More reaction from the Pacific Islands on the International Court of Justice ruling from Save the Children Vanuatu.

This case was led by young people in Vanuatu.

An extraordinary 16-year-old, Vepaiamele, has told the ABC that – more than anything – the overnight decision delivers hope for future generations in the Pacific.

I went to The Hague last year in December and I was sent by the voices because we are affected by the common crisis and it is an amazing experience but this advisory opinion is so important because it clarifies what we need to be doing against climate change and it can pave the way for climate justice for our future of all children around the world.

We are one of the most vulnerable nations of climate change, we experience cyclones and natural disasters every year and they keep on getting more intense and increasing in number. We can see the effects of climate change everywhere whether it is our economy, our communities, whether in is in schools and citizens have to go to schools intense and hospitals are damaged from cyclones that happened years ago. Even yesterday I was at one of the outer islands off the coast of our main island and I was there where there a under sea level because of rising sea levels and it is sad to see the effects of climate change.

How’s that for wisdom and perspective from a teenager on the front line of the climate catastrophe?

The committees which will be examining the parliament have been determined.

But before we get to that, here is Anthony Albanese in his standard mode – kinda cranky. You do have to give him credit for being the same off camera as he is on camera.

Here are your parliamentary committees:

The House was informed that the Chief Government Whip had nominated Members to be members of certain committees.

Mr Burke (Leader of the House), by leave, moved—That Members be appointed as members of certain committees in accordance with the following list:

The response to the world’s highest court’s opinion that countries do have have a responsibility to limit climate harm are still coming in.

Dr Dean Bialek, a leading international lawyer and former climate diplomat who worked for nearly ten years as a lead negotiator with the world’s island nations on the Paris Agreement said the ICJ’s advisory opinion was “an unusually robust statement clarifying the legal obligations of states on climate change and the regulation of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing it”

The Court has confirmed the primacy of the 1.5C temperature goal enshrined in the Paris Agreement as the north star for the international response to climate change, and the obligation on states to pitch their emissions targets well within its guardrails.

“This is hugely significant at a time when the Australian Government is in final deliberations on its emissions target for 2035, which the best science says needs to be in the mid-to-high 70’s per cent reduction below 2005 levels to be 1.5C-aligned  

For the first time, the ICJ opinion says countries can be held internationally liable for failing to do their bit on climate, focusing most intently on the failures implicit in any new approvals for fossil fuel projects or subsidies to make them cheaper.  

“To me, this makes inescapable the need to embed a climate trigger within efforts to reform Australia’s environmental laws”

The Coalition is still trying to find what it actually stands for. So in lieu of a policy platform, it is falling back on old favourites. Like ‘regulations are bad’.

In the run up to Jim Chalmer’s Productivity-Tax Roundtable next month there’s been a lot of talk about what should be in/out etc.

We will be putting in our submission on Friday, but today I wrote in my Guardian column on a report ACOSS will put out today titled “Taxing income less and consumption more: The case against”

The report nicely slaps around some of the dumb myths that get pt out about tax. I wrote is up in the form of 3 things that need to be agreed to before you should be able to participate in any discussion on tax:

1. Australia is a low-taxing nation

We hear at the Aus Institute like to preach this line, but as the ACOSS report shows it’s not because we are making stuff up – it IS THE REALITY

Right now we raise less tax than every nation in the G7 except for the US, and they are only just below us

2. We are not overly dependent on income tax.

Cripes I get this a lot in interview. It is taken as given they we tax income too much and worse we do it a lot more than other nations.

Sorry, as ACOSS notes, that utter bull

Not only do we tax income much less than most other advanced economises we are all LESS RELIANT ON IT:

3. Increasing the GST will hurt low-middle income earners

Look, this should be pretty obvious, but it is amazing how many economists love the GST because they think it is oh so gloriously efficient.

Well as the ACOSS report show it really isn’t all that much more efficient than income tax, but it is much more regressive.

ACOSS used some Treasury modelling that found if you raised the GST to 15% and cut income tax by 5% the bottom 60% of households would be worse off, and the top 20% would be significantly better off.

So if we are talking GST we need to talk about broadening it – eg including it on private health insurance or private school fees. If all we are doing is raising it, then we are just dumping on poor people for now good reason at all.

The full article is here – have a read there’s a lot more graphs to play with!

Oxfam has also commented on the ICJ ruling.

Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi said: 

Oxfam is proud to have supported young climate defenders from the Pacific and elsewhere who bravely took their fight for justice from a classroom in Vanuatu to the world’s highest court. They won the world a tremendous victory today.  

This ruling elevates national climate commitments everywhere by confirming that countries must reduce emissions enough to protect the universal rights to life, food, health and a clean environment. All countries, particularly rich ones, now have to cut their emissions faster and phase out fossil fuels. Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm. This is not a wish-list – it is international law. 

