Daniel Billy and others v Australia (Billy v Australia)

United Nations Human Rights Committee

Violation of Human Rights under the ICCPR

1993

A group of eight Torres Strait Islanders, Australian nationals, and six of their children submitted a petition against the Australian government to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. They are indigenous inhabitants of four small low-lying islands in the Torres Strait region. The applicants alleged that changes in weather patterns have direct and harmful effects on their livelihood, their culture and traditional way of life. The Torres Strait Islanders indicated that severe flooding caused by tidal surges in recent years has destroyed family graves and left human remains scattered across their islands. They argued that maintaining ancestral graveyards and visiting and communicating with deceased relatives are at the heart of their cultures. In addition, the most important ceremonies, such as coming-of-age and initiation ceremonies, are only culturally meaningful if performed in the community’s native lands. The Torres Strait Islanders also argued that changes in climate with heavy rainfall and storms have degraded the land and uprooted trees and have consequently reduced the amount of food available from traditional fishing and farming. The plaintiffs claimed their rights have been violated as Australia failed to implement adequate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures such as upgrading seawalls on the islands and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most relevantly, the plaintiffs specifically argued that climate change already compromises the plaintiffs’ traditional way of life and threatens to displace them from their islands (13 Id, [3.5]).

Based on the above, the plaintiffs alleged that Australia’s insufficient action on climate change has violated the following rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 27 (the right to culture), Article 17 (the right to be free from arbitrary interference with privacy, family and home) and Article 6 (the right to life).

On 23 September 2022, the U.N. Human Rights Committee found that Australia’s failure to adequately protect indigenous Torres Strait Islanders against adverse impacts of climate change violated their rights to enjoy their culture and be free from arbitrary interferences with their private life, family and home. However, there was no breach found for the right to life.

Billy v Australia, https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2022/20220923_CCPRC135D36242019_decision.docx, http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/petition-of-torres-strait-islandersto-the-united-nations-human-rights-committee-alleging-violations-stemming-from-australias-inaction-onclimate-change/.

Daniel Billy and others v Australia (Billy v Australia)

United Nations Human Rights Committee

Violation of Human Rights under the ICCPR

1993

A group of eight Torres Strait Islanders, Australian nationals, and six of their children submitted a petition against the Australian government to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. They are indigenous inhabitants of four small low-lying islands in the Torres Strait region. The applicants alleged that changes in weather patterns have direct and harmful effects on their livelihood, their culture and traditional way of life. The Torres Strait Islanders indicated that severe flooding caused by tidal surges in recent years has destroyed family graves and left human remains scattered across their islands. They argued that maintaining ancestral graveyards and visiting and communicating with deceased relatives are at the heart of their cultures. In addition, the most important ceremonies, such as coming-of-age and initiation ceremonies, are only culturally meaningful if performed in the community’s native lands. The Torres Strait Islanders also argued that changes in climate with heavy rainfall and storms have degraded the land and uprooted trees and have consequently reduced the amount of food available from traditional fishing and farming. The plaintiffs claimed their rights have been violated as Australia failed to implement adequate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures such as upgrading seawalls on the islands and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most relevantly, the plaintiffs specifically argued that climate change already compromises the plaintiffs’ traditional way of life and threatens to displace them from their islands (13 Id, [3.5]).

Based on the above, the plaintiffs alleged that Australia’s insufficient action on climate change has violated the following rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 27 (the right to culture), Article 17 (the right to be free from arbitrary interference with privacy, family and home) and Article 6 (the right to life).

On 23 September 2022, the U.N. Human Rights Committee found that Australia’s failure to adequately protect indigenous Torres Strait Islanders against adverse impacts of climate change violated their rights to enjoy their culture and be free from arbitrary interferences with their private life, family and home. However, there was no breach found for the right to life.

Pabai Pabai and Guy Paul Kabai v. Commonwealth of Australia

Australia

Federal Court of Australia

On 26 October 2021, Wadhuam Paul and Wadhuam Pabai, First Nations’ leaders from the Torres Strait Islands, filed a case alleging Australia’s failure to cut emissions and asserting that the government’s inaction will force their communities to migrate to new areas. They state that “Torres Strait Islanders, whose homelands are the islands, reefs, and waters of the Torres Strait, are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change” and that the applicants “face an existential threat from climate change.” They also mention that a special relationship exists between the Torres Strait Islanders and the Australian government which creates a “duty of care that is owed by the Commonwealth, to act and protect against the harm that climate change has caused and will likely cause to Torres Strait Islanders’ health and safety, their lands and seas, and their way of life” (Id, [1]-[3]).

Pabai Pabai and Guy Paul Kabai v. Commonwealth of Australia, http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/pabai-pabaiand-guy-paul-kabai-v-commonwealth-of-australia/ and the Concise Statement, https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/pabai-v-australia.

4,125 population

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/110854/Applicants-Second-Further-Amended-Statement-of-Claim.pdf

Back