Federal Liberal MP for Bowman Andrew Laming is in the news again for all the wrong reasons

 

The Guardian, 21 December 2021:

The Australian Electoral Commission has launched legal action against Liberal MP Andrew Laming for allegedly failing to disclose his political links on a Facebook page which appeared to be operating under the guise of a grassroots community group.

The federal court proceedings come after Guardian Australia revealed in April that the Queensland MP was operating 35 Facebook groups – with at least one for each suburb in his electorate.

The AEC is launching action based on just one of the 35 sites, which was called “Redland Hospital: Let’s fight for fair funding,” set up by Laming ahead of the last federal election to campaign against Labor.

It is the first time the AEC’s authorisation requirements for social media will be tested in court after disclosure laws were updated following the 2016 election to explicitly include social media posts.

According to the AEC website the penalty for a breach by an individual can be a fine of up to $26,640.

In a statement, the AEC said it had instituted federal court proceedings against Laming “alleging he failed to authorise Facebook posts leading up to the 2019 Federal Election”.

“The AEC alleges that Dr Laming published unauthorised electoral matter in the form of a Facebook page, ‘Redland Hospital: Lets fight for fair funding’ and that this contravened the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 requirement that material promoting one candidate or political party over another comply with the authorisation requirements of the Act.”

“The AEC will not be making any further comment as this matter is now before the Court.”…..

World-first Australian Federal Court case over Santos’ ‘clean energy’ & net zero claims

On the same day that a judgement was handed down in Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorporated v Environment Protection Authority [2021] NSWLEC 92 (26 August 2021) ordering The Environment Protection Authority, in accordance with s 9(1)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW), is to develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure environment protection from climate change, news came of another legal challenge in which the Environmental Defenders Office is the the legal representative of the applicant.

Santos Ltd Cooper Basin facility
IMAGE: Environmental Defenders Office

Environmental Defenders Office, 26 August 2021:

The Environmental Defenders Office, acting on behalf of the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), has filed a Federal Court case against gas giant Santos over its claims natural gas is “clean fuel” and that it has a credible pathway to net zero emissions by 2040.

ACCR will argue the claims – contained in the company’s 2020 Annual Report – constitute misleading or deceptive conduct under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Consumer Law.

This is the first court case in the world to challenge the veracity of a company’s net zero emissions target, as well as the first in Australia raising the issue of climate greenwashing against the oil and gas industry.

It is also a landmark, world-first test case in relation to the viability of carbon capture and storage, and the environmental impacts of blue hydrogen, increasingly touted as a key element in gas companies’ pathways toward net zero emissions.

Santos’ claims – “Clean” gas & a “credible” net zero pathway

Santos Ltd is one of Australia’s largest gas companies, and the biggest domestic gas supplier in the country.

In Australia its major projects include oil and gas extraction off the coast of Western Australia, as well as in the vast Cooper and Eromanga Basins that span South Australia and Queensland.

Santos is also a major player in coal seam gas, developing vast areas of the Surat and Bowen Basins in Queensland and planning a major new CSG project around the northern NSW agricultural hub of Narrabri.

In 2019-20, Santos was responsible for approximately 7.74 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions from its direct operations, with the end-use of the natural gas it supplied emitting an additional 28.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

Despite this, Santos describes itself as a “clean energy” provider in its 2020 Annual Report, stating that natural gas is a “clean fuel”.

It has also sought to assure investors and the public that it has a clear and credible pathway to achieve net zero emissions by 2040.

This pathway is heavily reliant on both carbon capture and storage (CCS)processes and the production of “blue hydrogen”.

However, ACCR alleges that Santos failed to disclose that it has firm plans to increase its greenhouse gas emissions by developing new or existing oil and gas project including the Barossa, Dorado and Narrabri LNG projects. ACCR also alleges that Santos failed to disclose that its net zero plans depend upon a range of undisclosed qualifications and assumptions about CCS.

In addition, although blue hydrogen is increasingly touted as a key element in gas companies’ pathways toward net zero emissions, scientists and even key gas industry figures have raised questions over its environmental impacts in comparison to other energy sources.

ACCR says that these issues call into question whether Santos had reasonable grounds to assert it has a “clear and credible” plan to reach net zero emissions by 2040.

