Latest news with #FederalCourtofAustralia
UPI
6 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
Indigenous Australians lose climate change case against government
Paul Kabai (L) and Pabai Pabai, seen here after the Federal Court of Australia decision in Cairns, Australia on Tuesday. EPA/BRIAN CASSEY AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND OUT July 15 (UPI) -- An Australian federal court ruled Tuesday that Indigenous residents of the Torres Strait Islands are not owed environmental protections from the nation's government. Justice Michael Wigney said in his dismissal that "changes wrought by the escalating impacts of global warming and climate change in the Torres Strait have had, and continue to have, a devastating impact on the traditional way of life of Torres Strait Islanders." However, he concluded that the case brought by island community elders Pabai Pabai and Paul Kabai "failed because the law in Australia as it currently stands provides no real or effective avenue through which the applicants were able to pursue their claims." Wigney further explained that current common Australian law is not written in a way that the plaintiffs could seek relief in regard to what they considered a failure of the federal government. The elders, Pabai Pabai and Paul Kabai, launched legal action in 2021 against the government for allegedly failing to protect the Torres Strait Islands from the impact of climate change. The plaintiffs charged that governmental negligence interfered with the completion of Ailan Kastom, customary practices unique to Torres Strait Islanders that relate to a spiritual connection to the islands and surrounding waters. "I thought that the decision would be in our favor, and I'm in shock," said Kabai Tuesday. "My heart is broken for my family and my community," said Pabai. There are around 4,000 residents of the Torres Strait Islands, with 90% who identify as Indigenous. Wigney concluded his ruling with a notation that any future, similar lawsuits will also fail "until the law in Australia changes." He then added that until it does, "the only recourse that those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders have is recourse via the ballot box." Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen released a joint statement with the Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy Tuesday in regard to the case. The release noted ways the current government has attempted to deal with climate change, and that it "remains committed to both acting to continue to cut emissions and adapting to climate impacts we cannot avoid." As for Tuesday dismissal of the case brought by Pabai and Kabai, it concluded that "As the Commonwealth is carefully considering the detailed judgment, it would not be appropriate to comment on the specific findings while this occurs."
Perth Now
6 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Shock result in Torres Strait climate case
The Australian government has no duty of care over the people or the islands of the Torres Strait with regard to climate change, despite admitting 'devastating impacts' were being felt by the region, the Federal Court of Australia has found. In 2021, two Torres Strait Islander men sued the federal government for what they said was a 'breach of duty of care' over their islands, which continue to be ravaged by rising sea levels and other climate change-related damages. Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai are elders on their respective home islands of Saibai and Boigu, both of which are under significant environmental stresses induced by man-made climate change. Paul Kabai and Pabai Pabai. Photo: Supplied Credit: News Corp Australia Coastal erosion, erratic weather conditions, and rapid depletion of sea life populations are just some of the phenomena which, the pair said, the Government had a duty to protect the islands against. In submissions to the court, Uncle Paul Kabai said the people of the Torres Strait were nothing without their island homes. 'We won't have our culture … if Sabai goes under water, we lose everything. Our culture, our identity, our livelihood. It will all be gone,' he said. Uncle Pabai Pabai echoed this sentiment in his own submission. 'If Boigu was gone, or I had to leave it because it was under water, I will be nothing. I will have nothing … I will become nobody.' Paul Kabai (L) and Pabai Pabai (R) began their legal battle in 2021. Brendan Radke Credit: News Corp Australia Handing down his judgement on Tuesday afternoon, Justice Michael Andrew Wigney said he accepted 'many of the factual allegations' upon which the case was based. 'I've accepted the scientific evidence … concerning the devastating impacts that human-induced climate change has had, and continues to have, on the Torres Strait Islands and on the traditional inhabitants … their culture and way of life,' Justice Wigney said. 'Severe erosion, the salination of wetlands and previously arable land, the degradation of fragile ecosystems … has become more frequent and more severe in recent times,' he said. 'There is a very real risk that the worst fears of the applicants will be realised.' Despite his sympathy towards the plight of the Torres Strait Islands and their people, Justice Wigney ultimately ruled in favour of the Commonwealth, bringing the four-year journey of Uncles Kabai and Pabai to a muted conclusion. Saibai island is nestled underneath Papua New Guinea, and sits just 4km off the New Guinea coastline, and is considered to be a part of Queensland. The northern tip of Queensland extends from the bottom of the image. Google Maps Credit: News Corp Australia He found the Commonwealth 'did not, and does not owe Torres Strait Islanders the duty of care alleged by the applicants'. 'The reasonableness of decisions of this nature are … to be decided through political processes, not by judges.' In his closing remarks, Justice Wigney said his judgement, though not in favour of the applicants, was 'not intended to be a criticism of the applicants or their case or their legal advisers'. 'The reality is that the law in Australia, as it currently stands, provides no real or effective legal avenue through which individuals and communities … can claim damages or other relief,' he said. 'That will remain the case unless, and until, the law in Australia changes … until then, the only real avenue available to those in the position of the applicants … involves public advocacy and protest.' Energy Minister Chris Bowen said people in the Torres Strait were 'already feeeling the impacts' of climate change. He added the government was in the final stages of a plan which would 'help all communities understand climate risk and build a more resilient country for all Australians'.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Segal's report lays a trap for Albanese. How he responds will have profound implications
