David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on behalf of young Australians, Australians who cannot yet vote and future generations of Australians. These are, technically, not the people who sent us here to represent our states and territories, but they will inherit every decision that we make in this chamber and in the other place. The Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill was the first private senator's bill I introduced after being elected as a senator for the ACT. It's something I've worked on with young people across the country, but I particularly want to acknowledge Anjali and Hannah, who are in the chamber here today, but also Daisy and Jess, who together make up the duty of care team. Young people understand the huge impact climate change will have on their lives, and they are courageously standing up to fight for a better future.

Every bill comes to this place with a history—a genesis—and I want to give a bit of background. In 2021, Anjali Sharma and seven young Australians applied for a declaration that the minister for the environment owed Australian children a duty of care when using her powers to approve an extension to the Vickery coalmine. They were successful. The court found that, indeed, the minister for the environment did owe young Australians a duty of care. The then environment minister, Sussan Ley, appealed the decision and, on appeal, the court found that a duty is not owed under current laws. In the judgement it was said that a duty of care was not for the judiciary but for the parliament to decide—for the parliament to legislate.

So here we are. This bill seeks to fix that. It does something very simple. It establishes a duty of care to consider the health and wellbeing of children when making decisions to increase greenhouse gas emissions. Since its introduction in 2023, the bill has been met with overwhelming support. Last year the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee held an inquiry to allow members of the public to make their opinions known. There were 403 submissions, and only one outright opposed the bill. The one was from the Institute of Public Affairs, the same IPA that continues to deny the reality of climate change and handed Gina Rinehart an honorary lifetime membership. Meanwhile, more than 26,000 people have signed a petition backing this bill. At the inquiry, doctors, nurses, midwives, scientists, young people, teachers, parents and grandparents provided submissions and gave evidence. They all agreed and all spoke clearly to tell the parliament we do have a duty of care to young people of future generations. That surely is a big part of why we're here—to make decisions that re truly good for our futures, not just good for the next election but good for our young people, who inherit the decisions we make. The most powerful submissions to the inquiry were from young people.

The government gave a two-page response to the report—a two-page dismissal of this effort, this urgency and this hope. Really disappointingly, there was no serious engagement with the evidence, no consideration of the recommendations of the dissenting report and no real engagement with the substance of the bill and suggestions for potential amendments, just a contemptuous brush-off. It was a stark contrast to when Labor in opposition and those young people took the then coalition government to court. I hear from young people that there was overwhelming support from many in the Labor Party when they were in opposition. Now they're in government and they don't seem to want to hear it.

Back in 2005, now prime minister Albanese said:

Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing the global community and one of the greatest threats to Australia's way of life.

Fast-forward 20 years, and the need for a duty to protect young Australians from climate harm has never been greater. As Doctors for the Environment told the inquiry, 'Children suffer 90 per cent of the burden of death and disability caused by climate change.' The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners told us that 'the health of a child born today will be defined by climate change'. Doctors are a profession that understands duty of care very well. They understand what it means, and at the inquiry they saw a very clear translation to elected representatives to have a duty of care to the people that they represent, not a duty of care to the fossil fuel industry or a duty of care to donors but a duty of care to Australians—a duty of care to young Australians who cannot yet vote and a duty of care to future generations of Australians who will inherit the world that we shape.

Just six weeks ago, the federal government's national climate risk assessment confirmed what experts have warned us for decades—that we are hurtling towards catastrophe. On our current trajectory, we're likely to see around three degrees of warming by 2050. That will bring cascading, compounding and catastrophic impacts. According to the national climate risk assessment, we'll see four times as many heatwaves, leading to a 440 per cent increase in heat related deaths in parts of the country. We'll face 18 times more coastal flooding, exposing twice as many Australians to hazardous conditions along our coast. We're staring down the barrel of more than $600 billion in property value losses.

