rss

Latest News

All the latest news from Energy & Resources Law

ARELJ Article7.png

Unearthing the Last Resort Power: The Bedrock Implications for the National Interest

  1. Introduction

The extent of government intervention in financial markets is a polarising issue, having effectuated the rise and fall of nations, engendered heated political discourse, and even been used as the justification for international conflict. The complex and multifaceted nature of government intervention is not relegated to the macroscopic spheres of society – instead these interventions impact the experience of the citizen, their financial welfare, rights, and wellbeing. An intricate web of economic interconnectivity has transcended the traditional geographic and political boundaries. The ease of human mobility across borders is supplemented by the fluidity of capital flow, giving rise to a new set of legal considerations pertaining to geopolitical stability.

The influx of foreign capital, whilst providing a catalyst for sustained economic growth, presents nuanced challenges relating to the intricate balance struck between economic globalisation and State sovereignty. The inception of the last resort power into the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth) (FATA) reflects a judicious and strategic legislative update, effectively balancing Australia's national interests with the globalisation of investment.[i] The provisions demonstrate foresight in establishing robust control over critical national resources, a particularly vital measure amidst escalating international tensions. At its core, the paper will delve into Administrative Law’s role in the control of government action, beginning by exploring the historical background of the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB, the Board) regime, providing a foundation for examining the justification for the last resort power. The analysis will shift toward the philosophical underpinnings of national interests and their interplay with the principles of procedural fairness. Ascertaining the fundamental principles of Australian Administrative Law will encourage reflection on the extent to which the FIRB framework complies, allowing a conclusion to be made as to whether it constitutes good law.

Regulatory action on greenwashing.png

Regulatory action on greenwashing

Greenwashing is an enforcement priority for regulators in Australia, including ASIC and ACCC. 

In the recent case of ASIC v LGSS Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 587 (Active Super case), ASIC was successful against the trustee of Active Super. In this case Active Super was found to have made false or misleading representations that it did not invest in certain sectors or activities. The purpose of these representations was to promote the superannuation fund’s ESG credentials. The court found that Active Super did actually invest in those sectors either directly or indirectly through its investment funds. 

Future Gas Stratergy.png

Future Gas Strategy

The Future Gas Strategy was released on 9 May. Gas continues to be important to Australia through the energy transition with natural gas currently meeting 27% of our energy needs and nearly 20% of export income. The Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, highlights in the document that gas is a transition fuel that is required until renewable alternatives are viable. She also highlights the need for greenhouse gas emissions associated with gas to decline, abated or offset. In line with this the Strategy anticipates that demand for gas may increase until alternative energy sources are available but by 2050 demand is expected to be significantly reduced. 

Article_Recent enviromental.png

Recent environmental cases in Australia

Two recent cases involving environmental actions provide some guidance on how the law and Ministerial decision making can apply.  


Recently two judicial review proceedings were dismissed by the Federal Court. The case was brought by Environmental Justice Australia and has been called the Living Wonders case. The case sought to challenge the Federal Environment Minister’s failure to adequately consider climate change risk when assessing two coal mine expansions under s78 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.