
Australia wins landmark climate battle against Indigenous elders
In 2021, community elders Pabai Pabai and Paul Kabai launched legal action against the then-Liberal government for breaching its duty of care to protect the Torres Strait Islands from the impacts of climate change.
But a Federal Court judge dismissed the case and said climate policy was a matter for parliament, not the courts.
The ruling also found that the government did not owe a duty of care to protect the islands from the impacts of climate change.
The Torres Strait Islands - located between far-north Queensland and Papua New Guinea - are made up of about 270 islands, of which only a few dozen are inhabited.
About 4,000 people live on the islands, according to the latest official figures, with 90% identifying as Indigenous.In their submission, Uncle Pabai and Uncle Kabai said sea levels in the north of Australia had been rising "significantly higher than the global average".Between 1993 and 2019, sea levels in the Torres Strait rose by about 6 cm per decade, the court was told.The court also heard that the islands are home to a "distinctive customary culture known as Ailan Kastom", where the residents have a "unique spiritual and physical connection" to the islands and waters.The case added that by failing to take greater action against climate change in its emissions targets, the islands' unique culture would be lost, and residents would become climate refugees.However, Justice Michael Wigney said that while he recognised the "devastating impact" caused to the islands by climate change, current negligence laws in Australia do not allow for compensation where the loss of culture, customs and traditions were the result of a government's policies.He acknowledged that while "climate change related flooding and inundation events had damaged their sacred sites and the burial grounds of their ancestors", matters of "core government policy" such as emissions targets was "ordinarily to be decided through political processes, not by judges".He did however recognise that action was needed: "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."For Uncle Pabai the decision was devastating."My heart is broken for my family and my community," he said in statement according to local media.A map shows the location of The Torres Strait Islands. They are inbetween far-north Queensland - shown on the bottom of the map- and Papua New Guinea, which is at the top of the map. The map shows Thursday Island which is the capital of the Torres Strait islands as well as a few more like Badu, Masig, Erub, Mer, Saibai and Boigu.In his submission to the court, Uncle Pabai - a community leader from Boigu island - described the deep spiritual connection he and other locals have with the land and waters, especially the cemeteries as "talking to my ancestors is a big part of my culture"."If Boigu was gone, or I had to leave it, because it was underwater, I will be nothing," he wrote in his court submission.Uncle Paul, the other elder behind the court action, was equally stunned by the findings."I thought that the decision would be in our favour, and I'm in shock," he said."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?"During earlier court hearings, Uncle Paul had described his childhood memories of Saibai in the 1970s and 1980s when it was a "land of plenty", with an abundance of barramundi and crabs in inland freshwater swamps.But now, more extreme weather events and higher sea levels meant an increase in saltwater coming inland, and coupled with less rain, the higher salt levels in the swamps have made it impossible for fish and crabs to survive, he said.He told the court about a seawall - built around 2017 - that was breached by a king tide in 2000, destroying crops and flooding homes."If the water keeps on rising, in the way it has in the last 10 years or so, the seawall will not be able to protect Saibai at all," he said in his submission."My country would disappear. I would lose everything: my home, my community, my culture, my stories, my identity. Without Saibai, I do not know who I would be," the court heard.In handing down his decision, Justice Wigney said that while the previous government "paid scant if any regard to the best available science" in setting emissions reductions, the new targets set by Labor were "significantly higher and more ambitious".In a joint statement following the court decision, Australia's Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen and Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy, said they "understand that the Torres Strait Islands are vulnerable to climate change, and many are already feeling the impacts"."Where the former Government failed on climate change, the Albanese Government is delivering – because it's in the interest of all Australians," the statement said.Riona Moodley, from the University of NSW's Institute of Climate Risk and Response said while the decision was "definitely a setback" for Torres Strait Islanders, it does not mean the law can not change."The reality is that Australian law will need adapt to meet the challenges of climate change," she told the BBC.Her colleague Wesley Morgan said the court's finding should also propel greater action from government on its climate policies."It must listen to the science telling us we need be ambitious as possible in the decade ahead," he said. — BBC

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


