部分属实

评分: 6.5/10

Coalition
C0012

声明内容

“将儿童告上法庭,辩称环境部长在批准化石燃料项目时,无需考虑其决策通过气候变化对澳大利亚年轻人造成的伤害。”
原始来源: Matthew Davis

原始来源

✅ 事实核查

核心hé xīn hé xīn 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 需要xū yào xū yào 仔细zǐ xì zǐ xì 解读jiě dú jiě dú 。。 。
The core claim requires careful unpacking.
事实shì shí shì shí 经过jīng guò jīng guò 如下rú xià rú xià :: :
The factual sequence is as follows: **Initial Trial Victory (May 2021):** A group of eight children led by teenager Anj Sharma brought a class action against Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley, seeking a declaration that the minister owed a "duty of care" to protect young Australians from climate change harm [1].
** * ** * 初审chū shěn chū shěn 胜利shèng lì shèng lì (( ( 20212021 2021 年nián nián 55 5 月yuè yuè )) ) :: : ** * ** *
Justice Bromberg found in _Sharma v Minister for the Environment_ [2021] FCA 560 that the minister DID have a duty of care to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury to children when deciding whether to approve fossil fuel projects like the Vickery coal mine extension [2][3].
由yóu yóu 青少年qīng shào nián qīng shào nián AnjAnj Anj SharmaSharma Sharma 领导lǐng dǎo lǐng dǎo 的de de 八名bā míng bā míng 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 团体tuán tǐ tuán tǐ 对duì duì 联邦lián bāng lián bāng 环境huán jìng huán jìng 部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng SussanSussan Sussan LeyLey Ley 提起tí qǐ tí qǐ 集体jí tǐ jí tǐ 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng ,, , 寻求xún qiú xún qiú 宣布xuān bù xuān bù 部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng 负有fù yǒu fù yǒu "" " 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù "" " ,, , 保护bǎo hù bǎo hù 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 年轻人nián qīng rén nián qīng rén 免受miǎn shòu miǎn shòu 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 伤害shāng hài shāng hài [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
This was a world-first legal victory for climate duty of care. **Appeal Reversal (March 2022):** The Coalition government immediately appealed this decision.
BrombergBromberg Bromberg 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 在zài zài __ _ SharmaSharma Sharma vv v MinisterMinister Minister forfor for thethe the EnvironmentEnvironment Environment __ _ [[ [ 20212021 2021 ]] ] FCAFCA FCA 560560 560 案中àn zhōng àn zhōng 裁定cái dìng cái dìng ,, , 部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng 确实què shí què shí 有yǒu yǒu 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù ,, , 在zài zài 决定jué dìng jué dìng 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 批准pī zhǔn pī zhǔn 化石huà shí huà shí 燃料rán liào rán liào 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù (( ( 如rú rú VickeryVickery Vickery 煤矿méi kuàng méi kuàng 扩建kuò jiàn kuò jiàn )) ) 时shí shí ,, , 采取cǎi qǔ cǎi qǔ 合理hé lǐ hé lǐ 措施cuò shī cuò shī 避免bì miǎn bì miǎn 对duì duì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 造成zào chéng zào chéng 人身rén shēn rén shēn 伤害shāng hài shāng hài [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
On 15 March 2022, the Full Federal Court unanimously overturned Justice Bromberg's decision in _Minister for the Environment v Sharma_ [2022] FCAFC 35 [4].
这是zhè shì zhè shì 气候qì hòu qì hòu 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù 方面fāng miàn fāng miàn 的de de 世界shì jiè shì jiè 首例shǒu lì shǒu lì 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 胜利shèng lì shèng lì 。。 。
The three judges found that the minister does NOT have a duty of care to consider climate harm to children [5]. **Critical Framing Issue:** The claim's wording is misleading.
** * ** * 上诉shàng sù shàng sù 推翻tuī fān tuī fān (( ( 20222022 2022 年nián nián 33 3 月yuè yuè )) ) :: : ** * ** *
The Coalition government did NOT "take children to court to argue" this position initially.
CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 立即lì jí lì jí 对此duì cǐ duì cǐ 判决pàn jué pàn jué 提起tí qǐ tí qǐ 上诉shàng sù shàng sù 。。 。
Rather, the children brought the case against the government.
20222022 2022 年nián nián 33 3 月yuè yuè 1515 15 日rì rì ,, , 联邦lián bāng lián bāng 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 全体quán tǐ quán tǐ 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 一致yí zhì yí zhì 推翻tuī fān tuī fān 了le le BrombergBromberg Bromberg 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 的de de 判决pàn jué pàn jué ,, , __ _ MinisterMinister Minister forfor for thethe the EnvironmentEnvironment Environment vv v SharmaSharma Sharma __ _ [[ [ 20222022 2022 ]] ] FCAFCFCAFC FCAFC 3535 35 [[ [ 44 4 ]] ] 。。 。
The government then successfully DEFENDED itself in the appeal court by arguing no such duty exists [6]. ---
三位sān wèi sān wèi 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 裁定cái dìng cái dìng ,, , 部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu 义务yì wù yì wù 考虑kǎo lǜ kǎo lǜ 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 对duì duì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 造成zào chéng zào chéng 的de de 伤害shāng hài shāng hài [[ [ 55 5 ]] ] 。。 。
** * ** * 关键guān jiàn guān jiàn 表述biǎo shù biǎo shù 问题wèn tí wèn tí :: : ** * ** *
该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 的de de 措辞cuò cí cuò cí 具有jù yǒu jù yǒu 误导性wù dǎo xìng wù dǎo xìng 。。 。
CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 最初zuì chū zuì chū 并未bìng wèi bìng wèi "" " 将jiāng jiāng 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 告上gào shàng gào shàng 法庭fǎ tíng fǎ tíng 以yǐ yǐ 辩称biàn chēng biàn chēng "" " 这一zhè yī zhè yī 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng 。。 。
相反xiāng fǎn xiāng fǎn ,, , 是shì shì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 对duì duì 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 提起tí qǐ tí qǐ 了le le 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 。。 。
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 随后suí hòu suí hòu 在zài zài 二审èr shěn èr shěn 中zhōng zhōng 通过tōng guò tōng guò 辩称biàn chēng biàn chēng 不bù bù 存在cún zài cún zài 此类cǐ lèi cǐ lèi 义务yì wù yì wù 而ér ér 成功chéng gōng chéng gōng 为wèi wèi 自己zì jǐ zì jǐ 辩护biàn hù biàn hù [[ [ 66 6 ]] ] 。。 。
------ ---

