Australia’s net zero sector plan for government and public sector
What is the APS Net Zero 2030 policy?
The Australian Public Service (APS) Net Zero 2030 policy commits Commonwealth government operations to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The target applies at the federal level only and deliberately sets a more ambitious timeframe than the economy‑wide net zero by 2050 objective.
This policy is delivered through the Net Zero in Government Operations (NZGO) Strategy, which focuses on the biggest operational levers: electricity, buildings, procurement, fleet, travel, and ICT/data systems.
Key elements include:
Electricity procurement: renewable electricity target steps up to 80% by 1 Jan 2028 and 100% by 1 Jan 2030 (where available), with a shift to whole-of-government procurement arrangements.
Buildings / leasing performance: from 1 July 2025, for new leases ≥ 1,000 sqm and ≥ 4 years, you’re looking at 5.5-star (metro) NABERS Energy for base building and tenancy; regional/non-metro has a 4.5-star pathway and a “lift within two years” expectation.
Green Lease Schedules: office leases meeting the size/term threshold must include a Green Lease Schedule (non-corporate Commonwealth entities).
Fleet transition: target of 75% of new passenger vehicle purchases/leases to be low-emissions vehicles by 2025, plus broader ambition toward 100% zero-emission light-duty acquisitions (and aspirations for medium/heavy by 2035).
Emissions reporting: entities must report Scope 1, Scope 2 and select Scope 3 emissions (with staged expansion sets out what those “select Scope 3” sources can include).
Amit Kabra
Amit Kabra, National Government Leader, RSM Australia, explains that the APS strategy categorises action areas such as “energy, buildings, leasing, fleet and sustainable procurement” because these sit within operational control. This approach concentrates effort on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, particularly electricity use in owned and leased buildings and fuel use across government fleets.
Catherine Bell
Catherine Bell, Partner - ESG Services, RSM Australia welcomes the emphasis on operational and structural measures, rather than being limited to a reporting focus.
She says, “With very limited time to meet such ambitious targets, this approach effectively forces change to happen through existing commercial decision-points, rather than relying on voluntary behaviour change. With very limited time to meet such ambitious targets, this approach effectively forces change to happen through existing commercial decision-points, rather than relying on voluntary behaviour change.”
In Catherine Bell’s view, this is an effective way to mobilise domestic supply chains towards meeting our net zero commitments.
“Australia has made clear international commitments through successive COPs, including Australia’s Nationally Determined Contribution Communication (2022) under the Paris Agreement that we must continue to meet. Unmanaged climate risk poses a systemic risk. Australia is already seeing climate impacts and transition risks begin to affect productivity, infrastructure, insurance, and public finances. Government, as both a regulator and a major market participant, can’t sit outside that system.”
Who is impacted by the APS 2030 policy?
The APS Net Zero 2030 target impacts a defined but wide‑reaching group of Commonwealth government entities, with flow‑on effects across suppliers, property markets, and service providers that support government operations.
The primary group impacted is the Australian Public Service itself, encompassing federal departments and agencies responsible for delivering government functions.
As Amit Kabra points out, this commitment is restricted to “the APS… not the state levels, it’s the federal government’s own operations.”
The target does not apply uniformly to every public‑sector‑related organisation. Certain entities fall under mandatory requirements, while others are encouraged rather than compelled to act. Amit Kabra notes that “there is a list… of entities that are mandated, and then there are other corporations that the government has said are encouraged to report.”
Amit Kabra highlights that organisations such as government‑owned energy generators represent “the single biggest scope one” contributors within the public sector, making them central to overall progress toward the 2030 target.
APS employees are directly impacted by the target through changes to internal processes, accountability, and decision‑making. The shift to net zero requires new governance arrangements, clearer data ownership, and cross‑functional coordination. Tim Pittaway observes that sustainability cannot sit with a single role, stating, “it can’t just be one person doing everything… this goes across the whole organisation.”
Senior executives and agency heads carry particular responsibility. They must balance emissions reduction objectives with cost pressures, workforce constraints, and service delivery obligations. As Amit Kabra notes, agencies often face resource limitations, and leaders must be realistic about capacity while still driving progress.
The APS Net Zero 2030 target also impacts commercial property owners and developers that lease space to the Commonwealth. Government leasing requirements increasingly specify minimum energy performance standards. Amit Kabra explains that “every building that you now need to go into should be a five‑star or six‑star NABERS rating,” with limited exceptions.
This directly affects landlords seeking to retain or attract government tenants and could influence the design of new developments. However, long government lease terms complicate rapid change. Amit Kabra notes that, “government tenancy is always long… by the nature of leasing, it’s going to be quite challenging” to fully transition within a short timeframe.
Private‑sector organisations that supply goods and services to the APS are indirectly impacted through evolving sustainable procurement expectations.
According to Catherine Bell, the APS procurement policy has the potential to “mobilise entire supply chains.” She says, “Industry and government contractors have to adapt, because government demand is setting a new baseline. It’s government using its purchasing power to accelerate the net zero transition across the economy.”