Saudi Gazette
5 days ago
- Saudi Gazette
US allies break with Trump to force diplomatic shift on Gaza
NEW YORK — As Canada joins France and the UK in announcing plans to recognize a Palestinian state, the US is standing firmly with Israel — but does Trump have a long-term plan for Gaza's future? Of all history's declarations about the Middle East, one that may be less prominent in the global collective memory was in Tokyo in November 2023. Then-US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken laid out a series of principles for the "day after" the war in Gaza at a meeting of the G7, a group of the world's most powerful countries. He travelled there from Tel Aviv, after meeting Israel's leadership a month after the Hamas attacks on October 7, during the ensuing Israeli offensive on Gaza. Blinken listed what amounted to US conditions for Israel's military objectives and the wider conflict: No forcible displacement of Palestinians. No Israeli re-occupation of Gaza after the war ends. No attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza. A future governance that must be Palestinian-led, involving the internationally backed Palestinian Authority. No role for Hamas. The principles were intended to generate support from America's allies in Europe and parts of the Arab world — even if Israel objected to many of them. Few probably remember Blinken declaring his Tokyo Principles — least of all the Trump administration, which immediately jettisoned them. But the ideas are still supported by many US allies, who travelled to the United Nations in New York this week for a French-Saudi-led conference calling for a rekindling of the two-state solution. The conference made headlines as France, then the UK, committed to recognising a Palestinian state later this year under certain conditions. On Wednesday afternoon, Canada followed suit. But the Trump administration boycotted the meeting, viewing it as anti-Israel. "The United States will not participate in this insult but will continue to lead real-world efforts to end the fighting and deliver a permanent peace," said US State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce, deriding the conference as a "publicity stunt". Now, a chasm has opened up between the US and its traditional allies on the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This raises a question: Does the Trump administration have a vision for the future governance of Gaza and longer-term permanent peace? It is becoming increasingly clear that it doesn't — at least not one of its own. Earlier this month, I asked Ms Bruce what the administration's vision was for the future governance of Gaza, beyond its requirement that Hamas cannot exist. She responded that "countries, our partners in the region" were working to implement "new ideas" the president had asked for. When I pressed her on what this involved she said: "I won't exactly tell you today." In February, President Trump declared that the US would take over the Gaza Strip and build a "riviera of the Middle East" in a plan that involved the forced displacement of Palestinians in the territory, which the US and Israel later tried to claim meant "voluntary" emigration. Whilst the idea was clearly unfeasible and would be in violation of international law, it appeared to be Trump's post-war plan. It would presumably have involved Israeli military occupation of the strip to facilitate it. It was not clear how any continuing insurgency by Hamas or aligned armed groups would have been defeated. Since then, the plan has been slowly, quietly dropped — at least in its fuller form. Asked on Tuesday about his plan to move Palestinians Trump described it as "a concept that was really embraced by a lot of people, but also some people didn't like it". The latter was probably a reference to rejection by Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, which Trump visited in May for a lavish trade tour to take in gilded palaces. The administration prefers to talk about the immediate issue: freeing hostages and getting a ceasefire. When Trump was again asked to look beyond that, during a recent White House visit from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he immediately deferred to the Israeli leader to answer. It amounts to a growing evidence that the Trump administration's strategy on Gaza increasingly parallels that of its Israeli ally. Netanyahu rejects any involvement of the Palestinian Authority in future governance of Gaza, where his forces now control some two-thirds of the territory. The far-right flank of his coalition demands permanent military occupation, the expulsion of Palestinians and the building of Jewish settlements. Israel and the US have attempted to take control of the food supply for Palestinians, within militarised zones, while Israel also arms Palestinian militiamen who rival Hamas. The international body that monitors famine, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), said there is mounting evidence of widespread starvation, malnutrition and disease in Gaza. Israel has blamed Hamas and the UN for the crisis, but said it is facilitating more aid. Many European nations have watched aghast. