Where and how to watch Saturday's federal election coverage
Network Ten, Australia Decides
Once again, Sandra Sully, she of the golden tonsils, has been entrusted to helm Ten's coverage alongside national affairs editor Hugh Riminton and network political editor Ashleigh Raper.
Joining the Ten anchors will be a revolving door of political heavy-hitters, with Ten banking on fireworks between teal independent Kylea Tink MP, Liberal Senator Dave Sharma, Senator Jacqui Lambie and the Nationals' David Littleproud.
Unique selling point: Ten has historically been the free-to-air network that loves The Youth™, so they're smart to rope in The Betoota Advocate' s Errol Parker and Clancy Overell to join the broadcast live from Betoota HQ.
Channel Seven, Australia Decides
We love a confident broadcaster, and before even a vote has been cast, Channel Seven is making a huge call: they're promising to call the election first. According to Seven's press release, they will utilise 'cutting-edge technology' to deliver up-to-the-minute results.
Sadly, this doesn't refer to the Cash Cow in a cupboard tallying ballots. Instead, Seven will use the 7NEWS Power Board, a state-of-the-art, touch-screen technology made famous by CNN's John King during the most recent US presidential election. The Power Board can fast-track pre-poll and postal votes, providing viewers with an early indication of how the public is leaning.
Veteran reporters Michael Usher and Natalie Barr will steer the ship alongside veteran 7NEWS political editor Mark Riley.
Unique selling point: Seven has booked Clive Palmer to appear on air, so someone can ask him on national TV to stop sending so many text messages.
Loading
SBS
While other networks focus on bells and whistles, SBS is doing what it does best: Solid But Sensible. Their coverage will begin at 6.30pm, anchored by World News presenter Janice Petersen, with chief political correspondent Anna Henderson as featured guest.
Unique selling point: NITV coverage will focus on the Northern Territory as Australia's most significant Indigenous constituency and interview First Nations voters at polling booths around the country.
Sky News, Australia Decides
For those who can't get enough of early polling numbers, Sky News has you covered from sun-up to sundown. Things kick off at 6am with Peter Stefanovic hosting First Edition: Australia Decides, then continue to the evening.
Kieran Gilbert will host Sky's evening coverage alongside a panel that includes Peta Credlin, Andrew Clennell, Chris Uhlmann, Murray Watt, Joel Fitzgibbon and Sky News chief election analyst Tom Connell. Expect regular crosses to Sharri Markson and Paul Murray at Liberal HQ and Chris Kenny and Laura Jayes at Labor HQ, providing on-the-ground reactions as results come in.
Unique selling point: Barnaby Joyce is joining Sky's coverage, which means something hilarious is likely.
ABC, Australia Votes
Props to ABC for slightly altering the name of their coverage and opting for Australia Votes instead of Australia Decides. And while Australia will indeed be voting, Australia will also be crying (#AustraliaCries), with analyst Antony Green crunching the numbers for the final time after announcing his retirement from the role following more than three decades of elections.
Primary coverage starts at 6pm, and it's an all-star line-up, like the Avengers of Ultimo.
We're talking David Speers, Sarah Ferguson, Annabel Crabb and Laura Tingle, along with Bridget Brennan, who will interview candidates from across the country. Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Coalition Senator James McGrath will also provide insights throughout the night.
Unique selling point: Jeremy Fernandez will utilise the 'Big Board' to offer audiences a clearer perspective on the results and analyse trends in the vote with Casey Briggs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
8 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
It's clear what was behind Kumanjayi Walker's killing. So why can't we say it?
