That was a big explanation. I begin on part 3 of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, which is ministerial overreach and method transition declarations. I turn to the executive powers of the bill. Any law that hands the Minister for Climate Change and Energy more power to make decisions on his own must be questioned. It introduces method transition declarations, or MTDs, which would allow the minister to issue a rule declaring a carbon method superseded if he believed it fails integrity standards and poses a material risk. Once a MTD is made, it places automatic bars on new projects under that method. Proponents get six months to two years for emissions avoidance projects or up to five years for tree-planting programs to switch to a new method. If they cannot switch, they lose their ability to earn carbon credits.

Why add new broad powers? Under existing law, the independent Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee already has the power to suspend methods, and the minister can already update or cancel methods. The phrase 'material risk' is not defined in the bill and that means the minister can use his own subjective opinion to shut down carbon projects whenever political priorities change in Canberra. We saw proof of how political these decisions are on 10 September 2026. On that day, parliament voted on coalition motions to protect the native forest management carbon method, which supports forestry jobs in Tasmania and across Australia. Labor only won that vote in the Senate by cutting a political deal with the Australian Greens, resulting in three Greens senators crossing the floor. Right before the vote, the minister issued a press release announcing the new restrictions on carbon credits in the Great National Koala Park in New South Wales just to satisfy the Greens. That shows this government is willing to change carbon rules at a moment's notice for political convenience.

Peak industry groups across Australia have spoken out against these broad powers. First, the National Farmers' Federation insisted that method transition declaration powers must be strictly limited to genuinely exceptional circumstances, accompanied by clear transition support for affected producers. Second, the Carbon Market Institute warned that granting such broad executive powers directly undermines investor confidence and commercial certainty. Third, the energy producers of Australia cautioned that introducing MTDs would add unnecessary costs, uncertainty and regulatory risk to the ACCU scheme without clear evidence that the benefits outweigh the market impacts. The Environmental Defenders Office pointed out that leaving the threshold of material risk undefined leaves the statutory bar open to subjective ministerial interpretation.

The fourth part of this bill that needs examination is the safeguard mechanism tax and regional impacts. We must consider how this bill affects the broader economy and Labor's safeguard mechanism. In the past, the Commonwealth government was the main buyer of carbon credits. Today, industrial companies buy most carbon credits, because Labor turned the safeguard mechanism into an insidious carbon tax. Labor forces heavy factories, mines and processing plants to cut their emissions baselines every year or buy millions of carbon credits just to stay open. We are already seeing the impact of this carbon tax effect on Australian industry. Major regional plants face cutbacks and job losses, such as Liberty Bell Bay in Tasmania and Yancoal's operations in New South Wales. While Labor claims that this tax reduces national emissions, official data shows that Australia's annual emissions reductions have completely flatlined under Labor. And who pays the price for all of these added costs? Hardworking Australian families. These burdens on regional mining, manufacturing and agriculture flow on past the farm gate, rising prices of fuel, fertiliser, freight, electricity and groceries.

In conclusion, the bill delivers neither integrity nor transparency. It delivers red tape, legal confusion, market uncertainty and unnecessary government power. You cannot run a country by spending public money with no productivity attached to it and putting roadblocks in front of our key wealth-producing industries. Farming and resources earn the big dollars for Australia, and roadblocks hurt every Australian family. The coalition will oppose this flawed bill in the House and support Mr Tehan's amendment. We will also support the amendment moved by the member for New England, Mr Joyce, calling on the government to repeal transitional capital gains tax discounts on foreign investors selling off large renewable energy assets. Furthermore, we demand that this bill be referred to a full Senate legislation committee inquiry. A Senate inquiry will let farmers, graziers, miners, traditional owners and legal experts explain the real-world impacts of this proposal. Canberra must stop wasting taxpayer funds on net zero projects and remove damaging roadblocks. We must not support this bill, and, in fact, I don't.

The decisions we make today will shape the Australia that future generations will inherit. They deserve to enjoy the places we love and to look forward in confidence. We have a responsibility to act now to protect that future. Climate change affects the homes we live in and the natural places that we care about. It affects decisions families make about their future. Our response will help shape the lives of children growing up across Griffith and across Australia today.

