Current laws already enough
One senator said the existing Climate Change Act, safeguard mechanism and net zero plans were the better practical path, so this extra legal duty was not needed.
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?
The bill was put forward because federal climate decisions did not have to specifically consider the interests of children and young people, even though climate harm can affect children and future generations heavily.
Why was it introduced?
Climate decisions likely to produce substantial greenhouse gas emissions were being made without a legal requirement to consider harms to the health and wellbeing of Australian children and future generations. The bill responds by adding intergenerational equityFairness between current and future generations when making decisions. to the Climate Change Act 2022 and requiring certain federal decision-makers to consider, and in some fossil fuel cases not proceed where emissions materially risk, that harm.
Broader context
By May 2021, Federal Court finds duty of careA legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harming others when making decisions.. 9 linked events in total — see the timeline below.
Key criticism
The main criticism in the material was that a new legal duty was not needed because existing climate laws, the safeguard mechanism and net zero plans were the better practical approach. The formal scrutiny reports did not raise any new concerns.
Who supported it?
Senator David Pocock introduced this bill. It was supported by Greens, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members; opposed by Labor, Liberal, One Nation, UAP, Nationals, LNP of Queensland; and did not pass.
Introduced in Senate 28 Oct 2025
Defeated at second reading in Senate 29 Oct 2025
Did not reach House —
Did not become law —
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
2 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
1 day
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The bill was put forward because federal climate decisions did not have to specifically consider the interests of children and young people, even though climate harm can affect children and future generations heavily.
-
It would have added a new goal to the Climate Change Act 2022: fairness between generations. In practice, officials would need to consider greenhouse pollution from a project itself, from the energy it uses, and from later use of the fuel it produces.
-
It would have applied to major federal decisions that approve projects, or give public money to projects, that could increase emissions. This included decisions under laws about the environment, export finance, infrastructure, and offshore oil and gas.
-
For those major decisions, the decision-maker would have to consider how the resulting greenhouse pollution could affect the health and wellbeing of children in Australia. The bill said children’s wellbeing must be the top priority.
-
For decisions about exploring for, or extracting, coal, oil or gas, the bill would have gone further. It would have stopped a decision if the likely emissions posed a material risk of harm to the health and wellbeing of current or future Australian children.
Show source excerpts
-
Yet the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children has not been embedded in decision making when it comes to climate change. As it stands, there is no legislative mechanism that specifically requires the interests of young people are considered when these decisions are made.
Explanatory memorandum -
Item 1 inserts a new object into the Climate Change Act 2022. The additional object is to promote intergenerational equity. This is achieved by requiring decision makers to consider the wellbeing of current and future children when making certain decisions that are likely to contribute to climate change. For clarity this includes decisions that will increase scope one, two or three emissions.
Explanatory memorandum -
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.
Explanatory memorandum -
Proposed subsection 15G(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.
Explanatory memorandum -
Proposed subsection 15H(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.
Explanatory memorandum
Context
Broader context for this bill
By May 2021, Federal Court finds duty of careA legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harming others when making decisions.. 9 linked events in total — see the timeline below.
- 08 Sept 2020
Sharma climate case filed
Eight school students and Sister Brigid Arthur filed a Federal Court class action against the Commonwealth environment minister over the Vickery coal mine extension, arguing a duty of careA legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harming others when making decisions. to young Australians.
Equity Generation Lawyers ↗ - 27 May 2021
Federal Court finds duty of careA legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harming others when making decisions.
Justice Bromberg held that the environment minister owed Australian children a duty of careA legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harming others when making decisions. when assessing coal projects, although he did not grant the injunction sought.
ABC News ↗ - 15 Mar 2022
Appeal court overturns ruling
The Full Federal CourtThe appellate division of the Federal Court of Australia that hears appeals from single-judge decisions. unanimously overturned the duty-of-care finding on appeal, ending the world-first common-law ruling.
