Senate voted down Pocock's climate duty to children
Senator David Pocock, who belongs to no party, wanted officials to weigh the health of Australian children before they approve or pay for big polluting projects. He also wanted to block new coal, oil and gas projects that put children at real risk. The Senate voted it down the day after it was brought in.
Official name: Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025
- Officials making big choices on projects that pollute a lot would have had to treat children's health as the most important thing.
- New coal, oil and gas projects could not have been approved if their pollution put Australian children at real risk of harm.
- Children would have been allowed to take these decisions to court.
- The Senate voted the bill down on 29 October 2025.
Who it affects
- Children in Australia, now and in the future: Their health and wellbeing would have come first in big climate decisions. They could have challenged those decisions in court.
- Coal, oil and gas companies: New or bigger mines and gas fields could have been blocked if their pollution put children at real risk of harm.
- Government ministers and agencies that approve or fund big projects: They would have had a new legal duty to weigh children's health before deciding under six named laws.
- Projects that cause less than 100,000 tonnes of emissions: They would not have been covered.
Children bear climate costs
Australia has a Climate Change Act, passed in 2022. It sets the country's goals for cutting greenhouse gas pollution, also called emissions. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat and warm the planet.
Senator David Pocock brought this bill to the Senate on 28 October 2025. The Senate is one of the two houses of Parliament.
It is a private bill. That means an MP or senator brought it, not the government.
His notes on the bill say climate change is causing record heat, fires and floods. They say the cost of acting slowly will fall hardest on today's children and on people not yet born.
This idea of fairness between age groups over time is called intergenerational equity.
The senator says Australian governments have backed this idea for over 30 years. That includes a 1992 deal between countries called the Rio Declaration, which Australia signed. It is named after Rio de Janeiro, the city where it was made. It also includes a 1992 deal between the federal, state and territory governments.
The court case behind it
In 2022, the Full Federal Court, a panel of judges in a national court, decided a case called Minister for the Environment v Sharma. A group of children had argued that the Environment Minister had a duty to take care to protect them from climate harm.
The court found this was a question of government choices that judges were not suited to decide.
The senator says his bill fills the gap that case showed. It does this by writing a duty to children into the law itself.
Decisions it would cover
The bill would have applied to "significant decisions" made under six laws. One is the national nature law, which protects plants, animals and places.
The others cover the government's export lender, which lends to businesses that sell overseas. They also cover Infrastructure Australia, which advises on big public works, and the National Reconstruction Fund, which invests in Australian industry. Two more cover a fund for building in the north, and oil and gas at sea.
These laws cover approving big projects. They also cover lending or giving public money to them. The senator says decisions under these laws can help pay for or build projects that add a lot of pollution.
A decision only counted if it was likely to lead to at least 100,000 tonnes of emissions over the life of the project. The senator says this limit avoids extra paperwork for small decisions.
The count would have included all three kinds of emissions, called scopes. Scope 1 is pollution from the project itself. Scope 2 comes from the power it uses.
Scope 3 is pollution from using the product. One example is when coal or gas sent overseas is burned there.
The count was the full amount. Nothing was taken off for carbon credits bought to make up for it. A carbon credit is a certificate saying some pollution was kept out of the air somewhere else.
A decision could lead to emissions directly, such as approving a mine. Or it could do so indirectly, such as lending the mine money.
Children's health comes first
For every big decision, the person deciding would have had to think about children. They would ask how the likely emissions would affect the health of children in Australia, now and in the future.
Children's health and wellbeing would have been "the paramount consideration". That means it would come first in the decision.
They would have had to use the latest reports from the United Nations climate science panel. That panel sums up what scientists know. If it had nothing on a point, they would use the best science they could find.
Say a government lender is asked to pay for a new port that would lead to millions of tonnes of emissions. Before saying yes, it would have had to weigh what those emissions mean for kids growing up in Australia.
Ban on risky fossil projects
The bill went further for coal, oil and gas. Some big decisions are about finding or digging up these fuels.
A decision like this could not be made if the likely emissions put children at real risk of harm.
The senator says this would cover all new and bigger coal mines and gas fields. His examples include the Peak Downs, Blackwater South and Narrabri coal projects. He also names gas projects in the Beetaloo Basin, Barossa, Pluto, Browse and Scarborough.
Both new duties would have applied even if another federal law said something different. The senator says this means one part of the national nature law could not be used to leave them out.
Children could go to court
A court can check whether a government decision followed the law. The bill would have let courts check every big decision this way.
Any child who is an Australian citizen, or who normally lives in Australia, would have had the right to ask a court to check one of these decisions.
People could also have asked for written reasons for some decisions by the government's export lender. Right now, those decisions are left out of that rule.
Fairness to future generations added
The bill would have added fairness to children as a new aim of the Climate Change Act. It would have let the minister write rules giving advice on how to judge harm to children.
The changes would not have applied to decisions made before the law started.
The law would have started the day after the Governor-General signed it. The Governor-General is the King's stand-in in Australia.
Voted down in the Senate
Senator Pocock put the bill to the Senate on 28 October 2025. That same day he asked for a vote on its main idea.
The Senate debated it on 29 October 2025. It voted against the main idea that day. That ended the bill, and it will not become law in this form.
How they voted
| Vote | Result |
|---|---|
| Vote to end debate Senate, 29 October 2025 Labor 23 no, Liberal 17 aye, Greens 10 aye, LNP 2 aye, Nationals 2 aye, One Nation 2 aye, Independent 2 aye, Australia's Voice 1 aye, United Australia 1 aye | Ayes won 37 to 23 |
| Vote on the main idea Senate, 29 October 2025 Labor 22 no, Liberal 1 aye, 12 no, Greens 10 aye, One Nation 3 no, Independent 2 aye, Australia's Voice 1 aye, LNP 1 no, Nationals 1 no, United Australia 1 no | Noes won 40 to 14 |
Its journey through Parliament
| 28 Oct 2025 | Senate: Introduced and read a first time |
| 28 Oct 2025 | Senate: Second reading moved |
| 29 Oct 2025 | Senate: Second reading debate |
| 29 Oct 2025 | Senate: Second reading negatived |