The Climate Change Snapshot (the Snapshot), provides a comprehensive update on legal developments since the introduction of the Law Council of Australia’s (the Law Council) Climate Change Policy in November 2021.
The Snapshot highlights significant progressions across domestic and international legal frameworks, and the broader implications for access to justice and the legal profession.
Australia’s domestic legal framework
Central to Australia’s current climate change framework is the Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth), which legislates national greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in line with Australia’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. The Act also expands the advisory role of the Climate Change Authority, reinforcing institutional oversight of emissions targets and policy settings.
Complementary reforms have broadened the regulatory focus to include biodiversity and environmental protection. The Nature Repair Act 2023 (Cth) and the Environment Protection Reform Act 2025 (Cth) introduce new mechanisms for environmental restoration and impose additional disclosure obligations.
The Law Council also notes a further significant development with the introduction of mandatory climate-related financial disclosures through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024 (Cth). These reforms amend the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) framework, requiring large businesses and financial institutions to disclose climate-related risks.
Climate litigation
Australia continues to be a leading jurisdiction for climate litigation, with over 160 cases commenced since the mid-1990s. The Snapshot identifies several key cases and trends.
In O’Donnell v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] FCA 1227, proceedings alleging misleading conduct in the promotion of government bonds resulted in a settlement, with the Commonwealth acknowledging the systemic financial risks posed by climate change.
Sharma v Minister for the Environment (No 2) [2021] FCA 774, an initial finding that the Commonwealth owed a duty to protect children from climate harm was later overturned on appeal, reflecting the courts’ cautious approach to expanding novel duties.
More recently, Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796 considered claims by Torres Strait Islanders. While the Federal Court rejected the existence of a legal duty of care, it recognised deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s consideration of climate risks. An appeal is currently on foot.
Litigation has also explored the intersection between climate change and human rights. In Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, the Queensland Land Court linked fossil fuel expansion to adverse human rights impacts. Although the Snapshot notes that Australia is without a federal human rights act and has few constitutional protections, which weakens rights considerations in environmental policymaking and litigation.
At the corporate level, Australian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v Santos Ltd [2026] FCA 96 clarified that forward-looking climate targets must be supported by reasonable grounds, helping to define the boundaries of actionable “greenwashing”.
International legal obligations
The Snapshot highlights the growing influence of international law in shaping domestic climate obligations. Foundational frameworks such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change continue to be vital, but other frameworks in recent years have also played a role in ensuring global cooperation.
Notably, in Daniel Billy et al v Australia, the UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia breached its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by failing to adequately protect Torres Strait Islander communities from climate impacts.
International recognition of environmental rights is also accelerating. In 2022, the United Nations General Assembly affirmed the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right, prompting ongoing discussion about its potential incorporation into Australian law.
State responsibility has further been clarified through advisory opinions. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea confirmed in 2024 that greenhouse gas emissions may constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS, while the International Court of Justice in July 2025 affirmed that states have binding obligations to prevent, mitigate and adapt to climate change, elevating the 1.5°C target as a relevant legal benchmark.
Regionally, the Falepili Union Treaty between Australia and Tuvalu represents a landmark development in climate mobility, signalling a growing recognition of legal and moral responsibilities toward vulnerable Pacific nations.
Implications for access to justice and the legal profession
Increasing environmental pressures are expected to widen existing gaps in access to justice, particularly in rural and regional communities.
Emerging issues, such as housing conditions in extreme heat, are already driving legal advocacy, highlighting the need to prioritise climate justice within the legal assistance sector. However, ongoing challenges relating to funding, infrastructure, and workforce sustainability may limit the legal sector’s capacity to respond effectively.
At a systemic level, climate litigation continues to test traditional legal doctrines, including questioning the proper role of courts and judges in addressing complex, policy-laden disputes.
Law Council of Australia President, Tania Wolff notes that climate change law is now embedded in Australia’s legal landscape. She said “climate change is driving new forms of litigation and placing greater pressure on access to justice—particularly as communities confront the compounding legal impacts of climate related disasters and economic transition”.
