Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services
Left to right: Dr Ilona DiBella, Clinical Director of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and Kieran Dixon, Team Manager of the Adolescent Day Program.
Located on the Canberra Hospital Campus, the new 14 bed adolescent unit includes eight medical beds and six beds for mental health patients. This is the first time the ACT public health system has had dedicated mental health beds available for young people.
Canberra Health Services’ Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) will operate the six dedicated mental health beds – providing care for young people who require treatment for acute mental illness.
The eight medical beds will be used for young people who have been admitted to hospital, with two being designed to be easily adapted to meet demand in the unit.
A safe place for young people
Clinical Director of CAMHS Ilona DiBella said the specialised team was experienced in working with young people and their families.
“The CAMHS Adolescent Mental health Unit is a safe place for young people as staff are conscious of and attentive to adolescent’s vulnerabilities,” she said.
“Having a dedicated inpatient space for young people from 12 up their 18th birthday experiencing mental health problems means that young people who require treatment for moderate to severe mental illness can now access this in a purposefully designed setting that considers their developmental, psychological and physical needs.”
Features of the new Adolescent Unit
The new Adolescent Unit includes:
14 patient beds – eight medical beds and six dedicated mental health beds
a negative pressure room to help reduce the spread of infectious diseases
a bariatric rated room with lifter for the treatment of obese patients
a treatment room
a sensory room within the mental health section of the unit
interview spaces, and
a dedicated place for recreation and therapeutic activities, a family lounge and courtyard.
New adolescent day program
The Adolescent Day Program has also moved into its permanent home at the Centenary Hospital. The new purpose-built facility provides a welcoming space that has been specifically designed for the program.
The program provides a range of mental health programs to support individual and group therapy, parenting sessions, activity-based programs and psycho-education to assist with the continued recovery of young people.
Kieran Dixon, Adolescent Day Program Team Manager said an important element of the program was young people being able to connect with “… others who have similar stories or have been through similar things and being able to have that shared experience and learn how to recover together.”
Healing artwork by local artists
Artwork has been created and curated for both the new adolescent unit and the Adolescent Day Program.
In the adolescent unit, artwork by Canberra based artists Paul Summerfield, byrd and Julie Bradley, as well as Indigenous artist Natalie Bateman helps create a place of healing and inspiration for the young people receiving care.
In the Adolescent Day Program, Canberra based visual artist Jodie Cunningham’s artwork helps to create an uplifting and engaging space.
For more information on the Centenary Hospital Expansion Project, visit the Built for CBR website.
Get ACT news and events delivered straight to your inbox, sign up to our email newsletter:
Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services
Canberra City Farm, a previous Community Garden Grants recipient is a beloved community space for many Canberrans.
Community Gardens are places where Canberrans can grow food, make friends and connect with nature, while also creating great habitats for local animals.
Community Gardens Grants program
The grants program aims to support community garden projects throughout the ACT. Previous projects include traditional and indigenous food gardens, micro-forests, and urban gardens.
Funding can be used to build or enhance community gardens by:
buying tools and materials.
hiring equipment.
or cover the costs of contractors.
Since its development the program has helped both new and existing community gardens operated by a diverse range for community groups including not-for-profit groups, school communities, owner’s corporations and religious groups.
Canberra City Farm
Canberra City Farm located on Diary Road in Fyshwick has received funding across two rounds of the Community Garden Grants. The farm has grown into a beloved community space for many Canberrans.
Grant funding allowed the garden to expand its plots to welcome more members and share gardening knowledge across generations.
“The grant funding received in 2019 allowed us to plant an additional 25 allotments with the main expense being installing irrigation and hiring equipment,” President of the Canberra City Farm John Peters said.
“Many of our older allotments are farmed by retirees, and our newer allotments, which came from our grant funding, are farmed by young families who live in apartments. They travel to the farm by bike or bring their kids, have picnics, and enjoy their time outside.
“The retirees have the practical knowledge of how to grow plants and produce in Canberra, and through working together this knowledge is passed onto the younger groups.
“We recognise we are a community asset and welcome schools and other garden groups to the farm. We give these groups a tour of the farm, which is both educational and social.”
President of the Canberra City Farm John Peters at the garden in Fyshwick.
Apply for the 2023-24 grants program
This year there is $100,000 of grant funding available, split across two categories. Not-for-profit community organisations, schools, churches, and owners’ corporations are eligible to apply .
Category one: $40,000 available Up to $10,000 per project that will fund minor improvements or expansion of existing gardens or establishing small low-impact gardens.
Category two: $60,000 available Up to $20,000 per project to establish new large-scale food production community gardens, or for significant garden infrastructure.
Police are investigating after a body was located on the beach at Carpenter Rocks today.
Police are investigating after a body was located on the beach at Carpenter Rocks (35 km from Mount Gambier) today.
About 1.45pm on Sunday 16 March, police were called to Carpenter Rocks in the State’s south east after reports a person was located deceased on the beach.
It is early in the investigation however police do not believe the death to be suspicious.
Police will be preparing a report for the coroner.
Police are investigating the death of a man at North Adelaide this morning.
About 7.45am on Sunday 16 March, police and paramedics responded to reports of a man collapsed on a walking path within Brougham Gardens between Brougham Place and King William Road.
A 54-year-old man from Marden was found unresponsive when police arrived.
Paramedics commenced CPR at the scene before he was rushed to hospital but sadly, the man died.
Eastern District Detectives are investigating the circumstances surrounding the man’s death with assistance of Major Crime officers and Forensic Response.
A postmortem is expected to be carried out tomorrow.
Anyone who was in the vicinity of O’Connell Street or Brougham Gardens between 6am and 8am this morning is asked to contact police.
Anyone with information on the incident is asked to contact Crime Stoppers at www.crimestoppersssa.com.au or on 1800 333 000. You can remain anonymous.
