Australian High Court Rules Post-Export Emissions Must Be Considered in Approvals; Western Australia Fossil Fuel Industry Warns "Investment Certainty" Damaged

According to ABC News reporting, three of the five justices on the Australian High Court found that the New South Wales planning department, when it approved MACH Energy's coal mine expansion in 2022, failed to consider as required by law the Scope 3 emissions generated when coal exported under the project was burned overseas. The ruling overturned the original approval decision, and the community group Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group prevailed.

Although the ruling directly targets New South Wales planning law, its impact was immediately felt far away in the more resource-intensive state of Western Australia — Australia's export hub accounting for roughly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade — by both industry and the state government.

According to the media report, Western Australia Treasurer Rita Saffioti said she was "deeply surprised" by the ruling and stated that the state government was seeking urgent legal advice. She said the ruling "shocked everyone a little, especially for a state like Western Australia that continues to develop substantial resources to help trading partners address emissions," and noted that the ruling would likely require a federal-level policy response.

Independent oil and gas consultant Janet Roberts told ABC News that the ruling validated the industry's long-standing concerns about the so-called "litigation war." She warned: "International investors come because they believe in the certainty of the rules and the rule of law. When that certainty is pushed back and forth, the balance has shifted."

Western Australia Chamber of Minerals and Energy (CME) chief executive Aaron Morey issued a more directional warning. According to ABC News citing his remarks, "If we self-impede and don't allow these types of projects to develop, then new projects will emerge in other countries with looser environmental controls." This "production transfer" rhetoric is strikingly similar to talking points the fossil fuel industry has used over the past decade in Europe and the United States to resist climate regulations; notably, Morey provided no evidence regarding the scale, location, or actual occurrence of the production transfer he envisioned, nor did he explain why "looser controls in other countries" should not itself serve as a reason for Australia to assume export responsibility.

A more direct contradiction comes from the federal government itself. According to ABC News, federal Environment Minister Murray Watt had in September 2025 approved Woodside's extension of the use of its Browse Island facilities until 2070, on the core rationale that "the vast majority of resources will be exported overseas" and so climate change impacts did not need to be considered. This runs counter to the direction established by the High Court this time: if exports themselves mean emissions responsibility can be shifted away, then a country accounting for roughly one-fifth of global LNG trade will have its climate accountability in limbo indefinitely.

According to ABC News, Woodside's A$30 billion Browse gas project is still in the state and federal environmental approval processes, with a designed annual production exceeding 11 million tonnes of gas, and a development site near Scott Reef. A company spokesperson said it was aware of the ruling and would review it.

Conservation Council of Western Australia executive director Matt Roberts countered that equating the consideration of emissions in the approval process with strangling investment is a constructed opposition. According to ABC News citing his remarks, "Australia cannot stay on the sidelines regarding emissions from coal, oil, or gas that is extracted and then burned overseas." He warned that Scope 3 emissions from the Browse project could cause serious climate damage, and that state and federal governments should consider these emissions during the approval process.

On the legal front, the dispute has not settled. According to ABC News, Elaine Johnson, principal of Johnson Legal, which represents the victorious community group, believes that although the ruling was made under New South Wales law, as the High Court's first climate-related ruling, its content will have reference value for courts in other jurisdictions nationwide. But University of Melbourne lecturer Liz Hicks told ABC News that the ruling was based on NSW law and "has limited direct effect on other states, but courts and decision-makers nationwide will give it weight."

Western Australian Premier Roger Cook said the ruling does not spell the end of the Browse project. The actual legal binding force of the ruling on state and federal environmental assessment regimes, and whether the federal government will accordingly adjust the national project approval framework, remains to be clarified.