Poelina et al. v Australia (the ‘Hard Truths Case’)

On June 23, 2026, ten Australians, supported by Environmental Justice Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre, and Earthjustice, filed a communication before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) challenging Australia’s continued production and export of coal and gas. The complainants include First Nations leaders, people with disability, young people, bushfire survivors, and people impacted by floods, extreme heat, algal blooms, and sea water rise. The complainants present expert evidence as part of their claim to demonstrate that Australia’s current and projected fossil fuel exports are not even close to an emissions pathway that is consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and that Australia has no deliberate policy to make the significant export reductions required to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. As such, the complainants argue that Australia’s ongoing support for fossil fuel production contributes substantially to climate change and violates rights protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the right to life (Article 6), the right to privacy, family, and home life (Article 17), and the rights of minorities to enjoy their culture (Article 27). The complaint further alleges that by perpetuating and exacerbating climate change through its fossil fuel production for export, Australia has endangered and continues to endanger the lives and wellbeing of the complainants, violating Articles 6 (Right to life), 17 (Right to privacy, family, and home life), and 27 (Right to culture) of the ICCPR. The communication asks the Human Rights Committee to assess the compatibility of Australia’s fossil fuel policies with its obligations under the ICCPR.

A central feature of the complaint is its challenge to Australia’s treatment of emissions associated with exported fossil fuels. The claimants argue that Australia bears responsibility not only for emissions released within its territory, but also for emissions resulting from coal and gas extracted in Australia and combusted abroad. In their view, the cumulative and transboundary nature of climate change makes it inappropriate to distinguish between domestic and export-related emissions when assessing a state’s contribution to climate harm and its corresponding human rights obligations.

The complainants seek:
a. A declaration that Australia’s acts and omissions related to the production of fossil fuels for export are incompatible with its human rights obligations to prevent dangerous climate change.
b. A declaration that Australia is violating the complainants’ ICCPR rights by recklessly perpetuating life-threatening climate change through fossil fuel production for export.
c. A recommendation that Australia establish a process to review the compatibility of its fossil fuels exports with pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C.
d. A recommendation that Australia implement a plan to phase out fossil fuel production for export to align with a 1.5°C pathway, including ceasing public subsidies.
e. A recommendation that Australia pause approvals for fossil fuel production projects for export until it complies with (c) and (d) above.

The communication draws extensively on the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinion on climate change. Relying on the ICJ’s recognition that states have obligations to prevent significant harm to the climate system and to exercise due diligence in regulating activities within their jurisdiction that contribute to climate change, the claimants argue that Australia’s continued expansion of fossil fuel production is inconsistent with its human rights obligations. The complaint further invokes the advisory opinion’s treatment of climate change as a global, cumulative, and transboundary problem to support the argument that states cannot avoid responsibility by focusing solely on territorial emissions while facilitating fossil fuel combustion elsewhere.