Allens secured top rankings in the 2024 syndicated loans and project finance league tables, reflecting a strong year of activity driven by complex cross-border financings, infrastructure investment, and evolving lender dynamics.
The firm maintained its market-leading position in syndicated loans, with standout rankings across multiple league tables:
Bloomberg
First in APAC (ex Japan) – borrower lead counsel by deal count
First in APAC (ex Japan) – lender lead legal adviser by value
Second in APAC (ex Japan) – borrower legal adviser by value
Debtwire
First in APAC (ex Japan) – lead bank legal counsel
First in Australia – lead bank legal counsel
Second in APAC (ex Japan) – borrower legal counsel
Second in Australia – borrower legal counsel
Infralogic
First in APAC – project finance legal adviser by value and deal count
First in Australia and New Zealand – project finance legal adviser by value and deal count
LSEG (formally Refinitiv)
Second in APAC (inc Japan) – borrower legal adviser by value and deal count
Second in Australia – borrower legal adviser by value and deal count
‘These results reflect the trust our clients place in us to advise on their most strategic and high-value financings. We are fortunate to work with market-leading lenders, sponsors, and borrowers across the region, supporting them on complex transactions that drive investment and growth,’ said Partner and Head of Banking & Finance Tim Stewart.
‘The market remains highly active, particularly in project finance and structured lending, and we expect this momentum to continue into 2025 as borrowers and lenders adapt to evolving regulatory and economic conditions.’
In a special leave application filed with the High Court of Australia, a judgment debtor is seeking to avoid being wound up in insolvency on the basis that an order to extend the statutory six-month period was ineffective as it was granted to ‘a date to be fixed’; an indefinite time.
Background
In 2015, the liquidators of Gunns Limited (Liquidators) commenced a proceeding against Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (Badenoch) seeking to recover unfair preference payments (Primary Proceeding). The Liquidators were successful in the Primary Proceeding. Badenoch appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia and was successful, in part, in reducing their judgment debt (Appeal Proceeding).
In November 2020, after judgment in the Primary Proceeding but during the conduct of the Appeal Proceeding, the Liquidators commenced a separate proceeding in the Federal Court seeking orders that Badenoch be wound up in insolvency (Winding Up Proceeding).
Given that the Winding Up Proceeding was to be determined within six months (see s459R(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act)) and that the Appeal Proceeding was still ongoing, the parties agreed consent orders in the following terms:
Pursuant to section 459R(2) of the [Act], the period within which the [Liquidators’] application in [the Winding Up Proceeding] be determined (as required by section 459R(1) of the Act) be extended to a date to be fixed, such date to be not prior to six months after the determination of [the Appeal Proceeding]… (Extension Order).
Following the determination of the Appeal Proceeding and the subsequent landmark High Court decision to abolish the peak indebtedness rule, the Liquidators demanded payment of the judgment debt from Badenoch. Badenoch did not pay the amount. Instead, Badenoch filed an interlocutory application seeking a declaration that the Winding Up Proceeding had been dismissed automatically pursuant to s459R(3) of the Act or, alternatively, an order that the proceeding be dismissed as an abuse of process or for want of prosecution.
The decisions
Federal Court decision
In the first instance, the Federal Court found in Badenoch’s favour. The primary judge concluded that an effective exercise of the power under s459R(2) of the Act required that ‘the period’ as extended be one that is ‘definite, measured by a period of time’. The primary judge concluded that the period may be fixed by stipulating a date, or it may be determined by reference to a number of days or months, but it could not be fixed by reference to the occurrence of an event. On this basis, the primary judge found that the Extension Order was not effective in extending the statutory period for determination of the application to wind up in insolvency as required by s459R(2) of the Act and, as a consequence, the application was taken to have been dismissed by operation of s459R(3) upon expiry of the six-month period.
The Full Court decision
On appeal, the Full Court overturned the primary judge’s decision and found that the Extension Order was effective in extending the period in which the application to wind up Badenoch in insolvency was to be determined. When considering the section of the Act, the Full Court noted that the only prerequisites for the exercise of the court’s discretion are that:
the court is satisfied that special circumstances justify the extension; and
the extension order is made within the six-month period, or within the period as last extended.
Noting this, the court’s discretion should not be fettered by requiring that an extension under s459R be made to a specified time or measure of time after an event. In this regard, the Full Court found that the Extension Order was effective because the language of s459R of the Act does not suggest that ‘the period’ means a period ‘of time’ or which must be fixed to a specified date or by reference to time. While the Full Court agreed with the primary judge that ‘the period’ in s459R(2) of the Act must be definite, it noted that ‘the period’ as extended will be definite if it is:
fixed to a specific date;
measured by reference to time (ie a number of weeks); or
an interval that is able to be identified when the extension order is made, such as by reference to an identifiable event.
Given the Extension Order referred to a date to be fixed by the court after the occurrence of an event that was certain and identifiable at that time (ie the Appeal Proceeding), the Full Court held that the Extension Order was effective.
Stay tuned
In January 2025, Badenoch filed an application for special leave which is yet to be heard by the High Court.
In any event, should the High Court determine that this issue should be considered, we don’t expect judgment to be delivered until the second half of this year.
Should you wish to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact one of our experts
A significant shift for the state’s wind energy sector7 min read
From 3 February 2025, wind farm developments in Queensland will transition from a code assessable to an impact assessable application process, introducing a more rigorous assessment process. This shift reflects the Queensland Government’s growing concerns over environmental impacts and community opposition and marks a significant change for the state’s wind energy sector.
The revised State Code 23: Wind farm development (v.3.2) (Updated Wind Farm Code) introduces updated requirements, including stronger community engagement obligations, agricultural land protections and new infrastructure and decommissioning provisions. These updates aim to provide a more structured approach to managing the potential environmental, community and infrastructure impacts throughout the lifecycle of wind farm projects.
