
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 Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Daily Telegraph headline about Labor and Hamas breached accuracy rules, Australian Press Council finds
A Daily Telegraph headline that said 'Labor backs Hamas' breached press standards while failing to take into consideration 'heightened community sensitivities' due to the Israel-Gaza war, the Australian Press Council has found. In publishing the article headed 'To keep peace at home, Labor backs Hamas', the Murdoch tabloid breached the APC rules because it did not take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was accurate and not misleading, the watchdog said. 'Publications need to take great care in order to satisfy the reasonable steps standard in the context of heightened community sensitivities around the Israel/Palestine conflict and on matters of significant public interest,' the APC said. The article reported that the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, was backing a United Nations vote calling for an 'irreversible pathway' to a two-state solution in the Middle East. The former ambassador to Israel Dave Sharma told the Telegraph the move was a play for domestic votes. Sign up to get Guardian Australia's weekly media diary as a free newsletter 'These potential changes in Australia's UN voting pattern are against our national interests,' he was quoted saying. 'They will do nothing to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. 'All they do is reward Hamas for its terrorist acts.' News Corp Australia defended the article by saying the headline reflected the opinion of Sharma and readers would view the headline as accurately reflecting the senator's view. 'The publication also said that readers can discern the difference between an opposition senator's criticism of government decision-making, as opposed to the editorial direction of the publisher,' the adjudication said. But the APC found that given an absence of inverted commas the headline was presented as statement of fact 'with the clear implication being that the Labor government is 'backing' Hamas'. 'The Council considers that the headline goes beyond what was said by Senator Sharma in his criticisms of the government support for a two-state-solution in the Middle East,' it said. Sign up to Weekly Beast Amanda Meade's weekly diary on the latest in Australian media, free every Friday after newsletter promotion 'Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading in breach of general principle 1.' Traditionally, it is subeditors and editors rather than reporters who write headlines. The article, which was printed on page three and published online on 4 December, remains online. The adjudication was printed on page 14 of Wednesday's newspaper. News Corp is the biggest funder of the self-regulatory council, which most Australian publications belong to. Newspapers have been regulated by the industry-funded body since 1976. But its findings have been openly mocked by journalists and publications it has found to have breached standards, including News Corp, which has allowed its journalists to call the body 'foolish' and 'idiots'. Guardian Australia is not a member of the Australian Press Council but it has an independent readers' editor who investigates complaints and publishes corrections and clarifications.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Giving us the powers': Labor reforms to strip childcare centres of funding after one safety breach ‘strike'
More safety training for childcare workers, CCTV in centres and changes to working with children checks will be on the agenda for federal and state authorities, as governments scramble to respond to shocking allegations of abuse in early education centre. Under new federal legislation unveiled on Wednesday, childcare centres could lose federal funding from just one safety breach 'strike'. But education minister Jason Clare was unable to put a timeline on when a long-awaited national database of childcare workers could be set up, saying it would require joining up state and territory databases. The Albanese government on Wednesday introduced an early childhood safety bill into parliament, which would give federal regulators power to punish childcare providers failing to meet standards and strengthen their ability to conduct unannounced service visits and spot checks. 'This is not about shutting centres down. It's about lifting standards up and giving us the powers to make that happen,' Clare told a press conference in Parliament House. The legislation gives the secretary of the education department new powers to refuse an application, or suspend or cancel an approval, for a provider to access the child care subsidy, if that centre is deemed to be failing quality and safety standards. That decision can also be publicised. Early education minister Jess Walsh called it a 'stick' to encourage higher standards. 'This will signal to providers the importance of safety and quality and that additional services will not be approved for a provider with a poor track record in these areas,' states the bill's explanatory memorandum. 'This means that providers or services who do not provide high quality and safe care are at risk of losing their approval to administer CCS, or may face other compliance actions.' Additionally, childcare regulators will be empowered to launch unannounced visits to centres to investigate safety issues. Current legislation allows such spot checks to probe financial fraud issues, but the new legislation expands that power to focus on safety compliance 'without consent' of the operator, following written authorisation of the education secretary. 'It could be as simple as one [strike],' Clare told the ABC, when asked about the threshold for cutting funding. 'It is important to make a point that regulators can shut a centre right now if they think there is a serious threat to children's safety but this will give us the power to issue a … notice to a centre and say we will shut it within 28 days unless they meet that minimum standard, or to set conditions on them as well.' The bill is expected to sail through parliament, with the Coalition opposition and the Greens to not stand in its way. However both parties are concerned the bill doesn't go far enough in addressing safety concerns in childcare, saying the government needs to move quicker in corralling state and territory governments to set up a national database of workers and improve training among educators. Opposition leader Sussan Ley said she would be 'constructive' but said the bill should not 'be rammed through the Parliament' so it could be examined closely. 'I'm incredibly concerned. So I do want to be constructive, but that being constructive doesn't mean giving the government a blank cheque when it comes to goodwill on this issue, we have to make sure that the legislation works,' she told the ABC. Calls from childcare providers and safety experts for a national database of workers will be discussed next month at a meeting of state and territory education ministers, while attorneys-general will discuss potential updates to the working with children check system. The federal government cannot unilaterally make either change, with powers and data held by the states, but Clare said all levels of government were keen to keep the system safer. Asked about CCTV, extra training for workers and the database, Clare said all those ideas would be 'on the table'. 'I think the revelations in Victoria over the course of the last few weeks tell us exactly why ]the national database] is so important,' he said. 'CCTV and the role that it can potentially play, in deterring a bad person from doing heinous things, and also helping police with their investigations, but also the sort of training, mandatory child safety training that already exists in the courses, but doesn't exist in the classroom.' But asked for a timeline on setting up such changes, Clare repeatedly declined to say how long it could take, only hoping it would happen 'as quickly as possible.' 'The truth is, this should have happened yesterday, and this can't happen fast enough, and states are already taking steps to expand their existing teacher registers,' he said.


Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
World Court is poised to mark the future course of climate litigation
THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court will deliver an opinion on Wednesday that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views on the two questions the U.N. General Assembly had asked the judges to consider. They were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE ( opens new tab, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate, opens new tab to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory, it should provide for the determination that U.N. member states have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under their own legal systems," Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said. The court will start reading out its opinion at 3 p.m. (1300 GMT).