On behalf of ACCR, we will argue that in making the above claims Santos potentially engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under both the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Consumer Law.

We are asking the court to grant an injunction requiring Santos to correct the record publicly on these statements, and prohibit Santos from engaging in similar misleading or deceptive conduct in the future.

The Impact of Greenwashing – Investors & Environment

This case is about holding gas companies like Santos to account for the claims they make about their product and future in a low-carbon world.

Our client, ACCR, is a shareholder advocacy organisation focused on how listed companies, industry associations, and investors are managing climate, labour, human rights and governance issues.

They are also investors in Santos, taking this action to ensure the company and others like it fulfil their legal responsibility to be transparent and open with shareholders like ACCR.

Companies have an obligation to be upfront and honest with investors – this is particularly important to investors who are trying to assess which companies will survive and thrive in a rapidly changing global energy economy.

Misleading information can have a dramatic effect on the market, on investors, and ultimately on the environment.

It can leave investors vulnerable to major losses. It can skew the market unfairly in favour of companies failing to adequately respond to the climate change, and unfairly away from companies that are acting responsibly.

In doing so, misleading information about natural gas and the transition towards a lower carbon economy can obstruct an effective and timely response to the climate crisis.

A genuine transition to a low-carbon energy economy is crucial if Australia is serious about meeting its commitments under the Paris Agreement and ensuring the world avoids the worst impacts of climate change.

It’s essential that energy companies play their part and are upfront and honest about their role in this crisis and the challenges they face in adapting to a low-carbon economy.

This landmark case will help to ensure energy companies like Santos are held to account for the statements they make to investors and the public in the face of the global challenge of climate change. 

IMAGE: Santos 2021 Sustainability Report

Santos Ltd is one of Australia’s largest gas companies and is reportedly the biggest domestic gas supplier in the country. This court case is challenging the veracity of a company’s net zero emissions target, the viability of carbon capture and storage, and the environmental impacts of blue hydrogen.

Santos is also a major player in coal seam gas, developing vast areas of the Surat and Bowen Basins in Queensland and planning a major new CSG project around the northern NSW agricultural hub of Narrabri.

The Motley Fool blog stated on 26 August 2021 that; The Santos Ltd (ASX: STO) share price slumped today after news broke that the company is facing a lawsuit. At market close, Santos shares are down 2.27% to $6.02. It is worth noting that this means the company’s share price is now at a new low for the 2021 calendar year.

End of trading on Friday 27 August 2021 its share price fell again to $5.57.

Federal Court judgment of 8 July 2021 in Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment (No 2) gives the Morrison Government little comfort

“The parties do not dispute that human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are largely responsible for the warming of the Earth’s surface temperature since the Industrial Revolution. The Minister accepts that the Earth’s surface temperature is increasing and that humans are primarily responsible. She also accepts that average surface temperatures will likely continue to increase and Australia will experience more drought, sea level rises and extremes of heat, rainfall and fire-related weather. The Minister accepts that increases in temperature affect the environment, the economy and society and that the climate exacerbates inherent risks and introduces new risks in the context of heatwaves, droughts, bushfires, floods and tropical cyclones all being part of the Australian climate experience.

The Minister accepts that the projected effects of climate change depend upon the extent of greenhouse gases emitted globally in coming years. The applicants presented unchallenged scientific evidence on the future trajectory of global average surface temperatures. The evidence was largely based on the climate change modelling of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and more recent assessments made by Professor William Steffen, an eminent specialist in climate science.” [BROMBERG J, 27 MAY 2021, MELBOURNE, excerpt from SUMMARY supplied for Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 (27 May 2021)]

“It is difficult to characterise in a single phrase the devastation that the plausible evidence presented in this proceeding forecasts for the Children. As Australian adults know their country, Australia will be lost and the World as we know it gone as well. The physical environment will be harsher, far more extreme and devastatingly brutal when angry. As for the human experience – quality of life, opportunities to partake in nature’s treasures, the capacity to grow and prosper – all will be greatly diminished. Lives will be cut short. Trauma will be far more common and good health harder to hold and maintain. None of this will be the fault of nature itself. It will largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of adults, in what might fairly be described as the greatest inter-generational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next.