In this Insight, we explore the additional assessment requirements, including expanded public consultation and a broader technical review, and outline the key considerations for developers, investors and government bodies amid increased scrutiny, public engagement obligations and regulatory hurdles.
Key takeaways
Wind farm developments in Queensland will now undergo impact assessment, leading to heightened technical scrutiny, public consultation and appeal rights for submitters.
The transition from State Code 23: Wind farm development (v.3.1) to the Updated Wind Farm Code marks a notable policy shift, increasing regulatory scrutiny on wind farm development.
The new requirements introduce enhanced environmental protections, agricultural safeguards and community engagement obligations.
Infrastructure obligations have been expanded, including:
road and transport measures to mitigate impacts on local road networks during both construction and operation, ensuring safe and efficient transportation of wind farm components and materials throughout the project lifecycle.
financial security for decommissioning, requiring developers to provide bonds or financial guarantees to ensure the timely rehabilitation of sites and removal of infrastructure at the end of the wind farm’s operational life.
stronger community engagement requirements, including the submission of a Workforce Accommodation and Infrastructure Report to assess impacts on housing, services and local infrastructure, with a focus on consulting with local governments regarding workforce accommodation strategies and their impact on the community.
The Queensland Government has also signalled future regulatory changes that may apply similar impact assessment requirements to large-scale solar farms and other renewable energy projects, suggesting a broader policy shift.
Changes to the assessment process
The Planning (Wind Farms) Amendment Regulation 2025 (Qld) (Amendment Regulation) effective from 3 February 2025, raises the assessment threshold for wind farms from code assessable to impact assessable,.
The shift follows the Ministerial Direction issued by the Honourable Jarrod Bleijie MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Industrial Relations on 16 January 2025, which suspended assessments for the Wongalee, Theodore and Bungaban Wind Farms. The Queensland Government says this change is intended to bring wind farm developments into line with the approval processes required for major development projects, reinforcing its commitment to robust environmental and community impact assessments.
The increase to impact assessment represents the highest level of scrutiny under Queensland’s planning framework. Wind farm projects will now:
require more comprehensive technical assessments
have expanded public consultation requirements
be subject to appeal rights for submitters, which now apply to wind farm projects subject to impact assessment (and were not available under code assessment).
Wind Farm Code: key amendments
The Amendment Regulation introduces the Updated Wind Farm Code, which imposes updated assessment criteria for wind farm development applications.
Table 1: Key amendments in the Updated Wind Farm Code
Key change
Wind Farm Code
Commentary
Purpose statement
Revised purpose statement explicitly highlights the potential for adverse impacts, and emphasises the need to demonstrate that development does not result in unacceptable adverse impacts. Specifically includes:
minimum assessment parameters to mitigate impacts.
emphasis on community and local government engagement.
focus on all stages: design, siting, construction, operation and decommissioning.
The Updated Wind Farm Code emphasises greater community consultation, local government engagement and the need to demonstrate effective mitigation of adverse impacts through specific assessment parameters. It introduces a more detailed focus on the siting of developments near sensitive areas and integrates a lifecycle approach, covering all stages of development, including decommissioning.
Agricultural land protection
PO5: requires that wind farm development must ensure there is no significant loss of high-quality agricultural land values. This includes a focus on avoiding or minimising impacts on high-quality agricultural land, aligning with State Planning Policy definitions.
The Updated Wind Farm Code introduces the requirement for an Agricultural Land Assessment Report to be submitted as part of the application. This report must demonstrate that the development does not result in a significant loss of high-quality agricultural land values, identifying the land’s suitability for agricultural production and ensuring alignment with the State Planning Policy definitions. It includes an assessment of soils, land suitability and agricultural potential.
Workforce accommodation
PO16: on-site workforce accommodation associated with the construction of the wind farm must not result in adverse impacts on surrounding communities and townships, such as overburdening services and community facilities.
PO17: off-site workforce accommodation associated with the construction of the wind farm must not result in adverse impacts on surrounding communities and townships, such as overburdening services, housing supply and community facilities.
The Updated Wind Farm Code requires applicants to submit a Workforce Accommodation and Infrastructure Report that details both on-site and off-site accommodation options. It includes an assessment of potential impacts on housing supply, community services and local infrastructure. Developers must assess and address the impacts of workforce accommodation on local communities and services, including commuting distances, housing demand and pressure on community facilities. The Updated Wind Farm Code places greater emphasis on consultation with local governments regarding workforce accommodation strategies and their impacts.
Infrastructure
PO23: explicitly states that impacts of the development on infrastructure and services, including social infrastructure, communications networks and essential infrastructure, must be identified. Furthermore, measures to manage, mitigate and remediate any impacts must be undertaken:
prior to commencement of any development.
prior to additional demand being placed on infrastructure and services.
PO23 requires wind farm developers to assess and mitigate the impact of their development on both essential infrastructure (such as water, waste, electricity and communications networks) and social infrastructure (such as healthcare and emergency services). The Workforce Accommodation and Infrastructure Report is a critical document in this assessment, detailing:
the infrastructure and services that may be affected by the development, both during construction and operation.
mitigation measures to address any identified impacts, which must be implemented prior to the start of development or before additional demand is placed on local services.
consultation with local governments and relevant infrastructure providers to ensure the project is compatible with the existing infrastructure capacity and community needs.
Community impact
PO26: developers must identify, assess and mitigate impacts on local communities, ensuring that any adverse impacts are avoided. The mitigation strategies are explicitly required to address community concerns. This requirement reflects a proactive approach to handling community impacts.
PO26 requires wind farm developers to identify, assess and mitigate impacts on surrounding communities and individuals. The key practical changes introduced by this Performance Outcome are:
Developers must engage with local communities and stakeholders prior to lodging applications. This ensures transparency and allows concerns to be addressed early in the planning process.
