
If you think climate action has been absent from the election campaign so far, you’re right. New data from Isentia shows how the most important issue facing Australia is being ignored by the major parties and the media, just weeks after large areas of northern NSW suffered repeated record floods.
In the weeks since the election began, climate change has been, respectively, the 7th, 6th and 5th most commonly mentioned topic in coverage — and climate received little mention in the debate this week (beyond Anthony Albanese’s focus on “clean energy”) or afterwards.
That suits both sides: the Coalition wants no mention of climate lest it remind voters in urban seats of the comprehensive failure of so-called Liberal moderates to press for effective climate action within a denialist federal government. And Labor treads carefully on the issue for fear of alienating a small number of regional voters — indeed, its biggest climate announcement of the election so far has been to insist coal miners would never be subject to requirements to reduce emissions.
Both sides are also recipients of large donations from fossil fuel companies, and former politicians and staff from both sides can be found working for fossil fuel companies, vividly demonstrating the phenomenon of state capture at work.
Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial and get Crikey straight to your inbox
And the loudest voice in climate coverage in the election campaign? News Corp commentators have long attacked the ABC for being obsessed with climate issues, but in fact it is News Corp that has the highest volume of coverage. In the last seven days, according to Isentia, 12% of News Corp’s election coverage — bearing in mind it is the dominant media company and operates across television, print and online — was devoted to climate, compared to 8% of the ABC’s.
In fact, the ABC devotes little attention to climate: the cost of living and Medicare have been the two biggest issues in the ABC’s election coverage, as they have been for News Corp. A federal ICAC, and the Solomons debacle, were the next two most frequent subjects for the ABC.
(Despite The Australian’s purported focus on national security, Isentia data shows News Corp has almost completely ignored the Solomons disaster, giving it far less coverage than, for example, its continued hyping of the Albanese “gaffe” from the first week.)
Aged care also received more coverage from both the ABC and News Corp than climate.

The low priority the ABC accords climate doesn’t merely discredit the News Corp lie about the ABC being obsessed with it, it suggests the ABC is now so cowed by the Coalition that it is reluctant to give sufficient priority to an issue that should be at the top of any list of crucial election issues, especially for a public broadcaster.
Instead, it has handed the running on climate to a company that operates as an arm of the fossil fuel industry.
What of other outlets? Liberal-aligned Kerry Stokes’ Prime Media also ignores climate change almost completely — just 4% of its coverage in the last seven days related to climate issues. In contrast, rural media group ACM devoted 16% of its coverage to climate issues — equal with Medicare and behind only an integrity commission. At Nine, climate came third on 13% behind cost of living and an integrity commission.
So, only ACM and, to a lesser extent, Nine are giving appropriate weight to the most important election issue, while News as always remains in denialist mode, and other right-wing groups like Kerry Stokes’ completely ignore it.
And at “Your ABC”, the most important issue affecting you over the long-term (and, for all too many, increasingly the short-term) struggles for a mention — further evidence that something is now deeply rotten within the national broadcaster.
Leave a comment
Good article, thanks.
And the ABC did an overview on their vote compass data where climate change was one of the most important issue. This organisation has the most data available on australian voters, yet they can’t seem to focus on it, as they should.
That segment on ABC News Breakfast today: climate change was the number one issue with voters who were polled.
I am trying not to follow the tedious electioneering & had deduced that was why I’d heard no mention of climate change. Now I realise it’s barely being addressed, truly remarkable. Thanks for this piece, Bernard.
I mean, the ABC could actually get the Greens to discuss what their plan is to transition, they are the supposed experts at it. Oh and they may have a good chunk of the senate as well after the election.But no, seems a shoutout to Clive Palmers interest frate reeze and have Pauline expand on outlawing foreign ownership on residential housing is more worthy.
I watched the Press Club Greens Adam Bant presentation, and I’d like to see more of the greens policies debated in mainstream media, from what I observed.
The Geens appear to have some vision and energy, but there appears to have been so little follow-up on any of their statements, by Main Stream Media. But then I have become so jaded with political media commentary of late, that I possibly went and had a nap. Thank goodness for Crikey, The Conversation, The New Daily, and Annabel Crabb, for a more, nuanced reporting
Now that so many aussies have had the opportunity to experience first hand what the future weather’s going to be like, Newscorp and Sky can deny all they want, and the ABC can ignore away – the people want action.
“the people want action”.
Is there any real evidence for this, or is it just a vague aspiration from the people that will have no practical results? For example will the people refuse to vote for members of the main parties that are beholden to the fossil-fuel industry and have no intention of providing any real action? Seems to me people who want action would certainly put Liberal, National and Labor way down the ticket. No. The general media suppression of climate change coverage is doing its job and keeping voters attention on vital topics for the nation’s future such as Katherine Deves’s lunatic witterings while our pollies get on with business as usual.
Let’s hope so.
The people need action.
I guess we’ll find out in a month or so.
Thanks Bernard, the power and influence of our Neocon overlords is never more clear than when the subject of climate change/pollution and the destruction of natural habitat is not mentioned.
But then there’s the other significant issues that are virtually completely suppressed by this mob so intent on removing the quality of life before the Neocons re established their power and influence.
The removal of publicly owned assets while lowering costs that created employment and provided transparency.
The withdrawal of free education which used to help enable people to see through the manipulation and propaganda so implicit in Neocon ideology.
Reagan removed the 1930’s legislation that required media to make an attempt to discuss issues with an emphasis on fairness.
Murdoch became a US citizen shortly after and the rest is history.
