Catastrophe and Reinsurance Symposium keynote speech 

The Hon. Matt Kean 
Chair - Climate Change Authority 

Check against delivery. 

May I begin by acknowledging the Guringal people, the traditional owners and custodians of the land where we gather. 

I’d like to pay my respects to elders, past, present and emerging, and extend that respect to any First Nations people here with us today 

It’s a real pleasure to address this year’s Catastrophe and Reinsurance Symposium just a couple of days after some pretty heavy overnight downpours across this region of Sydney. 

And there’s tropical cyclone Narelle in the process of crossing the far north Queensland coast during this speech, potentially as a severe category 5 storm. 

I won’t be offended if some of you keep a wary eye on your phones – but if the bulk of you start looking fixated elsewhere I might get worried! 

As it happens, it’s very timely for us to be exploring the role of public scientific organisations, particularly in Australia. 

Some of you may know the Climate Change Authority last month held a roundtable of key government agencies and departments, scientists and end-users in Canberra to examine how climate science and modelling is faring in Australia. 

More on that later. 

Many of you will also be aware that our premier public scientific agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or CSIRO, is currently consulting on changes to its research portfolio. 

So today I want to detail 2 examples of how public science supports research in the national – indeed international – interest. 

Others can point to health or even quantum batteries but I’ll stick with climate. 

Let me start with the more obscure of the 2 case studies as the effects of Narelle may become clearer the longer the address goes on, making it harder for me to keep your attention. 

Scientific discovery can often be taken for granted, but things we observe and understand now were once not known or misunderstood. 

Then along came some smart person or team, who conducted an experiment or joined a few data dots that others hadn’t done before. 

Many of us have some notion of the ozone hole over Antarctica, and the human-made chemicals that destroyed the ozone layer. 

You might also know that ozone serves as a protective shield screening out about 98% of the sun’s medium-frequency ultraviolet radiation. 

Without it, we’d get sunburnt after a few minutes of exposure, crops would wilt, phytoplankton would die, and so on. 

You might also know we went from discovery of the ozone hole – by the publicly-funded British Antarctic Survey – in 1985, to signing the Montreal Protocol to combat the use of ozone-eating CFC chemicals, in just 2 years. 

Foundational science made that ozone hole detection possible and then informed governments of the consequences and they acted. 

It’ll take another 4 or 5 decades for the hole to be closed if current policies remain in place but at least we’re headed in the right direction, according to the United Nations (UNEP, 2023). 

It’s tempting to reflect on our global failure – so far – to make sizable cuts in greenhouse gas emissions even though the science of global warming is unassailable. 

We can, though, point to progress in lowering the emissions trajectory. 

The war in the Middle East has lately given us an energy security imperative to wean ourselves off fossil fuels to add to the climate one. 

I raised the ozone example, though, to underscore that we humans are conducting a giant experiment on our biosphere and the consequences of what we’re doing might not be fully evident. 

Scientists are our sentinels, providing early warnings about risks that might seem obscure and prove to be minimal or turn out to be a much bigger problem. 

Now to the obscure bit. 

Let’s say there’s a molecule that helps break down methane and other non-carbon-dioxide gases in the atmosphere. 

And let’s say that without that molecule, those heat-trapping gases hang around longer and will warm up our atmosphere yet more, exacerbating all the climate change effects that you in this audience are already trying to insure against or mitigate. 

And let’s say this molecule disappears about a second after doing its job. 

Wouldn’t you like to know how that molecule is going – is there as much up there as before the industrial revolution, say – and how would we go about finding out? 

That helpful scrubber’s name is hydroxyl, which involves a single hydrogen atom bonding to an oxygen atom. 

Hands up who in here has ever heard of hydroxyl? 

Not so many. 

And who but public-good science would ever embark on a mission of discovery about such a radical? 

CSIRO, as it happens, led by a senior researcher, David Etheridge, working with a team that included scientists from the Universities of Washington and Rochester in the US backed up by Australia’s Antarctic science division. 

The project has been underway since 2018, and involved drilling ice cores at least 240 metres deep in Antarctica’s Law Dome and they’re looking to drill in Greenland, too (before it changes hands?). 

Why dig up ancient ice? 

Well, they are looking for a proxy molecule – the carbon-14 isotope of monoxide – and all that accumulated snow at Law Dome has protected carbon-14 levels from cosmic ray going back centuries. 

I won’t spoil the final research results – you'll have to read about it after Dr Etheridge’s peers have finished their review, likely later this year. 

But they will inform us whether hydroxyls are keeping up with all the scrubbing of methane and other greenhouse gases that we’ve been asking of them. 

Perhaps we’re doing fine – or perhaps we’re going to find out that the warming we’re inflicting on the planet is actually going to accelerate even on present emissions levels. 

Obscure but important work, I’d argue and I think you’d agree. 

Phew, still with me? 

Let me give a more straightforward example of the contribution of public science...one that my dear friend and fellow member of the Authority, Australia’s Chief Scientist Tony Haymet recently discussed at a scientists’ gathering in Hobart. 

I should note that Tony, a former senior CSIRO oceanographer himself, also has more than a few shrewd insights about the value of supporting research in the national interest. 

This second example is also about Antarctica because what happens in the extreme south can have a big influence on weather over Australia...even in normally benign and balmy places like Manly. 

That remoteness is important to underline because it's not easy – or cheap – work to do. 

To get accurate readings of polar vortexes, ice-shelf melting, sea-ice movements, and so forth, you need a sophisticated array of satellites, sea- and ice-based instruments, and a lot of brave souls who don’t mind the cold! 

And, as Australia can’t do it all alone, we need to work in concert with many partners including, you guessed it, public scientific organisations. 

Some of you might remember researchers and weather forecasters – here and abroad – getting excited last September by an unexpected event taking place some 40 kilometres above the icy continent. 

The usually frigid polar vortex was observed to be heating up to about 35 degrees Celsius above normal in what’s dubbed a sudden stratospheric warming. 

In the Northern Hemisphere, such events happen about every other year over the North Pole, but they are quite rare over Antarctica. 

Sudden stratospheric warming matters to us because these events can influence extreme weather in the mid-latitudes – that is, where we and most Australians live. 

And that indeed is what Australia witnessed in the months after last September. 

The seasonal forecast issued by the Bureau of Meteorology – another vital public organisation – switched from favouring the odds for a wet spring, as is more typical in a La Nina year, to a drier outlook. 

Stronger westerly winds likely added to drought conditions in southern Australia, primed the bush to burn, and increased the likelihood of the record-breaking heatwaves that we endured across parts of southeastern Australia in January. 

Farmers, firefighters and regional communities were among those with a visceral stake in detecting phenomena such as stratospheric warming events. 

I would add insurers and re-insurers to that list. 

How might these warming events change in a hotter world? I think Australians have a stake in knowing. 

Who is going to provide that information? 

Perhaps the private sector could marshal the components – from satellites to surface-based sensors – but what would they charge us? Would they be transparent and accountable? 