A comprehensive Community Engagement Report is required, detailing the community profile, stakeholder feedback and how concerns have been or will be addressed. This is a more structured approach compared to previous guidelines, ensuring that community input directly informs project design.
The report should also outline measures for managing and resolving complaints, with a Complaint Investigation and Response Plan that includes a toll-free hotline, incident tracking and clear processes for resolving issues raised by the public.
Decommissioning
PO30: introduces a requirement for developers to provide financial security mechanisms (eg bonds or financial guarantees) to ensure timely compliance with decommissioning obligations.
The Updated Wind Farm Code requires the preparation of detailed decommissioning plans after the completion of construction and the commencement of operations, as well as at the end of the project’s operational life. These plans must outline how decommissioning activities will ensure no adverse impacts on individuals, communities or the natural environment. Typically, this involves measures to ‘make good’ the land and remove infrastructure. A key addition in PO30 is the requirement for applicants to provide evidence of financial security (such as bonds or financial guarantees) to ensure timely compliance with decommissioning obligations. This aims to mitigate risks and ensure the decommissioning process is completed efficiently, with minimal impacts on landowners and government.
The effects of the new assessment regime
Existing development applications: wind farm development applications lodged before 3 February 2025 will continue to be assessed under the framework that applied at the time of lodgement.
New development applications: all new wind farm applications lodged from 3 February 2025 onwards will be subject to impact assessment and must comply with the Updated Wind Farm Code. This means greater technical scrutiny, public consultation and increased regulatory obligations.
‘Other change’ applications: if a change to an existing development approval is classified as an ‘other change’ under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) (Planning Act), it may trigger a new assessment under the Updated Wind Farm Code.
Suspended projects: the Ministerial Direction issued on 16 January 2025 has temporarily paused assessments for the Wongalee, Theodore and Bungaban Wind Farms until 16 May 2025. The assessment pathway for these projects will be confirmed once the suspension period concludes.
Potential for Ministerial call-in: the Planning Act provides discretionary call-in powers, allowing the Minister to assess or reassess development applications where a state interest is identified. If a project is called in:
the Minister may determine which assessment benchmarks apply, including the possibility of applying the Updated Wind Farm Code.
appeal rights available under standard development assessment processes do not apply, with judicial review being the only available legal avenue.
Next steps
Developers, investors and government bodies will need to navigate increased scrutiny, public engagement obligations and regulatory hurdles.
Key considerations moving forward:
Regulatory preparedness: developers should carefully review the Updated Wind Farm Code to ensure their projects meet the new planning and environmental benchmarks.
Engagement strategies: with heightened public consultation requirements and new appeal rights for submitters, early and proactive engagement with stakeholders is essential to mitigate risk.
Financial planning: the new financial security obligations for decommissioning and site rehabilitation will require developers to assess funding provisions at the outset.
Monitoring Ministerial intervention: the existing Ministerial Direction and call-in powers add further complexity. Developers should closely monitor regulatory developments and be prepared for increased scrutiny of wind farm projects.
Future regulatory changes and community benefit framework: The Queensland Government has signalled its intent to expand impact assessment requirements to other renewable projects, including large-scale solar farms, while introducing a community benefit framework. Renewable energy developers should prepare for additional scrutiny on future projects, which may require demonstrating local economic benefits, job creation, or infrastructure investment as part of the approval process, similar to other major development projects in regional communities.
The evolving regulatory landscape for wind energy and other renewable projects in Queensland requires strategic planning, legal awareness and other proactive stakeholder engagement. For further advice or detailed information regarding the new planning framework and its implications, please reach out to any of the listed contacts.
As stakeholder expectations on Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) issues continue to evolve, we are seeing a movement build from voluntary standards to domestic regulation. Concurrently, the opposition to ESG-related action is adding to uncertainty and complexity when it comes to legal compliance and alignment with global high watermarks.
In this Insight, we take stock of the ESG journey and reflect on the trends to look out for in 2025 and beyond.
Key takeaways
Growing uncertainty around upcoming ESG legislation is expected to raise complexity and costs for companies in achieving regulatory compliance. The shift from a more global consensus on climate and environmental commitments, ESG due diligence and reporting requirements may result in deeper fragmentation of laws across jurisdictions, presenting new challenges for companies navigating competing pro- and anti-ESG regulatory trends.
Companies that are revisiting their sustainability and ESG-related claims and commitments amid heightened reputational and legal exposures over ‘greenwashing’ risk will need to continue to balance accuracy and appropriateness of public commitments with the risk of being perceived as laggards by their stakeholders, including scrutiny of perceived ‘greenhushing’ or ‘greywashing’.
Litigation risk remains a key challenge for businesses navigating ESG obligations and evolving stakeholder expectations. Potential claims are expanding to include directors’ duties and emerging intersectional ESG issues, including nature and biodiversity, human rights and plastics. Non-judicial forums such as complaints to OECD National Contact Points are likely to remain attractive for stakeholders seeking behavioural change.
Regardless of whether companies and their directors elect to recalibrate their ESG policies, companies should ensure they are satisfied that their chosen course of action is in the best interests of the company, and retain evidence to support that view and regarding the reasonable grounds for key decisions.
Who in your organisation needs to know about this?
Boards; general counsel and legal; sustainability; regulatory and compliance; cultural heritage and communities teams; external affairs.
A recap of 2024
New ESG legislation, an uptick in regulatory enforcement and the rising expectations of investors and other stakeholders are elevating ESG issues to the top of boardroom agendas.
In 2024, we saw the multi-jurisdictional trend of new ESG due diligence and reporting laws continue in places like the EU and California, adding to recent regulatory developments in Australia, the US, the UK, Canada and elsewhere. Australian companies have been responding, even if not directly in scope, as these new legal requirements flow through from customers and clients.
