Torres Strait leaders lost their landmark case. How can governments be held to account on climate?
The court had agreed with much of the factual evidence about climate impacts on the Torres Strait Islands but the case still failed. In respect of negligence law, it found the federal government did not owe Torres Strait Islanders a duty of care to protect them from global heating.
One question ringing in the aftermath: what is the road ahead for people who want Australian governments held to account for their actions related to the climate crisis?
Sue Higginson, an upper house Greens MP in New South Wales, is an environmental lawyer and former chief executive and principal solicitor of the Environmental Defenders Office who has litigated in high-profile climate cases.
'The judge made clear, the factual basis here is very real and live but he was limited and constrained by decades of laws around duty of care that don't factor in climate change and the future,' Higginson said.
'So we are unfortunately in a self-serving circle of inaction on climate change.'
Higginson said governments could act on the judgment by taking steps to fill the void.
'Actually legislate, create a legal instrument that actually makes climate action a legal obligation, a legal reality that is enforceable where governments are holding themselves to account,' she said.
'It's likely until we see such action, we will continue to see people take to the streets and demand that action directly.'
Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton's Clear Air column as a free newsletter
Justice Michael Wigney's judgment found that in respect of negligence law, he was bound by past decisions by appeals courts that found matters involving 'high or core government policy' were to be decided through political processes.
He said unless the law changed, people and communities seeking damages or other relief for harm suffered as a result of government policies on climate change had to rely on public advocacy, protest and the ballot box for recourse.
A change in law would require either legislation by government or 'the incremental development or expansion of the common law by appellate courts'.
Dr Riona Moodley, a lawyer and a lecturer and researcher at the University of New South Wales's Institute for Climate Risk and Response, said while Tuesday's decision presented an obstacle for anyone seeking redress for climate harm through the law of negligence, it was not necessarily insurmountable.
She noted the judgment had explicitly left one possibility open: 'If this matter went back to an appeals court, they would have the power to revisit the current state of the law and decide to change it.'
Moodley said the decision was also unlikely to stem the tide of Australian climate litigation calling for government accountability and that courts and Australian common law 'will need to evolve to adapt to addressing climate change and the impacts of it'.
Dr Wesley Morgan, a fellow of the Climate Council and colleague of Moodley's at the Institute for Climate Risk and Response, said Australia had seen a series of high-profile unsuccessful climate litigation cases in recent years, such as the Living Wonders case and the Sharma proceedings.
Sign up to Clear Air Australia
Adam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisis
after newsletter promotion
But he said the dam wall would eventually have to break.
'This is how legal norms change. When they are challenged repeatedly by those who are impacted by the deepening climate crisis, legal norms will need to shift to meet that need,' Morgan said.
Isabelle Reinecke is the head of Grata Fund, a charity that supported the lead plaintiffs, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai.
Reinecke said she felt 'disappointed in our legal system' after the outcome, but was encouraged by the strength of the factual findings, which could form the basis for future litigation – whether by appeal in this case or in other cases.
'Our cause is just and the court didn't say that it's impossible,' Reinecke said.
'I think while the judge said that the law does not currently support the Uncles' claims, that does not mean that the law can't or won't change.
'It has changed before.'
She flagged cases that had lost and won on appeal, or paved the way for subsequent wins – 'for example the Gove land rights case that came before [Eddie] Mabo's case'.
Reinecke said while Wigney's remarks about protest and the ballot box were true, people advocating for climate change action had tried those measures for decades.
'I don't think it's correct or good enough for a court to say strong words of 'This is an existential threat to humanity but you have to talk to parliament',' Reinecke said.
