Latest news with #TorresStraitIslands
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Torres Strait leaders lost their landmark case. How can governments be held to account on climate?
In the hours after the federal court delivered its judgment in a landmark climate case on Tuesday, the two Torres Strait Islands community leaders who brought the proceedings, and their supporters, expressed their shock and dismay. 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?'
The Independent
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Australia's Indigenous elders lose landmark environment case over Torres Strait Islands
Australia's Federal Court has ruled that the national government owes no legal duty to protect the Torres Strait Islands or their Indigenous inhabitants from the effects of climate change, in a landmark judgment that campaigners say exposes critical gaps in the country's legal framework. Justice Michael Wigney dismissed the claim brought by two Torres Strait Islander elders, Paul Kabai and Pabai Pabai, who argued that the federal government had been negligent in failing to cut carbon emissions or take meaningful adaptation measures to safeguard their ancestral lands. 'The Commonwealth did not and does not owe Torres Strait Islanders the duty of care alleged by the applicants,' said Justice Wigney on Tuesday, according to SBS News. While he accepted the scientific evidence of 'devastating' climate impacts on the islands, he concluded that decisions on emissions targets fell squarely within the realm of government policy, not judicial oversight. The case was the first of its kind in Australia to argue that the federal government owed a specific legal duty to protect its citizens from climate harm under the law of negligence. The Torres Strait Islands, a group of around 270 islands scattered between the northern tip of Queensland and Papua New Guinea, are home to about 4,000 people – more than 90 per cent of whom are Indigenous Australians. Only a few dozen islands are inhabited. The claimants, both community leaders from the low-lying islands of Saibai and Boigu, warned that rising sea levels, saltwater intrusion, and stronger storm surges are already destroying homes, sacred burial grounds and food sources, threatening both the physical and cultural survival of their communities. 'We won't have our culture... if Saibai goes under water, we lose everything. Our culture, our identity, our livelihood. It will all be gone,' said Mr Kabai in his submission to the court, reported Mr Pabai, whose home island Boigu is also facing rapid environmental decline, told the court, 'If Boigu was gone, or I had to leave it because it was under water, I will be nothing. I will become nobody.' Sea levels in the Torres Strait region have risen by approximately 6cm per decade between 1993 and 2019, the court was told. Despite accepting these facts, Justice Wigney said that while the damage was undeniable, it did not create a cause of action under current Australian negligence law. He cited binding precedent and concluded: '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' for the consequences of government inaction on climate. He added that the only available recourse for those in the plaintiffs' position was 'public advocacy and protest, and ultimately, recourse via the ballot box', reported Although the court found the Commonwealth had 'paid scant, if any, regard to the best available science' in setting emissions targets under previous Coalition governments, the judge noted that the current Labor administration had set 'significantly higher and more ambitious' goals, reported BBC. The court acknowledged that Torres Strait Islanders would likely face catastrophic losses if urgent action is not taken. 'There could be little, if any, doubt that the Torres Strait Islands and their traditional inhabitants will face a bleak future if urgent action is not taken to address climate change and its impacts,' said Justice Wigney. The ruling has triggered deep disappointment among the claimants and their communities. 'My heart is broken for my family and my community,' said Mr Pabai after the judgment. 'This pain isn't just for me – it's for all people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who have been affected by climate change.' 'This is emotional,' said Mr Kabai. 'We're not going to stop here.' From Cairns, several hundred kilometres from his home, Mr Kabai called on Australians to unite in demanding government action. 'Sea level is rising and our communities – Boigu and Saibai – they are about 1.3m above sea level, so we are sinking. It's time now for us to keep knocking at the government's door.' The plaintiffs, supported by the Grata Fund – a legal charity that financed the litigation – said they are considering an appeal. Isabelle Reinecke, the fund's executive director, said the case was only the beginning. 'The court did not say that accountability is impossible under the law, it just said that it is not ready yet,' she said according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 'I have a lot of hope that the law will and can develop.' She compared the case to the historic Mabo ruling, which established Indigenous land rights after a decade-long legal battle. Ms Reinecke welcomed the government's post-ruling commitment to adaptation and urged it to commission studies on what those measures might entail for the Torres Strait. Legal experts say the verdict reflects how Australia's laws have not yet caught up with the complex realities of climate change and human rights. Riona Moodley, a researcher at the University of New South Wales 's Institute for Climate Risk and Response, told BBC News that the ruling 'was definitely a setback', but added: 'The reality is that Australian law will need to adapt to meet the challenges of climate change.' Her colleague Wesley Morgan said the case should galvanise political leaders. The government 'must listen to the science telling us we need to be as ambitious as possible in the decade ahead.' Energy minister Chris Bowen and Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy acknowledged the significance of the case, saying in a joint statement: 'We understand that the Torres Strait Islands are vulnerable to climate change, and many are already feeling the impacts.' Criticism was also directed at the previous government. The judge found the Coalition's emissions targets in 2015, 2020 and 2021 failed to engage with the best scientific advice. However, opposition spokesperson Dan Tehan defended the former administration, saying it had reduced emissions by 28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2021–22, and accused the Labor government of failing to present a credible implementation plan.
