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?

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........

© The Conversation