Climate hypocrisy and NDAs collide in Australia’s Higgins v Reynolds debate

An opinion piece published in the Daily Mail argues that two elements of Australia’s climate-policy debate are being neglected: adaptation to a warming world and the climate impact of what the country exports. The author contends that none of the carbon embedded in fossil-fuel exports counts toward Australia’s official emissions-reduction targets, a dynamic the piece says allows continued growth in coal and iron ore trade while domestic targets rise but without corresponding accountability from importers. The column frames this export-focused approach as undermining the credibility of climate action in Canberra and accuses politicians of grandstanding about emissions reductions while exports harden the global demand for fossil fuels.

The article details Australia’s position in global energy markets, noting that the country is among the world’s largest exporters of coal. It states that Australia is the second-largest exporter of thermal coal and the largest exporter of coking coal, which feeds the iron-and-steel industry and energy-intense production cycles. It adds that iron ore exports comprise a major share of global trade, with Australia responsible for roughly 60 percent of iron ore exports, and that China—one of the world’s biggest emitters—takes most of those shipments. The author argues that these export activities are not treated as part of national emissions calculations, creating a tension between the country’s domestic efforts to reduce emissions and its role as a major energy and commodity supplier on the world stage. An illustrative example cited in the piece is the Yallourn Power Station—a coal-fired plant scheduled to close in 2028—as a symbol of the ongoing transition pressures facing Australia’s energy mix while export markets continue to demand carbon-intensive resources.

Beyond the emissions accounting debate, the piece argues adaptation must be prioritised alongside decarbonisation. It notes that Australia is one of the driest places on Earth, making the country particularly vulnerable to climate-change impacts. The author asserts that investments in adaptation—such as resilience-enhancing infrastructure and future-facing technologies—are as valuable as measures to cut emissions, if not more so, given the challenges of preventing certain climate impacts. The piece acknowledges the commonly stated view that even the best efforts to reduce emissions may not fully halt warming, which, in turn, underscores the importance of planning for future changes in ecosystems, water resources, and heat exposure. It contends that while policymakers sometimes speak of “emissions targets,” the practical funding for adaptation remains underfunded and underemphasized, a gap it asserts will prove costly as the climate evolves.

The column then pivots to domestic accountability, drawing a thread to the Higgins v Reynolds defamation case. It highlights a detail often overlooked in coverage: Brittany Higgins, years earlier, reportedly agreed to sign a non-disparagement clause as part of a settlement in 2021. The article references a report from August 2023 noting that a deed of settlement and release contained this non-disparagement clause, a form of non-disclosure agreement designed to prohibit critics from speaking about an employer. The author uses this point to illustrate a broader pattern in which NDAs function as tools to silence scrutiny and shield powerful institutions from public accountability. It quotes Peter van Onselen, Daily Mail’s political editor, describing how NDAs are positioned in corporate and governmental contexts as mechanisms that quiet dissent rather than promote transparency. The piece argues that such agreements should be banned through new legislation given their potential to muzzle truth and obscure potential wrongdoing.

The author further notes that Higgins and her husband faced substantial penalties for defaming Reynolds, but argues the central concern is the use of NDAs to control information and protect reputations at the expense of public accountability. It contends that NDAs, including non-disparagement provisions, enable cover-ups by silencing former employees and other voices who might reveal harmful cultural problems or misconduct. The article asserts that the public pays politicians’ salaries and that consumers fund corporate profits, which should obligate those in power to face scrutiny rather than bargaining silence with financial settlements. The piece closes with a call to ban non-disparagement clauses and broader NDAs, arguing that accountability—rather than quiet closure—should guide both political and corporate behavior. In its view, legitimate transparency requires questioning targets on their own merits while also addressing the real-world implications of export-led growth on global emissions, adaptation needs, and the stewardship of public resources.

Ultimately, the author contends that climate policy must balance emission reductions with robust adaptation planning and that accountability mechanisms should be strengthened, not weakened, by legal instruments that silence critics. The combination of export dynamics, adaptation imperatives, and the ongoing discussion around NDAs in high-profile political cases underscores what the author sees as a broader truth: Australia’s climate credibility depends as much on what happens at the port and in the courtroom as it does on the numbers in an emissions-statistics sheet.