Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Chair. Minister, I heard you just say that the government is ‘committed to taking strong action’ on climate. If we have a look at the budget for the climate office, it’s a little bit hard to believe what you’ve said. In 2024-25, the budget for the climate office was $9.9 million. In the out-years 2028-29, the budget for the climate office generously sits a bit under $3 million. So, there’s been a cut of almost $7 million to the Office of Climate Change budget. Can you explain, as minister, how you let that happen?
Ms OGILVIE – I think we do have some information on the financials, which I’d like to ask Vanessa to explain, and then I’m happy to answer more of your questions.
Ms PINTO – Thank you. So, the reduction in the budget that the member has outlined is in relation to some fixed-term funding priority initiatives. That funding ceases in the next period, which is 2025-26. So, that covers funding for the Climate Change Action Plan, for the last component of the electric vehicle target, the Emission Reduction and Resilience Plans, and some dedicated funding associated with disaster assistance.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Ms Pinto, whichever way you look at it, minister, at a time where the science is telling us that the impacts of global heating are accelerating and intensifying, the Tasmanian Government has cut funding to the Climate Office of almost $7 million over the forward Estimates.
Can you show me anywhere in your budget where the government has committed to a recommendation of the Tasmanian Climate Risk Assessment Report? Because it’s my understanding that when the State Climate Risk Assessment report came out, the Tasmanian government said thank you for your work and committed to no actions.
Ms OGILVIE – We have a range of actions we are taking in our Climate Change Action Plan, and I can give you some details on that plan.
Ms O’CONNOR – But that’s a plan that expires before too long. I don’t really want a historical, I’m looking forward because that’s where the impacts are coming.
Ms OGILVIE – The forward work is the projects that we’re doing. It might be helpful if I go through those because they obviously range across the forward years. This is the actual work that is happening on the ground.
Ms O’CONNOR – If they relate to any of the recommendations in the Tasmanian Climate Risk Assessment Report, which was what my question was about, that would be great.
Ms OGILVIE – I will run through them and then you can let me know what you would like to know more about. The action plan funding in particular, because I know we’re always concerned about the money and resources. We have $10 million from the 2021-22 Budget, an additional $3 million for the Low Emissions Livestock Grant Program through the 2023-24 Revised Estimates Report.
There is $2.4 million and the 2024-25 Budget of $600,000, $1.3 million from the Emissions Reduction Loan Scheme from the 2021 budget that’s been reprofiled to support the implementation of the Emissions Reduction Resilience Plans. There are 98 actions in the action plan; that’s the the projects that we’re doing – in total across government – equating to an investment of over $250 million marks 50 million.
These allocations are further funding outside the initial $10 million initially invested. There’s quite a substantial amount of action happening, particularly with these projects. Is there anything I’ve missed, Vanessa?
Ms PINTO – The $1.8 million associated with the Climate Projections Work.
Ms OGILVIE – There is $1.8 million there as well. The work we’re doing is the work that we have agreed strategically. The work that we’re doing with the Climate Change Action Plan is important because we’re working with industry and community and across sectors. It’s been very well funded. The projects are underway.
But I’m always concerned about funding and resourcing and each time I’ve been at this table in every portfolio, it’s the same question we all have. Why isn’t there more money for the things that we would like to see money go into?
Ms O’CONNOR – I guess this is a question of community safety. It’s a question of protecting that which sets Tasmania apart from the rest of the world. Gondwana island and it’s about protecting the economy. If you just want to talk about the kind of money that the experts are telling us will be required, the 2025 National Climate Change Risk Assessment referenced financial and economic modelling from the Colvin Review, which shows Tasmania expecting to pay $320 million in economic costs from hazards like storms and bushfires each year from 2050. That’s equivalent to paying for a new $1.8 billion Macquarie Point Stadium every 5.6 years.
Minister, are you aware of the evidence in the National Climate Risk Assessment that Tasmania is the most risk exposed state in the nation. Page 51 of the National Climate Risk Assessment has a really confronting graph there. I wonder if you’ve seen it, minister? And that looks at all jurisdictions and across those jurisdictions it identifies that Tasmania is the most risk exposed state.
