This bill amends the laws behind the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme. The scheme has delivered more than 190 million tonnes of abatement from more than 2,600 projects since 2011. This is a value of more than $4 billion. Two separate independent reviews, the Chubb review in 2022 and the Climate Change Authority's review in 2023, have reached the same conclusion: the scheme is working. The Climate Change Authority's most recent review found that it remains fundamentally sound and important to Australia's climate change policy framework.

In my home state of Western Australia, on Wanjina‐Wunggurr country in the Kimberley, fire has been used to care for and protect the land for thousands of years, guarded by lore and knowledge passed down through generations. Traditional owners have always known about how to read this country and how to look after it the right way at the right time of the year. What they learned through generations of careful observation is the same science that we now rely on. It hasn't been replaced by modern research; it's been confirmed by it.

Under the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, landholders, businesses and Indigenous corporations run projects that avoid emissions or store carbon, earning one credit for every tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent that they abate. Those credits can be sold to the Commonwealth directly, to companies meeting obligations under the safeguard mechanism or to businesses who voluntarily offset emissions.

In 2021, Wilinggin Fire Project was awarded the 100-millionth carbon credit issued under the scheme nationally. It's run by Wanjina‐Wunggurr Aboriginal Corporation on country in the north of Kimberley. Two ranger groups, Wunggurr Rangers and Nyaliga Rangers, carry out this work. They burn early in the dry season deliberately and carefully to stop the far more destructive wildfires that come later. The income this generates funds ranger jobs. It funds the protection of threatened species and also sacred sites. It funds the passing on of this knowledge to the next generation because every year older traditional owners walk younger ones through country and teach them to burn the right way. A peer-reviewed study covering Kimberley traditional owner groups Balanggarra, Dambimangari, Wilinggin and Wunambal Gaambera found some remarkable things. Here's a super fun fact: measured per person, nobody in this country is pulling more weight on reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the traditional owners of the North Kimberley. This is the exact kind of community that this bill is designed to protect.

It makes sure that the next Wilinggin, that next community doing this work on their own country, has a genuine legal right to consent before a project goes ahead, not just a promise that consent will eventually follow. For the first time, registered native title claimants will have a formal legal right to consent before a carbon project can be even registered on their land. Under the existing law, a project can be conditionally registered and run for up to five years before consent from traditional owners is actually required. The project exists first, then the negotiation happens after, with the bargaining power sitting on the wrong side of the table. Under this bill, consent comes first. It introduces a genuine two-stage process: upfront consent before an application can proceed, and a second, separate consent on exactly how the project will be carried out before a single credit is issued. It brings the ACCU scheme into line with the same standards already applied under the government's nature repair scheme, and it reflects the principle of free, prior and informed consent that traditional owners have been asking to be honoured for years.

This bill also replaces the old Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee with a new Carbon Abatement Integrity committee for the first time. That committee will be legally required to include at least one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. This is the body responsible for overseeing the integrity of every method used across the entire national scheme, and communities who have been doing this work longest will now have a guaranteed seat at the table. The Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation and the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network have both welcomed these changes. Native title was first recognised in this country in 1993. This bill applies the same principle to the modern carbon market—a real say for traditional owners over their country.

This bill also strengthens the integrity of the scheme more broadly. It gives the minister a new power to require a project to transition off a method if it's found to pose a genuine risk to the scheme's integrity, with safeguards built in, consultation, advice from the committee and the regulator, and enough time for proponents to move to an alternative method rather than losing income literally overnight. It moves the responsibility for purchasing ACCUs to the department, with a new mandate to weigh value for money rather than lowest cost alone so factors like First Nations cultural benefit and regional economic impact can actually count in the government's decision making, not just price.

It also allows a single project to credit both sequestration and emission avoidance activities together, supporting the kind of integrated farm management methods our agricultural sector has been asking for. It strengthens transparency under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act so that the public has better visibility of corporate emissions data. It fixes a technical timing issue in the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.

All of this rests on one thing continuing to exist, and that is the safeguard mechanism. It's fascinating because the safeguard mechanism is a policy that was introduced under a coalition government. It was introduced with the whole point of safeguarding emissions increases across the economy. What's fascinating is that the Leader of the Opposition has committed to abolishing the safeguard mechanism. The safeguard mechanism is what requires Australia's largest industrial polluters, more than 200 of the country's biggest facilities, to buy carbon credits when they exceed their legislative emissions baselines. It is the single biggest source of demand for Australian carbon credit units. It is what has taken this scheme from one where the government was the main buyer, propping up a market with taxpayer money between 2014 and 2023, to one now driven by genuine private compliance demand.

I know this firsthand. Before I worked in the federal parliament, I worked in decarbonisation, helping companies set their emissions baselines under this very mechanism. Under the coalition, those baselines were so generous that I'm going to say that the safeguard mechanism had no teeth at all. It was not safeguarding anything whatsoever. It's interesting because the point of the safeguard mechanism is to make sure that we don't see increases in the economy. I also worked on projects where we saw fantastic greenhouse gas reductions. This included CBSP's nitric acid plant in Western Australia, where a new catalyst bed was used to reduce their nitrous oxide emissions., one of the most potent greenhouse gases there is. I have to say that there were many companies in Western Australia that were leading the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I also worked in mining operations where we were looking at replacing diesel powered plants with gas and renewable energy such as solar and wind turbines. They were doing this because it is the cheapest form of electricity available to these mines.

I'm proud to be part of a government that accepts the science on climate change. To achieve our greenhouse gas reduction goals, it's not good enough for some companies to lead the way. What we actually need to do is see the whole economy decarbonise. To mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, that's what we need to do, and do you know what? Climate change is happening now, whether it's seeing floods in Queensland, bushfires in Victoria or the recent floods in Nepal. We really need to make sure that this has a direct contribution to the lives of people in not only Australia but also the world more broadly.

Markets also have a role to play. Global frameworks like the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures are pushing listed companies to disclose their climate risks so that investors can make better decisions. This was introduced through the global stability board. Basically, the goal of that board is to make sure that financial markets are stable, so what it showed was that, by disclosing risks, investors can understand those risks in a much more detailed way and fundamentally make better investment decisions. But this only works if companies are listed on the stock exchange. It doesn't reach every polluter and it doesn't replace every legislative compliance obligation. Most companies won't reduce emissions if they don't have to, and that's why the government still has a job to do here.

This government reformed the safeguard mechanism in 2023, which turned it into a genuine declining baseline compliance system. That is when it actually started driving demand and putting money behind carbon abatement. In his budget reply this year, the Leader of the Opposition called it a carbon tax and pledged to tear it down altogether, which is ridiculous because it was a policy that they introduced. If you take away the safeguard mechanism, you remove the reason a polluter has to buy a credit from a Kimberley ranger program, a Wheatbelt farmer or anyone else that's doing this work. You take away the markets these communities now rely on and you replace it with nothing.