缺失背景

** * ** * 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 遗漏yí lòu yí lòu 或huò huò 扭曲niǔ qū niǔ qū 的de de 内容nèi róng nèi róng :: : ** * ** *
**What the claim omits or distorts:** 1. **The children initiated litigation, not the government:** The claim suggests the Coalition proactively took children to court.
11 1 .. . ** * ** * 是shì shì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 发起fā qǐ fā qǐ 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng ,, , 而ér ér 非政府fēi zhèng fǔ fēi zhèng fǔ :: : ** * ** * 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 暗示àn shì àn shì CoalitionCoalition Coalition 主动zhǔ dòng zhǔ dòng 将jiāng jiāng 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 告上gào shàng gào shàng 法庭fǎ tíng fǎ tíng 。。 。
In reality, the children and their lawyers (Equity Generation Lawyers) initiated a class action in 2020 and won at trial [7].
实际上shí jì shàng shí jì shàng ,, , 是shì shì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 及其jí qí jí qí 律师lǜ shī lǜ shī (( ( EquityEquity Equity GenerationGeneration Generation LawyersLawyers Lawyers )) ) 于yú yú 20202020 2020 年nián nián 发起fā qǐ fā qǐ 集体jí tǐ jí tǐ 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 并bìng bìng 赢得yíng dé yíng dé 初审chū shěn chū shěn [[ [ 77 7 ]] ] 。。 。
The Coalition's role was reactive—defending against a case brought against them. 2. **The trial judge agreed with the children's argument:** Justice Bromberg, in the first instance, agreed with the children that a duty of care existed [2].
CoalitionCoalition Coalition 的de de 角色jué sè jué sè 是shì shì 被动bèi dòng bèi dòng 的de de —— — —— — 为wèi wèi 针对zhēn duì zhēn duì 他们tā men tā men 提起tí qǐ tí qǐ 的de de 案件àn jiàn àn jiàn 进行jìn xíng jìn xíng 辩护biàn hù biàn hù 。。 。
The government only had to appeal to reverse this. 3. **The appeal was on narrow legal grounds, not climate denial:** The Full Court judges acknowledged climate change risks were real and "not in dispute." Chief Justice Allsop stated: "The threat of climate change and global warming was and is not in dispute between the parties in this litigation" [8].
22 2 .. . ** * ** * 初审chū shěn chū shěn 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 同意tóng yì tóng yì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 的de de 论点lùn diǎn lùn diǎn :: : ** * ** * BrombergBromberg Bromberg 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 在zài zài 一审yī shěn yī shěn 中zhōng zhōng 同意tóng yì tóng yì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 的de de 观点guān diǎn guān diǎn ,, , 认为rèn wéi rèn wéi 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù 存在cún zài cún zài [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
The judges rejected the duty of care on legal coherence grounds (the EPBC Act doesn't address human safety broadly), not on whether climate change is real. 4. **The judges left openings for future climate claims:** The Full Court's decision does not prevent other forms of climate litigation, particularly against private companies or on different legal grounds.
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 不得不bù dé bù bù dé bù 提起tí qǐ tí qǐ 上诉shàng sù shàng sù 来lái lái 推翻tuī fān tuī fān 这zhè zhè 一点yì diǎn yì diǎn 。。 。
Justice Beach noted it was a matter for the High Court or Parliament to evolve the law [9]. 5. **The EPBC Act genuinely lacks climate provisions:** Laura Schuijers from the University of Sydney (writing in The Conversation) confirmed that the EPBC Act is an impact assessment law that doesn't directly address climate change or human safety systematically [10].
33 3 .. . ** * ** * 上诉shàng sù shàng sù 基于jī yú jī yú 狭义xiá yì xiá yì 的de de 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu ,, , 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 否认fǒu rèn fǒu rèn 气候qì hòu qì hòu 科学kē xué kē xué :: : ** * ** * 全体quán tǐ quán tǐ 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 承认chéng rèn chéng rèn 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 风险fēng xiǎn fēng xiǎn 是shì shì 真实zhēn shí zhēn shí 存在cún zài cún zài 的de de ,, , "" " 不bù bù 存在cún zài cún zài 争议zhēng yì zhēng yì "" " 。。 。
This isn't a Coalition invention—it's a legislative design issue that precedes the Coalition's time in office. ---
首席shǒu xí shǒu xí 大法官dà fǎ guān dà fǎ guān AllsopAllsop Allsop 表示biǎo shì biǎo shì :: : "" " 在zài zài 本běn běn 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 中zhōng zhōng ,, , 当事dāng shì dāng shì 各方gè fāng gè fāng 之间zhī jiān zhī jiān 对duì duì 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 和hé hé 全球quán qiú quán qiú 变暖biàn nuǎn biàn nuǎn 的de de 威胁wēi xié wēi xié 过去guò qù guò qù 和hé hé 现在xiàn zài xiàn zài 都dōu dōu 不bù bù 存在cún zài cún zài 争议zhēng yì zhēng yì "" " [[ [ 88 8 ]] ] 。。 。
法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 们men men 基于jī yú jī yú 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 一致性yí zhì xìng yí zhì xìng 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu (( ( 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 未wèi wèi 广泛guǎng fàn guǎng fàn 涉及shè jí shè jí 人类rén lèi rén lèi 安全ān quán ān quán )) ) 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 真实zhēn shí zhēn shí ,, , 驳回bó huí bó huí 了le le 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù 。。 。
44 4 .. . ** * ** * 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 为wèi wèi 未来wèi lái wèi lái 气候qì hòu qì hòu 索赔suǒ péi suǒ péi 留下liú xià liú xià 空间kōng jiān kōng jiān :: : ** * ** * 联邦lián bāng lián bāng 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 的de de 裁决cái jué cái jué 并bìng bìng 不bù bù 阻止zǔ zhǐ zǔ zhǐ 其他qí tā qí tā 形式xíng shì xíng shì 的de de 气候qì hòu qì hòu 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng ,, , 特别tè bié tè bié 是shì shì 针对zhēn duì zhēn duì 私营sī yíng sī yíng 公司gōng sī gōng sī 或huò huò 基于jī yú jī yú 不同bù tóng bù tóng 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu 的de de 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 。。 。
BeachBeach Beach 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 指出zhǐ chū zhǐ chū ,, , 这zhè zhè 是shì shì 应yīng yīng 由yóu yóu 高等法院gāo děng fǎ yuàn gāo děng fǎ yuàn 或huò huò 议会yì huì yì huì 来lái lái 发展fā zhǎn fā zhǎn 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 的de de 问题wèn tí wèn tí [[ [ 99 9 ]] ] 。。 。
55 5 .. . ** * ** * 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 确实què shí què shí 缺乏quē fá quē fá 气候qì hòu qì hòu 条款tiáo kuǎn tiáo kuǎn :: : ** * ** * 悉尼大学xī ní dà xué xī ní dà xué 的de de LauraLaura Laura SchuijersSchuijers Schuijers 在zài zài 《《 《 TheThe The ConversationConversation Conversation 》》 》 发表fā biǎo fā biǎo 的de de 文章wén zhāng wén zhāng 证实zhèng shí zhèng shí ,, , 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 是shì shì 一项yī xiàng yī xiàng 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng 评估píng gū píng gū 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ ,, , 并未bìng wèi bìng wèi 系统性xì tǒng xìng xì tǒng xìng 地dì dì 直接zhí jiē zhí jiē 涉及shè jí shè jí 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 或huò huò 人类rén lèi rén lèi 安全ān quán ān quán [[ [ 1010 10 ]] ] 。。 。
这zhè zhè 不是bú shì bú shì CoalitionCoalition Coalition 的de de 发明fā míng fā míng —— — —— — 这是zhè shì zhè shì 早于zǎo yú zǎo yú CoalitionCoalition Coalition 执政zhí zhèng zhí zhèng 时期shí qī shí qī 的de de 立法lì fǎ lì fǎ 设计shè jì shè jì 问题wèn tí wèn tí 。。 。
------ ---

