The Claim
“Proposed new laws which will allow the government to block capitalists from planting lots of trees to fight climate change, despite saying they plan to solve climate change with "'can do' capitalism, not 'don't do' governments".”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The Coalition did propose regulations to restrict tree planting as part of carbon farming projects. In December 2021, Agriculture Minister David Littleproud announced restrictions on native forest regeneration projects under the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) [1]. The proposed regulations would give the Agriculture Minister veto power to block new or expanded native forest regeneration projects that covered more than 15 hectares AND comprised more than 33 percent of an individual farm property [1].
According to the ABC, these restrictions came into effect on April 8, 2022 [2]. The stated rationale was to prevent "perverse outcomes" where entire viable farmland would be converted to carbon projects, removing productive agricultural land and causing regional community decline [1]. Agriculture Minister David Littleproud stated: "If it is more than 33 per cent of that individual property, they will have to apply to the federal government and the minister for agriculture will have the veto powers to decline that application if they believe it is not in the interests of the community" [1].
The ABC reported that the veto power would only apply to "new or expanded native forest regeneration projects" [1], meaning existing tree-planting initiatives could continue but large-scale new projects required ministerial approval.
Missing Context
However, the claim lacks several important context points:
1. The restrictions targeted large-scale regeneration projects, not tree planting broadly. The regulations specifically restricted native forest regeneration projects larger than 15 hectares covering more than one-third of a farm [1]. Tree planting for biodiversity payments (the actual tree-planting scheme) under the National Stewardship Trading Platform pilot was encouraged, not blocked [1].
2. The restrictions had practical justification beyond ideology. Littleproud's concern was based on documented community issues: in regions like Bourke and Cobar in western NSW, large-scale carbon projects were reportedly causing agricultural families to sell properties because carbon credits made land more valuable as "passive investment" than for farming [1]. One local resident stated: "Everyone's selling up due to carbon credits. There's no-one to run the properties, no people and no stock and people have given up" [1]. Professor Richard Eckard, who oversees Australia's carbon accreditation programs, acknowledged these were legitimate concerns, noting "taking viable farmland and putting it down to trees... or locking up productive farmland so it can store more carbon in the soil are examples of perverse outcomes" [1].
3. Tree planting was NOT blocked—only large-scale regeneration projects were restricted. The pilot National Stewardship Trading Platform that paid farmers to plant trees in eroded gullies and shelter belts continued and was expanded [1]. The restrictions applied to passive native forest regeneration (where land regrows naturally) rather than active tree planting programs [1].
4. The veto power was narrowly targeted. The Minister could only veto projects meeting BOTH criteria (15+ hectares AND >33% of property) [2]. Small-scale tree planting was unaffected.
Source Credibility Assessment
ABC News (original source 1): The ABC is Australia's national public broadcaster, generally regarded as a mainstream, factual news source with center-left leaning in opinion content but balanced news reporting [3]. David Claughton's article presents factual information about the proposed regulations, quotes from minister and affected parties, and reports both the government's rationale AND the concerns from farmers and scientists. The article is news reporting, not opinion.
The Guardian (original source 2): The Guardian is a reputable UK-based international newspaper with a center-left editorial perspective [4]. However, the provided article is an opinion piece by Amy Remeikis, not news reporting. Opinion pieces are inherently not balanced—they present a critique of the government. The piece criticizes Morrison's "can do capitalism" rhetoric while noting the Coalition has imposed regulations when it suits them, but it does not engage substantively with the tree-planting/biodiversity scheme debate.
Assessment: Both sources are credible organizations, but the Guardian piece is opinion commentary designed to be critical, not balanced fact-checking. The ABC article is news reporting that presents the government's perspective, community concerns, and scientific concerns.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government tree planting carbon credits policy" and "Labor Albanese nature repair market"
Finding: The Labor government (elected May 2022) continued and expanded the Coalition's biodiversity scheme. The Albanese government introduced the Nature Repair Market Bill to Parliament in March 2023 [5]. This bill established the world's first voluntary national biodiversity market, allowing landholders to generate tradeable biodiversity certificates [5]. Labor passed this legislation with support from the Greens after negotiating amendments [5].
