Murrawah Johnson: I always sort of think back and yes, the Western legal system isn’t designed for First Nations people to be successful. It’s designed to prosecute rather than benefit. But I think that I always think back to Mabo, the High Court decision, 1992, which actually defeated the notion of the doctrine of terra nullius and decided that terra nullius is a legal fallacy, the claim that this continent belonged to nobody, therefore dehumanizing the First Nations people that have been here since time immemorial. And so, in that respect, I really respect, you know, litigation and when First Nations people do take up litigation and win, it’s not just little wins, it’s huge, significant wins that really change this country. And so I’m excited to, you know, be a part of that, and I guess see this sort of work grow into the future as well.

Mike DiGirolamo (narration): Welcome to the Mongabay Newscast. I’m your cohost, Mike DiGirolamo, bringing you weekly conversations with experts, authors, scientists, and activists. Working on the front lines of conservation. Shining a light on some of the most pressing issues facing our planet and holding people in power to account. This podcast is edited on Gadigal land. Today’s guest on the Newscast is a recipient of the 2024 Goldman Prize Murrawah Johnson, a Wirdi woman and Traditional Owner from the Birri Gubba Nation, Johnson is the co-director of the First Nations led advocacy group Youth Verdict, which in 2022 successfully won a court case over Warratah Coal in Queensland, Australia in a multiple precedent setting decision where the Land Court recommended the refusal of a mining lease application in the Galilee Basin. The first case of its kind in Australia to take on country evidence from First Nations witnesses and the first to directly link the impacts of climate change with human rights, including the right to life, cultural rights of First Nations peoples, right to property, and others. The coal project owned by Australian billionaire Clive Palmer would have extracted up to 40 million tons of coal over 25 years and produce 1. 58 billion tons of carbon emissions. Which is more than the emissions the entire continent of Africa emitted in 2022. Johnson speaks with me about the work Youth Verdict does, the process of including on country evidence in this case, the legal implications from this landmark precedent, the current lack of free prior and informed consent for First Nations in Australia, and how she hopes to continue to use her platform to fight for Indigenous rights.

Mike: Welcome to the Mongabay Newscast, Murrawah thank you so much for speaking with us and many congratulations to you on this award.

Murrawah: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me today.

Mike: So, we’re going to talk about this a little bit more. Key in the highlights of your activism is the court case led by Youth Verdict against Waratah coal, which I’d like to talk a bit more about that with you. It’s been called the first Australian case linking human rights and climate change. So, can you talk about the significance of this precedent? What do you want people to know about this case?

Murrawah: Great. Oh, thank you. What an awesome question. As you said, the first successful case relating human rights and climate change in Australia. But also, the very first time that cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, so First Nations people of Australia, based in Queensland have been recognized as human rights as well under the Queensland Human Rights Charter. It’s the first time that a coal mine in Queensland has ever been rejected or recommended for rejection. And so that’s really exciting because I think it’s the beginning of a, you know, we’ve set a precedent. That allows for, you know, similar actions to follow, I think, and throughout the court process, actually, using the Queensland Human Rights Act to ensure that the process itself, including how evidence was submitted, how evidence was taken, how evidence was weighted and considered, especially of our First Nations witnesses, I think that, you know, it’s the first time that all of that evidence has been done in line with an understanding of human rights charters and international and interpreted through international human rights sort of standards as well. And so, in that respect, you know, I think it’s a little bit novel. It’s still very new. A couple of years on now from our successful decision, I think we (like the industry itself) the fossil fuel industry in Queensland, still doesn’t really know how to respond to it. I think they’ve been very quiet about it, not necessarily wanting to draw attention to it. But the fact is that it is there, and we’ve been able to break down certain barriers, such as First Nations people really being engaged in the process of challenging the approvals for a coal mine in Queensland. And so, you know, Queensland itself is very, very culturally committed, in a sense, to the fossil fuel industry, to the coal industry. And so, this is significant just for that reason as well.

Mike: I mean, as you’ve talked about, the uniqueness of this case in that it included on Country and concurrent evidence from witnesses is really something. So, can you talk about the process of the inclusion of that evidence and also further elucidate on the significance of this for First Nations in Australia in potential future cases?

