Queensland axes its 2026 EV-only government fleet mandate
In its place, the state's Liberal National Party (LNP) government has released a new strategy that sets a smaller 10 per cent emissions reduction target across the entire public service fleet by 2030, rather than focusing on replacing individual vehicles with EVs.
The Sunshine State's public works, housing and youth minister Sam O'Connor said the Queensland Government's broader approach to cutting vehicle emissions across its entire fleet would have a bigger impact on total CO2 emissions and give public servants more freedom to purchase the type of QFleet vehicles they need.
Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now.
In a press release late last week, Mr O'Connor said Labor's EV-only policy for eligible passenger vehicles only covered around 3600 vehicles across government, yet QFleet operates more than 11,000 vehicles as part of frontline services including nursing, housing, child safety and youth justice.
The Queensland Government said the updated policy, which allows for fit-for-purpose vehicles whether they are all-electric, hybrid or plug-in hybrid, will reduce emissions to their lowest ever levels while the public service fleet experiences unprecedented growth.
It says the new approach will also provide more time for agencies to install charging infrastructure while still delivering on a 10 per cent tailpipe emissions reduction target by 2030, which Mr O'Connor said will equate to 3.33 kilotonnes of CO2.
'This represents around 63 per cent reduction in emissions from what QFleet's emissions were in 2005,' he said.
'We're not here to tick boxes – we're here to focus on outcomes.
'We've laid out a genuine pathway to reduce tailpipe emissions and better support the hardworking public servants who rely on QFleet to get them to where they need to be.'
As part of the Queensland government's new QFleet Vehicle Emissions Reduction Strategy 2025-2030, there will be annual fleet reviews, improved journey planning and the use of lower-emissions E10 fuels, and each agency will be held accountable for reducing their emissions.
'Our new strategy moves beyond simply mandating one type of vehicle for procurement,' said Mr O'Connor.
'At the same time as our emissions will be decreasing, our fleet will see annual growth of around 1.5 per cent per year – equating to around 9 per cent growth over the period of the 10 per cent reduction in emissions.
'That means while our fleet will be larger than ever, our emissions will be lower than ever.
'Unlike the previous mandate, we're reducing QFleet's tailpipe emissions in a practical, sustainable way, which responds to feedback from public servants across Queensland.
'QFleet is leading by example to help Queensland achieve net zero.'
The Queensland Government's move was swiftly welcomed by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), which has been vocal in its criticism of EV mandates and the federal government's New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) in particular.
Echoing claims by Toyota that multiple powertrain electrification technologies – led by hybrids in its case – have a larger overall impact on total new-vehicle CO2 reduction than EVs, FCAI chief executive Tony Weber described the 2025-2030 QFleet emissions reduction plan as 'a balanced and realistic approach to decarbonising the state's transport fleet'.
'The Queensland Government has recognised that the best pathway for emissions reduction is to utilise a range of vehicle technologies rather than focusing solely on battery electric vehicles,' Mr Weber said.
'Since the introduction of the Commonwealth Government's New Vehicle Efficiency Standard earlier this year, we have more information and evidence regarding the challenges of shifting to a lower-emission fleet of vehicles on Australian roads.
'Right now, Australian consumers remain hesitant to the change even though more than 90 battery-electric vehicles are available.
'The Queensland Government has listened to its QFleet customers and recognised that it can provide more choice while still delivering meaningful emissions reductions.
'It reflects the real-world challenges of vehicle deployment and provides more time for development of the infrastructure needed to underpin long-term change.'
Queensland's previous Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan 2022-2024 was just one part of the Zero Emission Vehicle strategy 2022-2032 announced by the former Labor state government in March 2022.
As part of its 'commitment to support Queensland's shift to zero net emissions by 2050', the state's 10-year emissions reduction strategy also called for 50 per cent of new passenger vehicle sales in the state to be zero-emissions by 2030, before moving to 100 per cent by 2036.
It also called for every new TransLink-funded bus added to the fleet to be a zero-emissions vehicle in South East Queensland by 2025, and across regional Queensland by 2030.
The Queensland LNP has repeatedly distanced itself from the previous Labor government's ambitious climate policies since it came to power in October 2024.
Soon after he became premier, David Crisafulli announced the state would support the federal government's 2050 net zero emissions plan but would reject set renewables targets by dropping requirements for milestones along the way.
The LNP also axed an 'unviable' multi-billion-dollar pumped hydro project planned for Mackay, and cancelled the $1 billion Moonlight Wind Farm project, while opening more opportunities for gas and coal development in the northern state.