Beyond the detection and warning about sudden shifts in the stratosphere, communities are going to want to know more generally how wilder weather in a hotter world is going to affect them. 

How will their health, housing, jobs and the wider economy be impacted by climate change? 

We do have some guidance, such as from the first National Climate Risk Assessment. 

That report, released last year, drew on research from publicly-supported science but also commercial entities such as insurers. 

As broad and comprehensive that assessment is – and I commend it to your reading lists if you haven’t scoured it yet – the report noted some key knowledge gaps. 

(The authority has recommended we do such assessments regularly to help close those gaps.) 

The report, though, didn’t anticipate the terrible oceanic algal blooms that have been bedevilling the South Australian coast amid marine heatwaves, and other disturbances to the natural order. 

Nature is going to throw up surprises, not all of them pleasant ones. 

In any case, understanding how rainfall will change over Australia as the climate warms up would be of great interest to farmers, to households and to businesses, such as infrastructure managers and, yes, insurers. 

Andy Hogg, the head of ACCESS-NRI, the publicly-funded science organisation that helps develop our key weather models, knows a bit about knowledge gaps. 

He told the Senate inquiry last week that the global climate model ensembles we tap into cannot – yet – tell us whether rainfall in our biggest food bowl, the Murray Darling Basin, will go up or down as the planet heats up. 

Professor Hogg says one reason is that our rainfall depends largely on what’s going on in the Southern Ocean and the Pacific. 

The climate modelling nations are mostly in the northern hemisphere – and they tend to focus, naturally, on oceans nearer them. 

In a call to support funding for CSIRO – which feeds ACCESS-NRI – Professor Hogg said that if we’re not prepared to fund modelling here, it will be harder to make the advances in prediction we need to be able to, say, forecast whether we’re facing a drier – or wetter – Murray Darling Basin. 

Or perhaps we’ll get more rain when it falls, and longer droughts in between. 

Incidentally, the Government is due to conduct its decadal review of the Basin Plan this year and will have to advise on potential climate change impacts. 

It was in the spirit of such challenges that the Climate Change Authority convened a roundtable on climate science and modelling last month in Canberra, as I mentioned at the start of this address. 

Developing and maintaining Australia’s world-class expertise in climate science is very much in our national interest. 

It is needed, for example, to know whether we should strengthen or extend our cyclone construction codes in our tropical regions something we had advocated in our Home safe report in the wake of Cyclone Alfred last year. 

That billion-dollar storm might have been much more costly had it maintained a track that at one stage had it landing much closer to Brisbane and the highly populated regions of southeast Queensland and northern NSW. 

We’re going to spend many billions, perhaps trillions of dollars in the decades ahead to lift the resilience of our communities, and to repair those hard-hit by wild weather. 

Wouldn’t we be wiser if we were able to narrow the range of risks so that we adapt rather than mal-adapt in a warmer world? 

Gaining that sort of expertise would not only give us a competitive edge, by the way, but it would be of interest to our neighbours and partners in the Pacific and elsewhere. 

Gathering and storing that climate intelligence is, of course, of little use if we don’t have adequate super computers and storage to hold such data. 

And having such information is not much use if such data is not carefully modelled and analysed, and accessible to the people who need it. 

Needless to say, there are a few interested parties in this room. 

The roundtable, we hope, raised the salient points not just among those invited but for a range of relevant ministries, too. 

Our newsfeeds tell us every morning that there are many claims on the attention of our policymakers at all levels of government. 

I hope today’s address has helped provide some insights into why public science matters...and that Narelle hasn’t diverted your attention too much either! 

Happy to take your questions and thanks for listening!

Energy Networks Australia

The Hon Matt Kean
Chair - Climate Change Authority

Check against delivery.

May I begin by acknowledging the Kaurna people as the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we meet today.

I’d like to pay my respects to elders, past, present and emerging, and extend that respect to any First Nations people here with us today. 

Can I also thank Energy Networks Australia for the invitation to address you at EN26. 

We line in unpredictable times, but that doesn't mean we can't anticipate certain trends that are sufficiently "mega" to reshape our lives, no matter the political or geopolitical cycles.

One of those trends involves a subject - no doubt much discussed at this timely conference – the electrification of just about everything.

This electro-revolution will create exciting new opportunities for consumers and companies alike.

Regulators will have to be nimble if we’re going to maximise the potential for innovation – and importantly, ensure that households get their fair share of the benefits.

The surprising – indeed, stunning – success of the take-up of home batteries reveals the scale of appetite in the community for new products and new ways of managing energy.

As of yesterday, we were just shy of 280,000 storage units installed under the Government’s Cheaper Home Battery Program since last July.

The program has more than doubled the amount of home batteries, adding about 7 gigawatt-hours(Opens in a new tab/window) of capacity and the tally rises by the day.

Indeed, in the program’s first eight months, more storage capacity has been added than the 12 largest in-service big batteries combined, according to the Clean Energy Regulator.

Back in July, the average battery going in was about 17 kilowatt-hours, now the average storage unit exceeds 30 kilowatt-hours.

These takeup rates have seen the government revise up its original estimates of $2.3 billion in support to an estimated $7.2 billion over the next four years. And while support for larger units will be pared back from 1 May, it’s clear likely household enthusiasm for storage has a way to run yet.

It’s worth noting too that of Australia’s 4.2 million homes with solar panels, about half of these solar units are smaller than 6 kilowatts of capacity.

As batteries roll out, we can expect upgrades of solar systems to follow. New solar systems already average about 10 kilowatts in size, according to Green Energy Markets.

The rapid evolution of this segment of the industry will require a few adjustments when the Australian Energy Market Operator finalises its Integrated System Plan by mid-year. 

Its draft ISP(Opens in a new tab/window), released j last October, expected households' storage capacity to rise to 10 Gigawatt-hours by 2029-30, but in fact, we’ve already surpassed that level and we’re not even to the end of the first quarter of 2026. 

The price of lithium-ion batteries has been falling for some years, dropping by more than a third between 2022 and 2025 even as demand soared, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

That price reduction is making it possible to envisage much greater application of storage, whether in the form of large solar-battery hybrid projects or even standalone power systems in remote parts of Australia.

For instance, Western Power, WA’s state-owned regional electricity network operator, has been piloting how to reduce so-called fringe-of-grid customers with standalone power systems and no wonder, 52% of the company’s network serves just 3% of its clients, according to RMIT energy veteran, Alan Pears.

Install solar panels, storage and a back-up generator, and hey presto!

- the supply becomes MORE reliable

- solar meets up to 95% of total power needs,

- customers are happier

- and it’s cheaper than upgrading the poles and wires over great distances, according to the results of a pilot program. 

These are the types of disruptive innovations that, - if well-coordinated, could reduce total investment needs, while delivering a more resilient grid and lower carbon emissions to boot. 

Indeed, integrating distributed energy resources could create $19 billion in energy system net benefits by 2040(Opens in a new tab/window), according to independent energy expert, Gabrielle Kuiper.

While those system benefits are important, I would like to conclude by circling back to the theme of electrification, and what these changes might mean for households.

