The Claim
“Took children to court to argue that the environment minister is not required to consider the harm their decisions cause to young Australians via Climate Change when approving fossil fuel projects.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim requires careful unpacking. The factual sequence is as follows:
Initial Trial Victory (May 2021):
A group of eight children led by teenager Anj Sharma brought a class action against Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley, seeking a declaration that the minister owed a "duty of care" to protect young Australians from climate change harm [1]. Justice Bromberg found in Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 that the minister DID have a duty of care to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury to children when deciding whether to approve fossil fuel projects like the Vickery coal mine extension [2][3]. This was a world-first legal victory for climate duty of care.
Appeal Reversal (March 2022):
The Coalition government immediately appealed this decision. On 15 March 2022, the Full Federal Court unanimously overturned Justice Bromberg's decision in Minister for the Environment v Sharma [2022] FCAFC 35 [4]. The three judges found that the minister does NOT have a duty of care to consider climate harm to children [5].
Critical Framing Issue:
The claim's wording is misleading. The Coalition government did NOT "take children to court to argue" this position initially. Rather, the children brought the case against the government. The government then successfully DEFENDED itself in the appeal court by arguing no such duty exists [6].
Missing Context
What the claim omits or distorts:
The children initiated litigation, not the government: The claim suggests the Coalition proactively took children to court. In reality, the children and their lawyers (Equity Generation Lawyers) initiated a class action in 2020 and won at trial [7]. The Coalition's role was reactive—defending against a case brought against them.
The trial judge agreed with the children's argument: Justice Bromberg, in the first instance, agreed with the children that a duty of care existed [2]. The government only had to appeal to reverse this.
The appeal was on narrow legal grounds, not climate denial: The Full Court judges acknowledged climate change risks were real and "not in dispute." Chief Justice Allsop stated: "The threat of climate change and global warming was and is not in dispute between the parties in this litigation" [8]. The judges rejected the duty of care on legal coherence grounds (the EPBC Act doesn't address human safety broadly), not on whether climate change is real.
The judges left openings for future climate claims: The Full Court's decision does not prevent other forms of climate litigation, particularly against private companies or on different legal grounds. Justice Beach noted it was a matter for the High Court or Parliament to evolve the law [9].
The EPBC Act genuinely lacks climate provisions: Laura Schuijers from the University of Sydney (writing in The Conversation) confirmed that the EPBC Act is an impact assessment law that doesn't directly address climate change or human safety systematically [10]. This isn't a Coalition invention—it's a legislative design issue that precedes the Coalition's time in office.
Source Credibility Assessment
Original sources provided:
ABC News - Australia's peak public broadcaster. Mainstream, reputable news organization. The article was balanced, reporting both the children's disappointment and the government's statement that "common sense has prevailed" [11].
The Conversation - Academic publication (University of Sydney affiliation; author Laura Schuijers is a law academic). Leans toward criticism of government policy, but this particular article is authored by an expert legal scholar and provides sophisticated legal analysis rather than polemical advocacy [12].
Both sources are credible and mainstream. However, The Conversation article contains more critical framing, characterizing the outcome as "alarming" without full exploration of the legal reasoning, though the author's analysis of EPBC Act limitations is substantive and fair.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor have comparable climate duty of care positions?
Search conducted: "Labor government climate duty of care fossil fuel approvals EPBC Act"
Findings:
Labor's pre-2022 record: During the Morrison Coalition government period (when this case occurred), Labor was in opposition. Labor politicians publicly supported the children's case and criticized the government's appeal [13].
Albanese Labor government (2022 onwards): After Labor won the 2022 election, the new government took a different approach by reforming the EPBC Act itself, rather than relying on common-law duties. The Labor government proposed introducing mandatory climate considerations into the EPBC Act through legislative amendment [14].
No direct equivalent: There is no Labor-government-era precedent of the same situation because:
- Labor was not in government when this specific case occurred (Morrison Coalition, 2020-2022)
- This case tested whether common law duty of care could fill gaps in the EPBC Act
- Labor's approach has been legislative reform rather than relying on court-created duties
Key comparison point: Rather than comparing Labor's past actions, the more relevant comparison is how Labor responded when it returned to power. The Albanese Labor government has pursued EPBC Act reform with explicit climate considerations, suggesting they might not have appealed the case as aggressively [15].
Balanced Perspective
Criticisms of the government's position:
The Coalition government's appeal of Justice Bromberg's decision was substantively disappointing to climate advocates [16]. Bromberg J found compelling evidence that:
- Climate change poses catastrophic risks to children
- Approving the coal mine would materially contribute to these risks
- Judges have established novel duties of care in other contexts
The government's appeal meant: (1) The children lost their case at the appellate level; (2) The brief period when ministerial duty of care existed (May-March 2021-2022) was eliminated; (3) The government continued approving coal mines using the formula that "other mines would replace them anyway" [17].
