The Duty of Care Bill - Rejected
Earlier this week, the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023, known as the Duty of Care Bill, was rejected by both the Labor and Coalition parties in Federal Parliament. Despite strong support from youth activists, legal experts, and crossbench senators, the legislation was voted down.
What the bill would have done
The Bill proposed to legally require government decision-makers to consider the health and wellbeing of current and future generations when approving projects that could increase greenhouse gas emissions (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2023). It sought to amend the existing Climate Change Act 2022, embedding a “duty of care” across six key environmental and development laws — including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This would have meant that large-scale fossil fuel and high-emission projects faced a new test, that is decision-makers would need to assess how each approval might harm the long-term wellbeing of young Australians (Pocock, 2023).
Supporters said the Bill would align Australia with international human rights and environmental law, recognising intergenerational equity and the right to a safe, healthy environment (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2023).
Who backed it
The Bill was introduced by Independent Senator David Pocock and championed by Anjali Sharma, the young activist who previously led the Sharma v Minister for the Environment case, a landmark youth-led lawsuit that first argued the government owed children a legal duty of care to protect them from climate harm (Echo Netdaily, 2025). It gained strong support from the Australian Human Rights Commission, as well as a broad coalition of environmental organisations, legal experts, and youth-led advocacy groups who described the Bill as a commonsense safeguard for future generations (Zali Steggall MP, 2024).
Why it was voted against
Despite broad moral and public appeal, the Bill failed to pass because Labor and the Coalition deemed it too broad and legally uncertain (Australian Parliament, 2024). Key reasons included:
Concerns that its legal language was too open-ended, potentially exposing the government to increased litigation or delays.
Fears that it could slow major infrastructure and resource projects, including renewable developments, due to expanded assessment requirements.
The argument that existing frameworks, such as the Climate Change Act 2022 and the government’s 43% emissions reduction target, already addressed intergenerational concerns.
In essence, while both major parties agreed on the principle of protecting future generations, they disagreed on the mechanism.
Some of the criticisms
Progressive and youth groups criticised the vote as a failure of leadership and a “dereliction of duty” to young Australians (Greenpeace Australia Pacific, 2024). Legal commentators said Australia now lags behind other nations in recognising a statutory duty of care for future generations (Grata Fund, 2024). Others noted that the Bill presented a rare opportunity to bridge policy ambition with accountability, and its rejection left a clear legislative gap between climate targets and legal duty. Industry and conservative voices, meanwhile, argued that codifying such a duty could create uncertainty, deter investment, and place policy decisions in the hands of courts rather than elected governments (Australian Parliament, 2024).
So who bears the responsibility now?
With the Bill rejected, the duty of care hasn’t disappeared, it’s been redirected. Responsibility now falls across three fronts:
Government and regulators: Even without new legislation, they retain both moral and international obligations to act in the best interests of future generations (Grata Fund, 2024).
Investors and financial advisers: The private sector now holds significant power. Through ethical and impact-aligned investing, capital can advance long-term wellbeing where policy falls short.
Civil society and communities: Youth movements and advocacy groups are expected to continue campaigning for reform. The defeat of this Bill has not ended the conversation… it has amplified it.
References
Australian Human Rights Commission (2023). Submission on the Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity Bill 2023. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/duty-care-and-intergenerational-climate-equity
Australian Parliament (2024). Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023 – Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications Report. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/DutyofCareBill
Grata Fund (2024). Australia Left Lagging Behind World on Climate Duty of Care for Future Generations. https://www.gratafund.org.au/duty_of_care_bill
Greenpeace Australia Pacific (2024). Dereliction of Duty: Greenpeace Slams Rejection of Duty of Care Bill. https://www.greenpeace.org.au/news/dereliction-of-duty-greenpeace-slams-rejection-of-duty-of-care-bill/
Pocock, D. (2023). A Duty of Care. https://adutyofcare.davidpocock.com.au
Zali Steggall MP (2024). Independent MPs Stand United on Duty of Care Bill to Protect Future Generations. https://www.zalisteggall.com.au/independent_mps_stand_united_on_duty_of_care_bill_to_protect_future_generations