Indeed, some are calling for a federal truth-telling commission while simultaneously lamenting the non-implementation of those royal commission recommendations. It speaks to the absurdity of the status quo and post-referendum fragmentation in Indigenous affairs to call for the same form of inquiry to achieve something we unequivocally know it can't. What can history tell us? While formal policies of compulsory racial segregation established by protection legislation ended in the latter part of the 20th century, there was little institutional reckoning with the role police had played in administering that regime. Police forces, which for over a century had played a key role in the enforcement of the system of Aboriginal reserves, missions and curfews, were reconstituted in the post-protection era as ostensibly neutral enforcers of the rule of law with no corresponding effort to reform the institutional culture or confront its origins in racial control. Loading The phenomenon of over-policing – where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly youth, are disproportionately surveilled, detained and prosecuted for conduct that may not attract the same police or judicial response when committed by non-Indigenous peers – is not speculative. It is extensively documented across decades of institutional review and legal analysis, including the 2017 Australian Law Reform Commission's Pathways to Justice report. These are not isolated or anecdotal claims. They form part of a consistent body of empirical and legal evidence that demonstrates a structural problem embedded within our institutions. But equally confronting, for those calling for more truth-telling to replace structural change, is that Australians say they know the truth but want to move on. That's a truth that needs to be grappled with. This is possibly why the sky did not fall in with the Yoorrook findings of genocide in Victoria. They were, by and large, not controversial because this was already historically supported, perhaps demonstrating that societies do move on and the temporal, ideological motivations of the Aboriginal history 'culture wars' have disintegrated with the passage of time. It has been more than three decades since the release of the deaths-in-custody royal commission report, Australia's first truth-telling commission. There is much sentimentalising of the report. The inquiry emerged in a markedly different Australia, an era in which Australians trusted public institutions and politicians. Its findings were released when Aboriginal political structures were more unified and institutional forms such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission provided a national platform for Indigenous voices. In the intervening years, the landscape has changed significantly. Aboriginal communities have experienced fragmentation, and the post-ATSIC policy environment has become saturated with a proliferation of individuals and organisations purporting to represent Aboriginal interests, often in unaccountable ways, and which commodify identity and political authority. Loading The royal commission was unequivocal in its central finding: that systemic change would be achieved only by reducing Aboriginal contact with the criminal justice system altogether. This imperative remains as urgent now as it was then. Yet, despite its clarity, much of the contemporary criminal justice response has been directed towards superficial modifications at the sentencing stage, design interventions and cultural overlays that attempt to 'Indigenise' the system without altering its foundational logic. These are, to borrow a phrase, cosmetic adjustments, lipstick on a pig that leaves the structural drivers of over-incarceration intact. The royal commission's recommendations on non-criminal justice system solutions are a pathway forward. The pursuit of these should not form part of the closing-the-gap monolith that hoovers up all things Indigenous these days – the wicked problem they've created to solve the wicked problem. A core insight of the royal commission, too often cited but insufficiently read, is that communities need autonomy and agency, and the safety of Aboriginal people depends on them avoiding the system altogether, not their adaptation within it. We've done the reverse over 30 years and wonder why the gap in disadvantage grows wider. The royal commission further called for a withdrawal of bureaucratic control and the reallocation of authority to Aboriginal communities. Ironically, the most recent national attempt to institutionalise this principle, the proposed Voice to parliament, was framed by its opponents as an exercise in bureaucratisation, despite its primary aim being to devolve authority to communities and reduce administrative gatekeeping. Loading In the aftermath of the failed referendum, bureaucratic entrenchment has, if anything, intensified. Critics of over-bureaucratisation have grown conspicuously silent, while initiatives such as justice reinvestment attract significant public expenditure without demonstrable systemic returns. The Justice Policy Partnership, established under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, is dominated by bureaucratic actors. Several Aboriginal members have made serious accusations about its ineffectiveness. Yet, as is often the case in Indigenous policy, their concerns about the bureaucrats are ignored by the bureaucrats, and the dysfunction continues with no course correction. Today, the right of self-determination, as articulated by the royal commission, is far from the concept defined then. It has been reduced to 'partnership with government', whatever that means, and in practice it means incorporation via corporations statutes. In this way, self-determination has become synonymous with corporate compliance. What relevance these observations to the NT Kumanjayi Walker coronial inquest? The second version of the closing-the-gap framework adopted in 2020 pushed the Commonwealth's constitutional obligations and leadership responsibilities from 1967 back to the states and territories, which were notoriously bad at Indigenous policy. Now Aboriginal organisations are required, by agreement, to stand side-by-side with state and territory governments which claim to be in partnership with them while they implement draconian and ruthless criminal justice policies that render nugatory the various KPIs of justice, health and wellbeing that the closing-the-gap framework purports to achieve. The asymmetry and absurdity of the arrangements were evident when the Walker coronial inquest recommended, among many things, diversionary justice programs for Indigenous youth four days after the NT announced restricting youth offenders from accessing diversionary justice programs. Two ships passing in the night. The federal government has declined the invitation of the Indigenous sector to take more leadership. The most compelling solution here is for the Commonwealth to assume responsibility for Indigenous criminal justice and bring some leadership, accountability and coherency to the sector, if we are serious about the national closing-the-gap agreement and its justice outcomes. Something more serious is needed than the annual performative lamenting the gap.
