The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 is significant, complex and cannot be supported. On its face, it purports to make a series of technical changes to the operation of Australia's $50 billion carbon credits market, but, like every piece of legislation that this Albanese Labor government puts in place, it's got an ideological underpinning to it which is going to do harm. And, as I will explain, this piece of legislation is no different to all the other pieces of legislation which the Albanese Labor government has put in place when it comes to their ideologically driven net zero agenda. With some exceptions, these changes are mostly uncontroversial. They include a new incentive structure for the role of R&D in carbon abatement, the establishment of a new oversight body, shifting certain powers from the Clean Energy Regulator to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

But, as I have said, this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I'll be very clear at the outset. The coalition will oppose this fundamentally flawed and regressive net zero bill. Had the bill been limited to the changes that I mentioned earlier, then it would have stood a better chance of attracting support from the coalition. After all, the coalition does support an effective and robust carbon credit market that helps Australian companies reduce their emissions responsibly and competitively, but this bill goes way beyond making a few administrative-in-nature changes. The bill greatly expands Australia's native title regime, removes the least-cost financial test and hands the minister sweeping new carbon credit powers. As I will explain in detail, these are deeply consequential amendments that the coalition cannot support.

Australia's carbon credits market, formally the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, has been operating in Australia since 2011. It has operated under successive governments, albeit under extremely different rules, policy objectives and names. At its core, however, its intent has remained the same: (a) to support companies to reduce their emissions from industrial processes and (b) to back emissions sequestration, that is, storing carbon in vegetation or soil. As it currently operates, companies can use the scheme to implement eligible emissions reduction projects using approved methods and earn one Australian carbon credit unit for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions that the project avoids or stores. Participants can then sell ACCUs to the Australian government by entering into a carbon abatement contract or to private entities who need to surrender ACCUs to meet compliance obligations under the safeguard mechanism.

Labor changed the safeguard mechanism in mid-2023. Under this change, baselines for emissions reductions were adjusted so that they sharply decline. Consequentially, a company which exceeds its baselines must purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions. I remind members, again, that the coalition does not support Labor's punitive safeguard mechanism, which is a carbon tax. We want to abolish it.

One of the principal concerns that the coalition has with this bill is the changes to the native title arrangements. Currently, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 provides for the conditional registration of eligible offset projects on native title land before the consent of eligible interest holders has been obtained. In practice, this means that any project may be established for up to five years—the first reporting period—before it is required to provide evidence to the Clean Energy Regulator that eligible interest holders' consent has been obtained to undertake that project.

The bill, in sections 27 and 28, dramatically upends this process. The bill establishes that a mere claim to native title would become an eligible interest. Accordingly, this would require someone wanting to establish a carbon abatement project to deal with a claim to native title, regardless as to whether the title actually exists or exists at law. That is a monumental change and, as a precedent, would have monumental consequences.

This new approval process is part of a more cumbersome two-stage consent process for setting up a carbon abatement project. Among other things, the Clean Energy Regulator, at section 32, would be allowed to unilaterally revoke a proponent's project declaration at any time prior to the first reporting period, if there is no reasonable prospect that consent will be obtained between proponents and eligible interest holders. Talk about putting in place more and more regulation—more and more red tape! The government just does not know any bounds when it comes to putting regulation in place.

The coalition acknowledges that native title laws have been in place for over 30 years in Australia, although their exact composition has always been the subject of complex and at times emotional debate and protracted legal proceedings. There has always tended to be some recognition by lawmakers that there are practical limitations to their application. But, quite simply, this bill we have before us goes too far. It is the definition of mission creep, and mission creep, as I've said, as a precedent will set, I think, a new regulatory burden on this country that no-one should be supporting.

The first issue at hand is: what is the proposed change actually fixing? Under the current carbon credit regime, native title holders enjoy absolute, rock-solid legal protections. These include that a project proponent must obtain the consent of the native title holder, and there is a built-in right to negotiate.

Secondly, this change goes beyond what the government's own report recommended. So, once again, I do question why the government is doing this when its own report didn't recommend it. In introducing this bill, the assistant minister asserted that the changes this bill is trying to make arise from the 2022 Chubb review. This simply isn't the case.

I don't know what's happening to this government, but I fear, under the Prime Minister's leadership, that they're learning to just make things up and think, if they just say it, it's true. Well, there are actual facts that matter. And the Prime Minister mightn't like that. He mightn't like the fact it seems he's given Rhys Muldoon a reference. But, if he has, it's a fact. And you've got to be honest and upfront, and that's what I think the government has got to start learning, because under the stewardship of the Prime Minister—well, the Australian people have seen it. They saw him fall off the stage, and then he said he didn't fall off the stage. But then comes the real bite. Then he says he's not going to introduce this range of taxes, and he does so.

It's like this here—and it's another example—with the Chubb review. Recommendation 11 of the Chubb review was the only recommendation which went to issues around native title. Recommendation 11 only proposed that project proponents be prevented from conditionally registering projects prior to obtaining the consent of eligible interest holders. The review did not recommend an expansion of eligible interest to cover mere claims to native title. In fact, the review only went so far as to state:

Proponents, in keeping with current industry best practice, should consider the need for, and the benefit of, consent from not only Native Title holders but also Native Title claimants.

The legal realities of expanding the native title regime are unclear at best. As a matter of fact, I think you're going to make things so much worse it's not funny. It's funny, when we had the departmental briefing and we asked questions about this, no-one could see that this would do anything else but make the regime more complex. According to the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network, who support this bill and have met personally with the assistant minister, 11 per cent of Australia's landmass is currently under a native title claim, awaiting a decision to be made by the Federal Court as to the area's native title status.

Thirdly, these changes throw up a range of complicated logistical questions for project proponents. In their submission to the prior consultation process on this bill, the National Farmers' Federation recommended the government replace the regime proposed in this bill and instead opt for a right-to-negotiate-style process similar to that applied under the future acts regime. The NFF's evidence is particularly compelling. They found that negotiations underway under the current regime are already too difficult, too protracted and not conducted in good faith. For example, they point to reports of landholders having to pay money upfront simply for an initial sit-down meeting with an eligible interest holder. Worryingly, the NFF states that such events are not isolated but rather reflect a pattern of behaviour experienced by the sector nationwide.