'What is the point of a court if it isn't to hold those responsible for an existential threat to humanity accountable in a democracy?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Photos of a wildfire near Athens as homes burn
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trumpet of Patriots hack: calls for political parties to be forced to report data breaches
More than two years before the data breach of Clive Palmer's Trumpet of Patriots and United Australia parties, the federal government was warned that there was a significant risk to political parties – which are exempt from many data protection obligations – holding sensitive information on voters. The ransomware attack on Trumpet of Patriots earlier this month was the first time Australians became aware of a major data breach of any political party. It only became public information because the party decided to report it. The attack also affected the United Australia party. Supporters were told that data obtained in the attack could include email addresses, phone numbers, identity records, banking records, employment history, and other documents, but that the party was unsure of the amount of information compromised. It is unclear whether Palmer's political parties were required to publicly report the breaches at all. Under the Australian Privacy Act, political parties are exempt from reporting on data breaches and many of the obligations under the act that govern how personal information must be handled. The United Australia party was deregistered at the time of the attack, meaning the exemption it previously held may no longer apply, but the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner could not comment on whether that was the case. Sign up: AU Breaking News email A 2022 attorney general's department report on privacy law reform highlighted that the broad political party exemption was a growing risk, as political parties potentially hold vast amounts of sensitive data including profiling on people to target in the electorate. The report found 'almost all' of the submissions to its inquiry said the exemption was not justifiable and should be narrowed or removed, and the inquiry heard there was 'no clear reason why parties should not be accountable for keeping personal information secure'. The policy thinktank Reset Australia warned in its submission that malicious actors could exploit the weaknesses in party security to interfere in democratic processes. The attorney general's department recommended a narrowing of the exemption for political parties, including requiring parties to protect personal information, take reasonable steps to destroy personal information when no longer needed and comply with the notifiable data breach scheme to report a breach when it happens. Tom Sulston, head of policy at Digital Rights Watch, said the Trumpet of Patriots breach was a 'clear demonstration that it is no longer acceptable for political parties to enjoy an exemption from Australia's Privacy Act'. 'Political parties not only have privileged access to the electoral roll and thereby the personal information of all voters, but also, through their memberships and organising systems, data about our political beliefs and demographics,' he said. The information obtained by parties was very valuable, he said, and could be dangerous for those who were profiled by the parties. 'Most political parties … do take seriously their responsibilities to look after our data: the federal government regularly distributes grants to parties to help them secure their systems,' he said. 'So the good news is that removing their exemption from the Privacy Act won't actually cause them a huge amount of effort or trouble.' Sulston said removing the exemption would ensure people were informed if their data was lost, and those people could then seek legal or financial remedies. 'That's much more robust than relying on parties' goodwill or desire to avoid bad publicity.' Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion When the Albanese government responded to the Privacy Act review report in 2023, it agreed with many of the other recommendations in the report, but the political exemption recommendations were merely 'noted', and the first tranche of privacy changes passed in the last parliament did not include a change to the political exemption. The privacy commissioner, Carly Kind, said it was worth assessing whether political parties should keep the exemption. 'As the Australian community reels from successive breaches of their personal information, it is worth querying whether it is appropriate that political parties enjoy an exemption from privacy law,' she said. 'The exemption is not only out of step with community expectations, it is not reflective of the nature and scope of risks to Australians' privacy in the digital era.' Kind said the community wanted more, not less, privacy protection. 'With each new data breach we are reminded of the need for Australian organisations and agencies to continue to uplift their privacy and cybersecurity practices.' Sulston said the government's response to the attorney general's deparment's recommendations was 'profoundly inadequate'. 'Reporting of breaches is a bare minimum that we should expect of organisations that hold our data,' he said. 'The government should make good use of their majority to push through the second tranche of privacy reforms, and include removing the parties' exemptions.' The attorney general, Michelle Rowland, told Sky News on Sunday that a second tranche would focus on privacy in relation to online platforms like Google, Facebook and Instagram, stating Australians are 'sick and tired of their personal information not only being exploited for benefit by third parties, but also the way in which that information is not being protected'. A spokesperson for Rowland would not confirm whether changes to the political party exemption would feature in the second tranche of legislation. 'The government will continue work on a further tranche of reforms, to ensure Australia's privacy laws are fit for purpose in the digital age,' they said. Trumpet of Patriots was contacted for comment.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