Our media and the control of most information has been a Neocon whitewash ever since.
Agree, but one would add the quiet preeminence of the IPA to inform the LNP policies and promote through compliant media (inc. censorship by omission) e.g. NewsCorp; clicking into established fossil fuels and climate science denial, now delay on transition, US but global ‘architecture of influence’ i.e. Koch ‘Atlas Network’ think tanks, including ‘oven ready’ policies across all portfolio areas.
I’ve noticed you pointing out Koch and the damage it continues to cause, it’s an important part of the puzzle to shed light on, thanks.
Think to understand libertarian ‘think tank influence’ in not just Anglosphere of US, Oz or UK, but transnationally, two authors are essential.
Jane Mayer’s ‘Dark Money’ & ‘architecture of influence’ revolving round Koch network donors etc., and Nancy MacLean’s ‘Democracy in Chains’ which highlights the Kochs’ favourite economic ideology (drawing upon neo-liberalism) of ‘segregationist’ and Nobel Prize winning economist, James Buchanan who made Hayek, Friedman and Rand appear soft’ ‘public choice theory’.
A local researcher/journalist Lucy Hamilton has written about think tank influence in ‘Think tanks’ call for ‘freedom’ really promises authoritarianism‘, in Menadue’s Pearls & Irritations (13 Nov ’21):
‘Australia is on the trajectory to becoming a “competitive authoritarian” regime. This is not because of state governments imposing curfews, lockdowns and closing borders. It is, rather, the by-blow of politicians, pundits and academics who espouse a form of libertarianism…. The birth of mid-20th century neoliberalism was substantially the result of the establishment’s fear of the power of the populace..Even now culture wars against “cancel culture” or “wokeness” are attempts to silence the newly equal who demand their right to be heard. The old guard is not giving up its preeminence gracefully.’
Be realistic, Bernard. With a 40-50% population jump planned for 2050, relentless logging and land clearing, and fossil fuels 4eva, it is just a joke to even talk about climate change.
I used to think that there was some reasonable logic behind a larger population, like everyone could be far less wasteful, polluting and have a far smaller carbon footprint, but now my faith in any government pursuing any sort of effort to legislate to achieve this type of agenda is just fanciful wishful thinking.
The Neocons need to be flushed out and challenged with open debate before it is even remotely possible and there is no platform available to challenge them.
Their near absolute control of social/political conversation is easily the most important factor that blocks any sort of developing positive change.
Even though we are preaching to the converted mainly here we can still sharpen our skills as to how to pinpoint just how their ideology has become such a powerful and destructive monopoly,
Why is pretty obvious but their lack of any semblance of conscience is breathtaking.
Now Tanton Network, working in unison with Koch think tanks to avoiding regulatory constraints, and their obsessions about blaming ‘immigrants’ and ‘population growth’ for environmental; ‘hygiene’ issues, stagnant wages etc. while deflecting from fossil fuels; is this a coincidence?
What is the source for this unsupported claim ‘With a 40-50% population jump planned for 2050…’?, ‘Australia’s best demographer?’
We can see population and working age demographics up to Covid already via OECD data trends on working age, it’s passed the ‘demographic sweet spot’ and is in decline; issue is how to support more retirees and pensioners, not creating existential border walls (via the annual NOM formula from the ‘conservative’ UNPD)
https://data.oecd.org/chart/6GJQ
Why? Because we are healthier and living longer into retirement, followed by lower fertility, but this is seen as an excuse to target all ‘humanity’, even if it belies population data?
40-50% population hike is graphed in the IGR and the Population Statement and agreed by LibLib & Greens.
But if you want to be hoodwinked by the elite – including Keane – be my guest.
You are neither hoodwinked nor greenwashing fossil fuels by blaming immigrants?
IGR, Population Statement, opinions of parties etc. are not data analysis; presumably relies upon ABS UNPD defined data?
Elites? That’s right, everyone who is promoting immigration restrictions etc. as an environmental measure are ‘progressive’ non elites, aka your deceased alt right muse, white nationalist John Tanton?
For heavens sake. The IGR projection is simple math based on fixed migration policy (235K pa) agreed by LibLab. Nothing to do with UNPD.
And never heard of John Tanton.
John Tanton was allegedly hosted by the head of Sustainable Population Australia in the ’90s, some of the latter also contributed and participated with Tanton organisations in the US.
According to articles a decade ago in Online Opinion of the Australian Institute of Progress (also linked to Koch Network) e.g. ‘Stable Population cuckoos invade Australia‘, seemed to coincide from several years earlier with Labor calls for carbon pricing, potential to become a medium sized power i.e. ‘Big Australia’, etc., hence, media deflection and dog whistle in one to counter/rebut; too easy.
Former Reagan staffer Linda Chavez described Tanton (in a NYT article) decade ago as ‘the most influential unknown man in America‘ while human rights NGO SPLC in 2019 obituary in ‘John Tanton’s Legacy‘ described him as:
‘John Tanton, the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement, has left behind a legacy that spawned more than a dozen nativist organizations, driven an anti-immigrant agenda for four decades, and found friends in the White House.’ (& Anglosphere).
Tanton’s movement was also highlighted by ADL the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in 2013 ‘Ties Between Anti-Immigrant Movement and Eugenics‘; Australians have become relaxed and comfortable enough to use ofl anti-semitic tropes to present issues of environmental ‘hygiene’.
Think you should check out John Tanton, and his publicly stated objectives, then you may not fall for suboptimal data presentation by ‘Australia’s best demographer’ to ‘present immigrants in a negative light’; then again most Australians have.