Yet, we have evidence in the state budget that certainly from an adaptation point of view, there’s very little resourcing being allocated towards keeping communities and the natural environment in our economy safe from the shocks that are coming.
Ms O’CONNOR – Have you had a look at the National Climate Change Assessment?
Ms OGILVIE – I was just waiting for a question.
Ms O’CONNOR – The question is do you understand how serious the threat is?
Ms OGILVIE – Yes, I do and that’s why we have this entire department and the work that we’re doing. Perhaps I could just turn to the specifics of it.
Ms O’CONNOR – Specifics of what?
Ms OGILVIE – Well, your question. The National Climate Risk Assessment identified Tasmania, as you say, as the most hazard prone state in the country. I think we know that. You’ve asked what the government is doing to in effect reduce or acknowledge and then reduce Tasmania’s risk. We as a government have released our first legislated statewide risk assessment for climate change in November 2024. That’s a good first step. Tasmania’s Risk Assessment for Climate Change was produced by Deloitte’s Risk Advisory Pty Ltd in partnership with the Climate Change Office in RecFit. The risk assessment analysis 40 key risks and opportunities for Tasmania under a changing climate. I am just going to get a little bit of water to make it easy to read.
Ms O’CONNOR – To read.
Ms OGILVIE – To read.
Ms O’CONNOR – You were reading from…
CHAIR – Order.
Ms OGILVIE – Thank you, Chair. The risk assessment analysis 40 key risks and opportunities for Tasmania under a changing climate; 33 of these risks and opportunities are considered tier 1 and 2 meaning action is recommended in the next five years. In 2024, the Tasmanian government also released Managing Tasmania’s Climate Risk and Opportunities, which was the government’s response to the risk assessment. Response focuses on building our capacity as a state to respond to multiple risks and opportunities through action in five key areas. They are:
- Helping Tasmanians understand climate risks and opportunities and how they might be impacted.
- Supporting fit for purpose climate science data and information to prepare for the changing climate.
- Building public sector capability to strengthen how we adapt and make the most of opportunities.
- Facilitating collaborative partnerships to support adaptation plan.
- Monitoring and learning as we go. And recognising that adaptation is iterative process.
Ms O’CONNOR – Can you tell the committee how many of the recommendations of the State Climate Risk Assessment the government is committed to implementing?
Ms OGILVIE – Let me check, Vanessa, are you able to assist with the numbers?
Ms PINTO – There are a number of actions that are associated with that and go across a breadth of areas. They include elements such as managing risks across different factors of the environment.
Ms O’CONNOR – As you would expect from a risk assessment. I am trying to understand how many of the proposed actions/recommendations in the state risk assessment have the Tasmanian government committed to because it was zero at the time. The question is: has the Tasmanian Government committed to any specific actions from the state-run risk assessment?
Ms PINTO – Dr Russell, if you just want to take through some details on the risk response.
Dr RUSSELL – The risk assessment was an assessment as a legislative requirement as part of the most recent changes to the Climate Change (State Action) Act.
Ms THOMAS – Sorry, but could you speak up a bit more?
Dr RUSSELL – I am a bit of a low talker, but maybe it’s not on. I am notoriously a low talker. This happened last year. I can’t help it. We completed the risk assessment. There were no actual recommendations in the risk assessment report. We prepared a government response which had five core areas and within that there are a significant number of actions that we have been implementing over time. The government response includes a range of adaptation actions in response to both the risks and opportunities highlighted in the statewide risk assessment and includes a focus on those five areas of action which I spoke about. The first one is helping Tasmanians understand the climate risks and opportunities in the risk assessment and how they might be impacted. The second one is supporting Tasmanians to access fit‑for‑purpose climate science data and information to prepare for the changing climate, and –
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you and sorry to interrupt you, but the minister did take us through this.
Dr RUSSELL – Okay. Well, that would include something like the climate change projections, building public sector capability, which is the policy framework that we’ve implemented, and facilitating collaborative partnerships. Without partnerships across government we are lost, and we need to work with our colleagues across government in local government, in business and in industry to do that, and have a focus on continuous improvement.
