Australia's Courtroom Climate Judgement - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Australia's climate legal battles are outpacing Parliament
and forcing corporations to account for promises they cannot keep

Key Points

The Federal Court rejected a novel duty of care for Torres Strait Islanders in 2025, closing a key pathway for future government climate claims. 1 ASIC's greenwashing enforcement hit a record, with penalties of $11.3 million against Mercer and $12.9 million against Vanguard. 2 The 2019 Rocky Hill decision established that downstream emissions are a legitimate basis for rejecting fossil fuel development. 3 Mandatory climate disclosure commenced for Australia's largest companies from January 2025, creating new litigation pathways. 4 Santos won its Federal Court greenwashing case in February 2026, signalling courts will scrutinise evidence rigorously. 5 Australian courts are now engaging seriously with climate science but remain reluctant to expand government liability into policy territory. 6

The courtroom in Sydney's Queen's Square has rarely felt like the right place to argue about the future of the Great Barrier Reef or rising seawater in Torres Strait. 

Yet across the past six years, that is precisely where some of the most consequential debates in Australian climate policy have played out before judges asked to interpret old laws in a warming world.

Australia has no Bill of Rights, no constitutional guarantee of a healthy environment, and no standalone Climate Act. 

What it has, increasingly, is litigation. Citizens, community organisations, and activist investors are using consumer law, corporations law, administrative review, and planning statutes to do what federal legislation has not: hold emitters and governments accountable for what they say and what they do. 

The results are messy, contested, and genuinely significant.

Two threads run through this legal story. 

One is the search for a common law duty of care, a theory that governments and corporations owe future generations an obligation to reduce harm from climate change. 

The other is the greenwashing wave: a surge of regulatory and activist litigation targeting companies whose environmental claims have outrun their actual conduct. Both are reshaping corporate behaviour faster than any parliamentary committee.

The Duty of Care That Keeps Failing

The most ambitious attempt to use tort law for climate accountability ended quietly on 15 July 2025. Justice Wigney of the Federal Court dismissed the class action brought by two Torres Strait Island elders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Guy Paul Kabai, on behalf of the traditional inhabitants of the Torres Strait. ¹ 

Their argument was precise: the Commonwealth owed them a duty to set emissions targets aligned with the best available science, and had breached that duty through a decade of inadequate action.

Justice Wigney declined to accept it. Emissions reduction targets, he found, involve matters of core government policy that courts are not equipped to adjudicate. ⁶ 

The reasoning tracked closely with the Full Federal Court's earlier reversal in Sharma, where a novel duty owed by the Environment Minister to school-aged children was initially recognised, then stripped on appeal in 2022. Together, the two cases draw a hard line around judicial intervention in climate policy: courts will hear the science, but they will not dictate the response.

That is not nothing. Justice Wigney also made a finding that if such a duty had existed, the Commonwealth would have been in breach for failing to set targets consistent with the best available science. It is a judicial aside, technically irrelevant to the outcome, and yet it sits in the record. The applicants have filed an appeal to the Full Federal Court. 

Whether the appellate bench revisits the duty analysis or confirms it will partly determine whether this strand of litigation has a future in Australia.

What the Pabai case exposed, beyond the doctrinal question, was the human weight behind the legal argument. The Torres Strait Islands sit barely above sea level. Storm surges already inundate graveyards. The cultural practice the applicants called Ailan Kastom, connection to sea, land, and ancestors, was argued to constitute a recoverable loss under negligence. 

Justice Wigney declined to recognise it as compensable harm. The communities whose existence prompted the case remain as exposed as they were when the proceedings began.

Planning Law as Climate Veto

While federal tort law has stalled, state planning tribunals have moved with more confidence. The clearest precedent remains Gloucester Resources v Minister for Planning, decided by the NSW Land and Environment Court in February 2019. Chief Justice Preston rejected the Rocky Hill coal mine project not primarily on procedural grounds, but on substantive climate ones. An open cut coal mine in that valley, he found, would be in the wrong place at the wrong time. ³

The significance of that framing is still unfolding. Chief Justice Preston found a causal link between the project's emissions and climate change, and crucially refused the argument that a project producing a small fraction of global emissions could not meaningfully contribute to global warming. Every tonne counts. 

That reasoning has filtered through the NSW Independent Planning Commission and influenced subsequent coal mine assessments. The Bylong Coal Project was rejected on similar grounds just months later.

State tribunals have produced more durable climate jurisprudence than federal courts partly because planning appeals turn on merits, not legal novelty. A judge assessing whether a mine is in the public interest can weigh emissions directly. The standard does not require inventing a new duty of care. It requires good science and a willingness to use it, both of which Chief Justice Preston demonstrated.

That asymmetry between jurisdictions is a feature, not a bug, for climate litigants. Activist lawyers are choosing their terrain carefully, and state planning law offers ground that federal negligence doctrine does not.

The Greenwashing Reckoning

While duty of care arguments have struggled, a second front has opened with far greater commercial impact. ASIC's campaign against greenwashing in the financial sector produced the most consequential climate-related penalties in Australian legal history across 2024 and 2025. 

Mercer Superannuation was ordered to pay $11.3 million after admitting it made misleading statements about the sustainable credentials of its investment options. Vanguard Investments Australia followed, ordered to pay $12.9 million for misrepresenting ESG exclusionary screens applied to a bond fund with more than $1 billion under management. Active Super was penalised a further $10.5 million. ²

What the three cases share is a simple evidentiary problem: each company said it excluded certain industries from its sustainable options, and each invested in them anyway. The gap between published policy and actual portfolio was the violation. Under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, a statement does not need to be deliberately false to constitute misleading conduct. It only needs to create a false impression. 

Aspirational language, the vague promise of alignment with net zero, is now legally precarious unless it rests on a credible and documented methodology.

The activist litigation front produced a more mixed result. The Australian Centre for Corporate Responsibility's case against Santos over net zero pathway statements was heard in late 2024, with the Federal Court handing down its decision in February 2026. ⁵ 

The court found the allegations of misleading conduct were not made out. Santos' forward-looking climate statements, however contested their methodology, were found to have a reasonable basis. The decision is being closely studied by environmental law groups. It does not close the door on greenwashing claims against energy companies, but it narrows it considerably.

A separate first-of-its-kind greenwashing proceeding against a major energy company marketing a consumer product as carbon neutral was settled just before trial commenced, leaving no public precedent on how courts would assess carbon neutrality claims for retail products. Settlements of that kind, reached at the threshold of proceedings, suppress the very jurisprudence that future litigants need.

Directors in the Frame

The passage of mandatory climate disclosure legislation in September 2024 introduced the sharpest shift in corporate exposure. From January 2025, Australia's largest companies are required to prepare annual sustainability reports aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board framework, filed as part of their statutory annual reports and subject to director sign-off. ⁴ 

Directors are legally responsible for the accuracy of those disclosures under the existing liability framework of the Corporations Act.