Murrawah: Yeah. Great. Thank you. So, I think, you know, the first part of it is really, I think we made the decision that we wanted to really allow First Nations voices to have a platform through this court case. And so, we decided to have exclusively First Nations witnesses for Youth Verdict. We did have a co objector, the Bimblebox Alliance, which is the nature reserve organization where the coal mine itself, Waratah, is actually proposed. But yeah, so we decided we wanted to bring First Nations voices and experiences of climate change, the realities of climate change that’s already affecting First Nations communities, because we are the first and most affected. We’re also the least resource to be able to adapt as well to the negative impacts of climate change. And so we wanted to really highlight those voices and bring them to the front. We decided to have exclusively First Nations witnesses. Because why can’t First Nations people argue for the human rights of everybody in Queensland? Especially in considering that the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would be included. And so I think where it got to was as we started to develop the evidence that we would be submitting, it became really clear that the system as it is, the way that the Western legal system operates really, especially the Land Court as well, really doesn’t allow for nuance in the way that First Nations evidence and storytelling and expertise of Country actually needs to be, you know, considered. And so, we kind of got to the point where we were like, it’s all well and good that the decision at the end of the day, the recommendation from the Land Court has to be in line with the Queensland Human Rights Act. But what good does that do us if the process itself doesn’t facilitate an outcome that can be in line with the Human Rights Act. And so, in considering that, we decided to push for the on Country evidence and First Nations evidence to be allowed to be concurrent, which means multiple witnesses of a particular tribal group or family group can give evidence together. In considering that, you know, sort of writing a statement in English, it’s a very dry way of submitting evidence. But also, it just doesn’t allow for the truth and the meaning of the arguments that we’re making to actually come through.

Mike (narration): ‘Country’ refers to the lands, waterways, seas, plants, and biodiversity that First Nations in Australia are connected to. To be ‘on Country’ is to be present in these lands. In the context of this case, as Murrawah explains, members of the Land Court itself traveled to hear evidence on Country from First Nations witnesses over a seven week period in Meanjin, also known as Brisbane, on Jagera and Turrbal Country, and also on Wangan and Jagalingou Country, and Gimuy, also known as Cairns, and Zenadth Kes, also known as the Torres Strait, on the Erub and Pouruhma Islands, where witnesses were allowed to present the evidence of environmental and cultural impacts in the presence of their community.

Murrawah: And, you know, we didn’t want to just be another unsuccessful climate court case. There have been some, even very recently in Europe, in the last week, that have been successful. But more than not, they’ve been unsuccessful because I think the system just doesn’t really allow for the human considerations that need to be made. And so, we decided, you know, it’s actually culturally inappropriate to demand and to ask our witnesses to, you know, I guess, carry the burden of their entire cultural knowledge of their people, because we understand that First Nations intellectual property, First Nations cultural knowledge is, really, it’s held in collectives, in trust by the people. And so, while there may be certain senior authorities who have, you know, certain permissions to speak about certain aspects of culture and whatnot, the intellectual property of the people and the cultural knowledge itself is actually held collectively. And so, we wanted the actual process of submitting evidence to really be in line with recognizing that. And that was the part of the push for the on Country evidence and the push for concurrent evidence because, you could read a hundred page affidavit or statement from a First Nations person, but really not necessarily understand what they’re talking about. And Australia is very sort of, you know, outside of the major cities, I guess, sparsely populated in the sense that you can drive a long way and not see that many people. There is a continent, and so just the length and breadth of the country means that, you know, to really understand any sort of environment really outside of the main regional or urban centers, you actually have to go there. And so it was important for us that the decision makers really see the impacts that climate change is already having on First Nations people, how the impacts of climate change is already breaching the human rights of Queenslanders in Australia and really, you know, make the argument from that point that there are already negative impacts of climate change, but approving another gigantic coal mine is really going to worsen that. Another really important aspect of the decision, not necessarily related to the cultural rights of First Nations people, but very significant in terms of the approval of coal alliances, the recommendation from the president of the Land Court that, you know, part of the decision being that the substitution argument doesn’t stack up anymore. And so, the rejection of the substitution argument, which is essentially, “Oh, well, if we don’t do it, you know, build a new coal mine and extract this coal. There’s, you know, international demand for it, whatever it may be, domestic demand for it. And so somebody else is going to do it anyway. So we might as well do it.” It was really, really…that’s been a prevailing evil in the sense of trying to challenge the approval of new coal mines in Australia, the substitution argument. And so, really happy that the decision actually looked at the facts and said, well, climate impacts are already happening. They’re already negatively being felt by communities. They are already limiting the human rights of Queenslanders, especially in light of our witnesses’ evidence, the human rights of First Nations people. And so I don’t, you know, it’s not relevant where the coal is burnt. The fact that it’s being, you know, proposed to be dug up means it’s going to have impacts to Queenslanders overall. And…yeah. Can’t allow that to happen anymore.