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy told me on Wednesday: "We have seen the most horrific scenes. The global community is deeply offended by children being shot and killed as they reach out for aid." Starvation appears to be an inflection point for European countries — a moral impetus to drive their divergent diplomacy. Domestic pressures in Britain and France also mounted to recognize a Palestinian state under certain conditions. Without a coherent, internationally backed plan for future governance, Gaza faces the prospect of increasing chaos. Blinken was aware of this risk from early in the war, and shuttled between Arab states trying to get them to sign up for a future plan involving parts of the Palestinians Authority and Arab countries providing security forces. He also intervened on at least three occasions, forcing Israel to allow more aid into Gaza, twice using the threat of restricting US weapons to make his point. There has been no such pressure by the Trump administration, which accelerated arms to Israel since January. The US has left what amounts to a strategic vacuum on Gaza's long-term plan. The Europeans, working with Gulf Arab counties, spent this week trying to fill it. For them, without effective aid, governance and a long-term peace plan, the impact on the ground will only deteriorate. They called this week for urgent aid intervention, backing the Palestinian Authority, and reviving work towards a two-state solution — even without the US signed up. It upends years of convention by which major Western powers would recognize a Palestinian state only at the end of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Importantly, their combined statement meant Saudi Arabia, a leader of the Arab and Muslim world, was joining the condemnation of Hamas and call for its disarmament. Now they're hoping their move, supported by Arab countries, pressures Trump back towards a more established diplomatic process. But their conference — which will meet again in September — is working against all odds. The superpower seat is empty. — BBC


Saudi Gazette
5 days ago
- Saudi Gazette
YouTube to be included in Australia's social media ban for children under 16
BRISBANE — Australia has picked a fight with the world's largest video platform by backtracking on an earlier promise to exclude YouTube in its social media ban for children under 16. The Labor government said Wednesday the site, which is owned by Google's parent company Alphabet, will be subject to the same rules as other leading platforms – Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and X – under legislation due to come into effect in December. The ban puts the onus on social media platforms to prevent children under 16 from having an account on their sites, or risk fines of nearly 50 million Australian dollars ($32 million). A YouTube spokesperson said the decision to include it in the ban 'reverses a clear, public commitment' from the government to treat the site as an educational tool. 'We will consider next steps and will continue to engage with the government,' the spokesman said, omitting any comment on the status of reported legal threats. YouTube Kids won't be included in the ban because it doesn't allow users to upload videos, or comment on them. Speaking Wednesday, Communications Minister Anika Wells likened the ban to teaching children to swim – a basic life skill in Australia where many suburban homes come with a swimming pool.'It is like trying to teach your kids to swim in the open ocean, with the (rip currents) and the sharks, compared to at the local council pool,' she said.'We can't control the ocean, but we can police the sharks, and that's why I will not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a genuine fight for the well-being of Australian kids.'The government said the decision to include YouTube was influenced by a survey released by Australia's independent online regulator, the eSafety Commission, this month that found 37% of children surveyed had reported seeing harmful content on the content includes sexist, misogynistic or hateful ideas, dangerous online challenges or fight videos, or content that encourages unhealthy eating or exercise habits.'YouTube uses the same persuasive design features as other social media platforms, like infinite scroll, like autoplay and algorithmic feed,' Wells told Parliament Wednesday.'Our kids don't stand a chance, and that is why I accepted the eSafety (Commission) recommendation that YouTube should not be treated differently from other social media platforms.'The government passed what it has called 'world-leading' legislation last year, providing a 12-month buffer to figure out how it was going to part of its research, the government commissioned age assurance verification trials to test the limits of different technologies to inform the rules it'll impose on social media companies.A preliminary report released in June reached 12 findings, including that age verification can be done in a 'private, robust and effective' way. But it also found there was no 'single ubiquitous solution' that would suit all cases, nor one that was 100% report also said 'concerning evidence' had emerged that platforms were 'over-anticipating the eventual needs of regulators about providing personal information for future investigations.''Some providers were found to be building tools to enable regulators, law enforcement or Coroners to retrace the actions taken by individuals to verify their age which could lead to increased risk of privacy breaches due to unnecessary and disproportionate collection and retention of data,' the preliminary report concerns have been raised by critics of the plan – while