electric vehicle (EV) is more than 450 kilometres, and top models offer more than 700km per charge. By contrast, the average car is driven about 33km per day in Australia as of 2020.

What’s really going on is charger anxiety – the question of whether you can find somewhere reliable to recharge when you’re away from home. Australia’s public chargers are not common enough or reliable enough to give motorists certainty they can find a place to recharge.

This is why many drivers are hedging their bets. Rather than embracing battery-electric vehicles, many Australian drivers are opting for hybrids as well as plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), which couple a smaller battery with an internal combustion engine. Hybrids and PHEVs accounted for almost 20% of new car sales from July–September last year, compared to 6.5% for fully electric vehicles.

Labor’s reelection could lead to better charging infrastructure. Last term, the federal government set a goal of a fast charging station every 150km along major highways, while state governments are also building more. But so far, these efforts aren’t enough to ensure Australia has reliable chargers in the right locations. Until then, cautious drivers will buy hybrids.

Public chargers matter

EV owners charge their cars at home an estimated 70–85% of the time. They use public chargers just 10–20% of the time and workplace charging 6–10% of the time.

This makes sense – home charging is reliable and cheap. But these figures also point to a problem: EV drivers don’t trust public chargers.

At present, Australia has about 3,700 public chargers nationwide. Each charging station typically supports one or two EVs, often offering different charging speeds. By contrast, there are around 6,600 service stations, with the ability to fuel multiple vehicles at once.

Other countries have much larger charger networks. The United Kingdom has more than 40,000 and Canada 16,000. China, the world leader, has almost 10 million.

Outside major Australian cities, chargers are harder to find and are often broken or in use. Chargers are usually not staffed, meaning there’s no one watching to prevent vandalism or organise maintenance.

EV plugs are not yet standardised. Some plugs may not be available, and using chargers isn’t always easy. By contrast, petrol cars use standard nozzles, payment is simpler and staff and CCTV presence discourages vandalism and ensures the pumps work.

If a petrol car runs out of fuel, the problem can be solved with a lift and a jerry can. But if your EV runs flat in a rural area because you can’t find a charger, you may have to get it towed.

This lack of reliability is more than just a logistical hurdle — it’s a psychological barrier.

Psychological roadblocks

A recent study found the fear of running out of charge was a major psychological barrier to buying an EV – particularly for rural and regional Australians, who drive longer distances. As long as chargers remain unreliable or located too far apart, this anxiety will persist.

In Australia, it’s easy to find reports of broken chargers, long queues at charging stations, gaps in the rural network and personal anecdotes of EV owners struggling to find a way to charge.

A 2023 survey found almost 70% of EV owners had come across an inoperable charger at least once over the previous six months.

What can Australia take from overseas experience?

Australia’s government wants to increase EV uptake. While EVs are getting cheaper, the supporting infrastructure isn’t good enough yet to make them the norm.

Across the European Union, chargers are being installed every 60km along major highways and efforts are being made to tackle psychological barriers to uptake.

Federal and state governments in the United States have invested heavily in filling gaps in the charger network and working with consumers to encourage more sustainable commuting.

Choosing a hybrid is rational but not ideal

It should be no surprise more Australians are buying hybrids as a safety net, given there are plenty of service stations and not as many EV chargers. City driving can allow near-total use of the electric motor, while longer trips still require petrol.

The choice is rational. But it’s not ideal from an environmental point of view. Traditional hybrids are still largely powered by an internal combustion engine, while PHEVs can run as electric for longer but still use their combustion engines.

While plug-ins have lower emissions than traditional vehicles, they often fail to deliver the full emissions savings drivers and regulators might hope for. Many drivers don’t charge regularly and rely instead on petrol.

Chargers aren’t the only factor, of course. A tax break for PHEVs boosted their popularity for several years before ending in April, while sales of Tesla EVs have fallen off a cliff due to the unpopularity of owner Elon Musk.

What needs to change?

The solutions are straightforward: expand the charger network, especially in regional and rural areas. Improve maintenance schedules and ensure existing chargers are reliable. Make sure data on their availability is accessible in real time so drivers can avoid anxiety and frustration. Counter EV misinformation and anecdotal biases with information campaigns.

When EV ownership and charging in Australia is practical and low risk, the sluggish EV transition will accelerate. But until then, many drivers will keep buying hybrids as a compromise.

Ganna Pogrebna 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.

As Donald Trump cuts funding to Antarctica, will the US be forced off the icy continent?

by bpckle | May 12, 2025 | Media

President Donald Trump has begun eroding the United States presence in Antarctica by announcing deep funding cuts to his nation’s science and logistics on the icy continent.