来源可信度评估

** * ** * 提供tí gōng tí gōng 的de de 原始yuán shǐ yuán shǐ 来源lái yuán lái yuán :: : ** * ** *
**Original sources provided:** 1. **ABC News** - Australia's peak public broadcaster.
11 1 .. . ** * ** * ABCABC ABC NewsNews News ** * ** * -- - 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 顶级dǐng jí dǐng jí 公共广播gōng gòng guǎng bō gōng gòng guǎng bō 公司gōng sī gōng sī 。。 。
Mainstream, reputable news organization.
主流zhǔ liú zhǔ liú 、、 、 声誉shēng yù shēng yù 良好liáng hǎo liáng hǎo 的de de 新闻xīn wén xīn wén 机构jī gòu jī gòu 。。 。
The article was balanced, reporting both the children's disappointment and the government's statement that "common sense has prevailed" [11]. 2. **The Conversation** - Academic publication (University of Sydney affiliation; author Laura Schuijers is a law academic).
文章wén zhāng wén zhāng 平衡píng héng píng héng ,, , 报道bào dào bào dào 了le le 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 的de de 失望shī wàng shī wàng 和hé hé 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 声明shēng míng shēng míng "" " 常识cháng shí cháng shí 占zhàn zhàn 了le le 上风shàng fēng shàng fēng "" " [[ [ 1111 11 ]] ] 。。 。
Leans toward criticism of government policy, but this particular article is authored by an expert legal scholar and provides sophisticated legal analysis rather than polemical advocacy [12].
22 2 .. . ** * ** * TheThe The ConversationConversation Conversation ** * ** * -- - 学术xué shù xué shù 出版物chū bǎn wù chū bǎn wù (( ( 隶属lì shǔ lì shǔ 悉尼大学xī ní dà xué xī ní dà xué ;; ; 作者zuò zhě zuò zhě LauraLaura Laura SchuijersSchuijers Schuijers 是shì shì 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 学者xué zhě xué zhě )) ) 。。 。
Both sources are credible and mainstream.
倾向qīng xiàng qīng xiàng 于yú yú 批评pī píng pī píng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè ,, , 但dàn dàn 这篇zhè piān zhè piān 特定tè dìng tè dìng 文章wén zhāng wén zhāng 由yóu yóu 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 专家zhuān jiā zhuān jiā 撰写zhuàn xiě zhuàn xiě ,, , 提供tí gōng tí gōng 复杂fù zá fù zá 的de de 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 分析fēn xī fēn xī 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 论战lùn zhàn lùn zhàn 性xìng xìng 宣传xuān chuán xuān chuán [[ [ 1212 12 ]] ] 。。 。
However, The Conversation article contains more critical framing, characterizing the outcome as "alarming" without full exploration of the legal reasoning, though the author's analysis of EPBC Act limitations is substantive and fair. ---
两个liǎng gè liǎng gè 来源lái yuán lái yuán 都dōu dōu 是shì shì 可信kě xìn kě xìn 且qiě qiě 主流zhǔ liú zhǔ liú 的de de 。。 。
然而rán ér rán ér ,, , 《《 《 TheThe The ConversationConversation Conversation 》》 》 的de de 文章wén zhāng wén zhāng 包含bāo hán bāo hán 更gèng gèng 多duō duō 批评性pī píng xìng pī píng xìng 表述biǎo shù biǎo shù ,, , 将jiāng jiāng 结果jié guǒ jié guǒ 描述miáo shù miáo shù 为wèi wèi "" " 令人担忧lìng rén dān yōu lìng rén dān yōu "" " ,, , 但dàn dàn 未wèi wèi 充分chōng fèn chōng fèn 探讨tàn tǎo tàn tǎo 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 推理tuī lǐ tuī lǐ ,, , 尽管jǐn guǎn jǐn guǎn 作者zuò zhě zuò zhě 对duì duì 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 局限性jú xiàn xìng jú xiàn xìng 的de de 分析fēn xī fēn xī 是shì shì 实质性shí zhì xìng shí zhì xìng 的de de 且qiě qiě 公正gōng zhèng gōng zhèng 的de de 。。 。
------ ---
⚖️