I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that accepts that responsibility and acts on it. We have legislated stronger emission reduction targets. We are helping Australians install batteries and making cleaner cars more accessible. We're investing in renewable energy and supporting industry to cut pollution. The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 continues this work. This is a bill to help deliver emissions reductions that Australians can trust. It supports people doing valuable work on the land and strengthens the rules that make their contribution count. I support the bill with the same purpose that guides my wider work on climate and the environment: protecting the people and places we love and giving the next generation a safer future.

Across Griffith, people already give their time to that work. I think of the volunteers with the Bulimba Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee, the Norman Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee and the many environmental groups we have right across Griffith. They care for waterways and restore the habitat that wildlife needs. Their work takes patience. Native plants need care after they go in the ground. Sadly, weeds return. A patch of damaged creek takes time to recover, yet people keep turning up. They bring their knowledge, their energy and willingness to get their hands dirty.

During Landcare Week I spoke about environmental care starting in our own communities. Our local groups show us what that looks like, and I am grateful for the work and for the care that they give to places that belong to all of us. Future generations should be able to see native wildlife close to home and enjoy our creeks and bushland. The care we give these places today will help make that possible. The people working towards that future deserve a government that does its share. Our national responsibility is to reduce the emissions driving climate change alongside the work to protect and restore nature. Local care and national action must support each other.

Australians understand how much extreme weather can take from a family or a community, and certainly all of the residents in my community of Griffith know this. CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology tell us Australia is experiencing more extreme heat, longer fire seasons and more intense and heavy rainfall. Their findings give us clear reason to act. For me, that means listening to the science and getting on with the work. It means making decisions now that give future generations better prospects in the decades ahead. There is hope in that responsibility. We have ways to cut emissions, and Australians are already using them. We can generate electricity from sun and wind. We can store more of that power and use it in our homes, cars and workplaces. Government can and should help make those choices available to more people, and that is the work the Albanese Labor government has undertaken and is work that I am proud to support.

One of our first acts in government was to give Australia clear, legislated climate targets. We legislated a 43 per cent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. We have since set a target to reduce emissions by 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035, accepting the independent advice from the Climate Change Authority. Those commitments give Australians a clear measure of what their government must work to deliver. They help businesses plan investment and give communities a basis for holding us to account. I am proud that Labor has set that direction. I am proud that we are backing it with policies that change how Australia produces and uses energy.

Our task is to turn those commitments into lower emissions year after year. That requires sustained work across our economy. It means supporting new electricity generation and helping households use clean energy. It means working with industries whose equipment and processes take longer to change. Every part of that work needs attention. A national target brings those efforts together and keeps our responsibility in view, and we are seeing results. The national inventory update released in August estimated that Australia's emissions fell by 7.5 million tonnes over the year to March 2026. Renewable generation helped drive a 5.6 million tonne reduction in electricity emissions. There is more to do, but those reductions are real progress. They give us good reason to keep going. Our goal of 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 is central to that effort.

Australia has extraordinary solar and wind resources, and we have the opportunity to put them to work for households and businesses across the country. The Albanese Labor government is supporting investment in new renewable generation and storage through the Capacity Investment Scheme. We are investing in the electricity connections needed to carry that power to the places that use it, and we should celebrate the progress already made. Renewables supplied more than half of the national electricity market's electricity across the final quarter of 2025. Last month, that market recorded its lowest monthly fossil fuel generation on record. Queensland, my home state, recorded its lowest monthly fossil fuel generation in more than 26 years of the market's history. These changes reflect years of work by people building projects, installing systems and making decisions about the energy they use. They reflect the value of a government committed to clean energy and prepared to support its growth. We have come a long way. The next step is to keep building the generation, storage and connections needed for reliable electricity with lower emissions. That work deserves persistence. It deserves a government willing to make the decisions and deliver the investment required.

For many households, the clean-energy story starts on their own roof, and that is very true in my community of Griffith. A family with solar panels can generate power during the day. A home battery lets them save some of it for later, including the evening, as everyone comes home and electricity use rises. Our Cheaper Home Batteries Program helps families meet the upfront costs of their battery. By August, Australians had installed more than half a million batteries under the program. In my community of Griffith, 2,258 solar batteries have been installed, with a combined usable storage capacity of 66,090 kilowatt hours. That gives our community more capacity to save solar power during the day and use it after sunset. It means more households can use their own solar electricity after the sun goes down. They can buy less power from the grid and gain greater control over their energy use.