The legislation includes a modified liability window. For the period from July 2025 to June 2028, only ASIC, not private litigants, can bring action relating to Scope 3 emissions disclosures, scenario analysis, and transition plan statements. ⁴ 

The rationale was to give companies time to develop disclosure capability without being immediately exposed to class actions. After that window closes, private litigation becomes available for claims that climate disclosures were materially misleading.

Securities lawyers are already anticipating what that wave might look like. The first sustainability reports from Group 1 entities, covering the 2025 financial year, are due in 2026. Once those documents are in the public domain, plaintiff firms will compare disclosed transition plans against actual emissions trajectories, capital expenditure in fossil fuels, and public statements by executives. 

The distance between what a company says about its climate risk and what an investor later experiences as a financial loss is the territory where climate disclosure fraud claims will be built.

The Legislative Gap

Courts filling the space that legislation has not occupied creates its own tensions. The Sharma line of cases prompted debate about whether judges should be setting climate policy by default, when it is Parliament's role to do so. The courts have largely answered that question themselves, by refusing to extend duty of care to government emissions decisions. But in the process, they have handed corporations more clarity about where their exposure actually lies: not in novel tort, but in what they say publicly about their own conduct.

The Albanese government's Safeguard Mechanism reforms, tightening emissions baselines on Australia's largest industrial facilities, were designed partly to give the largest emitters a regulatory framework they could point to in litigation. Compliance with the Safeguard Mechanism is not, however, a defence to a greenwashing claim. A company can meet its regulatory baseline and still have misrepresented its net zero trajectory to investors. Those are separate legal questions.

Practitioners working across both domains note the irony: the legislative framework is most developed exactly where courts have been least willing to go, government emissions policy, and least developed where courts have been most active, corporate disclosure and planning approvals. That inversion shapes the strategy of every climate litigant in the country.

The International Dimension

Australian climate litigation does not develop in isolation. The International Court of Justice handed down its Advisory Opinion on state climate obligations on 23 July 2025, finding that customary international law imposes climate-related obligations on states beyond what treaty commitments specify. ⁷ 

The opinion is non-binding, but it gives advocates a body of international reasoning to introduce into domestic arguments, particularly in cases where administrative law review requires consideration of Australia's international obligations.

The 2025 Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation snapshot, produced by the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, noted that the overall growth rate of climate litigation is stabilising as the field matures and more complex, targeted cases replace broader framework actions. ⁸ 

Australia's trajectory fits that pattern: the era of the landmark test case is giving way to sector-specific enforcement, disclosure liability, and strategic planning challenges.

What connects the Australian cases to comparable proceedings in the Netherlands and Germany is the same underlying pressure: legal systems built for a stable climate are being asked to respond to systemic disruption. The difference is that Australia lacks constitutional rights provisions, making courts more cautious about expanding common law duties into policy territory. 

That caution has disappointed climate advocates. It has not, however, stopped litigation. It has simply redirected it toward harder, more technical terrain.

What Comes Next

The appeal by the Torres Strait Islander applicants in Pabai is proceeding before the Full Federal Court. If the appellate bench finds differently on the duty question, the implications for Commonwealth climate policy would be immediate and profound. Even a partial reversal, on the adaptation obligations rather than the emissions targets, would open new liability pathways. That remains a significant legal risk on the government's horizon.

Greenwashing enforcement will intensify as the first mandatory sustainability reports land. ASIC has signalled it will not make greenwashing an explicit priority in 2026, but the agency has also been unambiguous that this does not represent a withdrawal from climate-related enforcement. The combination of mandatory disclosure and the existing penalties framework means any significant gap between what a company reports and what it actually does becomes a live legal question.

The courtroom has not solved the climate crisis. It was never going to. But it has done something more specific: it has changed the calculus of risk for boards, fund managers, and infrastructure developers across the country. 

In a nation where federal climate legislation has moved fitfully for three decades, that shift in corporate exposure may prove to be the most durable consequence of a long and expensive era of legal contest.

References

1. Human Rights Law Centre. (2025). Federal Court Determines the Commonwealth Owes No Duty of Care to Protect Torres Strait Islanders from Climate Change. HRLC Case Summary.

2. Australian Securities and Investments Commission. (2024). ASIC's Vanguard Greenwashing Action Results in Record $12.9 Million Penalty. ASIC Media Release.

3. Norton Rose Fulbright. (2019). Wrong Place at the Wrong Time: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to Coal Mine Refusal. Norton Rose Fulbright Insights.

4. DLA Piper. (2024). Key Elements of the New Australian Mandatory Climate-Related Reporting Requirements. DLA Piper Insights.

5. Ashurst. (2026). Climate Litigation in Australia: Key Developments in 2025 and What's Ahead for 2026. Ashurst Insights.

6. Corrs Chambers Westgarth. (2025). Pabai Decision: Federal Court Finds No Duty of Care to Protect Torres Strait Islanders from Climate Change. Corrs Insights.

7. International Court of Justice. (2025). Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. ICJ, July 2025.

8. Setzer, J. and Higham, C. (2025). Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics.

9. ASIC. (2024). ASIC's First Greenwashing Case Results in Landmark $11.3 Million Penalty for Mercer. ASIC Media Release.

10. Gilbert + Tobin. (2025). Mandatory Climate-Related Financial Disclosure Has Commenced: What You Need to Know. Gilbert + Tobin Insights.

11. LexisNexis. (2025). Climate Litigation in Australia: Emerging Legal Duties for Lawyers. LexisNexis Insights.

12. Environmental Defenders Office. (2025). Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia. EDO Case Summary.

13. Lexology / Ashurst. (2025). Climate Litigation Is Shaping the Regulatory Landscape in Australia. Lexology.

Back to top

The Reckoning Comes to Coal Country: Australia's Regional Towns Stare Down the Stranded Asset Crisis - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Across regional Australia councils quietly scramble
as coal and gas revenues face irreversible decline

Key Points

Under current planning approvals, 32 of NSW's 39 coal mines are expected to close by 2040, directly threatening 25,000 jobs and the finances of every council in the Hunter and Central West regions. 1 BHP has committed to closing Mt Arthur Coal, NSW's largest mine, by 2030, leaving Muswellbrook facing economic and social upheaval with limited legally binding corporate obligations to the community. 2 The Latrobe Valley received over $1.6 billion in transition investment after Hazelwood closed in 2017, yet reporting transparency from the Latrobe Valley Authority has remained seriously deficient. 3 Auditor-general reports across Australian jurisdictions consistently identify shortfalls in mine rehabilitation bond provisions, leaving State governments and communities exposed to unfunded environmental liabilities. 4 NSW coal generates $2.7 billion in annual royalties, but no direct funding stream currently flows to mining-impacted communities for economic transformation planning. 5 Isaac Regional Council, Australia's largest resource region by area, has called for a formal Queensland Government authority to manage coal region transformation, signalling the scale of transition risk it cannot manage alone. 6

In Moranbah, Queensland, the town pub still fills on a Friday afternoon. The fly-in, fly-out rosters still tick over. The mines around the Bowen Basin still move coal. 

