Steggall's national climate risk plan lapsed without a vote
Zali Steggall MP wanted a national check of climate dangers every five years. A plan with money to deal with them would follow. The bill was dropped from the House's to-do list in March 2026.
Official name: Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation) Bill 2025
- A government body would have checked Australia's biggest climate dangers every five years.
- The climate minister would then have had a year to make a national plan, with money and deadlines.
- Each federal Budget would have shown the cost of climate change. Climate advice from spy agencies would go public.
- Every new bill would have needed a statement on how it deals with climate change.
- It was dropped from the House's to-do list on 24 March 2026 without a vote.
Who it affects
- Communities exposed to floods, bushfires, cyclones and drought: Governments would have had to check their dangers, then plan and pay to protect them.
- Home owners worried about insurance: Each check would have looked at the cost of insurance and how easy it is to get.
- The federal climate change minister: They would have had legal deadlines to make a plan, act on it and answer yearly reports.
- Members of Parliament: Anyone bringing in a bill would have had to say how it fits with getting ready for climate change.
More fires, floods and cyclones
The notes that explain the bill say Australia already faces more bushfires, floods, cyclones and droughts. They say these are getting worse. They put homes, shops and roads at risk. They cost the economy more each year.
Adaptation means getting ready for the effects of climate change. Building flood walls is one example. Changing where houses go is another. Ms Steggall says Australia needs a long-term plan for this. She says it should carry on when the government changes.
The bill also says insurance costs are rising faster than ever before. It warns some areas could become impossible to insure. It says poorer communities feel climate change the most.
Who brought the bill
This was a private bill. That means it did not come from the government. Zali Steggall MP, who represents the Sydney area of Warringah, brought it into the House of Representatives on 25 August 2025. That is the lower house of Parliament. The source papers do not state her party.
The notes say the Climate Change Authority has asked for a national plan set in law. The Climate Change Authority gives the government advice on climate.
Rules for decisions
Anyone making choices under the law would have had to keep five ideas in mind. First, action should work well, give good value, be fair to everyone and come early.
Second, choices should rest on the best research, insurance reports and climate data. Third, they should weigh the full risks. They should act to stop harm even before the science is certain. This is called the precautionary principle.
Fourth, choices should protect public money over the long term. Fifth, federal, state and territory governments should work together. Australia should also keep its promises to other countries.
A body to run it
The climate change minister would have had to pick a government body that already exists. It would be called "the Authority". It would need the right know-how. The bill did not name which body.
The notes say the Authority was meant to work at arm's length from the government. That means it would act on its own. It would run the checks and advise the minister. It would watch over the money and track the national plan.
A five-yearly climate risk check
The Authority would have had to finish the first National Climate Change Risk Assessment by 31 December 2025. Each later one would be due within five years of the last.
Each check would look at dangers to the economy, workers and farming. It would cover nature, health, roads, buildings, housing and ways of life. It would test several paths for world pollution.
It would rank the biggest dangers by how bad, how likely and how costly they are. It would say who should pay each cost, such as governments, households or insurers. It would also check if insurance is easy to get and affordable.
The Authority would have to think about the effects on Indigenous Australians and on groups at risk. It would draw on the Bureau of Meteorology, the national weather agency, the national science agency, universities and the Reserve Bank. Each check and its evidence would go online.
A national plan with money
Within a year of each check, the minister would have had to make a National Adaptation Plan. It would be a formal legal document. It would set goals, the steps to meet them and deadlines. It would say how each step would be paid for.
If the minister did not follow the Authority's advice, they would have to explain why. The minister would also have to take all fair steps to meet the plan's goals.
The Authority would report every year on how the plan is going. It would say what is getting in the way. The minister would then have three months to write a reply. The reply would be given to Parliament.
Say a coastal town keeps flooding. The check would flag it. The plan would then have to say what will be done, by when, and who pays.
Climate costs in the Budget
Each year the Treasurer puts out a report on the economy and the Budget. The bill would have made that report show three new estimates.
The first is the cost of spending on climate damage and on getting ready, over four years. The second is what that spending gives back. The third is the cost of climate change to the economy up to 2050.
Spy climate advice made public
The Office of National Intelligence leads Australia's spy agencies. It advises the Prime Minister. The bill would have made any of its advice or reports on climate change public.
This would win over other laws. It would cover old advice as well as new. Personal details would be removed first where privacy law says so.
A climate statement per law
Any MP bringing in a bill would have had to give a statement on climate change. It would say if the bill fits with getting ready for climate change.
The same would apply to many detailed rules that ministers and agencies write without a new vote. Courts would not have to follow these statements. Leaving one out would not make a law invalid.
Law reviewed every ten years
The law would win over any other federal law. It would cover outer territories, the small Australian lands offshore such as Norfolk Island. State and territory laws could still run beside it.
The law would be looked at again 10 years after it started, and every 10 years after that. The notes say the bill would cost nothing.
It would have started on the day the Governor-General signed it into law. The Governor-General stands in for the King.
Dropped after time ran out
Ms Steggall brought in the bill on 25 August 2025. The debate on its main idea began that day.
The bill was not debated again. On 24 March 2026 it was dropped from Parliament's to-do list. A House rule clears out private bills that sit untouched for a set time.
That means the bill will not become law unless someone brings it back.
Its journey through Parliament
| 25 Aug 2025 | House of Representatives: Introduced and read a first time |
| 25 Aug 2025 | House of Representatives: Second reading moved |
| 24 Mar 2026 | House of Representatives: Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42) |