This is not just about numbers on a graph or economic figures on a balance sheet, though. This is about losing things that make Australia what it is. This is about the people and places that we love. This is about losing the Great Barrier Reef as we know it. It's about watching the places we love—our bushland, our coastline, our communities—become uninhabitable, unaffordable and unrecognisable. This isn't hyperbole or fearmongering. This is in the government's national climate risk assessment. This is in the ONI's national security climate risk assessment. It's all in there. The government knows this. And yet today decision-makers are under no legal obligation to consider how their choices to approve coal mines or greenlight gas fields will affect the lives of children 10, 20 or 50 years from now. I argue that this isn't just negligent. This is actually immoral. This lacks moral courage to do what is right by young people and do what is right by future generations of Australians and leave a legacy for people to look back on and say, 'That was the parliament that made the hard decisions, the hard long-term decisions, to look after us.' Australia can't solve the climate crisis, but what we can do is think longer term, have emissions reductions targets that are in line with science, have long-term thinking embedded in our law that forces ministers to take into account the impact that projects will have on young people and future generations.

We're obviously having this debate on this bill in the context of environmental law reform. We know that the EPBC Act is broken. Graeme Samuel reviewed it and basically said it should be torn up and thrown in the bin. We've got a government that has said so much on climate and on the environment but has gone on to approve 31 new or expanded coal or gas projects since taking power. We've got a Labor government who very cynically delayed the approval of the North West Shelf until straight after the election. At least the coalition had the decency to tell electors that it would be approved. Labor knew that Australians didn't want that. They knew that the people in the south of Canberra in Bean, a seat Labor held onto by 351 votes, probably would have seen the approval of one of the biggest fossil fuel projects in Australia's history as a bit of a red flag—a government that promised the world on climate and the environment but delivered the North West Shelf approval straight after the election.

This bill seeks to embed long-term thinking in our politics and in our legislation, and I want to say a few things to the young people who spoke to the committee inquiry, who wrote submissions, who sent letters, who made their first visit to parliament. I want you to know that you are being heard. You are right to demand more. You are right to say that this is not good enough. You are right to say: 'We are not the ones who created the mess. Do not leave it to us to clean up.' And while Labor and the coalition may lack the courage to act, the tide is turning. More and more Australians are waking up to the intergenerational injustice. More and more people are demanding change. More and more people want to see longer term thinking and decision-making. While you may not see a duty of care today, there will be one someday soon because, as one student told us, 'Our existence should influence your course of action even before we reach voting age.'

There's a clear choice in this chamber. We can refuse to hear the voices of the young Australians. We can deny the science of climate change. We can continue to have targets that aren't aligned with the science, and we can make up all sorts of excuses as to why it's just too hard to listen and to act. Or we can listen to young Australians, we can listen to climate scientists, and we can make changes to ensure that those who will live with the consequences of decisions made in this place look back on what we have done with pride.

This bill is a simple, powerful step forward when it comes to real climate accountability, to show young people that their voices matter and that their futures matter. I again quote now prime minister Albanese talking in 2005 about introducing a climate change trigger bill that would have amended the EPBC Act:

We cannot any longer afford to be complacent on this issue. We need action and one of the actions that we need, which has been acknowledged by the government for many years, is this amendment to the EPBC Act.

To the government I say this: will you stand with young Australians, or will you stand with the IPA and the fossil fuel industry, who clearly don't want a duty of care to young people and future generations?

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.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for bringing forward the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025, and I thank all those many young Australians who have advocated this bill. I am thankful for their protest. I thank them for walking the corridors of power in this place and seeking the support of the many parliamentarians, including myself. I wish to tell them and all those millions of young Australians out there that we care. We profoundly care. We are entirely focused on acting on climate change. We understand that this is the issue of our generation and that we have run out of time. I came into politics to be a good ancestor, and I belong to a Labor government, a team of people, who also wish to be good ancestors. We do this in order to leave a legacy and to leave this country in a better shape than what we found it in.

