Captured in plain sight: Fossil fuel influence and the state of Australian politics
Dog on a leash.
Reports that the new Opposition Leader, Angus Taylor, is poised to appoint Sam Riordan, a senior figure from the fossil fuel lobby, Energy Producers Australia, as his chief of staff has prompted predictable outrage in some quarters.
Whether or not the appointment is made is almost besides the point.
The fossil fuel industry’s influence over Australian politics doesn’t hinge on a single staffing decision. It is structural, bipartisan and deeply embedded.
Money speaks louder than words
The fossil fuel industry donated more than $10 million to political parties and campaign groups in the 24/25 financial year, according to the Australian Electoral Commission. The major beneficiaries were the Coalition and the ALP, while everyone who wants and depends on a safe climate, regardless of political persuasion, lost out.
These sums represent sustained financial relationships with both sides of politics.
But the influence doesn’t stop at political donations. A report by The Guardian revealed that Australians for Prosperity, a group that attacked the Greens and teals at the last election, received almost $4 million from lobby group Coal Australia. Coal Australia itself disclosed more than $5.3 million in political donations in 24/25.
This is industrial scale political spending designed to shape policy and electoral outcomes.
Then there is the soft power. Australia’s richest person, mining magnate Gina Rinehart, remains a long-term patron of former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce and now his new party, One Nation. Rinehart has been photographed dining with One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, who has also made use of the mining magnate’s private jet. These relationships matter. They signal alignment, access and shared interests.
Strong returns on investment
When the fossil fuel industry splashes the cash, it gets a lot in return from Australia’s major parties.
Despite its net zero, “not zero” as Albo is keen to point out, by 2050 target, the Albanese government has continued to approve a swathe of coal and gas projects in its second term. These approvals sit uneasily alongside insufficient climate commitments and illustrate a deeper dynamic.
When the Opposition is consumed by infighting, and being overtaken in the polls by One Nation, the pressure on the government eases. Political oxygen is finite, and when the civil war within the Coalition dominates the news cycle, major fossil fuel projects are signed off with little to no scrutiny. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s political economy.
A divided opposition lowers the immediate political cost of contentious decisions. Substantial industry donations, third party campaigning and high level access further reduce the perceived risk.
What this means for climate strategy
The key question for the environment movement is not whether one side is worse than the other. It is how to operate in a system where both major parties remain beholden to fossil fuel interests.
Several themes stand out.
First, donations and political spending create long term alignment, not just transactional influence. Challenging that requires sustained transparency work, not one-off outrage.
Second, approvals continue because the political calculus still favours short term stability over long term climate responsibility. Changing that calculus requires raising the political cost of fossil fuel expansion, particularly in marginal seats and among key constituencies.
Third, media dynamics matter. If fossil fuel approvals can pass with limited coverage during moments of political distraction, the movement needs its own discipline in tracking, packaging and elevating these decisions.
Finally, the fragmentation of the right is not automatically good for climate action. If anything, it can give a majority government more room to manoeuvre without fear of coordinated attack.
The influence of the fossil fuel industry over Australian politics is no longer hidden. It's disclosed in electoral returns, clearly visible in project approvals and reinforced through public alliances.
The challenge is no longer proving that influence exists, but building a strategy that meaningfully constrains it.
That requires focus, coordination and a willingness to confront uncomfortable bipartisan realities.
If the appointment of a fossil fuel lobbyist to a senior political role sparks debate, that debate should not stop at one individual. It should widen to the system that makes such appointments commonplace.
The real question is not who sits in which office. It is how we reduce the structural power that fossil fuel interests continue to exercise over Australia’s political future.