On 26 June 2025, ASX introduced a new close review procedure to be used when ASX has serious concerns about an entity’s willingness or ability to comply with ASX’s disclosure-related listing rules.

Under the procedure, ASX will apply additional scrutiny to an entity’s market announcements for a period of 6 months where that entity has seriously and repeatedly fallen short of the disclosure standards required of a listed entity. If ASX decides to initiate a close review period, following notification to and review of any submissions made by the entity, the commencement of the period will be announced to the market by ASX.

ASX will expect the entity to take appropriate steps to improve its disclosure practices during the close review period. If an entity remains subject to the close review procedure for a prolonged period of more than 12 months, ASX is likely to require the entity to ‘show cause’ why it should not be removed from the official list.

ASX’s normal processes for releasing market announcements are outlined in Guidance Note 14. Typically, the Market Announcements Office undertakes a high-level review of any announcement received, given the need for prompt release of market sensitive information.

The greater scrutiny of any announcement during a close review period will inevitably delay the release of the entity’s announcements to the market and the entity will need to make due allowance for this in its planning. In the case of a market sensitive announcement, this will require the entity to request a trading halt pending the completion of ASX’s review.

For further information.

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.

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

The proceedings relate 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.

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.

The Mining Amendment Act 2022 (WA) introduced several initiatives to streamline and modernise the mining approvals process and which the Department has now rolled out. This rollout represents a major step forward under the Department’s Fast-Tracking Mining Approvals Strategy.
Key initiatives include:

• the Eligible Mining Activity (EMA) Framework under the EMA Regulations. This is designed to streamline approvals for low-risk mining activities;
• the Mining Development and Closure Proposals (MDCPs) Framework. MDCPs replace the requirement to provide a Mining Proposal and Mine Closure Plan at the project approval stage, reducing duplication and resulting in streamlined decision-making. Prior to undertaking any activity in connection with carrying out mining operations on a tenement, the activities must be included in a MDCP approved under section 103O(1) of the Mining Act and recorded on an Approvals Statement;
• the Approvals Statement Framework. Approvals Statements will serve as a single source for all approved mining activities across tenements.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) delivered its landmark advisory opinion on 23 July 2025 in Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change.

The UN General Assembly had asked the ICJ to identify the legal obligations of States under international law to “ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases”.

The ICJ unanimously declared that States have legally binding obligations under international law to protect the climate system and other elements of the environment from greenhouse gas emissions. These obligations arise from climate treaties and also from customary international law and human rights law. States owe climate protection duties to the international community as a whole, even when they are not party to specific climate treaties. They must act to prevent foreseeable climate harm or face international legal responsibility.

While the ICJ’s opinion itself is not binding – on States, itself or on domestic courts – it carries considerable legal weight and political legitimacy. It is persuasive authority in interpreting international instruments and States’ obligations under international law and is expected to influence climate litigation and domestic policy.

Key findings include:

• 1.5°C is the primary agreed-upon legally binding target for limiting the global average temperature increase under the Paris Agreement.
• Customary international law imposes binding obligations on States to take preventive and precautionary measures to avoid climate harm. These measures must take account of science and international standards. The standard of due diligence is stringent.
• The conduct of States relevant to the Opinion includes actions which directly result in GHG emissions but also consumption and production activities, such as on-going production, the approval of new exploration licences and the subsidising of fossil fuels.
• It also includes the actions of non State actors, such as fossil fuel companies within the effective control of the State. States must regulate emissions of non State actors as part of their due diligence obligations.
• Both customary international law and climate treaties, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, impose binding obligations on States to undertake adaptation measures in line with the best available science.
• Scientific evidence allows emissions to be attributed to individual States, including cumulative historical and current emissions. This enables States harmed by climate change to invoke legal responsibility. All States have a legal interest in compliance and, as such, any State – not only those harmed directly – can invoke responsibility for breaches of climate obligations under customary international law and climate treaties.

The Advisory Opinion has consequences for Australia, which is the second largest exporter of coal and gas in the world and is continuing to approve new fossil fuel projects. Australia has not restricted its fossil fuel production in line with the temperature goal of 1.5°C. In light of the Advisory Opinion, these policy settings could expose Australia to claims that it has failed to fulfil its international law obligations to protect the climate system from anthropogenic GHG emissions.

The Advisory Opinion and the Court’s summary can be read here. In the words of the Court: “…the questions posed by the General Assembly represent more than a legal problem: they concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”

On 12 September 2025, Australia’s biggest gas project, Woodside’s North West Shelf, received final approval to extend operations through until 2070.
Environment Minister Murray Watt has placed 48 additional conditions on the project, aimed at protecting the nearby ancient Murujuga rock art.

The decision comes almost four months after Minister Watt granted conditional approval for the project, which will pave the way for the development of the huge Browse gas field off the Kimberley coast. The government and Woodside have been locked in negotiations over the extent and effect of these new conditions since May.

The conditions include reaching net zero emissions by 2050. As part of the new conditions, Woodside will also need to drastically cut emissions from the facility in coming years, including a 60 per cent reduction of certain gases – such as nitrogen oxide – by 2030, and 90 per cent by 2060.

In a second, separate decision, and as part of a court action brought by traditional custodian Raelene Cooper, Minister Watt also announced that the government would make a partial declaration of the heritage value of the surrounding Murujuga cultural landscape, adjacent to the Karratha Gas Plant, containing the ancient Murujuga rock art. The ruling brings additional legal protections to parts of the area – but does not preventing industry from operating.

On 18 September 2025, the Climate Change Authority released its 2035 Targets Advice report. The Authority is an independent statutory body established under the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 (Cth) to provide expert advice to the Australian Government on climate change policy.