others say it will limit options for isolated and vulnerable children who rely on social platforms for has acknowledged the ban won't be perfect.'Kids, God bless them, are going to find a way around this. Maybe they're all going to swarm on LinkedIn. We don't know,' she and other platforms say they're already taking steps to protect children week, YouTube announced new trials of AI in the United States to interpret a 'variety of signals' to determine if a user is under 18.'These signals include the types of videos a user is searching for, the categories of videos they have watched, or the longevity of the account,' YouTube said in a users are determined to be under 18, personalized ads will be deactivated, well-being tools will be activated, and repetitive viewing will be limited for some kinds of content, the company have been lobbying against the Australian ban – appealing to the government and Australian parents to rethink the has recently run ads on Facebook in the country touting the platform as an educational tool. 'From fishing to chef skills, Aussie teens are learning something new every day on TikTok,' says one online revealed Wednesday that YouTube had dispatched a representative of the Wiggles, the hugely popular Australian children's entertainment group, to argue against its inclusion in the ban.'The Wiggles are a treasured Australian institution. But like I said to them, you're arguing that my 4-year-old twins right to have a YouTube login is more important than the fact that four out of 10 of their peers will experience online harm on YouTube, and they might be two of those four,' Wells told CNN affiliate 9 News, citing a recent survey by the eSafety Commission.'I just didn't find that argument ultimately persuasive.'Almost 3,500 Australian children, ages 10-17, took part in the 'Keeping Kids Safe' survey between December 2024 and February out of four reported seeing harmful content. — CNN


Arab News
6 days ago
- Arab News
Australia bans YouTube accounts for children under 16 in reversal of previous stance
MELBOURNE: The Australian government announced YouTube will be among the social media platforms that must ensure account holders are at least 16-years-old from December, reversing a position taken months ago on the popular video-sharing service. YouTube was listed as an exemption in November last year when the Parliament passed world-first laws that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and X. Communications Minister Anika Wells released rules Wednesday that decide which online services are defined as 'age-restricted social media platforms' and which avoid the age limit. The age restrictions take effect Dec. 10 and platforms will face fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for 'failing to take responsible steps' to exclude underage account holders, a government statement said. The steps are not defined. Wells defended applying the restrictions to YouTube and said the government would not be intimidated by threats of legal action from the platform's US owner, Alphabet Inc. 'The evidence cannot be ignored that four out of 10 Australian kids report that their most recent harm was on YouTube,' Wells told reporters, referring to government research. 'We will not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a genuine fight for the wellbeing of Australian kids.' Children will be able to access YouTube but will not be allowed to have their own YouTube accounts. YouTube said the government's decision 'reverses a clear, public commitment to exclude YouTube from this ban.' 'We share the government's goal of addressing and reducing online harms. Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens. It's not social media,' a YouTube statement said, noting it will consider next steps and engage with the government. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia would campaign at a United Nations forum in New York in September for international support for banning children from social media. 'I know from the discussions I've had with other leaders that they are looking at this and they are considering what impact social media is having on young people in their respective nations,' Albanese said. 'It is a common experience. This is not an Australian experience.' Last year, the government commissioned an evaluation of age assurance technologies that was to report last month on how young children could be excluded from social media. The government had yet to receive that evaluation's final recommendations, Wells said. But she added the platform users won't have to upload documents such as passports and driver's licenses to prove their age. 'Platforms have to provide an alternative to providing your own personal identification documents to satisfy themselves of age,' Wells said. 'These platforms know with deadly accuracy who we are, what we do and when we do it. And they know that you've had a Facebook account since 2009, so they know that you are over 16.' Exempt services include online gaming, messaging, education and health apps. They are excluded because they are considered less harmful to children. The minimum age is intended to address harmful impacts on children including addictive behaviors caused by persuasive or manipulative platform design features, social isolation, sleep interference, poor mental and physical health, low life-satisfaction and exposure to inappropriate and harmful content, government documents say.