You may have read commentary of late in relation to the Middle East war that Australia continues to rely on fossil fuels for the bulk of our primary energy needs.(Opens in a new tab/window) That’s true, even as renewable energy’s penetration of the electricity grid exceeds 50%(Opens in a new tab/window).

What we need to focus on, though, is USEFUL energy It’s not much good if half your energy supply is wasted.

A recent report(Opens in a new tab/window) by the CCA’s counterpart in the UK, the Climate Change Committee, calculated that country’s energy system, dominated as it is by oil and gas, required 1900 terawatt-hours of primary energy to generate a useful energy output of around 900 TWh.

On a per-household basis, the annual cost of that wasted energy was the equivalent of about $A3750, or 2000 pounds – even excluding the cost of the carbon emissions.

The fuel efficiency of a typical combined-cycle gas power station in the UK is only 54%, the report found.

Australia’s average fuel efficiency in power generation would be much lower, given our aging fleet of coal plants.

“Renewable sources such as wind and solar do not face these economic losses,” the UK report noted.

Electric vehicles, meanwhile, are up to four times more efficient than a typical petrol car. That’s an extra reason to get off imported liquid fuels.

And heat pumps, use between a third and quarter the energy of gas boilers, the UK report found.

AEMO, as it happens, has been also trying to calculate the benefits of residential and small commercial customers shifting from gas to electricity and their results echo the UK’s.

AEMO’s Gas-Electricity Meter Data Linking Project(Opens in a new tab/window) - not quite the snappiest of titles – found standalone homes in Melbourne and Geelong with electric heating, electric hot water and rooftop solar were using 54 gigajoules less gas on average, compared with houses with gas heating, gas hot water and no solar.

The lack of gas use isn’t so surprising but interestingly, the electric-centric homes were importing just 0.1 megawatt-hours more electricity from the grid to run their more-efficient appliances and exporting 3.8 megawatt-hours of power back to the grid, as a bonus.

Homes in milder climates, such as in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong, also saw big drops in gas use. They drew a bit more power from the grid but also exported more from their solar panels than the homes in Victoria.

Among the takeaways from the AEMO report is that the spread of electrification of appliances – plus electric vehicles – will shift peak demand increasingly from summer to winter.

Home energy storage and advanced load-shifting technologies will play an important role in balancing demand peaks and troughs, and easing strains on the grid, AEMO found.

With the right regulatory settings and incentives for consumers and energy firms alike, these changes are entirely manageable.

To sum up, then, “Power to the people” is no longer the mantra of the Hippy Era but a lived reality for many, and those legions will keep growing in number.

Networks that can change with the times will prosper too.

Thanks for listening, and all the best for the rest of the conference.

Danish royal visit Renewable Energy Seminar

The Hon. Matt Kean
Chair - Climate Change Authority

Check against delivery.

May I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land where we gather today, the peoples of the Kulin Nation.

I’d like to pay my respects to elders, past, present and emerging, and extend that respect to any First Nations people here with us today.

Can I also thank the Danish Embassy for inviting me to speak during the first Danish state visit to Australia in 4 decades, led by their Royal Highnesses, King Frederik X and Queen Mary.

If only we could tap the warmth of the welcome extended their way, we could probably decarbonise a large swathe of our industry!

I’m pleased, though, to have an opportunity to share some reflections with you on Australia’s renewable energy roll-out.

The good news is that we are making strong progress – and there’s scope for even faster gains in the years ahead.

Let me reel off a few key points:

• Our main electricity grids sourced a majority of energy from renewable sources in the final quarter of 2025(Opens in a new tab/window) – and for the first time, fossil fuels have accounted for less than half of total supply.
• The rise of renewables more than kept up with the growth in demand, so we saw emissions drop in the main grid – the National Electricity Market – by more than 6% compared with the December quarter of 2024. That shows we can cut carbon pollution even as we meet record demand.
• Wholesale prices in the National Electricity Market fell 44% from a year earlier. More big batteries and a jump in wind generation made a difference – reducing price volatility to just one-sixth of the level of the December quarter of 2024.
• Retail power prices look to be on the decline, at least for the coming year. Victoria’s Essential Services Commission(Opens in a new tab/window) recommended a drop in the default market offer for the coming year of 3% on average for households and 5% for businesses. Other states may see similar reductions. [NB: that determination may land(Opens in a new tab/window) any day now.]
• More than a third of Australian homes have solar panels, and the ratio is about half in some regions, such as South Australia – that’s world-leading.
• Many of these households have leapt at the opportunity to install home batteries under a government support scheme launched last July. The take-up has already reached about 275,000(Opens in a new tab/window), with more than 6 gigawatts of capacity added. That’s a doubling of capacity in just over 8 months.

These are exciting times to be involved in clean energy, in all its forms, great and small.

We know we have a lot more work to do. Some 17 gigawatts of coal-power capacity is due to retire by 2035, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The electricity sector and investors understand well that in replacing this capacity, the finances stack up much better for clean energy.

For instance, Bloomberg estimated the cost of new coal at about 4 times the cost of building a solar farm, and almost triple the cost of onshore wind farms.

With the cost of batteries now falling at a pace reminiscent of solar panels during their steep dive, it is no wonder that many of the new projects coming online(Opens in a new tab/window) in Australia will be solar-battery hybrids or even wind-battery ones.

And, as Energy and Climate Minister Chris Bowen has stated(Opens in a new tab/window), there is some 64 gigawatts of large-scale renewable energy in the pipeline.

Amidst the current global turmoil, it’s easy to miss the progress that’s being made.

Take this location, for example.

Back on 27 January, Victoria set a record temperature for any month at a tad under 49 degrees. Not surprisingly, electricity demand hit a record high as all those airconditioners in Melbourne and elsewhere thrummed away.

These are the stress tests our grid – and our societies – will increasingly face as the planet heats up. Wilder extremes will test our infrastructure, and we need to prepare for it.

On that day of severe heat, though, I’m happy to report the power grid in this state did exceptionally well. Victoria was exporting power for much of the day, and there was little price volatility even as the sun went down.

There also were no lack of reserve alerts issued by the market regulator – no small feat given the strain on supplies that day, and one that the media largely missed.

To finish up, we might not be able to match Denmark’s renewables penetration of about 90%(Opens in a new tab/window) and having more than two-thirds(Opens in a new tab/window) of your new cars being electric vehicles.

Nor can Australia match Denmark for its Nordic Noir or politco-dramas like Borgen.

But I can say that Australia has much in our favour, including access to abundant wind and solar resources, and many critical minerals, too.

Like-minded nations in so many ways, I’m sure there is much scope for us to cooperate even more closely in the future – let’s realise that potential!

Thanks for listening.

Australian Council of Superannuation Investors keynote speech 

The Hon. Matt Kean
Chair - Climate Change Authority

Check against delivery. 

May I begin by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation as the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today.

I’d like to pay my respects to elders, past, present and emerging, and extend that respect to any First Nations people here with us today. 

Can I also thank the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors group for the invitation to address you today on the challenges and opportunities for Australia posed by climate change.