In December 2024, when the ABC was confronted with the relentless lobbying by some members of a WhatsApp group calling itself Lawyers for Israel and demanding the sacking of its broadcaster, Antoinette Lattouf, it had a clear choice. It could have responded by rejecting their demands to illegally sack Lattouf. Instead, as Justice Darryl Rangiah of the Federal Court of Australia recently found, the ABC capitulated and embarked on a $2 million campaign to defend the indefensible. In its ruling, the court made clear that sacking an employee who expressed criticisms of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians was illegal because Australian laws protected our right to express political opinion. Last week, antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal walked into a press conference with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and laid a similar trap for the government. Her 16-page report contained recommendations that undermine the rule of law by seeking to bypass the institutions which protect our democracy: the parliament, the courts, tribunals and the Australian Human Rights Commission. All forms of racism and antisemitism are already unlawful in Australia, and hate speech laws have been toughened in response to an increase in antisemitic incidents in the last year. Loading When the issue has been put to the test, existing laws have worked, too. A court found this month that a Sydney Muslim cleric's lectures were unlawful because they were 'fundamentally racist and antisemitic'. The court also correctly determined that 'political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature, criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity' and therefore was not antisemitic or unlawful. One of the key recommendations in Segal's report is that all levels of government, institutions and 'regulatory bodies' adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's controversial definition of antisemitism. In part, this definition states that it is antisemitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour. Adopting the IHRA definition would render the opinions of many protesters in Israel as antisemitic, let alone those here in Australia. It is completely at odds with the Federal Court's recent finding and our existing anti-discrimination laws.
The Age
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Segal's report lays a trap for Albanese. How he responds will have profound implications
In December 2024, when the ABC was confronted with the relentless lobbying by some members of a WhatsApp group calling itself Lawyers for Israel and demanding the sacking of its broadcaster, Antoinette Lattouf, it had a clear choice. It could have responded by rejecting their demands to illegally sack Lattouf. Instead, as Justice Darryl Rangiah of the Federal Court of Australia recently found, the ABC capitulated and embarked on a $2 million campaign to defend the indefensible. In its ruling, the court made clear that sacking an employee who expressed criticisms of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians was illegal because Australian laws protected our right to express political opinion. Last week, antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal walked into a press conference with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and laid a similar trap for the government. Her 16-page report contained recommendations that undermine the rule of law by seeking to bypass the institutions which protect our democracy: the parliament, the courts, tribunals and the Australian Human Rights Commission. All forms of racism and antisemitism are already unlawful in Australia, and hate speech laws have been toughened in response to an increase in antisemitic incidents in the last year. Loading When the issue has been put to the test, existing laws have worked, too. A court found this month that a Sydney Muslim cleric's lectures were unlawful because they were 'fundamentally racist and antisemitic'. The court also correctly determined that 'political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature, criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity' and therefore was not antisemitic or unlawful. One of the key recommendations in Segal's report is that all levels of government, institutions and 'regulatory bodies' adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's controversial definition of antisemitism. In part, this definition states that it is antisemitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour. Adopting the IHRA definition would render the opinions of many protesters in Israel as antisemitic, let alone those here in Australia. It is completely at odds with the Federal Court's recent finding and our existing anti-discrimination laws.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Woodside's environmental plan for $12b project ‘corporate puffery', court told
Woodside's environmental plan for its Scarborough gas project is 'meaningless corporate puffery', according to lawyers for a group of doctors challenging the plan's approval. They also say Woodside's submissions to court misinterpret the Australian offshore regulator NOPSEMA's reasons for granting the approval. The Federal Court of Australia in Melbourne on Monday began hearings into Doctors for the Environment Australia's legal challenge to the $12 billion project, part of the company's Burrup Hub plan. It involves tapping the field off Western Australia's north-west coast and running the gas through a 430-kilometre pipeline to its onshore Pluto plant. The Environmental Defenders Office's Chris Young, KC, argued on behalf of the doctors' group that Woodside's court submission misinterpreted NOPSEMA's reasons for approval in suggesting the regulator considered Scarborough's projected emissions negligible to its assessment. Woodside's environmental plan estimates Scarborough's total emissions across its life would be 878 million tonnes, equalling 0.37 per cent of the world's remaining carbon budget for a 1.5-degree warming scenario, and that its emissions within Australia would make up 0.9 per cent of Australia's remaining emissions budget to 2030. Young told Judge Shaun McElwaine Woodside's environmental plan contained statements to the effect that emissions associated with Scarborough could not be linked to climate change impacts to the environment. 'NOPSEMA has not accepted this claim previously,' he said, citing a letter from the regulator to Woodside stating such a view was 'unsupported', especially given Woodside's ability to calculate Scarborough's expected emissions as a 'clear and measurable contribution' to Australia's total. 'The environmental plan should establish the context of Scarborough emissions, established emissions budgets, and clearly acknowledge the linear relationship between emissions and global warming,' the letter had said.