If the economics of broadening or lifting Australia's GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous
When Jim Chalmers declared we needed a national debate on reforming the economy to drive the next generation of prosperity, he scolded the media for its penchant for playing the rule-in-rule-out game. The irony is that from his high horse, the treasurer had almost certainly ruled out one major change: lifting or broadening the GST. If Chalmers is being disingenuous when he suggests nothing is off the table at next month's talkfest – and he absolutely is – then he should have ruled out changes to the consumption tax from the very start. Many economists argue that lifting or broadening the GST is an essential ingredient in any reform package that fundamentally improves the efficiency of the tax system. More GST revenue can pay for cuts to income and company tax rates, for example. This shift provides a structurally more stable tax revenue base, and sharpens incentives to work and invest. Labor as a party, however, is fundamentally opposed to changing the tax on consumption on the basis that it hurts poorer Australians. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the worry about fairness is real. New analysis by the ANU's Ben Phillips shows that the GST is 'highly regressive'. Phillips' modelling shows the bottom fifth of income earners pay 5.4% of their income on consumption taxes. That's more than twice as much as the top 20% of households, where GST accounts for 2.6% of disposable income. Broadening the GST to include the things currently excluded – such as fresh food and education – makes the tax even more regressive. Phillips finds consumption taxes as a share of household budgets climbs to 7.9% for the lowest incomes, and 3.5% for those at the top. 'I think equity concerns are spot on,' Phillips says. 'There would have to be a complicated new approach to compensation for lower and middle income workers to make it politically feasible. 'We would be relying on there being some substantial economic gains from increasing the GST, and they are probably relatively modest.' If the economics of broadening or lifting the GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous. The first hurdle is the most obvious: the states get the revenue, while the commonwealth cops the heat. Even if the Albanese government could agree with its state and territory counterparts to share the proceeds, there is also the issue that the GST distribution system has been fundamentally undermined by the obscenely generous deal with Western Australia, the country's richest state. As such, a bigger GST pile without getting rid of this distortion would simply exacerbate what Saul Eslake has called 'possibly the worst public policy decision of the 21st century'. Which begs the question: can we get meaningful tax reform without lifting the GST? Ken Henry, who authored a major tax paper in 2010 and is considered the country's high priest of reform, argues that 'tax reform cannot be done piecemeal; a big package will be required'. He recently told The Conversation's Michelle Grattan 'it would be better not to constrain the reform process by ruling out the GST'. 'Having said that, I do think it's possible to achieve major reform of the Australian taxation system without necessarily increasing the rate or extending the base of the GST.' Such reforms could be paid for via higher taxes on natural resources, and on wealth and savings – both on capital gains and income from that capital (think property investments and superannuation). Chalmers' narrative for the reform roundtable apparently leans into Henry's view around some kind of tax 'grand bargain'. But again, the treasurer's ambition is much more narrow. He has famously described his approach to reform as 'bite-sized chunks', and defended his policy initiatives since coming to power as 'modest but meaningful'. In fact, the most obvious next steps for Labor when it comes to tax is reforming the treatment of family trusts, and introducing a road user charge to replace dwindling fuel excise revenue. Whether we need another roundtable to get there is an open question. Viva Hammer, who played a key role in designing America's immense Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, had some advice for policymakers. Speaking at a tax roundtable organised by the independent MP Allegra Spender, Hammer said the ambition should be 'to think about doing something better, and not something perfect, because perfection is for the angels'. Breaking it down to the lowest common denominator, the independent economist Chris Richardson's advice is 'let's just stop doing dumb things'. Speaking at the same event in Parliament House on Friday, Richardson said his number one 'dumb thing' is how we tax gas through the petroleum rent resources tax (PRRT). Australia over recent years has become a gas superpower. And yet, incredibly, the tax take has not changed at all, Richardson says. Labor's tweaks to the PRRT have not changed this reality – as Richardson says, the forecasts for revenue from this tax are a 'big fat nothing' in future years. 'Some people say you can't change because there would be some 'sovereign risk',' he said, referring to the claims that altering these rules puts off foreign investors and can choke off funding for the industry. 'Sovereign risk is where one side gets next to nothing across a long period of time, and our own stupidity has got us there, and we should do better.' Richardson believes we are also not charging banks enough for the implicit 'too big to fail' insurance provided by taxpayers. The two suggestions, he said, could raise $5-6bn a year.
