Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation) Bill 2025

High-Level Summary

The Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation) Bill 2025 creates a national framework for climate adaptation by mandating regular risk assessments and legislated adaptation plans to build Australia’s resilience to extreme weather and long-term climate impacts.

It establishes an independent Authority, binding guiding principles, public reporting requirements, and accountability measures to ensure continuity of adaptation planning across government terms.


Summary

The Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation) Bill 2025 establishes a statutory structure to identify and respond to Australia’s most significant climate risks. It requires the Minister for Climate Change to appoint an independent Climate Change Authority, which must prepare a National Climate Change Risk Assessment every five years assessing hazard severity, probability and economic cost. Within one year of each assessment, the Minister must determine a National Adaptation Plan that sets out strategies, funding mechanisms, implementation timeframes and key performance indicators.

The Bill embeds five guiding principles—effective, efficient, equitable and early action; evidence-based decision-making; risk-based and integrated approaches; fiscal responsibility; and national and international cooperation—into all government decisions under the Act. It mandates public release of risk assessments, adaptation plans, annual progress reports and declassified Office of National Intelligence advice on climate change. All new Bills and legislative instruments must include statements of consideration and compatibility with climate adaptation objectives, and the federal budget must incorporate the cost of climate impacts and adaptation measures. The Act binds the Crown, extends to external Territories, allows concurrent State and Territory operation, and provides for a statutory review every ten years.


Argument For
Normative Bases
  1. Environmentalism
  2. Utilitarian Ground Truth

Australia faces escalating climate hazards—bushfires, floods and droughts—that threaten ecosystems, communities and the national economy. A legislated framework for adaptation aligns with Environmentalism by prioritising the preservation of natural systems and with Utilitarian principles by reducing overall harm and enhancing public well-being.

The Bill requires a National Climate Change Risk Assessment every five years, ensuring an evidence-based identification of critical climate risks and coordinated, cost-effective responses. It mandates the development and public release of National Adaptation Plans, with clear strategies, funding mechanisms and progress indicators, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability.

Embedding guiding principles—early action, evidence-based decision-making, integrated risk management, fiscal responsibility and cooperation—ensures long-term resilience and efficient resource allocation. Binding future governments to these processes secures policy continuity beyond electoral cycles and safeguards vulnerable communities against the worst impacts of climate change [Judgment].


Argument Against
Normative Bases
  1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection

While adaptation planning is important, the Bill creates a large new bureaucratic Authority with unclear independence, overlapping the existing Climate Change Authority and various state initiatives. This duplication may yield inefficiencies and higher administrative costs without demonstrably better outcomes.

Requiring every Bill and legislative instrument to include a statement of climate compatibility risks slowing parliamentary processes and politicising routine legislation. The compliance burden on agencies and industry may outweigh marginal gains in transparency.

Although the Explanatory Memorandum claims nil net financial impact, real-world implementation—including risk assessments, annual reporting, data publication and adaptation planning—will incur substantial administrative and consultancy expenses. Without rigorous cost–benefit analysis, it is premature to lock future governments into rigid processes that may prove inflexible in a rapidly changing global context [Judgment].


Date:

2025-08-25

Chamber:

House of Representatives

Status:

Before House of Representatives

Sponsor:

STEGGALL, Zali, MP

Portfolio:

Unspecified

Categories:

Climate Change / Environment, Democratic Institutions, Infrastructure

Timeline:
25/08/2025

Comments (0)