Sydney Morning Herald
14 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
We must teach a truer history of our attempted genocide
Professor Megan Davis' article (' Australia can't handle the truth ', July 12) makes sobering reading. A couple of days ago, we had a report from an envoy suggesting we teach the Holocaust in our schools. I have often referred to it in my time as an educator, so I'd have no problem, given a couple of other requirements. Teach the true story of the attempted genocide of our Indigenous people. Tell the story of Tasmania, teach about the massacres in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, WA and especially the NT, where the last such slaughter was in 1928 at Coniston. Genocide is not confined to 1930s and '40s Europe – it comes much closer to home. I am sad to find myself writing this, but what I have read, seen and heard, especially since the outburst of vile racism surrounding the Voice, demands that a truer history of our own nation be taught, and at present, it is not. Jock Webb, Narromine Megan Davis' summary of our sorry racist history towards Indigenous Australians shows that, unlike the achievement of a multicultural Australia – something of which we can be proud – we have failed in the Indigenous space despite many reports and commissions. Following the failure of the Voice referendum, there is a need for a legislated representative body for Indigenous people and the adoption of alternatives to incarceration of young people, among other measures. This should culminate in a treaty like the Treaty of Waitangi in Aotearoa-New Zealand, with appropriate compensation for the terrible wrongs inflicted on our Indigenous peoples. Only then can we put our sad past behind us and go forward together. Andrew Macintosh, Cromer An excellent article by Megan Davis highlights the insidiousness of racism in Australia. This country was founded on racism, both personal and institutional. Racism is as a cancer that continues to eat away at us, while privileged white people like me can continue to deny its very existence behind trite statements and participating in some 'nice' soul-cleansing NAIDOC event on an annual basis. Significantly, racism is not a concept – it is a practical means to suppress aspirations of Indigenous people, then blame them for the impacts of that racism. Racism is interwoven in our national psyche, our institutions and policies and practices. It is only when we reckon with our past and accept the prejudices that exist that we will move forward. Unfortunately, if it has taken 225 years to get where we are today, it may take at least that many years to come to terms with our past. I, for one, hold little hope. Graham Fazio, Cootamundra I do not agree with Megan Davis that 'Australians voted no because they did not want 'race' in the constitution'. In the lead-up to the 2023 Voice referendum, there were two issues to be decided. One was to include the Indigenous people in the constitution and one to allow a voice for Indigenous people in parliament. The first was clearly popular with most people, but the second was less popular because it would introduce racism into the parliament. The Labor Party decided rather than have two separate issues with one popular and another less, they would merge them, hoping that the voting public would not recognise the trickery of their decision. The outcome, as we know, was No, which now means we still do not have the Indigenous population represented in the constitution. Ross Hall, Copacabana Let report gather dust The Segal Report aims to deter antisemitism by recommending special input into Australian schools, universities and the ABC (Letters, July 12). Jillian Segal wants the government to listen to a Jewish voice to ensure truth-telling about Jewish history and foster a safe future for Jews in Australia. The Aboriginals, too, wanted a Voice in government. They, too, want truth-telling and policy input. However, Australians said a resounding No to one cultural group getting special access to and influence over our key institutions in present day multicultural Australia. If the Jewish lobby is given what Indigenous people were denied, it will seem very unfair. Prime Minister Albanese should put the Segal Report on a shelf and let it gather dust. As for any violent, destructive crimes such as fires and graffiti, by any groups or individuals: we have the full force of the law, police, courts and jails to protect safety and property. We should not show fear or favour to any one cultural group to have a cohesive society. Elizabeth Vickers, Maroubra Jillian Segal's plan isn't even a voice to parliament, it's a voice to government without the suggestion of a referendum – an