Queensland's rollback of public service EV mandates comes after US President Donald Trump in January removed his predecessor's mandate for half of all new-vehicle purchases to be EVs by 2030.
And just last week President Trump signed congressional resolutions overturning California's ability to mandate EV sales and establish its emissions standards via a federal waiver, immediately halting the state's 2035 ban on new combustion-powered vehicle sales.
In addition, California will be unable to enforce an increase in zero-emission heavy-duty truck sales, or a low-nitrogen oxide regulation for heavy-duty highway and off-road vehicles.
However, 17 other states accounting for 30 per cent of the US auto market have also adopted some or all of California's stricter vehicle emissions standards, and many of them are joining the legal appeal flagged last month by California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Apart from Queensland, several other Australian states also effectively have EV 'road maps', with the nation's largest two by population – New South Wales and Victoria – both aiming for zero-emissions vehicles to account for at least 50 per cent of all new light vehicle sales in each state by 2030.
Australians bought a record 91,292 new EVs in 2024, accounting for 7.4 per cent of the 1.237 million new vehicles sold in this country last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
'It's Covid all over again': Labor bending at the knee to eSafety Commissioner's advice on YouTube ban while turning blind eye to our freedom, education
There is nothing in politics more ominous than a government that wants to be seen to be 'doing something'. A government that feels something must be done on a controversial topic is likely to act so boldly and so quickly that they don't have time to consider the consequences, and those who suffer are left to pick up the pieces. The popular thing to do these days is find an expert on an issue and outsource all responsibility on policy to them. Trusting an expert sounds nice - they know a lot and often have a reassuring 'Dr' at the start of their name. It's never the case that this expert is democratically elected or answerable to the people that their decisions affect. They are there for the government to hide behind - don't look at us, we had to do whatever the expert told us to. This was all the rage during Covid. Various state governments' preferred experts would recommend all sorts of bizarre restrictions - shutting South Australia down over a pizza box, for instance - but the government could tell their voters they were taking the issue seriously, because they were listening to the experts. I thought after Australians were told not to touch a football if it came into the stands of the Adelaide Oval that Australians were done stomaching the idea that we should listen solely to the experts. But Labor's talking points over the social media ban - especially its backflip on an exemption for YouTube - is a test for my theory. Social media use in teenagers is an area the government really wants to be seen as 'doing something'. It's a hot topic and for good reason. Mental health in teenagers, particularly among girls, has nosedived since smartphones and social media became widespread. Parents feel helpless. They know that social media will hurt their child, but also know depriving them of social media when all of their friends have them harms them as well. The government has jumped on this and come up with their social media ban. They also found their expert and outsourced responsibility to her. Enter the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The level of deferral from the government to this public servant is galling. In Question Time on Wednesday, Minister Anika Wells referenced the commissioner four times in her one answer about the social media ban - including saying she 'was required by the law to seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner on the draft rules, and the eSafety Commissioner's advice was clear'. That's all well and good - but the Australian people did not elect the eSafety commissioner. They elected Anika Wells, and they elected her to do far more than ask Julie Inman Grant what to do then listen politely. The eSafety Commssioner's duty according to the government is to ensure Australians 'have safer, more positive online experiences.' But that is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to forming policy about the online world. Safety must be balanced with freedom, educational possibilities, economic concerns and a whole raft of other factors. We'd all be free of harm from social media if we never went on the internet again - but we'd also lose all of the wonderful benefits it gives us too. It's Covid all over again. Then governments outsourced responsibility to Chief Health Officers whose primary concern was safety and stopping the spread of the virus - because that was their area of expertise. Other concerns like students' education, mental wellbeing, individual freedom and the economy - issues that should have been considered with the same seriousness as the virus itself - were swept aside in the narrow view of stopping the spread. And now other factors are being swept aside in the narrow view the government and the eSafety Commissioner are taking when it comes to social media, and particularly YouTube. The government this week reversed its commitment to exempt YouTube from their social media ban for people under the age of 16. The problem with that is that YouTube does not behave in the same way as Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook or the other social media networking sites. Those latter sites rely on users sharing information with each other, such as photos and updates. Teenagers spend hours cultivating their profiles to make their lives look idyllic, and spend further hours seeing the photos and lifestyles of people they know look even more idyllic - a vicious cycle that harms mental health. YouTube does not act like that. There is not as much person-to-person sharing as there are in the other social media networks. People watch videos and move on