NATURE PROTECTED IN LAW, BUT CLIMATE LIABILITY FOR ALP REMAINS
THE CLIMATE COUNCIL congratulates Labor and the Greens for passing laws that strengthen protection for native forests and accelerate environmentally responsible renewable power. But the Council warns the Albanese Government is failing the climate test by giving new coal and gas projects a free pass on climate pollution.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: “This deal strengthens protections for our native forests, and provides a faster yes to responsible renewable energy projects that cut climate pollution. That will help protect communities from rising power prices and climate damage.
“But this 2025 law fails the climate test. All new coal and gas projects still get a free pass on climate pollution. In fact, the law forbids the Environment Minister from considering a project’s climate pollution when assessing whether it should go ahead. That is a gaping hole in a law that should protect nature from the ravages of climate change.
“Let’s be clear: the ALP has a growing fossil fuel problem. While voters expect the Government to deal with pollution from coal and gas, the Government is turning a blind eye to billions of tonnes of pollution that more fossil fuel approvals will add to this problem. This is a political liability that isn’t going away – and many voters are planning to mark them down over it.”
New national polling from YouGov, conducted for the Climate Council, shows:
“seven in 10 voters wanted the Government to address climate change in the new environment law, and 44 percent of 2025 Labor voters said they would be less likely to vote for the Government again if climate change was left out of this law.”
Climate Councillor Professor Tim Flannery said: “The Greens and Labor have been able to secure real wins, including better protection for native forests and a clearer path for renewable energy. That shows Parliament can work across the aisle to find solutions for the community, rather than get bogged down in politicking.
“The Greens have blocked fast tracking of coal and gas which would have been a disastrous outcome – equivalent to pouring petrol on a fire.”
“But the job’s far from done. In the assessment pipeline sit 42 coal and gas projects that could release 8.7 million more tonnes of pollution yearly in Australia, undermining our climate targets, and progress.
“Until we better regulate fossil fuel projects, one fifth of Australia’s climate pollution, a safer future for us and our kids will fall further out of reach.”
Analysis: What our new Environment Laws mean for climate
| Key inclusions | Labor’s initial bill | Greens/Labor negotiated outcome | |
| Accelerate critical projects like responsible renewables, not polluting ones | ✅ Measures to streamline project approvals | ✅ Measures to streamline project approvals | |
| ❌ Could also speed up fossil fuel approvals. | ✅ Fossil fuel projects blocked from fast-track. | ||
| ❌ Allows the coal and gas “water trigger” to be delegated to states. | ✅ No changes to the water trigger. | ||
| Measure and manage climate pollution in approvals | 🟡Direct emissions (scope 1 & 2) must be disclosed, but aren’t verified | 🟡 Direct emissions (scope 1 & 2) must be disclosed, but aren’t verified | |
| ❌ Full emissions (scope 3) not disclosed. | ❌ Full emissions (scope 3) not disclosed. | ||
| ‼️ Climate pollution never considered in decisions, so coal and gas projects can be approved unchecked. | ‼️ Climate pollution never considered in decisions, so coal and gas projects can be approved unchecked. | ||
| End land clearing and native forest logging loopholes to protect important carbon sinks | ❌ Native logging allowed without assessment. | ✅ Closes native forest logging loopholes within 18 months. | |
| ❌ Loopholes allow continuing land clearing without assessment. | ✅ Exemptions for high-risk land clearing will end. | ||
ENDS
For interviews please contact the Climate Council media team on media@climatecouncil.org.au or call 0485 863 063.
The Climate Council is an independent, community-funded organisation. We provide evidence-based information on climate change impacts and solutions to journalists, policymakers, and the wider Australian community.
For further information, go to: climatecouncil.org.au
NEW POLLING A CLEAR WARNING FOR GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS CLIMATE IN ENVIRONMENT LAWS
By
SHARE:
New national YouGov polling commissioned by the Climate Council shows Labor risks losing almost half of its votes if it writes climate out of Australia’s environment laws, and seven in ten of all voters back strong climate safeguards for new coal and gas projects.
