The Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024 (Cth) came into force on 1 January 2025. This Act amends the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to impose mandatory climate-related disclosure obligations on large businesses. As a part of this, reporting entities will be required to report on their Scope 3 emissions. This article critically examines the problems surrounding the accurate measurement of Scope 3 emissions due to both data and practical limitations. It then argues that directors need to take the utmost care with mandatory Scope 3 reporting. Significant problems with measurement and accuracy of Scope 3 reporting exposes directors to a heightened risk of penalties and litigation. However, if companies under-report Scope 3 emissions due to legislative exemptions this may lead to "green hushing".
Professional indemnity schemes sanctioned under Australia's Professional Standards Acts have allowed major accounting firms to expand and make most of their revenue from multi-disciplinary consulting services while protected from professional and personal liability by statutory limits intended to cover only traditional audit and insolvency services. In effect, the "Big 4" and other large accounting partnerships compete with other non-accounting consulting firms that do not have the same cover. The indemnity scheme assists the Big 4 to operate as quasi-corporations rather than being subject to the personal liabilities usually assumed of a partnership. By allowing consulting services to be treated in the same way as traditional accounting services, the Professional Services Council has favoured the commercial expansion of the Big 4 rather than prioritising the obligations of accounting firms to consumers and society generally.
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the intellectual property (IP) landscape, with significant impacts on trade secrets law. Auto-generated content, reverse engineering capabilities, unlimited data-sharing practices and the use of unauthorised data have posed new challenges for both businesses and individuals seeking to maintain exclusive control and ownership over their trade secrets. Through a comparative analysis of Australia and the European Union, this article examines the intersection of generative AI and trade secrets law in Australia to identify key gaps in current legislation, including the lack of clear accountability for AI-generated outputs and insufficient protection for trade secrets in AI models. The article argues that regulatory reforms-including enhanced AI governance, stronger transparency obligations and harmonised IP enforcement mechanisms-are necessary to balance the competing interests of innovation, commercial confidentiality and fair competition.
The integration of digital technologies, Big Data, and AI-driven analytics is transforming insurance markets, enabling highly individualised risk assessment and personalised underwriting. While offering significant efficiencies, these developments intensify longstanding concerns about information asymmetry, data integrity, and equitable access to coverage. In Australia, as insurers increasingly rely on algorithmic tools, legal and normative questions surrounding disclosure and transparency have become more pressing. The opacity of data-driven underwriting complicates the insured's understanding of disclosure obligations, challenging traditional legal frameworks rooted in voluntary information exchange. This article examines the evolution of Australia's disclosure regime in light of these technological shifts, assessing whether it continues to strike an appropriate balance between insurers' informational needs and the protection of insureds in a rapidly digitising insurance landscape.