SBS Australia
5 days ago
- Health
- SBS Australia
NITV Radio - News 16/7/2025
The Federal Court dismiss landmark case arguing the federal government breached duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islands from climate change. Researchers found a link between strain of chronic Hepatitis B in Indigenous Australians and liver damage. Coalition of 32 countries calls for global boycott of Israel over Gaza war.
Irish Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
Indigenous leaders in ‘deepest pain imaginable' as Australian court dismisses climate case
Two Torres Strait community leaders say they are shocked and devastated after the federal court dismissed a landmark case that argued the Australian government breached its duty of care to protect the Torres Strait Islands from climate change . The lead plaintiffs, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai from the islands of Boigu and Saibai, sought orders requiring the government to take steps to prevent climate harm to their communities, including by cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the pace climate scientists say is necessary. In delivering the decision, Justice Michael Wigney noted: 'There could be little if any doubt that the Torres Strait Islands and their inhabitants face a bleak future if urgent action is not taken.' In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, Uncle Paul said: 'I thought that the decision would be in our favour, and I'm in shock. This pain isn't just for me, it's for all people Indigenous and non-Indigenous who have been affected by climate change. What do any of us say to our families now?' READ MORE He added later: 'Mr [Anthony] Albanese [Australia's prime minister] and his expensive government lawyers will stand up and walk away ... They go home and sleep soundly in their expensive beds. We go back to our islands and the deepest pain imaginable.' The class action, filed in 2021, argued the government had a legal duty of care towards Torres Strait Islander peoples and that it had breached this duty by failing to prevent or deal with damage in the Torres Strait linked to global heating. Wigney's summary said the applicants' case had failed 'not so much because there was no merit in their factual allegations' but because the common law of negligence 'was not a suitable legal vehicle'. He said the reality was that current law 'provides no real or effective legal avenue through which individuals and communities like those in the Torres Strait Islands' can claim damages or other relief for harm they suffer as a result of government policies related to climate change. Wigney said that would remain the case unless the law changed. 'Until then, the only real avenue available ... involves public advocacy and protest and, ultimately, recourse via the ballot box,' he said. 'My heart is broken for my family and my community,' Uncle Pabai said after the judgment. 'I'll keep fighting and will sit down with my lawyers and look at how we can appeal.' Brett Spiegel, principal lawyer at Phi Finney McDonald, the firm representing Uncle Pabai, Uncle Paul and their communities, said the legal team 'will review the judgment ... and consider all options for appeal'. Hearings in the case were held in 2023 in Melbourne and on Country in the Torres Strait to allow the court to tour the islands and view the impacts of climate change. On Saibai Island, homes were already being inundated by king tides, the cemetery had been affected by erosion and sea walls had been built. The legal challenge is supported by the Urgenda Foundation and Grata Fund, a public interest organisation that helps individuals access the courts. It was modelled on the Urgenda climate case against the Dutch government – the first case in the world in which citizens established their government had a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change. [ Sally Hayden: Climate change is human made, but not all humans have played same role in it Opens in new window ] In the judgment summary, released on Tuesday, Wigney said 'the applicants succeeded in establishing many of the factual allegations that underpinned their primary case'. In particular, the court found that when the federal government set climate targets in 2015, 2020 and 2021 – when a coalition was in power – it 'failed to engage with or give any real or genuine consideration to what the best available science indicated was required' for Australia to play its part to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. The court found 'when the Commonwealth, under a new government, reset Australia's emissions reduction target in 2022, it did have some regard to the best available science'. Wigney found that the Torres Strait Islands 'have been, and continue to be, ravaged by climate change and its impacts'. He agreed the evidence indicated this damage had become more frequent in recent times, 'including the flooding and inundation of townships, extreme sea level and weather events, severe erosion, the salination of