To address and tackle this issue, independent Senator David Pocock introduced the Duty of Care Bill to pressure the government “to consider the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children when making decisions about whether to approve projects that could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions”.

This bill, if passed, would amend the Climate Change Act 2022.

The Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) appeared before the Senate on Thursday, 22 February, to announce its support towards the government’s need to pass the Duty of Care Bill.

Keren Adams, legal director at HRLC, commented: “Australian children are already experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change, which are being felt most actually by the most disadvantaged in our communities. These impacts will grow exponentially into the future if action is not taken now.

“Intergenerational equity should be at the heart of the Australian government’s decisions around climate. If enacted, the duty of care law will result in a faster transition to net zero and a brighter future for Australian children and for humanity.”

In the HRLC’s submission to the inquiry of the Duty of Care Bill, the centre “stressed that the climate crisis poses an existential threat to the current and future generations of children and called for the Albanese government to support the bill”.

The HRLC, in its submission, recommended that the government:

VIEW ALL

• “Enacts the Duty of Care Bill” and to “further strengthen the bill, we recommend that it be amended to require administrative decision-makers to consider the likely impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ‘health, wellbeing, and rights’ of current and future Australian children”.
• “The bill also includes requirements to engage and consult meaningfully with children and young people when considering potential impacts on their health, wellbeing, and rights.”
• “Formally enshrines the rights to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment into Australian law as part of the national Charter of Human Rights.”

“This is an unacceptable policy gap and signals to young people that their health and wellbeing is a secondary interest in policy debates. A legislated duty of care is a sensible mechanism by which this policy gap can be plugged.”

Lilla Smyth Langdon, a student, also submitted her stance on the inquiry, stating: “As a young person, I am relying on the government to leave me (as well as generations succeeding me) with a healthy, thriving earth.”

“This submission is my way of expressing my political views on climate change as I am not yet old enough to vote, but nevertheless, I want the government to hear my opinions on their current climate policies.”

In the HRLC submission, the centre commented that if the government enacted the Duty of Care Bill, it would “result in far fewer coal, oil and gas projects being approved, and a faster transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions, in line with Australia’s obligations under the Paris Agreement to reach net zero by 2050”.

Even though introducing this bill is a step in the right direction, Australia is far behind compared to other countries and their response towards this important topic.

HRLC, in its submission, revealed that over “80 per cent of UN member states” already “legally recognise the right to a healthy environment” and that “101 UN member states have incorporated the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment into national legislation”.