Labor and the Coalition voted against a bill on Wednesday that would have created a federal climate duty of care.
The bill would have required the Government consider young people’s health and wellbeing when making climate-related decisions.
It was proposed by independent Senator David Pocock with the backing of activist group Duty of Care, led by Anjali Sharma.
Duty of Care said the bill’s failure sent a “clear message... that [young people’s] futures in the face of the climate crisis matter less than the profits of fossil fuel companies.”
Background
In 2020, a group of school students including Anjali Sharma brought legal action against then-Environment Minister Sussan Ley. They tried to stop Ley from approving the extension of a coal mine due to the consequences of its emissions on future generations.
The Federal Court initially ruled in favour of the young people, however, a few months later, Ley successfully appealed that decision.
This was partly because the court said the Minister did not have control over climate-related harms given the global contributions to climate change.
Duty of care
In 2023, Independent Senator David Pocock introduced the duty of care bill, calling it a legislative tool that “plugs the gap exposed by the Sharma case”. It required the Government to:
- Consider how their decisions on projects of more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon emissions will impact the health and wellbeing of younger and future generations.
- Reject coal, oil, or gas projects where greenhouse emissions are likely to pose health risks to young people.
Committee findings
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.
Your details:
The bill was referred to a Senate committee in 2023. The committee examined the bill in detail and consulted the public and stakeholders.
Last year, the committee recommended the duty of care legislation not pass Parliament.
The Labor-led committee said it recognised the significant health harms caused by climate change. However, it said some of the bill was too broad.
For example, an approval on a project would need to consider the impact on “emotional, spiritual and cultural” health.
The committee said it would be too difficult “to quantify these abstract elements”.
Labor Senator Karen Grogan, who led the inquiry, said the Government had already undertaken environmental reforms, citing the legislated 43% emissions reduction target by 2030.
Vote
When the bill came before the Senate on Wednesday, Labor and the Coalition voted against it.
However, Liberal Senator Andrew McLachlan went against his party and voted in favour of the bill.
In a post to X, McLachlan wrote: “For those of us who hold conservative values – respect for tradition, personal responsibility, and freedom – providing for future generations is a moral imperative.”
Response
In a statement, Sharma said: “While the Labor Government and Coalition continue to play politics, point fingers across the chamber and take donations from fossil fuel companies, my future and the future of generations to come is left in the lurch.”
Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen told TDA the Government “agree[s] action is needed” and pointed to the emissions reduction targets which he said would “secure our prosperity for future generations”.
