The PRI is seeking signatory feedback on Treasury's proposal to implement mandatory climate-related disclosures. We encourage signatories to share their reflections on the following questions:

1. Is the ultimate size threshold for entities that will be required to make climate disclosures appropriate? Please explain why or why not?
2. In addition to undertaking climate resilience assessments against two temperature scenarios under the Paris Agreement, what other climate scenarios should entities be required to report against? 
3. How should Treasury incentivise entities to prepare and disclose high quality, credible transition plans that are aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement? 
4. Is the proposal to phase in reporting requirements for entities in three separate groups appropriate? Please explain why or why not?
5. Are the size thresholds for those three separate groups appropriate? Please explain why or why not?
6. Is the proposal to phase in scope 3 disclosures after an entities' second year of reporting appropriate? Please explain why or why not?
7. Is the proposal to phase in assurance (starting from limited to reasonable assurance) appropriate? Please explain why or why not?
8. What are the benefits, disadvantages, or challenges with Treasury's proposal to limit the application of misleading and deceptive conduct to scope 3 emissions and forward looking statements to regulator-only actions for a fixed period of three years? 

We welcome further feedback if signatories have additional comments on the proposals outside of these questions.