I know acutely what it was like when we came in. In May 2022, when we took government, energy was in a state of complete disorder. We had gone through nearly a decade of coalition rule, and we took the reins of a portfolio that was characterised by chaos, secrecy and 22 failed energy policies, where four gigawatts went out of the grid and one gigawatt went in. That in turn put pressure on prices as well as reliability. This was against a backdrop of 10 or 15 years of the climate wars, which the young generation now will not appreciate. If you're in your teenage years, you wouldn't really understand what that meant, but I remember what that was like. In this parliament, there were arguments about the science of climate change, and they went on for 15 years. Those opposite—the coalition of the Liberals and the Nationals—are still arguing about the science of climate change. But we're not disputing the science of climate change. We know it is real. We know that we are in the teeth of this climate emergency.

The climate imperative is bearing down on us, but we also understand that there are an economic imperative and an environmental imperative to act on that science, and I think the mistake that has been made over many, many years in Australia and elsewhere, globally, is that we have seen this purely through a scientific lens. If only it was just a scientific problem to be solved! That would be easy. If it's a scientific problem, you can create a vaccine to a disease. The disease goes away. Smallpox is a good example. Measles is another one. But this is not a purely scientific problem. This is as much a social problem as it is a political problem and a scientific problem, and that's what makes this hard.

We as a federal government, as a Labor government, are not here to dispute the science. We understand climate change. The arguments we have are really on how we best act. It's not 'why'. We don't talk about 'why'; we get it. It's not like those opposite, who are still arguing about the 'why'. For us, the debate happens around the 'how'. How do we get to net zero as efficiently as possible while maintaining this pesky little concept called energy security and while ensuring that we do not deindustrialise this country while we decarbonise? Why? Because people's jobs and livelihoods rely upon us getting this energy shift right. We must transition in an orderly fashion rather than a disorderly fashion, and we actually take our lead from the Australian people.

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.

When I go to schools and I talk to young people, they are genuinely shocked when I tell them that the amount of renewable energy in our grid is now approaching nearly 50 per cent. In the last quarter of last year, it was 48.6 per cent. They can't believe it. They mostly think that we're sitting at around 20 to 30 per cent. We're not. That's in the rear-view mirror. The momentum has begun, and it is unstoppable. It is being driven by policies that we put in place and that we are building upon—foundational climate policies that we put in place in our first term of government. While those opposite had 22 energy policies that all failed, left the grid in a mess and left this country overexposed and vulnerable to fossil fuels, we came in, and the order of the day, when we took government in May 2022, was passing our Climate Change Act.

We have one policy, not 22. That is the foundation of everything we do. We set targets in our first term of government—43 per cent by 2030. We've recently updated those targets. The 2035 target is now 62 to 70 per cent by 2035, and we need to do that, because, in the next decade, most of our coal-fired power stations—90 per cent or so—will shut. We're not waiting for some great white knight to come over the hill. We are putting in place the supports needed to ensure we have energy reliability that is underpinned by the cheapest form of energy, and that is renewable energy. Australians know that. That is why they're taking up rooftop solar in droves—4.2 million households already have rooftop solar. They are marching with their feet. They are voting with their feet.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Workers are losing their jobs.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Irrespective of the interjections from those opposite—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll make them louder!

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians get it. They realise that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. That has been backed in by record uptake of home batteries. On 1 July, we announced our Cheaper Home Batteries Program. We've already seen 100,000 households take up home batteries. When you have rooftop solar, you reduce your bills by $1,500. If you slap a home battery on that, your bills come down another $1,000. Australians get it.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, so why doesn't it work for Tomago?

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie!

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite the interjections from those opposite, who left this country in a mess and dare open their mouths, Australians understand that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy and they are embracing it in droves. We have rooftop solar and we have home batteries, and what's next in that trinity? Electric vehicles. Australians have already bought 400,000 electric vehicles. When we came to government, sales were moribund—stuck at two per cent under those opposite—flat and going nowhere fast. We brought in tax breaks, thanks to the support of the crossbench, and we have seen an increase in electric vehicle sales of 12 or 13 per cent. That's 400,000 EVs on the road. And do you know where most of those sales are? Most of the sales—you'd be surprised—are actually in the regions and in peri-urban areas. Why? Because Australians in those areas have rooftop solar. They're now charging their cars at negligible cost, if any, and realising that these cars are a lot cheaper to run. The servicing costs are considerably lower than fossil fuel or ICE vehicles.