I’m also looking forward to joining a panel and hearing from two old friends – Amanda McKenzie, co-founder and CEO of the Climate Council, and Anna Skarbek AM, the CEO of the Climateworks Centre.

Both have contributed so much to advancing Australians’ knowledge of climate change – and what we can all do to address it.

There is, after all, so much at stake. 

On the carrot side of the equation, Australia is uniquely blessed among nations to benefit from a decarbonising world. We enjoy abundant renewable resources in the skies above, and a periodic table of critical minerals beneath our feet. 

On the stick end, Australia’s exposure to extreme heat and see-sawing rainfall totals leaves us vulnerable to a more chaotic climate that scientists are already detecting as the planet gets hotter. 

With so much concerning news arriving on our channels and in our feeds of late, it’s understandable for us to lose sight of these opportunities and challenges – some of which are already here. 

As superannuation investors, I understand you do face some dilemmas in allocating your $4.5 trillion or so in assets. 

How do you invest to maximise returns for your members – both in these turbulent times, but also for those members who will retire in 10, 20 or 30 years or further yet into the future? 

If Australia really is to have a net-zero emissions economy by 2050, do the investments you expect to generate returns to super holders from incorporate that goal? Mid-century is only 24 years away, after all. 

By some measures, we’ll need half a trillion dollars of investment to re-tool our economy over the next couple of decades. The Business Council of Australia estimated the investment range to hit the upper end of the 2035 emissions goal alone at between $200-$500 billion.

The more disorderly the transition, without clear targets and policies, the larger that outlay will be – with increased uncertainty for jobs and increased likelihood of stranded assets. 

For superfunds, some of the financial risks from climate change have been set out by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, or APRA, in its CPG 229 report.(Opens in a new tab/window)

No doubt many of you will be familiar with it. 

These risks include the physical – such as from floods, to cite a present calamity being endured in large regions of Australia’s centre and north. 

Then there are the transition risks, mostly related to Australia’s exposure to decarbonisation trends.

As a major fossil fuel exporter, Australia may well see the value of our shipments and gas and coal diminish – particularly if our main trading partners take a cue from the current war in the Middle East to accelerate the take-up of clean energy sources. 

And thirdly, there are the liability risks that result from the potential for litigation where – and I cite here from the APRA document – “institutions and boards do not adequately consider or respond to the impacts of climate change”. 

That’s a lot of risk to weigh up. So how are superfunds’ investments lining up with a decarbonised economy at home and abroad? 
 
We do know that Australia needs billions of dollars invested each year in our electricity grid – both to replace the aging and increasingly uncompetitive coal-fired power plants and build additional generation and transmission capacity to meet rising power demand. 

Certainly, there are critics who note Australian super funds are largely absent from, say, investing in renewable energy here. A report last year by the Conexus Institute(Opens in a new tab/window) estimated that the amount of capital allocated to climate-related investments was less than 1% of super industry’s total.

Some investors here today might raise legitimate reasons for shying away from clean energy investments in Australia – and point out they have found more attractive investments in this sector elsewhere in the world. 

However, I would note that foreign investors, many of them pension funds, have found Australia an attractive destination to invest in large-scale wind and solar farms, and now batteries, in a big way. 

If there are barriers that discourage you from parking more of your funds in the low-carbon industries in Australia, your collective voice and financial clout can make a difference.

I would encourage you to use that voice to speak up. 

Lately, we’ve also seen recent media coverage of the 50-odd executives from our super industry on a road trip to the United States. 

Australian funds already own about AUD41 billion worth(Opens in a new tab/window) of US infrastructure assets, and the roadshow is keen to explore more such opportunities, according to the AFR. 

No doubt those fund managers will be keeping in mind their obligations to account for those climate change-related risks I detailed a few minutes ago.

The US has long been an attractive destination for Australian funds. And that country has been investing heavily in clean tech – whether in solar plants in Texas or big batteries in California – and those projects may be appealing to the visiting investors. 

In general, though, Australians should be curious to understand how their super funds are aligning their investments so that the climate risks and opportunities are being addressed. 

The present turmoil on commodity markets because of the Middle East war highlights the folly of seeking to shore up energy security by investing more into fossil fuels. It makes the imperative to accelerate the decarbonisation of the economy clear.

Sunlight can’t get stranded in the Strait of Hormuz. 

There really is a lot riding on how we respond. 

And as APRA itself notes in its prudential practice guide, Australia’s adaptation to climate change won’t just carry risks, it will bring new business opportunities. Prudent managers must take both into account. 

And one final thought. 

Some of you might have seen a report(Opens in a new tab/window) last week from our counterparts in the UK, the Climate Change Committee, on that nation’s seventh carbon budget. 

A timely takeaway was the report’s estimate of the cost of a single fossil fuel shock – the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That cost, to households, businesses and the Exchequer or Treasury, was likely to be as large as the total net additional cost of its so-called Balanced Pathway to net zero by 2050. 

“Achieving net zero was found to be a more cost-effective path for the UK economy than continued reliance on fossil fuels,” the UK report found. 

And that’s from just one fossil fuel shock. 

Economic and fiscal – along with environmental – prudence suggests we should do all that we can to reduce our exposure to such shocks. 

Thanks for listening, and I look forward to joining the panel shortly to field your questions with Anna and Amanda. 

Decarbonisation deals: A proposed COP Negotiations Presidency initiative

Advice from Australia’s Climate Change Authority to the President of Negotiations – 31st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP31)

Summary

COP31 marks an inflection point in global climate cooperation. Climate impacts are intensifying, trade flows are shifting, and the global economy is becoming more multipolar. Governments are under growing pressure to deliver emissions reductions at the speed and scale required to meet climate goals, while also protecting prosperity, jobs and social cohesion. Australia is uniquely exposed to these forces and uniquely positioned to play a significant leadership role in this next phase of international cooperation.

Against this backdrop, the Climate Change Authority’s 2035 Targets Advice identified COP31 as a strategic opportunity to launch a Decarbonisation Deals Platform. Decarbonisation deals are negotiated arrangements between willing governments, with industry as delivery partners, to align emissions reduction, trade, investment and industrial policy in support of a longer-term prospect for supply chain and market development. They do not require formal multilateral negotiations and endorsement by COP. Nor do they depend on universal participation – an opt-in approach is both sufficient and desirable. 

They generally take 2 complementary forms:

1. Bilateral clean industrial transformation deals, covering multiple projects and technologies across the value chain. Such agreements might include removal or avoidance of tariffs and import duties, accelerated approval pathways, joint funding and financing platforms, offtake agreements and long-term assured product supply, and collaboration on research, development and deployment. Together, these elements lower costs, de-risk investment and bring forward real-world emissions reductions.
2. Plurilateral green industry development clubs where groups of countries agree on shared definitions, taxonomies, standards and rules for low-emissions products and markets. This includes resolving questions such as what qualifies as “green” steel and developing shared standards to reduce uncertainty for investors and enable interoperability across markets. 