The savings differ between households, but the purpose is clear: we want more Australians to benefit from cleaner energy and lower running costs. I'm proud that our government is helping make that possible. Families should be able to take part in climate action in ways that work for their household budget. Support with up-front costs can bring a purchase within their reach and help them benefit for years afterwards. We must keep extending those benefits to renters and people without suitable rooftops. Everyone has a stake in affordable electricity and a cleaner energy system.

We are bringing that same practical focus to transport. For a family choosing a car, the cost of running it is part of that decision. People need a vehicle that suits their work, their children and the trips they make each week. Labor wants Australians to have more choice in cleaner, cheaper-to-run vehicles. Our electric car policies and the new vehicle efficiency standards support that choice. They encourage suppliers to bring a cleaner range of vehicles to Australia. By September, cumulative Australian electric vehicle sales had reached more than half a million, and I see that shift on our own streets, in my own community. Since 2022 the number of hybrid electric vehicles in Griffith has increased by 141 per cent. The number of fully electric vehicles has increased by 573 per cent over that same period. More local people are choosing cleaner cars for their everyday trips. For households that are able to charge from rooftop solar, an electric car can help reduce running costs. A suitable home battery can help them use stored solar power at other times. These are practical changes in how Australians power their daily lives.

The bill makes small timing changes to help the vehicle standard operate as intended. Its broader purpose remains to support cleaner vehicles and lower emissions. We will keep helping Australians access choices that suit their needs and reduce the cost of getting around. Cutting emissions requires work beyond our homes and roads. Farmers, landholders and First Nations communities can contribute through projects that reduce pollution or store carbon in the land. The Australian Carbon Credit Units Scheme helps pay for that work. An approved project might grow native vegetation that stores carbon. Another might capture methane from waste. Projects earn credits for verified results, and those credits can be sold to help fund the work. Each credit represents one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions avoided or stored, measured in carbon dioxide equivalent.

Put simply, the scheme gives people a financial reason to undertake additional work that benefits the climate. For a landholder, that can provide another source of income. For a regional community, it can support employment. A well-designed native planting can provide habitat alongside its contribution to storing carbon. Those benefits are worth pursuing. Our largest industrial facilities can use eligible credits to help meet their emissions obligations under the safeguard mechanism that supports reductions elsewhere as industry invests in cleaner operations and develops new technology.

The quality of those credits is important to our climate goals. We need confidence that the work has delivered the reduction claimed. That is where this bill makes its contribution. This bill strengthens scrutiny of carbon projects and gives the regulator better tools to address problems. It improves independent oversight and supports greater public access to emissions information. It allows future government purchasing to consider wider benefits, including benefits for nature and communities. The principle is easy to understand. Australians should be able to trust that a carbon credit represents a real contribution to reducing emissions. People undertaking good projects deserve that confidence, too. They invest time and money in work that often continues for years.

This government commissioned the independent review led by Professor Ian Chubb and is acting on its recommendations to improve the scheme. The reforms draw on extensive consultation. The department received 73 submissions on the exposure draft. Webinars and workshops attracted more than 600 stakeholders, alongside targeted engagement and First Nations consultation. The Carbon Market Institute welcomed the proposed reforms and described implementation of the review's recommendations as critical in strengthening overall integrity in the Australian Carbon Credit Units Unit Scheme.

I particularly welcome the bill's stronger recognition of First Nations rights. Traditional owners must have a proper say in carbon projects on their country. These projects can involve long commitments about how land is managed. This bill strengthens consent requirements for native title holders and registered native title claimants. It puts consent earlier in the process, before project registration, with further consent about project operation before credits can be issued. The Indigenous Carbon Industry Network has advocated for stronger recognition of these rights for years. Its chief executive, Anna Boustead, said the proposed changes 'mark a meaningful shift towards recognising and protecting Indigenous rights and interests within Australia's carbon market'.

Indigenous carbon businesses already support work on country, including through savanna fire management. Project revenue can support jobs, ranger activities and cultural heritage programs. Climate action should respect that knowledge and the authority of traditional owners. It should support fair partnerships and give communities a greater say in decisions affecting their land. I am proud these reforms bring us closer to that goal.