The NFF's position that the ACCU scheme should not convert a prospective claim that has not yet been formally determined into an indefinite consent right is strongly made and strongly backed by the coalition. The NFF is not alone in raising concerns about the proposed expansion of native title. AgForce Queensland, which represents 6,000 farmers who manage a combined 55 million hectares of land, argue that the proposed changes 'risk creating substantial uncertainty' which 'significantly increase project establishment costs, transaction complexity and delays for agricultural producers'.

The energy industry has also raised concerns about the practical application of these changes. Woodside Energy has similarly raised concerns with the government's proposal, stating that the change may cause investment uncertainty which may reduce and delay ACCU supply. While expressing in-principle support for generally strengthening Australia's native title regime, AGL Energy have advised the government of issues around implementation. AGL have sought advice on how overlapping or competing claims to native titles would be resolved. Importantly, AGL have sought additional advice from the government as to how this native title expansion would support sufficient consent processes while at the same time maintaining timely project delivery.

Thank you, Member for Groom. Finally, the Business Council of Australia has also raised concerns around the proposed native title expansion. The BCA have warned of unintended consequences with the proposed changes, stating that the bill ought to include 'specific guidelines for clear evidence requirements, standard forms of service level timeframes to minimise registration delays and uncertainty in the consent process'.

The opposition is concerned that expanding native title in this way would unleash more recalcitrant activists and lawyers to sabotage good faith negotiations and delay the delivery of carbon abatement projects. This would unleash a new wave of lawfare in Australia. This would cost a fortune, pit Australians against Australians and not deliver the environmental outcomes the government purports to want to achieve through this bill. This element of the bill alone requires much deeper industry engagement and public ventilation. It should go to a Senate committee where senators can hear further from farmers, legal experts, industry and other interested groups.

I'm now going to turn to the lease cost tests. The bill contains a 'blink and you'll miss it' change: the removal of the least-cost test. But I can tell you I think the Minister for Climate Change and Energy had his eye on this from the word go. Under the current act, the government can purchase carbon credits with regard to whether that purchase is being conducted at least cost to achieve carbon abatement. In effect, the act requires the government to purchase carbon credits without having an undue financial impact. That is entirely appropriate and prudent.

But Labor wants to remove the least-cost test of paragraph 20G and replace it entirely with an opaque value-for-money test instead. Minister Bowen has been called 'Minister Blowout Bowen', and what we can see here again is that this is going to blow the budget. But I don't think there is a care in the world for value for money in the Minister for Climate Change and Energy's DNA. I really don't. He is happy to throw taxpayers' money at everything and anything, waste taxpayers' money on everything and anything, and this bill is no different. That's why he's going away to this very opaque definition of taking the least cost, which compels the government—and the government shouldn't be doing this in the first place—to pursue least cost for a value for money.

We've seen the Minister for Climate Change and Energy think there's value for money in spending taxpayers' money, $150 million, to go on a holiday to Fiji and Tuvalu where no-one's going to turn up. That's what he thinks is value for money. We have to stick with least cost. Instead, the bill's accompanying explanatory memorandum states that the two factors the government would have to have regard to when purchasing carbon credits—and as I've said, they shouldn't be doing it full stop—are (a) whole-of-government emissions reduction and net zero strategies and (b) environmental, social, economic and First Nations cultural benefits. This is deeply unacceptable.

Let's be clear: the only consideration the government should have in its mind when buying carbon credits is what impact it will have on the budget. Let's be even clearer: the government shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Establishing exactly what the value for money is would be very difficult to prove, especially when it comes to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The government's famed avoidance of transparency does not make this a positive change. We don't know what the cost of the Capacity Investment Scheme is. The Rewiring the Nation fund is a mess, with at least a $1 billion blowout and more happening right before our eyes.

As a matter of fact, the blowout is getting so big that even Premier Carroll in Victoria had to pull the Western Renewables Link because even he—under, I must say, a fair amount of political pressure—realises this scheme is just ballooning. The Cheaper Home Batteries Program has gone from $2.2 billion to $8.5 billion. Three regional hydrogen hubs have collapsed with taxpayers out of pocket and, well, here it is: $150 million set aside for COP, $6 million alone set aside for hotels in Fiji, and no-one's attending. As I understand, the Turkish government are now looking and saying, 'We want everyone coming to our leaders meeting.'

Minister Bowen, all your advocacy for leaders to attend yours—and guess what the Turkish government have also said? In the end, who has the final say? Who has the final say? They've got the pen, and they're going to have the final signature. And guess what's happening to Minister Bowen? He's just been pushed to the sidelines.

El Presidente!

El Presidente is getting pushed to the sidelines! We could have so much fun with that. We would be here all night.

We'll have a whine later on!

Yes, we'll have a wine later on!

The bill would enable the incredible espouser of taxpayer money, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, to get his hands into the lolly jar to advance his net zero obsession. That's not a positive thing in any way. The Business Council of Australia have stated:

The concept should not be used (or perceived to be used) to differentiate between the abatement integrity of some ACCUs versus other ACCUs in the market … The concept of "lease cost" should remain as the foundation upon which "value for money" is applied …

And that should be applied across the board when it comes to this government, but, sadly, it's not.

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA have stated:

However, 'value for money' is not defined in the legislation … This could lead to unnecessary market uncertainty, which could be resolved by a clear statement of the parameters that will and will not be considered in determining value for money.

Australian Energy Producers have stated:

As currently drafted, the proposal lacks sufficient definition and guidance, creating uncertainty for ACCU market participants. The proposal also departs from the core principle of lowest-cost abatement and should therefore clearly outline its policy intent and the extent to which departures from lowest-cost abatement are envisaged.

Origin Energy have stated, 'We do not consider it appropriate or reasonable to introduce undefined and unlimited powers to purchase ACCUs for subjective "value-for-money" opportunities to support undefined policies.'

