Abstract: In many policy arenas it is assumed that successful policy measures depend on the application of effective strategies for public participation and engagement. The putative benefits of more rather than less public participation are many and include better framed and more robust policies and more informed, articulate and engaged citizens. To date the empirical testing of these assumed benefits has, however, lagged behind their articulation. In the field of climate change and in particular the processes of adapting to changes already locked into place, there is a similar presumption that participation and engagement are vital to the success of any adaptation strategy. In this paper we explore this presumption and consider whether or not it is more or less critical to the success of planning for unavoidable climate change than it is to any other sphere of public policy intervention. We test these assumptions through a critical review of adaptation policy instruments at Federal, state, regional and local scales in Australia. The focus here is mostly on the state of Queensland and the region of South East Queensland in particular. We find that the timing, role and value of public participation in adaptation differ not only between these instruments but that they all build on an underlying assumption of the public’s willingness to engage in adaptation. Furthermore, there are few signs that the possible impacts of greater public participation on the effectiveness of climate adaptation policy are being subjected to empirical scrutiny and hence the commitment to this approach remains a matter of faith.