This is what Australians are doing, but this is not all we are doing. Also, as part of those foundational supports and climate policies, we brought in a suite of measures to help industry. One was the safeguard mechanism, which was passed thanks to the support of the crossbench. It's designed to help big industry decarbonise without deindustrialising. Every year, around 215 big emitters in this country will be forced to reduce their emissions by five per cent year on year. That has a strong incentive built in for them to electrify their power trains—the big miners, for example, and aviation companies like Qantas. With our assistance, sustainable aviation fuels are being backed in to enable our aviation companies to decarbonise. We brought in something called the Capacity Investment Scheme. It's getting into the weeds here, but the Capacity Investment Scheme was designed to underwrite large-scale renewable projects like grid-scale batteries, for example, and solar farms and wind farms. When we first came into government, we set the ceiling on that at 32 gigawatts. Because of the overwhelming interest in this scheme, we raised that ceiling to 40 gigawatts by 2030.

With these measures we have seen a huge uplift in renewable energy in our grid. Under those opposite, four gigawatts left the grid and one gigawatt came in, which left the grid unstable, unreliable and too costly. What we have seen under our stewardship is that 18 gigawatts of renewable energy has entered the grid—thanks to the suite of policies. We've also approved six offshore wind zones, which are designed to help electrify large industrial areas that are important for our country, noting that offshore wind has a much shorter transmission build-out than just about anything else. We established the Net Zero Authority, to enable those workers who are exposed to fossil fuel industries to have a transition into good, secure, well-paying jobs, like in the manufacturing sector, underpinned by renewable energy. Within the National Reconstruction Fund, which is a $15 billion investment vehicle, we have over $5 billion dedicated towards clean technologies. So you can see how, with a suite of policies, we are turning the supertanker that is this nation towards a much greener, cleaner future. But it's not going to happen by sloganeering; it's going to happen with policies—the how. This is how we get there.

Along with the 2035 target that we announced was also a net zero plan and a set of six sectoral plans. These sectoral plans are pathways for areas in our economy to get to net zero. It's a road map, effectively, and it covers energy and electricity, agriculture, the built environment, transport, industry and our resources sector. If you're interested in better understanding how we get to net zero, have a read of these plans. It's clear from reading these plans that there is an enormous economic opportunity for us to seize with this transition, with this energy shift that is already underway. Those economic opportunities are for our future generation, for our children. We're not necessarily going to be the beneficiaries—we're too old—but it's absolutely going to be yours for the taking. It'll be secure, well-paid jobs that are immune to the boom and bust of mining—a sustained prosperity in a high-wage economy. That is, effectively, the holy grail.

Australia, although it contributes one per cent to global emissions, has the potential to lower the world's emissions by 10 per cent. That's based on advice from the Climate Change Authority, who also set the 2035 targets which are achievable and ambitious at the same time. Unlike Senator Pocock, I actually am very optimistic about our future, as long as we stay the course. The foundations have been put in place by our government with support from the crossbench. Now we need to follow through and ensure we are not swayed by nonsense from the other side. (Time expired)

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025. This is an issue that I've spoken on before and is, frankly, the main reason that I am in this place. It is an issue that is both painfully simple and yet dangerously ignored. The decisions that we make today must reflect the interests of the children who will inherit them. I say it again because it bears repeating: the decisions we make today must reflect the interests of the children who will inherit them. That is the plain logic behind the concept of a climate duty of care—that, when the government or its agencies approve projects that lock in emissions and risk long-term harms, they must explicitly consider the health and wellbeing of our youngest Australians.

Anjali Sharma, who is here in the chamber today, and other brave young Australians took their government to court and won. They showed that protecting young people from climate harm isn't just good policy; it's a moral duty. But what happened next says everything. The then environment minister, of all people, challenged that win. They argued in court that the government doesn't owe a duty of care to young people. Honestly, if that is not your core responsibility in this place, then what is?