To pre-empt an argument from the government that this change was recommended in the Chubb review, again, it simply was not. The Chubb review only stated that the attribution of co-benefits required more integration within the ACCU scheme—for example, how a carbon abatement project might create additional jobs. The review was silent on how this ought to occur. In fact, the review only discussed the integration of co-benefits, one being driven by project proponents, not government. Thus, the review states on page 29:

To facilitate these outcomes, clear, consistent and easily accessible information on project characteristics is required. Proponents who claim a co-benefit should provide evidence and verification of co-benefits to the CER before they can be published.

It is a clear perversion of the Chubb review to take from it the idea of an entirely new spending regime which would be under the control of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to splash cash on carbon credits, with the only criteria being it has to marry up with Labor's net zero policies. What could go wrong for the taxpayer given all this? So much that it's not funny. I ask the Albanese Labor government to remember: you have driven us to $1 trillion in debt.

Now, I'll turn to the new carbon methodology powers. Any law change which gives the Minister for Climate Change and Energy more unilateral powers to advance his net zero agenda will always be treated with the deepest suspicion by the opposition. And this is no different. In the new division 2A, the minister would be allowed to make a method transition declaration in relation to a particular method where the method transition threshold criteria are met. Those criteria include whether the method presents a material risk to the ACCU scheme. Before making this declaration, various other criteria must be met or considered by the minister.

In simpler terms, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy would effectively be able to shut down any carbon abatement project he wants. It's unclear why the minister wants or needs these powers, and it was not established in the assistant minister's second reading speech. Because of what was used in that speech in terms of the Chubb review, given the leadership of the Prime Minister and his propensity to not be up-front and not be clear and to tell porkies, tell untruths and not be straight with the Australian people, my worry is, here, that we'll be told that it was the Chubb review that directly said that this was needed. The National Farmers' Federation said the powers should 'be limited to genuinely exceptional circumstances'. Well, they shouldn't be given even that. The Carbon Market Institute warned that they 'undermine confidence and certainty for investors'. It goes on and on.

In recent developments concerning carbon credits, this bill was introduced prior to the proceedings on Thursday 10 September 2026. On that day, both the Senate and the House voted against the coalition's motions to disallow a carbon credit methodology—a native forest management method—that is hitting forestry jobs and communities very hard. We all remember that, basically, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy was asked to specifically address all the forestry jobs that were going as a result of that, and he would not mention one single job. He wouldn't even mention what was happening. That is why this bill is being opposed.

I just want to quickly touch on our plan for affordable energy. We want to make sure that the government's Safeguard Mechanism goes. We want to make sure all of the government's carbon taxes go. We want to make sure the government's agenda of shutting down the industrial capacity of this country goes. That is why the Safeguard Mechanism will go.

For the reasons I've outlined—so many reasons why, and I've tried to outline as many as I possibly can—the opposition will be opposing this bill. We do support the bill going to a Senate inquiry as we want to see the Minister for Climate Change and Energy explain why he's doing all this, because none of it makes any sense. I will be ensuring, if we can get it to a Senate inquiry, that there is an intense interrogation of why the minister wants to do this. I'll be formalising the concerns I've raised in my remarks by moving a second reading amendment to the question. Accordingly, I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading as it is of the view that:

(1) the bill:

(a) progresses the Government's failing net zero agenda;

(b) increases lawfare, undermines responsible emissions reduction, and raises costs on industry;

(c) repeals the 'least cost' test in favour of an opaque 'value for money' regime; and

(d) hands the Minister for Climate Change and Energy new, unilateral powers on an unfounded basis;

(2) the Government's deal in the Senate on Thursday, 10 September 2026, undermines the integrity of the Australian Carbon Credit Units Scheme; and

(3) the Government must scrap its punitive carbon tax, the Safeguard Mechanism".

Something is always afoot when the coalition and the Greens hold nearly identical positions on bills. It is very rare, and it means that the government is doing something absolutely nuts, like we saw with the cap and the $750 million tax grab from our veterans, and like we saw in the Senate where the crossbench, the Greens and the coalition all voted to say, 'Don't do this.' But the government continues to blunder on.

I just make the point that that is what is happening here again, because, in so many ways, this bill is wrong. It will cause the taxpayer of Australia more pain. It takes the climate and energy minister's net zero green ideological approach even further. It enables a precedent for new native title claims in this country. It means that the minister can interfere with projects that have already been put in place by landholders, to be able to access ACCUs. So, once again, I just sit here and think, 'Who dreamt this up?' It could only be someone with sheer incompetence, as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has, who could bring a bill like this before us.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Australia's carbon market is one of the largest and most effective schemes of its kind anywhere in the world. Through the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, the ACCU Scheme, projects are supported if they cut or avoid greenhouse gas emissions or remove and store carbon from the atmosphere. And this happens in practical ways, through new technology, upgraded equipment and changes to work practices that improve productivity and energy use. It also involves changing the way vegetation and landscapes are managed. Since 2011, the ACCU Scheme has delivered 190 million tonnes of abatement through more than 2,600 projects. It's a market valued at more than $4 billion. The scheme is absolutely helping Australia meet its emissions reduction targets, including our most important target of net zero by 2050.

The benefits go beyond that. It delivers economic, social and cultural benefits while improving environmental and biodiversity outcomes across the country, and those benefits are particularly important in rural, regional and remote communities. I've had the privilege of seeing firsthand what the ACCU Scheme can mean for traditional owner groups and other First Nations landholders. The scheme supports savanna fire management and carbon storage projects that cut emissions, care for country and create local opportunities. It helps communities build economic independence on their own terms.

Last month, I met with the Arnhem Land Fire Abatement group to better understand its work. ALFA is an entirely Aboriginal owned, not-for-profit carbon farming business that supports traditional owners to manage fire projects across more than 80,000 square kilometres in the north-western Northern Territory, and their work combines traditional Indigenous knowledge with modern technology. It works by having traditional owners and ranger groups carry out carefully managed cool burns early in the dry season. These burns create a patchwork of firebreaks across the landscape, reducing the risk of larger, destructive and unmanageable bushfires later in the season. Through this work, by reducing the intensity and spread of wildfire in the landscape, ALFA is reducing greenhouse gas emissions and allowing for more carbon to be stored.