ABC News ↗ - 03 Aug 2023
First duty-of-care bill introduced
Senator David Pocock introduced the original Climate Change Amendment (Duty of CareA legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harming others when making decisions. and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill in the Senate to require children's wellbeing to be considered in major climate-related decisions.
Parliament of Australia ↗ - 22 Feb 2024
Senate inquiry hearing
The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee held a public hearing in Canberra as part of its inquiry into the 2023 bill.
Parliament of Australia ↗ - 26 June 2024
Committee report tabled
The Senate tabled the committee's report on the 2023 bill and recommended that it not be passed after several extensions to the inquiry deadline.
Parliament of Australia ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 28 Oct 2025
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 readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated. opened 28 Oct 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated. moved
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated. debate 29 Oct 2025
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
Rejected at second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated. 29 Oct 2025
The chamber voted down the bill at second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated., so it did not proceed any further.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated. negatived
Scrutiny of Bills review 05 Nov 2025
It reviewed the bill and did not raise any new concerns.
Considered in published report
Human Rights review 26 Nov 2025
It considered possible human rights issues and did not raise any new concerns.
Considered in published report
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
The main criticism in the material was that a new legal duty was not needed because existing climate laws, the safeguard mechanism and net zero plans were the better practical approach. The formal scrutiny reports did not raise any new concerns.
Most of the supplied material supported the bill, and the scrutiny committees did not add new concerns.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated Senate cleared second reading
Defeated 14 to 40. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, One Nation, UAP, and Nationals. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Andrew McLachlan Csc (Liberal) voted aye. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeated
Senate cleared second reading
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 22
Liberal 1 / 12
Greens 10 / 0
One Nation 0 / 3
Independent 2 / 0
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
UAP 0 / 1
Nationals 0 / 1
LNP of Queensland 0 / 1
Amendments at a glance
Other recorded votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Carried Force an immediate vote on the bill
Moved by Penny Allman-Payne (Greens). Passed 37 to 23. Support came from Liberal, Greens, One Nation, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
Carried
Force an immediate vote on the bill
Carried; debate ended and the chamber moved straight to the main vote.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 23
Liberal 17 / 0
Greens 10 / 0
One Nation 2 / 0
Nationals 2 / 0
LNP of Queensland 2 / 0
Independent 2 / 0
UAP 1 / 0
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
David Pocock
Senator Pocock strongly supports the bill, arguing that parliament must recognise a duty of careA legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harming others when making decisions. to current and future children in climate-related decisions.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Michelle Ananda-Rajah
The senator says Labor is acting urgently on climate change through its existing framework, highlighting the Climate Change Act, safeguard mechanism, renewable investment and sectoral net zero plans as the practical path for an orderly transition.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Steph Hodgins-May
The speaker strongly backs the bill, arguing that governments should be legally required to consider the health, wellbeing and future of children and young people when making climate-related decisions.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Supports
Fatima Payman
Senator Payman supports the bill and argues it would force government to consider the rights, health and wellbeing of future generations in climate decisions.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
1 speaker · 1 oppose
Labor
1 speaker · 1 oppose
-
Ananda-Rajah ★ The senator says Labor is acting urgently on climate change through its existing framework, highlighting the Climate Change Act, safeguard mechanism, renewable investment and sectoral net zero plans as the practical path for an orderly transition.
“Australia, although it contributes one per cent to global emissions, has the potential to lower the world's emissions by 10 per cent. That's based on advice from the Climate Change Authority, who also set the 2035 targets which are achievable and ambitious at the same time. Unlike Senator Pocock, I actually am very optimistic about our future, as long as we stay the course. The foundations have been put in place by our government with support from the crossbench. Now we need to follow through and ensure we are not swayed by nonsense from the other side. (Time expired)”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
1 speaker · 1 support
Coalition
1 speaker · 1 support
-
McLachlan The senator, speaking in a personal capacity, supports the bill and argues it is worthwhile to place statutory dutiesA duty created by an Act of Parliament rather than by common law. on decision-makers to consider the climate harms to current and future children.