Let's be honest for a moment about who's making decisions in this place. We are, on the whole, a chamber of gen X and boomers making choices that will be lived with for decades by people who are currently not old enough to cast a vote. Maybe if climate action came with a seniors discount, the government would finally act. The mismatch between decisions and their outcomes is extreme. I want to acknowledge and thank the young people who are actively fighting for the idea that children must be a mandatory consideration in the decisions that shape their lives well into the future.

The contents of this bill—to consider the health and wellbeing of young people in our climate decision-making—aren't radical. It's common sense, and it's the bare minimum that we can do for the next generation. In many areas of public policy we already require decision makers to consider how a proposal will affect people's health and wellbeing before approvals are granted. Health impact assessments are standard practice in planning and major project approvals. We ask businesses and governments to assess the likely impacts on local communities before we give projects the green light. So why should the climate and health of children be exceptional? Why is it somehow beyond the pale to insist that the youngest and least powerful members of society be considered when approvals will shape their lungs, mental health, food security and futures.

To digress for a moment, if we were actually serious about putting young people at the centre of decisions that will define their lives, then our democracy should actually let them have a say. Right now, too many of the choices that will shape schooling, housing, jobs and the climate are made in a chamber whose average age is decades older than those it most affects. The Greens have long argued that 16- and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote because they work, they pay taxes and they study, and the right to cast a vote about their future is a natural extension of these responsibilities. This isn't an untested experiment. Countries from Austria to Scotland, from Brazil to Ecuador, already allow 16-year-olds to vote, and the evidence is clear. Studies of Scotland and other places show that giving people the vote at 16 increases political participation in young people and can reset engagement patterns for life. It reduces that gap in turn-out between younger and older voters. If we want young people to care about what we're doing in this place, the most straightforward step is to let them vote on it.

Voting age aside, imagine for a moment if the substance of this bill had been made the norm a long time ago by a government much bolder than this one. If this duty of care had been front of mind when decisions were made about the large fossil fuel projects, would we have extended the life of the North West Shelf to 2070? It's a facility that will burn gas into the lifetimes of our children and beyond, until my own son is in his 50s. If we were serious about giving our children a fighting chance, would we have perhaps set ambitious 2035 emissions reduction targets that actually move us towards a cleaner and safer future? Might we choose to reject the interests of fossil fuel companies raking in billions of dollars by pillaging our land and paying next to nothing in taxes? These questions are questions that a duty of care would force decision-makers to ask.

The harms we are trying to avoid are toxic, physical and psychological realities that young people are facing right now. Young people are already reporting higher levels of eco anxiety, distress and despair. Doctors for the Environment and medical groups across Australia have documented rising climate related mental health harms, particularly among young people exposed to repeated disasters, chronic uncertainty and the sense of an increasingly hostile future. This manifests as anxiety, depression, trauma and a growing burden on youth mental health services—and not far into the future; this is happening right now in our communities.

More frequent, more intense heat waves are causing hospitalisations and worsening chronic conditions in children. Heat stresses young bodies, worsens asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and increases emergency visits during extreme weather. Changes in climate patterns expand the range and seasonality of diseases. Droughts and extreme weather disrupt crops and food supply chains. Air pollution, including from fossil fuels, is linked to increased risks of cancer and chronic respiratory disease. Climate driven shifts in disease ecology, coupled with stressed health systems, increase the drivers of antimicrobial resistance. These aren't dreamed-up events that might impact fewer generations; they are measurable impacts on children and young people living today and on those soon to be born.

A duty of care simply nails what good public health requires. When the evidence shows a risk of harm to children, governments must act to avoid it. We are told sometimes that this would stifle development, hobble regional economies and put jobs at risk, but a duty of care is simply rebalancing an unfair equation—one that currently privileges industry, short-term profits and environmental destruction above health, wellbeing and long-term economic prosperity. A due duty of care insists that we balance short-term gain against long-term human costs. If a project cannot meet a test that protects children's health, then we must question whether its benefits truly outweigh its harms.