ALFA manages multiple projects across Arnhem Land, but I would like to speak most about its West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project, which was the first savanna fire abatement project anywhere in the world. This project covers 28,000 square kilometres, and income from the sale of ACCUs is changing lives in the local community by funding initiatives such as women's ranger programs that are empowering First Nations women to care for country, protect sacred sites and lead environmental management projects; the Nawarddeken Academy, a bicultural, community driven education model delivering full-time learning on country in western Arnhem Land; and rock art documentation, cultural site maintenance and ecological monitoring. ALFA's West Arnhem project also gives rangers and traditional owners the opportunity to use fire management activities to teach younger generations about country, songlines and cultural knowledge.

This ALFA story is one of many across northern Australia. It shows us what is possible when climate action, caring for country and community priorities all work together. The scale of that contribution is significant. First Nations projects account for 70 per cent of the area registered under savanna fire management methods and generate 74 per cent of the carbon credits produced. Since 2012, Indigenous fire management projects have operated across 24 million hectares of northern Australian savanna, abating around 1.2 million tonnes of emissions each year and 9.8 million tonnes in total. Ancient First Nations cultural fire practices, which capture carbon and reduce emissions, are also recognised in two new savanna fire ACCU methods, estimated to generate an additional $7.7 billion across northern Australia.

These are strong outcomes, and they show what is possible when First Nations knowledge, strong environmental policy and economic opportunity come together. But, if the scheme is to keep delivering these outcomes, Australians must be able to trust it. They need to know that the emissions reductions are real, the credits are credible and the scheme has integrity. They also need to see transparency and accountability built into every part of the scheme, and that is the purpose of these reforms—to strengthen integrity, improve transparency and make sure that the scheme continues to work as it should.

Importantly, the legislation also strengthens consent requirements for traditional owner groups. It formally recognises registered native title claimants as eligible interest holders in carbon projects, and it requires upfront and staged consent for projects on land that is recognised as native title land or is subject to a native title claim. This matters. Integrity is not only about the carbon that is credited; it is also about how projects are developed and ensuring that First Nations people have a genuine voice in the decisions that affect them.

The legislation also enables the existing Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee to become the new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. It provides a clear and continuing mandate to protect the integrity of the scheme and maintain public confidence in it. It clarifies the governance of proponent led method development and gives the minister powers to act if critical integrity risks emerge. And it makes sure the scheme can respond when new evidence, new risks or new opportunities arise.

These changes also support greater investment and participation in research and development. That is important because reaching net zero will require us to keep looking for new and credible ways to reduce emissions, and those methods must be backed by evidence and strong safeguards. These reforms strengthen the Clean Energy Regulator's compliance and publication powers.

These are careful and practical reforms. They are about taking a strong scheme, one that is world leading and that our country should absolutely be proud of, and making it even stronger. They are making sure that every credit stands for genuine emissions reduction. And they're giving landholders, communities, businesses and the Australian public confidence that the scheme is working with integrity. There are so many benefits that come from this work and from the work that will be seen through this bill.

In addition to strengthening the ACCU scheme, I also want to touch on two other important parts of the legislation before us: changes to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 and changes to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme provides a single national framework for companies to report information about greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. These measures will improve the transparency of emissions and energy information reported under the scheme. They will also make the scheme's administration more effective and efficient. These changes streamline the publication of information submitted under the scheme. They provide a flexible regulation-making power so that more detailed information can be published when needed.

The legislation also makes a practical amendment to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. The Albanese government legislated this standard in 2024, and it's given Australians access to a greater and better range of cars, including more hybrid and electric vehicles. This standard is working. Australians are increasingly embracing electric vehicles. Last month, electric vehicle sales overtook petrol car sales in Australia for the first time, as more drivers choose lower running costs and greater choice. More than 27,000 battery electric vehicles were sold, accounting for 24.9 per cent of all new vehicle sales, which was a new monthly record. This reflects what we've seen as a broader trend across the year, with EV sales increasing significantly. This amendment fixes a timing issue that affects how vehicle suppliers meet their emissions targets under the standard, ensuring the scheme continues to operate as intended.

Australia's path to net zero depends on credible action and on institutions people can trust. As we do this work, that is what this government is focused on providing through this work—benefits for First Nations communities and for communities in rural and regional Australia, and benefits then more broadly for our country as a whole and, of course, for our world as a whole. We are considered in how we approach that.

It is disappointing but not surprising to hear that those opposite oppose this work. When it comes to considered work that sets Australia up for the future we should have, that sets Australia up for a future where we meet net zero, that makes sure we deal with the climate crisis in front of us, those opposite always step away from the challenge. They are never up to the challenge of making sure that Australians benefit from the transition to clean green energy. Instead, they try and bury their heads in the sand and they try and prop up ageing coal-fire stations. We heard some of that from the member for Wannon, who is great at bringing the criticism in this place but not great at bringing the plans for transition or explaining how he will support communities to benefit from the future. We get from those opposite, time and time again, this approach of denial. We saw it when they were in government—denial and delay. Australians will suffer if that approach becomes the approach they take forward. As I said, we saw that when they were in government, when they didn't have any plans for the future of energy transition in this country—when, under their watch, coal plants were closing and nothing was replacing them.

As a government, we have done a great deal of work to set this country in the right direction to increase the amount of renewables in our system. More than half a million cheaper home batteries are now installed in households around Australia. There has been a record uptake of rooftop solar. We are now seeing EVs overtake petrol cars. Australians understand that this is the future. They understand that it is in their economic interests and in all our interests for this transition to happen in a considered and orderly way, with a government that is serious about it.