to other videos. In fact a survey released by the eSafety Commission itself found that YouTube is one of the safest social media websites for teenagers in terms of the risk of grooming, sexual harassment and bullying. Teenagers are more likely to be targeted over text message than over YouTube. The 'safety' concerns around YouTube are less about bullying and comparative lifestyles and more about what content is popular on YouTube, such as conservative opinions. Julie Inman Grant told the National Press Club this year that she was concerned YouTube's 'opaque algorithms' were 'driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against'. That's a whole different reason for enforcing safety and completely removed from the original conversation around protecting children online. But it's not unexpected considering the eSafety Commissioner's remit is to ensure online safety. It's up to the government to balance the desire for safety with other effects a ban on YouTube would have - especially education. Oxford Economics this year found that 72 per cent of parents agree that YouTube helps their children learn and 79 per cent of parents agree YouTube provides quality content for their children's learning. In an interview on Sky News this week, YouTube personality Leo Pugilsi said his teachers upload videos of themselves explaining what was discussed in school to help children out with homework. This is what the government is impacting when it listens solely to the eSafety Commissioner. An unforgivable sin from Covid was our governments letting experts tell them the education of children was a secondary concern. By listening solely to the eSafety Commissioner and ignoring the educational benefits of YouTube, Labor is making the same mistake again - all in the name of "doing something". James Bolt is a Sky News Australia contributor.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Ex-Labor climate advisor Ross Garnaut makes incredible net zero admission as renewables push falters yet again
Ross Garnaut was once Labor's go-to expert on climate change. His landmark reviews under the Rudd and Gillard governments framed emissions reduction as a moral imperative. Now he's warning that the Albanese government's plans are not just off track but wildly detached from reality. Speaking to the Clean Energy Council this week, Mr Garnaut declared that Australia will miss its target of 82 per cent carbon-free electricity by 2030 'not by a little, but by a big margin'. It was a sober, data-driven indictment that few in the energy sector would seriously contest. The scale of the shortfall is hard to ignore. The rapid deployment of wind and solar the target demands has simply not materialised. Hundreds of renewable projects remain 'in the pipeline,' as Energy Minister Chris Bowen likes to point out. But very few are crossing the line into financial commitment. Most of those that do are now propped up by taxpayers via the Capacity Investment Scheme or other forms of implicit subsidy. It's a long way from the rosy optimism of December 2021, when Mr Bowen and Anthony Albanese unveiled their plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by the end of the decade. Mr Bowen described it as 'ambitious but achievable,', insisting it wasn't a vague aspiration but 'a target with teeth.' Yet the numbers tell another story. According to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Australia's emissions were 24.7 per cent below 2005 levels in December 2022. By December last year, they'd improved only marginally, sitting at 27 per cent. To hit the 2030 target, emissions would need to fall by another 16 percentage points, more than three points per year. That would require a pace of change Australia has never achieved, particularly given the backlog of delays in generation, transmission, and storage. Flagship projects like Snowy Hydro are years behind schedule and blowing out budgets. Transmission infrastructure is not keeping up. Mr Bowen's hopes were pinned partly on green hydrogen, which almost no serious analyst considers technologically or economically viable at scale in this decade. He could have done without the reminder this week from the UN's climate tsar, Simon Stiell, that Australia's 2035 targets are due by September under the Paris timetable. In a rational policy environment, such headwinds would prompt a reassessment. Realistically, that would mean recalibrating the 2030 target and attaching heavy caveats to any post-2030 pledges. But climate politics rarely allows for realism. For a party of the progressive left, targets are not tools, they are moral declarations. Practical obstacles are downplayed, achieving them is merely a matter of political will. Those who dominate the climate debate rarely come from sectors responsible for delivering emissions cuts - energy, agriculture, transport, industry. Instead, they are diplomats, bureaucrats, or climate advocates like Mr Stiell, whose job is to rally nations around the IPCC's global ambitions. He called on Australia this week to 'demonstrate what ambition looks like' and to accelerate its departure from fossil fuels. 'The science is calling for a collective effort for all countries to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2035,' he said. Mr Bowen's response carried a hint of irritation: 'Targets are easier set than met,' he noted. 'We will set a target informed by expert advice in the national interest.' Mr Stiell's authority as a scientific voice is undermined by the apocalyptic tone of his rhetoric. In London last year, he warned that humanity had just two years left to 'save the world.' This week in Sydney, he predicted 'mega-droughts' that would make 'fresh fruit and veg a once-a-year treat.' Such claims are not supported by the IPCC's own findings, which express 'low confidence' in any global trend in drought since the mid-20th century. The evidence for widespread climate-driven crop failures is similarly thin. Agricultural yields have surged globally despite warming. In 2022, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reported record global grain output. The uncertainty is no surprise. As physicist and former Obama science adviser Steven Koonin notes in ' Unsettled' , precipitation data is highly variable and difficult to synthesise. 