To say that the Children are vulnerable is to understate their predicament. However, it is not vulnerability in the abstract which is relevant for determining whether a duty of care is owed to them by the Minister. Their vulnerability must be connected to their relation with the Minister or their reliance upon the Minister: Stuart at [134] (Crennan and Kiefel JJ). And it is.” [Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment (No 2) [2021] FCA 774 (8 July 2021, Judgment, excerpt])

In its 8 July 2021 judgment in Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment (No 2) [2021] FCA 774 (8 July 2021) the Federal Court did not accept the the Minister’s contention that the Court should order that the proceeding not continue as a representative proceeding at all - instead ordering that The proceeding not continue as a representative proceeding in respect of persons who were under 18 years of age and not ordinarily resident in Australia at the time of the commencement of this proceeding. The Court also did not accept the Minister’s argument with regard to costs and ordered The Minister pay the applicants’ costs of the proceeding.

This second judgment although it now excludes unnamed Other Represented Children from the representative proceeding specifically allows those eight Australian teenagers named as applicants to remain as applicants in the proceeding: I have determined that the proceeding should continue as a representative proceeding in relation to the Represented Children.

BACKGROUND

Allens, Australia, retrieved 9 July 2021:

In August 2020, the NSW Independent Planning Commission granted development consent for the extension of the Vickery Coal Project (the project) in northern NSW under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). As the project is likely to have impacts on federally listed threatened species and water resources, it also requires approval from the Federal Minister for the Environment (the Minister) under the EPBC Act.

The project, if approved, will involve the extraction of an additional 33 million tonnes of coal over the life of the mine. The combustion of this additional coal will result in the emission of approximately 100 million tonnes of CO2.

In Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560, eight Australian children brought an action in negligence against the Minister, seeking a declaration that she owed them — and children around Australia — a duty to exercise her powers under the EPBC Act with reasonable care so as not to cause the children harm. They contended that the project would contribute to climate change, and consequently increase the risk of climate change-related harm to the applicants, including mental and physical injury, damage to property, and economic loss.

The claimants also sought an injunction restraining the Minister from committing an apprehended breach of that duty — that apprehended breach being the approval of the project.

The decision

The court found that the Minister owes the applicants a duty to take reasonable care when considering whether to approve the project under the EPBC Act.

In determining that the Minister owes a duty of care, the court held:

• The environmental impacts of increasing global surface temperatures, including greater incidence and severity of heatwaves and bushfires, would expose the applicants and the representative class to a real risk of death and personal injury.

• While the project would cause a 'tiny' increase to global average surface temperatures, that increase was measurable and therefore the risk of harm 'real', and not far-fetched or fanciful.

• A reasonable person in the Minister's position would foresee that the applicants would face an increased risk of injury brought about by climate change that would flow from the contribution to increased atmospheric CO2 brought about by the project.

• The Minister's knowledge of the risk of harm and her control over the source of harm strongly supported finding a duty of care.

• While some factors weighed against a duty being recognised, in totality the salient features of the relationship between the Minister and the applicants favoured the recognition of a duty of care.

Despite recognising the duty of care, the court declined to grant an injunction preventing the Minister from approving the project. Ultimately, the court was not satisfied that the applicants had demonstrated the Minister would breach her duty of care, and said that, instead, it would be more appropriate to grant any relief once a decision had been made. The court did not accept the applicants' contention that an approval of the project would inevitably constitute a breach of duty, noting that the Minister's competing or conflicting responsibilities could influence a reasonable response to the foreseeable harm. Such a reasonable response could include conditions on any approval under the EPBC Act.

Implications

While the applicants were not successful in injuncting the Minister from granting the approval, the decision to recognise this novel duty of care could have significant consequences. This is the first time in Australia that a court has recognised a duty of care owed to children by a Minister exercising powers under any statutory environment or planning regime.

The recognition of a duty of care in connection with climate change-related harm under the EPBC Act framework is noteworthy, given the matters protected by the EPBC Act do not extend to greenhouse gas emissions or climate change. While protection is afforded to various environmental matters, including listed species and habitats, the health and wellbeing of human beings is not a protected aspect of the environment that would trigger the need for approval under the EPBC Act. However, by reference to the broader statutory scheme (including reference to the principle of inter-generational equity) the court noted the Act's object is to protect the interests of people and, in particular, future generations of people, in the environment — rather than the environment itself. Because this duty of care was not found by reference to the particular protected matters in the EPBC Act and instead within the broader statutory scheme, the interpretive approach may translate more readily to other pieces of environmental legislation at a state level.