We can't forget the substantive issue at the heart of so much of what this government is doing. Too many Australians are locked out of opportunity, whether it's the housing market or a fair share in the economic transition this country is going through. This bill is part of making sure that the transition includes everyone—not just the polluters, who've always had a seat at the table, but the traditional owners, who have been managing this land for tens of thousands of years, and the farmers and landholders across Western Australia and Australia who are just beginning to see what this scheme can do for them.

The United Nations Environment Programme released a report last month that confirmed what scientists have been warning for years. On current trajectories, the world is likely to breach the 1.5 degree threshold at the heart of the Paris Agreement in the next few years, not the next decade. That is exactly why the mechanisms in this bill and the broader task of decarbonisation cannot be treated as settled and left alone. Policy has to keep up with the pace of science. A scheme built in 2011 needed this update in 2026, and this government has a responsibility to keep reviewing and strengthening these mechanisms. This bill strengthens a scheme that already works. It gives traditional owners a genuine legal say over what happens on their country. It guarantees Indigenous representation on the board that policies the whole scheme's integrity. It protects the market that pays for ranger jobs, cultural knowledge and real emissions reductions. I commend this bill to the House.

There is a whole lot not to like about the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. The coalition will oppose this bill, which we see as being fundamentally flawed and a regressive net zero piece of legislation. The bill very much expands Australia's native title regime, it removes the least cost financial test, and it hands the minister sweeping new carbon credit powers. These are things which the coalition cannot support.

I want to step through some of the issues around the native title elements—certainly in relation to this bill, but it's happening right across a large tract of New South Wales, and elsewhere, right now. A report dated 13 October 2026, by Oliver Jacques, in Region Riverina absolutely underlines the concerns many in south-west New South Wales have in relation to a massive native title claim covering areas around Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Leeton and Narrandera. Those last three centres largely form the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area—already under pressure because of water buybacks by this federal Labor government, already concerned that the buybacks have not stopped. Indeed, only recently, there was another 86 gigalitres purchased, mostly out of the southern connected system—trying to reach that illusory target of 450 gigalitres set by former prime minister Julia Gillard on the banks of Goolwa in 2012. That takes productive farming water away from the world's best environmentalists—and they are our farmers—for no environmental gain whatsoever.

I say that because farmers are under more pressure now than ever before, and the native title elements of this bill, and other things that are happening at present, are of great concern to our food producers. Our growers of food would be very alarmed at the fact that, only today, in Sydney, there was a nest of fire ants discovered. They are already alarmed at the prospect in the west, where this Labor government is dismantling the live sheep trade to the Middle East, and that process is going on. They are already concerned that we are in an El Nino event, and they well remember that it wasn't that long ago that, with the Bureau of Meteorology suggesting we were about to go into a very prolonged dry spell, every farmer who had sheep in the paddock took them to process—ewes, mutton, older sheep, lambs, potential breeding stock, you name it. What we are faced with now is a reduction of the national herd. I had a conversation just last Friday with Will Barton, who owns and operates the lamb processing plant at Gundagai, and he is very concerned about what he may do with this reduced stock, given the fact that Trade Minister Farrell is out spruiking that we are going to fill all these gaps and that the good times are ahead for our sheep producers and for our balance of payments—well, not so if we don't have the flock to process, not according to Mr Barton, and I think I would very much take heed of what Mr Barton said if I were Minister Farrell. It is a concern.

Now, with the native title claim in southern New South Wales, the Southern West Wiradjuri people have launched Federal Court proceedings, seeking recognition of traditional rights and interests in land and waters across the Riverina. On behalf of descendants of 29 named ancestors, seven representatives were nominated to progress this particular claim. Now, I heard the member for Swan talking about, as part of this legislation, in her concluding remarks, the fact that we are in a housing crisis, and we are. I would suggest that the last thing that our developers need when we are in the midst of a housing crisis is more bureaucracy placed over what they do. There are fears that the native title claims could create yet another hurdle, yet more bureaucracy and yet increased red tape for developers whilst we have this housing crisis.

It is difficult enough for developers to open subdivisions. I am encouraged by the fact that there are some subdivisions going ahead at Wagga Wagga—at Rowan, south of the city—at Boorowa, a little town which is really looking to grow; in the Yass Valley; and elsewhere in my electorate. But I am concerned that developers will face this myriad of compliance and red tape. Certainly, with native title claims going ahead, what does that do for their ability to get on? It's already hard enough getting through local government sometimes, with development applications and getting those approved, let alone having another layer of bureaucracy placed upon them. Our planning laws already have too much bureaucracy, and our developers don't need yet another layer on top of that.

The coalition is concerned with the changes to native title arrangements. Currently, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 provides for the conditional registration of eligible offsets projects on native title land before the consent of eligible interest holders has been obtained. Now, in practice this means that a project may be established for up to five years, the first reporting period, before being required to provide evidence to the Clean Energy Regulator that eligible interest holders' consent has been obtained to undertake a particular project. This bill, certainly in section 27 and the following one, drastically upends this particular process. The bill establishes that a mere claim to native title would become an eligible interest. What would happen then? Someone wanting to establish a carbon abatement project would have to deal with a claim to native title regardless as to whether that title actually exists or exists at law. What we will see will be a picnic for lawyers—an absolute picnic. It will be payday for lawyers. The new approvals process will be part of a more onerous, cumbersome—call it what you like—two-stage consent process for setting up a carbon abatement project.

Among other things, the Clean Energy Regulator, at section 32, would be permitted to unilaterally revoke a proponent's project declaration any time prior to the first reporting period—that five-year period—if there is no reasonable prospect the consent will be obtained between proponents and eligible interest holders. We acknowledge that native title has been in place for more than 30 years in Australia, but the bill before us does go too far—way, way too far. The first thing that strikes you is 'what is this proposed change actually fixing?' My father was very practical. My late father, Lance, a good farmer, always used to say, 'If it ain't broke, why fix it?' Under the current carbon credits regime, native title holders already have absolutely rock-solid legal protections. We know that because we read about it often in judgements. We see it regularly. This includes that a project proponent must obtain consent of the native title holder, and there is a built-in right to negotiate. Each year I go to the Minerals Council dinner and each year I have always heard Tania Constable and her predecessors with that august organisation talk about the negotiations—the good faith negotiations—that the mining sector has with native title holders.

What we as the coalition are concerned about is that this is overreach. According to the Carbon Indigenous Industry Network, who obviously support this bill and have met personally with the assistant minister, 11 per cent of Australia's landmass is currently under native title claim and awaiting a decision to be made by the Federal Court as to the area's native title status. But I would argue that, in a situation where we need more homes, where we need farmers to produce more food and where we need to have progress not inhibited by court decisions, court delays and procrastination, does this just throw up more compliance and more unnecessary red tape than we actually can afford? This is what I fear is happening with the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026.

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, and the coalition would argue that this is prudent. It's entirely appropriate, but Labor wants to remove the least-cost test and instead replace it with what could only be seen as an opaque value-for-money test. Why? Who would know? This means that the government could buy very expensive carbon credits if it were satisfied that the purchase would achieve 'value for money'. What this value for money might be is—wait for it—not specified in the act. Why would it be! Why would the government do that!