Combating alleged ‘greenwashing’ and ‘bluewashing’—being claims that environmental and social disclosures are false, misleading or have no reasonable basis—has become an enforcement priority for Australia’s corporate regulators. In November 2024, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) confirmed greenwashing and misleading conduct involving ESG claims would remain an enforcement priority in 2025.
Activists and strategic litigants have deployed strategies in and out of the courtroom seeking to influence corporate behaviour. While the majority of cases have commenced in the US, Australia consistently comes a close second, with cases increasingly focusing on the intersection between the environment and human rights, including the rights of First Nations peoples.
Alongside these developments, the backlash against ESG action increased in 2024 and was a key issue during elections in the US and across the EU. In the US, laws have been passed restricting ESG-related investment decisions, which have impacted investment flows, while legal challenges have delayed the implementation of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s climate-related financial disclosure rules. Some financial institutions and asset managers are moving away from membership of voluntary ESG commitments, such as the Net Zero Asset Managers and Net Zero Banking Alliance initiatives.1
Looking ahead to 2025
Deregulation may increase uncertainty and complexity for companies
The conversation around deregulation is already becoming more pronounced in 2025, in light of recent political developments and as ESG regulatory changes take effect.
Upon commencing his second term in office on 20 January 2025, President Trump’s executive orders have so far included:
withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement (for a second time); and
revoking the country’s financial commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the US International Climate Finance Plan.
His nominations to environmental protection and corporate regulatory agencies may foreshadow a further rollback of measures on:
anti-pollution;
emissions reduction; and
climate-related financial disclosures.
The wave of new executive orders has already sought to wind back the Biden Administration’s ESG policies (including those encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles).
In the EU, the outcome of a new omnibus proposal aiming to streamline various Green Deal sustainability regulations is due to be released by 26 February 2025. It is possible the proposal will include delays in implementation, while a recently leaked European Commission strategy paper for streamlining the Commission’s regulatory processes suggests there may be a greater focus on reducing the regulatory burden for small and medium-sized companies.
This uncertainty around upcoming ESG legislation is likely to mean increased complexity and costs for companies associated with achieving regulatory compliance. A move away from a more global consensus on ESG due diligence and reporting requirements may result in deeper fragmentation of laws across jurisdictions. Companies will continue to face challenges in navigating these pro- and anti-ESG regulations across different jurisdictions.
At the same time, disasters such as the Los Angeles fires will keep ESG issues in the public consciousness, and deregulation is unlikely to be aligned with the evolving high watermark to which stakeholders are holding companies to account. We anticipate an increase in ESG litigation as activists continue to pursue behavioural change by governments and companies in the courts.
ESG as a ‘dirty word’: greenhushing and greywashing
While many companies continue to take voluntary action on ESG issues, some are revisiting their ESG commitments in light of the increasingly contested and politicised environment, as well as the heightened reputational and legal exposures associated with sustainability and ESG-related public claims and commitments.
The paring back of existing commitments will continue to be scrutinised by regulators and civil society, and we anticipate that allegations of ‘greenhushing’ or ‘greywashing’ may develop.
‘Greenhushing’ refers to deliberately withholding information about sustainability goals and achievements.
‘Greywashing’ refers to setting strategies and policies that are too watered down, unambitious, qualified or ambiguous to result in meaningful change.
ASIC Chair Joe Longo has described greenhushing as ‘just another form of greenwashing’, which ‘risks misleading by omission’, referring to the annual Net Zero Report issued by South Pole which highlighted a substantial decrease in climate communications across a number of sectors.
Companies will need to continue to balance accuracy and appropriateness of commitments while maintaining flexibility in the changing political environment, with the risk of being perceived as laggards by their stakeholders.
The ESG litigation field expands
Despite the mixed successes of recent ESG claims, we expect activists will continue to pursue strategic litigation to extract concessions from governments and companies and effect behavioural change.
ESG claims have expanded beyond the traditional higher-emitting sectors. Stakeholders are looking more widely at targets and potential claims with the objective of disrupting capital flows, including scrutinising companies’ exposure through their financing activities and broader value chains. We expect that financial institutions will remain a target of stakeholder scrutiny, and that claims and complaints will continue to explore the intersection between climate change and issues such as nature and biodiversity, human rights and plastics. The use of new technologies such as AI and carbon capture and storage (or CCS) is also attracting activist scrutiny.
In 2025, decisions from the International Court of Justice and Australian courts may clarify legal obligations related to climate change, particularly in tort law, potentially impacting future corporate liability for alleged climate change impacts.
Non-curial avenues such as the OECD National Contact Points and UN Special Procedures are already a well-tested forum on ESG issues. Complainants are likely to be interested in exploring the recent updates to the OECD Guidelines on matters such as climate change and biodiversity. The Australian National Contact point may also be utilised by stakeholders in response to the three-year modified liability regime under the new mandatory climate-related financial reporting regime introduced from 1 January 2025, which prevents private litigation in respect of certain ‘protected statements’ for a period of time.
International discussions will continue to influence private actors
Despite failures by state parties to reach agreement at 2024’s UN biodiversity and plastic forums, discourse surrounding the negotiations appears to be sharpening corporate and civil society focus, including through an uptick in plastics-related litigation and campaigns. The next UN biodiversity COP taking place in Rome in February this year, and international negotiations will continue on a treaty to address the full lifecycle of plastic—from production to design and disposal.
Another emerging focus area for companies is Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP), particularly in the life sciences and mining sectors. A new treaty on genetic resources and traditional knowledge was concluded at the international level in 2024 under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which will require inventors to disclose the source of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in patent applications. After many years of diplomatic efforts by countries including Australia, this is the first multilateral treaty specifically relating to traditional knowledge, and efforts continue to protect traditional cultural expressions at the international level. It remains to be seen how this significant step at the international level will affect the discourse concerning the need for sui generis ICIP legislation in Australia.