Decarbonisation deals could provide the missing link between nationally determined contributions and trade cooperation – between climate ambition and economic implementation . By helping to reduce costs, align standards and de-risk investment, decarbonisation deals could make higher ambition more feasible and global decarbonisation faster and cheaper. Yet despite strong momentum, current efforts are fragmented. With greater coordination, a shared platform would enable faster, more coherent deal-making by aligning taxonomies, rules, and ultimately decarbonisation plans. 

For Australia, decarbonisation deals are fundamentally about getting ahead of the game. As global markets change what they buy, Australia can either supplement market conditions to support production or risk losing markets that have underpinned national prosperity for decades. Doing nothing is the riskiest option. 

Globally, the imperative is even larger: enabling faster, cheaper decarbonisation across borders and supply chains. Decarbonisation deals could help create ‘coalitions of the willing’ that move faster, delivering sectoral progress that can be showcased and scaled, demonstrating that climate action and economic competitiveness can align. 

The Authority’s 2035 Targets Advice recognised emissions reduction is now inseparable from trade, investment, and industrial policy. It set out a strategic proposition: Australia can commence a shift from being a net exporter of emissions to a net exporter of abatement, complementing domestic action with international cooperation that accelerates regional decarbonisation. 

Since that advice was delivered, several developments make leadership both more urgent and more feasible:

• Australia will be President of Negotiations, a new, specialised function introduced for COP31. Senator The Hon. Penny Wong explained(Opens in a new tab/window) that this means ‘Australia will have ‘“exclusive authority in relation to the negotiations”, to shape and guide global decision making in support of the multilateral system and global trade and investment in clean energy industries.’
• 24 countries, including Australia, signed the Belém Declaration on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels at COP30, and the Republic of Korea (Korea/RoK) announced a coal-fired power phase-out by 2040, reinforcing the inevitability of declining demand for Australia’s fossil fuel exports.
• 40 countries and organisations, including Australia, signed the Belém Declaration on Global Green Industrialization, complementing the Global Clean Power Alliance (GCPA) Supply Chains Mission established by Australia, Canada, Kenya, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Zambia.
• Brazil launched the Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade, intended to generate new international collaboration that aligns trade practices with climate goals. Australia has been working closely with Brazil to develop this concept.
• Brazil launched the Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade, intended to generate new international collaboration that aligns trade practices with climate goals. Australia has been working closely with Brazil to develop this concept.
• Carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs) are moving from theory to practice, with the EU progressing to implementation, countries like Türkiye considering their own domestic carbon prices specifically to avoid paying the EU CBAM charge, and other countries including Australia actively considering a CBAM of their own.

Globally, the focus has shifted decisively from ambition-setting to implementation, finance and supply chains. This shift is reshaping the role of COPs, from primarily multilateral UNFCCC negotiations to hubs for plurilateral and bilateral deal-making, often with industry at the table. The creation of a COP negotiations presidency comes at an opportune moment, with scope to define negotiations broadly and to use the presidency’s convening power to advance practical agreements that accelerate real-world outcomes alongside formal UNFCCC processes. 

A Decarbonisation Deals Platform at COP31 would offer a practical way for countries to work together on reducing emissions embedded in traded goods, scaling clean supply chains, and managing the orderly transition of emissions-intensive industries – turning climate ambition into trade-linked action. 

This concept note updates and builds on the Authority’s earlier advice, providing further guidance on next steps should Australia choose to use its COP31 role to advance a Decarbonisation Deals Platform, a flagship first bilateral decarbonisation deal, or both.

The Climate Change Authority is reviewing the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, which underpins the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme. The Authority’s 2026 review will explore the role of the ACCU Scheme in meeting Australia’s emissions reduction goals, with a focus on methodologies and market dynamics. 

To inform the review, the Authority has invited public feedback and is holding other targeted consultations. This listening report highlights themes we have heard through the Authority’s engagement and consultation activities up to January 2026.

How we consulted 

Public consultation and engagement

• Issues paper open to submissions from 20 October to 8 December 2025
• Information webinar held on 20 November 2025.

Other consultation and engagement

Meetings with government agencies including the Clean Energy Regulator and the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee.

What we heard 

A summary of the feedback we received is presented below based on the 2 focus areas explored in the Issues Paper: methodologies and ACCU market dynamics. 

Overarching themes

• The ACCU Scheme plays an important role in meeting Australia’s emissions reduction targets.
• Integrity is central to confidence in the scheme.
• Policy certainty is needed to support business investment.
• Recommendations made by the Chubb Review (2022) and the last Climate Change Authority review (2023) remain relevant.

Methodologies – new and existing

Improving method development processes

• Frustration with method development processes, which are seen as slow and unclear.
• Calls for statutory timeframes, transparent work programs and greater resourcing.
• Support for proponent-led and modular approaches to accelerate progress.
• Suggestions that the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee play a more active role during method development.
• Questions on whether methods need to be legislative instruments.

Diversifying methods and supporting innovation

• Interest in novel removal technologies (for example, direct air capture, biochar, and carbon capture, utilisation and storage) and new land-based methods.
• Requests from First Nations organisations for more resourcing and time for method development.
• Calls to reduce barriers to participation through templates, simplified reporting for smaller projects and aggregation pathways.
• Proposals for stacking carbon and transparency in benefits, including cultural and nature repair.

Strengthening integrity and accounting rules

• Concerns about additionality, permanence, risk of reversal and risk of double counting.
• A view that free, prior and informed consent of First Nations stakeholders needs clearer legislative embedding and resourcing.
• Proposals to publish more project level information like audit reports and permanence plans.

ACCU market dynamics

Supporting First Nations leadership and benefits from carbon projects

• Agreement that carbon projects present important economic and cultural opportunities for First Nations peoples, and requests for registries and frameworks to include consent attributes.
• Suggestions that government ACCU purchases should prioritise projects with First Nations projects.

Giving investors clear and stable market signals 

• Forward price signals identified as being critical for investment.
• Calls for stability in policy settings.
• Suggestions for publishing demand forecasts and aggregated market data.
• Mixed views on the appropriate balance between on-site emissions reductions and the use of ACCUs for Safeguard Mechanism compliance.
• Concern that current ACCU pricing does not provide a strong incentive for on-site emissions reduction activities at Safeguard facilities.
• Proposals for the Government to explore international linkages, with others urging caution.

Improving regulatory transparency and data sharing ​

• Calls for greater regulatory transparency and visibility across the ACCU Scheme, including registry interoperability, publication of audit reports, and improved public access to ACCU data.
• Desire for visibility of method pipelines and clearer explanations of decisions.
• Risks highlighted around vegetation removal after crediting periods end.

What we’ll do next 

Submissions made to the Authority are valuable in shaping our advice to government. We received a high number of submissions covering a wide range of interests, including many scheme participants. In the coming months we will progress our own analysis, and are planning a series of targeted engagements to deepen our understanding of the challenges and opportunities, stakeholder perspectives, and possible solutions. This engagement will include stakeholders that are not participants in the scheme. 

