How could the high court's climate ruling affect the Productivity Commission's policy review?
New climate ruling may prompt Productivity Commission review of WA resource policy The High Court ruling, which requires planning authorities to consider global climate change impacts, specifically Scope 3 emissions, introduces significant regulatory uncertainty into the resource sector. This concern is felt across Western Australia, where major projects like Woodside's $30 billion Browse gas proposal are being considered. Because the Productivity Commission is the body responsible for advising on microeconomic policy and regulation, the introduction of this complex, nationally relevant climate risk framework would likely necessitate a review of existing economic policies to assess the impact on WA's investment climate and resource development.
- Effect
- Mild negative
- How direct
- Brind's reasoning
- When
- Within months
- The story
- Gone quiet
How it reaches Productivity Commission
-
A landmark ruling by the High Court found that planning authorities in New South Wales are required to consider global climate change impacts when approving local fossil fuel projects. This ruling stymied the planned expansion of a coal mine after it had been approved in 2022. Industry bodies are concerned that this precedent could affect investment in Western Australia.
The full event1independent outlet -
The introduction of this new regulatory constraint and the resulting uncertainty regarding future investment in WA's resource sector would require the Productivity Commission to review the existing microeconomic policies and regulatory frameworks to understand the full economic implications for the state.
No report states this step directly. Brind drew it from the reporting on each side of it, so treat it as an informed guess.
-
Australian Government's principal review and advisory body on microeconomic policy and regulation
Everything about Productivity Commission
Tap any step to see the evidence behind it.
The facts so far
As reported. Each one links to where it comes from.
- The High Court ruling mandates planning authorities in New South Wales consider global climate change impacts for local fossil fuel projects.abc.net.au
- The ruling stymied the planned expansion of MACH Energy's coal mine after it was approved in 2022.abc.net.au
- The ruling required taking into account the emissions caused by using the coal MACH would export, known as the project's scope 3 emissions.abc.net.au
- Woodside's $30 billion Browse gas proposal in WA is still being considered by state and federal environmental bodies.abc.net.au
- WA Treasurer Rita Saffioti said the government was seeking urgent legal advice regarding the decision.abc.net.au
Why it matters
The resource sector is critical to Western Australia's economy, and the certainty of investment is paramount for international partners. If the new climate consideration requirement leads to increased regulatory hurdles or delays, it could significantly impact the viability and timeline of major projects, potentially shifting investment to countries with lower environmental controls.
This ruling is not limited to New South Wales; legal experts suggest the content will be relevant to courts in other jurisdictions, including Western Australia. The concern from industry bodies is that this 'lawfare' could swing the pendulum away from the certainty that international investors require, forcing the government to reassess its entire resource development strategy.
What we don't know yet
- Will the WA government formally task the Productivity Commission with reviewing the economic impact of the ruling?
- How will the WA government respond to the legal advice sought regarding the applicability of the NSW ruling?
What would change this answer
— Other considerations
Beyond this explainer
Questions worth asking
Ideas the web ties closely to this story that the explainer doesn't mention. These are prompts for your own research: Brind hasn't answered them.
-
About Queensland and South Australia
Given the ruling's relevance to other jurisdictions, how might the requirement to consider Scope 3 emissions affect resource projects in Queensland or South Australia?
-
About Tasmania and Victoria
If the High Court ruling is relevant to states like Tasmania and Victoria, how might their existing resource development strategies differ from Western Australia's?
Explore connected ideas
Each opens in Related concepts: what the web connects to it, with Brind's news on it.
The ideas come from how millions of web pages place them near each other. The questions are Brind's AI reasoning, written only from this explainer and Brind's own reporting.
Who else could feel it
Other possible ripples from the same event.
- OceanaGoldPossibleOceanaGold may face increased regulatory risk due to climate ruling
- Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and AttractionsPossibleDBCA may face new regulatory burdens from climate change ruling
- Sandfire Resources LimitedPossibleClimate ruling may increase regulatory risk for Sandfire Resources Limited projects
Reporting
- abc.net.auOct 8
Keep going
Brind's analysis is written by AI from the reporting linked above and can be wrong. This explainer is a possibility worth considering, not a forecast: steps marked as Brind's reasoning are not stated in the reporting. It is not investment advice; do your own research.