The big item on the government’s agenda today is the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill. That’s the one that enshrines the new penalty rates. You’ll be seeing a lot of Amanda Rishworth this morning.

Oh, and you can’t just withdraw from the UN climate framework (looking at you America) and be like – we’re untouchable now! Because unfortunately, you remain a country of the world, impacting other countries. So the court’s opinion is that the customary obligations apply to ALL states, not just those in the UNFCC.

And as Polly also says, the ICJ’s advisory opinion is that “it is the sum of all emissions that contribute to climate change not any specific emissions” which means Australia can’t keep running around arguing, at least with any authority, that it has no responsibility for historical emissions and that our exported fossil fuel emissions ‘don’t count’ towards our climate impact.

As Polly Hemming points out, this ruling is particularly awkward for Australia. We have been merrily exporting fossil fuels, and skipping along claiming we need to open MOAR (gas is a fossil fuel, we don’t need more of it, there is enough to meet our needs (and yes, even for manufacturing) in the uncontracted stuff gas companies make a motza out of on the spot market and we don’t even get anything back from the gas companies in return)

As Polly explains, the ICJ has said “fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, granting of exploration licences and fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an “internationally wrongful” act. States are also obliged to regulate private actors in the context of climate change.”

Why is that particularly awks for Australia?

Polly:

“Australia argued to the #ICJ that it has no historical responsibility for its emissions. But the ICJ says actually each state’s historic and current emissions contribution and the harm caused can be attributed to them.”

Back to the ICJ ruling; Polly Hemming was up until sparrows making sense of it all

After reading names at the Vigil for Gaza on the parliament house lawns yesterday, independent senator David Pocock will jointly host a press conference with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)/Doctors Without Borders and parliamentarians ahead of an MSF petition with nearly  64,000  signatures being tabled in the senate a little later this morning.

Pocock will be joined by:

Labor MP Ed Husic.

Independents Dr Monique Ryan, Dr Sophie Scamps, Dr Helen Haines and Kate Chaney

Jennifer Tierney MSF Australia Executive Director and Claire Manera, Former Emergency Coordinator Gaza who has recently returned from the frontline

(Full disclosure: I attended and read names at the Voices for Gaza vigil)

You may remember an independent review was ordered into events at the National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research after the Australian newspaper ran stories essentially accusing Sarah Schwartz of the Australian Jewish Council of using anti-Semitic tropes in a debate.

For those needing a refresher, here is how the Australian Jewish Council explained it at the time:

Sarah’s speech critiqued and challenged racist stereotypes of Jewish people, pushed by Peter Dutton, Donald Trump and the far-right, which are used to promote division, attack diversity, and push an anti-immigration agenda. In her presentation, she used an image of ‘Dutton’s Jew’ as a visual representation of Dutton’s racist and reductive conception of Jewish people as the defenders of “Western civilisation” against other racialised groups.

Sarah’s reference in her presentation to ‘Dutton’s Jew’ was about Peter Dutton’s racist conception of Jewish people, not actual Jewish people. Against this conception, Sarah spoke about how the Jewish community is diverse and not a monolith. Sarah has worked tirelessly as part of the Jewish Council to open up space for these diverse voices in the beautiful Jewish communities we are a part of and aim to support.

A single image and parts of Sarah’s presentation were leaked to the Murdoch press by a bad-faith actor, who, in his own words, has “co-supported … suppression of” our voices at the Jewish Council of Australia. The sharing of a single image of Sarah’s speech, devoid of any of the context of her presentation, has resulted in a gross misrepresentation of the content and intention of her presentation.

Well the independent review came back yesterday and the Honourable John Middleton AM KC found NO racist or anti-Semitic content was present at the Symposium, NO breaches of the code of conduct and NO racist conduct by any of the presenters or organisers.

The Review found:

11. Ms Schwartz intended to critique what she perceives as the political weaponisation of Jewish identity and antisemitism by certain political leaders. She was not critical of Jewish people themselves.

12.13 While some controversy emerged following the media reporting of Ms Schwartz’s and Ms Munro’s Debate slides, it is important to consider the full context of the event and the presentations of both Ms Schwartz and Ms Munro (as set out above). The slides, when considered with the accompanying spoken words, were not antisemitic in nature nor were they found to be offensive to those actually present at the Debate. The intent of the presentations remained aligned with the University’s standards and the purpose of the Debate.

12.14 In the context of the Debate, expectations of its content were evident from its promotion. Just focusing on the audience in attendance, whilst undoubtedly the content was not respectful to the targets of the criticism, and would be unwelcome to them, no breach of the Code of Conduct was apparent. The real issues arose once the content of various slides was disclosed (out of context) to the media.

A full version of the review is available here.

The first speeches of the new parliamentarians continued into the night last night, which included new Queensland senator Corinne Mulholland who gave her first speech while holding her young child, Augie. Augie was born not long before Mulholland hit the campaign trail, and so experienced his first political campaign at just three months old. He will be six before he does it again.

I stand here tonight holding my young son, as you can see, with his bedtime fast approaching. I am praying that Augie and I make it through this speech unscathed, so godspeed!

Augie is here not as a symbol but as a powerful reminder of why I am here. I’m a wife and a mum from the outer suburbs of Queensland. I’ve come to this place to fight for other Queensland families.

Speaking of climate change….

The senate has set up a committee to investigate the toxic algal bloom which has devastated marine life in South Australia. (spoiler: it’s climate change)

Some journalists, including those at the Adelaide Advertiser and the Fin’s Phil Coorey have been pushing for more national action for weeks – environment minister Murray Watt went and had a look and committed $14m in funding, but didn’t declare it a natural disaster.

That was mostly a definitional thing – our legislative definitions for the natural disaster trigger, which when pulled sets off a whole heap of federal responses, including more payments, helps to industry and local government assistance as well as access to federal agencies, aren’t equipped to handle algal blooms, even though it is obvious it IS a natural disaster. Just one more impact of climate change we will have to adjust to.

Greens senator and South Australian Sarah Hanson-Young said the inquiry was “an important step in ensuring South Australians aren’t left to manage the algal disaster on our own” as they waited for the natural disaster declaration.

We are facing an environmental, economic and community disaster, and South Australians are crying out for answers.

In this first week of parliament, my top priority has been to raise the concerns of those affected in South Australia’s tourism and fishing industries, and our coastal communities who have been left shocked for months on end. 

As Chair of the inquiry, I will focus on making sure that we use this inquiry to amplify the voices of scientists, affected industries and the local South Australian community.

We need governments at all levels that will act to take climate change mitigation and adaptation seriously. This is not a far off future problem, the crisis is here and now.”

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.