overreach, and unnecessary given the laws we have in place already. Jack Amond, Cabarita The report by Jillian Segal outlining a plan to address antisemitism is welcome. Such a welcome, however, should not obscure the reality of the murder of innocent Gaza citizens at the hands of the IDF. Close to 60,000 dead since October 23, probably more. That is the equivalent of the combined populace of Bathurst and Lithgow. All dead. The survivors tormented and traumatised, herded en masse from one unsafe location to the next, to await the next direction to move on amid the bombing. To speak of this is not to threaten community tolerance, it is to speak the truth. Jon Fogarty, North Avoca I find Jillian Segal's report alarming, with its threats to restrict and to de-fund non-compliant universities. Antisemitism has been a disgraceful stain on humanity for centuries. But to claim that the recent manifestations can be blamed on 'a diet of disinformation and misinformation' is largely missing the point. It is surely being fuelled rather by the daily images of the killing of civilians and destruction of their homes and towns by the Israeli Defence Force. If the IDF would stop this, it would be the greatest blow imaginable to the rising tide of antisemitism. Indeed, if that doesn't happen, the tide will overwhelm us. Paul Knox, Roseville Chase An often-stated argument during the Voice referendum by the No campaign was that such legislation would create a system of special laws for one group of Australians, be divisive and contrary to the egalitarian view we have of ourselves. I wonder if those who prosecuted this argument so strongly will similarly object to special laws for antisemitism. Paul Clynick, Moffat Beach (Qld) As prime minister, Scott Morrison humiliated China by publicly supporting an external examination of Chinese markets and laboratories to determine the origin of COVID-19 and then compounded this with name-calling (' Albanese walks diplomatic tightrope with Xi, Trump ', July 12). The result was that China put tariffs as high as 264 per cent on our exports and refused to even talk to anyone from the Morrison government. Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong succeeded in having those tariffs removed and returning the relationship to normality. It is therefore laughable that anyone once part of the Coalition such as 'hawkish foreign policy expert Justin Bassi' should attempt to give the prime minister advice on how to deal with China. Barry Harrod, Fig Tree Pocket (Qld) Pulling the Woollahra over our eyes If the government is revisiting the idea of completing a station on the eastern suburbs railway line (' Ghost station plan to deliver housing boost ', July 12), then it should look at that other abandoned item: completing the railway to Bondi Beach. The extension could be single track so that, in peak periods, half the trains could turn back at the existing turn-back facility at Bondi Junction. With a station near Bondi Post Office, say, the traffic jams on Bondi Road could be reduced, and high-density housing could be increased in this popular suburb. John Woodward, Ashfield It's hard to know which is the more unlikely. A new Woollahra railway station surrounded by high-rise apartments, or them being affordable for young people and families. Given previous opposition to this plan by the good burghers of Woollahra, tell them they're dreaming. Lynne Poleson, Kingsford Premier Chris Minns has Buckley's chance of building 25,000 homes in the backyard of eastern suburbs lawyers. Tim Schroder, Gordon Of course, it's a bad idea There are many reasons why such a development opposite Canterbury racecourse should not go ahead (' Race club takes property giant to court over $70m land deal ', July 12). The main reason has to do with the location and the traffic chaos it would create. At the other end of King Street you have a several-hundred apartment complex nearing completion, and if this new development were allowed, then the amount of traffic it would produce along an already busy single-lane road would be a nightmare. Government officials will argue that the location is a short walk from Canterbury railway station, but not everyone in the development would use public transport to go to work, and at the weekend they would use their cars. The inner west has precious little green space as it is, and removing more of it would be a poor outcome. Peter Miniutti, Ashbury What'Sopwith it? Tous! The AUKUS fiasco must end (″ UK envoy dismisses fears over US AUKUS review ″, July 12). It is ludicrous that we have paid the Americans the better part of a billion dollars already, as a down payment for atomic boats that, were they ever to be built, would be as