I began with our responsibility to future generations. The decisions before us have a bearing on that future. So does the work we do every day to deliver on our climate commitments. I am proud of the Albanese Labor government's record. We have set stronger targets and backed them with action. Australians are installing batteries, choosing cleaner cars and generating more renewable electricity. This bill strengthens another part of that effort. It helps people contribute through work on the land and supports emissions reductions we can trust.

Our local environmental volunteers keep returning to the places they care about. Their commitment is a reminder of the patience this work requires and of how much people are prepared to give for a better future. We owe them that same commitment here in this place. I want future generations to be able to look back and know we listened to the science and we acted on it. I support this bill, and I look forward to continuing that work on behalf of my community.

I rise to oppose the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. I approach this bill as I always do—to give voice to the people of Mallee. For years now, I have stood alongside farmers and farming communities confronting Labor's reckless renewables rollout. I've met farmers driven to tears, literally, by the way that proponents have treated them—and, I've got to say, by the way the government has treated them. I have stood with farmers protesting in St Arnaud, in Horsham, in Charlton, on Spring Street, in Ballarat and at Parliament House here in Canberra.

I have heard farming families along the route of VNI West, who have asked a pretty basic question: 'What happened to our property rights?'—farmers like James and Emma Burke. Emma summed it up when she said, 'They're not considering agriculture at all.' There are farmers Colin and Mary Fenton, Barry Batters, Gerald Feeny, Ben Duxson, Jason Barratt, Marcia McIntyre and Billie Baldwin, whose properties have been targeted by the Victorian government with VNI West. They are supported by others affected, like Glenden Watts, Tess Healy, Cindy O'Sullivan, Will and Rachel McIntyre, Anthony Guzzardi and Lisa Saunders, and Rob Reading. They have all challenged the way VicGrid, a government agency, has attacked land rights with statutory powers; the way the government has issued farmers with $814 fines for refusing VicGrid access to their own land; and proponents' having lied about landholder support.

These are not theoretical arguments for people in my electorate. They concern farms, homes and businesses built by families over generations, and that experience makes me particularly wary when this parliament considers further changes to the way government created incentives interact with Australian farmland, because today we are talking about carbon credits. The consequence of Labor's bill today may be another productive farm whose greatest financial value is no longer growing food or fibre but, rather, growing carbon credits. The danger in this so-called utopian fantasy land is that the Albanese Labor government is rapidly tilting the economic playing field so that harvesting carbon becomes more attractive than harvesting food or fibre. That should concern every Australian.

Australia's population is growing; the world's population is growing. But we aren't creating more prime agricultural land. Good farming soil doesn't just happen. It is a managed system. Good farmland has been fertilised, irrigated, cultivated, protected from erosion and nurtured by Australian farmers over generations. Once our best agricultural land is lost to farming, we cannot simply click our fingers and create some more. As Leader of the Nationals Matt Canavan has been saying, we are rapidly progressing towards importing more food. Who would've thought that in a nation blessed with so much productive agricultural land? I have said before in this parliament that food security must be a national priority, and government policy should never forget it.

There is a particular reason that this bill worries farmers. Carbon sequestration involves storing carbon in vegetation and soils for a long time. Area based projects generating Australian carbon credit units can carry what the Clean Energy Regulator calls permanence obligations. Those obligations can last 25 years or 100 years. Once the permanence period has been nominated and the project has been registered, the Clean Energy Regulator says that choice cannot simply be changed. Think about that in ordinary farming terms. A farmer can change his crop the next season. A family can change its business plan. A son or daughter may want to take over the farm. The agricultural market can change. The climate can change. Technology can change. But some of the carbon arrangements being entered into today can create obligations measured not in seasons but in generations.

That is why I was interested in a recent analysis of Australia's carbon farming market by Mills Oakley lawyers who advise landholders and carbon businesses in this field. Their advice to farmers considering carbon projects is straightforward: understand what you are signing up to before entering what may be a 25-year to 100-year binding legal relationship. It is similar, and I digress for a moment, to the wind turbine hosting arrangements some farmers have gone into. Farmers need to look at the fine print, as I have encouraged them to do year after year. Future farming family generations may find themselves liable for removing the infrastructure from the land. Queensland's costs for those being decommissioned two years ago were about $1 million for each turbine. Remember that many of the companies putting up these turbines are foreign owned and may well not be around when the turbines reach the end of their operational life.

