Hello and welcome to Australia Institute Live – give yourself a pat on the back because you have made it to the end of the first week of parliament sittings.

Huzzah. I am proud of you.

Today we have the International Court of Justice ruling on states and their obligations to protect present and future generations from harmful climate change. The ruling was handed down around midnight eastern Australia time and it’s a bit complicated, but the low down is: countries MUST meet their climate obligations (cutting emissions for reals) and if they don’t they could violate international law, leaving open the potential for affected nations (in this case the Pacific) to see financial reparations in future cases.

It’s kind of a big deal, in terms of international law.

Bit of background to that: in March 2023 the UN adopted a resolution asking the ICJ to issue its advisory opinion on two questions:

• What are states’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system for present and future generations?
• What are the legal consequences for states whose actions or omissions have caused significant harm to the climate—particularly for vulnerable nations and affected communities?

Sounds timely right? Especially since the federal court ruling in the Pabai case? Well, it was Pacific Islands law students who pushed the UN for the opinion, helped along by the government of Vanuatu, so it’s all connected. Pacific Island nations are already seeing the impact of climate change and they want the world to not only notice, but act. That includes Australia.

Speaking of our grand nation, we didn’t exactly cover ourselves in glory in this process. In December last year, the ICJ held public oral hearings and in news I am sure will just SHOCK you, the Australian government was on the other side of the issue to the Pacific nations. Australia argued for a limited interpretation of the legal obligations of major emitters. Basically we said that we had no obligations beyond the international agreements we had signed, like Paris. (The court said that didn’t exclude us from having other responsibilities)

Don’t expect this decision to dominate – it’s not like the planet is on fire or anything or that we are running out of time to act, and therefore this should be the number one issue, gosh no – but it IS important and it should be getting more coverage. This is all happening as the Nationals, led by Barnaby Joyce (at least in spirit) think that trashing net zero is the way forward by the way. It’s all so stupid, and doesn’t matter or impact on Australia’s climate policy (and will just hasten their own demise) but it is sucking up oxygen. And don’t expect the government to quash it completely – it serves them politically to let the Nats battle this out with the Liberals for as long as possible. Dolly help us all.

We’ll also cover the fallout from the decision to officially chastise Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi by the senate, for holding up a sign saying ‘Gaza is starving, words won’t feed them, sanction Israel’ in the senate during the parliament opening (oh it is VERY serious – the Governor-general was there and that is the representative of the KING and so it’s all very disrespectful you see) and for calling out to the prime minister as he left the senate about Gaza – but not acting against One Nation senators who turned their back to the Welcome to Country ceremony on the same day, in the same parliament.

Disrespect you see, is not always equal.

And then there is everything else to come. You have Mike Bowers, thanks to The New Daily, to take you into the parliament, all the fact checks and experts you could want watching the parliament and answering your questions, and me, Amy Remeikis to guide you through the day.

It is at least a four coffee one. Ready? Let’s jump in.