Can a minority government deliver on climate?

In a campaign where common ground has been hard to come by, Labor and the Coalition are on a unity ticket when it comes to the risks of minority government.

Despite their leaders’ regular warnings about the potential chaos, the prospect of a hung parliament remains on the cards.

But voters aren’t buying the fearmongering.

Perhaps, it’s not surprising. At a time when trust in politicians is near record lows, many electors are actively trying to bring about what would be only the third minority government since Federation.

As the swelling ranks of the crossbench show, the major parties have been bleeding support for years. Labor and the Liberals have both seen their primary vote decline steadily over the decades, hitting record lows of 32.5% and 35.7% respectively in 2022.

In the 18-34 cohort, 60% think a minority government would be better for Australia. Among those aged 35-49, it's 58%, according to Accent Research’s Shaun Ratcliff in his National Press Club address last week.

Support is just as strong among renters (62%) and people in significant financial stress (59%).

At the same time, backing for minor parties and independents has surged. The trend looks likely to continue.

All things considered, Australia appears back on the path to minority government.

“Only 56% of voters actually think that a majority Labor or Coalition government is better for Australia than some other alternative,” Ratcliff said.

“Forty four per cent believe that some kind of minority government would actually be better for the country,” Ratcliff said.

The scare campaign has clearly failed. So with almost half of the nation seemingly prepared to embrace the chaos, it's worth asking; can a minority government deliver the climate outcomes that so many Greens and teal voters are calling for?

Well, there’s precedent.

The last time Australia had a minority government, from 2010 to 2013, it delivered the most substantial climate reforms in the country’s history.

To secure Greens support, Julia Gillard signed a formal agreement committing to a carbon price, a climate change committee, and major investments in clean energy. Independents like Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor backed the plan, giving Australia a legislated price on carbon, the creation of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), and a short-lived Climate Commission to explain it all to the public.

It was good while it lasted. Emissions fell, renewables surged, and Australia finally had a credible policy framework for decarbonisation.

The Greens remain proud of the outcome to this day. Andrew Wilkie's experience of minority government was different.

The first term, anti-gambling, independent from Tasmania secured a commitment from Gillard to enact a series of reforms around pokies. Labor enjoyed Wilkie's support but ultimately abandoned the reforms. After two years of promises, Gillard pulled the pin unilaterally. With Greens Leader Adam Bandt ruling out supporting Peter Dutton, will Labor give Bandt the Wilkie treatment? Will a re-elected Albanese even entertain the Greens’ demands when supply and confidence is all but guaranteed?

So, to recap, Labor held on, and the Greens got their climate reforms, but the backlash was fierce. Tony Abbott ran hard against the carbon price, framing it as “a great big tax on everything” and a symbol of Labor instability. When Abbott won in 2013, he repealed the carbon price and scrapped the Climate Commission. 

Still, not everything was lost. Despite years of Coalition attempts to abolish them, the CEFC and ARENA survived and thrived. They’ve become pillars of Australia’s clean energy architecture, funding the projects that are now reshaping the grid.

More than a decade later, the question is whether a Labor-led minority government could again produce meaningful progress on climate. And whether this time it might last.

Where is the common ground?

A future minority government, shaped by climate-focused crossbenchers, could deliver bold reform. But that depends on two things: how far Labor is willing to go, and how much leverage Greens and independents can bring to the table.

There’s already talk of key demands: halting new coal and gas approvals, strengthening 2035 emissions targets, and accelerating the energy transition. Whether Labor embraces that pressure or resists it could define the next decade of climate action.

Some areas of agreement are already clear.

Labor is aiming for 82% renewable electricity by 2030 and net-zero by 2050, backed by major clean energy investments and household battery subsidies. The Greens want a faster transition, reaching net-zero by 2035. Climate 200-backed independents also support faster renewable deployment.

All three groups want more funding for disaster preparedness and resilience. While the Greens propose a dedicated Climate Response Service, Labor has pledged to upgrade infrastructure and early warning systems.

Policies to promote household and business electrification, like efficiency upgrades and stronger building standards, are another area of likely agreement. These would build on Labor’s investments in rooftop solar, batteries, and energy efficiency.

Still, significant friction points remain.

The biggest is new coal and gas projects. The Greens want an immediate ban on new fossil fuel approvals and a plan to phase out existing projects. Labor has continued to greenlight new projects, arguing gas is essential during the transition.

Ambition on emissions cuts is another gap. The Greens want deeper 2030 cuts and net-zero by 2035. Labor says it will set a 2035 target based on Climate Change Authority advice after the election, a timeline that may frustrate those seeking faster action.

The Greens also back higher taxes on fossil fuel companies and an end to fossil fuel subsidies, with revenues redirected to the clean energy transition. Labor has ruled out major new taxes.

So what would a climate-focused minority government look like?

The potential for progress is real. 

A re-elected Labor government backed by the Greens or teals could accelerate the renewable energy rollout, household electrification and climate adaptation. It would likely be pushed to commit earlier to stronger emissions targets or further tighten the Safeguard Mechanism.

But there are limits. 

The Greens' call to stop all new coal and gas projects is a bridge too far for Labor, especially given internal divisions and fossil fuel interests in key seats. Likewise, reining in, let alone cutting, fuel subsidies or corporate tax rates could be contentious.

Still, the record of 2010 shows that minority governments can produce climate breakthroughs. How long they last is a different matter. 

Any progress made under a new minority government could face a similar fate unless it is built to endure, with deep public support and durable institutional design.

Whether voters are ready to back that potential, and that risk, will become clear soon enough.