When nice isn’t working: Rethinking climate advocacy under a Labor government
After Labor’s recent election win, many in the climate and environment space breathed a sigh of relief. The Coalition and its nuclear fantasy were resoundingly rejected. In its place, a government that at least says the right things about climate change, even if its policies don’t match the rhetoric. For some, that alone felt like progress.
But when viewed through the old climate adage that winning slowly is actually losing, can we afford another three, or six, years of muted ambition?
The Albanese government recently approved Woodside's North West Shelf gas project to operate until 2070, has greenlit multiple coal mine extensions, and scrapped its own promise of a federal EPA, under pressure from a state Labor premier, no less. The decisions sit awkwardly with Labor's net zero by 2050 target and fly in the face of what the science demands for a safe climate.
It's clear the current approach, avoiding criticism to stay onside with a government that keeps letting us down, isn’t working. It’s time we recognised that, owned it, and tried something different.
The Illusion of access
Much of the climate movement’s strategy has been built around maintaining a good relationship with Labor, avoiding direct confrontation in the hope it might lead to influence. But let’s be honest: many organisations are being polite to maintain access that doesn't amount to influence.
I've seen time and again how groups hold back from publicly criticising Labor, sometimes, despite having little or no meaningful engagement with the Environment Minister or Labor decisionmakers. It's as if the hope of future progress is enough to justify silence now.
To a certain extent, that's understandable. Building political relationships is a long game, and there's no perfect formula. But when the polite approach doesn’t deliver results, we need to be brave enough to try something new.
Labor’s relationship with the movement
There’s also a false perception that Labor values the environment movement and its endorsement. In reality, Labor only wants to neutralise it. They don’t want to be attacked, but they also don’t want to be seen as caving in to pressure. They want to be able to name-drop supportive organisations in press conferences, but they’re far less willing to adopt those same groups’ policy proposals.
This is the tightrope Labor walks: be seen as taking climate seriously, without being seen to be pushed by activists.
We need to understand this dynamic, accept it, and adapt accordingly.
The Woodside decision illustrates the point in brutal fashion. The movement's position was clear. Labor knew it, but defied the movement and their own policy to approve the extension. They wanted to be seen as consultative. Labor calculated that the political cost for ignoring would be bearable. The greenies would have a whinge, but they're not going to support the Coalition.
If your strategy is based on being part of a team that the government doesn’t see you as playing on, it's time to rethink the strategy.
What can actually move a Labor government?
Governments don't act because people are polite, Labor included. They move when the political cost of inaction becomes too high.
That means:
Public pressure: Creating visible, sustained public demand, not just one-off stunts or polite letters.
Narrative power: Shaping public understanding of the issue so that government inaction becomes a political liability.
Coalition-building: Partnering with sectors Labor cares about, like unions, healthcare bodies, or regional communities, to create unconventional alliances in places where Labor actually wants to be seen positively.
Persistent advocacy: Not just reactive media statements, but ongoing political engagement that combines inside and outside pressure.
There’s no silver bullet, but there are well-worn patterns we can learn from.
The work we avoid
One reason many groups fall back on the ‘softly-softly’ approach is because it's what they know. They're excellent at community mobilisation, digital engagement, and speaking to their base. But high-level political advocacy, building behind-closed-doors relationships, pushing through discomfort, applying inside pressure, is often underdeveloped and/or under-resourced.
That’s not a criticism. Campaigning is hard, and no organisation can be great at everything. But it's a blind spot we need to name if we’re going to shift power.
If we keep doing what we’re good at, and avoid the parts we’re less confident in, we limit our effectiveness. Do we want to get the most engagement on our Insta posts or help deliver a better climate policy?
The way forward
I don’t have a perfect blueprint, but I do believe this moment calls for three things:
1. Honesty: Acknowledge what hasn’t worked, without shame or blame.
2. Courage: Be willing to challenge those in power, even those who seem marginally better than the alternative.
3. Innovation: Try new tactics, build new alliances, and test different ways to influence.
Labor’s emphatic election win means they will be in power for at least another three years. Maybe six. The actions taken this week suggest the current approach isn't working. Doing more of the same and hoping for a different result isn't a viable option.