obsolete as Sopwith Camels flying into an Iron Dome by the time the first one hits the water. There are high-speed, cheap, submersible suicide drones being designed and built now, not in 2040. Our promised leviathans will be easy meat. The notion of putting human crews inside such death traps is criminal. AUKUS is simply the crowning fiasco atop a defence procurement disaster that has run unchecked in this country for decades. We spend a fraction of the money already sent to Washington on our real enemies – fire ants, feral cats, pigs, invasive plant species ... the list is long. We are already under attack, yet we spend fortunes on boy toys. Pat Sheil, Camperdown So, can the 'Land of the Southern Cross' learn from our 'North Star', Finland (' Landmines and fences: Living next door to Putin ', July 12)? Although cheek-by-jowl with its antagonistic neighbour, Russia, this northern outpost of NATO is developing its Arctic version of what we need to develop: the Antipodean echidna defence strategy. With not a submarine to its name, diminutive Finland has and continues to be a prickly customer. It's high-time to scuttle the outrageously spurious AUKUS (read the fine print) deal and instead focus on an effective Home Guard with synergistic alliances and trading partnerships 'above' the 'Land Down Under'. As an aside, it comes to mind that the Great Auk was a seabird driven to extinction by us humans. So, in the finish, whatever way you read it, the US in AUKUS does not sit well. Steve Dillon, Thirroul No felicity with dictionary The Australian National Dictionary Centre is to be 'disestablished', or to put it clearly, thrown on the scrap heap (' National Dictionary team hit by job cuts ', July 12). The Australian National University, along with our other august academic institutions, is doing some remodelling. Apparently the once academically rigorous ANU is 'on a journey' 'into the future', 'while ensuring that core activities are sustainably embedded'. And the source of these mindless, meaningless, hackneyed, jargon-laden comments on the destruction? A struggling year 10 student using AI? The Newspeak of the dystopian novel 1984? Not at all. Turns out the honours are shared between an official ANU spokesperson and the vice chancellor, neither of whom, it appears, have used the resources of the centre for some time. But when your job is to try and obfuscate, why would you? Elisabeth Goodsall, Wahroonga As a proud graduand, along with my wife, son and daughter, of the ANU, I am most angry about the cuts to the Australian National Dictionary. What do we value when such important assets are trashed? Doesn't language matter any more? Paul Fergus, Croydon Doesn't miss a beat Sarah Macdonald (' Gen Z, you should be dancing. Yeah? ' , July 12) is spot-on regarding Gen Z's relentless filming inhibiting care-less dancing. My kids are definitely not liberated dancers in the way we 'Boomers' were, and still are. We started with rock 'n' roll, moved to the twist, then to the stomp at the surf club dances on the northern beaches. Now, at many RSLs and clubs, we oldies are dancing to the beat of our own drum to some fabulous retro bands. Our kids think it's hilarious; we think it's liberating – as long as nobody films us. Suzan Fayle, Collaroy After reading the dance article by Sarah Macdonald, I reflected on my great nights dancing in the 1960s. I danced with my sister at the Sound Lounge in William Street, Kings Cross, where no alcohol was served. We missed the last train home at 2am, so waited in the ladies room with old homeless women. Our mother met us at the station at 6 am. FURIOUS. Judy Nicholas, Kambah (ACT) Picking a winner
The Advertiser
a day ago
- The Advertiser
Elders' legal bid to save homes, culture coming to end
Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai are afraid for the future of their ancestral homelands. Their Country on the outer islands of Zenadth Kes (Torres Strait), less than 10 kilometres off Papua New Guinea, is under siege from the impacts of climate change. The two men fear the loss of their islands, their culture and their way of life, forcing their families and communities to become Australia's first climate refugees. The Uncles have taken the federal government to court in the Australian Climate Case, seeking orders which would require the Commonwealth to undertake steps to prevent further harm to their communities. This would include cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the best available science. The Commonwealth has argued it is not legally required to consider the best available science or the impacts of climate change when setting emissions reduction targets. On Tuesday, the Federal Court is due to make a