工党对比

** * ** * LaborLabor Labor 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 持有chí yǒu chí yǒu 类似lèi sì lèi sì 的de de 气候qì hòu qì hòu 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng ?? ?
**Did Labor have comparable climate duty of care positions?** Search conducted: "Labor government climate duty of care fossil fuel approvals EPBC Act" **Findings:** 1. **Labor's pre-2022 record:** During the Morrison Coalition government period (when this case occurred), Labor was in opposition.
** * ** *
Labor politicians publicly supported the children's case and criticized the government's appeal [13]. 2. **Albanese Labor government (2022 onwards):** After Labor won the 2022 election, the new government took a different approach by reforming the EPBC Act itself, rather than relying on common-law duties.
搜索sōu suǒ sōu suǒ 内容nèi róng nèi róng :: : "" " LaborLabor Labor governmentgovernment government climateclimate climate dutyduty duty ofof of carecare care fossilfossil fossil fuelfuel fuel approvalsapprovals approvals EPBCEPBC EPBC ActAct Act "" "
The Labor government proposed introducing mandatory climate considerations into the EPBC Act through legislative amendment [14]. 3. **No direct equivalent:** There is no Labor-government-era precedent of the same situation because: - Labor was not in government when this specific case occurred (Morrison Coalition, 2020-2022) - This case tested whether common law duty of care could fill gaps in the EPBC Act - Labor's approach has been legislative reform rather than relying on court-created duties **Key comparison point:** Rather than comparing Labor's past actions, the more relevant comparison is **how Labor responded when it returned to power**.
** * ** * 发现fā xiàn fā xiàn :: : ** * ** *
The Albanese Labor government has pursued EPBC Act reform with explicit climate considerations, suggesting they might not have appealed the case as aggressively [15]. ---
11 1 .. . ** * ** * LaborLabor Labor 20222022 2022 年前nián qián nián qián 的de de 记录jì lù jì lù :: : ** * ** * 在zài zài 该案gāi àn gāi àn 发生fā shēng fā shēng 的de de MorrisonMorrison Morrison CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 时期shí qī shí qī (( ( 20202020 2020 -- - 20222022 2022 年nián nián )) ) ,, , LaborLabor Labor 处于chǔ yú chǔ yú 反对党fǎn duì dǎng fǎn duì dǎng 地位dì wèi dì wèi 。。 。
LaborLabor Labor 政客zhèng kè zhèng kè 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 支持zhī chí zhī chí 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 的de de 案件àn jiàn àn jiàn ,, , 并bìng bìng 批评pī píng pī píng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 上诉shàng sù shàng sù [[ [ 1313 13 ]] ] 。。 。
22 2 .. . ** * ** * AlbaneseAlbanese Albanese LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ (( ( 20222022 2022 年nián nián 后hòu hòu )) ) :: : ** * ** * LaborLabor Labor 赢得yíng dé yíng dé 20222022 2022 年nián nián 大选dà xuǎn dà xuǎn 后hòu hòu ,, , 新政府xīn zhèng fǔ xīn zhèng fǔ 采取cǎi qǔ cǎi qǔ 了le le 不同bù tóng bù tóng 的de de 方法fāng fǎ fāng fǎ ,, , 通过tōng guò tōng guò 立法lì fǎ lì fǎ 改革gǎi gé gǎi gé 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 本身běn shēn běn shēn ,, , 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 依赖yī lài yī lài 普通法pǔ tōng fǎ pǔ tōng fǎ 义务yì wù yì wù 。。 。
LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 提议tí yì tí yì 通过tōng guò tōng guò 立法lì fǎ lì fǎ 修正案xiū zhèng àn xiū zhèng àn ,, , 将jiāng jiāng 强制性qiáng zhì xìng qiáng zhì xìng 气候qì hòu qì hòu 考量kǎo liáng kǎo liáng 引入yǐn rù yǐn rù 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 [[ [ 1414 14 ]] ] 。。 。
33 3 .. . ** * ** * 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu 直接zhí jiē zhí jiē 等同děng tóng děng tóng 案例àn lì àn lì :: : ** * ** * 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 时期shí qī shí qī 的de de 先例xiān lì xiān lì ,, , 因为yīn wèi yīn wèi :: :
-- - LaborLabor Labor 在zài zài 该gāi gāi 特定tè dìng tè dìng 案件àn jiàn àn jiàn 发生fā shēng fā shēng 时未shí wèi shí wèi 执政zhí zhèng zhí zhèng (( ( MorrisonMorrison Morrison CoalitionCoalition Coalition ,, , 20202020 2020 -- - 20222022 2022 年nián nián )) )
-- - 本案běn àn běn àn 测试cè shì cè shì 的de de 是shì shì 普通法pǔ tōng fǎ pǔ tōng fǎ 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù 能否néng fǒu néng fǒu 填补tián bǔ tián bǔ 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 的de de 空白kòng bái kòng bái
-- - LaborLabor Labor 的de de 方法fāng fǎ fāng fǎ 是shì shì 立法lì fǎ lì fǎ 改革gǎi gé gǎi gé ,, , 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 依赖yī lài yī lài 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 创造chuàng zào chuàng zào 的de de 义务yì wù yì wù
** * ** * 关键guān jiàn guān jiàn 比较bǐ jiào bǐ jiào 点diǎn diǎn :: : ** * ** * 与其yǔ qí yǔ qí 比较bǐ jiào bǐ jiào LaborLabor Labor 过去guò qù guò qù 的de de 行为xíng wéi xíng wéi ,, , 更gèng gèng 相关xiāng guān xiāng guān 的de de 比较bǐ jiào bǐ jiào 是shì shì ** * ** * LaborLabor Labor 重新chóng xīn chóng xīn 掌权zhǎng quán zhǎng quán 后hòu hòu 的de de 回应huí yìng huí yìng 方式fāng shì fāng shì ** * ** * 。。 。
AlbaneseAlbanese Albanese LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 一直yì zhí yì zhí 推动tuī dòng tuī dòng 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 改革gǎi gé gǎi gé ,, , 明确míng què míng què 纳入nà rù nà rù 气候qì hòu qì hòu 考量kǎo liáng kǎo liáng ,, , 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 他们tā men tā men 可能kě néng kě néng 不会bú huì bú huì 像xiàng xiàng CoalitionCoalition Coalition 那样nà yàng nà yàng 积极jī jí jī jí 上诉shàng sù shàng sù 此案cǐ àn cǐ àn [[ [ 1515 15 ]] ] 。。 。
------ ---
🌐