The Trump administration has significantly reduced funding for both Antarctica’s largest research and logistics station, McMurdo, and the National Science Foundation which funds US research in Antarctica.

More cuts are foreshadowed. If carried through, US science and overall presence in Antarctica will be seriously diminished – at a time when China is significantly expanding its presence there.

Since 1958, the US has been a leader in both Antarctic diplomacy and science. Shrinking its Antarctic presence will diminish US capacity to influence the region’s future.

Why the US matters in Antarctica

The US has historically focused its Antarctic influence in three key areas:

1. Keeping Antarctica free from military conflict

The US has built considerable Antarctic geopolitical influence since the late 1950s. Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, it initiated (and later hosted) negotiations that led to the development of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.

It was also key to establishing the fundamental principles of the treaty, such as using the Antarctic region only for peaceful purposes, and prohibiting military activities and nuclear weapons testing.

2. Governing Antarctica together

The US was influential in developing the international legal system that governs human activities in the Antarctic region.

In the 1970s, expanding unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean led to serious concerns about the effects on krill-eating species – especially the recovery of severely depleted whale populations.

The US joined other Antarctic Treaty nations to champion the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR), signed in 1980. It prioritises conservation of Southern Ocean ecosystems and all species, over maximum fish harvesting.

The US also contributed to the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection. Among other measures it prohibits mining and designates Antarctica as “a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science”.

3. Scientific research and collaboration

The US operates three year?round Antarctic research stations: Palmer, Amundsen-Scott and McMurdo.

McMurdo is Antarctica’s largest research station. Amundsen-Scott is located at the South Pole, the geographic centre of Antarctica, and the point at which all Antarctic territorial claims meet. The South Pole station is thus important symbolically and strategically, as well as for science.

The US has the largest number of Antarctic scientists of any nation in the continent.

US scientific work has been at the forefront of understanding Antarctica’s role in the global climate system, and how climate change will shape the future of the planet. It has also played a major role in Southern Ocean ecosystem and fisheries research.

This research has underpinned important policies. For example, US input into models to predict and manage sustainable krill yields has been pivotal in regulating the krill fishery, and ensuring it doesn’t harm penguin, seal and whale populations.

The US has also been a staunch supporter of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean. The Ross Sea Region Marine Protected Area proposed by the US and New Zealand is the largest in the world.

A broad ripple effect

The US influence in Antarctica extends beyond the list above. For example, the US has a significant Antarctic-based space program. And US citizens make up most Antarctic tourists, and the US plays a significant role in regulating tourism there.

The full extent of the Trump administration’s cuts is still to play out. But clearly, if they proceed as signalled, the cuts will be a major blow not to just US interests in Antarctica, but those of many other countries.

The US has the best-resourced logistics network in Antarctica. Its air transport, shipping and scientific field support has traditionally been shared by other countries. New Zealand, for instance, is closely tied with the US in resupply of food and fuel, and uses US air and sea logistics for many operations to the Ross Sea region.

And joint research programs with the US will be affected by reduced funding in Antarctica directly, and elsewhere.

For example, reported cuts to the climate programs of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may hamper satellite coverage of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean. This would affect Australian scientists collecting data on ocean temperature, sea-ice state and other metrics used in climate research and weather forecasting.

Worrying times ahead

China has signalled its intention to be a key geopolitical player in Antarctica and has greatly expanded its Antarctic presence in recent years.

China has five Antarctic research stations. Its sixth summer station is due for completion in 2027. China also operates two icebreaker ships, helicopters and a fixed-wing aircraft in Antarctica and is building new, large krill trawlers.

Both China and Russia, are increasingly active in their opposition to environmental initiatives such as marine protected areas.

A smaller US presence creates greater opportunities for others to shape Antarctica’s geopolitics. This includes pressure to erode decades-long protection of the Antarctic environment, a push for more intensive fish and krill harvesting, and potentially reopening debate on mining in the region.

Lynda Goldsworthy and Tony Press co-authored the chapter Power at the Bottom of the World in the new book Antarctica and the Earth System.

Lynda Goldsworthy, research associate with IMAS, UTAS, undertakes occasional contract work with the Deep Sea Conservation, is a member of AFMA’s SouthMac advisory group ) and of CSIRO National Benefit Advisory Committee.