Back to Mills Oakley, they identify potential consequences including long-run arrangements under this bill: firstly, reducing the value of land depending upon the commercial arrangement; secondly, making a future property sale more complicated because a purchaser may need to accept continuing obligations; and, thirdly, limiting how the landholder manages that land. Even the Climate Change Authority's 2026 review of the ACCU Scheme recommends further examination of whether credits from 25-year permanence projects should remain appropriate for safeguard mechanism compliance, along with further work on reversal risk and permanence discounts. So there are legitimate questions here.

These issues go directly to something I've been fighting for for years. I developed the Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026 because I believe Australia needs to identify its best agricultural country and defend its productive agricultural capacity. My Nationals colleagues Alison Penfold, the member for Lyne, and Matt Canavan, Senator for Queensland, introduced versions of that bill in the House and the Senate. The principle is very simple: the Commonwealth should not undermine our prime agricultural land. Our best farmland should be producing the food and fibre Australians need and to feed a growing world population. My bill proposed a national mapping exercise to identify, as Queensland and New South Wales have already done, prime agricultural land, other productive agricultural land and marginal land, with strong protections against the loss of agricultural productivity.

That principle applies just as much when we talk about carbon sinks as it does when we talk about transmission towers, wind developments or large-scale solar developments. If an Australian farmer makes a voluntary commercial decision about the use of their land, that is one thing. It is quite another for government policy, taxpayer backed finance, compulsory regulatory demand and government purchasing to progressively alter our productive farmland. We should never reach the point where policy designed in Canberra makes locking up highly productive land for carbon more lucrative than producing food.

This is not merely a hypothetical concern. The coalition has already acted on precisely this issue. The shadow minister for energy has introduced the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Protecting Australian Farmland) Bill 2026, aimed at preventing the CEFC financing purchases of farmland primarily to generate carbon credits through land regeneration or forestry. Our broader energy policy will establish a code of conduct for renewable developers, requiring them to earn community support—you know, that little thing called social licence. The lack of social licence is what saw the Prime Minister chased out of Ballarat by tractors after the Bush Summit last year. Regional farms are not vacant space on the government's renewable energy map. Farmers' property rights matter. Their homes matter. Their communities matter. Food security matters.

VNI West, renewable energy zones, wind developments, blanket solar farm developments and transmission infrastructure have created enormous uncertainty. I am pleased to say, after I brought the Leader of the Nationals to St Arnaud in my electorate, where he declared we would not support VNI West, that that is the position now taken by the Victorian Nationals and Liberals in coalition approaching next month's state election. Let me be clear. VNI West will not happen under a coalition government. Indeed, the pressure is biting the Andrews-Allan-Carroll Labor government, as they have put a pause on the Western Renewables Link, the WRL, which connects to VNI West. As yet, silence on VNI West from Labor. Perhaps they have thrown the member for Ripon under the bus, so to speak, but the Ballarat and adjacent state electorates might be higher priorities. Who knows? This is the problem. For Labor, it is always about the politics. It is not about prime agricultural land. It is not about listening to the people.

Property rights require certainty. This bill introduces another form of uncertainty. Whatever side of this issue somebody comes from, surely one principle should be uncontroversial. A farmer should be able to know who has rights over his or her land, what those rights are, how long they last and what process applies. A prospective claim should not leave a farming family trapped in indefinite uncertainty. The more complicated governments make arrangements affecting farmland, the more important certainty becomes. When the coalition rolled out native title following High Court rulings, we provided funding for farmers and landowners to deal with the legal advice and consequences.

On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I notice the member for Grey has got his noise-cancelling headphones in and is watching something. It might be the Senate—who knows? I just want to understand whether that's permitted. I've always thought it's not, but it may be and, in fact, I'd actually be delighted if you made a ruling that it was. Presumably that would enable me to wear earplugs next time the member for Goldstein speaks and prevent the OH&S injuries which most of us endure. I had 20 minutes of it last night and I left feeling unwell. I've got no problem with it, and I think it would be a good precedent because we could all wear earplugs when the member for Goldstein is on his feet.

Is it against the standing orders?

My understanding, Member for Grey, is that there is no rule on electronic devices, as long as you're not interrupting people. So people can't take a call in the chamber or be loud. Is it appropriate, Member for Grey? Is it the Senate?