However, Amit Kabra believes stronger settings are required to ensure sustainability criteria significantly impact procurement decisions. Kabra points out that under current settings, sustainability is often “a very small component of the criteria,” but its inclusion “signals a clear direction of travel.”
In Kabra’s view, that trajectory is a clear market signal that sustainability criteria will increasingly shape eligibility and future competitiveness. Over time, suppliers without credible emissions data, transition plans, or sustainability credentials face growing risk of exclusion or reduced competitiveness in government tenders.
Finally, the target drives demand for external expertise, including auditors, sustainability advisers, and technical specialists. Tim Pittaway, Partner – ESG and Climate Services, RSM Australia, highlights the growing need for support across measurement, reporting, and assurance, particularly as agencies move from compliance into implementation. This demand reflects the complexity of the task and the limited in‑house capability available across much of the APS.
Is net zero by 2030 a realistic target for the APS?
The APS Net Zero 2030 target is ambitious but conditionally realistic, depending on how progress is measured, where effort is concentrated, and how consistently implementation barriers are addressed across Commonwealth entities.
From a technical perspective, the target is most realistic where the APS focuses on emissions it directly controls. Government operations generally have limited Scope 1 emissions and a strong concentration of Scope 2 emissions from electricity use. As Tim Pittaway explains, “from an emissions profile perspective, government is a lot smaller than private sector companies,” and most of its challenge sits with electricity rather than heavy industrial processes. This emissions profile makes deep reductions more achievable than in sectors such as mining or manufacturing.
In Catherine Bell’s opinion, the targets are reasonable so long as they are treated “as an operating model change, not a reporting exercise.” She notes that the plan uses language that acknowledges constraints, meaning that it should be expected that delivery will vary by location and asset class.
Those constraints are particularly visible in terms of the property market.
Government is a major tenant in the commercial property market, but long lease terms limit the speed of transition.
As Amit Kabra observes, “government tenancy is always long… by the nature of leasing, it’s going to be quite challenging” to fully align all buildings with higher performance standards within a short timeframe. Even where policy requires five‑ or six‑star NABERS ratings, structural market limitations slow implementation.
Cost pressure also materially affects feasibility. While emissions reduction can lower operating costs over time, the transition itself requires significant upfront investment. Amit Kabra is explicit that “going green requires significant investment… it’s not going to come cheap.”
This creates tension within public sector decision‑making, particularly during periods of fiscal scrutiny. Tim Pittaway notes that when trade-offs arise, “if it involved a lot of extra costs, net zero is probably the one that would go by the wayside.”
This dynamic introduces execution risk even where policy intent is clear.
Governance and capability further shape whether the target is realistic in practice. Many agencies face resourcing gaps and limited in‑house expertise. Tim Pittaway highlights that sustainability roles are sometimes unfilled or under‑resourced, explaining that “resource in this space was a challenge.” He also cautions that delivery cannot rest with a single individual, stating, “it can’t just be one person doing everything… this goes across the whole organisation.” Without embedded capability across finance, procurement, property, and executive leadership, progress risks stalling at strategy rather than execution.
Despite these constraints, realism improves when success is framed around progress rather than perfection. Amit Kabra challenges a narrow focus on deadline compliance, suggesting to “look at the concrete steps being taken.” He emphasises that sustained year‑on‑year improvement matters more than hitting an exact date, adding that “if every year you’re getting better… that’s still bloody good.” This perspective aligns more closely with the operational realities of the public sector and supports a more credible interpretation of success.
Ultimately, the target is achievable as a directional commitment with measurable progress, even if some elements extend beyond 2030 in practice.
Tim Pittaway
Tim Pittaway highlights that sustainability roles are sometimes unfilled or under‑resourced, explaining that “resource in this space was a challenge.”
He also cautions that delivery cannot rest with a single individual, stating, “it can’t just be one person doing everything… this goes across the whole organisation.” Without embedded capability across finance, procurement, property, and executive leadership, progress risks stalling at strategy rather than execution.
Jacob Elkhishin
However, as Jacob Elkhishin stresses, these decisions are heavily dependent on the life of the mine and site economics. “Installing renewable generation near a mine costs a lot of money,” Elkhishin says. “The return on investment depends on how long the life of the mine is.”
Innovation and technology
The opportunity for the public sector lies in deploying mature technologies at scale, improving data systems, and integrating digital capability into governance and decision‑making.
Proven technologies over experimental solutions
The reality for the APS, is that public sector risk tolerance is low. The APS is more likely to adopt technologies with established performance, predictable costs, and clear payback periods rather than experimental approaches. Innovation is thus less about breakthrough technology and more about systematic deployment of existing solutions. Amit Kabra highlights practical examples of agencies who have “installed solar panels… batteries and stuff” as part of their emissions reduction efforts. Much of the value lies in consistent rollout across a large operational footprint.
Energy data, measurement and digital systems
One of the most significant technology considerations is data capability. Accurate emissions measurement underpins every other decision. Tim Pittaway highlights that progress depends on robust systems, explaining that challenges often stem from “record keeping” and the ability to clearly document “where the data is coming from, who does what, and how the calculations are done.”
