Energy security and affordability
The proposed restrictions on fossil-fuel decisions could end projects too quickly, potentially disrupting reliable energy supply and increasing costs rather than allowing an orderly transition.
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?
Australian children would become the top consideration when officials assess decisions linked to at least 100,000 tonnes of lifetime emissions.
Why was it introduced?
Independent senator David Pocock said the bill would fill a gap left after an appeal court found existing law imposed no climate duty of careA legal obligation to consider and avoid harm. to children. He cited evidence that children bear 90 per cent of climate change's burden of death and disability. He also cited projections of about three degrees of warming by 2050, four times as many heatwaves, 18 times more coastal flooding and more than $600 billion in lost property value.
Broader context
Australia already had climate and environmental laws, but they did not specifically require federal decision-makers to consider the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children when approving emissions-producing projects. After the 2021 Sharma ruling recognised a duty of careA legal obligation to consider and avoid harm. and the Full Federal Court overturned it in March 2022, Senator David Pocock proposed legislation in 2023 and introduced this private senator’s bill in October 2025 to fill that gap; the Senate rejected its second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. on 29 October 2025.
Key criticism
The debate material contains no detailed argument against the bill from a named senator. Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Labor) instead argued that Australia needed an orderly shift to cleaner energy that protected reliable power, prices, jobs and industry. She cited a survey of 6,800 Australians and said people would not accept blackouts or high bills.
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, Nationals, UAP; 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?
-
Australian children would become the top consideration when officials assess decisions linked to at least 100,000 tonnes of lifetime emissions.
-
Current and future children would have climate risks assessed using the latest international reports or the best available science.
-
Children under 18 could ask a court to review major emissions decisions if they are Australian citizens or usually live in Australia.
-
Coal, oil and gas projects could not receive approval or assistance when their emissions pose a serious risk of harming children.
-
Public-finance applicants would face the new checks when seeking loans, grants or other support for facilities linked to major emissions.
-
People affected by major emissions decisions could obtain court review, while certain export-finance decisions would also require reasons.
-
Australians received no legal change because the Senate defeated the bill at its second-reading vote.
Show source excerpts
-
(1) A significant decision means a decision: (a) of an administrative character made, proposed to be made, or required to be made (whether in the exercise of a discretion or not) under a relevant enactment or a part of a relevant enactment; and (b) that is likely to result directly or indirectly, over the lifetime of one or more facilities, in the emission of greenhouse gases that: (i) are scope 1 emissions, scope 2 emissions or scope 3 emissions; and (ii) have a carbon dioxide equivalence of at least 100,000 tonnes (gross).
Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) introduced text -
(2) Without limiting the matters that the person may take into account in considering the likely impacts of the likely emission of greenhouse gases, as a direct or indirect result of the decision, on the health and wellbeing of current and future children in Australia, the person must take into account the following: (a) the extent to which the likely emission of greenhouse gases, as a direct or indirect result of the decision, will prejudice the achievement of the following: (i) Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; (ii) the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets incl
Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) introduced text -
15J Modification of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977—extended standing for judicial review (1) This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term person aggrieved in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to: (a) a decision made that is a significant decision; or (b) a failure to make a decision that is a significant decision; or (c) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision that is a significant decision. (2) An individual is taken to be a person aggrieved by t
Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) introduced text -
15H Duty not to make certain significant decisions that pose a material risk of harm to the health and wellbeing of children in Australia (1) A person must not make a significant decision if: (a) the likely emission of greenhouse gases, as a direct or indirect result of the decision, poses a material risk of harm to the health and wellbeing of current or future children in Australia; and (b) the decision is in relation to, or would provide direct or indirect assistance for, one or more of the following: (i) activities that involve the exploration of coal, oil or natural gas; (ii) activiti
Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) introduced text -
(1) A significant decision means a decision: (a) of an administrative character made, proposed to be made, or required to be made (whether in the exercise of a discretion or not) under a relevant enactment or a part of a relevant enactment; and (b) that is likely to result directly or indirectly, over the lifetime of one or more facilities, in the emission of greenhouse gases that: (i) are scope 1 emissions, scope 2 emissions or scope 3 emissions; and (ii) have a carbon dioxide equivalence of at least 100,000 tonnes (gross). (2) A significant decision also means a decision: (a) of an adm
Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) introduced text -
15K Modification of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977—decisions subject to judicial review (1) This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term decision to which this Act applies in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to: (a) a decision made that is a significant decision; or (b) a failure to make a decision that is a significant decision; or (c) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision that is a significant decision. (2) A decision to which this Act applie
Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) introduced text -
Senate That the bill be read a second time Status: Defeated Ayes: 14 Noes: 40
Recorded outcome 2: That the bill be read a second time
Context
Broader context for this bill
Australia already had climate and environmental laws, but they did not specifically require federal decision-makers to consider the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children when approving emissions-producing projects. After the 2021 Sharma ruling recognised a duty of careA legal obligation to consider and avoid harm. and the Full Federal Court overturned it in March 2022, Senator David Pocock proposed legislation in 2023 and introduced this private senator’s bill in October 2025 to fill that gap; the Senate rejected its second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. on 29 October 2025.
- 27 May 2021
Federal Court recognises a duty of careA legal obligation to consider and avoid harm. in the Sharma case
The court ruled that the federal environment minister had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury to Australian children through climate change when assessing a coal project.