decision in the case and the men hold hope that their fight might safeguard the future of their people. Mr Pabai and Mr Kabai launched the action against the federal government in 2021. They are arguing that the Commonwealth owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to take reasonable steps to protect them from harm. During on-country hearings in 2023, witnesses described how devastating their loss of culture due to climate change had been. "We don't want to be climate refugees," Pabai Pabai, who has spent his life on the low-lying island of Boigu, tells AAP. Paul Kabai remembers a time when his family would hunt, fish and eat produce from gardens grown by the community. But that has all changed, he says. The beaches on his island - Saibai - have receded, turning to mud and mangroves. Its river system is inundated with saltwater and, alarmingly, even the island's cemetery has been impacted by flooding. "Even our cultural sites are being destroyed by rising seas," he laments. "We're both very worried about what we are losing, our hunting grounds are being destroyed by strong currents. "Where can we show our culture to the younger generation?" he asks. "In this way we are losing our culture, everything that belongs to our ancestors." Drawing closer to a decision in the case is a significant milestone for Mr Pabai and Mr Kabai. It has been an emotional journey for them, their communities and supporters but as the Uncles approach the end of this battle, they hold close the reasons they began such a long fight. Pointing to the example of fellow Torres Strait Islander Eddie Mabo whose lifetime of campaigning resulted in a landmark High Court ruling, recognising the rights of First Nations people to their lands, countering the idea of 'terra nullius' asserted by the British at colonisation, Mr Pabai says the battle has been waged for his ancestors. "I'm standing firm on his shoulders," he says. "If we come to winning this case, this is a victory for my family and communities on Boigu and all the community around the country and around the world." As much as this is about the people who came before and protecting what they've left, Mr Pabai says his two-year-old son and the generations to come, in the Torres Strait and further afield, are front of mind. "My main focus is on the new generation," he says. "This is why I'm doing it - for the love of my son, for all the people in my community in the Torres Strait, for bushfire and flood survivors, for the farmers and the children and grandchildren." No matter the legal outcome, Mr Kabai says he believes the action he and Mr Pabai have taken will make a difference. "We will be very proud, even if we win or if we lose," he says. "The government is listening now, they know what is happening and they must do something about climate change." Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai are afraid for the future of their ancestral homelands. Their Country on the outer islands of Zenadth Kes (Torres Strait), less than 10 kilometres off Papua New Guinea, is under siege from the impacts of climate change. The two men fear the loss of their islands, their culture and their way of life, forcing their families and communities to become Australia's first climate refugees. The Uncles have taken the federal government to court in the Australian Climate Case, seeking orders which would require the Commonwealth to undertake steps to prevent further harm to their communities. This would include cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the best available science. The Commonwealth has argued it is not legally required to consider the best available science or the impacts of climate change when setting emissions reduction targets. On Tuesday, the Federal Court is due to make a decision in the case and the men hold hope that their fight might safeguard the future of their people. Mr Pabai and Mr Kabai launched the action against the federal government in 2021. They are arguing that the Commonwealth owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to take reasonable steps to protect them from harm. During on-country hearings in 2023, witnesses described how devastating their loss of culture due to climate change had been. "We don't want to be climate refugees," Pabai Pabai, who has spent his life on the low-lying island of Boigu, tells AAP. Paul Kabai remembers a time when his family would hunt, fish and eat produce from gardens grown by the community. But that has all changed, he says. The beaches on his island - Saibai - have receded, turning to mud and mangroves. Its river system is inundated with saltwater and, alarmingly, even the island's cemetery has been impacted by flooding. "Even our cultural