In September 2025, the Australian Government announced a A$1.1 billion investment in supporting the future Australian production of low carbon liquid fuels (LCLF). The new ten-year Cleaner Fuels Program aims to stimulate private investment in Australian onshore production of LCLFs, such as renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel, with first production estimated by 2029.

LCLFs are produced from feedstocks such as canola, sorghum, sugar and waste. With its advanced farming practices and access to cheap and reliable renewable energy, Australia is well positioned to produce LCLFs that jets, ships, construction machines and heavy trucks need to reach net zero. The Clean Energy Funding Corporation predicts that the production of LCLF could be a A$36 billion market opportunity for Australia.

The Government has now released a Policy Design and Engagement Paper for its Cleaner Fuels Program which is open for submissions until 19 December 2025. The Program is expected to be launched and applications open in mid-202

The annual RIU Explorers Conference was held in Fremantle in February 2026. The conference highlighted a highly optimistic exploration environment driven by record gold prices above US $5,000/oz and strong copper markets.

More than 130 ASX-listed companies presented updates across gold, copper, manganese, uranium, and critical mineral portfolios, reflecting strong operational momentum across the junior and emerging-producer segments. Attendance from brokers, funds and institutional investors was notably high, signalling strong capital interest in early stage exploration companies. RIU is one of the most important national forums for capital raising in the exploration sector.

A major theme was the emergence of a potential multiyear commodities super cycle, underpinned by AI driven energy demand, electrification, geopolitical instability, and declining discovery rates.

Critical minerals—including rare earths, nickel, lithium, and tin—also drew strong attention due to supply constraints and technologysector demand
Operationally, companies emphasised tight cost control, integrated geological, operational, and financial data systems, and transparent ESG reporting as investor expectations around credible, auditable ESG reporting continue to rise.

In summary, the conference reflected a sector positioned for growth, with high investor interest, strong commodity fundamentals, and increasing strategic focus on critical minerals and datadriven decisionmaking.

Australian-owned renewable energy company Tilt Renewables announced reaching a Final Investment Decision in December 2025 for its 108 MW Waddi Wind Farm in the West Australian wheat belt, 150km north of Perth.

This is the Company’s first renewable energy project in WA and the first wind farm to reach FID in 2025. The project has a 15 year supply contract with AGL and the Company says that once constructed, the energy generation from the Wind Farm will be equivalent to powering around 68,000 West Australian homes per year with clean electricity.

Construction is expected to commence shortly with the Company targeting commercial production in 2028.

This matter involved a statutory construction of the “extension of time” provisions under s 162B of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (Mining Act) and the discretion of the Warden. It concerned competing applications for miscellaneous licences under the Mining Act lodged by Alinta and then subsequently by Pilbara Energy (a Fortescue subsidiary) for wind farm developments in Western Australia.

Alinta lodged objections to Pilbara Energy’s applications, arguing the proximity of the proposed wind farm turbines would negatively impact their own wind energy production. However, some of these objections were out of time, having been lodged outside the 35 day prescribed period. Alinta sought an extension of time under s 162B which was dismissed by the Warden. Alinta then took the decision of the Warden to the Supreme Court on review.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision on 9 January 2026, setting aside the decision of the Warden and remitting the decision to the Warden for determination according to the law.
The case changes the decision making process of the Warden in considering applications for extension of time. While the merit of the objection is still a relevant consideration which may be taken into account by the Warden, it is no longer mandatory for the objector to prove a prima facie case to be granted an extension of time.

On 23 February 2026, the Federal Court handed down its much-anticipated decision in the greenwashing case brought by Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) against Santos Limited (Santos), a leading producer and supplier of natural gas in Australia.

The ACCR, which at all material times was a shareholder in Santos, claimed that Santos had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in its 2020 Investor Day Presentation, its 2020 Annual Report and its 2021 Climate Change Report. Specifically, the ACCR alleged that Santos had contravened s 1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and s 18 and s 33 of the Australian Consumer Law (being Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (ACL)).

In summary, the ACCR alleged that the use by Santos of “clean energy” and “clean fuel” to describe natural gas and its description of itself as a producer of “clean energy”, its representations in its 2030 Target and Net Zero Roadmap regarding greenhouse gas reduction and net zero targets and its representation to deliver “clean” hydrogen in the future, were misleading.

