2025-11-05
The Labor Government is displaying symptoms of cognitive dissonance with respect to climate action, AUKUS, Gaza and environmental reform, at least
By Chris Johansen, Green Issue Co-editor
Cognitive dissonance is one of those psycho-medical terms that I have never been able to get my head around. Generally, I thought of it as a largely derogatory term used to describe someone’s confusing and contradictory behaviour. But when considered in relation to the recent statements and actions of the Australian Government the meaning all falls into place.
For reference though, psychologists define cognitive dissonance as “the mental discomfort experienced when a person holds two conflicting beliefs or when their actions don’t align with their beliefs”.
Where to start with the Australian Labor Government? Climate is the obvious one. The Government claims to be all on board with the Paris Accords, aiming to keep global mean temperatures well below 2°C and preferably below 1.5°C (but lost already by the way) and achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Through the energetic Chris Bowen, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, going gung ho on promoting the uptake of renewable energy. All good stuff.
But the Government is also going gung ho on approving new coal, oil and gas extraction, that would clearly negate any emissions reductions achieved by renewable energy initiatives.
After many months delay, the Government has finally released the 2024 State of the Climate report, which clearly projects ever increasing climate catastrophe as Australian and global emissions reductions efforts, so far and projected into the future, are insufficient to reverse the trend. A trend now clearly apparent in terms melting glaciers, disruption of historical weather patterns, frequency and severity of storms, rising sea levels, bleaching coral reefs and so on. How anyone in government could read this report and justify fossil fuel expansion is beyond me.
Actually, the Government has borrowed from the Woodside playbook in arguing that the export of LNG is helping the world decarbonize. The argument goes that, because LNG is less polluting than coal, exporting it to Japan, Korea and China assists those countries in getting out of coal, thereby reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Flaws in that argument include LNG is more polluting than coal, there is no evidence that LNG is replacing coal in those countries, and ongoing LNG imports delay adoption of renewable energy.
A further flaw in that argument is, that while they claim to helping these countries exit from coal, Australia continues sending shiploads of coal to them (at this point the logic gets beyond me!).
The contribution of the transport sector to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions is around 22%, but the Government is doing little to curb this. It maintains fuel tax credits, like for mining and agriculture, fails to introduce fuel efficiency standards for petrol-powered vehicles and has few concessions to enhance the adoption of electric vehicles (e.g. slow roll-out of EV charging stations). This lack of action on emissions reductions from the transport sector, at least to bring it in line with other OECD economies (except USA), contradicts any serious concern expressed about climate change.
There are additional Government actions, or non-actions, contradictory to any professed concerns about climate change, such as those related to environmental protection, but they won’t be elaborated here as the above examples are sufficient to demonstrate cognitive dissonance.
AUKUS presents another glaring example of cognitive dissonance. The clear and officially acknowledged purpose of AUKUS is to act as a deterrent to China. Not also widely acknowledged is its even more fundamental purpose of strengthening the US objective of maintaining and enhancing its military and economic dominance over China and for Australia to show that it remains a faithful ally of the US on the assumption that the US will always militarily protect it.
However, China is Australia’s biggest trading partner and is likely to remain so indefinitely. The relationship is acknowledged to be beneficial to both sides. A main role of the planned AUKUS nuclear submarines is stated to be keeping Australia’s trade shipping lanes open, with China touted as the main threat to them. Which begs the question as to why China would attack a trading route considered as beneficial to themselves.
But there are some other inconsistencies related to AUKUS also. Especially with the US in the throes of economic decline, spurred by President Trump (e.g. his tariffs), China will inevitably proceed to be the dominant economic entity in the Asia and the Pacific. And, especially with the US’s “America First” policy, and erratic behaviour of their president, Australia, or any other country for that matter, would be foolish to rely on the US to rush to its aid in the face of a military threat.
Further, there is no indication of China posing a military threat to Australia, or indeed any other country. Taiwan is cited as a military target for China but Taiwan is almost globally recognized as a province of China which China has being trying to bring back into its fold by non-military means. Australia would simply have no business in joining a war over Taiwan, should it eventuate.
Palestine is another example of the Australian Government’s contradictory statements and actions. Although relatively silent about happenings in Gaza during 2024 Government members increasingly expressed criticisms of Israel’s obvious genocide in Gaza through this year. There was less and less repetition of the phrase “Israel has every right to defend itself” whenever the question of Gaza was broached. This culminated in Australia recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state in September, fulfilling a long held policy of the Labor Party.
However, Australia continues to supply Israel with military components and, via the US at Pine Gap, probably provides military intelligence to assist Israel’s military strikes. Australia remains a loyal sycophant of the US, which is in turn the main global backer and supplier of arms to Israel. A plausible case can be made that Australia is complicit in the Gaza genocide.
Another manifestation of cognitive dissonance is the Government’s attempts to reform the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act. Although various Government ministers have at times expressed strong desires for meaningful environmental protection (e.g. Tanya Plibersek), the main thrust of the present Government is obviously to satisfy the desires of the mining industry and big business generally. The emphasis is on speeding up approvals for projects that would inevitably result in environmental damage, rather than ensuring ways of limiting such damage.
I could continue with other examples of the Governments’ cognitive dissonance but the above examples suffice to make the point. But it does raise the question as to why a Labor Government should behave in this way, when Labor was once a progressive and reformist party. An example was the Whitlam Government which introduced sweeping reforms when elected in 1972, after a quarter century of conservative Coalition rule. However, the monarchy dismissed the Whitlam Government in 1975 (just “celebrated” the 50th anniversary), and probably this still haunts Labor, toning down their reform agenda. It now appears that the main objective of Labor is to stay in power, by holding the middle ground by appeasing the right of centre polity, moving rightwards as far as they can go.
One thing that the Coalition does have over Labor is that it does not show overt symptoms of cognitive dissonance. They are broadly opposed to effective climate action, occasionally oscillating between complete climate denialism and just wanting to protect traditional fossil fuel industries. They back AUKUS and their loyalty to the US is an unquestioned100%. They also back Israel whatever it may do and have little sympathy for Palestinians, or their supporters. As far as environmental protection is concerned, they clearly believe that the environment is there for mankind to exploit for the purpose of financial gain.
Header photo: Composition in dissonances. Painting by Theo van Doesburg, 1919. Public Domain
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]