Ms O’CONNOR – If we go to the first statewide risk assessment, it provides – it’s not as comprehensive as the national risk assessment, but it provides some real significant examples of climate risk across all sectors with cascading impacts. The risks that have a tier 1 urgency rating are of particular concern, as I’m sure they are to all of us. Managing the risks rated tier 1 on the adaptation urgency scale:
requires new, stronger or different government policies or implementation activities over and above those already planned, are needed in the next five years to reduce longer‑term climate risk or immediate significant climate risk, and it’s clear where this action should be directed.
Minister, can you sit here, hand on heart, and say that the Tasmanian Government, in response to its own state climate risk assessment, has taken that step?
Ms OGILVIE – We are doing a range of projects that I think encapsulate the activities that have been identified, both by government and also by yourself today. What I will say is that resource constraints are real. I’ve identified particularly forward projects that I think are substantial and ongoing and we continue to implement Tasmania’s climate change action plan, and that’s the strategic vision and document under which we are implementing our actions. The government is focused on finalising projects from that action plan and delivering projects from the six sector‑based emissions reduction and resilience plans and the statewide climate change risk assessment, which were released in 2024.
Now, the six sector‑based emissions reduction and resilience plans are really remarkable documents, and it’s my understanding that a substantial amount of stakeholder engagement occurred to put those together, and that we are working really carefully and well across those sectors. I think the philosophical approach that we’ve taken as a government to work with stakeholders with sectors across those pillars of the economy, in particular, is bearing fruit.
Progress on the action plan was publicly reported and I’m sure you’ve all seen that in an annual climate change activity statement in September 24. Now, we know the next statement, which I’m certain you will be interested in, is currently being prepared, I think that’s right to say, and will be released before the end of the year. There’s a range of activities under that plan as well, under the action plan.
Ms O’CONNOR – If we could go back to the state climate risk assessment and those risks that it designates as tier 1 for their urgency, that is, these impact on food supply systems, impact on the built environment – I know you’re texting, but if you could just listen. Within the state climate risk assessment report are a range of tier 1 urgency actions required. Are you able to point – and it says in fact that:
Many impacts in the built domain are rated to have a major consequence by 2030. Risks to healthcare and emergency services, built infrastructure and risks to transport networks have an adaptation urgency rating of tier 1.
Minister, can you point to anywhere in the Budget where it is clear that the government has heard this and allocated action and resources to respond, because 2030 is five years away?
Ms OGILVIE – I have just actually answered the question, but I’m happy to give more information, in particular, to Vanessa.
Ms O’CONNOR – Sorry, did you point to areas in the Budget where this is funded?
Ms OGILVIE – Yes, I think we have a list here, so –
Ms PINTO – One of the areas that’s identified as a tier 1 is in relation to some of our inland water ecosystems, and some of those areas fall under the government’s rural water use strategy where it’s looking at a number of areas to examine and understand what’s occurring in the ecosystem and understand how to manage those waterways. That’s quite a comprehensive program the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania is running. Equally, there are also factors that are being considered across our coastal ecosystems and equally –
Ms O’CONNOR – Funding as well?
Ms PINTO – As a part of those programs, they’re being considered as a part of the marine environments that are being looked at within the environment sections of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania.
Ms O’CONNOR – I guess I still haven’t had an answer to the question about where we can see in the Budget – and I don’t mind if you talk about other portfolios and the allocations in those outputs that respond to the urgency within both the state and commonwealth climate risk assessments.
Ms PINTO – Other areas that, of course, would be covered within the risk assessment fall within the renewable areas, that are looking at a number of factors such as renewable developments to manage the state’s requirements. There are also areas where we’re looking at clean fuel sources.
Ms O’CONNOR – With respect, just like the rural water use strategy, a lot of the government’s renewable projects preceded the release of the state climate risk assessment. Again, minister –
Ms OGILVIE – The challenges remain the same. We’re all dealing with the same science and identifying the projects that need to be done in a priority area, so –
Ms O’CONNOR – If I could just say, everything in response to the question that I’ve asked about resourcing in the Budget that deals with the real risk, that’s been pointed to, is previous government policy, previous funded initiatives.
Ms OGILVIE – You want new funding; is that your question?