We must also acknowledge those who too often bear the brunt of these harms: First Nations young people here in Australia and the Torres Strait, as well as across Aotearoa and the wider Pacific region. These people are already living at the intersection of cultural loss, rising seas, food insecurity and widening health disparities. But these are also the people that are leading the fight for climate justice, and their leadership, knowledge and priorities must be central to any duty of care. Let's be very clear. While the voices of young people are too often dismissed, the fossil fuel industry is never ignored by the major parties in this place. These companies shower political parties with donations, and the revolving door between government and industry spins relentlessly. Almost every single former federal resources minister now works in the fossil fuel sector—shame! I ask this chamber: how much time do you all spend with young people in your electorates versus time on industry lunch invites, in boardrooms or in policy briefings with big corporations?

The fossil fuel industry also targets children directly, hiding behind so-called educational programs in schools that prime our kids for careers shackled to coal and gas, without ever telling them the truth of the climate legacy they'll inherit. If we are serious about protecting children's health and wellbeing, we must stop letting fossil fuel money and influence drown out their voices.

We also have obligations under international law. The International Court of Justice recently confirmed that states must respect and ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights by taking necessary measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment. Australia cannot ignore this responsibility. We need domestic laws that reflect these obligations, laws that enshrine a duty of care. The voices of Pacific youth are especially instructive. Vishal Prasad, when testifying before the International Court of Justice, said:

… if greenhouse gas emissions are not stopped, we are not just risking our future—we are welcoming its demise.

Lilly Teafa from Tuvalu recounted the horrors of Cyclone Pam:

Nine years ago, during Cyclone Pam on the island of Nui, I saw my 16-year-old cousin cuddling towards her mother's bones. I saw a mother cry out to the moana [ocean] searching for the corpse of her son.

Cynthia from the Solomon Islands reminded the court that those who stand to lose are future generations. Their future is uncertain, reliant upon the decision-making of a handful of large-emitting states who are responsible for climate change. These testimonies aren't pleas for pity; they are calls for fairness, justice and urgent action.

Finally, this is about honesty. Young people didn't create this mess, but it is young people who will inherit it. Yet, time and time again, they are asked to litigate, to protest and to bear the emotional labour of demanding action where adults in this chamber are failing. I want to take a moment to thank the young people around the world who are leading the fight for our planet—from Greta Thunberg in Sweden to Vanessa Nakate in Uganda and from Ridhima Pandey in India to the Pacific island students fighting climate change, as well as our very own Anjali Sharma—for their courage and clarity in fighting and in lighting a way forward. They aren't just protesting; they are demanding justice, accountability and a future that honours their right to live in a safe and thriving world.

I think of my own children and what future they're going to inherit. My seven-year-old son had the pleasure of seeing the Great Barrier Reef. Much of that coral is already bleached, and there's a very realistic chance that my two-year-old daughter will never see those bright colours and those gorgeous ecosystems. About a month ago I had the pleasure of meeting the next generation of climate activists here in Parliament House, hosted by the Australian Democracy Network. They know we do not have time for incremental change and that we need action in this place urgently. They know their existence relies on us all acting with that urgency, putting vested interests to one side and listening to their crucial voices in this debate—which shouldn't be a debate.

To those in the chamber who have children, I ask this: when you go home at the end of this sitting week and look your kids in the eye, will you be able to tell them that you've done absolutely everything you can to give them a safe, clean world to inherit? To do that, we need to act right now. We need to stare down the climate-wrecking polluters. We need to sideline the fossil fuel interests who crawl the halls of this parliament. We need to listen to and act for the young people who will inherit this beautiful but increasingly fragile planet Earth.

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.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025, and I thank Senator David Pocock for his work in bringing this bill before the Senate. I also acknowledge the presence of Anjali Sharma, a proud unapologetic young advocate whose courage inspires many of us in this chamber and across our nation. I also acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues before me in taking part in this debate.

A lot of you might be like, 'What's the whole significance? Why's Anjali Sharma here?' In October 2021, Anjali led a class action against the federal government, which found that the federal government had 'a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury to the children and young people of Australia'. That landmark ruling gave hope to so many young Australians, who believed their government would finally be held accountable for the decisions they make, not just today but in the years to come, that will shape the world they will inherit tomorrow. In 2022 the Federal Court overturned this decision on appeal. Since then the Albanese government's efforts in the environment portfolio have been wanting to say the least.