sites are being destroyed by rising seas," he laments. "We're both very worried about what we are losing, our hunting grounds are being destroyed by strong currents. "Where can we show our culture to the younger generation?" he asks. "In this way we are losing our culture, everything that belongs to our ancestors." Drawing closer to a decision in the case is a significant milestone for Mr Pabai and Mr Kabai. It has been an emotional journey for them, their communities and supporters but as the Uncles approach the end of this battle, they hold close the reasons they began such a long fight. Pointing to the example of fellow Torres Strait Islander Eddie Mabo whose lifetime of campaigning resulted in a landmark High Court ruling, recognising the rights of First Nations people to their lands, countering the idea of 'terra nullius' asserted by the British at colonisation, Mr Pabai says the battle has been waged for his ancestors. "I'm standing firm on his shoulders," he says. "If we come to winning this case, this is a victory for my family and communities on Boigu and all the community around the country and around the world." As much as this is about the people who came before and protecting what they've left, Mr Pabai says his two-year-old son and the generations to come, in the Torres Strait and further afield, are front of mind. "My main focus is on the new generation," he says. "This is why I'm doing it - for the love of my son, for all the people in my community in the Torres Strait, for bushfire and flood survivors, for the farmers and the children and grandchildren." No matter the legal outcome, Mr Kabai says he believes the action he and Mr Pabai have taken will make a difference. "We will be very proud, even if we win or if we lose," he says. "The government is listening now, they know what is happening and they must do something about climate change." Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai are afraid for the future of their ancestral homelands. Their Country on the outer islands of Zenadth Kes (Torres Strait), less than 10 kilometres off Papua New Guinea, is under siege from the impacts of climate change. The two men fear the loss of their islands, their culture and their way of life, forcing their families and communities to become Australia's first climate refugees. The Uncles have taken the federal government to court in the Australian Climate Case, seeking orders which would require the Commonwealth to undertake steps to prevent further harm to their communities. This would include cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the best available science. The Commonwealth has argued it is not legally required to consider the best available science or the impacts of climate change when setting emissions reduction targets. On Tuesday, the Federal Court is due to make a decision in the case and the men hold hope that their fight might safeguard the future of their people. Mr Pabai and Mr Kabai launched the action against the federal government in 2021. They are arguing that the Commonwealth owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to take reasonable steps to protect them from harm. During on-country hearings in 2023, witnesses described how devastating their loss of culture due to climate change had been. "We don't want to be climate refugees," Pabai Pabai, who has spent his life on the low-lying island of Boigu, tells AAP. Paul Kabai remembers a time when his family would hunt, fish and eat produce from gardens grown by the community. But that has all changed, he says. The beaches on his island - Saibai - have receded, turning to mud and mangroves. Its river system is inundated with saltwater and, alarmingly, even the island's cemetery has been impacted by flooding. "Even our cultural sites are being destroyed by rising seas," he laments. "We're both very worried about what we are losing, our hunting grounds are being destroyed by strong currents. "Where can we show our culture to the younger generation?" he asks. "In this way we are losing our culture, everything that belongs to our ancestors." Drawing closer to a decision in the case is a significant milestone for Mr Pabai and Mr Kabai. It has been an emotional journey for them, their communities and supporters but as the Uncles approach the end of this battle, they hold close the reasons they began such a long fight. Pointing to the example of fellow Torres Strait Islander Eddie Mabo whose lifetime of campaigning resulted in a landmark High Court ruling, recognising the rights of First Nations people to their lands, countering the idea of 'terra nullius' asserted by the British at colonisation, Mr Pabai says the battle has been waged for his ancestors. "I'm