Login
Environment Minister slammed for ‘embarrassing’ appeal decision
Teenagers behind a landmark Federal Court ruling have criticised the Environment Minister and the Morrison government for the “embarrassing” decision to appeal against having a duty of care to protect young Australians from potential harm.
Naomi Neilson
Earlier this week, the Federal Court ruled in favour of eight young Australians who argued that the government must protect them from foreseeable future harms of climate change, particularly the “catastrophic” damage that could be done if projects that contribute to an increase in the earth’s temperature are permitted to proceed.
“When I heard the news, I found it funny and honestly pretty embarrassing that the environment minister plans to appeal,” said Anjali Sharma, one of the eight students involved in the matter and represented by Equity Generation Lawyers.
“As a person in power, her job should be to act for, not against, the young people of Australia. But instead of doing her job of safeguarding our future, she is prepared to spend public money fighting for her right to make climate change worse, harm the environment and risk the injury and death of Australian children.”
Ms Sharma added that the appeal challenge launched by Ms Ley indicates that she is favouring the profits of coal companies above safeguarding both the health of the environment and the protection of Australian children from death and serious injury.
David Barnden, the lawyer representing the students, said he has questioned the Morrison government’s intent to appeal and said it seems “inconceivable” that Ms Ley would “seek to rid herself of this sensible responsibility” to young people. He said they will be “vigorously defending” the Federal Court decision.
“The duty is sensible. It is based on the principle not to harm your neighbour. A government that cares about all its citizens would be reluctant to appeal the duty. The duty places sensible restrictions on people in power to avoid the catastrophic harms of climate change,” Mr Barnden said. “Ultimately, the decision that the minister intends to appeal is one that looks after the welfare of vulnerable children.”
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
