← Back to home Browse all bills

Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity)

Current status

This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.

Policy area

Climate, energy & environment

What does this bill do?

Federal decision-makers would have to put the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children first when approving major high-emissions projects or funding decisions.

Why was it introduced?

The SharmaThe 2022 court case the page says showed judges would not create this climate duty themselves; Parliament would need to do it. case exposed that federal law did not require climate decisions to consider the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children. The bill creates that duty and blocks major coal, oil and gas decisions that pose a material risk of harm to children.

Broader context

Australia had recognised intergenerational equityThe idea that today’s decisions should not unfairly burden people who are young now or not yet born. in environmental policy since 1992, but federal climate approval laws still did not specifically require decision-makers to weigh the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children. After the Full Federal CourtA higher federal court that hears appeals from single judges, including the Sharma decision discussed on the page.’s 2022 SharmaThe 2022 court case the page says showed judges would not create this climate duty themselves; Parliament would need to do it. ruling confirmed that duty would not be supplied by the courts, and as worsening heat, fires, floods and global scientific warnings sharpened the stakes, this bill was introduced in August 2023 to write that duty into law and block major high-emissions decisions that posed a real risk of harm, but it later lapsed in July 2025.

Key criticism

The collected bill sources do not establish a specific public opposition case against the bill. This page therefore does not infer that there was no opposition; it only notes that the run did not capture a developed criticism of the proposed child-focused climate duty.

Who supported it?

Senator David Pocock introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from some crossbench members.

Introduced in Senate 03 Aug 2023
Failed in Senate 21 July 2025
Did not reach House —
Did not become law —

Did it become law?

No

The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.

Final passage

No final passage

The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.

Time before failure

718 days

From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

Meaning

What does this bill do?

  1. Federal decision-makers would have to put the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children first when approving major high-emissions projects or funding decisions.

  2. New coal, oil and gas projects could not be approved if their expected emissions are likely to create a real risk of harm to Australian children’s health and wellbeing.

  3. The rules would apply to approvals and public financing decisions under six federal laws, including decisions that could lift on-site emissions, electricity-related emissions, or emissions from exported fuels.

  4. Only larger decisions would be covered, with the bill targeting projects or funding decisions likely to cause more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalentA way of combining different greenhouse gases into one measure so their warming effect can be compared. emissions over a facility’s lifetime.

  5. Australian children would be able to challenge covered decisions in court, and all major decisions caught by the bill would be open to judicial reviewA court process that checks whether a government decision was made lawfully and within power, without redoing the policy judgment itself..

Show source excerpts
  1. 20. Proposed subsection 15D(1) creates a duty for a person who proposes to make, or is required to make a significant decision. The duty requires that the person consider the likely impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases likely to be a consequence of the decision on the health and wellbeing of current and future children in Australia and to consider the health and wellbeing of those children as the paramount consideration.
    Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) explanatory memorandum
  2. 25. Proposed subsection 15E(1) imposes a statutory duty on decision makers not to make a significant decision involving the exploration or extraction of coal, oil or natural gas if the likely emissions of greenhouse gas poses a material risk of harm to the health and wellbeing of current and future children in Australia.
    Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) explanatory memorandum
  3. 7. A ‘relevant enactment’ captures six Acts and their legislative instruments. ‘Relevant enactments’ is intended to include Acts under which decisions are made to approve the development of, or provide public finance to, facilities that could increase scope 1, scope 2, or scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions.
    Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) explanatory memorandum
  4. 17. Proposed paragraphs 15C(1)(b) and 15C(2)(b) narrow the definition of ‘significant decision’ to decisions that are likely to directly or indirectly result in scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions of more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence over the lifetime of one or more facilities. This will avoid an unnecessary increase in bureaucratic activity in relation to decisions that are not likely to contribute significantly to climate change.
    Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) explanatory memorandum
  5. 32. Proposed section 15F extends the category of persons who may seek judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in relation to significant decisions to cover a child who is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory.Proposed section 15G - Significant decisions to be subject to judicial review
    Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) explanatory memorandum