The review will aim to be given to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in August 2026 with the report published on our website shortly after. Further project updates will be available on the ACCU Scheme Reviews project page.

Public submissions

The Authority released public submissions to this consultation on 13 March 2026.

View public submissions on our consultation hub(Opens in a new tab/window).

Follow us on LinkedIn(Opens in a new tab/window), Instagram(Opens in a new tab/window) and Facebook(Opens in a new tab/window), and sign up to the On Good Authority newsletter(Opens in a new tab/window) for more Authority news and updates. 

International Association of Horticultural Producers keynote speech

The Hon. Matt Kean 
Chair - Climate Change Authority 

Check against delivery.

Introduction 

May I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land where we meet today, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. 

I’d like to pay my respects to elders, past, present and emerging, and extend that respect to any First Nations people here with us today. 

And I want to thank the International Association of Horticultural Producers for the honour of speaking with you today. 

As an organisation with a global focus - and with many of you representing growers and producers - you’re acutely attuned to dynamics shaping the debate on climate change and its implications. 

The carbon clock is ticking. 

The timeline for delivering on international commitments to curb temperature rises looms large. 

And threats to the natural environment we all depend on are obvious. 

Something well understood in the horticulture sector. 

The health of the planet touches every aspect of your industry 

. . . yield and quality, irrigation and energy costs, biosecurity risk, access to export markets and consumer expectations. 

It makes climate policy core business for agriculture. 

And it’s why today I want to outline the link between challenges facing your industry, the work of the Climate Change Authority, and opportunities for you to prosper in a low-carbon world. 

Pressures on horticulture 

Any debate about any aspect of climate policy needs to start with an honest assessment of the state of play. 

Globally, food security is under stress from a changing climate. 

Rising temperatures, a drier planet, and a growing list of extreme events are already reducing yields of key staples. 

In a world where more than 295 million people across 53 countries and territories already face acute hunger, the risks are compounding. 

Official forecasts estimate climate change could push 78 million more people into chronic hunger. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (known better as the IPCC) suggests that number could be higher. 

And the impacts aren’t just on farm. 

There will be disruption to transport corridors, storage and cold-chains and even food safety. 

The prospect of greater volatility across supply chains and trade-exposed industries like horticulture are high. 

The story is no different at home. 

In recent decades, some of Australia’s most productive farming districts, such as the south-west and south-east, have been battered by climate change. 

They have witnessed a long-term decline in rainfall, matched with record temperatures and extended droughts. 

Heatwaves damage fruit set and quality. 

Extreme storms, hail and fires impact orchards and infrastructure. 

Pest and disease ranges shift with warming. 

And the very physiology and nutrition of plants and crops change in response to higher average temperatures and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. 

These are real business risks, not abstract science. 

That was reinforced by the Australian Government's recent release of its first National Climate Risk Assessment. 

It determined the current risk level for primary industries and food to be medium to high, noting the impacts of extreme heat and shifting rainfall patterns on soil moisture and crop yields. 

The Assessment also identified water insecurity as a major, long-term concern for some regional communities. 

And it made clear that the threat to farm incomes is real. 

These risks escalate in scenarios where we fail to respond swiftly or boldly. 

But here’s the flip side. 

If we’re willing to understand that acting on climate change is both an environmental imperative and an economic one too, we can prosper. 

Global demand will increasingly favour suppliers who can produce reliably under climate stress and demonstrate strong sustainability credentials.

Horticulture—nutrient-dense, high-value, quality-driven—can be a pillar of global nutrition and resilience, and Australia is well placed to lead the way with our endless capacity for innovation. 

The work of the Climate Change Authority

That’s where the Climate Change Authority, which I’m privileged to Chair, comes into play. 

For those new to our work, the Climate Change Authority provides independent, evidence-based advice to the Australian Government. 

We do it through advice on emissions reduction targets, the pathways to achieving them and annual progress reporting. 

We also conduct policy reviews such as the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme review currently underway. 

In short, our job is to help steer Australia to a prosperous, resilient, decarbonised future 

. . . and that includes working with sectors like horticulture, not prescribing from afar. 

Most of you will be aware of the emission targets that Australia has set for itself 

. . . a 43 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 

. . . a 62-70 per cent cut by 2035 

. . . and net zero by 2050. 

Sustaining the Australian success story 

The Government’s commitment to the new 2035 target recommended by the Authority matters for a few reasons. 

It matters because it is a consequence of a rigorous process of assessing a host of issues ranging from the environmental pressures we face, to international trends, to sector-by-sector opportunities. 

We looked at the economics of decarbonisation and capital trends, explored technological advancements, consulted widely and relied on expertise. 

It means the targets are credible and achievable. 

They are also bold. 

Even at the low end of the range, they require that we halve Australia’s current emissions in the coming decade.

They will deliver Australia some of the largest emissions cuts anywhere in the world. 

They will help Australia retain its position as a global pacesetter in the race to net zero. 

With policy, markets and technology now aligned, industry has greater comfort to allocate capital and make investments in the transformational solutions we need. 

And the good news is that the decarbonisation of the Australian economy is well underway. 

Technology is already driving a profound shift in our carbon profile. 

It’s been most obvious in our electricity grid, where renewables accounted for half of all generation in the final quarter of 2025. 

And for producers and farmers, the adoption of onsite solar, batteries and electric pumps can cut bills, reduce emissions and lift resilience to grid disruptions. 

But achieving net zero was never just about energy-based solutions, as crucial as they are. 

It requires a whole-of-economy effort, where our success with methane abatement or carbon sequestration will matter just as much as what we achieve across the grid. 

Opportunities for horticulture to prosper 

That’s why we want to lean into the opportunity to convert what are real risks to your business into momentum and solutions that help us create a more productive and prosperous horticulture sector. 

The Authority’s 2025 progress advice places equal emphasis on resilience—ensuring regions, businesses and communities can thrive as conditions change. 

This includes smarter infrastructure, robust finance, and clear policy to crowd-in private investment.

The National Statement on Climate Change and Agriculture frames it well: climate-smart practice should enhance productivity and profitability while building resilience and lowering emissions in partnership with industry. 

That is especially resonant for horticulture, where margins are tight and consumer quality demands are exacting. 

The electrification of vehicle fleets will eventually extend to farming too, as automakers launch more hybrid and fully electric ute models and even tractors. Owners will enjoy lower maintenance and operating costs, particularly if they generate their own energy, as so many farmers already do.

There are two other opportunities in particular that I want to highlight, as they both deliver durable carbon outcomes alongside on-farm agronomic benefits. 

The first is biochar. 

Biochar is a carbon-rich material produced by heating organic matter such as prunings, crop residues, or manures in a low-oxygen environment. 

When applied to soil, its stable, porous structure can store carbon for hundreds of years and influence nutrient and water dynamics. 

It represents a durable carbon sink and in some instances, reduces nitrous oxide emissions from soils. 

Biochar can also be produced from food and green waste. This diverts organics from landfill, cutting methane emissions as well as enriching soils.

Recent reviews of Australia’s food-waste-to-biochar potential underscore this dual benefit for climate and soil. 