Mike: Right. I mean, so in focusing in on some of those impacts then from specifically from the Warratah Galilee Coal Project, what were some of those potential cultural and climate impacts that we were looking at?

Murrawah: Great. Thank you. So, we’ve already seen, you know, mass sort of die offs of certain native species such as the flying fox. One of our witnesses submitted evidence regarding a heat wave that happened a few years ago where, yeah, a whole bunch of flying foxes, essentially a species of bat just kind of couldn’t handle the heat anymore and because of the way that First Nations sort of law, custom and culture works and tradition, ways of being and relating to everything around us, the environment and all other animals. The loss of any species is significant and has an actual personal human effect as well. It takes a toll on the ability for First Nations people to be able to continue our cultural knowledge because, you know, those species that may be very significant to certain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That if they don’t exist anymore, then how do we then relate to Country? How do we then maintain our culture? Because really those reference points, physical reference points, whether it be an animal species or, you know, a certain landscape or part of the environment, if they’re disappeared, then those aspects of culture tied to them disappear as well. And so already in the Torres Strait for over a decade now, they’ve been experiencing very frightening rising sea levels, especially with king tides coming in. That means for Island culture that is so intertwined with, you know, traveling with seafaring and being able to travel from island to island and traditional trade route, and what not, and depending on other islands for certain materials, whether it be for weddings or burial practices or different aspects of ceremony and culture, those materials are becoming less and less attainable as well through the impacts of climate change, through drought, the rising sea level, coastal erosion, loss of mangroves, loss of traditional boundary points as well. And so, it’s really having a significant cultural effect in terms of being able to pass culture on to younger and future generations. And it’s an intrinsic part of First Nations law across the board, that there is a just inheritance between the different generations. And that is why we so vehemently, you know, adhere to the principle of First Law that the Land and Sea Country is sacred, and it’s here for us to protect and maintain rather than to exploit and destroy.

Mike: And so, while this case happened in Queensland, and that’s where it has originated, do you think that this precedent now could have more implications for cases in other states in Australia? As many people are probably aware that Australia is a very large coal exporter. It’s quite significant in that regard. So, there’s other coal mines being proposed elsewhere in the country. Do you see this case having implications for those cases?