The action against Santos, commenced by the ACCR in 2021, was considered the first case globally to allege that a company’s net zero target was misleading, rather than just inadequate.

The Court dismissed each of the claims against Santos and ordered the ACCR to pay Santos’ costs. In its thorough examination of the claims, the Court found that the climate related statements by Santos had to be read in context and from the perspective of the relevant target audience. The Court set out in detail what it considered to be the characteristics attributable to the target audience, finding that it was not as specific a subset of investors as contended for by Santos nor as broad as the ACCR submitted.

While Santos was successful in this case, the standard for climate change disclosures remains high and subject to increased scrutiny by ASIC. The case provides practical guidance for companies making climate change disclosures and sustainability related claims.

Commenting on the decision, the ACCR said: “This was the first court case in the world to test a company’s net zero claims, and it has helped drive significant improvements in climate reporting in the Australian market and internationally. It is disappointing that, in our view, the Court’s decision has not reinforced these advancements.”

The judgement runs to over 250 pages and can be found at https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/

On 26 June 2025, the Federal Treasurer commenced action in the Federal Court of Australia against Indian Ocean International Shipping and Service Company Ltd (Indian Ocean) and its former associate for not complying with Australia’s foreign investment law. Indian Ocean and its associate are both foreign investors with links to China, including entities associated with the Chinese-controlled Yuxiao Fund.

The proceedings related to Disposal Orders issued by the Treasurer on 2 June 2024 directing five foreign investors, including Indian Ocean, to dispose of shares in ASX listed Northern Minerals Limited (Northern Minerals) to persons who were not their associates, by 2 September 2024. Those orders were reportedly not complied with by Indian Ocean. In August 2024, Indian Ocean transferred its shares in Northern Minerals to associate Ms Jing Tian, who at the time was the Indian Ocean’s director and sole shareholder.

The Disposal Order was issued to Indian Ocean to address the risk to national security posed by its acquisitions of shares in Northern Minerals. Northern Minerals is developing the Browns Range heavy rare earths project in Western Australia which is of strategic significance to Australia, as it is one of the few non-Chinese sources of certain important critical minerals.

In a landmark ruling on 30 January 2026, the Federal Court of Australia ordered Indian Ocean and Ms Tian to pay $10 million and $4 million respectively in penalties for breaching Australia’s foreign investment laws.

This is the first case of this nature to be brought by a Treasurer before the Federal Court for an alleged breach of the foreign investment laws.

On 9 June 2026, the Review of Native Title and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Processes in WA’s mining and exploration sectors (the Kelly Review), was tabled in the WA Parliament.

By way of background, this review was commissioned by the WA Government in 2025 in response to concerns from both Traditional Owners and industry. It was facilitated by Mr Glen Kelly, a member of the National Native Title Tribunal. The purpose of the review was to examine how native title and Aboriginal cultural heritage processes could be made more efficient, effective and equitable within the existing legislative framework. The focus was on improving outcomes for both Traditional Owners and the mining and exploration industry.

The review team undertook extensive consultation across WA between June and October 2025, engaging widely with stakeholders.

The final review was delivered by the National Native Title Tribunal on 9 February 2026. Key findings were that the current system is often too costly for both proponents and Native Tile parties (due to overlapping requirements under the Native Title Act, Mining Act and Aboriginal heritage processes), inconsistent, resource constrained (particularly for PBCs and Aboriginal organisations responsible for responding to large numbers of exploration applications) and associated with significant consultant costs and fees. It concluded that improvements could be achieved primarily through policy and administrative reforms rather than legislative amendment.

The 25 recommendations made by the review seek to improve certainty for mining and exploration proponents while strengthening the capacity of Native Title parties and maintaining meaningful cultural heritage protection. Major recommendations include:

1. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Standards for Exploration – the development of a standardised Aboriginal cultural heritage framework for low-impact exploration and prospecting activities.
2. Strengthening Native Title Party Capacity – more support for Native Title organisations, many of which lack sufficient resources to participate effectively in consultation processes.
3. Heritage Protection Agreements – replacing or modernising the existing Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (RSHA).
4. Consultant Standards and Accountability – the development of a code of conduct for heritage consultants, a significant theme from stakeholders being concern about the role and cost of consultants involved in heritage processes.
5. Improved Government Coordination – better co-ordination and consistent policy guidance to remove duplication across agencies and Improved information sharing and access to heritage information.
6. Expedited Procedure Reforms – improving consistency, transparency and timeliness of decision-making in the administration of the native title expedited procedure for exploration tenements.