wetlands and previously arable land, the degradation of fragile ecosystems, including the bleaching of coral reefs, and the loss of sea life'. Despite this, Wigney found the applicants had not succeeded in making their primary case related to negligence. He found the government did not owe Torres Strait Islanders a duty of care because, in respect to the law of negligence, courts had established that matters involving 'high or core government policy' were to be decided through political processes. Isabelle Reinecke, the founder and executive director of Grata Fund, said 'the court was not yet ready to take the step we all need it to and hold the Australian government accountable for it's role in creating the climate crisis'. But she said it had made strong findings that the 'Australian government knows that Torres Strait communities are being ravaged by climate change'. In a joint statement, the climate change minister, Chris Bowen, and the minister for Indigenous Australians, Malarndirri McCarthy, said: 'Unlike the former Liberal government, we understand that the Torres Strait Islands are vulnerable to climate change, and many are already feeling the impacts.' Bowen and McCarthy said the government 'remains committed to both acting to continue to cut emissions, and adapting to climate impacts we cannot avoid'. 'We are finalising Australia's first national climate risk assessment and national adaptation plan to help all communities understand climate risk and build a more resilient country for all Australians,' they said. - Guardian
Al Jazeera
6 days ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
‘My heart is broken': Indigenous Australians lose landmark climate case
Indigenous Australians living on a string of climate-threatened islands have lost a landmark court case to hold the government responsible for lacklustre emissions targets, dealing a blow to Indigenous rights in the country. Australia's Federal Court ruled on Tuesday that the government was not obliged to shield the Torres Strait Islands from the effects of climate change. 'The applicants have not succeeded in making their primary case in negligence. The Commonwealth did not and does not owe Torres Strait Islanders the duty of care alleged by the applicants in support of their primary case,' Justice Michael Wigney was quoted by SBS news outlet as saying in his ruling. Scattered through the warm waters off Australia's northernmost tip, the sparsely populated Torres Strait Islands are threatened by seas rising much faster than the global average. Torres Strait elders have spent the past four years fighting through the courts to prove the government failed to protect them through meaningful climate action. 'I thought that the decision would be in our favour, and I'm in shock,' said Torres Strait Islander Paul Kabai, who helped to bring the case. 'What do any of us say to our families now?' Fellow plaintiff Pabai Pabai said: 'My heart is broken for my family and my community.' In his decision, Justice Wigney criticised the government for setting emissions targets between 2015 and 2021 that failed to consider the 'best available science'. But these targets would have had little effect on global temperature rise, he found. 'Any additional greenhouse gases that might have been released by Australia as a result of low emissions targets would have caused no more than an almost immeasurable increase in global average temperatures,' Wigney said. Australia's previous conservative government sought to cut emissions by about 26 percent before 2030. The incumbent left-leaning government in 2022 adopted new plans to slash emissions by 40 percent before the end of the decade and reach net zero by 2050. Fewer than 5,000 people live in the Torres Strait, a collection of about 274 mud islands and coral cays wedged between Australia's mainland and Papua New Guinea. Lawyers for traditional land owners from Boigu and Saibai – among the worst-affected islands – asked the court to order the government 'to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will prevent Torres Strait Islanders from becoming climate refugees'. Sea levels in some parts of the archipelago are rising almost three times faster than the global average, according to official figures. Rising tides have washed away graves, eaten through huge chunks of exposed coastline, and poisoned once-fertile soils with salt. The lawsuit argued some islands would soon become uninhabitable if global temperatures rose more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (34.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. The World Meteorological Organization has warned this threshold could be breached before the end of the decade. More than one billion people will live in coastal areas at risk of rising sea levels by 2050, according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global sea levels could rise by up to 60cm (24 inches) by the end of the century, even if greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically reduced, it said.