But inside the offices of Isaac Regional Council, the conversations have shifted. 

Council moved a motion at the Local Government Association of Queensland's annual conference last year calling on the State Government to establish a formal regional authority to manage what it called "transformational changes in coal mining regions". ⁶ 

For a Council that governs Australia's self-described largest resource region, that motion was not abstract advocacy. It was an admission that the forces reshaping global energy markets are moving faster than any single Local Government can absorb.

Stranded assets, so often framed as a problem for institutional investors and company balance sheets, lands differently on a rate roll. 

When a coal mine's assessed capital value falls, so does the rateable value the Council depends on. When a company mothballs or writes down assets, the Local Government area that built its roads, sewers, and sporting facilities on that rate base does not get a matching write-down of its obligations. 

The liability stays. The income does not.

Australia is entering a period in which that gap, between what resource-dependent councils owe and what they can collect, will become one of the defining fiscal pressures of regional governance. Few councils, and fewer State Governments, have stated this plainly.

The Scale of What Is Coming

The numbers in New South Wales alone are stark. Under existing planning approvals, all four of the 

tate's coal-fired power stations and 32 of its 39 coal mines are projected to close by 2040. ¹ 

Around 25,000 people work directly in NSW coal mining. When indirect employment, contractors, logistics, and the hospitality and retail that follows mine wages around is included, the Hunter Valley region alone faces the potential loss of close to 50,000 direct and indirect jobs over the next two decades. ⁷

NSW coal generated $2.7 billion in royalties for the State Government in the 2025 financial year and $23.4 billion in export revenue. ⁵ 

Almost none of that royalty flows directly back to the councils whose roads carry the coal trucks, whose hospitals treat the miners, or whose water systems serve the towns built around extraction. The NSW Government's own Royalties for Rejuvenation scheme, which directed funds back to coal communities, was effectively frozen under the previous Liberal-National Government, with more than $100 million sitting unspent while councils deferred maintenance and watched their infrastructure backlogs grow.

Queensland presents a different but related picture. Isaac Regional Council covers 58,709 square kilometres of central Queensland coalfields, encompassing towns such as Moranbah, Dysart, Middlemount, and Glenden. Its rate base is overwhelmingly tied to mining sector ratepayers. The Council's financial statements for the year ended June 2024 reveal a remediation provision of more than $38 million, an obligation growing steadily each year. ⁸ 

The Council's broader financial sustainability depends on mining rates income remaining at or near current levels. No publicly available document maps what happens to that budget if two or three major Bowen Basin mines reduce production or close within the same five-year window.

Muswellbrook: A Town That Knows the Clock Is Running

Of all the towns facing a defined countdown, Muswellbrook in the Upper Hunter Valley of NSW is the most legible. BHP has committed to transitioning its Mt Arthur Coal mine, NSW's largest, to closure by 2030. ² 

The mine currently employs around 2,200 people. Many live locally. It has shaped the town since the 1960s. When University of Newcastle researchers from the Institute for Regional Futures spoke to 69 community members between March and December 2024, the responses carried a quality that no economic impact statement captures. "We're not going anywhere. We love our house and our land," one participant said. Another: "I'm gonna get carried out of here in a box, too."

The researchers published their findings in late 2025, urging BHP to leave a positive and lasting legacy and recommending a place-based, community-endorsed closure strategy. ² 

The language of the report is careful. It does not say BHP's existing commitments are sufficient. It says the community has hopes. That distinction matters. The question of whether BHP's transition commitments to Muswellbrook Shire Council are legally binding obligations or reputational statements remains, for practical purposes, unanswered in any public document. Planning approval conditions can bind companies to rehabilitation timelines. They rarely bind them to employment outcomes, school maintenance contributions, or community fund continuity after closure.

The asymmetry here is structural. A company can disclose in its sustainability report that it is committed to a just transition. It can also, without breaching that statement, reduce its workforce progressively over five years, shift contractors off-site, and allow community sponsorships to lapse. By the time formal closure arrives, the economic drawdown has already occurred. Muswellbrook's central business district will not register that loss on a single date.

The Rehabilitation Bond Problem

Running alongside the employment question is one that receives even less public attention: who pays for the mess. Mine rehabilitation in Australia is supposed to be funded by bonds held by State governments, calibrated to cover the full cost of restoring land to a safe condition after operations cease. The calibration has, across multiple jurisdictions and repeated audits, been found wanting.

Auditor-general reports across Australian jurisdictions have consistently identified shortfalls between the bonds held and the true cost of rehabilitation. ⁴ 

Queensland's Mine Rehabilitation Commissioner, in the 2024-25 annual report, tracks the industry-wide Environmental Rehabilitation Cost liability as a figure that has grown substantially since 2019, with progressive rehabilitation performance across coal mines persistently lagging behind what mine plans projected. ⁹ 

Queensland has, by its own account, achieved only one successful coal mine lease surrender under contemporary environmental regulations. That is one completed rehabilitation, against a field of dozens of operating mines, many of which have no publicly stated closure date.

If bonds are inadequate and rehabilitation costs fall to State governments, the fiscal consequences reach beyond environment departments. They reach the councils in those communities, which may find themselves managing degraded landscapes and reduced rateable land values for decades after the mines close. The cost does not disappear. It disperses.

The Latrobe Valley: A Lesson in What Sufficient Funding Looks Like, and Doesn't

The most studied transition case in Australian history remains the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, where the Hazelwood power station closed without warning in March 2017, eliminating around 750 direct jobs and triggering a cascade of secondary employment losses. The Victorian State Government responded by establishing the Latrobe Valley Authority and committing, over subsequent years, to more than $1.6 billion in programs and infrastructure investment. ³ 

Regional Development Victoria reports that employment in Gippsland is now higher than it was a decade ago, and that an economic growth reimbursement scheme supported 374 businesses and created 1,156 jobs.

ANU researchers who evaluated the transition in its first three years found "promising initial progress," noting that the programme worked best where it combined proactive industry policy, respectful community engagement, and adequately funded coordinated investment. ¹⁰ 

Those conditions, the authors stressed, needed to be in place simultaneously. Any one of them alone was insufficient.