The WA Government has broadly accepted the direction of the review and announced a phased implementation program including:

• a new Aboriginal heritage standard for exploration and prospecting
• a Native Title Party Support Strategy
• new policy and technical guidance materials
• a consultant code of conduct and certification framework
• additional funding to support implementation and stakeholder capacity building.

In the longer term, the WA Government will develop alternative future act procedures, including standard rates and compensation entitlements, to be implemented by Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) with Traditional Owners.

The Petroleum Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (WA) (PLAA2024) was assented to on 14 May 2024 (see our July 2024 report). Amongst other things, it provides a legislative framework for pipeline transport and permanent underground storage of greenhouse gas (GHG) substances in WA. It also enables the exploration and recovery of new regulated substances, natural hydrogen and helium.

The new legislative framework came into effect on 28 May 2026, including principal PLAA2024 supporting regulations, the Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Submerged Lands) (Greenhouse Gas Injection and Storage) Regulations 2026 (WA) and the Petroleum, Geothermal Energy and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Greenhouse Gas Injection and Storage) Regulations 2026 (WA) (Regulations).

The Regulations establish the detailed requirements which determine how carbon capture and storage projects will be assessed and managed. Key implications of the regime include significant upfront technical and assessment requirements and ongoing compliance obligations. To qualify as an ‘eligible GHG storage formation’ a geological formation must be capable of storing at least 100,000 tonnes of GHG, have an effective sealing feature that enables the permanent storage of the relevant substance and must satisfy other prescribed criteria.

The Department will annually invite industry stakeholders to nominate vacant areas to be considered as part of Western Australia’s regular petroleum, geothermal energy, and greenhouse gas storage acreage releases. Nominations have now closed for 2026 and an announcement of acreage releases is expected later in the year.

The EPBC Act was passed in late 2025 (see our earlier report). It has a staged implementation. The second stage of the EPBC Act reforms commenced on 1 July 2026.

Key reforms in this second stage are the establishment of two new bodies: the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) and the Head of Environment Information Australia (EIA).

NEPA becomes Australia’s primary independent environmental regulator responsible, amongst other things, for compliance, monitoring and enforcement of federal environmental laws, conducting audits and investigations, issuing permits and licences and assessing projects. NEPA will have significant enforcement capabilities.

The EIA’s role is to collect and consolidate environmental data nationally, improve accessibility and sharing of environmental information, support evidence-based decision making and provide independent environmental reporting to government, NEPA and the public. This reform is designed to address concerns regarding fragmented environmental data and inconsistent information across jurisdictions.

New subordinate regulations also commenced 1 July 2026. They are intended to reduce duplication between regulatory processes and streamline project assessments while maintaining environmental protections.

The remaining EPBC Act reforms, being the more substantive assessment and approval reforms, are expected to commence by 1 December 2026. They will include finalised National Environmental Standards (NES), the ‘net gain’ environmental offsets framework, introduction of the ‘unacceptable impacts’ test, new approval requirements for projects to be approved consistent with the NES and additional restoration and biodiversity offset mechanisms.

This decision is one of the more important recent decisions of the Warden’s Court in that it expands the practical remedies available in tenement validity disputes and confirms the breadth of the Wardens Court powers.

In this matter, the private landowner plaintiff sought injunctive relief in the Warden’s Court to restrain a tenement holder, Ausgold, from dealing with tenements over which surface rights had been granted. The landowner’s plaint was that the grant of these surface rights was fundamentally defective because the application for the rights was not served on the landholder. The purpose of the application for injunctive relief was to preserve the subject matter of the landholder’s plaint proceedings and to prevent the protective effects of section 116(2) of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (indefeasibility of title) from being triggered.

The Court granted an injunction restraining Ausgold from any dealing with the tenements, to preserve the plaintiff’s position pending final determination of the plaint. The Court held that it had jurisdiction and power to grant the injunction as the interest to be protected – the plaintiff’s claim that the surface rights were invalid – was real and any dealing with the tenements could render potentially invalid rights valid, without notice to the plaintiff.
The case confirms the power of the Warden to restrain dealings in tenements pending determination of validity challenges. It also highlights the importance of procedural compliance when making application for tenure under the Mining Act, in this case, for surface rights.