Subject matter trends
Implications of US exit from international climate change commitments and shift in domestic energy policy
The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement introduces a new element of uncertainty for global efforts to address climate change. It remains to be seen whether the Trump Administration’s decision will leave the US as an outlier in international climate and energy policy, or if it may have a broader chilling effect on global cooperation on climate change and other emerging environmental issues.
President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, has already reaffirmed that ‘Europe will stay the course’ and reaffirmed the EU’s commitments to the Paris Agreement. A net zero-focused bipartisan alliance of 24 State Governors has also vowed to sustain and advance climate action in the US.
The new US administration has also embarked on a significant gear change in US domestic energy policy.
Executive orders have been effected to declare a ‘national energy emergency’.
This expedites the permitting of oil and gas projects (specifically in Alaska) and temporarily suspends new federal offshore wind leasing pending an environmental and economic review.
The US Federal Reserve has also withdrawn from the Network for Greening the Financial System—an international group of central banks, including the Reserve Bank of Australia, that analyses the economic fallout from climate change.
The Office of Management and Budget also ordered a temporary pause on grant funding by federal agencies for activities implicated by the new executive orders, including renewable energy and climate and atmospheric research programs. The order was subsequently rescinded after an urgent legal challenge by non-profits successfully sought an injunction.
These changes are likely to lead to legal challenges, further adding to the uncertainties faced by businesses navigating the new energy policy environment. As the Trump Administration seeks to encourage investment in the oil and gas sectors, we also expect stakeholders to intensify their scrutiny of companies’ exposure to higher-emitting projects.
Methane emissions
International initiatives to reduce methane emissions have been gaining industry and national support:
the World Bank’s Global Flaring and Methane Reduction (GFMR) Partnership is now active in over a dozen countries and has been endorsed by 57 companies.
the Global Methane Pledge launched at COP26 in 2021 by the EU and US has received 159 country endorsements as of 2024, including Australia’s.
Several countries have moved to impose stricter regulations on methane emissions. In May 2024, the EU introduced its Methane Regulation requiring increased monitoring, detection and reduction of methane emissions. Additional import restrictions will extend to gas imported into the Eurozone from 2027. In November 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced new regulations on the emission of methane from crude-oil and natural gas facilities.
New and expanded gas projects (and related infrastructure and supply chains) remain a focus of campaigning and shareholder activism on fugitive methane emissions by organisations such as Market Forces.
Biodiversity and nature
Countries are moving to implement their national commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Australia’s Nature Repair Market is set to open for business in 2025, operating in a similar fashion to the existing carbon market, to incentivise projects to protect and restore the environment through biodiversity credits.
The EU’s Regulation on Nature Restoration entered into force in August 2024, and the Canadian Government has moved to legislate a Nature Accountability Bill as part of its 2030 Nature Strategy released in June 2024.
However, the future of the Canadian bill is now uncertain due to the suspension of all parliamentary business after Parliament was prorogued on 6 January 2025 following the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. While Canada’s next general election is scheduled for 20 October 2025, opposition parties have foreshadowed a no-confidence motion when the next parliamentary session resumes on 24 March which, if successful, may trigger an early vote.
Several jurisdictions are also moving to address deforestation in supply chains, with measures including import restrictions and due diligence requirements.
The EU’s Regulation on Deforestation-free Products will enter into effect from 30 December 2025 and require certain commodities and derived products to be ‘deforestation-free’ if placed, made available on or exported through the EU common market.
The UK is also developing its own Forest Risk Commodity Regulation,2 which would also impose commodity-based restrictions and due diligence requirements.
Plastics pollution and the circular economy
A growing number of jurisdictions are introducing restrictions on plastic products, including single-use and microplastics.
The EU’s Single Use Plastic Directive came into force in 2024, and the European Commission has proposed additional measures to prevent the unintentional release of plastic pellets.
In the US, the State of California has commenced proceedings against Exxon Mobil and PepsiCo Inc in relation to allegedly misleading the public regarding plastics pollution.
In Australia, the ACCC commenced enforcement proceedings against Clorox Australia Pty Ltd in April 2024 for alleged greenwashing over claims relating to its ‘GLAD’ plastic bag products.
The right to water
From the Murray-Darling Basin to the Great Barrier Reef and beyond, we expect to see preservation of, and access to, water resources increase in priority for stakeholders as an issue that crosses geographical and jurisdictional boundaries.
Access to water and sanitation is recognised as a fundamental human right by the UN General Assembly, and stakeholders are raising issues around water security, water quality, contamination by microplastics and Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) chemicals, access to water resources for agriculture, and ensuring First Nations peoples’ interests and connection to water are taken into account.
Modern slavery reporting reforms
In December 2024, the federal Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) published the Government’s response to the 2023 statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (MSA). The response follows the appointment of Australia’s first national Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who is expected to lead in the implementation of modern slavery reporting reforms.
The Government has agreed (in full, in part, or in principle) to 25 of the 30 recommendations from the review, including the need to strengthen the compliance and enforcement framework under the MSA. The Government agreed in principle to the introduction of a penalty regime—details are not yet available, but the Government is expected to consult with stakeholders in 2025.
One issue that remains unresolved is the status of proposals for mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) by reporting entities under the MSA. The Government has ‘noted’ the recommendation to introduce HRDD; however, it has indicated that the AGD will engage with stakeholders on HRDD as part of the next stage of implementation.
The introduction of mandatory HRDD would align Australia with a number of jurisdictions that have introduced supply chain due diligence requirements, most notably the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive adopted by the European Parliament in 2024. The Canadian Government has proposed new supply chain due diligence legislation, while a parliamentary review of the UK’s modern slavery legislation has recommended the introduction of due diligence obligations.
