The brown coal-fired thermal power station Loy Yang B in Traralgon, Australia (Billy Joachim/Unsplash)

The toll of Australia’s fossil fuels set for international scrutiny

The government may have to defend its approach to coal and gas exports in response to a highly personal case put before the Human Rights Committee.

Makaela Fehlhaber

31 July 20264 min read

Australia’s fossil fuel production for export will be in the spotlight in a new complaint (Opens in new window) by 10 Australian citizens against the Australian Government, put to the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC). The “Hard Truths (Opens in new window)” case, led by First Nation’s activists, firefighters, disability advocates, an ecologist and teachers, argues that Australia’s continued reliance on, and production of, coal and gas for exports is contributing to the climate emergency. Taking a personal focus, it argues that the impacts of this have interfered with the applicants’ rights to life, privacy, family and home life, and the Aboriginal applicants’ right to culture.

The case further contends that Australia has violated various obligations under the international climate change framework, including its obligations of due diligence and adherence to the precautionary principle (Opens in new window). This is where, if activities could harm the environment, even in the absence of scientific certainty, a State should implement precautionary measures to alleviate, mitigate or prevent environmental degradation or harm. The applicants contend that Australia’s failure to comply with its international obligations aligns to its failure to decrease its fossil fuel exports to limit global warming to 1.5°C. It also alleges that Australia is aware of the foreseeable consequences of climate change and is failing to take deliberate action within its domestic sphere. The applicants argue this is evidenced, amongst other factors, by its rank as the second largest coal exporter globally, and the third largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (in 2024).

The personal impact on the applicants includes facing extreme heatwaves, bushfires, floods, and droughts. The applicants argue that these events have altered the landscapes in which they reside, causing damage to their homes and infrastructure. For some, they argue this has exacerbated pre-existing health conditions, and made those with disabilities susceptible to greater risks to their life.

Australian Army soldiers assist with flood relief at St Thomas Kindergarten in Brisbane in 2022 (Defence Imagery)

One applicant, Brendon Donohue, experienced the 2022 Brisbane floods. He is legally blind and suffers from Glaucoma and Peters Plus Syndrome. He alleges his quality of life is significantly affected by extreme weather events. The floods caused him to be trapped in his Brisbane apartment for 10 days when the lift was flooded.

For applicants Latisha Francis and Pam Francis, Narungga, Ngarrindjeri, and Kaurna women, a key focus of the complaint is climate-change related algal bloom in South Australia. Algal (Opens in new window) outbreaks are toxic to marine life and increase the mortality of hundreds of species within coastal waters. The women argue that this has affected their ability to engage in their cultural practices and the passing of traditional knowledge, especially related to the ocean.

In another example, Professor Anne Poelina, a Nyikina Warrwa and Warlungurru woman, is one of four indigenous applicants. Poelina experienced devastating floods in 2023, from the Mardoowarra River into Balginjirr, Kimberley. Her home, community and traditional connections with the land (sacred sites and graves of ancestors) were submerged beneath 1.5 metres of floodwater. This caused her and her Balginjirr community to relocate and she contends that this has affected her ability to engage with her cultural practices.

The HRC operates quasi-judicially (Opens in new window), meaning it will consider the complaint and render its views on the communication and the alleged breaches through publication. Australia will have the opportunity to respond.

The personal impact on the applicants includes facing extreme heatwaves, bushfires, floods, and droughts.

The applicants seek a formal declaration that Australia is failing its human rights obligations through its activities in relation to fossil fuel for export, through inadequate action on climate change. The applicants are also seeking recommendations from the HRC.

Why take an international avenue? The applicants refer to the fact that under domestic law, there is no viable legal pathway to take. In the absence of a federal Bill of Rights, and devolved powers to state and territories being limited, an international channel offers the best path.

The last case Australia faced before the HRC (Opens in new window) of a similar nature was in 2019 and raised by six nationals of Australia and residents of the Torres Strait region. The group alleged Australia breached their rights by failing to take adaptation and mitigation measures to reduce the effects of climate change. As residents of the Torres Strait Islands, they claimed the archipelago was exposed to coastal erosion and storm impacts, and that ongoing environmental degradation affected enjoyment of their lives. The HRC found violations of the applicant’s rights to private, family and home life as well as a violation of indigenous rights. Therefore, Australia has been on notice that its climate change policies may not meet the mark in the eyes of the HRC.

Should the HRC find Australia’s conduct non-compliant with its human rights obligations, it may result in Australia’s returned attention to its climate policies.

About the author

Makaela Fehlhaber

Makaela Fehlhaber is a PhD student at Northumbria University, focusing on a review of causation in international law, its relationship with the law of state responsibility, human rights, and rule of law principles.

Topics

Climate & environment International law Australia