Murrawah: I think there’s, so there’s two parts to that. The first is that while we are the second sort of, state slash territory in Australia to actually adopt a human rights charter, the charter itself is limited because first and foremost, it doesn’t allow for Free Prior and Informed Consent. You know, it is in the UNDRIP, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, but not included in the Human Rights Charter. And it also doesn’t actually clearly sort of outline that the right to a healthy environment is also a basic human right. So, it’s limited in that sense, and it’s also limited in the sense that it’s a piggyback. So, it’s not a standalone sort of piece of legislation that you can sort of say, you know, my human rights have been, they’re potentially going to be, interrupted or limited or they are being limited, but really, and this is why I think this case is so sort of novel. And I don’t think that when state government passed the Queensland Human Rights Act, they were actually thinking that we would use it in this way, because the sort of the novel part of it is that we actually attach the Human Rights Act, because it is a piggybacker to a sort of objection to a challenge to the approval of a mining lease and environmental authority. But in terms of further reach, you know, there’s also, that can be broken down into a couple of parts as well. One is that we desperately need sort of a federal, a national human rights charter in Australia. That’s something that we don’t have here, and I think it’s been sort of adopted in Victoria, in the state of Victoria, now in Queensland. I know that it’s being advocated for in the Australian Capital Territory, Canberra and other places across Australia as well, but at the moment we don’t have a uniform sort of federal charter as well that we can use. And then I think the other part of it is so, really excitingly, aspects of the court case were used for a recent court case over in the Northern Territory. So, the next sort of territory over from Queensland. And that was in regards to the rights of First Nations, Traditional Owners being able to be consulted properly by a mining proponent. In this case, it was Santos about the actual cultural impacts of the mining proposal for offshore mining really close to the Tiwi Islands. And so they had a win when they were able to, I think, use a part of, some of the orders in our case, which included the approval of, and the adoption of on Country evidence. And I think that played a significant role in that small win last year. And since then, I think the case has progressed a little bit, but again, you know, First Nations people up against the powers that be. So we’re talking the state apparatus, the federal state, we’re talking the mining industry in Australia, which is very, you know, very, very powerful and influential and almost a cultural identity in and of itself as a subsection of Australian culture.

But we are hoping with the adoption of, or the advocacy for other human rights charters across Queensland or a uniformed federal charter that the cultural rights of First Nations people will continue to be maintained in potentially new charters where they’re actually understood and respected as a basic human right of First Nations peoples.

Mike: There’s another aspect to this that I wanted to get your thoughts on. So climate litigation itself and other legal processes, these are becoming more popular tools to use against extractive industries and the private sector to hold them accountable. And at the same time, other forms of organizing like peaceful protests are increasingly facing crackdowns around the world. But the litigation aspect is, it’s a really costly process, requires a lot of resources and funding from lawyers, which sometimes communities may not have access to. People have to find support from NGOs or use pro bono lawyers. So, in your case, what resources did you need to have to go through this legal route?

Murrawah: Yeah, I think we were very lucky in the sense that this project of, in and of itself, the Galilee Coal Project, is proposed to, I think initially proposed to be four times larger than the Adani, now rebranded as Bravus Carmichael Coal Mine, which is also in the Galilee Basin. And so I think there was a lot of public interest, but really, again, as you say, actually having the resources to take up litigation is a barrier in and of itself. And so, we were able to work with the Environmental Defender’s Office, which is a sort of public interest law firm here in Australia. They also do a little bit of advocacy and really, in a sense, pro bono lawyers. I think we’re all committed to the thing that sort of brought us all together was the commitment to not allow this coal mine to go ahead because of what it would mean for climate. And already the impacts of climate change are really clear, visible, obvious, and undeniable, I think. Here in Australia, and especially in Queensland, we’ve had significant natural disasters over the last few years, successively, and so it’s really important that, I think, more resources actually get put into this space, but there’s crowdfunding that goes on, there’s fundraising, and I think that for us, Youth Verdict, we’re a very, very, very small organization. We literally have four to five members on a good day because our people are awesome and doing awesome things in their own sort of specialty areas as well. But again, it’s a culture war in a sense. And, you know, I don’t want to be too sort of provocative, but it’s really politicized here. It’s really sort of, you know, polarizing in a sense to be, I guess I would say “anti-new coal mines and anti-fossil fuel industry,” and to actually do something about it. But what I will say is that there are, I think, the, and this is why I love doing litigation as well and being a part of this work, is because, you know, done the community organizing before, done the volunteering, done the crowdfunding, done the spokesperson stuff, and the on the ground campaigning and all of that sort of side of things.