It's a little bit like what you read the budget papers, which I do sitting up in bed of a night. I see the minister at the table and the Deputy Speaker both grimacing, but, yes, that's what I do; I sit up and read legislation. I sometimes actually—

'Each to his own,' I say. Each to his own!

You would expect me to do that and say that. When you read the budget papers, you will come to page four hundred and something and you will see—certainly when it comes to water purchases—NFP. One could surmise as to what 'NFP' might stand for, but I reckon it's 'not for publication'. I reckon that's what it stands for. It really beggars belief that, in the budget papers that are talking about the financial document, the blueprint, the vision for the nation, the federal Labor government sometimes won't acknowledge or actually put down in black and white how much it intends to spend on water buybacks, and that is wrong. You could argue that, when the government goes in and purchases water, it distorts the water market, and that is very much the case. By the same token, at the same time, the government has an obligation to fess up to how much it intends to spend on this unnecessary quest to provide the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder with even more water. The CEWH already has 72 per cent of available water in the Murray-Darling Basin.

But I digress. I think you get the point. I could go on and on about Indigenous water that's going to become part of the claim. I could go on and on about the native title claims. This does worry me. I do not want to see it stymie progress, stymie development or upset the chance of actually addressing the housing crisis. The coalition does not agree at all with this particular legislation. It's unnecessary.

Protecting our environment, including our transition to net zero, is fundamental to ensuring that there is a future world for future generations—for my kids and everybody else's. It's certainly something my community of Brisbane cares deeply about, including the very young people who are too young to vote and who I met earlier in this House today. That's why I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about trust: trust that when Australia issues a carbon credit it represents a genuine emissions reduction or carbon storage outcome; trust that businesses investing in our carbon market can rely on storage rules and effective oversight; trust that farmers, landholders and First Nations communities who are participating in carbon projects are treated fairly; and trust that, as Australia transitions to net zero, the systems supporting that transition are transparent, credible and accountable. If carbon credits are to play a meaningful role in reducing Australians emissions, Australians have every right to expect that those credits have integrity.

The Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme has become an important part of Australia's climate policy. It rewards projects that avoid emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere through activities such as restoring native vegetation, improving land management, and supporting new emissions reduction technologies. These projects can provide additional income for farmers, they can create jobs in regional communities and they offer opportunities for First Nations communities to combine economic development with caring for country. They also give businesses flexibility while they work towards reducing emissions at the source. But all these benefits depend on one thing, and that's integrity. The carbon credit has value only if people have confidence in what it represents. If one Australian credit unit is meant to equal one tonne of emissions avoided or removed, Australians must have confidence that the abatement is real. That's why integrity must be built into the architecture of the carbon credit market.

Our government has listened to many independent reviews, including the Chubb review and reviews by the Climate Change Authority and the Australian National Audit Office. None of them recommended abandoning the scheme. Instead, they recommended strengthening it, and that's exactly what this legislation does. One of the most significant reforms in this bill strengthens the recognition of First Nations rights and interests. It's not overreach, as referred to by those opposite. Carbon projects often involve land, and in Australia land issues frequently intersect with native title. Under these reforms, consent requirements for projects on native title land will be strengthened, and registered native title claimants will be recognised as eligible interest holders.

Importantly, consent will be required earlier in the process. That matters, because consultation should not be a box-ticking exercise. Genuine consultation occurs before key decisions are made. It allows people to understand proposals, raise concerns and negotiate agreements. It builds partnerships rather than seeking approval after decisions have already been made. These changes provide greater certainty for project proponents while better recognising the rights of First Nations Australians and aligning the scheme more closely with the principles of free, prior and informed consent.

The bill also reforms governance arrangements by replacing the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee with the new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. This committee will provide independent expert advice on the methodologies used to generate Australian carbon credit units. Methodologies are important, and they sit at the heart of the carbon credit market. They determine how emissions reductions are measured, what evidence is required and what activities qualify. Their credibility is critical to the integrity of every carbon credit. The new committee will have enhanced independence, broader responsibilities and stronger transparency requirements. It will also include at least one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander member, ensuring that First Nations knowledge and perspective contribute to safeguarding the integrity of Australia's carbon market.

This bill also strengthens institutional independence. Responsibility for regulating carbon projects will be separated from responsibility for future government purchasing of carbon credits. The future Commonwealth purchasing function will move from the Clean Energy Regulator to the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. This reform responds directly to the recommendation from the Chubb review and establishes a clear separation between regulation and purchasing decisions. The legislation also shifts government purchasing arrangements from a narrow focus on least-cost abatement to a broader value-for-money approach. That matters because many carbon projects deliver benefits beyond just emissions reduction. Projects may improve biodiversity, restore habitats, strengthen soil, support regional employment and advance First Nations land management. Considering these broader outcomes does not weaken fiscal discipline; it recognises value more comprehensively.

The bill also introduces safeguards to address serious integrity risks when they emerge, and one such safeguard is the method transition declaration. This mechanism is intended for exceptional circumstances where a methodology is found to present significant integrity risk. Importantly, it is designed as a circuit breaker, not a routine intervention. Farmers and businesses need certainty when making long-term investments, and government should not change the rules arbitrarily. However, certainty cannot come at the expense of integrity. When compelling evidence reveals that a methodology is failing to deliver genuine abatement, there has to be a mechanism to respond. This legislation provides that mechanism while surrounding its use with safeguards, criteria and consultation requirements. This reflects the balance at the heart of this bill: certainty for participants and accountability for outcomes.

The bill also strengthens provisions for relinquishing carbon credits. Project proponents will be able to voluntarily relinquish credits where credits have been issued because of, say, incorrect information. The Clean Energy Regulator will also gain stronger powers to require relinquishment where updated information reveals overcrediting. The principle is simple. If credits have been issued for abatement that did not occur, this system must be able to correct that record. Integrity isn't just about making the right decisions initially; it is about correcting mistakes when they are discovered. Similarly, the regulator's compliance powers will be strengthened, including powers to address decisions based on false and misleading information and issue infringement notices for lower-level breaches. While these reforms may appear technical, they are essential. Credible markets depend on clear and enforceable rules.

This bill recognises that integrity and innovation must also go hand in hand. Australia's path to net zero will require new technologies and new approaches to emissions reduction. Researchers, farmers, universities and businesses must be supported to develop and test innovative ideas. Current arrangements can sometimes create unintended barriers by treating legitimate research and development activities as inconsistent with project eligibility requirements. This bill addresses that issue through more tailored arrangements that support innovation while maintaining integrity. The legislation also creates flexibility for future methodologies to recognise projects that combine multiple emissions-reduction activities. For example, a landlord may simultaneously reduce agricultural emissions and increase carbon storage through revegetation. Our carbon markets should be capable of recognising the sophistication of projects that meet robust integrity standards. That's how we encourage innovation. It's how we broaden participation and ensure the scheme evolves alongside science and technology.