平衡视角

** * ** * 对duì duì 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng 的de de 批评pī píng pī píng :: : ** * ** *
**Criticisms of the government's position:** The Coalition government's appeal of Justice Bromberg's decision was substantively disappointing to climate advocates [16].
CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 对duì duì BrombergBromberg Bromberg 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 判决pàn jué pàn jué 的de de 上诉shàng sù shàng sù ,, , 实质shí zhì shí zhì 上令shàng lìng shàng lìng 气候qì hòu qì hòu 倡导者chàng dǎo zhě chàng dǎo zhě 失望shī wàng shī wàng [[ [ 1616 16 ]] ] 。。 。
Bromberg J found compelling evidence that: - Climate change poses catastrophic risks to children - Approving the coal mine would materially contribute to these risks - Judges have established novel duties of care in other contexts The government's appeal meant: (1) The children lost their case at the appellate level; (2) The brief period when ministerial duty of care existed (May-March 2021-2022) was eliminated; (3) The government continued approving coal mines using the formula that "other mines would replace them anyway" [17]. **Legitimate government/legal reasoning:** However, the Full Court's decision reflects genuine legal complexities: 1. **Statutory interpretation issue:** The EPBC Act was designed as an impact assessment mechanism for specific listed environmental matters (threatened species, water resources), not as a comprehensive human safety or climate law [18].
BrombergBromberg Bromberg 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 发现fā xiàn fā xiàn 有yǒu yǒu 令人信服lìng rén xìn fú lìng rén xìn fú 的de de 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng :: :
Implying a broad duty of care conflicted with the statutory scheme. 2. **Indeterminacy problem:** The judges noted practical difficulties: Climate change harms are diffuse, causation is complex, and the class of affected people is potentially unlimited (including future generations not yet born) [19].
-- - 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 对duì duì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 构成gòu chéng gòu chéng 灾难性zāi nàn xìng zāi nàn xìng 风险fēng xiǎn fēng xiǎn
This creates novel legal problems that weren't anticipated in existing tort law. 3. **Judicial role limitation:** Chief Justice Allsop noted that requiring ministers to refuse coal approvals would require them to make "core policy decisions" unsuitable for judicial determination [20].
-- - 批准pī zhǔn pī zhǔn 煤矿méi kuàng méi kuàng 将jiāng jiāng 实质性shí zhì xìng shí zhì xìng 加剧jiā jù jiā jù 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 风险fēng xiǎn fēng xiǎn
This isn't a climate-denial position; it's an argument about whether courts should force policy changes through private litigation. 4. **Science was not disputed:** Critically, all three Full Court judges accepted the climate science.
-- - 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 在zài zài 其他qí tā qí tā 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 下xià xià 已yǐ yǐ 确立què lì què lì 了le le 新颖xīn yǐng xīn yǐng 的de de 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù
They rejected the duty, not the evidence [21].
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 上诉shàng sù shàng sù 意味着yì wèi zhe yì wèi zhe :: : (( ( 11 1 )) ) 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 在zài zài 二审èr shěn èr shěn 中zhōng zhōng 败诉bài sù bài sù ;; ; (( ( 22 2 )) ) 部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù 存在cún zài cún zài 的de de 短暂duǎn zàn duǎn zàn 时期shí qī shí qī (( ( 20212021 2021 年nián nián 55 5 月yuè yuè 至zhì zhì 20222022 2022 年nián nián 33 3 月yuè yuè )) ) 被bèi bèi 消除xiāo chú xiāo chú ;; ; (( ( 33 3 )) ) 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 继续jì xù jì xù 使用shǐ yòng shǐ yòng "" " 其他qí tā qí tā 煤矿méi kuàng méi kuàng 无论如何wú lùn rú hé wú lùn rú hé 都dōu dōu 会huì huì 替代tì dài tì dài 它们tā men tā men "" " 的de de 公式gōng shì gōng shì 批准pī zhǔn pī zhǔn 煤矿méi kuàng méi kuàng [[ [ 1717 17 ]] ] 。。 。
This distinguishes their position from climate denial. **Policy context:** The real problem, as identified by the independent EPBC Act review and The Conversation's Laura Schuijers, is that the EPBC Act itself is inadequate for climate considerations [22].
** * ** * 合理hé lǐ hé lǐ 的de de 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ // / 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 推理tuī lǐ tuī lǐ :: : ** * ** *
The Coalition government faced this challenge but didn't update the legislation.
然而rán ér rán ér ,, , 联邦lián bāng lián bāng 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 的de de 判决pàn jué pàn jué 反映fǎn yìng fǎn yìng 了le le 真正zhēn zhèng zhēn zhèng 的de de 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 复杂性fù zá xìng fù zá xìng :: :
The Albanese Labor government is pursuing legislative reform instead, which may prove more durable than litigation [23]. **Key context:** This is not unique to the Coalition.
11 1 .. . ** * ** * 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 解释jiě shì jiě shì 问题wèn tí wèn tí :: : ** * ** * 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 被bèi bèi 设计shè jì shè jì 为wèi wèi 针对zhēn duì zhēn duì 特定tè dìng tè dìng 列出liè chū liè chū 的de de 环境huán jìng huán jìng 事项shì xiàng shì xiàng (( ( 濒危bīn wēi bīn wēi 物种wù zhǒng wù zhǒng 、、 、 水资源shuǐ zī yuán shuǐ zī yuán )) ) 的de de 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng 评估píng gū píng gū 机制jī zhì jī zhì ,, , 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 作为zuò wéi zuò wéi 全面quán miàn quán miàn 的de de 人类rén lèi rén lèi 安全ān quán ān quán 或huò huò 气候qì hòu qì hòu 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ [[ [ 1818 18 ]] ] 。。 。
