Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025. I do so in my own singular capacity as a senator, and I don't profess to speak on behalf of my party at this time. I support the bill and commend Senator Pocock for bringing it to the chamber for consideration.

The bill seeks to add to a variety of bills that relate to the environment. There are two statutory duties on decision-makers. They must consider the likely impacts of emissions on the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children, and, in the case of decisions involving the extraction of coal, oil and gas, the decision-makers are prevented from making decisions where the resulting greenhouse gas emissions are likely to pose material risk of harm to the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children. I think that's a noble ambition. I would like to think that, even without the duties in there, the decision-makers would be doing so at this time. But I think it's worthy of consideration that this Senate insert those statutory duties.

I'm always minded when discussing environment matters to go to one of my favourites and quote them, and it's Sir Garfield Barwick—not necessarily a friend of the Left in his day but someone who had a great passion for the environment. My point is that there has been social commentary, possibly post my outing on the front page of the Australian, that it it's ill-Liberal to care for the environment, it's ill-Liberal to support climate change initiatives or responses and it's ill-Liberal to support initiatives to drive down emissions and accept that we should have net zero—in fact, I probably have even a stronger position privately, but you'll have to wait for that in another contribution to this Senate—and it's not. It's very conservative. It's actually more conservative than a Liberal progressive position to care for the environment. So I want to push back on, particularly, some social media posts which tend to define what a Liberal is and isn't.

Garfield Barwick said:

The community has to learn to make less demand on the resources and particularly less demand through its own indulgence, its own extravagance, as we know we are extravagant and indulgent.

He went on to say, at the Lawyer in the Environment seminar in 1995:

… the problem of finding the balance between what this generation might lawfully, reasonably take from the resources and what it ought to leave behind and how it ought to restrain itself is a very, very large problem indeed …

So I commend the mover of this bill, who is trying to solve this problem by inserting duties. Perhaps, we should also give consideration in this line of debate to whether we should also be changing the nature of the duties of decision-makers to put nature first and then make economic considerations subsequently. Nature has intrinsic value—not just because we extract it economically.

I thought I'd conclude this contribution by leaving you with a quote from King Charles, not necessarily considered radical. He said in his 2023 Christmas message:

To care for this Creation is a responsibility owned by people of all faiths and of none. We care for the Earth for the sake of our children's children.

I feel my contribution may be too conservative for some in this chamber, but I support the bill and commend its passage.