This decision may also impact the grant of approvals under the EPBC Act. The court noted that in deciding whether to approve the project, 'a well-advised and responsible Minister would take notice of those matters', referring to the now-established duty of care owed to the applicants. Those in charge of approving carbon intensive projects may now be more alive to climate change-related issues and place greater weight on those risks when making decisions.

That "massive failure in public administration" of Australia's social security scheme, by way of the creation of the unlawful 'Robodebt' automated data matching program, has to date cost the Morrison Government: (i) est. $8.4M in Federal Court applicants' awarded legal costs; (ii) approx. $751M in debt repayments to applicants; (iii) a further $103.6M in settlement distribution costs; (iv) the forced abandonment of recovery of up to $1.01 billion in debts claimed by Centrelink but not yet realised; and (v) government having to absorb its own legal costs as well as the former unlawful program's multimillion dollar administration costs.

 

ABC News, 11 June 2021:

A Federal Court judge has delivered a withering assessment of the unlawful Robodebt recovery scheme, calling it "a shameful chapter" and "massive failure in public administration" of Australia's social security scheme.

He also ordered the Commonwealth to pay costs of $8.4 million to Gordon Legal, which brought the class action against the Commonwealth on a no-win, no-fee basis.

"This has resulted in a huge waste of public money," he said.

Justice Murphy's judgement gave legal effect to a settlement reached between the Commonwealth and people wrongly pursued for debts last year.

The Commonwealth agreed to fund compensation, pay back wrongly raised debts and drop debt recovery actions, but has not admitted liability.

Robodebt was an automated debt collection system in place between July 2015 and November 2019 that used data-matching in an attempt to identify the overpayment of social security benefits.

More than $750 million wrongfully recovered

The court heard that as part of the scheme, the Commonwealth had unlawfully raised $1.73 billion in debts against 433,000 people.

Of this, $751 million was wrongly recovered from 381,000 people.

"The proceeding has exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration," Justice Murphy said.

Justice Murphy said he "could not help but be touched" by the "heart-wrenching" stories of people who had suffered as a result of the scheme.

"One thing … that stands out … is the financial hardship, anxiety and distress, including suicidal ideation and in some cases suicide, that people or their loved ones say was suffered as a result of the Robodebt system, and that many say they felt shame and hurt at being wrongly branded 'welfare cheats'," he said.

He said ministers and public servants should have known the method of using taxation income records to estimate a welfare recipient's average income was flawed.

"However, it is quite another thing to be able to prove to the requisite standard that they actually knew that the operation of the Robodebt system was unlawful," he said.

"There is little in the materials to indicate that the evidence rises to that level….

In settlement of Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia the Morrison Government made no admission of legal liability with regard to any aspect of the unlawful Centrelink debt collection program.

It never ends

— Asher Wolf (@Asher_Wolf) June 12, 2021

BACKGROUND

Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 634 (11 June 2021)

Commonwealth of Australia v Prygodicz [2020] FCA 1516 (14 October 2020)

Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1454

Porter v ABC court case not quite over yet - there are now three parties requesting access to unredacted ABC written defence documents which Porter wants removed from court files

 

ABC News, 31 May 21:

ABC statement on Christian Porter litigation

Christian Porter has decided to discontinue his defamation action against the ABC and Louise Milligan.

All parties have agreed to not pursue the matter any further. No damages will be paid.

The only costs that the ABC will be paying are the mediation costs.

The ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest, and the article remains online. It has been updated with this Editor’s Note:

On 26 February 2021, the ABC published an article by Louise Milligan.That article was about a letter to the Prime Minister containing allegations against a senior cabinet minister. Although he was not named, the article was about the Attorney-General Christian Porter.

The ABC did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged. The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard – criminal or civil. However, both parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.

The ABC stands by our investigative and public interest journalism, which is always pursued in the interests of the Australian community.

The ABC stands by Louise Milligan, one of Australia’s foremost and most awarded investigative journalists, and all our journalists in their independent and brave reporting on matters about which Australians have a right to be informed.

Media contact

Sally Jackson | ABC Communications

ABC response to statements made today by Christian Porter

The 26 February 2021 article remains online without any amendments.