The timeline for legislative amendments to the MSA may be complicated by the federal election, which is due to occur before 17 May 2025.
Navigating AI in the employment context
As AI technologies advance, companies will need to navigate the social issues raised due to the use of AI in the workplace.
Already, we are seeing increasing use of AI in hiring practices such as the screening of job applications. Based on how the algorithm was trained, AI can perpetuate biases, potentially leading to harmful or discriminatory outputs for individuals, groups or communities and arguably resulting in adverse human rights impacts.
In the US, we are seeing court cases alleging unlawful discrimination where AI tools have been used for hiring, insurance claims and rental applications.3 We anticipate Australian businesses may face similar claims if AI is used without accounting for the risk of inherent bias.
The rate of change brought by advancements in AI technology is not only front of mind for employers, but also for employees concerned about its implications. In October 2024, it was reported that Cbus and its employees had agreed to a first-of-its-kind enterprise agreement dealing with protections for employees if or when the super fund introduces AI technologies. The agreement contains an agreed definition of AI, and provides that Cbus must consult with staff on any changes that impact them in relation to AI.
Rights of First Nations peoples
In 2025, the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs is set to continue its inquiry into the Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024. The Bill seeks to establish a Commission to make recommendations to Parliament on historic and ongoing injustices against First Nations Australians. The Australian Law Reform Commission is also taking submissions as part of its review of the ‘future acts’ regime in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), with a final report to be delivered by December 2025. For more, see our Insight.
There are increasing demands on industry to consult First Nations stakeholders in their decision-making and operations, and to engage in benefit-sharing with Traditional Owners, with an emerging focus on the clean energy sector. The First Nations Clean Energy Network has published Best Practices Principles to help First Nations communities in Australia to share in the benefits of renewable energy projects, including calling for Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) standards to apply throughout the lifecycle of projects.
We expect that international, ‘soft law’ standards will continue to evolve. For example, the International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM) recently updated its Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement to emphasise the responsibility of mining companies to achieve FPIC through meaningful engagement and good faith negotiation with Traditional Owners. Although the new standard goes beyond the current position in the Native Title Act and many cultural heritage laws in Australia, it is possible it will become a benchmark for mining companies in Australia—see our Insight.
Addressing misconduct impacting First Nations peoples also remains an enforcement priority for ASIC.
Diversity and inclusion
Diversity, equity and inclusion policies and initiatives have also become the subject of backlash in the United States through three executive orders signed by President Trump, with one executive order foreshadowing regulatory action to ‘encourage’ private sector employers to dismantle diversity programs that have been based on federal anti-discrimination law.
This backlash has already placed diversity on the political agenda in Australia, and the discussion around diversity policies and initiatives is likely to increase in the lead-up to the federal election this year.
Company culture and governance issues in the spotlight
Corporate culture is an ongoing boardroom issue and recent examples underscore the importance of accountability, transparency and strong and ethical corporate governance.
Cultural concerns: in the wake of federal Respect@Work reforms, a number of prominent Australian brands have been in the spotlight regarding whistleblower complaints on cultural issues. Widespread media reporting has led some companies to launch internal investigations to respond to shareholder concern and address reputational damage in the community.
Regulatory scrutiny: in addition to reputational damage, there is also now a real prospect of scrutiny from regulators in relation to corporate cultural issues. In its updated enforcement priorities announced on 14 November 2024, ASIC reaffirmed its commitment to addressing governance and directors’ duties failures as an enduring enforcement priority for 2025. As an example, ASIC commenced proceedings against Regional Express Holdings Limited and several of its directors for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct and for contraventions of continuous disclosure obligations in relation to ASX announcements about the company’s financial position prior to entering into voluntary administration in July 2024.
Navigating complexities in AI and ESG reporting
As ESG reporting obligations expand in Australia and overseas, AI will become an increasingly attractive tool for companies seeking to reduce the time needed for data gathering and drafting.
However, the use of AI may also present legal, regulatory and reputational risk:
Environmental impacts associated with the training and use of AI models. This includes increased demand for electricity consumption; the water footprint associated with training and maintaining AI models; and electronic waste generation.
Susceptibility to bias, which may result in errors that could lead to misleading statements or discriminatory outputs.
Privacy concerns from the use of sensitive or personal information without consent. Privacy law reforms introduced in late 2024 require companies to disclose when they will be using AI automated decision-making (see our Insight).
Human rights implications such as discrimination or potential harm to vulnerable groups such as children or workers in the AI supply chain.
Regulatory scrutiny on the use of AI, as indicated by the increased regulatory guidance available to companies, including Australia’s new Voluntary AI Safety Standard, the European Parliament’s AI regulations, and ASIC’s report on ‘Governance arrangements in the face of AI innovation’.
Actions you can take now
Regardless of whether ESG policies are recalibrated in light of growing uncertainty around legislative frameworks and the anti-ESG backlash, companies and directors should ensure they are satisfied that their chosen course of action is in the best interests of the company, and gather evidence to support that view.
The influence of new legislation is being felt on companies even where not directly in scope. Consider adopting a higher water mark approach appropriate to the company’s risk profile and appetite to future proof against evolving stakeholder expectations and regulatory requirements.
Understand the scope of the company’s voluntary commitments and what these entail, including in international law.
When refreshing policies and procedures, look at these through the lens of emerging areas of focus. Consider if your policies fit for purpose and reflect emerging risk areas.
Consider the role of legal—privilege can be a useful tool where appropriate, given the regulatory and risk environment.
The guide is intended to alert businesses of when competition law risks may arise when considering sustainability collaborations (and when they are unlikely to do so), as well as the exemptions that may be available for collaborations in the public interest.