standing firm on his shoulders," he says. "If we come to winning this case, this is a victory for my family and communities on Boigu and all the community around the country and around the world." As much as this is about the people who came before and protecting what they've left, Mr Pabai says his two-year-old son and the generations to come, in the Torres Strait and further afield, are front of mind. "My main focus is on the new generation," he says. "This is why I'm doing it - for the love of my son, for all the people in my community in the Torres Strait, for bushfire and flood survivors, for the farmers and the children and grandchildren." No matter the legal outcome, Mr Kabai says he believes the action he and Mr Pabai have taken will make a difference. "We will be very proud, even if we win or if we lose," he says. "The government is listening now, they know what is happening and they must do something about climate change." Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai are afraid for the future of their ancestral homelands. Their Country on the outer islands of Zenadth Kes (Torres Strait), less than 10 kilometres off Papua New Guinea, is under siege from the impacts of climate change. The two men fear the loss of their islands, their culture and their way of life, forcing their families and communities to become Australia's first climate refugees. The Uncles have taken the federal government to court in the Australian Climate Case, seeking orders which would require the Commonwealth to undertake steps to prevent further harm to their communities. This would include cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the best available science. The Commonwealth has argued it is not legally required to consider the best available science or the impacts of climate change when setting emissions reduction targets. On Tuesday, the Federal Court is due to make a decision in the case and the men hold hope that their fight might safeguard the future of their people. Mr Pabai and Mr Kabai launched the action against the federal government in 2021. They are arguing that the Commonwealth owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to take reasonable steps to protect them from harm. During on-country hearings in 2023, witnesses described how devastating their loss of culture due to climate change had been. "We don't want to be climate refugees," Pabai Pabai, who has spent his life on the low-lying island of Boigu, tells AAP. Paul Kabai remembers a time when his family would hunt, fish and eat produce from gardens grown by the community. But that has all changed, he says. The beaches on his island - Saibai - have receded, turning to mud and mangroves. Its river system is inundated with saltwater and, alarmingly, even the island's cemetery has been impacted by flooding. "Even our cultural sites are being destroyed by rising seas," he laments. "We're both very worried about what we are losing, our hunting grounds are being destroyed by strong currents. "Where can we show our culture to the younger generation?" he asks. "In this way we are losing our culture, everything that belongs to our ancestors." Drawing closer to a decision in the case is a significant milestone for Mr Pabai and Mr Kabai. It has been an emotional journey for them, their communities and supporters but as the Uncles approach the end of this battle, they hold close the reasons they began such a long fight. Pointing to the example of fellow Torres Strait Islander Eddie Mabo whose lifetime of campaigning resulted in a landmark High Court ruling, recognising the rights of First Nations people to their lands, countering the idea of 'terra nullius' asserted by the British at colonisation, Mr Pabai says the battle has been waged for his ancestors. "I'm standing firm on his shoulders," he says. "If we come to winning this case, this is a victory for my family and communities on Boigu and all the community around the country and around the world." As much as this is about the people who came before and protecting what they've left, Mr Pabai says his two-year-old son and the generations to come, in the Torres Strait and further afield, are front of mind. "My main focus is on the new generation," he says. "This is why I'm doing it - for the love of my son, for all the people in my community in the Torres Strait, for bushfire and flood survivors, for the farmers and the children and grandchildren." No matter the legal outcome, Mr Kabai says he believes the action he and Mr Pabai have taken will make a difference. "We will be very proud, even if we win or if we lose," he says. "The government is listening now, they know what is happening and they must do something about climate change."