The ABC has not said that it regrets the article. As we have stated, the ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest. The Editor’s Note says: “(B)oth parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.

The ABC has never and still does not accept that the article suggested guilt on the part of Mr Porter. The ABC did not plead a truth defence to the “guilt” meaning that Mr Porter alleged in his statement of claim.

The article was not “sensationalist”. It was an accurate and factual report on a letter that had been sent to the Prime Minister and two other senior politicians.

Communications concerning the mediation started before the commencement of the Dyer v Chrysanthou proceedings. It is simply incorrect to suggest that evidence in that case led the ABC to seek mediation.

Mediations are very common in defamation matters, and it is important that all litigant parties seek to explore potential resolution options when they can – especially so for the ABC as a model litigant.

As a public broadcaster, the ABC considered the payment of mediation costs to be a responsible course of action. The resolution reached avoids further significant legal costs.

In relation other comments and statements that have been made:

The only costs paid by the ABC, apart from its own, were mediation and related costs.

Four Corners EP Sally Neighbour did not “lie” when she tweeted that “‘No money was paid”. Ms Neighbour meant that no money was paid to Mr Porter, which is correct. Ms Neighbour quickly clarified her tweet to say that “No damages were paid”.

The ABC categorically rejects the claim that Louise Milligan “coached” Jo Dyer. The suggestion is not only an insult to Ms Milligan but also to Ms Dyer’s intelligence and integrity.

Despite the assertion in Mr Porter’s filed reply, Ms Milligan did not attempt to speak to Kate before her death. That suggestion is completely untrue.

The ABC has previously published this statement on the Christian Porter litigation:

ABC statement on Christian Porter litigation

Media contact

Sally Jackson | ABC Communications

The Guardian, 2 June 2021:

The ABC rejected an offer from Christian Porter to settle his defamation case weeks before the minister agreed to enter mediation, Guardian Australia can reveal.

The former attorney general has claimed a victory in the high-profile case, but it is understood he originally made an offer for a relatively modest financial settlement without an apology or a retraction of the article.

The offer was rejected by the broadcaster in early May and the two parties entered mediation on Friday 28 May, reaching an agreement on Monday.

It comes as a friend of the woman who made an historical rape allegation against Porter – an allegation he strenuously denies – separately sent the former attorney general a legal concerns notice on Tuesday over comments he made during a press conference which she says “impugned my honesty and integrity”.

Jo Dyer – who brought the case that saw Porter’s star barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC restrained from acting in his now-defunct defamation bid against the ABC – released a statement on Tuesday saying she had sent a legal notice to Porter after the fiery press conference he held after dropping his case against the public broadcaster.

The decision by Porter to drop the case has not ended hostilities between the parties, with a series of back-and-forth jabs over the deal.

Despite the terms of the agreement being confidential, comments by both Porter and the ABC journalist Louise Milligan have raised significant questions about the timing and circumstances of the out-of-court deal.

At his press conference, Porter said the ABC had approached his lawyers “last Friday” for “an urgent mediation”.

“And we agreed, we consented to go to that mediation. That mediation was requested by the ABC,” he said.

That timeline was disputed on Twitter by Milligan, who wrote that it was Porter who had “proposed a settlement first”.

“If he wants to dispute that, happy to refresh his memory and release the terms he offered,” she wrote……

Read the full article here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 June 2021:

The Federal Court will hear a fight over media access to the ABC’s written defence to Christian Porter’s defamation claim, as lawyers for the federal Liberal minister say 27 pages of the document should be removed from the court file…..

The Federal Court heard on Tuesday that the ABC and Mr Porter had agreed as part of mediation talks to seek a court order that 27 pages of the ABC’s 37-page defence to his claim “be permanently removed from the court file”.

The pages in question have been redacted in the publicly-available version of the defence.

The parties also agreed the proceedings would be discontinued with no order as to legal costs. However, no formal notice of discontinuance had been filed on Tuesday, meaning the case is not officially over.

A temporary non-publication order over the 27 pages was made by Justice Jayne Jagot in May, pending a pre-trial application by Mr Porter to strike out those parts of the defence and remove them from the court file.

His lawyers were seeking to rely on Federal Court rules dealing with “scandalous” and “vexatious” material, or material that is “otherwise an abuse of the process”. That application fell away when Mr Porter dropped the case.