The reforms also extend beyond carbon credits. The bill strengthens the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, Australia's key framework for collecting information on greenhouse gas emissions and energy production and energy consumption. This data underpins major components of Australia's climate policy, including the safeguard mechanism and Australia's domestic and international emissions-reporting obligations. The legislation increases flexibility around the publication of reporting data, promoting greater transparency. Climate policy should be informed by credible and accessible information. Australians should be able to track progress. Researchers should be able to analyse trends, and governments should be accountable for results. The bill addresses practical administrative issues including reporting requirements where registrations may have been delayed and deregistration of corporations, say in liquidation, that are unlikely to continue participating in the scheme.

Finally, the legislation makes targeted amendments to the new vehicle efficiency standard by adjusting the timing of key compliance milestones and calculations. These changes provide greater certainty to the automotive industry and help ensure the framework operates effectively as intended.

There is a broader principle running through this legislation. Climate policy is not strengthened simply by setting ambitious targets. Targets matter, but institutions matter too. Measurements matter, transparency matters, governance matters, independent scrutiny matters, and public confidence matters. Australians expect that emissions reductions claimed by governments are genuine and measurable. Businesses expect transparent and consistent market rules. Farmers and landholders deserve certainty, and First Nations Australians deserve meaningful recognition of their rights. Taxpayers deserve confidence that public funds are spent wisely.

That's why this bill matters. It's not simply about carbon accounting; it's about strengthening the institutions that Australia will rely upon during one of the most significant economic transformations in our history. There are enormous opportunities in that transformation. Regional communities can benefit, farmers can benefit, First Nations communities can benefit, researchers and innovators in Australian industry can benefit, and our environment—and therefore our society—benefits. But those opportunities will only endure if systems supporting them are credible. Integrity is not a barrier to the growth of Australia's carbon markets; it is what makes growth possible. Transparency is not unnecessary red tape; it's what creates confidence. Independent oversight is not inconvenience; it protects the reputation and value of the entire system. Continuous improvement is not an admission of failure; it's the hallmark of responsible government.

Labor has a proud record of protecting our environment, and this bill supports that. We've established Australia's first national environment protection agency. We've strengthened environmental laws with higher penalties for serious breaches—new protection orders, for instance. We've passed laws requiring large polluters to cut emissions, putting Australia on the path to net zero by 2050, with a commitment to reduce emissions by 62 to 70 per cent by 2035. We're working towards 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 too, with more than 140 renewable projects approved to help power Australian homes and businesses. We've protected an additional 95 million hectares of ocean and bushland and now protect more ocean than any other country in the world. We established Environment Information Australia and doubled funding for national parks, including Kakadu and Uluru. We continue to support the Indigenous rangers, including doubling their numbers to help manage feral animals and weeds and protect native species. We're investing in restoration projects that protect threatened plants and animals. We've cleaned up urban rivers and improved recycling capacity. We've established the world's first nature repair market and invested in protecting the Great Barrier Reef through better water quality, stronger environmental protections and climate action. And we ratified the high-seas biodiversity treaty and strengthened water security through projects across Australia, including in remote and regional First Nations communities. It's quite the list and something this government is very proud of.

The Albanese Labor government understands that Australia's transition to net zero must be economically responsible, environmentally credible and socially fair. This is careful reform, it's evidence based reform, and it's another important step towards building a cleaner, more competitive and more sustainable Australian economy. It's about policies that deliver genuine emissions reduction while creating opportunities across the country. That's the purpose of this bill, that's why these reforms matter and that's why I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. This legislation goes to a fundamental question: can Australians trust that the emissions reductions being claimed by the government through this legislation are actually happening? Remember that, many times, these claimed reductions through carbon credits and other schemes are what have been used to justify the continued approval of coal and gas projects—in particular, new ones. Whilst members in this place have listed the achievements and commitments that the government has made, they certainly do not continually also list the over 37 projects that have been approved under the Albanese government's watch.

That takes us to why it is important that the carbon credits system be robust and work. Every carbon credit used to offset climate pollution carries a promise that somewhere an equivalent amount of greenhouse gas has been avoided or removed from the atmosphere to counter the other effect. If that promise is not kept, the pollution continues and climate risks escalate and grow. Communities and households concerned about insurance costs, businesses investing in decarbonisation and farmers doing the hard work of restoring their land all deserve a scheme whose environmental claims stand up to scrutiny. For a business deciding whether to invest in cleaner equipment or buy credits, the rules shape where its money goes. Investors, businesses and landowners need confidence that the credits being traded represent real value and real decarbonisation. If confidence in the market is undermined, legitimate projects and responsible participants will suffer. During the debate on the safeguard mechanism in 2023, I argued that emissions from our biggest polluters must come down and called for much stronger methane monitoring and reporting. Three years on, that has still not been actioned by the Albanese government, but those principles remain essential. Our largest emitters must invest in reducing their own pollution, using credits to address residual emissions that are difficult or impossible to eliminate. Carbon credits must not become an excuse to postpone that investment or expand fossil fuel production while claiming progress towards net zero.

Nevertheless, there are worthwhile reforms in this bill. I welcome stronger consent requirements for native title holders and registered claimants and the requirement for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander representation on the integrity committee. That stronger consent really must represent informed consent, to make sure that there is proper disclosure of information to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples impacted by projects. Strong consent processes are essential, but consultation alone is not enough. Carbon projects should deliver benefits for country, biodiversity and local communities alongside carbon outcomes. First Nations people should be partners in the design, governance and delivery of projects that affect their land and waters. Transferring responsibility for future government carbon credit purchasing away from the Clean Energy Regulator is also sensible. It helps separate purchasing decisions from regulation. Stronger powers to correct overcrediting and publish emissions information are welcome. The changes to the new vehicle efficiency standard also address a timing problem in its compliance arrangements.

These improvements deserve support, but the government must also confront the scheme's harder integrity problems. The first is the strength and independence of the proposed Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee, or CAIC. Renaming the existing committee and broadening its functions will achieve very little unless it has the resources and authority to challenge the assumptions behind the credits being issued. At its core, integrity means that a carbon credit represents a real climate benefit: a lowering of climate pollution. That requires projects to be additional, meaning that the activity would not have happened anyway. It requires permanence so emissions reductions are not later reversed—it must be permanent climate pollution reduction. It requires safeguards against leakage where emissions are simply shifted elsewhere. And it requires accurate crediting so one tonne of claimed abatement genuinely reflects one tonne of climate pollution benefit.

Under proponent-led method development, commercial participants help design methods from which they may benefit financially. Their expertise is valuable, but their incentives make independent scrutiny essential. Climate Integrity's submission identifies practical reforms that the government should adopt. The committee needs its own scientific capacity to test those proposals, examine the underlying evidence and commission independent assessments. It must be able to recommend rejecting a method where the evidence shows it could award more credits than the emissions reductions would, in fact, justify. Where evidence is uncertain, we should take a cautious approach to awarding credits. Australians should be able to understand why a method has been approved and what would trigger a review.