The EPBC Act's inadequacy on climate is a systemic Australian legislative problem, not a Coalition invention.
暗示àn shì àn shì 广泛guǎng fàn guǎng fàn 的de de 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù 与yǔ yǔ 法规fǎ guī fǎ guī 体系tǐ xì tǐ xì 相冲突xiāng chōng tū xiāng chōng tū 。。 。
Labor governments since 2010 also operated under this framework, though they approved fewer coal projects overall. ---
22 2 .. . ** * ** * 不确定性bù què dìng xìng bù què dìng xìng 问题wèn tí wèn tí :: : ** * ** * 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 们men men 指出zhǐ chū zhǐ chū 了le le 实际困难shí jì kùn nán shí jì kùn nán :: : 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 伤害shāng hài shāng hài 是shì shì 弥散mí sàn mí sàn 的de de ,, , 因果关系yīn guǒ guān xì yīn guǒ guān xì 复杂fù zá fù zá ,, , 受shòu shòu 影响yǐng xiǎng yǐng xiǎng 的de de 人群rén qún rén qún 类别lèi bié lèi bié 可能kě néng kě néng 是shì shì 无限wú xiàn wú xiàn 的de de (( ( 包括bāo kuò bāo kuò 尚未shàng wèi shàng wèi 出生chū shēng chū shēng 的de de 后代hòu dài hòu dài )) ) [[ [ 1919 19 ]] ] 。。 。
这zhè zhè 在zài zài 现有xiàn yǒu xiàn yǒu 侵权qīn quán qīn quán 法中fǎ zhōng fǎ zhōng 产生chǎn shēng chǎn shēng 了le le 未曾wèi céng wèi céng 预料yù liào yù liào 的de de 新颖xīn yǐng xīn yǐng 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 问题wèn tí wèn tí 。。 。
33 3 .. . ** * ** * 司法sī fǎ sī fǎ 角色jué sè jué sè 限制xiàn zhì xiàn zhì :: : ** * ** * 首席shǒu xí shǒu xí 大法官dà fǎ guān dà fǎ guān AllsopAllsop Allsop 指出zhǐ chū zhǐ chū ,, , 要求yāo qiú yāo qiú 部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng 拒绝jù jué jù jué 煤炭méi tàn méi tàn 批准pī zhǔn pī zhǔn 将jiāng jiāng 要求yāo qiú yāo qiú 他们tā men tā men 做出zuò chū zuò chū "" " 不bù bù 适合shì hé shì hé 司法sī fǎ sī fǎ 确定què dìng què dìng 的de de 核心hé xīn hé xīn 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 决策jué cè jué cè "" " [[ [ 2020 20 ]] ] 。。 。
这zhè zhè 不是bú shì bú shì 否认fǒu rèn fǒu rèn 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 的de de 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng ;; ; 而是ér shì ér shì 关于guān yú guān yú 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 应yīng yīng 通过tōng guò tōng guò 私人sī rén sī rén 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 强制qiáng zhì qiáng zhì 改变gǎi biàn gǎi biàn 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 的de de 论点lùn diǎn lùn diǎn 。。 。
44 4 .. . ** * ** * 科学kē xué kē xué 未wèi wèi 被bèi bèi 质疑zhì yí zhì yí :: : ** * ** * 关键guān jiàn guān jiàn 是shì shì ,, , 三位sān wèi sān wèi 联邦lián bāng lián bāng 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 都dōu dōu 接受jiē shòu jiē shòu 了le le 气候qì hòu qì hòu 科学kē xué kē xué 。。 。
他们tā men tā men 驳回bó huí bó huí 了le le 注意zhù yì zhù yì 义务yì wù yì wù ,, , 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù [[ [ 2121 21 ]] ] 。。 。
这使zhè shǐ zhè shǐ 他们tā men tā men 的de de 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng 有别于yǒu bié yú yǒu bié yú 否认fǒu rèn fǒu rèn 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 。。 。
** * ** * 政策zhèng cè zhèng cè 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng :: : ** * ** *
真正zhēn zhèng zhēn zhèng 的de de 问题wèn tí wèn tí ,, , 正如zhèng rú zhèng rú 独立dú lì dú lì 的de de 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 审查shěn chá shěn chá 和hé hé 《《 《 TheThe The ConversationConversation Conversation 》》 》 的de de LauraLaura Laura SchuijersSchuijers Schuijers 所suǒ suǒ 指出zhǐ chū zhǐ chū 的de de ,, , 是shì shì 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 本身běn shēn běn shēn 在zài zài 气候qì hòu qì hòu 考量kǎo liáng kǎo liáng 方面fāng miàn fāng miàn 不bù bù 充分chōng fèn chōng fèn [[ [ 2222 22 ]] ] 。。 。
CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 面临miàn lín miàn lín 这一zhè yī zhè yī 挑战tiǎo zhàn tiǎo zhàn ,, , 但dàn dàn 未wèi wèi 更新gēng xīn gēng xīn 立法lì fǎ lì fǎ 。。 。
AlbaneseAlbanese Albanese LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 正在zhèng zài zhèng zài 寻求xún qiú xún qiú 立法lì fǎ lì fǎ 改革gǎi gé gǎi gé ,, , 这zhè zhè 可能kě néng kě néng 比bǐ bǐ 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 更具gèng jù gèng jù 持久性chí jiǔ xìng chí jiǔ xìng [[ [ 2323 23 ]] ] 。。 。
** * ** * 关键guān jiàn guān jiàn 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng :: : ** * ** * 这zhè zhè 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi CoalitionCoalition Coalition 独有dú yǒu dú yǒu 。。 。
《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 在zài zài 气候qì hòu qì hòu 方面fāng miàn fāng miàn 的de de 不足bù zú bù zú 是shì shì 一个yí gè yí gè 系统性xì tǒng xìng xì tǒng xìng 的de de 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 立法lì fǎ lì fǎ 问题wèn tí wèn tí ,, , 而ér ér 非fēi fēi CoalitionCoalition Coalition 的de de 发明fā míng fā míng 。。 。
自zì zì 20102010 2010 年nián nián 以来yǐ lái yǐ lái 的de de LaborLabor Labor 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 也yě yě 在zài zài 这个zhè ge zhè ge 框架kuāng jià kuāng jià 下xià xià 运作yùn zuò yùn zuò ,, , 尽管jǐn guǎn jǐn guǎn 他们tā men tā men 批准pī zhǔn pī zhǔn 的de de 煤炭méi tàn méi tàn 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù 总体zǒng tǐ zǒng tǐ 较jiào jiào 少shǎo shǎo 。。 。
------ ---

