In this paper we propose that public climate change adaptation policy arises from politics and, accordingly, understanding and analysing such policy has to engage scholars with a keen interest in politics. In line with this proposition a distinguishing feature in this paper is that it seeks to consider adaptation policy for cities in a political context. This paper aims to review issues associated with the public policy response to climate change adaptation in Australian cities and consider whether the approach adopted by the federal government increases the risks of maladaptation. Our interest in adaptation policy in this paper concerns the public policy dimension; i.e., we are not concerned here with spontaneous social adaptations to changing climate or that undertaken independently by corporations or communities, but rather with those that are planned, purposeful, and intentional. Further, we note that not all climate change impacts need to be subject to adaptation policy; these impacts may be small or of little consequence, the changes required may be within the routine operations of society or organisations; and the changes may be minor in comparison to other agents of change. While the argument for adaptation is well developed at this time, drawing largely on planning principles of precautionary action to limit the extent of unavoidable harms and costs, the political and social dimensions of this rationalisation have been less well developed, no doubt because they must openly evoke political values. There are a number of reasons why public policy is involved in adaptation responses. Tomkins et al (2010) identify three reasons; firstly, the need to protect those least well able to cope with climate change impacts. Secondly, the provision of information and advice on climate change risks for non-state actors. And thirdly, to protect public goods. Although this paper deals only with federal policies for climate change adaptation, there is considerable interest in adaptation at the state/ territory and local government spheres. Despite this interest, generally there has been relatively little policy activity and public expenditure at these levels. There have been some interesting public policy initiatives by the states/ territories and particularly by local government, but these are relatively few in number and the collective spending is unlikely to exceed federal expenditure. At present there is no review of activities at the sub-federal government level; nor is there one of initiatives by the Australian private and community sectors.