Yes, I'm watching Jonno's valedictory speech.

No worries, just as long as it's not anything dodgy!

I'm don't know if noise-cancelling headphones would deal with the other problem I mentioned, but it may mitigate the damage. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Assistant Minister. The member for Mallee may continue.

Even small rural councils, such as the nine out of the 12 in my electorate that have banded together in their Resource Ready strategy, go cap in hand to the Victorian government for funding just to deal with the cost of participating in the myriad of consultations and reviews due to the rollout of mineral sands and energy projects proposed in my electorate. This is not a level playing field. It is almost vertical in favour of Labor's fantasy land of energy transition, which costs regional communities the most. Community voices are not being heard, and I am here sharing their voices and saying enough is enough.

I rise in support of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. The Albanese Labor government is the only team with a plausible and practical plan to address climate change and ensure that Australia plays a role in the transition of the global energy system. Our plan supports industry, grows jobs and strengthens our economy. Achieving net zero is not a competition between reducing emissions and having a strong economy. Reducing emissions, embracing renewables and playing a serious leading role in the world's transition is in our best economic interest. Heavy industry, farmers and communities all know this. What they all need is certainty—a government with a clear direction and a clear plan to achieve net zero. Labor is the only party that provides this certainty, with a practical pathway backed by clear policies that support industry, support jobs and support all Australians.

I want to take a brief moment to thank the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for his commendable work developing and delivering this sensible and practical plan—and it's a plan that is working. Last year, Australia's emissions fell by 9.7 million tonnes. These reductions have been driven by record renewable energy generation, a direct result of our government's investment in and backing of more than 150 renewable energy projects. It's been driven by lower petrol consumption, a direct result of our government's policies encouraging electric vehicle take-up and new-vehicle efficiency standards, and it's been driven by a reduction in venting and an increase in carbon capture and storage in oil and gas projects.

That brings me to the legislation that is before us today. Australia's carbon market is one of the largest and most effective schemes of its kind in the world. The Australian Carbon Credit Units scheme is a proud legacy of the Gillard Labor government, another Labor government that introduced some of the most consequential climate policies in Australia's history. Since 2011, the scheme has delivered 190 million tonnes of abatement across more than 2,600 projects, with a market valued at more than $4 billion. The scheme is delivering a significant economic benefit to regional, rural and remote communities across Australia. It is helping farmers to diversify and deliver new agricultural and vegetation activities. The scheme supports projects that reduce emissions or store carbon through new technology, improved equipment and better land management, delivering economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits.

Importantly, the scheme is creating employment opportunities for First Nations communities, with ancient First Nations cultural fire practices included in two new savanna fire management projects in the Northern Territory. This combines traditional Indigenous knowledge with modern technology, in recognition of the emissions reduction of early dry-season burning.

There have been several reviews of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, including the independent Chubb review in 2022, the Climate Change Authority's statutory reviews in 2023 and 2026, and the Australian National Audit Office performance audit in 2024. These reviews found the scheme to be well designed, highlighting its contribution to reducing Australia's emissions and identifying the need to strengthen its administration, transparency and integrity. Our government has been working to continuously improve and reform the scheme, and we've already delivered a number of reforms to address the recommendations of these reviews. This bill contributes to that work and follows wide engagement with stakeholders and experts to ensure that the scheme continues to make the greatest contribution to Australia's emissions reduction targets. These reforms will provide greater certainty for this significant carbon market, protect the jobs and economic benefits it creates and ensure that it can continue delivering good outcomes for our climate. Importantly, the changes are supported by a wide range of stakeholders including the National Farmers' Federation, the Carbon Market Institute and the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network, along with a range of others.

The bill also makes amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act. In order to meet our ambitious emissions reduction targets, we need to have a robust framework for reporting and tracking emissions, and that's what the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme achieves—a single national framework for companies to report greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy production and consumption. This bill will improve the transparency of the information submitted under the scheme, improving access to the data submitted and ensuring that the scheme remains effective and efficient.