This bill, this work, builds on all that work we have already done. It provides Australians with the surety that ACCUs are working as they should. It provides transparency and accountability. It provides benefits for all those communities I outlined, for First Nations communities across the Top End and more broadly across Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Carbon credits, ACCUs, the INFM—people may have heard these terms being thrown around in the last couple of weeks, but what are they? Put simply, the government gives businesses a special token or a carbon credit either for not creating one tonne of pollution or for removing one tonne of pollution from the atmosphere. Businesses earn these by, for example, protecting an area of forest or planting new trees. Companies can then buy and sell these credits, theoretically providing them a financial incentive to reduce pollution. It sounds like an okay idea. However, in reality, this scheme provides a permission structure for big companies to carry on polluting under the guise that they're offsetting their harmful emissions by planting trees somewhere else. It's an accounting trick, not a climate policy. It's like paying someone else to go on a diet for you while you keep ordering burgers and pizza.

The real problem is that Australia's current carbon accounting rules are broken. They allow big polluters to access these credits and avoid reducing their actual emissions, sometimes on the back of fake projects. These fake projects are truly laughable. A company that proposes planting a forest in the middle of the desert is clearly not serious about offsetting their emissions; they just want to tick the box, grab the credits and then run off and continue polluting, hoping no-one realises they haven't planted a single tree. The scary thing is that in many cases that bet has paid off. Companies are getting away with dodgy offset proposals, avoiding scrutiny, taking their precious credits and continuing to pollute. Without proper oversight, the whole system falls down and Australia's carbon emissions continue to increase.

Despite its packaging as an integrity measure, this bill, the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, will allow existing dodgy credits to be laundered through new methods. If a project is not real, it should be cancelled, not relabelled. The Greens won't stand by and let Labor cover up for big polluters. The Senate inquiry into this bill will allow a rigorous examination of carbon offsets and how the system is failing. While the offset system remains broken, this bill just lets the scam continue, so the Greens will not support it.

Let's be clear: our planet is on fire. It's literally on fire. Extreme weather events around the globe make it absolutely crystal clear that the world is already overheating and under strain. At bare minimum, we must stop adding fuel to the fire, not continue pouring petrol on it.

When the carbon market was created in 2010, it was not set up to facilitate more coal and gas expansion. It was designed as a tool to facilitate a rapid transition away from coal and gas. An offset was meant to be a last resort for the sectors that genuinely cannot easily decarbonise yet, like cement and steel, while forcing polluters to invest in habitat protection to build resilience against climate impacts. Offsets are supposed to play a supporting role in decarbonisation, but, in Australia, they've unfortunately taken centre stage now. Only Kazakhstan and Australia allow complete, unlimited use of offsets. Rather than doing what the science demands and phasing out coal, oil and gas, the Albanese Labor government has been allowing pollution to get worse—some say, actually encouraging it to get worse.

While Australian households are doing their bit to reduce emissions, coal and gas companies are getting a free ride. Under Labor and Liberal, coal and gas executives have bought their way out of real pollution reduction with cheap, low-integrity carbon credits. Every dodgy credit that they wave around is a promise broken to the communities living with the floods, living with the fires and living with the heatwaves that come from a warming planet. This is the perversion at the heart of this system. Big corporations can ignore their pollution by banking pollution cuts somewhere else. Coal and gas just can't be offset. It actually needs to be kept in the ground.

There are some genuine improvements in this bill. In particular, it extends negotiation and consent rights beyond native title holders to First Nations groups whose native title claims are still being processed. It mandates that a First Nations representative join the government's advisory council and improves various other governance arrangements. These are positive changes that the Greens support. First Nations people must have a say in decisions affecting their country, but long overdue progress on that issue must not be held to ransom while polluters get away with free riding and not doing their fair share. If the government actually wants to fix this bill and bring back the positive parts, the Greens would welcome it, but minor tweaks just will not cut it. We need significant change and we need dodgy credits out of the system, right now.

Rather than simply fiddling around the edges of the problem, the government should be doing a whole lot more to protect the climate and our environment. One thing that they could do is actually protect nature, not use it as an excuse to keep polluting but actually protect nature for its own sake and for the sake of future generations. Protect it for its own value. Australian taxes should protect Australia's nature, not destroy it. Right now, for every $1,000 of tax you pay, just 60c goes to nature—or 0.06 of the federal budget. Meanwhile, billions more tax dollars are handed out to industries. That's our tax money handed out to industries that destroy nature, like coal, gas and deforestation.

Australia's nature is in crisis. We lead the world in mammal extinctions. That is not a gold medal that we want. We're the only wealthy country listed as a deforestation hot spot. Our iconic wildlife, our uniquely Australian creatures, face growing threats from bird flu, habitat loss, invasive species, climate change and bushfires. Nineteen of our unique ecosystems, including coastal mangroves, native forests and woodlands, are showing signs of collapse. We all love the wildlife and landscapes that make Australia so special. They are a really important part of Australia's identity.

My own electorate of Ryan is home to many precious natural environments including Mount Coot-tha. That's 'honeybee mountain' in Yuggera language. It is home to some incredible wildlife, including the greater glider, which my grandkids have actually seen in its natural habitat in the Mount Coot-tha bushland. There's Enoggera Creek and the reservoir—'Enoggera' means meeting place or gathering place in the Turrbal language—with its amazing bird life, including azure kingfishers, the critically endangered regent honeyeater and so many others. There's Moggill Creek—named for Magil, the water dragon in Yuggera language—home of platypus, which local environment groups count every year. It is part of the interlaced network of many other beautiful waterways and green spaces in Ryan.

I know, and Ryan knows, how valuable and irreplaceable these places actually are. We must act now to protect them for future generations. Without federal funding, the government's stated commitment to nature protection is just a wish list. Australia's peak scientific bodies have said nature needs at least one per cent of the federal budget. That figure would protect 35 million additional hectares of land, meaning meeting Australia's 30 by 30 target in a way that represents the diversity of our habitats and our species. We just can't sit and wait for the government to do the right thing. Join me in signing the petition and calling for one per cent funding for nature. Tell the government it's time to protect nature.

Like all responsible nations, Australia is seeking ways to address the harms caused by global warming. We've made significant progress in creating opportunities for industry to be part of the solution. This includes incentivising industry to reduce emissions and ensure carbon pollution is addressed by using a carbon crediting market. Australia has a functioning and robust carbon credit system. There are small but important changes that can make it better.