Ms O’CONNOR – I want to see evidence of any funding allocation or any program or policy change that deals with the urgency in your own government’s state climate risk assessment.
Ms OGILVIE – Well, I think – sorry, Vanessa, please go first and then I will –
Ms O’CONNOR – I think you should go first.
Ms OGILVIE – Well, I’m happy to answer it. We’re all dealing with the same science and we’re dealing with the same problem, which is climate change, and we have a group of people who are very good at what they do. The programs and projects that we’ve established are prioritised. In relation to ongoing projects, they are funded. I’ve just read to you the amount of funding that’s gone into it. I share your concern. I’m not here to have a debate with you about the importance of this area. It’s urgent and important and serious. In relation to specifics, if you’re looking for me to be able to tick a list off of what that document does as opposed to where we’re at –
Ms O’CONNOR – Anything in the Budget that points to a response to this.
Ms OGILVIE – That’s another question. Vanessa –
Ms O’CONNOR – It’s the same question I’ve asked three times.
Ms OGILVIE – No. Okay. Vanessa, you did want to say something. I will let you do that and then we can come back to it.
Ms PINTO – The key point that I was going to articulate for the committee is in relation to the work that is being done across government to increase the level of education and understanding and comprehension in the way existing programs and new policies and programs are being undertaken. There are a number of areas whereby that consideration is being brought in. I’ve referred to a couple within Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania.
Equally within the Department of Premier and Cabinet there are resilience and recovery programs that are being run where the integration of the learnings from the risk assessment is being brought into programs that are being run. Now, some of those are across new policies and funding‑allocated areas for government. The key message there is that the key learnings, understanding and principles associated with climate change risk adaptation and application is being considered. In many respects, I think, as I would point to my colleague here, the team have over time been conducting a lot of work working with key areas to ensure that that level of education and understanding is instilled within those parts, across government.
Ms O’CONNOR – On the education question, what climate change education programs will the government implement and presumably fund? Given that Tasmania’s risk assessment for climate change of 2024 states that:’
education is vital to successful climate adaptation and increased resilience for future generations.
Ms PINTO – As an example, in just October this year, there were developed and distributed climate risk summaries and snapshots across agencies. There was also guidance and development materials provided to enable employees to be able to have access to valuable data and be able to understand how to apply that within the portfolio or policy areas that they oversee. This is also all across into case studies, so people can understand how that may apply, whether that could be in a marine context or it could be in relation to active management of land and vegetation resources. It’s around taking the learnings and understanding from the significant body of work such that it is brought across for various policy and portfolio areas to understand how to apply.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you for your indulgence, Chair. What I heard just there is that there’s some work being undertaken to better educate people in agencies and state servants, but there’s not – I’m very happy for you to clarify this – funded climate-awareness programs in place for the broader community.
Dr RUSSELL – As part of the action plan, we’ve got funding to provide a range in the suite of public education material across a range of areas. That will involve information on our climate change projections and what you can do at home. In education, information awareness is a really key role of what our office does. There’s a range of fact sheets available online already. We’re continuously going to be updating and rolling those out.
In addition, we have done some work with children and young people on climate change through the action plan and through the response to the risk assessment. We recently worked with the department of education to provide information and advice on climate change resources in the curriculum. We’ve also worked with the university around the Curious Climate program and the Youth Climate Leaders Program as well. There’s a range of activities going on in that.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. Those action plan measures preceded the delivery of the state climate risk assessment because that’s for the action plan, which is set to expire.
Dr RUSSELL – The action plan did have a time-frame on it of two years, but we’ve got programs that are rolling out over time. Some of them will be ongoing, for example. There’s sort of not a hard start and stop date and information education awareness is a core part of our function.
Ms O’CONNOR – Can I just – off the back of the Chair’s questions – make an observation that when you look at the actual actions in this list, we’ve things like hold round table meetings, expanding engagement, develop information and resources, work with partners, work with partners, develop a program, seek opportunities, consider climate change impacts, review the $250,000 Carbon Farming Advice Rebate Pilot Program, establish a group. I mean, minister, undertake a gap analysis, work with the Australian Government. There’s a lot of things in here which are, to be frank, small beer in terms of what’s required. Reviewing a grants program is not really what you call a climate action.