Stronger safeguards against conflicts of interest are also needed. I support a five-year restriction on former committee members taking paid roles in carbon credit trading, project development and related advisory work. Conflicts should be publicly disclosed. The evidence behind crediting decisions should be available for scrutiny, with clear limits on claims of commercial confidentiality. The committee should report annually to parliament on integrity concerns and any ministerial decisions that depart from its advice. That would help ensure emerging problems are addressed promptly.

The second issue I want to raise is how projects move away from methods with serious integrity problems. The bill introduces a method transition declaration to help move affected projects onto another method. That is sensible in principle, but the protection must be clear. The change must improve integrity. If a project has received credits for carbon savings it cannot demonstrate, if it can't show a reduction in climate pollution0, moving it into a different method does not make that problem disappear. This is critical, particularly for projects intended to regenerate native forests through changes to land management. Research has raised serious questions about whether some projects are, in fact, delivering the additional forest growth claimed. Those findings are contested, and the regulator defends its checks. That makes independent assessment and access to the evidence all the more important. I call on the government to put a clear protection against backsliding in the legislation. Any transition should face independent scrutiny, with excess credits identified and corrected and being required to be returned where appropriate.

Another side where the system is failing in integrity is around methane pollution that is not properly counted. Accuracy in measuring the pollution that companies are responsible for has to be the starting point for this to have any credibility. We know methane escaping from coal, oil and gas operations is a particularly powerful driver of warming in the near term, in the first 20 years. Gaps in its measurement and independent verification risk understating the pollution entering our atmosphere. Remember, every time a question is put to the government as to justification for approving a new fossil fuel project or gas project, we get the answer that that is taken care of through the safeguard mechanism, which then relies on the offsetting through ACCUs. None of that stacks up with any credibility if we are not properly measuring the actual emissions that these projects represent.

I've previously called for fossil fuel companies to properly measure their methane emissions and make that information public. Australians are entitled to independently checked figures that they can trust. Underreported emissions not only means deceiving the public for the emissions but also that the government is deceiving the international community as to the current and true state of emissions. Overstating carbon savings and understating pollution both allow polluters to avoid responsibility and the government to fool and, I think, defraud the rest of the world. Australia's climate policies must address both.

Proper investment in monitoring infrastructure, combining satellite observations with measurements on the ground—when those measurements tell a different story from a company's report, the discrepancy in methane emissions must be investigated and resolved. Verified emissions data must inform what companies are required to do under the safeguard mechanism. Underreporting must be corrected, and the rules must be enforced. Accurate measurements also help identify where pollution can, in fact, be cut. Because that's the good news in all of this; there is plenty of technology and opportunity to cut methane pollution. It is actually one of the lowest hanging fruits available to us. It beggars belief that the Albanese government has already sat on this for three years without doing anything about it, because this will drive action. Companies will fix leaks. They will reduce emissions at their source. They will adopt the technologies that already exist and are available.

The failure, of course, has consequences for people well beyond the carbon market. Climate damage from pollution reaches into every household budget through insurance premiums, repair bills and the cost of rebuilding after disasters. It damages public infrastructure and puts our health and safety at risk. We need to start to talk about climate related inflation because, at the moment, that is a huge driver of the cost-of-living crisis that we have, yet no-one is actually acknowledging that part. In Warringah we've seen the rapid rise of insurance costs due to increasing climate risk. In fact, over about the last five years, I believe, insurance premiums have increased by 50 per cent. It is one of the fastest growing inflationary measures of a household budget, whether it is home-and-contents insurance or full house insurance.

I've repeatedly called for greater investment in adaptation and resilience, with major polluters contributing to the cost. It is time polluters pay. The responsibility cannot keep falling on communities and taxpayers. What happens when infrastructure fails is that local governments are left to pick up the bill, and that means they pass on that cost to local citizens and our communities. They have to pay for it through levies and greater rates.

This week, I've launched a climate resilience green paper calling for a climate pollution levy on coal, oil and gas corporations to help fund climate resilience and preparedness. Companies have profited from activities that drive climate harm. They should contribute fairly to protecting communities and helping them recover. It is time for polluters to pay. That contribution would support practical action: safer homes, better urban infrastructure, nature based solutions that can help communities withstand the conditions ahead.

But preparation alone is not sufficient. Efforts must be accompanied by faster cuts to climate pollution. We need to reduce the harm while preparing for the risks already upon us. What's amazing is there is no other industry that we just allow to continue to pollute with impunity. We've dealt with that in so many ways, yet fossil fuel companies still enjoy a system where we allow them to pollute with impunity, with subpar processes of accountability.

For the people of Warringah, climate action and integrity have always gone together. This bill is an opportunity to strengthen both, but that requires independent oversight, carbon credits backed by evidence, and honest reporting of the pollution those credits are used to offset. So I urge the government to ensure major polluters take responsibility for their emissions and contribute fairly to the costs they impose on our communities. Australians are entitled to expect that a bill promising integrity and transparency actually delivers that in practice.

Finally, I think we have to be honest. There's a trust gap between what the Albanese government does here at home and what it says and commits to and the announcements it makes internationally. Having attended pre-COP in Fiji and seen the commitment from the Prime Minister and the minister to our Pacific neighbours around caring for the dire straits they find themselves in—we have to have that accountability at home when it comes to the approval of more coal and gas and those extensions, because the reality is that we are putting fuel on the fire, we are making the situation worse, every time we approve another project. You cannot just justify those decisions on the basis of the carbon offset scheme and the safeguard mechanism if that system does not have the integrity to genuinely show that there is real climate pollution abatement occurring through those offsets. So I urge the government to match their actions at home with the announcements and commitments they make to our Pacific neighbours.

For my communities across the Bellarine, Surf Coast and Geelong region, the impact of climate change is absolutely real. Locals understand that protecting our coastline, oceans and the hinterland means taking meaningful action to reduce the emissions driving climate change. And they're not alone; I know so many Australians take the same view. It's why the Albanese government has a target of net zero emissions by 2050, and one of the tools that will play an important role in achieving this target is the carbon credits mechanism.

The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 is about making sure the carbon credits mechanism works as it should. The Albanese government is a reforming government, and that's why we're delivering this bill to ensure the market contributes to Australia's emission reduction efforts. On top of that, we need to give Australians more confidence that those credits represent real and genuine abatement, because this is not always the case. Under the coalition government, carbon credits were misused. The scheme was watered down. It lacked the robust guardrails needed to ensure the scheme delivered its objectives to significantly reduce emissions. This bill, through stronger oversight of how credits are created, greater transparency about the projects involved and better protections for people whose rights and interests may be affected, makes the difference. This bill will make important changes in each of these areas. It means better protection for significant environmental landscapes and recognises that genuine carbon storage capacities is vital to emissions reduction.

This bill responds to recommendations from the independent review of the Australian Carbon Credit Units Scheme, led by Professor Ian Chubb, and reviews undertaken by the Climate Change Authority. So it's based on sound foundations. It strengthens oversight of carbon credits, improves transparency and provides clearer rules for landholders and businesses while giving greater recognition to First Nations rights and interests.