The bill before us today, the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, makes important improvements to three schemes: (1) the Australian Carbon Credit Units Scheme; (2) the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme; and (3) the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard scheme. The proposed amendments are necessary to strengthen the integrity of the current system and to ensure they make the greatest possible contribution to achieving Australia's ambitious emissions reduction targets.

For too many years, Australia has been held back by the so-called climate wars, which in some quarters are unfortunately still ongoing. However, the overwhelming majority of Australians know that climate change is real and that the transition to renewables is well and truly feasible and in our economic interest. Australians can see the real benefits of reducing carbon and of taking up sustainable energy, and we want to do so as soon as possible. That's what the Albanese Labor government has been doing. We've been investing in solar and batteries, we've been supporting our electric vehicle market, and we've been protecting and remediating damage to our environment.

Our ongoing challenge remains in reducing emissions and incentivising options for industries to get on board towards our net zero by 2050 target. We have a verified and strong foundation for bringing industry with us through our carbon credits system. This requires a range of agencies and government departments to monitor emissions, regulate the carbon market and drive abatement. This bill before the House will make further improvements towards those objectives and towards the imperative of getting Australia to net zero.

Australia's carbon crediting system has undergone a series of reviews in recent years to keep up to date with changes in industry and production, continually seeking the best ways to administer a carbon reduction scheme. Two reviews of various parts of the carbon crediting system, the independent Chubb review in 2022 and a departmental review, delivered in combination 31 recommendations. The review's recommendations were constructive and focused on (1) enhancing the scheme's transparency—for example, by publishing more project information and publishing decisions made by the Integrity Committee; (2) strengthening the method review processes, including more regular reviews; (3) supporting First Nations, rural, regional and remote communities to participate in the scheme; and (4) aligning with global carbon market developments where it's in Australia's national interest. This bill to amend three acts that impact carbon markets and crediting takes up these key issues.

At its core, this bill is about having trust in how we manage our transition to net zero. We need to trust that, when Australia says a tonne of emissions have been avoided, reduced or stored, that claim stands up to scrutiny. The Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, or ACCU scheme, is now a significant national legislative instrument. It supports landholders, farmers, traditional owners, businesses and regional communities to undertake projects that reduce emissions or store carbon. It also offers a practical pathway for hard-to-abate industries to meet climate obligations while they invest in deeper emissions reductions.

One of the most important aspects of the proposed legislation is its focus on transparency. When information is available, communities can understand what projects are occurring in their region, researchers can test assumptions and assess outcomes, investors can make informed decisions, farmers can better evaluate opportunities and Australians can have confidence that carbon credits represent genuine environmental outcomes.

Several carbon crediting projects operate in my electorate of Whitlam. These include the following projects. Firstly, there is Landcare Australia's Tennyson source project, which is an environmental planting program regenerating native tree and shrub species that are local to our area. Secondly, there is the Bowral Waste Centre LFG Emission Avoidance Project, which is installing a new landfill gas collection system to capture and combust gas generated at landfill from waste. Thirdly, there is the Irish Corner Landscape Regeneration project, which aims to earn credits by improving soil to help contain carbon and will use pasture cropping for the re-establishment of permanent pasture. And, finally, there is the Berrima Alternative Fuel Substitution and Kiln Energy Efficiency Project, which is earning credits by reducing energy emissions through equipment upgrades.

Regenerating eroded pasture land and remediating industrial areas are worthy approaches to helping decarbonise our atmosphere, but we need to know that whatever programs we support have the social licence and full confidence of our communities. The Chubb review stressed that a lack of publicly accessible information had contributed to confusion and mistrust. Australians want confidence that outcomes can be measured and that credit methods are sound. The bill achieves this in a number of ways.

In relation to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, it will provide powers to require publication of more information, it will close gaps in the compliance framework by ensuring continued reporting obligations by participants and it will allow the regulator to deregister a corporation on its own initiative where the corporation is in liquidation and unlikely to participate in the scheme in the future.

A second major feature of the bill is its focus on integrity. The carbon market only works if carbon credits represent real emissions reductions or carbon storage. Every participant, from traditional owners to farmers to large industrial facilities, relies on that integrity. If integrity is weakened, everyone loses. The bill strengthens our ability to manage emerging integrity risks, provides regulators with better compliance tools, strengthens relinquishment requirements where needed and expands important fit and proper person provisions. These reforms are designed to ensure that the market remains credible as it grows and evolves.

When we hear terms like 'carbon accounting', we might think they are technical, difficult to understand and best left to experts. But carbon accounting is simply about accurate measurement. If a credit is issued for one tonne of abatement, we need confidence that the tonne is measurable and supported by robust evidence. Strong accounting frameworks mean that participants know the rules, investors know what they're buying, policymakers know the emissions reductions are being claimed and that they're genuine, and communities know environmental outcomes are not merely marketing claims.

This bill reflects an important lesson from the Chubb review: integrity can always be improved, and that means having a mindset to learn from current practice. One of the specific proposals concerns the method transition declaration. A method is simply a type of carbon-credit-earning activity that has been approved. We will give the minister necessary powers to stop any project from earning carbon credit if the method or activity becomes seriously compromised and stands to impact on the broader carbon market. This is a failsafe, a contingency for worst-case scenarios that might never eventuate, but it will ensure that all credit methods remain fair and reliable in relation to each other as methods in the credit system. This may be important where new, proven methods emerge or existing methods wane in efficacy.

The bill also reinforces the independence and capability of the institutions responsible for safeguarding integrity. It will evolve the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee into the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee, with enhanced functions and expertise requirements. These changes are intended to clarify institutional roles and strengthen confidence that methods are being assessed against rigorous standards. This has practical significance. Carbon methods determine how emissions reductions are calculated. Those methods influence investment decisions worth millions of dollars. They shape environmental outcomes on farms, forests, grasslands and industrial facilities. Australians should therefore expect governance arrangements that are independent, transparent and scientifically robust, and this bill will deliver on those outcomes. There are also provisions in the bill that encourage and test innovation by requiring that any new R&D into crediting methods are genuinely new methods.