But the Latrobe Valley transition also reveals the fragility of political commitment. The Latrobe Valley Authority's reporting transparency was subsequently criticised in a Victorian parliamentary committee inquiry, which noted that no community performance report had been published since 2019 despite the LVA being funded to deliver ongoing transition support. State opposition members cited an inability to assess whether job creation targets were being met or whether the programme had achieved its stated goals. 

A transition funded at scale still depends on institutions that are accountable and transparent about outcomes. When accountability lapses, community confidence in the process erodes precisely when it is most needed.

The Policy Gap: Royalties, Risk, and Responsibility

The NSW Government launched its Future Jobs and Investment Authority in June 2025, backed by $27.3 million over four years and a mandate to work across the Hunter, Central West, Illawarra, and North West regions. ¹ The authority will also unlock the previously frozen Royalties for Rejuvenation funds. It is, on paper, a serious institutional response. Mandatory three-year mine closure notifications will now require operators to give communities and governments advance warning before shutting down.

Whether $27.3 million across four years, covering four distinct regions and potentially dozens of closing mines, is adequate to the scale of the task is a question the   Government has not answered directly. The Hunter Valley's own advocacy body estimated in September 2025 that the closure of just two mines by 2030 would eliminate close to 12,000 direct and indirect jobs in the region alone. ⁷ 

The arithmetic is uncomfortable. The funding envelope, against that employment exposure, is not a transition programme. It is a planning exercise.

Royalties sit at the centre of this problem. In NSW, mining royalties exceeded $3 billion in the 2025-26 State budget. ⁵ 

Communities in coal regions host the operations, bear the noise, the dust, the road wear, and the social complexity of transient workforces, and contribute decisively to a State revenue stream that flows overwhelmingly to consolidated revenue in Sydney. The principle that a share of resource royalties should be retained in origin communities is not radical. It is routine in Western Australia, where Royalties for Regions redistributes a portion of State royalties back to regional areas. The NSW equivalent was allowed to stagnate. 

Councils like those in the Hunter Valley pursued FOI requests, submitted motions to the Local Government NSW annual conference, and lobbied through the Hunter Joint Organisation for a dedicated community transformation fund. What they received was a $27.3 million authority and an unlocked legacy fund.

Workers and the Invisible Countdown

Behind the fiscal arguments, the human exposure is different in character. A coal miner in the Bowen Basin or Upper Hunter with fifteen years of tenure is often in their forties, carrying a mortgage on a house whose value is tied to the mine that pays it, and accumulating superannuation entitlements that assume continued employment to retirement. Redundancy at 48, in a regional town where alternative employment at equivalent wages does not exist, is a financial event with consequences that ripple through decades, not years.

Research on the social impacts of mine closures in comparable settings, including the Hazelwood closure studies and international literature on Appalachian coal communities, consistently identifies elevated mental health presentations, increased financial counselling demand, and rising domestic violence incidents in the period immediately following major closures or significant workforce reductions. 

The causal pathway is not mysterious. Financial stress, loss of occupational identity, and community population decline interact in ways that primary health networks in resource regions are already, in many cases, under-resourced to manage.

The fly-in, fly-out workforce complicates the picture. A significant proportion of workers at any given Bowen Basin mine live not in Moranbah or Dysart but in Mackay, Townsville, or Brisbane. When the mine closes, they do not leave a ghost town behind. They vanish from that community's payroll without ever having appeared in its census figures. 

The towns that will feel the closure most severely are those with the highest proportion of resident workers, long-tenure families, and locally-owned businesses that depend on foot traffic from mine wages. Identifying those towns with precision, before the closure, is precisely the kind of modelling that no State Government has publicly released.

What Accountability Would Actually Look Like

A coherent accountability framework for stranded asset risk in Australian Local Government does not currently exist. Councils in coal and gas regions are not required to disclose to ratepayers the proportion of their rate base derived from resource sector ratepayers, the contingency scenarios they have modelled for revenue decline, or the infrastructure backlog they are carrying against an uncertain revenue future. 

Listed companies with equivalent concentration risks face mandatory disclosure under ASX continuous disclosure obligations and, from January 2025, mandatory climate-related financial disclosure requirements. Councils do not.

Community benefit agreements between mining companies and Local Governments or State agencies are, in most cases in Australia, not publicly registered, not independently monitored, and not enforceable in a manner that has ever been successfully tested in court. The commitments companies make at the time of project approval, to local employment, community funds, infrastructure maintenance, often sit in planning approval conditions that are monitored, if at all, by resources departments with limited capacity and lower political priority.

Isaac Regional Council's call for a Queensland regional authority to manage transformation represents an acknowledgement that Local Government, on its own, cannot hold the pieces together. ⁶ 

Muswellbrook's residents, speaking to researchers who asked them plainly what they hoped for, said they wanted industry to leave a positive legacy. Not as charity. As obligation. That language, legacy as obligation, is the gap between where Australian policy currently sits and where it needs to arrive.

The Reckoning

The stranded asset crisis in Australia's coal and gas towns is not a future event to be modelled. It is an unfolding process, unevenly distributed across communities that have little capacity to manage it alone and governments that have, in most cases, not yet told them the full shape of what is coming. The German coal transition committed EUR 40 billion over 20 years to the Ruhr and Lausitz regions, building new infrastructure, retraining workers, and cushioning the fiscal collapse of municipalities that had been built around extraction. Australia's current commitments are not in that register.

What happens to a town when its major employer closes is not a mystery. The Latrobe Valley documented it. Appalachian communities in the United States documented it. Regional cities in the Ruhr documented it. The pattern, depopulation, infrastructure deterioration, health system pressure, property value decline, school enrolment shrinkage, is well established in the evidence base. The question for Australia is not what happens. 

The question is whether State and Federal Governments will choose, before the closures arrive at scale, to make legally enforceable commitments proportionate to the scale of the disruption. 

The towns are already deciding. The governments have not.

References

1. NSW Government. 2025. Future Jobs and Investment Authority Model to Secure Jobs and Economic Opportunities in Coal Mining Communities. NSW Government Media Release.

2. Askland, H. et al. 2025. We're Not Going Anywhere: Muswellbrook Faces Transition Beyond Coal Head On. University of Newcastle Institute for Regional Futures.

3. Regional Development Victoria. 2025. Latrobe Valley Economic Transition. Victorian Government.

4. Discovery Alert. 2025. Queensland Mine Rehabilitation: Complete 2025 Guide. Discovery Alert.

5. Hunter Joint Organisation. 2025. Post Mining Land Use: 2025-26 Advocacy Factsheet. Hunter Joint Organisation of Councils.

6. Isaac Regional Council. 2024. Queensland's Largest Mining Council Calls for Regional Authority to Manage Transformation. Isaac Regional Council Media Release.

7. Clayton Utz. 2026. A New Chapter: What the NSW Coal Industry 2026-50 Policy Means for the Future of Coal Mining in New South Wales. Clayton Utz Insights.