The bill establishes the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. This will replace the existing Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee and provide independent advice to government on the integrity of ACCU methods. This is a positive step in the right direction. The new committee will have broad functions, enhanced expertise and stronger transparency obligations, and it will be required to include at least one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander member, because good decision-making benefits from having the right expertise. That's particularly true when it comes to First Nations knowledge and perspective.

One of the key roles of the committee will be to advise government on the development of new carbon abatement methods. We want people developing new ways of reducing emissions to be able to participate, and we want to make sure that new methods meet the integrity, standards and safeguards our communities expect. This provides an important safeguard through the introduction of the methods transition declaration. This gives the government a mechanism to respond to exceptional circumstances where a method used by a proponent is found to be illegitimate and a risk to the integrity of the scheme. This gives government an important backstop to ensure nothing slips through the cracks. People who have invested in projects need certainty and, importantly, the regulator needs to respond when new information identifies a serious integrity problem.

The bill also makes changes to how the scheme allows proponents to relinquish ACCUs. Project proponents will have a voluntary pathway to correct the record when they have provided incorrect information that leads to receiving ACCUs. The regulator will also have stronger powers to require relinquishment where new or updated information identifies inappropriate overcrediting. The bill also recognises that regulation needs to be workable. That's why our measures to simplify administration and reduce regulatory burden are so important.

The bill also allows for new methods that combine storing carbon with reducing emissions. For example, an integrated approach to farm management could support projects that restore native vegetation while also helping farmers reduce methane emissions from livestock. A farm is a whole system, and this approach absolutely reflects the way many farmers actually operate. These changes can support a broader range of participants coming into the scheme while maintaining its integrity. There's also an important regional dimension here. For communities like mine in my electorate of Corangamite, climate policy is increasingly part of the economic conversation. Farmers are considering new markets, businesses are looking at new technologies, and landholders are considering how they can improve their properties while responding to climate change. That's where the nature repair scheme can be applied. The Albanese government is absolutely committed to ensuring regional communities have opportunities to participate in the transition, and the ACCU scheme can provide one of those opportunities.

This bill also makes changes to government purchasing of ACCUs. The bill changes the purchasing principle from securing least-cost abatement to making value-for-money purchases. That allows government to consider the broader benefits that can come from carbon projects alongside the emission reductions they deliver. Those benefits can include better biodiversity outcomes, regional economic activity and land management improvements. That's particularly relevant for regions like mine, where a carbon project could deliver several benefits at the same time.

The bill also strengthens transparency and administration under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. This scheme is such a significant source of information about greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and energy production across our economy. As we work together towards our emission reduction targets, we need reliable information about where emissions are coming from and how they're changing. We want to see emissions continue to come down, and we want to ensure our communities have confidence in the scheme that is delivering those results.

One of the most important elements of this bill is the strengthening of First Nations rights and interests in the ACCU Scheme. The bill changes the arrangements for projects on land that is recognised or claimed as native title land. Consent will be sought upfront, through a structured process, rather than being dealt with after a project has already been registered. This gives native title holders greater awareness of proposed projects from the outset. It also gives project proponents a clearer process for engaging with rights holders. The bill also recognises registered native title claimants as eligible interest holders. These are important changes, because our First Nations people—people who have longstanding connections to our landscapes—should have a meaningful role in the decisions affecting country, and I know that is important for you, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour.

The carbon market is operating in places where people live and work. It is operating on farms, across bushland and in communities where people are making long-term decisions about how they manage their land. These projects affect people making long-term decisions about their land. Landholders need clear rules, communities need to be properly consulted, and First Nations' rights and interests must be recognised right from the outset.

The final part of this bill concerns the new vehicle efficiency standard. The bill adjusts the timing of several key milestones under the scheme. For industry, certainty around those timelines is important. Businesses make investment decisions over many years. They need to understand the requirements they will be working towards and have enough time to adjust their vehicle mix. These changes provide that certainty while supporting the emissions reductions the standard is intended to deliver.

As we strengthen the foundation of our carbon market, the transition to net zero will involve large industries, small businesses, farmers, landholders, researchers and communities. There will be different pathways in different parts of our nation, and regional communities will have an important role to play. In my electorate we know the value of agricultural land, our natural environment and the people who manage it, from farmers to small businesses and local government. We also know that change works best when people have the opportunity to understand it, participate in it and benefit from it.

The Albanese government has committed more than $75 million since 2023 to deliver reforms to the ACCU scheme, informed by the independent reviews and consultation with scheme participants. The bill is the next step in that piece of work. It recognises that maintaining integrity is an ongoing responsibility, and, as the carbon market develops, our rules will need to continue to be reviewed and improved. That is a strength of the scheme. We can support participation while maintaining strong standards. We can encourage innovation while protecting integrity.

For the Bellarine, the Surf Coast and the wider Geelong region, those opportunities are worth pursuing. Our farmers, our landholders and our regional businesses deserve a carbon market they can have confidence in. They deserve rules that are clear, fair and workable. And Australians deserve confidence that the emissions reductions represented by this scheme are genuine. The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 makes important progress towards those objectives. I would like to thank the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the assistant minister for their work in strengthening our ACCU scheme, and I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. Australia's carbon credit system provides a framework through which individuals, businesses and communities can undertake emissions reductions projects and be rewarded by earning Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs, for every tonne of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions that is avoided or stored. It plays an important role in our progress towards lowering emissions, and it presents unique opportunities for farmers and regional landholders to participate in and benefit from the energy transition.

The debate has moved on from whether carbon markets should exist. The reality is that they do and they must. The question is how to ensure they operate with the integrity, the transparency and the accountability that's required. Carbon markets have the potential to support regional economies, reward good land stewardship and provide additional income streams for local farmers and businesses. The landholders I speak to want to play their part in reducing emissions. They're ready to harness these opportunities, but they can't get there alone. It's why I fought so hard for sustainable agricultural facilitators, and it's why I support measures to improve the integrity of the ACCU framework. Regional communities deserve a carbon market that they can rely on, that they can trust, that they can be proud of.

Much of this bill responds to recommendations arising from the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units, better known as the Chubb review, and reviews conducted by the Climate Change Authority. Those reviews identified a number of improvements to strengthen the integrity, transparency and administration of Australia's carbon credit scheme. Evidence based policymaking is not just about commissioning reviews and gathering information; it requires governments and parliaments to act in response to what's been learned. In that sense, this bill is walking the walk.

The bill makes a number of amendments to improve the transparency, integrity and effectiveness of the ACCU scheme. It renames and reforms the independent statutory committee, which will be known as the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee, allowing it to advise on method development priorities, review methods before they expire, seek independent advice, undertake longer public consultation and publish more of its work. The committee's governance and composition will also be improved through better conflict-of-interest requirements and greater clarity about the kinds of expertise its members should have.