Context

Broader context for this bill

Australia had recognised intergenerational equityThe idea that today’s decisions should not unfairly burden people who are young now or not yet born. in environmental policy since 1992, but federal climate approval laws still did not specifically require decision-makers to weigh the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children. After the Full Federal CourtA higher federal court that hears appeals from single judges, including the Sharma decision discussed on the page.’s 2022 SharmaThe 2022 court case the page says showed judges would not create this climate duty themselves; Parliament would need to do it. ruling confirmed that duty would not be supplied by the courts, and as worsening heat, fires, floods and global scientific warnings sharpened the stakes, this bill was introduced in August 2023 to write that duty into law and block major high-emissions decisions that posed a real risk of harm, but it later lapsed in July 2025.

  1. 1992

    Australian governments adopt intergenerational equityThe idea that today’s decisions should not unfairly burden people who are young now or not yet born. as an environmental principle

    The explanatory memorandum says Australian governments recognised intergenerational equityThe idea that today’s decisions should not unfairly burden people who are young now or not yet born. in 1992, but that principle was not specifically embedded in later climate decision-making for children’s wellbeing.

    Australian Parliament House ↗
  2. 2022

    Full Federal CourtA higher federal court that hears appeals from single judges, including the Sharma decision discussed on the page. rules in SharmaThe 2022 court case the page says showed judges would not create this climate duty themselves; Parliament would need to do it. that the duty to protect children from climate harm is not for courts to impose

    The explanatory memorandum cites Minister for the Environment v SharmaThe 2022 court case the page says showed judges would not create this climate duty themselves; Parliament would need to do it. [2022] FCAFC 35 as showing that any duty to consider harm to Australian children in climate decisions would need to be created by Parliament, not judicially supplied.

    Australian Parliament House ↗
  3. March 2023

    Latest IPCCThe UN-backed scientific body whose reports the bill uses as a source for climate risk evidence. report warns the world is moving too slowly on climate change

    In the second reading speech, Senator Pocock said the March 2023 IPCCThe UN-backed scientific body whose reports the bill uses as a source for climate risk evidence. report showed the urgency of faster action and framed the bill as a response to mounting climate risks for young people.

    Hansard ↗
  4. 03 Aug 2023

    Senator David Pocock introduces the duty of careA legal responsibility to take reasonable care when making a decision, here aimed at protecting children from climate harm. bill

    The bill was introduced to require federal decision-makers to put children’s health and wellbeing first in major high-emissions approval and financing decisions and to stop projects that created a real risk of harm.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  5. 21 July 2025

    The bill lapses at the end of Parliament

    The bill did not complete its passage and lapsed when the Parliament ended, leaving the proposed statutory duty of careA legal responsibility to take reasonable care when making a decision, here aimed at protecting children from climate harm. and emissions-based decision limits unmade.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗

Legislative route

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 03 Aug 2023

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 03 Aug 2023

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (26/06/2024) review 03 Aug 2023

Referred to Committee (03/08/2023): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (26/06/2024)

Referred to committee

APH bill page notes
Lapsed at end of Parliament 21 July 2025

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Key criticism

The main case against this bill

The collected bill sources do not establish a specific public opposition case against the bill. This page therefore does not infer that there was no opposition; it only notes that the run did not capture a developed criticism of the proposed child-focused climate duty.

No source-backed public criticism was captured in this run.

Votes

Recorded votes

No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.

Parliamentary debate

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Sponsor speech Supports

David Pocock

Independent • Senator 03 Aug 2023

Pocock strongly supports the bill and says it is needed to fix the failure to consider children and future generations when approving high-emissions decisions.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Minor parties and independents

1 speaker · 1 support

  1. David Pocock ★ Pocock strongly supports the bill and says it is needed to fix the failure to consider children and future generations when approving high-emissions decisions.
    “This Bill will address the current failure to consider the health and wellbeing of Australian children and future generations when decisions are made that result in substantial greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Independent • Senator • 03 Aug 2023

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Record

Full record

Full chat