Trials and in-field experience has shown it can increase the availability of water for plants by 20-30 per cent in certain soil conditions. 

It improves nutrient retention and microbial activity, and above all, stabilises performance under heat or moisture stress. 

These benefits are tailor-made for orchards, vineyards, berries, protected cropping and high-value vegetable systems. 

There is still some work to be done to understand how it responds to specific sites and applies to particular products, but it’s enormously encouraging. 

The other opportunity is what’s known as enhanced rock weathering, or ERW. 

It’s a natural process that can be accelerated and managed by applying finely crushed silicate rocks, most commonly basalt, to soils. 

Through chemical reactions with atmospheric CO₂ and water, carbon is locked into stable, solid carbonates, offering a durable carbon storage solution. 

Growers can use existing spreading equipment, which is a big advantage for adoption. 

ERW can improve soil pH, nutrient retention, and water-holding capacity, with studies reporting positive yield and soil function responses in some systems. 

It is already attracting corporate attention and public R&D support globally, and monitoring, reporting and verification methods continue to evolve, informed by research and trials(Opens in a new tab/window) being done by Australia’s science agency, the CSIRO. 

It’s now an emerging opportunity that looks to prove its effectiveness as more trials occur and research partnerships are built, which underlines the promise to the sector 

. . . that is, when we have faith in the capacity for farmers to embrace science, innovate and pursue new ideas, we can build a more resilient future. 

It’ll require extensive collaboration between growers, businesses, industry bodies, research institutes, governments and yes, the Climate Change Authority to propel action. 

I’m confident in our capacity for smart, bold action in driving the new practices, technologies and solutions we need. 

Conclusion 

By embracing these opportunities, we can ensure that the horticulture sector remains a strong, vibrant part of Australia’s economic future. 

That’s because there’s no need for horticulture to be left stranded by the risks of a changing climate. 

Acting now can both reduce the industry’s emissions footprint and fortify the industry’s prospects in the face of a changing climate. 

So let’s seize the chance to give Australian horticulture a competitive edge in a decarbonised world where it is productive, profitable and climate-positive. 

It’s all within reach, and I look forward to working with you to make it happen.

[ENDS]. 

The Authority is preparing its fifth review of the ACCU Scheme and will provide a report to the Minister by the end of 2026.  

The Authority is doing this review in the context of: 

• Australia’s new 2035 emissions reduction targets
• Changes to the Safeguard mechanism in 2023, which shifted the main purchaser of ACCUs from the Government to liable Safeguard entities
• Progress on Article 6 arrangements under the Paris Agreement about the international trading of offsets.  

The review will work to answer the question of whether the ACCU Scheme is correctly calibrated to deliver sufficient abatement to meet the needs of a decarbonising economy.

The aim of the review is to make recommendations that, if implemented, will:

• Improve the operation of the scheme
• Support public confidence in the scheme
• Make sure that it is effectively helping to achieve Australia’s emissions reduction goals.   

Consultation

A public consultation opened on 20 October 2025 and closed on 8 December 2025. To find out more, visit our consultation hub(Opens in a new tab/window)

Find out what we heard from the consultation activities by reading the 2026 review of the ACCU Scheme – listening report. 

If you have any questions about the review, please contact the Authority via enquiries@climatechangeauthority.gov.au

Probity

The ACCU review is being conducted in accordance with the Authority’s standard probity framework. The Authority Charter sets out processes agreed by members to discharge their statutory duties for disclosure and management of outside interests.

The Authority has decided that Mr Matt Kean and Ms Patty Akopiantz, who have declared personal interests relevant to the ACCU Scheme, should not be involved in decision-making on the review report, and should not receive drafts of it. Those members can, however, be involved in discussions and consultations relating to the review. This approach gives the Authority the benefit of the members’ knowledge and expertise, while safeguarding the integrity of decision-making. 

For consultation and other stakeholder engagement activities, conflict of interest issues will be considered as part of activity planning and managed in accordance with members’ standard obligations.

Suits to Wilmot keynote speech

The Hon. Matt Kean 
Chair - Climate Change Authority 

Check against delivery.

May I begin by acknowledging the Gumbaynggirr people as the traditional owners of the land where we meet today. 

I’d like to pay my respects to elders, past, present and emerging, and extend that respect to any First Nations people here with us today. 

It’s great to be visiting this beautiful part of the planet – can I thank the teams at Impact Ag Australia and Wilmot Cattle Co for extending me an invitation, and accommodating my late changes. 

I’d like to frame today’s discussion, if I may, mostly in positive terms. Decarbonisation, handled well, can deliver lasting benefits to regional Australia in general, and to the agriculture sector, specifically. 

Farm incomes can be boosted and diversified, ecology above and below the surface can be enhanced, and communities that have long contributed to the spirit and dynamism of Australia can be made more resilient. 

I should add at this point that our hosts, Alasdair MacLeod and his Macdoch Ag Group, don’t need any prodding from me.

Wilmot farm demonstrates that well-managed grazing makes great economic and environmental sense.

Innovation and tenacity often come with the territory when it comes to farming in Australia – I’m sure you’ll have been impressed by seeing what your team, led by Kierin Wilson and Shane Curtis, has achieved. 

Wilmot and Macdoch have recognised – as have scientists for some decades – that farmers are going to have to adapt to a changing climate faster than many other parts of our society.

Droughts and flooding rains are indeed a feature of this beautiful nation, as Dorothea Mackellar evoked in her famous “My country” poem, composed more than 120 years ago.

The issue for those who live off the land, however, is that those droughts and floods are intensifying and becoming more frequent. 

After all, each degree of global warming enables the atmosphere to hold about 7% more moisture, so the potential for heavier downpours when they do happen is well-established in the science.

And in between those bouts of rainfalls, it’s also possible that heatwaves may also become more severe. 

In other words, depending on how weather patterns shift, those on the farm might have to build in resilience both ways – for both wetter AND drier times, as counter-intuitive as that combination might seem.

For Wilmot, one approach, I understand, is to reduce the relative share of exposed ground, compared with more conventional farming methods on nearby properties.

Improved soils and biodiversity are just 2 of the benefits, as Kierin and Shane may have talked you through the strategies already. 

The exposure of weather-dependent industries – such as farming – to climate change was detailed at length in the National Climate Risk Assessment, released by the Government last year. 

That Assessment, the first done for Australia, examined many of the perils facing the country, with climate risks for agriculture featuring prominently, especially around water security. 

The report noted, though, the risks extend well beyond the farm gate. Of course, city dwellers are going to notice if supply disruptions result in higher prices for their food and fibre.

But rural communities reliant on nature-based businesses may well face more acute stresses, particularly where regions are reliant on only a few industries for economic activity.

That’s just one reason why diversification of revenue sources is one way to bolster resilience in trying times.

As I’ll detail shortly, Australia’s decarbonisation efforts offer our regions additional ways to keep farms viable, whatever the weather headed their way. 