Ms OGILVIE – I sort of don’t agree with you and I will just explain why as gently and sensibly as I can. The work that you’re looking at is the work of the government. The work of the government is to make sure we do what we can internally but also externally. I think the environment movement has done a superb job over – I remember the dams days, from those times in elevating the understanding of not just what were issues around dams in those days but now climate change and climate action as well.
Ms O’CONNOR – It’s not just the environment movement doing that.
Ms OGILVIE – Superb job, I’m trying to give a compliment, a superb job. We all care about the environment. The question is what is the role of the government in climate change action? Now, we’ve taken an approach which is strategic, and we have the strategic‑level work happening, we have the action plans and then we have the work where the rubber hits the road with industry, with sectors. That actually has been a very clever and smart way of going about elevating and supporting companies like Grange who want to do the right thing.
By adopting this strategy, which is really project based, that’s why it gets complex when you’re asking about other projects. The change is happening. Government ought not to be at the top dictating to others how they should do things. We ought to be bringing people on the journey, and I think that is what’s happening. We heard a bit about that this morning. I take a different perspective, but I appreciate you want to see more direct action. I’m happy to hear your ideas on that.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, with respect, I was an actual minister for climate change for four years. You’re part of a government that won’t even allocate a portfolio.
Ms OGILVIE – Is that a question? No. So I have the portfolio, and –
Ms O’CONNOR – It’s a little bit hard to take you seriously when you say committed to taking strong action on climate change when they won’t allocate you a climate portfolio. There’s cuts to the climate budget across the forward Estimates. There’s no indication that the tears and the urgency expressed in the state climate risk assessment have been taken seriously, because the actions that we’re looking at are reviews and working groups and conversations and expanding engagement. It worries me that we’re sleepwalking under this government.
CHAIR – Do you have a question?
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes, always. Thanks, Chair. Well, how many – it just really worries me because it seems like we’re tinkering around the edges, and if you want to talk about the role of government –
Ms OGILVIE – I don’t believe that’s true.
Ms O’CONNOR – Hang on a minute, if you want the role of the government –
Ms OGILVIE – No, you’re making a speech.
Ms O’CONNOR – you might talk about the climate act.
CHAIR – Do you have a question? I’d really like to get to it.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will get to the question, Chair, because what industry needs as well as partnership, and I know, I went and talked to the major industrials and had them at the table ‑
Ms OGILVIE – Exactly, I’m trying to give you some credit here.
Ms O’CONNOR – What industry needs, for example, is to work towards sectoral targets. You need some carrot and you need some stick. Let’s talk about your climate act review. How many public submissions, minister, were made to the climate act, and when is the government planning on releasing a summary of submissions and a response to them?
Ms OGILVIE – All right, so we had a huge preamble to that question –
Ms O’CONNOR – It was an expression of frustration.
CHAIR – Just focus on the question; the rest were all comments.
Ms O’CONNOR – Don’t play dumb, the question was there at the end.
Ms OGILVIE – I’m not playing dumb. I’m just pointing out that, firstly, we’re on the same page in the need for climate action –
Ms O’CONNOR – I don’t think so.
Ms OGILVIE – Secondly, I support my team and what they are doing and they’re doing a great job. Thirdly, we know we’re in a budget‑constrained environment. I speak about it every time at this table. It’s real. We all have to manage through it. What I have is stakeholder and community engagement through the consultation process was strong, you will be pleased to know. A total of 370 pieces of feedback were received, including 99 written submissions, 202 survey responses and 69 ideas or contributions, and there were 84 attendees across the five online workshops.
Ms O’CONNOR – The answer to the question that I asked, about when will the government released a summary of submissions and a response to them, and what’s the time frame for finalising the review?
Ms PINTO – The expectation is, because the independent organisations that are working together are preparing that, are looking to provide a report through by the end of this year.
Ms O’CONNOR – Okay, and can I ask a question for the third time, see how we go for an answer?
CHAIR – Yes, just ask one at a time perhaps.
Ms O’CONNOR – No, I did ask this one just now, the third time. When is the government planning on releasing a summary of submissions and a response to them?
