Australia is a country highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with the weathered, arid continent frequently buffeted by fires, floods, heatwaves and storms. It is also one of the largest exporters globally of fossil fuels, coal and gas. Situated close to Pacific Islands existentially threatened by climate-fuelled rising seas, Australia is a constitutional democracy with an active civil society, an abiding commitment to the rule of international law and this year holds the role of “President of the Negotiations” for the UN climate summit, COP31.

These contradictory forces play out in Australia’s domestic climate policy and are at the heart of a new international complaint – labelled the “Hard Truths” case – made on behalf of 10 Australians to the UN Human Rights Committee on 20 June 2026.

Filed pursuant to the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the communication submitted to the Committee seeks declarations that Australia’s failure adequately to regulate the production of fossil fuels for export is incompatible with its international human rights obligations.  It also asks the Committee to recommend that Australia “establish a process to review the compatibility of its fossil fuel exports with pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C” and “urgently and rapidly implement a plan to phase out the production of fossil fuels for export to the extent necessary to ensure alignment with a 1.5°C pathway” [para. 29].

The complaint details the profound effects of climate change on each of the complainants, who include First Nations Indigenous Australians, a volunteer firefighter, property owners affected by extreme weather events, scientists and people suffering from disabilities and chronic health conditions. It is accompanied by expert evidence reports detailing how the harms suffered by the complainants are attributable to climate change. As result of these climate harms, the claim alleges violations of the complainants’ rights protected under the ICCPR, including the right to life (Art. 6), the right to privacy, family and home life (Art. 17) and the right to culture (Art. 27). As a material contributor to climate change as result of its fossil fuel production for export, the complaint alleges that Australia bears responsibility for these human rights violations.

A World First Case

The Hard Truths case (or formally, Poelina et al v Australia) is a world-first for several reasons.

The case is the first international legal claim brought against the Australian government alleging its responsibility for harm linked to the country’s coal and gas exports. A previous Australian climate case brought to the UN Human Rights Committee – that of Daniel Billy and Others v. Australia – concerned rights violations associated with adaptation, rather than mitigation, failures. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the associated climate impacts of exported fossil fuels have been treated by successive Australian governments as a problem for the countries that buy and consume Australia’s fossil fuel products. Such emissions are not “counted” towards Australia’s domestic emissions that are reported under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Paris Agreement. However, with Australia’s “exported” emissions dwarfing its territorial emissions by a factor of nearly 5 (representing an estimated 4.5% of global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions), it is alleged in the complaint that Australia’s true contribution to climate change can only be understood by including its fossil fuel exports alongside its domestic emissions [para. 126].

A second innovation of the Hard Truths case is that it is the first international legal claim brought since the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) landmark climate advisory opinion, ruling that countries have wide-ranging legal obligations to prevent significant harm to the climate system and the environment, including under international human rights law. In its opinion, the ICJ affirmed 1.5°C as the parties’ agreed temperature threshold under the Paris Agreement. It singled out supply-side fossil fuel activities, such as production, licensing and subsidies, saying that if these actions are not properly regulated by states to prevent GHG emissions causing significant climate harm, this could give rise to international legal responsibility. And it found that such responsibility can arise where a state fails to exercise stringent due diligence by not taking the necessary regulatory and legislative measures to limit the quantity of emissions caused by both public actors and private actors like corporate fossil fuel producers operating in the country’s territory. The Hard Truths complaint tests each of these principles as they might apply to Australia’s responsibility for human rights violations brought about by climate change linked to the country’s fossil fuel production.

The complaint’s central allegation is summarised at paragraph 11:

“Australia is not using all means at its disposal to prevent catastrophic climate harm … [and] has no deliberate policy to make the significant export reductions required to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Instead, government policy remains to maximise fossil fuel exports, and Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel projects that will export fossil fuels for decades to come, in some cases into the 2070s.”

The complaint goes on to say that the fact that GHGs from fossil fuels produced in Australia are emitted overseas provides no legal “shield” to its responsibility. Australia has the power to regulate such fossil fuel production for export. A failure to regulate kickstarts a chain of events that leads inevitably and foreseeably to harm to the climate system, harm for which Australia can be held liable even if other states also contribute to climate change through their GHG emissions [para. 12].

Linking Fossil Fuel Production to Rights Violations

One of the questions left unresolved by the ICJ Advisory Opinion was what might be necessary to show a nexus between climate harms and breaches of a state’s international legal obligations in a specific, “in concreto” case. The Hard Truths complaint provides a roadmap for how such links might be made in the context of alleged violations of international human rights obligations.

The steps in the causal chain traverse the following ground:

• Limiting warming to 1.5°C means that there is little remaining capacity in the atmosphere to accommodate additional GHG emissions [section 4.3].
• If the world overshoots 1.5°C, we cannot rely on unproven “carbon dioxide removal” (CDR) technologies to return to a safe climate but instead need to undertake deep and rapid emissions reductions [section 4.4].
• Australia has been and remains one of the leading global exporters of fossil fuels, which are the major contributors to GHG emissions [section 5.1].
• Australia has no regulations or policies in place requiring the assessment of the climate impacts of its fossil fuel exports or restricting fossil fuel production and export in line with limiting warming to 1.5°C [section 5.3].
• Compliance with international climate obligations by Australia through timely, adequate, and effective action to reduce emissions is necessary for the protection of human rights affected by climate change [section 6.1].
• There is a sufficient causal nexus between Australia’s non-compliance with its human rights obligations and the specific harms experienced by the complainants [section 6.5].
• By continuing to produce fossil fuels for export, Australia is not taking the necessary measures to prevent harm to the climate system [section 7.2].

Possible Outcomes of the Case

It is obviously early days with the Hard Truths complaint and the case will need to overcome procedural hurdles, such as showing the exhaustion of domestic remedies, before the complainants get their “day in court” before the Human Rights Committee.

In recent climate-related claims, including the Billy case, the Committee has shown that it is sympathetic to the idea that climate change can adversely affect human rights. The Hard Truths complaint’s novel contention that climate change-related violations of human rights can be causally linked as a matter of law to a state’s fossil fuel production will undoubtedly take the Committee to new, as yet unexplored territory in climate litigation.

If it issues recommendations in the complainants’ favour, these non-binding findings – on their own – are unlikely to radically shift the behaviour of major fossil fuel-producing states like Australia.

But – following in the footsteps of the ICJ’s advisory opinion and other international advisory opinions – they could add to growing momentum recognising that safeguarding the planet and humanity’s place on it requires being fossil fuel free.

The author provided expert advice on aspects of the complaint regarding the exhaustion of domestic legal remedies as detailed in section 9.2 of the complaint.