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.
Bromberg Bromberg 法官 fǎ guān 在 zài _ _ Sharma Sharma v v Minister Minister for for the the Environment Environment _ _ [ [ 2021 2021 ] ] FCA FCA 560 560 案中 àn zhōng 裁定 cái dìng , , 部长 bù zhǎng 确实 què shí 有 yǒu 注意 zhù yì 义务 yì wù , , 在 zài 决定 jué dìng 是否 shì fǒu 批准 pī zhǔn 化石 huà shí 燃料 rán liào 项目 xiàng mù ( ( 如 rú Vickery Vickery 煤矿 méi kuàng 扩建 kuò jiàn ) ) 时 shí , , 采取 cǎi qǔ 合理 hé lǐ 措施 cuò shī 避免 bì miǎn 对 duì 儿童 ér tóng 造成 zào chéng 人身 rén shēn 伤害 shāng hài [ [ 2 2 ] ] [ [ 3 3 ] ] 。 。
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.
**What the claim omits or distorts:**
1. **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].
实际上 shí jì shàng , , 是 shì 儿童 ér tóng 及其 jí qí 律师 lǜ shī ( ( Equity Equity Generation Generation Lawyers Lawyers ) ) 于 yú 2020 2020 年 nián 发起 fā qǐ 集体 jí tǐ 诉讼 sù sòng 并 bìng 赢得 yíng dé 初审 chū shěn [ [ 7 7 ] ] 。 。
The Coalition's role was reactive—defending against a case brought against them.
2. **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].
Coalition Coalition 的 de 角色 jué sè 是 shì 被动 bèi dòng 的 de — — — — 为 wèi 针对 zhēn duì 他们 tā men 提起 tí qǐ 的 de 案件 àn jiàn 进行 jìn xíng 辩护 biàn hù 。 。
The government only had to appeal to reverse this.
3. **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.
4. **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.
政府 zhèng fǔ 不得不 bù dé bù 提起 tí qǐ 上诉 shàng sù 来 lái 推翻 tuī fān 这 zhè 一点 yì diǎn 。 。
Justice Beach noted it was a matter for the High Court or Parliament to evolve the law [9].
5. **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].
The article was balanced, reporting both the children's disappointment and the government's statement that "common sense has prevailed" [11].
2. **The Conversation** - Academic publication (University of Sydney affiliation; author Laura Schuijers is a law academic).
文章 wén zhāng 平衡 píng héng , , 报道 bào dào 了 le 儿童 ér tóng 的 de 失望 shī wàng 和 hé 政府 zhèng fǔ 的 de 声明 shēng míng " " 常识 cháng shí 占 zhàn 了 le 上风 shàng fēng " " [ [ 11 11 ] ] 。 。
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].
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.
---
**Did Labor have comparable climate duty of care positions?**
Search conducted: "Labor government climate duty of care fossil fuel approvals EPBC Act"
**Findings:**
1. **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].
2. **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.
搜索 sōu suǒ 内容 nèi róng : : " " Labor Labor government government climate climate duty duty of of care care fossil fossil fuel fuel approvals approvals EPBC EPBC Act Act " "
The Labor government proposed introducing mandatory climate considerations into the EPBC Act through legislative amendment [14].
3. **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**.
* * * * 发现 fā xiàn : : * * * *
The Albanese Labor government has pursued EPBC Act reform with explicit climate considerations, suggesting they might not have appealed the case as aggressively [15].
---
**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:
1. **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.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Science was not disputed:** Critically, all three Full Court judges accepted the climate science.
- - 法官 fǎ guān 在 zài 其他 qí tā 情况 qíng kuàng 下 xià 已 yǐ 确立 què lì 了 le 新颖 xīn yǐng 的 de 注意 zhù yì 义务 yì wù
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.
然而 rán ér , , 联邦 lián bāng 法院 fǎ yuàn 的 de 判决 pàn jué 反映 fǎn yìng 了 le 真正 zhēn zhèng 的 de 法律 fǎ lǜ 复杂性 fù zá xìng : :
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.
**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.
However, the claim is misleading in its framing in three ways:
1. **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].
2. **Omission of trial victory:** The claim doesn't acknowledge that Justice Bromberg initially agreed with the children—the government only succeeded by appealing [26].
3. **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."
---
**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.
However, the claim is misleading in its framing in three ways:
1. **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].
2. **Omission of trial victory:** The claim doesn't acknowledge that Justice Bromberg initially agreed with the children—the government only succeeded by appealing [26].
3. **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."
---