ABC News ↗ - 15 Mar 2022
Full Federal Court overturns the Sharma duty of careA legal obligation to consider and avoid harm. ruling
The appeal court dismissed the proposed duty, leaving no specific legislative mechanism requiring federal decision-makers to consider climate harm to current and future Australian children.
ABC News ↗ - 31 July 2023
Senator David Pocock proposes a climate duty of careA legal obligation to consider and avoid harm. bill
Pocock announced plans for a private senator’s bill requiring the Commonwealth to consider long-term climate impacts on young people before approving fossil-fuel projects.
ABC News ↗ - 28 Oct 2025
Senator David Pocock introduces the private bill
Pocock introduced the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of CareA legal obligation to consider and avoid harm. and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025 in the Senate to address the gap exposed by the Sharma case.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 29 Oct 2025
Senate rejects the bill’s second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed.
The bill’s second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. was negatived, ending its parliamentary progress without creating the proposed duties for significant emissions-producing decisions.
Parliamentary timeline ↗
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 for deciding whether a bill should proceed. opened 28 Oct 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. moved
Second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. debate 29 Oct 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. debate 29 Oct 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. 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 debate material contains no detailed argument against the bill from a named senator. Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Labor) instead argued that Australia needed an orderly shift to cleaner energy that protected reliable power, prices, jobs and industry. She cited a survey of 6,800 Australians and said people would not accept blackouts or high bills.
Support crossed party lines. Andrew McLachlan (Liberal), speaking only for himself, supported the bill, while Steph Hodgins-May (Greens) and Fatima Payman (Australia's Voice) also backed it.
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, Nationals, and UAP. 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
Nationals 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
UAP 0 / 1
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Amendments at a glance
Other recorded votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Carried End debate and vote on the children's climate duty bill
Moved by Penny Allman-Payne (Greens). Passed 37 to 23. Support came from Liberal, Greens, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
Carried
End debate and vote on the children's climate duty bill
The successful procedural vote ended further debate and allowed the Senate to move directly to deciding whether the bill should proceed past its second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed..
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 23
Liberal 18 / 0
Greens 10 / 0
Nationals 3 / 0
Independent 2 / 0
One Nation 2 / 0
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
UAP 1 / 0
Did not vote: Liberal Party
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 consider and avoid harm. to current and future children in climate-related decisions.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Michelle Ananda-Rajah
Michelle Ananda-Rajah opposes the bill, arguing that Australia must pursue an orderly transition that maintains energy security and affordability rather than immediately ending fossil fuel projects.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Steph Hodgins-May
Hodgins-May supports the bill, arguing that requiring climate decision-makers to consider harm to children is a common-sense duty that would protect young people’s health and future from fossil fuel emissions and worsening climate impacts.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Supports
Fatima Payman
Payman supports the bill because it would require the government to consider the health, safety and wellbeing of future generations in its decisions, and she argues stronger action is needed given the government's inadequate environmental reforms and continued approval of coal and gas projects.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
1 speaker · 1 oppose
Labor
1 speaker · 1 oppose
-
Michelle Ananda-Rajah ★ Michelle Ananda-Rajah opposes the bill, arguing that Australia must pursue an orderly transition that maintains energy security and affordability rather than immediately ending fossil fuel projects.
“A survey of 6,800 Australians done by CSIRO and published in April 2024 showed that Australians want to have an orderly transition. They do not want blackouts, and they are completely intolerant of high bills. The way I see it is that those are the parameters. Those have been set by the Australian people. If I had my way, like Senator Pocock, I would flick the switch, and we would go straight away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. We would stop approving or expanding fossil fuel projects, if I had my way. But that's not the reality that we have to deal with. We are shifting from a nation—a species!—who has been entirely entwined in this toxic marriage with fossil fuels for 200 years to now becoming more reliant on clean energy, and that shift is well and truly underway.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
1 speaker · 1 support
Coalition
1 speaker · 1 support
-
Andrew McLachlan Andrew McLachlan supports the bill because requiring decision-makers to consider climate harm to current and future children is a worthy step toward protecting the environment for later generations.
“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
-
Steph Hodgins-May ★ Hodgins-May supports the bill, arguing that requiring climate decision-makers to consider harm to children is a common-sense duty that would protect young people’s health and future from fossil fuel emissions and worsening climate impacts.
“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 ↗ -
Penny Allman-Payne The senator made a procedural motion to close debate and have the Senate vote on the second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. 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
-
David Pocock ★ 2 contributions David Pocock strongly supports the bill, arguing that decision-makers should have a legal duty to consider how emissions-increasing decisions affect children and future generations amid escalating climate risks.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by David Pocock on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Senator Pocock strongly supports the bill, arguing that parliament must recognise a duty of careA legal obligation to consider and avoid harm. 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 ↗Second reading speech
David Pocock strongly supports the bill, arguing that decision-makers should have a legal duty to consider how emissions-increasing decisions affect children and future generations amid escalating climate risks.
“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 ↗ -
Fatima Payman ★ Payman supports the bill because it would require the government to consider the health, safety and wellbeing of future generations in its decisions, and she argues stronger action is needed given the government's inadequate environmental reforms and continued approval of coal and gas projects.
“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
- Status
- Not Proceeding -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- Senate
- 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 for deciding whether a bill should proceed. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 29 Oct 2025
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 29 Oct 2025
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second readingThe parliamentary stage for deciding whether a bill should proceed. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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