Critically, the Labor government did NOT reverse the Coalition's veto restrictions on large-scale native forest regeneration projects. Instead, Labor expanded the scheme's scope to include private investment in nature repair across broader categories, not just tree planting [6].
Comparison: Rather than opposing the Coalition's approach to regulating large-scale regeneration projects, Labor adopted the entire framework and expanded it. Labor's Nature Repair Market Bill (2023) became "the world's first voluntary biodiversity market" [5], suggesting bipartisan support for regulated private environmental investment. This indicates the regulatory approach was not unique to the Coalition but represented cross-party consensus on the need for safeguards in carbon/biodiversity markets.
Balanced Perspective
The Contradiction Claimed: The claim suggests Morrison promoted "can do capitalism" while simultaneously blocking private tree planting through regulation, presenting this as hypocritical.
What Actually Happened: Morrison promoted private-sector leadership in climate action while restricting LARGE-SCALE native forest regeneration projects that risked converting productive farmland to passive carbon projects. This is not necessarily contradictory—it represents a preference for market-driven solutions with guardrails against market failure.
Legitimate Government Rationale: The restrictions addressed documented "perverse outcomes"—situations where economic incentives (carbon credits) caused unintended social/economic harm (farming families leaving regions, loss of agricultural production) [1]. Economist Professor Richard Eckard articulated this: "The moment you put a monetary value on carbon in trees and soils you've created an incentive for a broker in the middle to create a business model out of it" [1]. Government regulation to prevent market-driven negative externalities is a standard policy tool, even in capitalist economies.
The "Can Do Capitalism" Claim: Morrison's "can do capitalism, not don't do governments" rhetoric did emphasize private sector responsibility [1]. However, the tree-planting restrictions don't directly contradict this—they restrict ONE type of project (large passive regeneration) while supporting others (active tree planting, biodiversity credits). The restrictions were about protecting agriculture, not blocking capitalism generally.
Cross-Party Evidence: The fact that Labor not only accepted but expanded these regulations via the Nature Repair Market Bill suggests the concern about large-scale regeneration projects had legitimate, non-partisan basis. Both parties supported regulated biodiversity markets, indicating this was not ideological opposition to capitalism but pragmatic policy design.
Where the Claim Has Merit: The Guardian article's broader critique has some validity—Morrison's government did subsidize fossil fuels ($10bn+ annually according to the Australia Institute) [1] while relying on private sector climate action elsewhere. This inconsistency in climate policy (supporting some private solutions while subsidizing fossil fuel alternatives) is fair criticism. However, this is a different issue from "blocking tree planting."
MISLEADING
6.0
out of 10
The claim accurately states that Coalition proposed restrictions on tree-planting related regeneration projects, but misrepresents what was restricted and why. The regulations specifically targeted large-scale native forest regeneration projects (>15 hectares covering >33% of farms) to prevent agricultural decline in rural regions—not a broad block on tree planting or private capitalism. Active tree planting programs and biodiversity credits continued. The Labor government subsequently adopted and expanded this regulatory approach, indicating bipartisan consensus on the need for market safeguards. The "can do capitalism" comparison is somewhat valid as criticism of rhetorical inconsistency, but it ignores legitimate policy rationales for restricting certain project types.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim accurately states that Coalition proposed restrictions on tree-planting related regeneration projects, but misrepresents what was restricted and why. The regulations specifically targeted large-scale native forest regeneration projects (>15 hectares covering >33% of farms) to prevent agricultural decline in rural regions—not a broad block on tree planting or private capitalism. Active tree planting programs and biodiversity credits continued. The Labor government subsequently adopted and expanded this regulatory approach, indicating bipartisan consensus on the need for market safeguards. The "can do capitalism" comparison is somewhat valid as criticism of rhetorical inconsistency, but it ignores legitimate policy rationales for restricting certain project types.
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.