The bill facilitates investment in research and development by relaxing 'newness' requirements that have inadvertently penalised early operations and failed to accommodate the stop-start nature of iterative projects. The bill also makes important changes to consent requirements for projects on native title land. It replaces the existing system of conditional registration—which the Chubb review found was at odds with the principles of free, prior and informed consent—with an upfront, two-stage consent process that requires proponents to engage with native title holders and claimants before projects are registered. This allows for earlier, more genuine negotiations and gives all participants more certainty about what best practice actually looks like. In addition, the bill amends the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme to allow additional information to be disclosed under the regulations.

One of the key measures in this bill is the minister's ability to make method transition declarations, which prevent the ongoing issue of ACCUs if they are based on methodologies that don't stack up. Now, this is important because the value of carbon markets depends entirely on the integrity of the carbon credits. When an ACCU is issued, it must represent genuine and additional reduction or abatement. To make a declaration, the minister must be satisfied that a method no longer complies with the offset integrity standards and that its continued use would pose a material risk to the integrity of the ACCU scheme. The minister must seek advice from the independent committee on these matters, and the committee must consult publicly before providing that advice. Once the initial threshold is met, there are a number of other conditions that must be met, including the availability of suitable alternatives for all affected projects and various matters that the minister must have considered. And the minister must undertake separate public consultation before deciding to make a declaration. Once the declaration is made, the relevant methodology becomes superseded and within a specified time frame cannot be used to earn any further ACCUs.

Critics of these declarations say they reduce certainty for participants and investors—and they're right; it does create uncertainty if approved methods can be taken away again in the future. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the time to assess the integrity of methods is when they are first approved. Ultimately, that's the system we're working towards. But the reality is that the science is still evolving, and it's appropriate to ensure that we have mechanisms to protect the integrity of the scheme when it becomes apparent that we need to.

The provisions of this bill include additional limitations and safeguards that were not in the exposure draft, which have been welcomed by proponents and other market participants. And the assistant minister has confirmed that declarations are intended to be used as a circuit breaker in exceptional circumstances and not as a tool for routine intervention. However, other stakeholders question whether the power is in fact too limited and conditional to serve its purpose. For example, method transition declarations can be made only if the minister is satisfied that an alternative method exists for all affected projects. This protects projects that were commenced in good faith, but it does create a paradox whereby the most-problematic methods—the ones without any credible equivalent—might not be subject to a declaration, because they are such outliers.

I note that the member for Mackellar has put forward amendments that respond to this very issue and that make other changes to preserve the integrity of the declaration regime, and I'll support those amendments. I've put forward amendments myself to recognise the unique risks to agricultural productivity and domestic food security that are posed by substandard methods. Many offset projects take place in high-rainfall, high-biomass areas that overlap with productive agricultural land. These areas in fact look a lot like parts of my own electorate, where reliable rainfall, productive soil and established natural assets provide ideal conditions for both primary production and carbon farming. The ability to earn ACCUs for offset projects obviously changes how landholders assess all their options. Most of the time it's simply a matter of opting in to gain some extra productivity. Carbon sequestration and agricultural production coexist peacefully and are often mutually beneficial, improving production of the land.

However, in some instances there's an unavoidable trade-off. Where ACCU-earning projects displace agricultural production, it's especially important that the underlying methodologies are sound. There must be a real environmental return on the loss of agricultural capacity. Choosing to participate in carbon projects instead of farming is a significant decision. Landholders need confidence that they're opting into a system with high standards, strong oversight and genuine return on investment. Low-integrity offset methods pose unique risks to Australia's agricultural productivity and domestic food security where they incentivise land use changes that aren't supported by credible evidence. This can lead to overconversion of land, avoidable path dependence and reputational damage, not just to the carbon economy but to landholders participating in good faith. Most projects are long term, and land is finite, so these risks indeed compound over time. When deciding whether to make a method transition declaration, the minister should be required to consider the individual and cumulative risks to agricultural productivity and domestic food security as well as the effect that making the declaration would have on those risks.

I'd like to thank Farmers for Climate Action for their work on this issue and acknowledge their tireless advocacy on one of the most significant challenges facing Australian agriculture and regional communities: climate change. Farmers are committed stewards of the land. They have much to lose from unmitigated climate change, and they are critical to the success of the ACCU scheme.

The reforms before the House are not perfect, but they are largely a step in the right direction. Public trust requires ongoing scrutiny, regular review and a willingness to make improvements where they are needed. I support this bill and I'll support further refinements in future if they are warranted.

Right across this country, Australians are getting on with the job that eluded those opposite for the entire duration of their government. They're putting up solar panels, installing batteries, taking up EVs in record numbers and investing in progress. Decarbonisation comes in the form of millions of daily decisions made by businesses and households throughout the economy—and, increasingly, many of these decisions are influenced by the growth in and success of Australia's carbon market.

The Australian carbon market is one of the largest, most effective and highest integrity schemes of its kind anywhere in the world. Under the Australian Carbon Credit Units, or ACCU, scheme, thousands of consumers and businesses are running projects that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions or remove and store carbon directly from the atmosphere through sequestration. Since its inception in 2011, the ACCU scheme has abated an extraordinary 190 million tonnes across more than 2,600 projects. Today, it underpins a carbon market valued at over $4 billion. Participants run projects that reduce emissions or store carbon through installing cutting-edge technology, upgrading heavy industrial equipment, changing practices to fit productivity and lower energy use, and improving the way our landscapes and vegetation are managed. The scheme is playing a critical role in helping Australia achieve our ambitious emissions reduction targets, including our legislated 2030 targets and commitments to reach net zero by 2050.

The ACCU scheme extends beyond carbon metrics to deliver substantial economic, social and cultural benefits for Australians too. Contrary to some of the things you might hear from those opposite, the transformative power of the ACCU scheme is felt most acutely in the regional, rural and remote communities of Australia. In many ways, ACCUs have become an important agricultural commodity. They are giving farmers and landholders the ability to diversify their income streams, droughtproof their businesses and attract new private capital. Through soil carbon sequestration, plantation forestry or reforestation through environmental and Mallee planting, the ACCU scheme makes environmental stewardship profitable. According to the independent Carbon Market Institute, carbon projects can provide landholders with diversified income and improved cash flow through carbon farming projects. The market for carbon farming is attracting more capital into Australian agriculture, with the safeguard mechanism acting as a critical driver of demand. By pricing carbon emissions, these settings incentivise emissions reductions while also encouraging investment to flow into projects such as restoring vegetation, protecting waterways and active land management. Public finance also plays a complementary role through institutions such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, helping de-risk investments in new areas and crowd in large-scale private capital investments.

High-intensity carbon markets provide a mechanism to connect private capital with farmers and land managers that are working to improve environmental and emissions reduction outcomes. And this bill, the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, directly supports farmers and landholders. But don't just take my word for it. According to the National Farmers' Federation, these reforms strengthen confidence in the ACCU scheme and improve the integrity and transparency of carbon markets.