Ms PINTO – What we would be seeking to do is, having received that report, provide an opportunity to review the feedback and the areas that are covered. There are a number of submissions that were provided through that process, and provide that advice through to government such that then the government would be in a position to be able to respond to that. I would expect that that would be something sought to do in early 2026.
Ms O’CONNOR – I’m still not sure I have an answer. Is the government going to release a summary of the submissions and the government’s response to them?
Ms OGILVIE – I think we just heard the answer.
Ms PINTO – In answer to that specific – yes, part of that would be to provide those responses that were submitted and then for government to then respond.
Ms O’CONNOR – When does the government plan to release proposed amendments to the Climate Change (State Action) Act 2008?
Ms OGILVIE – I don’t think I have any details on that. Let me confirm.
Ms O’CONNOR – Could you confirm it’s your expectation there will be some amendments to the act?
Ms OGILVIE – I don’t know, actually.
Ms O’CONNOR – Christ. Okay.
Ms OGILVIE – I don’t know about that.
Ms PINTO – Once we’ve received the independent assessment of the review of the legislation –
Ms OGILVIE – We will make a determination.
Ms PINTO – We will make a determination at that point, noting that when the prior review was done in 2022, is that right, there were amendments that were made at that point in time, and part of the assessment of the independent report, when it comes through, will be to consider the robustness of the legislative changes that were made at that time to determine.
Ms OGILVIE – We will assess what is needed.
Ms O’CONNOR – So dispiriting.
Ms OGILVIE -You’re being quite rude to me, Cassy.
Ms O’CONNOR – I’m really dispirited by these responses.
Ms OGILVIE – You’re being a bit rude, though. It would be nice if we could have a genuine conversation.
CHAIR – Just keep going. We have to move on to other areas. We’ve still got several line items.
Ms OGILVIE – We are actually mostly on the same page, and I am trying to assist.
Ms O’CONNOR – I’m just worried about – anyway, what I’m hearing from you, minister, is that there’s no certainty that the act will be tightened up or any of the recommendations that people have been making about sectoral targets, overall emissions targets.
Ms OGILVIE – When I see the recommendations I will make an assessment. We will have a discussion, and if amendments are sensible, then we certainly will consider them. It is a pretty sensible, straightforward process.
Ms O’CONNOR – The former minister for environment and climate change, Mr Jaensch, said in a letter to the Tasmanian Conservation Trust in 2022 that the Climate Office had:
advised government to complete a baseline emissions inventory prior to setting a target to become the neutral target.
That is, a carbon neutral target for government operations, and the minister stated:
The Tasmanian government has committed to completing a baseline emissions inventory that will inform the approach for government operations.
Has that work been undertaken?
Ms OGILVIE – Let me just see if I can get some information on that. Obviously former ministers, I don’t have the background. I thought we might have some more information. I understand the baseline assessments are close to being finalised, but you might have a bit more information.
Ms PINTO – As part of the work that was done to develop the Tasmanian government operations, ERM Australia was engaged to undertake a baseline emissions inventory for government operations. This project commenced in August 2024 and is expected to be completed quite soon, probably in early 2026, and it’s a key input into the government’s Operations Emission Reduction Resilience Plan that’s currently in development at the moment.
Ms O’CONNOR – Why did it take two years for that work to start following the correspondence with the Tasmanian Conservation Trust?
Ms OGILVIE – I would be guessing, but I assume there’s resourcing and planning requirements.
Ms O’CONNOR – The Australian Government has set an emissions reduction target of 62-70 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels, I believe, by 2035. That’s just 10 years away, minister. How will the Tasmanian government and our emitting sectors contribute to that national target?
Ms OGILVIE – I have some information to assist with that.
We as a government are committed to supporting the national transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The national climate adaptation work program engages with the Australian government on key climate change policy issues. Many of the Australian government’s legislative and policy commitments align with the Tasmanian government’s agenda for action on climate change.
We as a government are seeking to maximise the opportunities for Tasmania through relevant Australian government climate change policies and programs including opportunities for collaboration and joint funding of programs through the implementation of the national net zero plan, National Climate Risk Assessment, National Adaptation Plan and national sectoral decarbonisation plans.
