The children allege that the defendants’ actions and inactions have “so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten (our) fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty”. As one 17-year-old said, “it is time for climate science to have its day in court”.

In a similar case in the Netherlands in 2015 a court ruled that the Dutch government was negligent in failing to adopt policies mitigating global warming. The government was ordered to reduce emissions by 25 per cent within five years.

The Australian government should now stand accused of the same negligence.

Australia is among the world’s highest per capita emitters; our greenhouse gas pollution levels, excluding land use, were the highest on record up to June 2018 for the third consecutive year and are likely to continue rising under a business as usual scenario; we are amongst the highest exporters of coal and soon to be gas; we are unlikely to meet our Paris targets; and we have no policies to change any of these.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s recent claim that Australia would meet its 26 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 "in a canter" illustrates the government’s disingenuousness. What Morrison meant was that emissions in the electricity sector will meet that target. That they do is thanks to closure of some coal power and a surge in wind and solar energy. It is a different story in transport, agriculture and land use.

The WHO has described climate change as the greatest health threat of this century, a view recognised by the statements of the Australian Medical Association and other medical groups in other parts of the world.

Increasing frequency of heatwaves, bushfires, and weather extremes will seriously impact on the physical and mental wellbeing of Australians and the health system’s capacity to cope. The cost of natural disasters in Australia is expected to rise to $33 billion annually by 2050 and the health costs are likely to be more than half of these.

Canadian-American psychologist and academic, Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, a paean to the values of the Enlightenment, those of reason, science, humanism and progress, writes: “four out of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature rejected the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming”.

When pressed, ministers in the Australian government, claim to agree with the science. But their actions speak otherwise. Morrison, as treasurer, passed around a lump of lacquered coal in Parliament in 2017 in an attack on renewable energy. Energy Minister Angus Taylor is openly hostile to renewable energy and has campaigned against wind energy in the past. Separating the Energy and Environment portfolios was more than symbolic. It was a deliberate denial of the nexus that exists between the two.

The risks due to global warming must be viewed not just in terms of probability but also severity. In their recent report, What Lies Beneath, Ian Dunlop and David Spratt from the National Centre for Climate Restoration, Melbourne, write that the risks have been underestimated, the models used by the IPCC have been overly conservative, and that there is a real risk of climate tipping points.

A duty of care has been recognised by some, notably APRA’s Geoff Summerhayes, who has pointed to the prudential risk. In an important test case that has this week been put to the federal court, a superannuation fund member claims that his fund, REST Super, failed to properly consider climate change risk when making investment decisions.

There are those in the military who understand the threat to our security from climate change. Ex-chief of the armed forces Chris Barrie described the risks associated with the loss of the glaciers which feed the great rivers of Asia, for example.

Suing the government for inaction on climate change is not a new idea and was mooted in Australia in 2015.

The legal systems in the US and the Netherlands are very different to Australia’s, but a lawsuit by the non-profit Plan B in the UK’s High Court suggests such an action may be possible here given the historical similarities of our legal systems.

Plan B claimed that the UK Government’s 2050 carbon target is unlawful based on the latest science and violates the UK’s commitments to the Paris Agreement. In July a judge blocked the suit. The judge agreed with the government’s argument that the Committee on Climate Change was still deliberating and that the existing 2050 target was “compatible with the Paris Agreement”. The plaintiffs are appealing the decision.

The urgency of the climate problem demands action. If Canberra remains deaf to this issue and to the 73 per cent of Australians who are concerned about climate change, then it is time to challenge them in the law courts.

Public lawsuits whether successful or not fill the important need to bring essential issues into the media and expose ineffective government action. Such an approach was effective in the area of anti tobacco lawsuits.

Cross-examination of ministers would be expected to expose poor understanding of the threats of climate change, the influence of polluters and their preference for retaining power at the expense of lives and future generations. As we see from the Royal Commission on banks, cross examination can bring change.

Will no well-appointed legal firm volunteer to help their children and grandchildren, and ours, bring the Government to account?

Dr Graeme McLeay is a spokesperson for medical group Doctors for the Environment Australia.