The report recommended that Australia set a 2035 target to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 62-70% compared with 2005 levels. The Authority’s members agreed unanimously that that the science demands strong and urgent action and that the target recommended constitutes an ambitious, yet achievable goal.

In the preceding week, the Government released two landmark reports: Australia’s first National Climate Risk Assessment and its companion National Adaptation Plan. They offer comprehensive and sobering projections of the disruptions ahead for Australians if emissions are not cut and encourage other nations to follow suit.

The report and a summary of climate risks to Australia can be found here.

The legislative reforms generating the most attention in recent weeks have been the reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) which the Government introduced into Parliament on 30 October 2025. The reforms comprised a series of 7 bills (the EP Reform Bills) which were finally passed by the Australian Government on Friday 28 November 2025.

The Government states that the reforms seek to deliver on 3 key pillars: stronger environmental protection and restoration, more efficient and robust project assessments and greater accountability and transparency in decision making.

The EP Reform Bills were passed as a result of successful negotiations between the Minister for the Environment Murray and the Greens on the last sitting day of Parliament before the Christmas break. The Greens were seeking a climate trigger together with stricter regulations for native forest logging and fossil fuel projects. Minister Watt conceded on the latter but refused to include a climate trigger. The proposed climate trigger would have added climate change as a “matter of national environmental significance”, meaning projects with significant greenhouse gas emissions would require assessment and could potentially be blocked by the Minister.

New rules will make it clear when the new laws will take effect. Transition arrangements provide that existing projects that have not received a final decision when the laws take effect will still be assessed under the current EPBC Act. This includes projects being looked at by states and territories under current agreements. New projects that haven’t been referred yet will need to comply under the new laws. This includes the National Environmental Standards.

The next steps involve the establishment of the National Environmental Protection Agency and finalising details of the subordinate legislation, including the National Environmental Standards and regulations. National Environmental Standards have been developed for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and for Environmental Offsets and drafts of these documents are open for public consultation until 30 January 2026.

In the landmark decision in Shire of Mount Magnet v Atlantic Vanadium Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 274, the Supreme Court held that occupied Crown Land the subject of a miscellaneous licence issued under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) is ratable under section 6.26 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).

That decision created uncertainty across the resources industry by opening up the possibility that mining companies could be charged rates on land held under miscellaneous licences that had long been understood to be exempt (such as for rail, pipelines, roads, FIFO accommodation). This interpretation would have cost the mining and exploration sector an estimated $50 million plus per annum.

On 13 November 2025, the Legislative Assembly passed the above Bill to clarify that land held under miscellaneous licences cannot be subject to local government rates. The Bill is currently in the Second Reading stage in the Legislative Council.

The Bill establishes a refund mechanism for any rates, interest, or charges that have been imposed and paid to date on these licences.

The new State Development Bill 2025 was introduced into the WA Parliament on 10 September 2025 and had its second reading in the Legislative Council on 16 October 2025.

The purpose of the Bill is primarily ”to establish and make provision for the office of Coordinator General; and to provide a framework for the coordination, facilitation and promotion of development and activities of strategic or economic significance to the State”. The Government says the proposed legislation will “unlock strategic precincts, fast-track approvals for major strategic projects around the State and maintain Western Australia as the strongest economy in the nation”.

Under the legislation, the Premier will have powers to declare Priority Projects and State Development Areas. This will be supported by the Coordinator General, who will be delegated statutory powers to accelerate and oversee regulatory processes and industrial land activation, enabling the State to respond rapidly to emerging opportunities and reduce duplication. The Government media releases refer to large-scale critical minerals, renewable energy, energy transition (green iron), naval shipbuilding and multi-user infrastructure projects. However, the scope of the proposed legislation allows for smaller projects to be designated, if the Minister for State Development and the Premier are satisfied as to the project’s significance.

A key concern is that the Bill places a significant level of discretion in the hands of the State Development Minister and the Premier (currently the same person).

The Environmental Defenders Office is also concerned that, as well as centralising too much power in the executive arm of government, the Bill creates serious risks of undermining the intended operation of WA laws and ultimately harming the environmental and community/cultural values of WA.

Unusually, the Bill is not made subject to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) in the event of inconsistency.

The Law Society has made a submission to Roger Cook as the Premier and Minister for State Development setting out the Law Society’s concerns in regard to the Bill. The submission can be read here.

In July 2025, the Federal Court commenced a 2 day hearing of proceedings brought by the Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO), representing a group called the Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA), to challenge the validity of NOPSEMA’s acceptance of Woodside’s Production Environment Plan (EP) for its $19.5 billion Scarborough Gas Project, part of the company’s Burrup Hub plan (which we reported on in July).

The DEA argued that NOPSEMA may have accepted the EP without fully understanding and detailing how the impacts from the project’s emissions will be managed. The DEA argued that greenhouse gas emissions were an impact, not a potential impact, and as such, they had to be evaluated against environmental performance outcomes and control measures.

The Federal Court has now dismissed the case holding that it was a matter for NOPSEMA to determine if particular circumstances required the impact from emissions to be detailed and that it was open to the regulator to accept the plan so long as it met the acceptance criteria.

Separately, The Friends of Australian Rock Art (FARA) commenced Supreme Court action against the WA Government and Woodside arguing that the State did not consider the climate impacts of the project, including potential effects on the Murujuga rock art (also mentioned in our July report).
FARA has now also launched legal proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia to challenge the WA and Australian Governments’ approvals of Woodside’s North West Shelf extension.

Earlier this month, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, Astrid Puentes Riaño, made an extraordinary application to be heard in the Federal Court proceedings.