An important feature of the bill relates to First Nations participation. For many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, carbon reduction projects represent more than climate action. They represent the creation of opportunities for employment, economic development, cultural renewal and caring for country. Across northern Australia and elsewhere, Indigenous-led carbon projects have already demonstrated these benefits in practice. The government's response to the Chubb review specifically recognises the importance of improving support for First Nations people to participate in and benefit from the ACCU scheme. The bill strengthens arrangements concerning native title and claimed native title land by introducing more robust consent processes and recognising registered native title claimants. These measures seek to ensure that communities are appropriately informed and involved when projects are proposed on land in which they hold rights and interests. These reforms are not simply legal adjustments; they reflect a broader principle—projects affecting country should proceed only with real participation by the people connected to that country. When traditional owners are leaders and partners in project design and decision-making, outcomes will be stronger and more legitimate. It is sound environmental stewardship and economically just development.

There are additional administrative improvements proposed in the bill that aim to streamline processes for participants in the carbon credit market, such as aligning reporting dates for vehicle manufacturers so they can comply with fuel efficiency standards agreed across their fleets. In all cases, we've made administrative process improvements in consultation with stakeholders.

It is worth remembering why these reforms matter beyond the carbon market itself. Australia is rightly pursuing net zero emissions by 2050. Achieving that goal will require action across the economy. Some emissions can be reduced quickly through new technologies. Others are harder and more expensive to eliminate immediately. A credible carbon market can help lower overall transition costs, support innovation and create opportunities, particularly in regional Australia.

For many landholders, participation in carbon projects can diversify income streams and increase resilience in the face of changing climatic conditions. For regional communities, projects can create jobs and attract investment. For First Nations communities, they can create pathways that combine economic opportunity with cultural obligations to care for country. And environmental outcomes will be seen in the projects that support biodiversity, ecosystem restoration and landscape stewardship. Achieving our net zero target requires a full suite of policies and programs. Market mechanisms for decarbonisation are one part of that full suite.

This bill recognises that public confidence is an important part of how we meet our climate change mitigation targets. It seeks to provide more information, stronger institutions, clearer accountability and improved participation. It helps ensure that the ACCU Scheme remains trusted, credible and fit for the future. For these reasons, I support the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026.

I rise to oppose the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. The title promises integrity and transparency, but, after what this parliament witnessed last week, those words ring particularly hollow, because we've now seen in real time what the Albanese Labor government is prepared to do with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme.

We've seen in the improved native forestry methodology a carbon credit methodology that enables Labor governments to commercialise the consequences of shutting down productive regional industries. We've seen jobs lost, we've seen mills close and we've seen families put through months of uncertainty. Then we saw the Commonwealth carbon methodology capable of attaching a financial value to the very economic activity governments have stopped. That is not integrity. It is the bastardisation of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme for political purposes, and this bill risks taking us further down that road.

I've been warning about the integrity of Australia's carbon credit scheme for some time. In June I introduced my own private member's bill, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2026. I did that because the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme only works if Australians have confidence that every ACCU represents genuine and additional carbon abatement. Farmers participate in this market, landholders participate in it and businesses invest on the basis of it. Confidence in the integrity of those units matters.

As I told this House when I introduced my bill, without additionality the scheme ceases to encourage genuine new abatement and instead risks becoming a funding mechanism for decisions already made. That is exactly what concerns me about the direction Labor is taking us.

Look at what has happened with the Great Koala National Park. New South Wales Labor promised the park. It was an election commitment. The political decision came first. Then came the search for the money and then came the carbon methodology. As I said when I introduced my bill, the policy decision came first; the carbon methodology came later. That sequence matters. Additionality means the carbon benefit should be something that would not otherwise have occurred. So, if the New South Wales Labor government had already decided to create the Great Koala National Park and stop harvesting, what exactly are the ACCUs paying for? Either Labor made one of the biggest conservation promises in New South Wales history without knowing how it would pay for it, or it is seeking to use Australia's carbon market to finance a political decision it had already made. Neither proposition inspires confidence, and both undermine Australia's carbon credit scheme.

But, while governments work out their carbon accounting, real people are paying the price. On Father's Day last year, the Minns Labor government announced an immediate harvesting moratorium across around 176,000 hectares of state forest. Men celebrating Father's Day with their children suddenly wondered whether they would still have a job. Families wondered how they would pay the mortgage. Contractors wondered whether they would have work. Truck drivers wondered whether there would be logs to haul. Mills wondered where their timber supply would come from. I warned this parliament that Labor was shutting down an industry before the park was even funded.

Since then, the consequences have become very real. At Pentarch's Herons Creek operation in Wauchope, the green mill has closed. People who did absolutely nothing wrong have lost their livelihoods because of a political decision made by government. Now the cessation of the economic activity that supported those jobs can potentially be given commercial value through the carbon market. Think about how perverse that is. Labor has created a system capable of commercialising the misery created by its own decisions to shut down productive industries.

That brings me to the bigger question. Why are we shutting down Australia's sustainable native forestry industry in the first place? The more you examine it, the less logical it becomes. New South Wales has an enormous native forest resource. From that resource, we sustainably harvest a tiny area to produce something Australians need: timber. That's hardwood for homes. That's flooring and decking. That's power poles. That's wharfs and bridges. That's fencing and sleepers. That's furniture and joinery. These aren't products Australians suddenly stop consuming because a Labor government closes an Australian sawmill. We still need the timber.

Plantations are enormously important, and I strongly support Australia's plantation industry, but plantations are not a substitute for every product supplied by our native hardwood industry. The Australian Forest Products Association says around 84 per cent of Australia's hardwood sawn timber is supplied from native forests. So when government closes sustainable native forestry, demand doesn't magically disappear. The timber has to come from somewhere. Increasingly, that means overseas. Explain the environmental logic to me, please. We shut down forestry in Australia, where harvesting is highly regulated. We shut Australian mills, we put Australian workers out of work, we reduce our sovereign capacity to supply an essential building material, and then we import timber from somewhere else where environmental standards are inferior. How is that a win for the environment? How is it a win for manufacturing? How does it help housing affordability? How does it help the climate if we simply transfer production somewhere else?

