Opinion
In 2022, I left court in tears. Standing in parliament felt like deja vu
Anjali Sharma
Climate activistOn March 15, 2022, I led eight children into the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney, marking the end of an 18-month court battle.
A year earlier, Justice Mordecai Bromberg had ruled that the federal environment minister had duty of care to protect current and future young Australians aged under 18 from the impacts of climate change. He noted in his judgment that the trauma and health impacts facing children will “largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of adults, in what might fairly be described as the greatest intergenerational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next”.
Anjali Sharma with Senator David Pocock.
Within months, the then environment minister – now the deputy leader of the opposition – Sussan Ley appealed the ruling and pushed ahead approving new mining projects.
It wasn’t lost on any of us that this was a landmark case. The Federal Court had an opportunity, then and there, to set a groundbreaking precedent for the protection of the rights of children in the face of climate change. Instead, on March 15, 2022, Bromberg’s decision was overturned on appeal, by the full bench of the court.
We walked out that day, hand in hand, tears rolling down our faces.
In their judgment, the appeal judges hadn’t simply overturned the duty of care on the basis that it didn’t exist, but on the basis that if it did exist, it should be legislated by parliament. This was a clear mandate to continue our fight.
Last month, I walked into the federal parliament with my friends, almost a year since our campaigning led to the tabling of the Duty of Care Bill in the Senate by senator David Pocock.
The Duty of Care Bill is an amendment to the Climate Change Act, which would ensure that when politicians make climate-related decisions, they must first consider the likely impact of these decisions on the health and wellbeing of young people.
This would be the first time that legislation would explicitly ensure that climate policy reflects the rights of the young people of today and tomorrow in Australia. It seeks to embed a fundamental principle into legislative action: that decisions made today must account for their impact on the health and wellbeing of current and future generations.
And it’s nothing less than young people deserve.
Anjali Sharma in 2021 with her litigation guardian Sister Brigid Arthur, who assisted the students in court because they were under 18 at the time.Credit: Justin McManus
Last week marked the conclusion of a public inquiry into the bill by the government-controlled Senate Committee, and the handing down of its 93-page report.
The experience felt like deja vu. Though unlike that day outside the Federal Court in 2022, tears were sparse, as they were lost years ago, along with our childlike belief that what is morally unjust is easy to correct if one simply points out the moral failures. Once again, we were devastated. The Senate Committee quietly rejected Pocock’s bill and recommended that it not pass before a vote in parliament’s upper house.
The public inquiry into the Duty of Care Bill received 403 submissions from, among others, peak medical bodies and children’s rights organisations, that warn of the health impacts of climate change and the disproportionate way in which they will affect young people in Australia.
These impacts include an increase in respiratory illnesses, mental health distress, effects on the birth weight of babies, and increased risk of pre-term birth leading to health problems later in life.
These expert submissions echoed Bromberg’s finding in 2022: “Lives will be cut short. Trauma will be far more common and good health harder to hold and maintain.”
There is an inherent injustice in creating conditions, otherwise avoidable, in which the young people of today and tomorrow will be exposed to through no fault of their own. And yet, young people today have no more protection under the law than we did two years ago.
No legislation that compels politicians to consider children’s health and wellbeing in decisions that will contribute negatively to climate change.
No mechanism that places the needs and interests of current and future generations at the forefront of decision-making.
Nothing but the status quo, which, for too long, has allowed decision-makers to sidestep their responsibility towards children and future generations.
If the role of politicians isn’t to hand over a world to future generations that is safe and liveable, then what is?
The Senate Committee’s reasoning for rejecting the bill was that the government already has sufficient legislature, including the Climate Change Act, the Safeguard Mechanism, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. While the first act requires the reporting of emissions, it does not have the power to stop decisions that jeopardise emissions targets. The second measure does not cover exported emissions, which are the majority of Australia’s contribution to the climate crisis. The environmental protection act, while acknowledging the right to intergenerational climate equality, does not mandate the implementation of policies to achieve its aim.
Our journey has been driven by hope, by a belief that current and future generations deserve greater protection in the face of climate change. But it is tempered with the harsh reality of political inertia.
There is still no legislation that specifically speaks to the rights of the current and future generations in the face of climate change.
Our journey has been driven by hope, by a belief that current and future generations deserve greater protection in the face of climate change. But it is tempered with the harsh reality of political inertia.
We face a world in which generations to come are faced with climate change increasing in frequency and severity, and we are pleading with our leaders for legislation that addresses this.
Even though a specialised committee has recommended it not be passed, the report isn’t the end of the road. The bill will still go to a vote before the Senate this year, and our campaign will continue. Because in a climate emergency, we need more than the status quo.
Anjali Sharma is a climate activist and was a finalist for the 2021 Children’s Climate Prize.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.