By David Chaplin
Copyright investmentnews
NZ might’ve been first to mandate climate-reporting across a host of entities including fund managers but other jurisdictions are following fast.
Australia, for example, embarked on its climate disclosure journey in 2025 under a phased mission set to bring in various defined groups over a three-year period.
Large investment managers and superannuation funds (ie controlling A$5 billion or more of assets) join the Australian climate-reporting regime from the July 1, 2026 tax year.
And while Australia may have learned some lessons from the teething issues of the NZ system (where several amendments are already in train), the education could cut both ways, according to a new analysis by specialist consulting firm, Mosaic.
The Mosaic report – the third in a series produced in association with MinterEllisonRuddWatts – notes that some aspects of the Australian climate-reporting architecture mark a step-up compared to the NZ version despite a large overlap.
According to the Mosaic paper, the Australian climate regime’s “robust definitions, methodological clarity, comparable disclosures and evolving assurance requirements should enhance investor confidence and support integration with trans-Tasman peers”.
“The standard’s granularity and rigor may also help elevate NZ CS [climate standard] disclosures where businesses operate under both frameworks.”
Indeed, Australia is one of the first countries to model its climate-reporting rules on new global standards that emerged after the NZ system went live in 2023.
At least one part of the Australian/global climate standards could soon apply in NZ, too, under proposals put forward by the External Reporting Board (XRB) earlier this year.
In a consultation due to close on October 10, the XRB has mooted a new greenhouse-gas (GHG) assurance standard aligned with the Australian wording to operate alongside the existing NZ counterpart.
“… assurance practitioners may want to use this standard for Trans-Tasman engagements,” the XRB says.
Local fund managers, as well, lobbied – albeit unsuccessfully – to line-up GHG assurance implementation start-dates with Australia.
More generally, the government-owned accounting standards body says global climate-reporting convergence could see further changes in the NZ rules.
“Some jurisdictions are considering adoption of international standards, while others are planning to delay,” the XRB says. “These developments are considered to be relevant given the number of Trans-Tasman entities in New Zealand. The XRB is actively monitoring other jurisdictions including the UK, Canada, and Japan.”
But as the Mosaic report notes, the close ties between Australia and NZ suggest climate-reporting rules and practical implementation tips will flow in either direction across the Tasman.
“New Zealand entities affiliated with Australia, given that they or their Australian subsidiaries may be mandated to report under the Australian regime, even if not under the New Zealand equivalent,” the paper says.
The report recommends further co-operation between Australasian climate-reporting entities (CREs).
CREs “should engage with regulators, standard-setting bodies, and industry peers to refine reporting methodologies and share best practices.
The study was authored by a panel of MinterEllisonRuddWatts and Mosaic consultants (including partner, Tracey Berry).