Only a tiny fraction of Australia's native forest is harvested for timber in any given year. That's around 0.05 per cent. Harvested public native forests regenerate. We are using a renewable biological resource under a regulated system. Trees grow and absorb carbon—in younger trees, in particular. Timber is harvested, but carbon remains stored in long-lived timber products. Yet Labor's policy architecture increasingly says that the most valuable thing we can do with a productive native forest is to stop producing timber from it and potentially create carbon credits from that cessation. That just defies logic.

There is another question Labor needs to answer. Where is the evidence that shutting down sustainable native forestry across the north coast is actually necessary to protect koalas—the whole purpose for which this sorry saga began? I support protecting koalas, but good conservation policy must be based on evidence, not simply emotion and political symbolism. Native forestry in New South Wales operates under strict environmental rules enforced by the New South Wales EPA. Before harvesting, habitat features are identified and protected. Important koala feed and habitat trees must be retained, and protections apply when koalas are detected. Forestry Corporation says significant areas within the native forest estate are permanently protected from harvesting, while harvesting itself is selective and forests are regenerated. The industry has operated alongside koalas for generations. The answer is better forest management and strong environmental safeguards, not locking up productive forests, starving our mills of logs and destroying the livelihoods of hard-working, honest and decent families and workers.

The New South Wales government's own extensive surveys estimated there were between 10,300 and 14½ thousand koalas across the Great Koala National Park Assessment area. Research undertaken by CSIRO's National Koala Monitoring Program estimates that populations range between 287,000 and 630,000—10 times more than the most recent Australia Koala Foundation estimate. Research overseen by the New South Wales Natural Resources Commission has also found—and this is really important—no significant effect of selective timber harvesting on male koala density at the state forest site study three years after harvesting. Dr Brad Law, principal research scientist at the New South Wales department of primary industries, has said that empirical data shows no significant difference in koala population densities between harvested state forests and unharvested reserves. Dr John Raison, former chief research scientist at the CSIRO, has publicly stated that long-term surveys and data show abundant koala numbers in north-eastern New South Wales, regardless of whether forests are selectively harvested or conserved.

So where is the evidence that changing the sign at the front of the gate, from 'state forest' to 'national park', and ending sustainable timber production will deliver the conservation outcome Labor claims? Where is the evidence that destroying these jobs is necessary? Where is the evidence that closing mills is necessary? And where is the evidence that importing more of the hardwood we simply require produces a better environmental outcome—and at what cost?

If government is going to destroy productive jobs, close mills and reduce Australia's sovereign timber capability, the evidentiary threshold should be extraordinarily high. Show us the measurable improvement in koala populations. Show us why existing regulated forest management cannot deliver conservation outcomes. Show us the alternatives considered. And show us that the environmental benefit justifies the economic and social cost, because the evidence tells us something deeply inconvenient: koalas and sustainable forestry can co-exist. If Australians are going to continue using hardwood, if we need more homes, if timber is renewable, if forests regenerate and if koalas can co-exist with regulated forestry, then shutting down sustainable Australian native forests defies logic.

There are three major areas where the coalition says no on this bill. First, Labor is removing the least-cost discipline from Commonwealth purchasing of carbon credits. Under the existing act, the carbon abatement purchasing process is required to facilitate least-cost abatement and maximise the amount of abatement the Commonwealth can purchase. Labor wants to replace least cost with a much broader concept of value for money. And that is not just a change of words. Under the government's own explanatory material, 'value for money' could take into account whole-of-government net zero strategies, environmental and social outcomes, economic outcomes, Indigenous cultural benefits, ACCU supply and interactions with the safeguard mechanism.

The bill also transfers responsibility for purchasing ACCUs from the Clean Energy Regulator to the secretary of the department, with a broad delegation power intended to allow carbon purchasing to support decarbonisation policy across government. That is precisely what worries me. We've just watched Labor use carbon policy to support a pre-existing political commitment in New South Wales. Now Labor wants greater flexibility to use Commonwealth carbon purchasing to advance broader government policy. This means carbon abatement risks becoming another pot of money through which Labor pursues its political priorities, which could mean shutting down more good regional industries.

Second, this bill gives the minister a second new method transition declaration power. Under the bill, the minister could make a declaration where a methodology no longer complies with the offsets integrity standards and the continued issue of ACCUs would pose a material risk to the integrity of the scheme. Protecting integrity is important, but Labor ripped up any pretence of the scheme having integrity when it approved the INFM methodology.

Third, the bill makes substantial changes to native title consent arrangements. The coalition recognises the importance of properly protecting the rights of native title holders. Under the existing ACCU regime, native title holders already have substantial legal protections, including consent requirements, but this bill goes significantly further. It introduces a new two-stage consent process and expands eligible interests to include registered native title claimants. That means an unresolved claim can become relevant to whether a carbon project proceeds. The government says this implements the recommendation of the Chubb Review, but the Chubb Review's recommendation was narrower. It recommended ending conditional registration before eligible interest holder consent had been obtained. It did not recommend expanding eligible interest to native title claimants in the manner this bill proposes.

The practical consequences matter enormously for farmers and landholders. The National Farmers' Federation has proposed a right-to-negotiate model instead and has warned against turning a prospective claim that has not been determined into an indefinite consent right. AgForce warns of increased project costs, complexity and delays. Woodside has raised investment uncertainty. AGL has asked how overlapping or competing claims will be resolved. The Business Council has called for clearer evidence requirements, standard forms and service level timeframes to reduce uncertainty and delay. Those aren't objections to native title; they are legitimate questions about how a complicated new regulatory regime will work. That is why it deserves the scrutiny it is now receiving through the Senate committee process.

Let me finish where I began. I support integrity in Australia's carbon credit system. I support transparency. I support genuine additional abatement. That is precisely why I introduced my own legislation. I will not support the politicisation of the carbon market, and I certainly will not support a system where governments can close productive industries, destroy regional jobs and potentially create valuable carbon assets from the economic activity they stopped—and on the misery of regional people.