We now have a powerful tool for holding countries to account for their obligations, especially in protecting the world’s most marginalized people and future generations of humanity. The ICJ rejected arguments by the likes of the US and UK that governments are bound only by climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement and did not have stronger obligations under international law. This ruling will inject new impetus into negotiations at the COP30 Summit in Brazil this November.”

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has confirmed that states have binding legal obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and protect present and future generations.

The Australia Institute notes this historic ruling as a major step forward in global climate accountability.

Australia supported the United Nations resolution to seek this advisory opinion but argued before the court that states have no legal obligations on climate change beyond those contained in existing agreements like the Paris Agreement.

In its submission, the Australian government claimed it holds no historical responsibility for climate change and rejected the application of broader customary international law — such as the no-harm principle — to greenhouse gas emissions.

“Australia cannot have it both ways — claiming leadership in international forums while undermining it in others,” said Polly Hemming, Director of the Climate & Energy Program at the Australia Institute.

“This ruling puts countries like Australia on notice. We have legal obligations — not just moral ones — to stop fueling the climate crisis.

“The ICJ’s opinion reinforces the principle that climate inaction is not just a political failure, but a breach of international law — with consequences. As global courts, legislatures and communities move to hold governments accountable, Australian governments and senior public servants are advised to prepare for the rising tide of legal, diplomatic and economic repercussions.

“In many ways, it’s clear our governments are already aware of this.

“Whether it’s fossil fuel expansion, greenwashing, or targeting whistleblowers and protestors — these actions aren’t about national security. They’re about fear. If the government weren’t scared of scrutiny, it wouldn’t be trying to suppress it,” Polly Hemming said.

“The ICJ has spoken. The question is whether Australia will act.”

Workplace relations minister Amanda Rishworth is doing the media rounds this morning as she spruiks the penalty rates legislation.

But she has obviously been well briefed on the US beef change. Asked about it on the ABC, Rishworth said:

Well, there has been a decade-long review process of the US import restrictions on beef and that has been underpinned by scientific and rigorous risk assessment, not done by the politicians, but done by the Department of Agriculture, fisheries and forestries.

They have been looking at this for a long time and they now have assessed that the right controls are in place to ensure that our biosecurity is not under any threat. We need to be really clear, we will never compromise on biosecurity and it must be underpinned by scientific and risk assessment evidence. That is what the department has done.

They have made this assessment that the right controls are in place to protect our biosecurity.

Asked about the ‘curious timing’ and whether it is an olive branch, Rishworth says:

Well, firstly, I would say that this process has been going on for a decade and a decision by the department. If we actually look at trade, our beef producers, our agricultural producers at large benefit from having free and fair trade around the world. 70% of our agricultural products are exported and having access to markets is really critical.

Our farmers do an amazing job, they make a world class product. When it comes to beef, there is still significant demand, even with the tariffs on Australian beef. This is an important issue that we will keep prosecuting with the United States about having free and fair trade, but our agricultural producers export to the world with their world class product and we want to support them with that.

Speaking of the US and Aukus, Scott Morrison popped up in a US Congress hearing, sharing his experience of dealing with China’s trade punishments with Australia during his term of government.

Morrison said it was in response to his call for an independent inquiry into the origins of Covid (remember that?) but there was quite a few flashpoints on both sides over the years. Now Morrison, who is traveling the world pretending he was a successful leader on a number of fronts, has told the US Congress that the US and its allies have to strengthen their relationships to push back against China.

As AAP reports Morrison said:

This is as true in the economic sphere as it is in the security sphere,” Morrison said in a rare appearance by a country’s former leader before Congress.

Morrison wants a “strong core” to those relationships and he says that means a “strong America”.

After losing the 2022 election, Morrison hung around on the opposition backbench until he secured another job (it took a bit) and now he is the vice chair of ‘American Global Strategies’ an advisory firm founded by Donald Trump’s former national security advisor Robert O’Brien, where they advise and consult on all sorts of fun things, like defence.

As first reported in the SMH yesterday, Australia quietly sent the second $800m installment to the US for Aukus. That brings our contribution to the US’s shipyards and associated production to $1.6b. This money is supposed to help the US ramp up it’s production, but as Emma Shortis pointed out yesterday, it would need to increase its production fourfold in order to meet its own production needs, and ours. Which is as unlikely as me resisting chocolate.

So are we potentially just giving that money to the US for nothing? Well, thanks for asking – of course we are! The US can turn around at anytime and say no submarines for you, but thanks for your money in helping to build ours. Huzzah!

Now the AFR reports, citing a government source, that Australia is about to lift the restrictions on US beef to try and get some movement on the tariffs. Which were applied for no reason.

As the Fin reports:

A government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted the move, which was communicated to the US government overnight Wednesday (AEST), was based on scientific advice following a review of the restrictions initiated more than 18 months ago, before Donald Trump was elected president for a second term.

So cool beans then. Have we considered just making Australia the 51st state officially?