The Senate has rejected a proposed law to create a duty of care for the Federal Government to consider young people’s health and wellbeing when making climate-related decisions.
Independent Senator David Pocock introduced the bill almost a year ago. A Senate committee review has now recommended the bill not be passed.
Climate activist Anjali Sharma, who helped draft the bill, said the Senate’s decision is a “soul-crushing blow“ but vowed to continue pushing for a climate-based duty of care.
Background
In 2020, Anjali Sharma and seven other young people 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 the extra 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 law
Last year, 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.
Approval process
If that bill passed, approvals for coal projects would need to consider the health impact on younger people.
This would add another consideration for project approvals, which already include impacts on biodiversity and local habitats.
Existing environment approval laws have been in place since July 2000. Since then, more than 740 fossil fuel projects have been approved.
Senate review
In August, the Senate asked a committee to review Pocock’s draft legislation. It received about 400 public submissions.
The committee heard from health experts – including the Australian Medical Association – who provided evidence on the negative impacts of climate change on people’s health.
These included respiratory illness, nutrition-based sickness from food and water scarcity, mental ill-health, injuries and death caused by heatwaves, floods, and bushfires.
Final report
The committee’s final report recommended Pocock’s duty of care legislation not pass Parliament.
The Labor-led committee said it recognises 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 has already undertaken significant environmental reforms to promote “intergenerational equity”. She said this included a legislated 43% emissions reduction target by 2030.
In Parliament today, Labor MP Peter Khalil said the Government takes its “duty of care” to protect younger people from environmental harm seriously, which he argues has been achieved through other laws and policy decisions.
TDA has reached out to the Coalition for comment.
Anjali Sharma
Sharma has told TDA the Senate report is “disappointing”, saying it has rejected the bill on “weak grounds”.
“What [the Government] has chosen to do is just blatantly reject the bill and I think that’s in very bad faith,” she said.
She said it’s “not the end of the road” for the duty of care bill and said she’s open to negotiating with the Government on making changes to the wording of the legislation.
David Pocock
Senator Pocock criticised the committee’s report, saying “the government has turned its back on young people”.
“If we don’t start thinking about how our actions harm the people and places we love, children will suffer more with health issues, mental health problems, and even trouble finding safe homes and clean water.”