部分属实

6.5

/ 10

** * ** * 理由lǐ yóu lǐ yóu :: : ** * ** *
**Justification:** The factual core is accurate: The government successfully argued in court that the environment minister is not legally required to consider climate change harm to children when approving fossil fuel projects.
事实shì shí shì shí 核心hé xīn hé xīn 是shì shì 准确zhǔn què zhǔn què 的de de :: : 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 成功chéng gōng chéng gōng 地dì dì 在zài zài 法庭fǎ tíng fǎ tíng 上shàng shàng 辩称biàn chēng biàn chēng ,, , 环境huán jìng huán jìng 部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng 在zài zài 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 上shàng shàng 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu 义务yì wù yì wù 在zài zài 批准pī zhǔn pī zhǔn 化石huà shí huà shí 燃料rán liào rán liào 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù 时shí shí 考虑kǎo lǜ kǎo lǜ 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 对duì duì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 造成zào chéng zào chéng 的de de 伤害shāng hài shāng hài 。。 。
The Full Court agreed with this position [24].
联邦lián bāng lián bāng 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 同意tóng yì tóng yì 了le le 这zhè zhè 一yī yī 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng [[ [ 2424 24 ]] ] 。。 。
However, the claim is misleading in its framing in three ways: 1. **Direction of litigation:** The claim implies the Coalition initiated legal action against children ("Took children to court").
然而rán ér rán ér ,, , 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 在zài zài 表述biǎo shù biǎo shù 上shàng shàng 具有jù yǒu jù yǒu 误导性wù dǎo xìng wù dǎo xìng ,, , 体现tǐ xiàn tǐ xiàn 在zài zài 三个sān gè sān gè 方面fāng miàn fāng miàn :: :
In reality, the children brought a class action against the government, and the government successfully defended itself on appeal [25]. 2. **Omission of trial victory:** The claim doesn't acknowledge that Justice Bromberg initially agreed with the children—the government only succeeded by appealing [26]. 3. **Implication of climate denial:** The phrasing suggests the government argued climate harm doesn't matter.
11 1 .. . ** * ** * 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 方向fāng xiàng fāng xiàng :: : ** * ** * 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 暗示àn shì àn shì CoalitionCoalition Coalition 主动zhǔ dòng zhǔ dòng 对duì duì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 提起tí qǐ tí qǐ 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng (( ( "" " 将jiāng jiāng 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 告上gào shàng gào shàng 法庭fǎ tíng fǎ tíng "" " )) ) 。。 。
The government's actual position was narrower: that the EPBC Act doesn't create a statutory duty to consider human safety broadly, and that such determinations are matters for Parliament, not courts [27]. **The claim would be more accurately stated:** "The Coalition government successfully appealed against a court ruling that would have required the environment minister to consider climate change harm to children when approving fossil fuel projects, with the Full Court finding no such duty existed under the EPBC Act." ---
实际上shí jì shàng shí jì shàng ,, , 是shì shì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 对duì duì 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 提起tí qǐ tí qǐ 了le le 集体jí tǐ jí tǐ 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng ,, , 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 在zài zài 二审èr shěn èr shěn 中zhōng zhōng 成功chéng gōng chéng gōng 为wèi wèi 自己zì jǐ zì jǐ 辩护biàn hù biàn hù [[ [ 2525 25 ]] ] 。。 。
22 2 .. . ** * ** * 遗漏yí lòu yí lòu 初审chū shěn chū shěn 胜利shèng lì shèng lì :: : ** * ** * 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 未wèi wèi 承认chéng rèn chéng rèn BrombergBromberg Bromberg 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 最初zuì chū zuì chū 同意tóng yì tóng yì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 的de de 观点guān diǎn guān diǎn —— — —— — 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 只有zhǐ yǒu zhǐ yǒu 通过tōng guò tōng guò 上诉shàng sù shàng sù 才cái cái 成功chéng gōng chéng gōng [[ [ 2626 26 ]] ] 。。 。