Tony Press receives funding from the Australia-Japan Foundation (Department of .Foreign Affairs and Trade)

Farmers fear dingoes are eating their livestock – but predator poo tells an unexpected story

by bpckle | May 12, 2025 | Media

Killing carnivores to protect livestock, wildlife and people is an emotive and controversial issue that can cause community conflict. Difficult decisions about managing predators must be supported by strong scientific evidence.

In Australia, predators such as dingoes and foxes are often shot or poisoned with baits to prevent them from killing sheep and cattle. Feral cats and foxes are also killed to protect native wildlife.

But research elsewhere suggests public perceptions of how predators affect ecosystems and livestock are not always accurate.

Our recent study sought to shed light on these controversies. We examined the scat, or poo, left behind by dingoes, foxes and cats. We focused on the mallee region of Victoria and South Australia where there are calls to resume dingo culling to stop them killing livestock.

A contentious issue

Our study took place in the Big Desert-Wyperfeld-Ngarkat reserve complex in the semi-arid mallee region of Victoria and South Australia. This continuous ecosystem comprises about 10,000 km² of protected native mallee bushland, and is entirely surrounded by crop and livestock farming areas.

Fox-baiting is conducted along the boundaries of Victorian-managed reserve areas. Dingo baiting occurs in the South Australian-managed section of the park.

Since March 2024, the small dingo population has been protected in Victorian-managed areas due to their critically low numbers in the region.

Prior to the change, Victorian farmers and authorised trappers could control dingoes on private land and within public land up to 3km from farms. Farmers say they have lost livestock since dingoes were protected.

What are predators eating in the mallee region?

We collected and analysed 136 dingo, 200 fox and 25 cat scats to determine what each predator in the area was eating and how their diets differed.

Livestock was not a major part of the diet of dingoes, foxes or cats. Some 7% of fox scats contained sheep or cattle remains. This was more than that of dingoes, at 2% of scats. No feral cat scats contained livestock remains.

The dingo diet was dominated by kangaroos, wallabies and emus, which comprised more than 70% of their diet volume.

Cats and foxes consumed more than 15 times the volume of small native mammals compared with dingoes, including threatened species such as fat-tailed dunnarts.

Our data must be interpreted with caution. Scat analysis cannot differentiate between livestock killed by predators and those that are scavenged. It also can’t tell us about animals that a predator killed but did not eat.

In 2022–23, when we collected the scats, rainfall in the area was high and prey was abundant. So, while we found livestock were not likely to be a substantial part of these predators’ diets at the time of our research, this can change depending on environmental conditions.

For example, fire and extended drought may force predators to move further to find food and water. They may move from conservation areas to private land, where they could prey on livestock.

A taste for certain prey

A predator’s poo doesn’t tell the full story of how it affects prey populations.

To understand this further, we used motion-sensing wildlife cameras to assess which prey were available in the ecosystem. We compared it to the frequency they occurred in predator’s diets. This allowed us to determine if dingoes, foxes or cats target specific prey.

We found foxes and cats both consumed small mammals proportionally more than we expected, given the prey’s availability in the study area. Cats consumed birds at a higher rate than expected, and dingoes consumed echidnas more than expected.

Further intensive monitoring work is needed to determine how these dietary preferences affect the populations of prey species.

Embracing the evidence

The findings build on a substantial previous research suggesting foxes and cats pose a significant threat to native mammals, birds, reptiles and other wildlife, including many threatened species. Our results suggest foxes may cause more harm to sheep than dingoes overall – a finding consistent with research elsewhere in Victoria.

Dingoes were the only predator species that regularly preyed on kangaroos and wallabies. These species are abundant in the region. They can also compete with livestock for grazing pastures, consume crops and degrade native vegetation.

Currently, dingoes are killed on, or fenced out of, large parts of Australia due to their perceived threat to livestock.

Lethal control of invasive species remains important to protect native wildlife and agriculture. But such decisions should be based on evidence, to avoid unforeseen and undesirable results.

For example, fox control can lead to increased feral cat numbers and harm to native prey. Fewer dingoes may mean more feral goats and kangaroos.

Non-lethal and effective alternatives exist to indiscriminately killing predators to protect livestock, such as protection dogs and donkeys. These measures are being embraced by farmers and graziers globally, often with high and sustained success.

In Australia, governments should better embrace and support evidence-based and effective approaches that allow farming, native carnivores and other wildlife to coexist.

Rachel Mason conducted this research with grant funding from the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. She is a current member of the Australian Mammal Society, the Australasian Wildlife Management Society, and the Ecological Society of Australia.

Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action. Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society, and President of the Australian Mammal Society.