Nine Entertainment Co, the publisher of this masthead, and News Corp have briefed a barrister, Dauid Sibtain, to fight the non-publication order and ultimately to access the unredacted defence.

At a hearing in Sydney on Tuesday, Justice Jagot questioned whether the parties could simply agree now for documents to be removed from the court file.

“It doesn’t then become a matter for you about what is to be disclosed or not disclosed,” she told the parties.

Victorian barrister Renee Enbom QC, acting for the ABC, said it was “Mr Porter’s application for an interim suppression order”.

“My clients have done what they were required to do and consent to [an order removing sections of the defence from the court file] ... to the extent that they can consent, but they don’t otherwise wish to be heard or seek to be heard,” she said.

Sydney barrister Barry Dean, acting for Mr Porter, said the agreement to remove the material from the court file was part of a settlement between the parties.

“That’s not the point,” Justice Jagot replied. “There has to be a reason for removal of a document. It’s not just done because a party wants to do it.”

Mr Dean submitted that “orders are made all the time by the consent of the parties”.

“Sure, but not for removal of documents,” Justice Jagot said, adding there was a “fundamental issue” about the integrity of the court file.

Lawyers for Nine, News Corp and Mr Porter will return to court on July 9.

Kangaroo Court of Australia, 5 June 2021:

The Christian Porter v ABC defamation case is far from over with a hearing set down for the 9th of July after the judge refused to rubber-stamp Porter’s attempt to have material removed from the court file and suppressed on a permanent basis. I was also ordered by the court to file and serve all the Attorney-Generals a s78B Notice of a Constitutional matter because I said that I would argue that any tampering with the court file and suppression orders would infringe on the implied freedom of political communication. A copy of the Notice of a Constitutional matter that I filed and served is below……

BACKGROUND

Federal Court of Australia, Christian Porter v ABC Online File at

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/porter-v-abc

Students Win Landmark Climate Case. In Global First, Judge Determines That Federal Environment Minister Has Duty Of Care To Protect Young People From Climate Change

 

The group of teenagers took the federal government to court on behalf of "young Australians everywhere".

(ABC News Brendan Esposito)

Final Media Release

STUDENTS WIN LANDMARK CLIMATE CASE. IN GLOBAL FIRST, MINISTER HAS DUTY OF CARE TO PROTECT YOUNG PEOPLE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE

SYDNEY MAY 27, 2021: Eight high school students have welcomed today’s landmark judgment in the Federal Court of Australia that found the Federal Environment Minister has a duty of care not to cause them harm from climate change.

The students brought the class action against Minister Sussan Ley in September 2020, asking the court to recognise the Minister has a duty to protect young people around Australia from foreseeable future climate change harms.

The students alleged that approving a major extension to the Vickery coal mine in northern New South Wales would breach the Minister’s duty. An injunction was not ordered but there will be further submissions on what the duty means for the Minister’s decision and the mine.

“I am thrilled by today’s judgement,” says Ava Princi, 17, one of the students.

“I’m thrilled because this is a global first. We understand it is the first time a Court of law,anywhere in the world, has ordered a government to specifically protect young people from the catastrophic harms of climate change.

“My future - and the future of all young people - depends on Australia joining the world in taking decisive climate action.”

“But this case is not over. While the Court stopped short of preventing the Minister from approving the Vickery mine extension today, it has ordered parties to come together to find a way forward. We are still optimistic that the climate harms from this mine will not happen.”

In Sharma and others v Minister for the Environment the Court accepted evidence brought by independent experts that carbon emissions released from mining and burning fossil fuels will contribute to wide-ranging harms to young people.

The judgment means the Environment Minister should not make decisions that harm young people, however the judge stopped short of preventing the Minister from approving the Vickery Extension Project.

The judge called upon the parties to confer on orders over the future of the proposed project.

“I feel elated by this decision,” says Laura Kirwan, 17, another student behind the class action.

“This is a victory for young people everywhere. The case was about young people stepping up and demanding more from the adults whose actions are determining our future wellbeing. Our voices are powerful and I hope this case inspires more young people to push for stronger, fasterand deeper cuts to carbon emissions.

“Our futures depend on it.”

ENDS

Avi Prince, 17 years of age,  media statement here.