The ACCC has sought to clarify its views on the operation of competition laws for such collaborations, acknowledging the importance of ensuring that businesses do not unnecessarily limit participation in lawful sustainability collaborations.
The guide includes a 5 step checklist for businesses considering sustainability collaborations to help assess whether competition laws are likely to apply.
The updates are intended to increase transparency about how the Immunity Policy is administered by the ACCC, and to update and clarify the requirements for immunity applicants.
It is now a criteria for corporate conditional immunity (and corporate derivative conditional immunity) from ACCC-initiated civil proceedings that the corporation has implemented measures, or undertaken to implement measures, to mitigate the risk of future non-compliance with the CCA.
The updated policy also confirms that, at the proffer stage, the ACCC will not generally permit representatives of an immunity applicant to attend ACCC interviews with a derivative immunity applicant. The ACCC will provide the immunity applicant with sufficient information to enable it to:
understand how its immunity application is progressing; and
identify and provide further material relevant to its immunity application.
However, the ACCC will not otherwise disclose to the immunity applicant or its legal representatives the questions asked or the evidence given by a derivative immunity applicant.
ACCC alleges price fixing cartel against Defence contractors and senior executives
In December 2024, the ACCC commenced civil cartel proceedings in the Federal Court against Spotless Facility Services (Spotless), Ventia Australia (Ventia) and four senior executives for alleged price fixing in relation to the supply of estate maintenance and operation services to the Department of Defence (Defence).
Spotless and Ventia provide services to major Defence force bases under billion-dollar contracts. The ACCC alleges that, on three occasions between April 2019 and August 2022, Spotless and Ventia made or attempted to make arrangements or understandings containing provisions that had the purpose, effect or likely effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining the price at which Spotless, Ventia and a third company, BGIS, would supply these services to Defence. Spotless and Ventia are also alleged to have given effect to some of these arrangements or understandings.
The three arrangements or understandings are alleged to have involved:
the exchange of text messages about what BGIS and Spotless would charge Defence;
communications between Spotless, Ventina and BGIS regarding seeking additional compensation from Defence; and
meetings in which one of the senior executives said words to the effect that Spotless, Ventia and BGIS should jointly ask Defence to pay a project management fee.
The ACCC is seeking declarations, civil penalties, and costs against Spotless and Ventia and the four senior executives, as well as qualification orders against three of the senior executives.
Viva Energy’s proposed acquisition of LOC Global not opposed subject to divestiture
On 12 December 2024, the ACCC confirmed that it will not oppose (subject to undertakings) Viva Energy Group’s (Viva) proposed acquisition of the remaining 50% interest in LOC Global (LOC) from New World Corporation (NWC).
LOC is a joint venture between Viva and NWC (with a 50% stake each) that operates over 100 ‘Liberty’ branded retail fuel and convenience sites across Australia. Viva conducts downstream fuel refining, importing, distribution and marketing in Australia. It is also the exclusive supplier of Shell-branded fuels and lubricants in Australia. Viva Energy and LOC overlap in the supply of retail fuel across metropolitan and/or regional locations in local markets across SA, Victoria, WA, NSW, Queensland and NT.
In the absence of the undertaking, the ACCC was concerned that the proposed acquisition would reduce competition in certain local areas in Adelaide, Darwin, regional Queensland and regional Victoria, where LOC and Viva Energy compete closely and where there are few remaining competitors to constrain Viva.
Viva committed to divest 14 retail fuel and convenience sites to Solo Oil Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of NWC).
Furniture frenzy: Koala Living fined for false and misleading statements about consumer rights
Koala Living has paid a $56,340 fine after being issued three infringement notices by the ACCC for making false and misleading statements regarding consumers’ rights under the consumer guarantees and available remedies for faulty products.
Koala Living has admitted to incorrectly informing consumers that:
remedies for faulty products were only available within a 72-hour period after purchase or the period of the manufacturer’s warranty;
Koala Living could independently determine the type of remedy provided for minor or major faults; and
delivery charges were not refundable.
The ACCC’s investigation was initiated in response to consumer complaints. Koala Living has given a court-enforceable undertaking under which Koala Living has committed to:
provide additional compensation (amounting to 20% of the purchase price) to consumers to whom Koala Living represented that a consumer’s right to seek remedies for faulty products was limited to 72 hours and have not yet received a remedy;
establish a competition and consumer law compliance program and review and update its internal policies, procedures, complaints handling practices and training to ensure ACL compliance; and
publish corrective notices.
Cleared for takeoff: Virgin and Qatar granted ACCC interim authorisation for cooperative conduct
On 29 November 2024, the ACCC granted interim authorisation to Virgin Australia (Virgin) and Qatar Airways (Qatar) to engage in cooperative conduct under an integrated alliance. Subject to certain exceptions:
Qatar will become Virgin’s exclusive interline, codeshare and loyalty partner headquartered in the Middle East or Türkiye; and
Virgin will become Qatar’s exclusive interline, codeshare and loyalty partner headquartered in Australia.
The ACCC has granted interim authorisation to allow Virgin and Qatar enough lead time to undertake the necessary planning discussions, marketing, selling and system alignment to permit Virgin to commence flying the new services by June 2025 if authorisation is ultimately granted.
Virgin and Qatar have provided a court-enforceable undertaking under which they have committed to:
offering tickets to the new service as ‘subject to regulatory approval’ to ensure consumers are made aware of the nature of the tickets they are purchasing; and
if authorisation is not ultimately granted, re-accommodate passengers who purchased tickets for the new service during the period of interim authorisation.
Interim authorisation remains in place until it is revoked, the application for authorisation is withdrawn, or the date the ACCC’s final determination comes into effect. A draft determination from the ACCC is expected in February 2025, with the final determination expected in March-April 2025. The parties are seeking authorisation for five years.