The polling shows a clear political impact if the Albanese Government fails to address climate change in its environment law reforms: four in five Labor voters think it would be the wrong decision, and almost half of Labor voters say they would be less likely to vote for Labor.
HERE ARE THE KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE:
- 68% agree Australia’s national environment law should protect our environment from the impacts of climate change (10% disagree).
- 70% agree the law should consider the impacts of climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects(12% disagree).
- 61% agree the federal government should retain the power to prevent coal and gas mines harming water resources (12% disagree).
- 65% of voters think it would be the wrong decision for the Prime Minister to not include climate change in our national environment law.
- 44% of Labor voters say they’d be less likely to vote Labor if the Government does not address climate change in the new law.
Now let’s dig a little deeper.
AUSTRALIANS WANT OUR ENVIRONMENT LAWS TO CONSIDER CLIMATE CHANGE
See what voters in your electorate want:
Made with Flourish • Create a table
AUSTRALIANS BACK STRONG CLIMATE SAFEGUARDS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT LAW
Australians expect the national environment law to protect people and nature from climate harm, not wave through more climate pollution. Nearly seven in ten (68%) agree Australia’s national environment law should protect our environment from the impacts of climate change, with only one in ten (10%)disagreeing.
CONSIDERING CLIMATE WHEN ASSESSING FOSSIL FUEL PROJECTS
Australians want decisions about new fossil fuel projects to account for climate impacts. Seven in ten (70%) agree the law should consider the impacts of climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects; 12% disagree.
POLITICAL SIGNAL TO DECISION‑MAKERS
The research indicates clear electoral consequences if climate is left out of the environment law reforms: 41% of voters say they would be less likely to vote Labor if the Government doesn’t address climate change in the new national environment law.
Among people who voted Labor at the 2025 federal election, 44% are “at risk on climate” – they report being less likely to support Labor if climate is not addressed in the law.
WHAT THIS MEANS
- Australians want climate built into our new environment law. The public expects the law to both protect from climate impacts and consider climate when assessing fossil fuel projects.
- There’s a consequence for ignoring climate. Almost half of Labor’s 2025 voters (44%) say they’re less likely to vote Labor if climate is left out of the reforms.
- Support spans the political spectrum. Agreement is strong across voter groups, and is overwhelmingly strong among climate‑motivated Labor voters.
THE GOOD NEWS
There’s still time for the Government to deliver on the public’s expectations and strengthen its environment law reforms to address climate change. Learn more about how they can do that here.
METHODOLOGY & CREDITS
- Commissioned by: Climate Council, the Sunrise Project and Lock The Gate
- Provider: YouGov Polling & Public Affairs Team
- Fieldwork & sample: National sample n=3,783 adult voters, representative of the voting population by age, gender, region, income, education, 2023 Voice and 2025 Federal Election vote.
- Segments used in reporting: 2025 Labor voters (n=1,400); climate‑motivated Labor voters (n=615); non‑Labor voters (n=2,383)
Long-awaited environment laws might get Australia sued. Here’s why
Published: November 24, 2025 3.03pm AEDTin The Conversation
Authors
- Jacqueline PeelProfessor of Law, The University of Melbourne
- Julia DehmSenior Lecturer, La Trobe University
- Nicole RogersProfessor of climate law, Bond University
Disclosure statement
Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council for her Kathleen Fitzpatrick Laureate Fellowship on Global Corporate Climate Accountability.
Julia Dehm receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Discovery Early Career Research Award and from the Victorian Legal Service Board + Commission grants program for a project on mainstreaming climate change in legal education.
Nicole Rogers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners
University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.
La Trobe University and Bond Universityprovide funding as members of The Conversation AU.
Australia is rewriting its national environment laws, and Environment Minister Murray Watt has vowed the legislation will pass the parliament this week, despite not yet reaching agreement with either the Coalition or the Greens. But the current draft bill leaves the country exposed to significant legal, environmental and political risk.