This elevates the role of digital systems for energy monitoring, emissions accounting, and reporting. Without reliable data platforms, agencies struggle to track progress, prioritise investment, or demonstrate accountability. In this sense, innovation is as much about information architecture as physical infrastructure.
Fleet transition and charging infrastructure
Fleet electrification represents another technology‑driven transition area. While electric vehicles themselves are now mainstream, building the supporting infrastructure has lagged. Amit Kabra views the Commonwealth mandate around “the entire fleet changeover to electric vehicles,” as an indirect incentive to encourage further infrastructure development as part of the broader net zero pathway.
This connects to the primary way the APS impacts technology and innovation.
By becoming technology users, it sends a market signal, encouraging innovation indirectly through demand rather than direct development.
How the public sector should prepare for net zero
Public sector preparation for net zero requires early action, organisational integration, and disciplined execution, rather than reliance on long term targets alone.
Preparation is as much about governance, capability, and decision making as it is about emissions reduction technologies
Start with measurement and clarity of scope.
Effective preparation begins with understanding the emissions profile and the boundaries of responsibility. Without this foundation, targets remain abstract. As Amit Kabra states, “if you don’t measure, you don’t know whether you are achieving a target or not… if you can’t measure, you can’t control.” Public sector organisations must therefore prioritise robust emissions measurement, clear data ownership, and consistent methodologies before attempting to accelerate reduction efforts.
If you are already reporting on scope 1 and 2 emissions, get started with scope 3. Catherine Bell says, “The direction of travel in public sector reporting is clearly toward fuller climate disclosure.” She highlights that the NZGO framework already requires Scope 1, Scope 2 and “select Scope 3” reporting, with a roadmap that expands which Scope 3 sources get included over time. The IPSASB has now issued a final public-sector climate disclosure standard (IPSASB SRS 1) that includes Scopes 1, 2 and 3, with transition relief that allows entities to not disclose Scope 3 for the first three annual reporting periods.
Bell advises that entities should “expect pressure for broader Scope 3 well before 2030,” but notes that this will likely come in a phased approach, starting with decision-useful categories such as fuel supply chain, business travel, waste and high-impact procurement categories before moving onto broader purchased goods and services.
Align governance and decision making early.
Public sector organisations must prepare by embedding net zero into existing governance structures, rather than layering it on as an additional requirement. This includes integrating emissions considerations into investment approvals, leasing decisions, procurement processes, and risk frameworks.
Preparation also involves realism at senior levels. Amit Kabra warns against performative compliance, noting that agencies sometimes place “very junior people… in charge to say ‘do something’,” leading to plans that lack delivery capability. Effective preparation instead requires executives to align ambition with capacity and to support credible implementation pathways.
A governance design that tends to work:
- CSO (or Head of Sustainability) with a formal mandate from the Accountable Authority, not buried in a single operational team.
- Dotted-line authority across three “asset owners”: Property/Facilities, Procurement, Fleet/Travel (and often ICT).
- A standing Net Zero Steering Committee chaired by a Deputy Secretary / COO / CFO equivalent, with CSO as secretariat and driver.
- Clear decision rights: who sets standards, who approves exemptions, who owns the abatement pipeline and capex prioritisation.
This prevents “siloed compliance,” says Catherine Bell, “because net zero delivery is mostly commercial + asset + operations decisions, not just ESG reporting.”
Integrate climate risk into broader risk management frameworks.
There are now explicit Commonwealth mechanisms pushing in this direction, including:
- The Commonwealth Climate Disclosure Policy, which is building climate disclosure requirements aligned to AASB S2 (tailored for Commonwealth context), with pilots and phased rollout.
- DCCEEW’s Climate Risk and Opportunity Management materials (including technical guidance) that are designed to integrate with whole-of-government frameworks (and explicitly references NZGO + disclosure policy).
- The Commonwealth Risk Management Policy is mandatory for non-corporate entities, and corporate entities are encouraged to align as good practice.
Practical integration approach:
- Put climate risk into the enterprise risk taxonomy (strategic, operational, financial, WHS, legal/regulatory, service continuity).
- Use scenario analysis where it changes decisions (property location, critical infrastructure, service delivery resilience).
- Make it auditable: controls, KRIs, owners, assurance cadence.
Build capability through partnerships, not just headcount.
Given workforce constraints, preparation often requires external support. Pittaway highlights the role of advisers in helping agencies “understand the requirements,” undertake gap analysis, measure emissions, and provide assurance. Preparation does not mean outsourcing accountability, but it does mean recognising where specialist expertise accelerates progress. Amit Kabra reinforces this pragmatic approach, advising agencies to “be careful who you hire and have confidence in your provider,” ensuring that external support aligns with government objectives rather than generic sustainability claims.
Focus on progress, not perfection.
Perhaps the most important preparation principle is cultural rather than technical. Net zero readiness improves when organisations frame success as continuous improvement rather than binary compliance. Kabra emphasises that “if you’re progressing in the right direction” and delivering consistent year on year reductions, the organisation is building genuine readiness, even if timelines evolve. This mindset encourages early action, honest reporting, and sustained momentum rather than delayed or defensive behaviour.
Have a follow up question for our team?
Get in touch
Have a follow up question for our team?
Get in touch