8. Isaac Regional Council. 2024. Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2024. Isaac Regional Council.

9. Queensland Mine Rehabilitation Commissioner. 2025. 2024-25 Annual Report. Queensland Government.

10. Wiseman, J., Workman, A., Fastenrath, S., and Jotzo, F. 2020. After the Hazelwood Coal Fired Power Station Closure: Latrobe Valley Regional Transition Policies and Outcomes 2017-2020. ANU Crawford School of Public Policy.

11. NSW Government. 2024. $37.7 Million to Support Regional Communities and Protect Workers. NSW Budget 2024-25 Media Release.

12. Bland Shire Council. 2025. Bland Shire Council Seeks Support for Return of Mining Royalties to Local Communities. Bland Shire Council Media Release.

Back to top

The Law That Cannot Compel: How Australia's Climate Governance Is Failing the Test - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Australia has legislated climate targets it cannot legally enforce
while paying $16 billion a year to the industries driving the crisis

Key Points

Australia's Climate Change Act 2022 sets binding targets but imposes no legal penalty on any minister or agency if those targets are missed. 1 The Safeguard Mechanism covers around 215 industrial facilities, about 31% of national emissions, yet relies on self-reported baselines verified by an under-resourced regulator. 2 Federal and state governments paid $16.3 billion in fossil fuel subsidies in 2025-26, growing faster than the NDIS. 3 The Federal Court in July 2025 found the Commonwealth owes no duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to protect them from climate harm, closing off a major litigation avenue. 4 Bushfire smoke from Black Summer was linked to an estimated 417 excess deaths, yet no state has a legally mandated heat or smoke health action plan binding hospitals and employers. 5 Mandatory climate financial disclosure began in 2025, but smaller entities are phased in over three years and penalties for misleading statements remain modest. 6

The numbers in the Climate Change Act 2022 are precise.

Australia will cut emissions 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. It will reach net zero by 2050. The statute is real, signed, tabled in parliament.

What it does not contain, and what its architects chose not to include, is any mechanism to compel anyone to achieve those outcomes. 

No minister faces a civil penalty if the targets are missed. No agency can be sued. No court can order the government to act. 

The law is, in the language of its own explanatory memorandum, a transparency and accountability framework. It is not an enforcement mechanism.

That distinction matters enormously. The Climate Change Authority, the independent statutory body charged with advising on progress, is required to produce assessments. 

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy must table an annual statement. But "must report" and "must achieve" are entirely different obligations. ¹ 

The result is a legal architecture that can generate enormous amounts of paper and almost no consequences.

A Framework Built on Goodwill

Australia's absence of a standalone national climate adaptation law places it outside the company of comparable democracies. Britain enacted its Climate Change Act in 2008 with statutory five-year carbon budgets and ministerial duties enforceable in the courts. Germany and Denmark have legislated adaptation frameworks that assign specific planning obligations to government departments. 

Australia has the National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy 2021-2025, a non-binding policy document. No federal department bears a statutory duty to act on its recommendations. No timeline triggers a consequence if it is ignored.

The Safeguard Mechanism, reformed in 2023 and covering roughly 215 large industrial facilities, is the federal government's primary tool for constraining industrial emissions. Those facilities collectively produce around 31 per cent of Australia's annual output. ² 

Baselines are set using a hybrid of facility-specific and industry-average emissions intensities, initially weighted toward the former, transitioning to sector benchmarks by 2030. The Clean Energy Regulator administers the scheme and publishes compliance data. What it has not done is prosecute a facility for baseline manipulation. 

The verification regime relies heavily on self-reporting under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, with external audits triggered by the regulator's own risk assessments, not by independent routine inspection.

The EPBC Act, Australia's primary federal environment law, now overdue for replacement, has rarely been used to impose binding climate conditions on major project approvals. The proposed Nature Positive reforms stalled and were restructured after their initial legislative defeat. Meanwhile, project assessments have continued under a framework last comprehensively updated before the Paris Agreement existed.

The $16 Billion Contradiction

Federal and state governments spent $16.3 billion subsidising fossil fuel producers and major users in 2025-26, according to the Australia Institute, a 9.4 per cent increase on the previous year, outpacing growth in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. ³ 

The dominant mechanism is the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, which cost $10.8 billion in 2025-26 alone, predominantly benefiting mining companies. Treasury's own budget papers project the scheme's cost will grow faster than spending on disability support, aged care, and childcare subsidies through to 2028-29.

No independent body has conducted a comprehensive audit of whether this expenditure is disclosed consistently across years, whether the methodology captures all forms of public support, or whether the aggregate figure has ever been formally assessed by the Productivity Commission. 

The commission's last comprehensive review of climate inaction costs dates to 2014. The fiscal logic operating beneath Australia's climate commitments has not been formally stress-tested against current physical risk projections.

Queensland, Western Australia, and New South Wales continue to approve new thermal coal mines under state planning laws. Planning ministers applying cumulative downstream emissions tests do so under frameworks that vary by jurisdiction, have been inconsistently applied in court challenges, and carry no federal override mechanism. 

The National Cabinet has discussed climate resilience in its closed sessions, but its communiqués carry no binding force, and the decisions themselves remain confidential.

The Torres Strait Judgment

On 15 July 2025, Justice Wigney of the Federal Court handed down the most consequential climate ruling in Australia's legal history: a dismissal. In Pabai v Commonwealth (No 2), two elders of the Gudamlulgal Nation, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Guy Paul Kabai, had spent four years arguing that the federal government owed them a duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islanders from climate harm. ⁴ 

The court found no such duty existed. It confirmed that the Commonwealth's pre-2022 emissions targets fell short of scientific advice. It accepted the evidence of climate devastation bearing down on the islands. And it still dismissed the claim.

The reasoning followed the Full Federal Court's 2022 decision in Sharma. Both courts concluded that the negligence framework is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge high-level government climate policy. The duty of care the applicants sought was too broad and indeterminate; the class of potential plaintiffs too vast; the connection between specific government decisions and individual harm too indirect for the common law to accommodate. 

"My heart is broken," Uncle Pabai Pabai said after the decision.

The ruling lands against a broader international backdrop pulling in the opposite direction. The International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion, delivered eight days later, found that states bear climate obligations under both treaty law and customary international law. 

The UN Human Rights Committee had previously found Australia violated Torres Strait Islanders' rights through climate inaction. Australian domestic courts and international legal bodies are now producing directly contradictory conclusions about the same facts.

Who Bears the Health Burden

The Black Summer of 2019-20 produced, by peer-reviewed estimate, 417 excess deaths attributable to bushfire smoke, alongside more than 3,000 hospitalisations for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. ⁵ 

The smoke peak on 14 January 2020 reached PM2.5 concentrations more than fourteen times the national daily standard. No state or territory has since enacted a legally mandated heat or smoke health action plan that places binding obligations on hospitals, aged care facilities, or employers. Health ministers retain authority to issue public health directions under existing legislation, but that authority is discretionary, not compelled.