The Tasmanian government is also supporting Tasmanian entities to access relevant climate change opportunities, including encouraging participation in Australian government funding programs and consultation processes. Tasmania’s climate change legislation promotes Tasmania’s contribution to international, national and local government emissions reduction and adaptation measures to support the transition to a low emissions future.
We know that on 15 September 2025, the Australian government released the first National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan. On 18 September 2025, the Australian government released its emissions reduction target for the 2035 along with its net zero plan and six sectoral plans.
The Australian government has set up working groups. We’ve engaged with those, particularly with the Australian government and other jurisdictions on a range of issues, both formally on development of Australian government policies and informally through working groups. Those groups include – Chair, you might be interested in these:
- decarbonisation of infrastructure and transport working groups and associated subgroups,
- adaptation working group,
- coastal hazards working group,
- national partnership for climate projections and associated working groups,
- national electric vehicle action plan implementation group,
- national greenhouse gas inventory committee,
- cross-jurisdictional community of practice for greenhouse gas emissions data reporting,
- inter‑jurisdictional working group on greenhouse gas emissions in government operations,
- regional drought resilience planning,
- Australian climate service,
- jurisdictional roundtable, and
- climate risk management community of practice.
I’ve read those out specifically to show the level of work and the level of integrated conversation that is happening between Tasmania and the federal government. I want to reiterate what a good job ReCFIT with its not huge number of staff and resource constraints does do. They have my full support and enjoy working with them.
Ms O’CONNOR – I have one more, is that okay?
In the climate risk assessment undertaken by Deloitte for the Tasmanian government on page 63 it says there is limited research linking climate change impacts on retention of Tasmania’s net zero status explored in the scenarios used for the risk assessment. As you know, minister, when you look at our greenhouse accounts, it’s the forests that do the heavy lifting, but they will suffer the consequences of global heating in the years ahead. Forests aside from in the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, I might add.
Minister, Tasmania’s net zero status relies almost entirely on carbon sequestration by our forests, with little to no absolute emissions reductions across any other sector. Does the government have access to or plans to fund modelling of the changes in Tasmania’s forest carbon carrying capacity against future private scenarios and the impact on the state’s emissions profile and net zero status?
Ms OGILVIE – I want to understand the question; you want to know if we plan to do modelling on the change in –
Ms O’CONNOR – If there’s any understanding in government given that our net zero status and our net zero target are predicated on continuing sequestration from forests because there’re no emissions across the other sectors. If you haven’t had a good look at the greenhouse account –
Ms OGILVIE – There are emissions across the other sectors.
Ms O’CONNOR – There are no emissions reductions across the other sectors, and given that our target is net zero by 2030 –
Ms OGILVIE – Well, we are net zero.
Ms O’CONNOR – I know that, because of our forests, but the fact is the climate risk assessment has identified the global heating’s impact on the forest’s capacity to sequester.
CHAIR – Say there is a big bushfire that wipes out a fair bit of forest.
Ms OGILVIE – So, it’s a hypothetical situation?
Ms O’CONNOR – No, it’s not a hypothetical situation. It’s a scientifically grounded analysis of risk because of heating that would make forests more flammable. Given that our target is net zero, and it’s our forests that are letting us be at net zero, has the government done any sort of modelling on the risk that climate poses –
CHAIR – Climate change.
Ms O’CONNOR – Climate change poses to our net‑zero status as a result of the impacts on our forests?
Ms OGILVIE – I think we can give you some information on that. Thank you, Sarah.
Dr RUSSELL – Thank you. In 2021, when we reviewed the Climate Change (State Action) Act, we did a number of foundational pieces of work, including an emissions pathway review and an economic impact analysis. The review considered a 10 per cent year-on-year increase over the previous five years of areas burnt and emissions from modelled bushfire events, an assumption that 5 per cent of the area burned in these bushfire events will be forest land converted to another land use. These assumptions are based on the expectation of increasing impacts of climate change and bushfires over time, and assume both land use change and the short- to long-term forest degradation that may result after major fire events. We’ve considered this in our previous work over time.