The words 'nature positive' are sure to send a shiver down the spine of some in this place. The nature positive bill package began with the dysfunction of the EPBC Act that pushed the former coalition government to begin the Samuel review. Based on the recommendations of that review, former environment minister Tanya Plibersek worked conscientiously towards a deal that would balance the political realities of this chamber with the environmental needs of our country. In the final moments of the negotiations in November of last year the entire proposal was blocked by the Prime Minister. The bills were brought up again at the start of this year, but the Prime Minister again ruled out enacting the reforms. He couldn't have a secure future for the environment hanging over his head—there was an election coming. We have the fixer, Minister Murray Watt. He fixed the CFMEU, if you ignore the resignations and the misconduct that are going on in the administration, and now he's going to fix the environment. Let me tell you, though, that we won't have an independent EPA, and we won't have a climate trigger, but he's going to fix it.

Under the environment protection reform bill 2025, we're told the government is taking a balanced and pragmatic approach, but when you look closer what you see is a blueprint for backroom exemptions and double standards. The so-called national interest exemption gives the minister power to approve designated projects even when they fail to meet environmental standards. In other words if a project is politically convenient it can be fast-tracked even if it causes unacceptable harm to our environment. It begs the question: If the environment truly belongs to all Australians, why should certain proponents, particularly those backed by international investors, get a free pass from the rules that apply to everyone else? Why should local communities and traditional custodians have to meet all these requirements—every condition, every test, every consultation requirement—while multinational corporations can bypass the standards in the name of national security? This sounds more like political discretion dressed up as policy than actual environmental reform.

That's why Senator David Pocock's bill matters so much. It is a crucial step in the right direction for the environment. This bill puts a positive obligation on the government to consider the rights and wellbeing of future generations of Australians—to treat their health, their mental health, their safety and their security as central to every decision we make in this place. Our first duty is not to the next election cycle and it's not to corporate investors; it's to Anjali and her generation and the many more generations to come. They shouldn't be invited to Parliament House just for photos and tours and lectures; we need to provide them with a seat at the table. We need to hear their voices and concerns through inquiry processes and consultations, especially on issues that will impact their futures and their lives.

And let's not just stop there. The UK recently had election reforms to lower the voting age. I think we as Australians should allow voluntary voting here for 16- and 17-year-olds to have a say, to elect their federal representatives and to really take part in our democratic process, because they deserve it. You young Australians out there, advocating and fighting for a better future: you deserve it.

We hear from the government about how they're leading the way on renewables and that the opposition is divided on net zero, yet at the same time the government is approving new coal and gas projects like a Liberal government in disguise. If you know deep down that you're not on track to achieve your own renewable energy and climate goals, then you can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. You need to change your strategy. You need to find a better way forward.

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.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to 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.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McLachlan. Senator Ghosh.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to defer to Senator Allman-Payne. I would like to be next on the list though.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not on the list, Senator Allman-Payne, but I'm happy to call you.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, but I'm not going to allow that. Senator Ghosh, please continue.

I understood that you wanted to speak. I said you were not on my list.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I had called Senator Ghosh, and Senator Ghosh was offering you a courtesy, which I extended on his behalf. Senator Ghosh, you have the call—Senator Pocock?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can we get a clarification on that? We had a senator on their feet, and they asked to put the question. My understanding is that the Senate then has to deal with that before we move on.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't believe that that was the case, but I will check with the clerk. On advice from the clerk, Senator Allman-Payne is entitled to seek closure. If the chamber does not want to provide that, then we can vote against that. Senator Allman-Payne, if you would like to proceed down that path—and I seek the position of the chamber—the advice of the clerk is that the speakers list is a guide and it is not firm. But it is—

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A courtesy is what it is, actually.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe what Senator Ghosh extended was a courtesy. But I will leave it to you now, Senator Allman-Payne, to decide which way we go.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be put on the second reading.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.