Climate change is simultaneously expanding the geographic range of vector-borne disease in northern Australia, dengue, Ross River virus, and the spectre of malaria reestablishment, while intensifying urban heat island effects in cities where summer temperatures routinely exceed 40 degrees. Mental health impacts accumulate alongside physical ones. 

The conditions clinicians describe as eco-anxiety and solastalgia, the grief of watching a familiar landscape irreversibly change, have no dedicated budget line in national mental health spending and no agency formally charged with measuring their disease burden.

Low-income renters carry a disproportionate share of climate health risk. Older housing stock without insulation or mechanical cooling concentrates heat exposure in the communities least able to afford alternatives. Several states have consulted on minimum energy efficiency standards for rental properties; none has yet legislated mandatory standards with teeth. 

The National Recovery and Resilience Agency holds data on the socioeconomic profile of disaster-affected households, but the granular breakdown of which households have not recovered housing within 12 months, and their income characteristics, has not been publicly released.

Disclosure Without Consequence

Australia's mandatory climate-related financial disclosure regime commenced on 1 January 2025, applying first to large companies and financial institutions. ⁶ 

Smaller entities follow in July 2026 and July 2027. During a transitional period to the end of 2027, liability for misleading statements on Scope 3 emissions, scenario analysis, and transition plans is effectively suspended for private litigants, with only ASIC able to bring action. 

Penalties under the Corporations Act for materially misleading climate statements range from $93,900 to $751,200 for individuals and entities. Against the scale of assets under management at institutions required to report, those figures are not a deterrent.

ASIC's greenwashing enforcement has been more assertive. Three civil penalty proceedings have produced convictions: $12.9 million against Vanguard Investments in September 2024, $11.3 million against Mercer Superannuation in August 2024, and $10.5 million against Active Super in March 2025. The pattern involves superannuation trustees claiming ESG exclusion screens that their investment holdings directly contradicted. 

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, which conducted a Climate Vulnerability Assessment of major banks in 2022, has not translated that assessment into binding prudential capital requirements. Banks are not currently required to hold additional capital against physical climate risk in lending portfolios.

Fragmentation as Policy

The Murray-Darling Basin provides the clearest study in what jurisdictional fragmentation produces at scale. The Basin Plan was legislated to recover environmental flows. Its water buyback targets have been repeatedly deferred under sustained political pressure from irrigating states. Environmental water recovery against the legislated target remains materially short. 

The Commonwealth's legal tools to compel non-compliant basin states are narrow and rarely invoked. The plan's environmental objectives are real. The enforcement mechanism is not.

State building codes, administered nationally through the National Construction Code, still fail to mandate climate-resilient design standards in all high-risk zones. Proposals to require higher standards for flood, heat, and bushfire exposure have faced sustained opposition from state governments citing construction costs and housing affordability. The irony, that the absence of those standards imposes far larger costs on future homeowners and insurers, is not reflected in the political calculus applied to their defeat. 

The Insurance Council of Australia has documented a growing number of communities where insurance is becoming unaffordable or unavailable. No government holds a legal obligation to maintain affordable insurance access in those communities. No regulatory tool currently compels insurers to provide coverage.

The Shape of What Is Missing

Australia has produced considerable climate law. What it has not produced is climate law that compels. The pattern across every tier of governance is the same: targets without penalties, strategies without statutory duties, frameworks without enforcement mechanisms. The Climate Change Act records what Australia intends. 

The Safeguard Mechanism instructs industry to reduce. The adaptation strategy asks departments to act. The building code could mandate resilience but chooses not to. The courts have now confirmed that neither negligence law nor judicial review will substitute for legislative design that actually requires outcomes.

The trajectory from here depends on whether parliaments are willing to write the next generation of climate statutes differently, with ministerial duties that can be enforced, adaptation standards that are mandatory rather than aspirational, and a fiscal position that does not subsidise the problem it claims to be solving at a rate of $31,000 per minute. 

The legal and scientific architecture for more ambitious governance exists. Expert bodies, parliamentary inquiries, and international frameworks have all described it in detail. What is missing is not knowledge. It is political will encoded in law.

References

1. Library of Congress. (2022). Australia: Legislation Setting Emissions Reduction Targets Enacted. Global Legal Monitor. 
2. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. (2024). Safeguard Mechanism Overview. Australian Government. 
3. The Australia Institute. (2026). Fossil Fuel Subsidies in Australia 2026. The Australia Institute. 
4. Corrs Chambers Westgarth. (2025). Pabai decision: Federal Court finds no duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islanders from climate change. Corrs Chambers Westgarth. 
5. Borchers Arriagada, N., et al. (2020). Unprecedented smoke-related health burden associated with the 2019-20 bushfires in eastern Australia. Medical Journal of Australia. 
6. ASIC. (2024). ASIC urges businesses to prepare for mandatory climate reporting. Australian Securities and Investments Commission. 
7. Allens. (2023). Government's Safeguard Mechanism reforms get the green light. Allens Linklaters. 
8. DLA Piper. (2022). Investor-State Arbitration and Australia's Climate Change Act 2022. DLA Piper. 
9. Bird & Bird. (2025). Three wins in a row: Active Super to pay $10.5 million penalty. Bird & Bird. 
10. MinterEllison. (2025). Federal Court decision in Pabai Pabai underscores importance of science-based corporate emissions targets. MinterEllison. 
11. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021). Data update: Short-term health impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfires. AIHW. 
12. The Australia Institute. (2025). Fossil Fuel Subsidies in Australia 2025. The Australia Institute. 
13. Gilbert + Tobin. (2025). Mandatory climate-related financial disclosure has commenced. Gilbert + Tobin. 
14. Norton Rose Fulbright. (2025). The Australian Climate Case: The Pabai Pabai Decision. Norton Rose Fulbright.
15. Corrs Chambers Westgarth. (2024). Assessing your preparedness for mandatory climate-related financial disclosures. Corrs Chambers Westgarth.

Back to top

Mid Year Review: Australia Faces Courts, Climate and a Budget That Chose Yesterday

A landmark High Court case, an international legal rebuke and a federal 
budget stripped of clean energy investment have arrived at the same hour. 
Australia must now decide what kind of country it intends to be.