This is because the proposed changes to Australia’s environment legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, do not require the government to assess the climate impacts of new fossil-fuel projects. Minister Watt has already ruled out changing this.
Yet international and domestic courts are increasingly clear: governments have a legal duty to consider the greenhouse gas emissions released by the projects they approve. Will the federal government create new laws that expose it to more domestic and international court action?
Landmark legal advice
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court, delivered a landmark legal opinion. It found countries must act with “due diligence” to prevent significant harm to the climate system. This includes considering the climate harm caused by fossil-fuel production. They must also consider emissions released when fossil fuels are exported and combusted (known as downstream or Scope 3 emissions).
While advisory opinions are not binding judgements, they clarify what obligations countries have under international law. For Australia, this means climate impacts are no longer optional considerations as a matter of international law. They are legally relevant factors that must be assessed before approving high-emitting projects.
If Australia ignores its obligations, other nations may sue it in courts like the ICJ. The international law ruling may also be referenced by litigants in domestic disputes.
Support journalism that helps, not harms.
Donate today
The government’s law reform package is a set of seven bills totalling nearly 600 pages. Yet it contains no means of ensuring climate impacts are part of decision-making.
The reforms require partial disclosure of emissions, but this information plays no role in approval decisions. And considering downstream emissions is not required at all, despite representing the majority of pollution from coal and gas projects.
Domestic courts recognise climate link
Australia’s own courts have already begun applying far stricter scrutiny to project approvals. In a court ruling in August, referred to as the Denman decision, the New South Wales Court of Appeal quashed a coal-mine expansion approval. A community environment group successfully argued the planning commission failed to consider the impact of all of the mine’s greenhouse gas emissions.
This decision set a legal precedent. Next, mining giant Glencore’s application to extend its Ulan Coal Mine near Mudgee was declared invalid in mid November. A local environment group successfully argued the mine’s climate impacts had been insufficiently considered during assessment.
The implications of these two decisions go far beyond New South Wales. The reasoning applies to how all Australian states and territories assess major fossil fuel projects. And they inform the federal govenrment’s legal obligations under Australia’s environment laws. Yet despite this, Minister Watt’s draft reforms do not clarify how climate impacts should be addressed under federal law.
Safeguard mechanism won’t fill the gap
Government ministers have argued climate impacts are better addressed under the so-called “safeguard mechanism”. This is a policy that requires large industrial polluters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions each year.
However, this is not an assessment or approval system. It applies only after a project begins operating and relies heavily on offsets of variable quality. It does not consider downstream emissions.
Most importantly, it does not answer the core environmental law question. Namely, is this project compatible with Australia’s climate goals and international obligations?
Australia out of step
There is an emerging global legal consensus that climate impacts must be assessed as part of project-level approvals.
Three decisions last year point to the change. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled assessments of new projects must evaluate emissions affecting the marine environment. The European Court of Human Rights ruled assessments of new petroleum projects must quantify downstream emissions. And the UK Supreme Court held that downstream emissions must be included in environmental impact assessments.
These decisions reinforce the principle that states must assess the full climate impact of projects before approving them – a point also reiterated by the ICJ. Failing to include these requirements in reformed environment laws could leave Australia exposed to domestic judicial review, High Court challenges and international claims relating to climate harm.
Political contradictions
Media reports indicate the Albanese government may negotiate with the Coalition to secure passage of environment law reforms. This comes as the Coalition has removed its commitment to net zero, while saying it would conditionally support new environment laws.
This raises a contradiction. Policymakers and industry groups increasingly endorse “science-based” emissions targets while simultaneously supporting law reforms which would allow high-emitting projects to be approved without assessing their climate harm.
This inconsistency boosts the risk of lawsuits and undermines international credibility, especially as Australia takes on the role of “President of the Negotiations” at next year’s COP31 summit. It also leaves key decisions to ministerial discretion. This means they are vulnerable to political, economic and lobbying pressures.
A better path
Reforming Australia’s environmental laws offers a rare chance to reflect scientific evidence and legal obligations. The law should be written to prevent harm, not to enable it.