“I feel my contribution may be too conservative for some in this chamber, but I support the bill and commend its passage.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 unclear
Greens
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 unclear
-
Hodgins-May ★ The speaker strongly backs the bill, arguing that governments should be legally required to consider the health, wellbeing and future of children and young people when making climate-related decisions.
“I'll finish where I began. This is common sense and simply the right thing to do. Young people get it. Climate action isn't optional; it's survival. Young people, you have led this movement with courage and clarity. Now it's time for us in this parliament to step up. Let's commit to a climate duty of care for you and for all of us.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Allman-Payne The senator made a procedural motion to close debate and have the Senate vote on the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated. question.
“Thank you. I was on my feet first, and I do wish to proceed down that path, so I do move that the question now be put.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Minor parties and independents
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 support
Minor parties and independents
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 support
-
Pocock ★ 2 contributions Senator Pocock strongly backs his bill, arguing it would create a legal duty for decision-makers to consider the health and wellbeing of children and future generations when approving emissions-increasing projects.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Pocock on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
BILLS - Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Senator Pocock strongly supports the bill, arguing that parliament must recognise a duty of careA legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid harming others when making decisions. to current and future children in climate-related decisions. He says the bill would make children's health and wellbeing a paramount consideration in emissions-heavy approvals and prevent new coal, oil or gas decisions that pose a material risk of harm.
“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.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗BILLS - Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025 - Second Reading
Senator Pocock strongly backs his bill, arguing it would create a legal duty for decision-makers to consider the health and wellbeing of children and future generations when approving emissions-increasing projects. He criticises the government for dismissing the proposal and says the parliament should embed long-term climate accountability in law.
“Again, I want to thank the young people who've engaged on this bill. I want to thank the many Canberrans who have put a huge amount of time and energy into helping shape it and helping advocate for it. It may not be successful today, but, clearly, the tide is turning. Australians understand what is at stake. They understand that this is about the people and places we love, and they understand that it's political will that can actually change that. It is about the cold, hard numbers in this place, with enough elected representatives who agree and say: 'Of course I've got a duty of care to young people and future generations. Of course I do. I'm an elected representative. That's how I should be making decisions.' Again, I thank young people who've engaged, I thank the Senate committee of the last parliament for engaging on this bill, and I commend it to the Senate.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Payman ★ Senator Payman supports the bill and argues it would force government to consider the rights, health and wellbeing of future generations in climate decisions.
“This duty of care and intergenerational climate equity bill is part of that better way forward. It's a reminder that the decisions we make in this chamber must outlive us because their consequences surely will. As Senator Hodgins-May outlined, our young people deserve better. Their psychosocial health is already being impacted by the lack of action that we're seeing by this government on environmental reforms. With that being said, I commend this bill to the Senate and look forward to the government's support.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Introduction to latest chamber step
- 1 calendar day -- Introduced on 28 Oct 2025. Latest recorded step was Second reading negatived on 29 Oct 2025, and the bill did not proceed.
- Introduction to assent
- N/A — bill did not proceed -- The bill did not proceed to royal assent.
- Recorded divisions found
- 2 -- Recorded divisions were found in Senate.
- Second-reading speech summaries captured
- Senate
- Same-day passage through both Houses
- No -- The bill did not complete passage through both Houses.
- 28 Oct 2025
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 28 Oct 2025
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 29 Oct 2025
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated. debate
Members debated the bill in principle before the chamber decided whether to keep considering it.
- 29 Oct 2025
Senate · Second reading negatived
Rejected at second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated.
The chamber voted down the bill at second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s main purpose and principles are debated., so it did not proceed any further.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
It reviewed the bill and did not raise any new concerns.
Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2025; Bill No Comment
Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2025Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered in published report
It considered possible human rights issues and did not raise any new concerns.
Report 7 of 2025; No Comment
Report 7 of 2025