Q&A: What are the biggest legal and policy barriers to stronger climate action in Australia?

Key Points No constitutional right to a safe climate in Australia Environmental laws rarely consider climate impacts Federal-state tension limits national climate coordination Powerful fossil fuel lobby influences legislation Lack of binding net-zero obligations for corporations Climate cases in courts face high legal hurdles Key reforms stalled in Parliament or diluted

Australia has no constitutional right to a safe climate, unlike many nations with stronger legal protections.

This legal vacuum means communities and campaigners lack a firm foundation to challenge decisions that harm the environment.

Unlike Germany or Norway, where courts have ruled in favour of youth plaintiffs demanding climate protections, Australian courts lack that mandate.

Environmental Laws Don't Address Climate Risks

Australia’s primary federal environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC), barely mentions climate change.

Major fossil fuel projects have been approved without legal consideration of their carbon emissions.

In 2023, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek declined to reform the EPBC to explicitly consider climate, sparking fierce criticism from legal scholars.¹

States and the Commonwealth Pull in Opposite Directions

While some states like Victoria and South Australia have renewable targets, others continue approving new gas and coal projects.

This fragmentation hampers a coordinated national approach and weakens Australia’s international credibility on climate leadership.²

Fossil Fuel Lobbying Remains Powerful

Political donations and industry access continue to shape climate and energy policy.

Lobbying from gas and coal sectors has diluted or delayed crucial reforms such as emissions caps, methane regulation, and climate disclosure rules.³

Net-Zero Policies Lack Teeth

Australia’s 2050 net-zero commitment is not enforceable in law, and there is no legal penalty for failing to meet the target.

Large emitters are subject to the Safeguard Mechanism, but loopholes and offsets often undermine its impact.⁴

Climate Litigation Faces Legal Hurdles

While First Nations groups, youth activists, and environmental NGOs have brought high-profile climate cases, the legal framework limits success.

Courts require plaintiffs to prove specific harm or show decision-makers breached statutory obligations, which are rarely climate-related.⁵

Reform Is Slow—And Watered Down

The Albanese government promised wide-ranging legal reforms, but key changes to environmental law, transparency, and accountability mechanisms have been delayed or softened under pressure.⁶

Until climate considerations are embedded in the legal architecture of decision-making, Australia’s pathway to meaningful climate action remains compromised.

Footnotes

1. The Guardian – Plibersek rejects calls to include climate in environment law
2. Climate Council – Australia’s Climate Action Scorecard
3. Open Canberra – Fossil Fuel Lobbying Report
4. Climate Analytics – Australia’s Climate Law Weaknesses
5. Environmental Defenders Office – Climate Litigation in Australia
6. ABC News – Environmental Law Reforms Delayed