But I think the most important side, or I guess the most interesting side to me really is the litigation side of it because it makes it real. Really, you know, community organizing is so, so important and I don’t want to sort of push that to the side, but I’ve come to understand that sort of my power and where I can have the most impact is really in this sort of niche intersection of, you know, First Nations rights and litigation against really the coal industry. And so, what I will say is that I think the way that we decided we wanted to design the court case and run it, so that we had certain sort of outcomes and we wanted to be successful, you know, we weren’t just going to do this and not try and actually win. And that’s where the push for the on Country evidence came from is to actually make the story real to the decision makers. But really, I think that, you know, it was about breaking down barriers as well and really taking that up to the Land Court and the Western legal infrastructure. And creating room for First Nations people to be front and center and allow for their evidence, their expertise of Country over thousands of generations being passed on into generationally to actually shine. And so, I think off of the back of the success of the court case, there have been a couple of cases that have looked at it and considered it. And, for example, the Barossa case, I think, used aspects of our on Country evidence. Yes, there’s a lot more resourcing in this industry that needs to happen. But I will say, I think it’s becoming clear now in terms of climate change, not necessarily does this apply to the sort of traditional conservative, mostly, you know, white Australian sort of conservation, environmentalism that has, sort of, been around for a good few decades, but I think in the context of climate change, it’s becoming very real that First Nations people need to be at the forefront. We have an understanding and a way of storytelling that is second to none that really, I think, makes the picture clear to decision makers and I’m really excited to see what other sort of litigation comes down the track and happy to support where we can Youth Verdict in terms of our experience of going through the process as well.

Mike: Murrawah, my last question for you is how do you hope to continue to use your global platform?

Murrawah: Oh, well, this work, I think I’ve accepted that it’s life’s work. It’ll take a lifetime. And even then, there’ll be, you know, future generations that have to carry it on. I’m only a young person still who’s been able to inherit an amazing legacy of caring for Country and the longest sort of living legacy in terms of, you know, ancient law and custom about how to relate to Country, how to live in harmony with Country, how to protect Country, and how to maintain it for future generations to justly inherit. But how I will be using my platform, I think, is doing more of this work and supporting other First Nations people to do it.

I will say that there can be a lot of trauma, unfortunately, that’s involved in going through the litigation process. You know, there’s a lot of highs and a lot of lows and a lot of time it’s a whole nother language that it takes a while to sort of get a hang of and understand, but I think that there’s power in it. I always sort of think back and yes, the, the Western legal system isn’t designed for First Nations people to be successful. It’s designed to prosecute rather than benefit. But I think that I always think back to Mabo, the High Court decision, 1992, which actually defeated the notion of the doctrine of terra nullius and decided that terra nullius is a legal fallacy, the claim that this continent belonged to nobody, therefore dehumanizing the First Nations people that have been here since time immemorial. And so, in that respect, I really respect, you know, litigation and when First Nations people do take up litigation and win, it’s not just little wins, it’s huge, significant wins that really change this country. And so I’m excited to, you know, be a part of that, and I guess see this sort of work grow into the future as well.

Mike: Murrawah that’s all the time we have for it. It’s been a pleasure. Thank you so much for joining us today on the Mongabay Newscast and congratulations once again.

Murrawah: Thank you so much. Thank you, Mongabay. It’s been a real pleasure. I’ve loved this chat. Thank you so much.

Mike: If you’d like to read more about Murrawah Johnson, her work with Youth Verdict, or the Goldman Prize, you can find links provided here in the show notes. As always, if you’re enjoying the Mongabay Newscast or any of our podcast content like our sister series Mongabay Explores, and you want to help us out, we encourage you to spread the word about the work we’re doing by telling a friend. Word of mouth is still the best way to help expand our reach. But, as always, you can support us by becoming a monthly sponsor via our Patreon page at patreon.com/Mongabay. We are a non-profit news outlet, so even just a dollar per month does make a difference and helps us offset production costs and hosting fees. So, if you’re a fan of our audio reports from Nature’s Frontline, go to patreon.com/Mongabay to learn more and support the Mongabay Newscast and all of our podcast content. You and your friends can join the listeners who have downloaded the Mongabay Newscast well over half a million times by subscribing to this podcast, wherever you get your podcasts from, or you can download our app for Apple and Android devices. Search either app store for the Mongabay Newscast app to gain fingertip access to new shows and all of our previous episodes, but you can also read our news and inspiration from nature’s frontline at Mongabay. com, or follow us on social media, find Mongabay via the accounts on LinkedIn at Mongabay News, and on Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon, Facebook and TikTok, where our handle is, @Mongabay, or on YouTube, @MongabayTV. Thanks as always, for listening.