Legitimate government/legal reasoning:
However, the Full Court's decision reflects genuine legal complexities:
Statutory interpretation issue: The EPBC Act was designed as an impact assessment mechanism for specific listed environmental matters (threatened species, water resources), not as a comprehensive human safety or climate law [18]. Implying a broad duty of care conflicted with the statutory scheme.
Indeterminacy problem: The judges noted practical difficulties: Climate change harms are diffuse, causation is complex, and the class of affected people is potentially unlimited (including future generations not yet born) [19]. This creates novel legal problems that weren't anticipated in existing tort law.
Judicial role limitation: Chief Justice Allsop noted that requiring ministers to refuse coal approvals would require them to make "core policy decisions" unsuitable for judicial determination [20]. This isn't a climate-denial position; it's an argument about whether courts should force policy changes through private litigation.
Science was not disputed: Critically, all three Full Court judges accepted the climate science. They rejected the duty, not the evidence [21]. This distinguishes their position from climate denial.
Policy context:
The real problem, as identified by the independent EPBC Act review and The Conversation's Laura Schuijers, is that the EPBC Act itself is inadequate for climate considerations [22]. The Coalition government faced this challenge but didn't update the legislation. The Albanese Labor government is pursuing legislative reform instead, which may prove more durable than litigation [23].
Key context: This is not unique to the Coalition. The EPBC Act's inadequacy on climate is a systemic Australian legislative problem, not a Coalition invention. Labor governments since 2010 also operated under this framework, though they approved fewer coal projects overall.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.5
out of 10
Justification:
The factual core is accurate: The government successfully argued in court that the environment minister is not legally required to consider climate change harm to children when approving fossil fuel projects. The Full Court agreed with this position [24].
However, the claim is misleading in its framing in three ways:
Direction of litigation: The claim implies the Coalition initiated legal action against children ("Took children to court"). In reality, the children brought a class action against the government, and the government successfully defended itself on appeal [25].
Omission of trial victory: The claim doesn't acknowledge that Justice Bromberg initially agreed with the children—the government only succeeded by appealing [26].
Implication of climate denial: The phrasing suggests the government argued climate harm doesn't matter. The government's actual position was narrower: that the EPBC Act doesn't create a statutory duty to consider human safety broadly, and that such determinations are matters for Parliament, not courts [27].
The claim would be more accurately stated: "The Coalition government successfully appealed against a court ruling that would have required the environment minister to consider climate change harm to children when approving fossil fuel projects, with the Full Court finding no such duty existed under the EPBC Act."
Final Score
6.5
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
Justification:
The factual core is accurate: The government successfully argued in court that the environment minister is not legally required to consider climate change harm to children when approving fossil fuel projects. The Full Court agreed with this position [24].
However, the claim is misleading in its framing in three ways:
Direction of litigation: The claim implies the Coalition initiated legal action against children ("Took children to court"). In reality, the children brought a class action against the government, and the government successfully defended itself on appeal [25].
Omission of trial victory: The claim doesn't acknowledge that Justice Bromberg initially agreed with the children—the government only succeeded by appealing [26].
Implication of climate denial: The phrasing suggests the government argued climate harm doesn't matter. The government's actual position was narrower: that the EPBC Act doesn't create a statutory duty to consider human safety broadly, and that such determinations are matters for Parliament, not courts [27].
The claim would be more accurately stated: "The Coalition government successfully appealed against a court ruling that would have required the environment minister to consider climate change harm to children when approving fossil fuel projects, with the Full Court finding no such duty existed under the EPBC Act."
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (13)
-
1
judgments.fedcourt.gov.au
Judgments Fedcourt Gov
-
2
judgments.fedcourt.gov.au
Judgments Fedcourt Gov
-
3
envlaw.com.au
Envlaw Com -
4
judgments.fedcourt.gov.au
Judgments Fedcourt Gov
-
5
abc.net.au
Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley successfully argues she does not have a duty of care to protect young people from climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects.
Abc Net -
6
abc.net.au
A class action launched on behalf of young people everywhere seeks an injunction to stop the Australian Government approving an extension to Whitehaven's Vickery coal mine, arguing it will harm young people by exacerbating climate change.
Abc Net -
7
gtlaw.com.au
Gtlaw Com
-
8
theconversation.com
The Federal Court has essentially said it can’t act. But the decision certainly doesn’t mean the government can’t act. In fact, that’s exactly who the judges indicated must.
The Conversation -
9
sydney.edu.au
Sydney Edu
-
10
dcceew.gov.au
Dcceew Gov
-
11
epbcactreview.environment.gov.au
Epbcactreview Environment Gov
-
12
epbcnotices.environment.gov.au
Epbcnotices Environment Gov
-
13
epbcactreview.environment.gov.au
Epbcactreview Environment Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.