A video of a large saltwater crocodile appearing to follow a group of people at the infamous Cahills Crossing in Kakadu has sparked renewed warnings for spectators to follow the rules and not be complacent about the risks.
In the Torres Strait, sea levels are rising twice as fast as the global average.
Scientists predict several low-lying islands in the Torres Strait will be uninhabitable by 2050 if global warming continues on its current trajectory.
In 2021, two Torres Strait Islander elders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai, filed the first-ever negligence case against the Australian government claiming failure to protect them from the damage done by climate change.
Both live on islands at direct risk from rising seas. Uncle Pabai lives on Boigu Island, whose highest point is just three metres above sea level. Uncle Paul lives on Saibai Island, which tops out at 1.7 metres. They claimed they would suffer cultural loss if forced to leave their island homes due to climate change, which would sever over 40,000 years of connection to Country.
The case was heard by a Federal Court judge, who found the government had no duty of care.
Late last year, the elders from the Guda Maluyligal nation filed an appeal. Australia’s full Federal Court will hear the appeal this week. If successful, the case could lead to the Australian government having to pay compensation for the loss of culture due to climate harms.
In his findings on the Pabai case, Federal Court Justice Michael Wigney found the government didn’t have a duty of care.
Justice Wigney said setting emissions reductions targets is a core policy decision which lay beyond the court’s remit. He found it wasn’t open to him as a single judge to recognise loss of culture under negligence law for the first time.
However, the decision recognised the Torres Strait Islands and their inhabitants are “undoubtedly far more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change than other communities in Australia”.
The court also found the government failed to take the best available science into account when setting emissions targets in 2015, 2020 and 2021.
Uncle Pabai and Uncle Paul appealed to the full Federal Court, meaning a panel of three justices will hear the case.
Their lawyer, Brett Spiegel, told the ABC the appeal would ask the full court to “take steps that the trial judge felt he was unable to.”
Uncles Pabai and Paul are arguing the government owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to take reasonable steps to protect them from the impacts of climate change. To date, this link has not been recognised in Australian law. Duty of care cases often focus on the legal responsibility of authorities or employers to avoid foreseeable harm to other people.
The Uncles claim the government breached this duty of care by failing to set emissions reductions targets in line with the best available science to keep warming below 1.5°C.
They say the government voluntarily signed the Paris Agreement, which outlines the 1.5°C target, and set domestic emissions cut targets as part of this. As such, the Uncles claim it’s appropriate for the court to review these actions.
In their written submissions, lawyers for the government argue the case involves core government policy, so it would be inappropriate for the court to find a duty of care due to the separation of powers. Even if government emissions reductions targets contributed to climate impacts in the Torres Strait, they argue the contribution is too small to be measurable. This would mean the government is not negligent.
Uncles Pabai and Paul will say the science is clear that all greenhouse gas emissions worsen global warming, and the government’s lack of action on emissions made a material contribution to climate change harms in the Torres Strait.
Uncles Pabai and Paul are concerned about losing their ability to practise their culture, known as Ailan Kastom (Island Custom). This includes cultural ceremonies, teaching culture, burying and mourning rituals and caring for sacred sites.
During the original case, Uncle Pabai gave evidence about the uninhabited sacred island of Warul Kawa, visited for millennia for hunting, fishing and ceremonies. If the island was lost, Uncle Pabai said Torres Strait Islanders would:
[lose] our spiritual connection to the ancestors […] It would be like losing our version of heaven.
At the appeal, the Uncles will argue the government has contributed to climate impacts on their islands and that it is liable in negligence for Torres Strait Islanders losing their ability to practise culture.
The government’s lawyers will argue losing Ailan Kastom is not compensable under negligence law.
It may be surprising to hear this appeal is effectively asking the full Federal Court to find a new type of duty of care and a new type of compensation for cultural loss.
But Australian law can and does evolve to address new challenges. The seminal Mabo case brought by Torres Strait Islander Eddie Mabo led to the recognition of land rights for Indigenous peoples.
Courts overseas have found governments have a duty of care to protect their people from climate change harms.
The appeal will be watched closely. Australia’s efforts on climate change are already under scrutiny as it prepares for its role leading negotiations at the COP31 United Nations climate talks in Turkey this year. Neighbouring Pacific Island nations face similar threats from sea level rise.
As climate damage worsens, we can expect to see more legal cases focused on the obligations of governments to keep their citizens safe from climate harms.
The author previously worked at Grata Fund which supports the Pabai litigation.
Beachside residents at The Entrance North can start building their own seawall after a court ruling that may set a precedent for the entire NSW coastline.
More electric vehicles sold in first half of 2026 than whole of last year, new data shows
Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast
Australians bought more electric vehicles in the first six months of 2026 than the whole of the previous year, new data shows, as the ongoing crisis in the Middle East causes uncertainty about petrol prices.