As the Risk Assessment report noted, major disasters can trigger longer-term challenges. It noted, for instance, that the Millenium Drought caused 6,000 job losses at its peak, while the Black Summer bushfires cost about 7,000. 

Retaining workers – or luring them back – after such events is not easy. 

Again, building businesses and industries that have staying power can limit the exodus of skilled staff that can be hard to lure back even when conditions settle. 

I should add that statistics don’t always count what’s important. Communities know, and authorities are getting better at recognising, there are often mental health impacts in the wake of disasters that need to be anticipated and addressed, as part of the recovery efforts. 

It’s something I came to understand in the aftermath of record floods in the Lismore region when I served as Treasurer of this state.

The courage, particularly of volunteers during these emergencies, gave me hope the foundations of those communities were strong. But they also steeled my determination to do what I could to reduce the risks of climate change. 

As I noted in a recent opinion piece after the bad bushfires in Victoria in January, we in fact owe it to those selfless individuals, who put their own well-being and often their own properties on the line for others, to be upfront about the changes we need to make. 

So, I return to the central theme of this discussion: building resilience is not only good for farm productivity, it’s also good for the viability of our rural communities. 

As I noted in a recent edition of the Farm Policy Journal – perhaps you had it on your summer reading list – farmers rightly have been proud of their long-standing roles in supplying vital services like food and fibre.

I argued that their services will increasingly be supplemented by new but also essential ones – from supporting our energy transition to aiding biodiversity and capturing carbon. And they should take pride in them too. 

Together, this range of services, old and new, can combine to future-proof our regional communities for generations to come. 

Curbing carbon emissions is in everybody’s interest, especially farmers’, given they already occupy the frontlines in a more volatile climate. 

And there is a financial interest in sequestering carbon that is already being realised by many farmers and investors in this sector. 

It’s probably not well understood how much a role the land sector is already playing in helping Australia meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets. 

Renewable energy’s advance draws a lot of media attention – both well- and ill-informed – because the power sector is the largest source of carbon emissions in the economy.

But as the Government’s latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory numbers(Opens in a new tab/window) reminded us just last week, emissions from land use, land use change, and forestry have decreased by the largest margin of any sector since June 2005 – shaving off more than 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (or CO2)-equivalent annually since then.

That drop is because of reductions in land clearing and native forest harvesting, increases in plantations and native vegetation, and improvements in land management including soil carbon on agricultural lands. 

By contrast, emissions from the power sector have shrunk about a quarter since 2005, paring annual emissions by about 49 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent. That’s about one-third as much as the land sector, as broadly defined.

In giving our advice to the Government for Australia’s 2035 emissions targets last year, the Climate Change Authority provided illustrative examples of where carbon cuts can come from in the decade to come from 2026. 

We do see the land sector becoming a slightly larger annual carbon sink than it has been over the past two decades.

The bulk of the expected additional cuts, though, will likely come from the electricity sector in the order of more than 100 million tonnes of CO2 reduced from annual pollution levels. 

In other words, the reduction efforts secured through the land sector since 2005 will increasingly need to be taken up by other parts of the economy. 

Incidentally, emissions from Australian agriculture itself – our livestock and cropping – have been broadly flat over the past couple of decades.

As the inventory report noted, these emissions are down about 5 million tonnes of CO2-e, or about 5.7%, since mid-2005. Most of that reduction is because of a decline in the sheep herd, partly offset by higher emissions from agricultural soils and fertiliser use. 

Stacked side by side, agriculture and land-sector changes are of a similar magnitude in terms of emissions.

In the year to September, agriculture-sourced emissions amounted about 18.5% of Australia’s total, while these so-called “Lulu-C-F" emissions were the equivalent of minus 16.6%. 

It makes sense to reduce emissions directly as much as possible and as soon as possible. This approach minimises the need for carbon removals and the knock-on impacts on energy supply, water, and other land uses. However, the Climate Change Authority’s analysis indicates Australia is likely to have residual emissions in 2050, which will need to be balanced with removals – this is the “net” in “net zero”, after all.

And as I mentioned earlier, we anticipate such removals to continue to play a significant role in Australia's transition, perhaps growing to more than 100 million tonnes of CO2-e by 2050. 

Still, given agriculture accounts for almost one-fifth of our nation’s emissions, it is important to unlock further progress in cutting them.

We are not banking on major reductions in the near term from this sector – but the more Wilmot’s practices get mimicked elsewhere, the better. 

In this context, I’m thinking of better herd and pasture management, and planting improved pastures, among other measures.

As we noted in our 2035 targets advice, there are multiple research projects underway to examine opportunities and practices to sequester carbon on perennial pastures and cropping land. 

We can expect, too, advances in technologies that address methane emissions from cattle and sheep, and reduced emissions from fertiliser, while we also recognise such efforts are in relatively early stages of deployment.

While there is scope to modify feed additives to curb those methane burps from livestock, you can imagine the delivery challenges facing relative free-range farms such as Wilmot.

Just how to get those methane-inhibiting supplements out to where the cows, sheep and even buffalo roam? (Assuming there’s a market for bison varieties.)

Researchers and agricultural producers are working on that now – with government support – and the solutions they find could make a material contribution to emission reductions in the longer term.

Other technological advances are on the way.

Electric vehicles now available include electric utes, which will probably only improve in range, power and price.

Perhaps the relative silence of these vehicles will also appeal to hunters frustrated by the roar of a complaining diesel engine scaring-off potential game.

Farmers are famously self-reliant too, and what can be more DIY than powering your own appliances, even tractors, from the sun?

There’s usually ample room to add solar panel arrays – and you can save a long round-trip into town or a visit from a diesel tanker. 

Whatever it takes to win the bush over to clean energy – I'm for it! 

Now, another source of emissions reduction involving the land is of course via the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme. 

This area is of interest to at least a few of the organisations attending today’s sessions.

I believe at least 3 of you have made submissions to the ACCU review now being undertaken by the Climate Change Authority. 

We welcome your contributions.

The Authority is mandated to conduct a review every 3-years – and this one is the first to occur since I became Chair about 18 months ago. 

The Authority is presently working through the results of our public consultation period that closed on 8 December.

This review will take into account the context of recent developments, such as Australia’s 2035 target. 

We’ll also consider the 2023 reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism, which have seen the main purchaser of ACCUs shift from the government to liable Safeguard entities.

As we have stated, the review will work to answer the question of whether the ACCU Scheme is correctly calibrated to deliver sufficient abatement to meet the needs of a decarbonising economy.

Our recommendations to the government may include how the scheme’s operations can be improved, how public confidence in the scheme can be supported, and what more can be done to ensure it helps Australia achieve its emissions reduction goals. 

So, we covered the reason why we need to cut our emissions, and explored some of the ways regional Australia is already benefitting from and assisting this necessary transition. 

There’s obviously a lot more work to do but also nearly boundless opportunity for those who act, particularly if they move quickly. 

We do have agency when it comes to determining our futures – whether you make your living on the land or generate investment returns from it.

Let’s make the most of these opportunities!

Thanks again for the invitation to address you. I’ll be happy to entertain your questions here or later on.