
Climate justice push turns to leaders after court loss
On Tuesday, the court rejected the case led by Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai, which argued the Commonwealth owed a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change.
The uncles filed the landmark case against the government in the Federal Court in 2021, seeking orders from the court that would require the government to take steps to prevent harm to their communities, including cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the best available science.
In handing down his decision, Federal Court Justice Wigney Michael accepted many of the key factual elements of the case, including the impacts of climate change on the islands.
The case failed, Justice Wigney said, because negligence law does not allow compensation when it comes to government policy decisions.
"That will remain the case unless and until the law in Australia changes, either by the incremental development or expansion of the common law by appellant courts or by the enactment of legislation," Justice Wigney said.
"Until then, the only real avenue available to those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders, involves public advocacy and protest and ultimately recourse via the ballot box."
La Trobe University anthropology lecturer Aidan Craney, whose work is focused on understanding social change in the Pacific Islands region, said the decision shows the need for political leadership on climate justice.
Dr Craney said the government's reaction to the case could influence Australia's relationships in the Pacific.
"How the Australian government responds to this decision may influence the levels of support it receives from the region," he said.
"Current sentiment is broadly positive. However, dissent has come from respected sources, such as the Pacific Elders Voice."
Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai said they were shocked and heartbroken after the decision, but vowed to continue pushing to protect their islands.
"I'm feeling very emotional," Uncle Pabai Pabai told AAP after the decision.
"I wasn't thinking we'd lose this case ... I'm very heartbroken."
Griffith University Law School professor Susan Harris Rimmer said the decision was indeed a heartbreaking outcome.
She urged the federal government to pass human rights legislation that would allow for the right to a clean, healthy and safe environment. "The United Nations Human Rights Committee has already ruled that rights have been breached by Australia in relation to climate impacts in the Torres Strait," she said."Australia is running out of time for the kind of incremental advocacy and protest that Justice Wigney noted was the only current avenue for reform."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.

Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump's ‘big new' visa fee could slug thousands of Australian travellers
Thousands of Australian business travellers, students and workers heading to the United States are set to be charged a $US250 ($383) visa application fee as part of changes introduced under President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill'. Most Australians visiting the US as tourists enter the country under the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation, known as the ESTA waiver program, and will have to pay a small increase for the cost of the waiver – from $US21 ($32) to $US40 ($60). The US Department of Homeland Security has the authority to begin the new 'visa integrity fee' from October 1. It can be applied to anyone who is not eligible for the ESTA visa waiver, including the Visa H-1B (specialty occupations), Visa F-1 (academic student), Visa B-1/B-2 (business visitor/tourist visitor), and Visa J-1 (exchange visitor). People will need to pay the charge once their visa application is approved – in addition to the cost of the visa. The fee will also apply to intra-company transferees (Visa L-1) or the visa category for extraordinary ability or achievement in arts, athletics and sciences (Visa O-1). Not everyone can qualify for the ESTA waiver. Among exclusions are people with criminal records or certain dual-nationalities. Travellers in line to be slugged by the 'visa integrity fee' could be eligible to recoup the full cost after legally exiting the country.

The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.