Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Senate · Wednesday 29 October 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated a private senator's bill to legally require ministers to take into account children's health and wellbeing when approving projects that increase greenhouse gas emissions. Supporters, including the mover David Pocock and Greens senators, argued the legislation was necessary to address intergenerational injustice and fill a legal gap identified by courts, citing overwhelming public and expert support. The Labor government opposed the bill, arguing that existing policies and targets were sufficient and that an orderly transition prioritising energy security was more effective than new statutory duties. The bill was defeated in the first division, while a motion to proceed immediately was also rejected.

Outcome

The bill was defeated in the first division with 37 votes against and 23 in favour, and a motion to proceed immediately was rejected with 14 votes in favour and 40 against.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

David Pocock (ACT) (Independent) Ind

Pocock argued that the bill established a necessary duty of care for ministers to weigh children's health and wellbeing in decisions that increase greenhouse gas emissions. Pocock cited a 2021 court ruling that initially found such a duty existed, which was later overturned on appeal, leaving parliament to legislate the matter. Pocock highlighted that an inquiry received 403 submissions with only one opposition, and noted that over 26,000 people had signed a petition supporting the bill. Pocock criticised the government for approving 31 new or expanded fossil fuel projects and for dismissing the inquiry's recommendations without serious engagement. Pocock contended that current policies were insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming and that the bill would embed long-term thinking into environmental law.

Government response

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (VIC) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Ananda-Rajah stated that the government was already focused on acting on climate change and aimed to be good ancestors through existing policies rather than new statutory duties. Ananda-Rajah argued that the transition to renewable energy must be orderly to maintain energy security and avoid deindustrialisation, citing public intolerance for blackouts and high bills. Ananda-Rajah highlighted that renewable energy now comprised nearly 50 per cent of the grid and pointed to policies such as the safeguard mechanism and the Capacity Investment Scheme as evidence of progress. Ananda-Rajah noted that the government had updated its 2035 emissions reduction target to 62 to 70 per cent and established sectoral plans to guide the transition to net zero. Ananda-Rajah maintained that the government's approach addressed the scientific, social, and economic imperatives of climate change more effectively than the proposed bill.

Votes during this debate

Division 1: Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025; Second Reading Passed 37–23 Division 2: Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025; Second Reading Not passed 14–40