The scheme is also helping to advance Closing the Gap targets by creating robust employment and economic opportunities for First Nations communities. In northern Australia, First Nations cultural fire practices are being channelled into carbon capture and the prevention of devastating wildfires. Under the ACCU scheme, these practices are encompassed in two new savanna fire ACCU methods, generating an estimated $7.7 billion across northern Australia. Almost three-quarters of all carbon credits generated through savanna fire management come from Indigenous owned businesses, with the revenue from these cultural burning projects supporting job security, education initiatives, Indigenous ranger programs, preserving cultural heritage and empowering traditional owners in remote communities.

This bill strengthens the recognition of native title rights by ensuring project proponents obtain eligible interest holders' consent before an ACCU project can be declared on native title land. By treating registered native title claimants as eligible interest holders, the ACCU scheme will align with the procedural rights under the Native Title Act and embed the principles of free, prior and informed consent. It allows traditional owners to negotiate fair benefit-sharing arrangements and protect their cultural heritage before the commencement of projects.

This bill ensures that the key architecture of our climate policies support Australia's emissions targets while delivering cheap, reliable energy, efficiently facilitating decarbonisation across our economy and delivering benefits for local communities. It provides the certainty that is so critical for reducing risks that threaten sustained investment and confidence in our $4 billion carbon market across the broader energy transition. It delivers on our commitment to implement the recommendations made by the independent Chubb review into the Australian carbon credits, in careful consultation with industry, businesses and First Nations communities.

This bill amends the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 and the national vehicle efficiency standard framework. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme provides a national framework for companies to report information regarding greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. The data collected through this reporting framework provides reliable evidence for governments to design effective climate policies while also holding large industrial emitters accountable to national reduction targets and integrity in energy markets. Our amendments enable increased transparency in emissions and energy data submitted under the reporting scheme, streamlining arrangements for publishing data, giving investors and the public confidence in the data driving the energy transition.

In 2024, the Albanese Labor government passed our world-class new vehicle efficiency standards. For decades, Australia has been treated as a dumping ground for inefficient, fuel-guzzling engines because previous governments lacked the courage to mandate efficiency standards. Imported cars sold in Australia were less fuel efficient than cars of the same make and model in markets with more demanding standards. But while it might be cheaper for manufacturers to produce a less fuel-efficient car, the fuel costs over the vehicle's life cycle can be vastly more expensive for consumers and fleet buyers. Our new vehicle efficiency standards give car manufacturers bigger incentives to produce more fuel efficient cars. In combination with our electric car discount, which reduced cost barriers to people buying cleaner vehicles, our efficiency standards have contributed to a massive take-up in hybrid and EV adoption.

The data backs this up. Just last month, EV sales in Australia overtook those of petrol cars for the first time in history. And guess what? The weekend is still here. Drivers across the country are embracing cheaper cars and greater choice. New vehicle sales figures show that more than 27,000 battery electric vehicles were sold, representing 24.9 per cent of all new vehicle sales, a record monthly high. Last month's EV sales skyrocketed by 171 per cent compared to the same month last year, with battery EVs outselling traditional vehicles, with 25,824 sales.

Under the new vehicle efficiency standards, regulated entities submit annual data concerning their emissions and the mass of the vehicles they import. This calculates an initial emissions value. If a manufacturer imports low-emission vehicles and achieves a negative value, they earn compliance units that can offset positive balances over the following two years. Manufacturers with a positive value can purchase these units to reduce their final emissions value down to zero and avoid civil penalties. This 'cap and trade' scheme allows market participants the flexibility to purchase units and improve emissions according to their needs while delivering more fuel-efficient vehicles to consumers in the most cost-efficient way.

The CEO of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries recognised that the evidence increasingly demonstrates that the new vehicle efficiency standards are encouraging manufacturers to bring more low-emission vehicles to Australia, which increases both consumer choice and the technology available. The amendments made in this bill correct a drafting anomaly in the original legislation that restricted the window in which entities could utilise these units to adjust their initial emissions value which, if left uncorrected, would unnecessarily limit a manufacturer's ability to trade or apply units earned from importing low-emission vehicles. This bill fixes that gap, which gives automotive manufacturers the regulatory certainty to plan their future fleet imports and arrange unit trading without administrative distortions and gives the industry the ability to keep delivering affordable, low-emission vehicles for Australian families.

By strengthening the governance of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, our government is lowering risk for investors in order to unlock billions in private capital for regional and remote Australia. A robust carbon market supports skilled research jobs and innovation in agriculture, forestry management and environmental restoration, which delivers real growth dividends from decarbonisation. When it comes to climate change and the energy transition, we know that those opposite are no friends of markets. What we saw from the coalition for their entire term in office was a series of slogans and focus grouped phrases with no delivery—meaningless incantations, like 'technology, not taxes', with no detail about what technology looks like. Even worse were their attempts to pick politically favoured winners through furphies like nuclear energy or backing in ageing and unreliable coal assets when the market is moving away from it.

The Albanese Labor government's approach is delivering real results by setting the right conditions for market actors to drive the clean economy transition, crowding in private capital and delivering real economic benefits to farmers, landholders, regional areas and First Nations communities. We came to government after inheriting a broken national energy grid that was plagued by a decade of policy failure and attempts to paper over this failure by changing the law to hide energy price rises. Our government overhauled the safeguard mechanism, which ensures Australia's 212 largest industrial facilities reduce their emissions in a fair, orderly and predictable way. We introduced the Capacity Investment Scheme, which drives enormous amounts of investment in dispatchable renewable energy generation and firming storage to strengthen the grid's reliability as ageing coal power plants retire. We invested $20 billion into Rewiring the Nation to modernise our electricity grid in order to connect low-cost renewable energy zones to major population centres and industrial hubs.

Upgrading our transmission network is essential. It is absurd for those opposite to claim, as they so often do, that we wouldn't need to invest in transmission if it weren't for the rollout of renewables. Australia's transmission network is one of the oldest and most extensive in the world. Between now and 2050, Australia's energy consumption will surge. Coal power plants will close, whether those opposite like it or not. Energy generated from solar and wind farms will increase. The notion that a coalition government would stand athwart the market to keep expensive and unreliable coal assets alive isn't just illiberal; it is absurd. It's just as absurd as the myth that nuclear reactors could replace coal power plants and plug into the grid without requiring new transmission. The transmission lines are already close to capacity from renewables, and a fleet of nuclear reactors would likewise require new transmission, which is the exact thing that those opposite are so fervently against.

This side of the House recognises that it is our government's responsibility to build the transmission network of the future, not to delay, obfuscate and perpetuate the myth that there is some alternative energy system where this investment would not be required. Those opposite can continue to engage in the culture wars of 15 years ago. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job and getting it done. Our government introduced cheaper home batteries, which makes rooftop solar and domestic energy storage accessible to everyday households. We know that batteries are critical for storing and firming. More batteries are good for the grid. The Albanese Labor government is delivering cheap, reliable power while building the new green manufacturing industries of the 21st century. This bill strengthens Australia's world-class carbon markets, delivering real benefits to farmers and landholders, regional communities, energy users and First Nations communities. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.