The Coalition, Scope 3 and Mount Pleasant: What Was Actually Decided

The Coalition wants to scrap rules that force fossil fuel producers to disclose emissions from burning their products overseas.

It set out that position on 14 October 2026, after the High Court's 3-to-2 Mount Pleasant decision. The Court said NSW planners should have considered whether to condition scope 3 emissions from a coalmine. Scope 3 is the term for pollution released when someone else burns the coal or gas, mostly overseas, rather than pollution from the mine itself.

The reaction was blunt. The Coalition called the ruling "absurd" and "madness". Nationals leader Matt Canavan called it "net zero on steroids". Fossil fuel groups called it "utter madness" and warned it could spark a wave of legal challenges, as reported in Graham Readfearn's Temperature Check column The Guardian.

The case was narrow. The win went to a retired couple from the NSW Hunter Valley who had already beaten the Mount Pleasant coalmine in the Court of Appeal. The High Court majority found the NSW Independent Planning Commission had not properly followed existing state law on considering scope 3 emissions. In plain terms, the Commission should have turned its mind to whether to put conditions on those overseas emissions. It was not ordered to refuse the mine.

Professor Jacqueline Peel, climate law expert at the University of Melbourne, said the provision considered by the High Court did not prevent approval of a coal project. It only required the commission to consider whether to impose conditions on scope 3 emissions. She also said requirements to consider scope 3 have been part of the NSW planning system in one form or another for almost 20 years.

The figures explain why it is contested. Scope 3 made up 98% of the greenhouse gas emissions at issue from the coalmine, to be generated overseas once the coal was exported Reuters. For coal and gas exporters, those overseas-burned emissions are the bulk of the climate impact. Australia is phasing in rules that ask the largest companies first, then smaller companies down to a threshold, to report scope 3 emissions each year.

There is an international strand to the story. The International Court of Justice gave its Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change on 23 July 2025. The case is titled Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change (Request for Advisory Opinion) ICJ. The Court stated that climate change is caused by man-made emissions, a finding that implies governments can be sued over lack of climate action Reuters. The United Nations' highest court told wealthy countries they must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution and global warming.

The broader context here is that politics is running two separate laws together. One is NSW planning consent, where the question is whether the decision-maker considers scope 3 and whether to condition it. The other is Commonwealth climate-related financial disclosure, where the question is whether large producers must measure and publish scope 3 each year. The Coalition's rhetoric links them. The law keeps them separate.

In my view, that link-up is worth watching. A duty to consider conditioning offshore combustion emissions is not a ban on mining. It is not a carbon liability for exporters either. It is procedural. Anyone who has sat through a planning briefing in Canberra will know the type. Failure to consider a mandatory relevant consideration brings consents undone. It does so routinely, with no need for novel climate doctrine.

Looking at what this means for the disclosure fight, the stakes are practical. If scope 3 is cut from producer reporting, the public record loses the category that dominates the inventory for exported coal and gas. If it is kept, companies must publish figures for burning they do not control. Industry calls that unworkable. Supporters call it honest accounting. Both sides know the figure will be used elsewhere, including in planning objections and in court.

Stepping back from the 'madness' tag, the column counts a majority of High Court judges and the International Court of Justice among those concerned about harm from overseas-burned Australian fossil fuels. Peel's point sits alongside that. A 3-2 split leaves room to argue about method. It leaves less room for surprise that scope 3 was in the law at all.