| Key Points Summary |
|---|
|
A landmark legal battle for climate justice in the Torres Strait has ended in disappointment for Indigenous communities on the frontline of global warming.
The Federal Court of Australia has ruled that the government does not owe a legal duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to protect them from the effects of climate change.
The case was brought by community leaders Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai, who argued the Commonwealth had a legal responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and safeguard their islands from rising seas and erosion.[1]
Justice Michael Wigney acknowledged the “serious and significant” threats posed by climate change to the Islanders’ culture, heritage, and way of life.
But he concluded that such matters were the domain of government policy, not enforceable in court.[1]
"Heartbroken, but still fighting"
Uncle Pabai said he was “heartbroken” by the decision, which he believes leaves his community more vulnerable to displacement.
Uncle Kabai added that the case was “for all people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who are affected by climate change.”
Aunty McRose Elu, a prominent advocate for Torres Strait rights, warned that Australia was on the verge of creating its first internal climate refugees.[2]
Government acknowledges risk
In response, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy reaffirmed the government's commitment to a National Climate Risk Assessment and Adaptation Plan.[3]
They said the government accepts the science and understands the risks faced by Indigenous communities, but argued that appropriate responses should come through policy—not the courts.
Legal limits vs moral urgency
While the ruling echoes previous hesitations to judicially enforce climate policy, it highlights growing pressure on lawmakers to act.
Legal experts noted that although Australia’s courts are constrained in defining policy, global precedents—like the Urgenda decision in the Netherlands—are influencing public expectations.[4]
The plaintiffs are reportedly considering an appeal, and advocates hope for further leverage when the International Court of Justice delivers its advisory opinion on climate obligations later this month.
Footnotes
- [1] ABC News: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-15/torres-strait-island-climate-case-court-decision/105532802
- [2] The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/15/torres-strait-island-landmark-climate-case-dismissed-federal-court
- [3] News.com.au: https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/shock-result-handed-down-in-torres-strait-climate-case
- [4] Climate in the Courts: https://www.climateinthecourts.com/court-to-decide-landmark-climate-justice-case-in-australia