petitions, demonstrations and the use of the courts

• Petition to Declare a Climate Emergency

  • In 2019, a petition created by Noah Bell was tanked by independent MP, Zahli Steggall in the House of Representatives
  • The petition contained over 404,000 signatures. 
  • It called on the commonwealth to declare a climate emergency and to immediately legislate and directly reduce the causes of human-made climate change. 
  • However, did not result in any change.
• DEMONSTRATIONS

  ‘Change the Date’ Movement

  • The number of change the date protests have been increasing each year, reflecting a rising public awareness and support for changing the date of Australia Day to a more inclusive date. 
  • Whilst support has been growing, Australia day remains a divisive issue with many in the community still in support of the day and the Albanese government has explicitly states that the government has no plans to change the date.
• DEMONSTRATIONS

  Example: West Gate Bridge

  Three people have been charged after climate activist Deanna ‘Violet’ Coco and others allegedly used a truck to cause traffic chaos on Melbourne’s West Gate Bridge.
• THE USE OF THE COURTS: Sharma v Minister for the Environment

  • The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the approval of the Vickery coal mine expansion, arguing that the Minister owed a duty of care to protect young people from the future harms of climate change resulting from carbon dioxide emissions.
  • In May 2021, the Federal Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.

  ‘The greatest intergenerational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next’.
• Limitations of Sharma v Minister for the Environment

  • However, the justice did not issue an injunction to halt the mine expansion, as there was no found reasonable expectation that the Minister would breach the duty. 
  • In March 2022, the Full Federal Court of Australia entirely overruled the decision that the Minister owed a duty of care. 
• Significance and Implications of Sharma v Minister for the Environment

  • Initial ruling established a precedent that government officials could be held accountable for environmental impacts. 
  • Brought significant public attention to the issue of climate change and the legal responsibility of government officials. 
  • Influence future legal strategies in environmental cases. 
  • Strengthen future cases by providing solidarity evidentiary foundation.