There were 103,855 battery electric vehicles (EVs) sold nationally between January and June, compared with 103,269 in 2025, according to data from VFacts and the Electric Vehicle Council.
The government’s controversial Fisheries Amendment Bill has reignited debate over New Zealand’s most common – and most controversial – commercial fishing method.
Bottom trawling involves commercial fishing boats dragging large, heavy nets across the seafloor. It is the most widespread source of human disturbance to the global seabed. Around New Zealand, marine scientists have documented its ecological impacts for decades.
Although the bill covers a broad range of fisheries management changes, debate has centred on whether it would weaken environmental safeguards that influence how activities such as bottom trawling are managed.
After an earlier U-turn on one significant proposal, Fisheries Minister Shane Jones last month delayed the legislation until after the general election. But many of its more contentious reforms remain on the table and could return under the next parliament.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has argued the environmental impacts of bottom trawling need to be balanced against its economic benefits.
The commercial fishing industry employs thousands of people and generates around NZ$2 billion in export earnings each year. It is an important export industry, even if smaller than sectors such as international education and comparable in size to wine exports.
Still, our research in the marine environment suggests any balance should place greater weight on protecting marine biodiversity and the ecosystem processes that support ocean health.
New Zealand is today one of just seven countries that bottom trawl in international waters – and the only one still using the method on South Pacific seamounts.
For New Zealand’s commercial fishing industry, the method remains a mainstay. In 2024–25, it accounted for about 224,000 tonnes of fish – around two thirds of the country’s commercial catch by volume.
While commercial fish stocks are managed under New Zealand’s Quota Management System, concerns remain about impacts on vulnerable seafloor habitats, depleted fish species and marine mammals killed as bycatch.
Seamounts are targeted because they attract commercially valuable species such as orange roughy, black cardinalfish and oreos. But they are also home to corals, sponges and bryozoans that can live for hundreds of years and grow more than 20 metres tall.
These slow-growing, oceanic forests support a rich diversity of marine life but can take many decades to recover from repeated trawling.
The impact on seamounts has received international attention because of the slow recovery potential. But trawling impacts occur across the seafloor.
As nets pass across the it, they stir up sediment and cloud the surrounding water. This can smother filter-feeders such as shellfish, sponges and corals while making it harder for other species to feed and survive.
Between 1992–93 and 2017–18, government observers recorded trawl nets catching more than 4,200 marine mammals. Most did not survive.
The environmental impacts also extend beyond the species caught in nets. Bottom trawling also disrupts some of the ocean’s most important natural processes.
The seafloor is the planet’s largest carbon store, with millions of tonnes locked away beneath New Zealand waters. When trawlers disturb the seabed, some stored carbon may be released into the water column.
Researchers are still working to determine how much ultimately contributes to ocean acidification and climate change, but the role of seabed carbon is receiving increasing scientific attention.
The seafloor also underpins the health of marine ecosystems. Organic matter settling on the seabed provides food for countless organisms living on and within the sediment.
Burrowing creatures recycle nutrients and regulate carbon and nitrogen, supporting the productivity of surrounding waters. When trawlers scrape across the seabed, they disturb these communities and the ecosystem processes they sustain.
The country’s fishing industry argues bottom trawling is already tightly regulated, largely confined to established fishing grounds and increasingly uses technology designed to reduce its environmental footprint.
Industry group Seafood New Zealand also notes that about one third of New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone is closed to bottom trawling, while fishers typically operate over only a small proportion of it each year.
Even so, the cumulative footprint is substantial. Between 1990 and 2025, bottom trawling was carried out across nearly half a million square kilometres of New Zealand waters – an area almost twice the combined size of the North and South islands.
That suggests there is room to better balance food production with environmental protection.
One proposal advanced by marine scientists would protect 50% of New Zealand’s territorial seas and exclusive economic zone from bottom trawling. At present, only about 15% of waters at fishable depths (shallower than 1,600 metres) are closed to bottom trawling.
Other changes could also help. Environmental assessments of previously unfished areas before trawling begins, establishing trawl corridors that avoid the most ecologically important habitats, and creating wider buffer zones around marine protected areas could all reduce impacts while allowing commercial fishing to continue.
With the Fisheries Amendment Bill now on hold, New Zealand has an opportunity to step back from the immediate political debate and consider what balance it wants to strike between seafood production and the long-term health of its oceans.
Rather than being simply an environmental objective, protecting marine ecosystems is also an investment in the long-term resilience of the fisheries that depend on them. A fresh approach could give both marine ecosystems and the fishing industry a better chance to thrive into the future.
Simon Francis Thrush receives research funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and philanthropic organisations.