Key Points

Australia's first climate case reached the High Court in May 2026, challenging a Hunter Valley coal mine expansion that would add 876 million tonnes of CO₂. 1 The International Court of Justice rejected Australia's argument that it bore no legal responsibility for emissions from its fossil fuel exports. 3 The federal budget cut nearly $2 billion from clean energy programs while leaving $19 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies untouched. 5 A January 2026 heatwave, the worst in six years, drove temperatures above 40°C across major cities; climate change made it 1.6°C hotter. 7 CSIRO is cutting up to a third of its climate modelling positions, threatening Australia's only southern-hemisphere global climate model. 9 The High Court's ruling will set a binding national precedent on whether planning authorities must assess a project's downstream climate harm. 2

Australia's climate reckoning has arrived in courtrooms, laboratories and budget papers all at once.

On 13 May 2026, seven justices of the High Court of Australia sat in the Canberra hearing room and took up a question that had been circling this country's policy debates for decades without ever quite landing: 

Does Australian law require planning authorities to account for the specific, local climate harm caused by the burning of fossil fuels they approve for export? 

Outside, a retired teacher named Wendy Wales had flown down from Muswellbrook. She had spent years leading the community group that challenged the Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion in the Hunter Valley, a mine whose approved optimisation project would double its output and run until 2048, releasing an estimated 876 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The answer the court gives will not just determine the fate of one open-cut mine. It will set a binding national precedent that will ripple through every future fossil fuel approval in the country.

A Community in Court

The case, MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Inc, did not originate with government. It grew from a grassroots group in the Upper Hunter, retired teachers and farmers who watched the horizon fill with dust and argued, methodically, through the planning system. 

The Independent Planning Commission had approved the extension in 2022, accepting that greenhouse gas emissions are a global phenomenon addressed by broad international frameworks. The NSW Court of Appeal unanimously rejected that reasoning in July 2025.¹

The appeal court found that planning authorities carry a mandatory obligation, under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, to consider the specific local climate impacts of a project's downstream emissions. Not the abstract physics of global warming. The particular heat, the particular flood risk, the particular harm to a particular valley. MACH Energy moved immediately to the High Court to overturn it.

Four institutions intervened in support of the community group: representatives from the Universities of Cambridge, Columbia and Melbourne, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their presence underscored the international dimension of what is, at its core, a local dispute about a coalfield in New South Wales.²

If the High Court upholds the NSW ruling, every future coal or gas approval in Australia faces a higher evidential bar. Proponents will need to model and disclose localised climate consequences, not simply point to the Paris Agreement and move on.

The World Court's Rebuke

The timing of the NSW Court of Appeal's decision was not accidental in its resonance. Just twelve hours before that ruling landed in July 2025, the International Court of Justice in The Hague published its advisory opinion on the obligations of states with respect to climate change. The opinion was unanimous. It was also, for Australian policymakers, deeply uncomfortable.

Australia had argued to the ICJ that it bore no legal responsibility for the emissions created when its exported coal and gas were burned in other countries' power stations. The Australian Solicitor-General told the court that only the Paris Agreement should apply, and that responsibility for climate harm could not be pinned on individual states.³ 

The court rejected those arguments. It found that fossil-fuel-exporting nations carry obligations under both treaty law and customary international law, including the duty to prevent significant harm to the environment. Granting exploration licences and providing fossil fuel subsidies, the court found, may themselves constitute internationally wrongful acts.

Professor Tim Stephens, an international law scholar at the University of Sydney, called it the most significant judgment the ICJ has ever delivered on environmental questions. Australia, he wrote, could no longer proclaim innocence by pointing to the small proportion of global emissions represented by its domestic output, while continuing to produce the coal and gas destroying its neighbours' lives and, increasingly, its own.⁴

The Pacific islands had led the campaign that brought the question to the ICJ, a campaign that began in Vanuatu's capital, Port Vila, and moved through the UN General Assembly in New York before arriving at The Hague. For Canberra, whose diplomatic relationship with the Pacific rests on claims of regional partnership, the ruling arrived as a rebuke clothed in legal language.

The Budget That Chose Yesterday

Five weeks after the High Court hearing, Treasurer Jim Chalmers handed down the 2026-27 federal budget. On the same day, a solar industry publication counted the damage: nearly $2 billion stripped from clean energy programs. 

The Battery Breakthrough Initiative lost unallocated capital grants. The Solar Sunshot program, announced in March 2024 with $1 billion in production subsidies to build a domestic solar supply chain, was wound back. The Hydrogen Headstart funding followed.⁵

Against that, the government left intact what the Climate Council estimates as $19 billion in annual effective support for fossil fuels: $2.5 billion in fuel tax credits and approximately $17 billion in foregone gas export tax revenue. Amanda McKenzie, the Climate Council's chief executive, described the budget as maintaining "the $19 billion gravy train for big fossil fuel corporations". 

The ACF's national climate policy adviser, Annika Reynolds, was blunter: "thinly veiled fossil fuel subsidies that redirect public money to coal, oil and gas giants."⁶

The Minerals Council of Australia's CEO, Tania Constable, offered the counterpoint. "By leaving mining tax settings unchanged," she said, "the Albanese Government has stood up for Australia's largest taxpayer, which is supporting the nation during uncertain times." 

It is a position that carries weight in a country where resources exports are still the backbone of national income, particularly as geopolitical disruption drives energy prices upward. But the argument lands differently when read alongside a High Court docket that asks whether fossil fuel planning has ever accounted for what it actually costs.

The budget did allocate $148 million over three years to support Australia's co-chairmanship of COP31, and $143 million to consumer energy transition programs. A home battery scheme survived. But critics noted the asymmetry: tens of millions for the clean energy transition, billions in structural support for the industry that requires one.

Climate in the Body

From 5 to 10 January 2026, south-eastern Australia endured its worst heatwave in six years. Temperatures exceeded 40°C across Melbourne, Sydney's western suburbs, and broad stretches of regional Victoria and New South Wales. A cold front on 9 January brought the temperature down but fanned conditions across Victoria that produced dangerous fire weather. 

Then, on 15 January, intense rainfall struck the Great Ocean Road. Flash flooding swept cars into the sea at Lorne and Wye River. Victoria moved, within a week, from fire to flood.⁷

A World Weather Attribution analysis found the January heatwave was made approximately 1.6 degrees hotter by human-caused climate change. Similar events are now roughly five times more likely to occur than in a preindustrial climate. The researchers noted that climate models likely underestimate even that figure. In late January, temperatures in inland South Australia reached 50°C. 

Hospitals across the south-east reported surging presentations for heat illness. Farmers in the Murray-Darling basin described conditions that exceeded anything in their working lifetimes.

By February, a broad low-pressure system was tracking through central Australia, depositing more than 200 millimetres in parts of South Australia in a single event. The Bureau of Meteorology issued severe weather warnings across multiple states simultaneously. The phrase "once in a generation" no longer fit. Meteorologists reached for new language.⁸

Dismantling the Instruments

A few weeks before the budget, a different kind of loss became public. CSIRO told staff it would cut 92 positions in its environment unit. Among the casualties: between four and six climate modelling scientists, roughly a third of the team responsible for ACCESS, the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator.⁹

ACCESS is the only global climate model built to capture the dynamics of the Southern Hemisphere with Australia at its centre. European and American models are calibrated to their own regions. Australia's capacity to contribute rigorous, locally grounded projections to UN climate assessments, and to argue from scientific authority at international negotiations, depends on this model's survival. 

