this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
13 points (100.0% liked)

Australian Politics

1875 readers
108 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A controversial plan to allow big industry to use a new koala national park in New South Wales to offset its climate pollution is expected to go ahead after the Greens reached a deal with Labor, and decided not to vote with the Coalition to block it.

But three Greens – Tasmanians Nick McKim, Vanessa Bleyer and Western Australia’s Jordon Steele-John – declared they would cross the floor to oppose the deal on Thursday afternoon.

The minor party and environment advocates have been divided over whether to support a regulation proposed by the NSW government, and introduced by the Albanese government, that lets states earn carbon credits for protecting native forests that had been earmarked for logging.

The Nationals want to kill the regulation, known as a carbon credit method, on the grounds it would hurt the forestry industry. They have introduced a disallowance motion in the Senate.

The Greens have the casting votes. For weeks, they have been split over which way to go. They want the park – a promised 476,000 hectare reserve, including 176,000 ha of newly protected areas - but have been divided over whether it should be allowed to happen this way.

Greens leader Larissa Waters said her party had improved what is known as the improved native forestry management method, but would oppose other upcoming carbon credit legislation that would produce a larger number of credits.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I understand why they opposed it, but I think the reasonable thing to do would be to support the park while calling out and vocally opposing the greenwashing part. As the supporters indicate, the benefits of actually having the national park outweigh that issue.

The opponents* keep talking about "setting a precedent" on the carbon credits, but parliament isn't a courtroom and they don't have to abide by precedents at all - arguably they are the part of government that should be most concerned with legislating outdated precedents away when society moves on.

Once again, Greens demonstrating the adage "perfect is the enemy of good".

  • Edit: clarified words
[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 4 points 6 days ago

If you're interested, Bob Brown was on TV tonight commenting on what happened in Parliament and he covered a lot of ground in a short time, including 'perfect is the enemy of good'. He's become quite the diplomat. He still has the presence.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/730