33 3 .. . ** * ** * 暗示àn shì àn shì 否认fǒu rèn fǒu rèn 气候qì hòu qì hòu 科学kē xué kē xué :: : ** * ** * 措辞cuò cí cuò cí 暗示àn shì àn shì 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 辩称biàn chēng biàn chēng 气候qì hòu qì hòu 伤害shāng hài shāng hài 无关紧要wú guān jǐn yào wú guān jǐn yào 。。 。
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 实际shí jì shí jì 立场lì chǎng lì chǎng 更gèng gèng 狭隘xiá ài xiá ài :: : 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 并未bìng wèi bìng wèi 创设chuàng shè chuàng shè 广泛guǎng fàn guǎng fàn 考虑kǎo lǜ kǎo lǜ 人类rén lèi rén lèi 安全ān quán ān quán 的de de 法定fǎ dìng fǎ dìng 义务yì wù yì wù ,, , 此类cǐ lèi cǐ lèi 决定jué dìng jué dìng 应由yīng yóu yīng yóu 议会yì huì yì huì 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 做出zuò chū zuò chū [[ [ 2727 27 ]] ] 。。 。
** * ** * 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 更gèng gèng 准确zhǔn què zhǔn què 的de de 表述biǎo shù biǎo shù 应为yīng wèi yīng wèi :: : ** * ** * "" " CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 成功chéng gōng chéng gōng 上诉shàng sù shàng sù ,, , 推翻tuī fān tuī fān 了le le 要求yāo qiú yāo qiú 环境huán jìng huán jìng 部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng 在zài zài 批准pī zhǔn pī zhǔn 化石huà shí huà shí 燃料rán liào rán liào 项目xiàng mù xiàng mù 时shí shí 考虑kǎo lǜ kǎo lǜ 气候变化qì hòu biàn huà qì hòu biàn huà 对duì duì 儿童ér tóng ér tóng 伤害shāng hài shāng hài 的de de 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 裁决cái jué cái jué ,, , 联邦lián bāng lián bāng 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 裁定cái dìng cái dìng 《《 《 EPBCEPBC EPBC 法案fǎ àn fǎ àn 》》 》 下xià xià 不bù bù 存在cún zài cún zài 此类cǐ lèi cǐ lèi 义务yì wù yì wù 。。 。
"" "
------ ---

📚 来源与引用 (13)

  1. 1
    judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

    judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

    Judgments Fedcourt Gov

  2. 2
    judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

    judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

    Judgments Fedcourt Gov

  3. 3
    envlaw.com.au

    envlaw.com.au

    Envlaw Com
  4. 4
    judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

    judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

    Judgments Fedcourt Gov

  5. 5
    abc.net.au

    abc.net.au

    Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley successfully argues she does not have a duty of care to protect young people from climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects.

    Abc Net
  6. 6
    abc.net.au

    abc.net.au

    A class action launched on behalf of young people everywhere seeks an injunction to stop the Australian Government approving an extension to Whitehaven's Vickery coal mine, arguing it will harm young people by exacerbating climate change.

    Abc Net
  7. 7
    gtlaw.com.au

    gtlaw.com.au

    Gtlaw Com

  8. 8
    theconversation.com

    theconversation.com

    The Federal Court has essentially said it can’t act. But the decision certainly doesn’t mean the government can’t act. In fact, that’s exactly who the judges indicated must.

    The Conversation
  9. 9
    sydney.edu.au

    sydney.edu.au

    Sydney Edu

  10. 10
    dcceew.gov.au

    dcceew.gov.au

    Dcceew Gov

  11. 11
    epbcactreview.environment.gov.au

    epbcactreview.environment.gov.au

    Epbcactreview Environment Gov

  12. 12
    epbcnotices.environment.gov.au

    epbcnotices.environment.gov.au

    Epbcnotices Environment Gov

  13. 13
    epbcactreview.environment.gov.au

    epbcactreview.environment.gov.au

    Epbcactreview Environment Gov

评分方法

1-3: 不实

事实错误或恶意捏造。

4-6: 部分属实

有一定真实性,但缺乏背景或有所偏颇。

7-9: 基本属实

仅有微小的技术性或措辞问题。

10: 准确

完全经过验证且客观公正。

方法论: 评分通过交叉参照政府官方记录、独立事实核查机构和原始文件确定。