The cuts came days after the federal government announced a $387 million funding boost to CSIRO overall. The contradiction was not lost on the scientific community.

Christian Jakob, Andy Hogg and Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, three climate scientists who wrote about the cuts publicly, noted that the loss arrives at precisely the moment the United States has gutted its own climate science programs. Australia had an opportunity to step into a global vacuum. 

Instead, it is reducing the workforce needed to do so. "Who, if not us," they wrote, "is going to build and sustain a global model with Australia squarely in mind?"¹⁰

The CSIRO staff association told a Senate inquiry that fundamental research lacking industry partners was particularly vulnerable to the cuts. Climate modelling fits that description precisely. It does not have an obvious commercial partner. Its value is public and long-run.

The Credibility Gap

Australia will co-chair COP31 in 2026. It will arrive at that forum having received a rebuke from the world's highest court, having cut its domestic clean energy programs, and having reduced the scientific capacity that gives its climate diplomacy authority. The juxtaposition is hard to paper over.

Professor Nicole Rogers, a climate law scholar at Bond University, has described the NSW Court of Appeal's 2025 decision as "truly groundbreaking", already changing how new and expanded fossil fuel projects are assessed in NSW. 

Whether the High Court affirms that standard will determine whether the change is durable or whether the legal architecture reverts to the comfortable old assumption that global emissions are someone else's accounting problem.²

In the Hunter Valley, the community of Muswellbrook already lives inside the question. Open-cut coal extraction defines the valley's economy and its skyline. The mine provides jobs and royalties. It also produces the coal that, when burned in Asian power stations, contributes to the warming that is making summers in the Upper Hunter measurably more dangerous. 

Few in the valley reduce this to a simple moral binary. Most understand that both things are true at once. The court case asks something harder: whether Australian law is capable of holding both truths simultaneously.

What a Ruling Could Reshape

A High Court decision upholding the NSW ruling would require all future fossil fuel project assessments to treat Scope 3 localised climate impacts as a mandatory consideration. Not a desirable factor. A legal obligation. 

Every proponent seeking approval for a new coal mine or gas field would need to model and disclose what the downstream burning of their product would do to local air temperatures, local rainfall patterns, local flood risk. 

The implications extend well beyond the Hunter Valley.¹

A ruling in MACH Energy's favour would return the law to the status quo ante: a framework in which the global diffusion of greenhouse gases has been used, consistently, to disconnect local harm from local approval. It would not prevent climate litigation from returning. But it would push the next challenge back toward the base of the cliff.

The case also sits against a larger global movement. The ICJ opinion has already changed what international lawyers argue is permissible. Cases citing that ruling are being prepared in multiple jurisdictions. 

Australia's position as both a climate-vulnerable island continent and one of the world's largest per-capita fossil fuel exporters makes it a conspicuous target for precisely this kind of legal pressure.⁴

The Reckoning

Australia in mid-2026 is not a country without ambition on climate. The Albanese government has introduced a Domestic Gas Reservation Mechanism. It has invested in a National Environmental Protection Agency. It has committed to COP31 and allocated funding for Pacific climate resilience. These are not nothing.

But ambition and architecture are different things. Cutting $2 billion from the programs that would build a domestic clean energy supply chain, while maintaining $19 billion in effective fossil fuel support, describes a set of priorities that does not match the rhetoric. 

Reducing the scientific workforce that models Australia's climate future, while preparing to chair the world's premier climate forum, describes a country still managing contradictions rather than resolving them.

What the High Court decides in the Mount Pleasant case will reverberate beyond planning law. It will signal whether Australia's legal system is equipped to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the full consequences of what it produces. 

It will tell the Pacific islands, who watched Australia argue at The Hague that export emissions are not its problem, something about how seriously their neighbour takes the words it speaks in multilateral rooms.

Wendy Wales and Tony Lonergan, the retired teachers from Muswellbrook, did not begin their case expecting to reshape national environmental law. They began it because they looked at the mine's expansion approval and believed it had not asked the right questions. The High Court now has the same opportunity. 

The question of whether Australian planning law is required to ask what it is actually doing to the climate turns out to be the question Australia has been avoiding for a very long time.

References

1. Earthjustice. (2026, May). Australia's Highest Court Hears Its First Climate Case. Earthjustice. ^↑
2. AZO Cleantech. (2026, May 11). Australia's First Climate Change Case to Reach the High Court — And the World is Watching. AZO Cleantech. ^↑
3. The Conversation / UNSW Human Rights Institute. (2025). World's Highest Court Issues Groundbreaking Ruling for Climate Action: What it Means for Australia. UNSW. ^↑
4. Sydney Environment Institute. (2025, July 29). SEI Statement on the Opinion of the International Court of Justice. University of Sydney. ^↑
5. Carroll, D. (2026, May 13). Federal Budget Cuts Almost $2 Billion from Clean Energy Programs. PV Magazine Australia. ^↑
6. Climate Council. (2026, May). $19BN Budget Free Kick for Fossil Fuel Industry. Climate Council of Australia. ^↑
7. World Weather Attribution. (2026). Climate Change Eclipses La Niña Cooling in Australia to Drive Extreme Heatwave and Heightened Fire Risk. World Weather Attribution. ^↑
8. The Watchers. (2026, February 25). Heavy Rain Triggers Flash Flooding and Travel Disruption Across Multiple States in Australia. The Watchers. ^↑
9. Renew Economy. (2026, May). CSIRO Is Cutting Important Climate Science Jobs: Here's What's at Stake for Australia. Renew Economy. ^↑
10. Jakob, C., Hogg, A., & Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. (2026, May). CSIRO Is Cutting Climate Science Jobs: This Is What's at Stake for Australia. The Conversation. ^↑
11. Green Review. (2026, May 11). Australia's High Court to Hear Nation's First Climate Case. Green Review. ^↑
12. Climate Council. (2026, May). Federal Budget 2026-27: Does It Deliver on Energy Security and Climate?. Climate Council of Australia. ^↑
13. Young, M.A. (2025). The International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on Climate Obligations. University of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper. SSRN. ^↑
14. Sustainability Magazine. (2026, May). Australia Balances Green Transition and Global Energy Shocks. Sustainability Magazine. ^↑
15. Greenpeace Australia Pacific. (2026). The 2026 Budget Test: Will Australia Break Free from Fossil Fuels?. Greenpeace Australia Pacific. ^↑

Back to top