'There is no easy way to combine precipitation data from scattered weather stations to get at the bigger picture,' he writes. Mr Koonin's verdict? Predictions of climate-induced food collapse are 'yet another apocalypse that ain't.' Mr Stiell also warned that Australia could suffer an $8 trillion GDP loss by 2050 - another figure divorced from mainstream analysis. The IPCC's own modelling projects average global economic growth of two per cent annually through the century, with climate impacts reducing this to 1.96 per cent - a barely perceptible change. In a functional policy process, those numbers would matter. They would be weighed soberly, and targets set accordingly - with engineering, economics, and institutional capacity in mind. Instead, they are shouting from the sidelines - while the government clings to a plan that increasingly looks like a triumph of political symbolism over practical delivery. Nick Cater is senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia Originally published as Ex-Labor climate advisor Ross Garnaut makes incredible net zero admission as renewables push falters yet again
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Green light for cable, but premier's path to power dims
A "transformative, nation-building" energy project has been given the environmental green light to proceed, but risks dimming a premier's electoral hopes. The multi-billion-dollar Marinus Link cable will boost electricity transmission between Tasmania and Victoria and is seen as pivotal in increasing green energy investment. Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff signed up to the joint Victoria and Commonwealth investment contract on Friday, while in caretaker mode and a day before the deadline. The federal government on Sunday lifted another hurdle for the construction and operation of the 1500 megawatt undersea electricity and fibre optics cable. "The Albanese government has given environmental approval to a transformative, nation-building project which will generate jobs and investment for Tasmania and Victoria while unlocking clean and reliable energy," Environment Minister Murray Watt said in a statement. Construction of stage one, a 750-megawatt undersea cable, is expected to start in 2026 and finish in 2030. It will have enough power to supply 750,000 homes and enhance internet connectivity. It comes as the final makeup of Tasmania's parliament was decided after a snap election, with 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, one Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP and five independents elected. Major parties are intensifying negotiations with the crossbench to form another minority government as they attempt to secure the required 18 parliamentary votes needed to govern. But Labor, the Greens and several independents have lashed Mr Rockliff over what they say was a "sham" process to green-light the Marinus Link. Non-Liberal MPs were given a confidential briefing on the project on Tuesday, while the whole-of-state business case was not released before the deal was signed. Craig Garland, one of four independents on the cross bench, has ruled out supporting a Liberal government over their "secret" rushed decision. Independents Kristie Johnston and Peter George were also critical of the process, with the latter saying Mr Rockliff was undermining the prospect of a full-term, well-run minority government. Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said the premier's decision to proceed with one of the nation's biggest projects with little consultation showed he was incapable of genuinely working across the parliament. Labor's Sarah Lovell said the decision was at odds with the premier's promise of transparency. Mr Rockliff said the deal had capped Tasmania's equity share at $103.5 million - 4.27 per cent of the project's cost. However, the business case forecasts an increase in state net debt to $19 billion in 2031/32 as a result of the project. A "transformative, nation-building" energy project has been given the environmental green light to proceed, but risks dimming a premier's electoral hopes. The multi-billion-dollar Marinus Link cable will boost electricity transmission between Tasmania and Victoria and is seen as pivotal in increasing green energy investment. Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff signed up to the joint Victoria and Commonwealth investment contract on Friday, while in caretaker mode and a day before the deadline. The federal government on Sunday lifted another hurdle for the construction and operation of the 1500 megawatt undersea electricity and fibre optics cable. "The Albanese government has given environmental approval to a transformative, nation-building project which will generate jobs and investment for Tasmania and Victoria while unlocking clean and reliable energy," Environment Minister Murray Watt said in a statement. Construction of stage one, a 750-megawatt undersea cable, is expected to start in 2026 and finish in 2030. It will have enough power to supply 750,000 homes and enhance internet connectivity. It comes as the final makeup of Tasmania's parliament was decided after a snap election, with 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, one Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP and five independents elected. Major parties are intensifying negotiations with the crossbench to form another minority government as they attempt to secure the required 18 parliamentary votes needed to govern. But Labor, the Greens and several independents have lashed Mr Rockliff over what they say was a "sham" process to green-light the Marinus Link. Non-Liberal MPs were given a confidential briefing on the project on Tuesday, while the whole-of-state business case was not released before the deal was signed. Craig Garland, one of four independents on the cross bench, has ruled out supporting a Liberal government over their "secret" rushed decision. Independents Kristie Johnston and Peter George were also critical of the process, with the latter saying Mr Rockliff was undermining the prospect of a full-term, well-run minority government. Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said the premier's decision to proceed with one of the nation's biggest projects with little consultation showed he was incapable of genuinely working across the parliament. Labor's Sarah Lovell said the decision was at odds with the premier's promise of transparency. Mr Rockliff said the deal had capped Tasmania's equity share at $103.5 million - 4.27 per cent of the project's cost. However, the business case forecasts an increase in state net debt to $19 billion in 2031/32 as a result of the project. A "transformative, nation-building" energy project has been given the environmental green light to proceed, but risks dimming a premier's electoral hopes. The multi-billion-dollar Marinus Link cable will boost electricity transmission between Tasmania and Victoria and is seen as pivotal in increasing green energy investment. Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff signed up to the joint Victoria and Commonwealth investment contract on Friday, while in caretaker mode and a day before the deadline. The federal government on Sunday lifted another hurdle for the construction and operation of the 1500 megawatt undersea electricity and fibre optics cable. "The Albanese government has given environmental approval to a transformative, nation-building project which will generate jobs and investment for Tasmania and Victoria while unlocking clean and reliable energy," Environment Minister Murray Watt said in a statement. Construction of stage one, a 750-megawatt undersea cable, is expected to start in 2026 and finish in 2030. It will have enough power to supply 750,000 homes and enhance internet connectivity. It comes as the final makeup of Tasmania's parliament was decided after a snap election, with 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, one Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP and five independents elected. Major parties are intensifying negotiations with the crossbench to form another minority government as they attempt to secure the required 18 parliamentary votes needed to govern. But Labor, the Greens and several independents have lashed Mr Rockliff over what they say was a "sham" process to green-light the Marinus Link. Non-Liberal MPs were given a confidential briefing on the project on Tuesday, while the whole-of-state business case was not released before the deal was signed. Craig Garland, one of four independents on the cross bench, has ruled out supporting a Liberal government over their "secret" rushed decision. Independents Kristie Johnston and Peter George were also critical of the process, with the latter saying Mr Rockliff was undermining the prospect of a full-term, well-run minority government. Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said the premier's decision to proceed with one of the nation's biggest projects with little consultation showed he was incapable of genuinely working across the parliament. Labor's Sarah Lovell said the decision was at odds with the premier's promise of transparency. Mr Rockliff said the deal had capped Tasmania's equity share at $103.5 million - 4.27 per cent of the project's cost. However, the business case forecasts an increase in state net debt to $19 billion in 2031/32 as a result of the project. A "transformative, nation-building" energy project has been given the environmental green light to proceed, but risks dimming a premier's electoral hopes. The multi-billion-dollar Marinus Link cable will boost electricity transmission between Tasmania and Victoria and is seen as pivotal in increasing green energy investment. Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff signed up to the joint Victoria and Commonwealth investment contract on Friday, while in caretaker mode and a day before the deadline. The federal government on Sunday lifted another hurdle for the construction and operation of the 1500 megawatt undersea electricity and fibre optics cable. "The Albanese government has given environmental approval to a transformative, nation-building project which will generate jobs and investment for Tasmania and Victoria while unlocking clean and reliable energy," Environment Minister Murray Watt said in a statement. Construction of stage one, a 750-megawatt undersea cable, is expected to start in 2026 and finish in 2030. It will have enough power to supply 750,000 homes and enhance internet connectivity. It comes as the final makeup of Tasmania's parliament was decided after a snap election, with 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, one Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP and five independents elected. Major parties are intensifying negotiations with the crossbench to form another minority government as they attempt to secure the required 18 parliamentary votes needed to govern. But Labor, the Greens and several independents have lashed Mr Rockliff over what they say was a "sham" process to green-light the Marinus Link. Non-Liberal MPs were given a confidential briefing on the project on Tuesday, while the whole-of-state business case was not released before the deal was signed. Craig Garland, one of four independents on the cross bench, has ruled out supporting a Liberal government over their "secret" rushed decision. Independents Kristie Johnston and Peter George were also critical of the process, with the latter saying Mr Rockliff was undermining the prospect of a full-term, well-run minority government. Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said the premier's decision to proceed with one of the nation's biggest projects with little consultation showed he was incapable of genuinely working across the parliament. Labor's Sarah Lovell said the decision was at odds with the premier's promise of transparency. Mr Rockliff said the deal had capped Tasmania's equity share at $103.5 million - 4.27 per cent of the project's cost. However, the business case forecasts an increase in state net debt to $19 billion in 2031/32 as a result of the project.