There is no denying that the new vehicle efficiency standard is working. Electric vehicle sales overtook petrol vehicles for the first time in Australia, doubling the number of EVs sold in a year. That's a direct result of the policies of this government—incentivising car manufacturers to bring more low-emissions cars to Australia and backing the Australians who know that owning an EV is a cheaper and cleaner choice. And if you combine an EV with solar and cheaper home batteries, like the more than 4,000 people in my electorate of Cunningham, charging your car at home can significantly reduce running costs. This bill fixes an unintended consequence of the standard, addressing a timing misalignment for vehicle supplier compliance with emissions targets, and ensures that the standard operates as intended.

We know that action on climate cannot wait. We are already seeing the impacts scientists have warned about for decades, from devastating floods in Nepal to record heat and bushfires across Europe. This year, Australia is also facing a super El Nino that is breaking records and putting us at risk of extreme heat, bushfires and floods. We know that it is all being driven by our changing climate. Just last week, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy were in Tuvalu hosting a delegation from around the world to see how climate change is impacting one of the most climate impacted countries in the world—because, for them, climate change isn't a tomorrow problem; it's happening right now.

Our government is the only party taking this problem seriously and the only one doing the hard work to make a difference, not just here in Australia but on the world stage too. The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation aren't taking it seriously. They don't think we should be helping our Pacific neighbours to address this issue. They don't think we should be talking to those making decisions across the world about the need to take action fast. They don't want Australian businesses, Australian innovators and Australian workers seizing the huge economic opportunities of net zero and leading the world on advanced clean-tech manufacturing. The question shouldn't be, 'How much does net zero cost?' It should be, 'How much does doing nothing cost?'—not just for future generations but for Australians right now.

I truly believe it is a fallacy to say that industry does not want to transition to a cleaner economy, because the reality is that they're already doing it. As I said earlier, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme is worth $4 billion. Electric vehicle sales are surging, while cheaper home batteries and renewables are cutting emissions, lowering power bills, creating jobs and driving billions of dollars of investment. We've now approved 150 renewable energy projects, enough to power every home in Australia and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by over 84 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. For the first time ever, on 20 September, 80 per cent of our national electricity came from renewables. Australia is leading the world in battery installation to make sure that the cheapest form of energy can also be accessed during the night. We've proven that with the right government settings we can incentivise big business to invest in a cleaner economy.

I am so proud that the Illawarra is leading the way when it comes to advanced manufacturing of clean tech. Our region has the unique advantage of a well-established industrial and commercial base, a highly skilled workforce and a world-class university. Our region is building the advanced manufacturing that Australia needs—technology developed locally, backed by local workers and expertise and capable of decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors like steel and heavy transport. Recently, I announced $49 million in funding from ARENA for local company Hysata, which has developed a world-first hydrogen electrolyser that will redefine how renewable hydrogen can be produced. This investment comes on top of more than $35 million that our government had already invested and is helping Hysata to scale up production, create a sovereign supply chain and turn Australian research into Australian made technology. Hysata has also attracted more than $220 million in investment on its own, proving the international interest and confidence in this technology.

Batteries are also hugely important for our renewables future, and Sicona Battery Technologies in my electorate are pioneering the next generation of battery materials, cutting charging times by 40 per cent. Our government has invested $45 million to help Sicona expand production capacity by up to 300 times and take the technology from pilot scale towards commercial production. Green Gravity is another incredible local innovator working to repurpose disused mine shafts for long-duration energy storage. This world-first technology uses gravity to store and release renewable energy and is generating interest all over the world. Even major steelmaker BlueScope sees the opportunities of cleaner manufacturing, actively working on ways to reduce its emissions. Our government has provided $136.8 million towards the reline and upgrade of its No. 6 blast furnace, a $1 billion project. It includes more than $100 million in environmental improvement upgrades, and it supports more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. Steel has a major role to play as we transition our economy, and the reline will improve the efficiency and environmental performance of BlueScope steelmaking, securing local jobs and Australian steelmaking in the Illawarra.

The Australian government, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, is positioning Australia as a global climate leader. In September, the Prime Minister gave the keynote address at Climate Week at the United Nations in New York. Just last week, we hosted pre-COP in the Pacific and led a delegation of decision-makers. We are taking this issue seriously. We're not quibbling about whether climate change is real, like the Liberals and Nationals and One Nation are doing. We are working incredibly hard to bring the world's nations together to address this problem. Australia is the president of negotiations for COP31, a really significant role and a powerful recognition of our growing international standing and leadership on climate action.

At the same time, I'm doing what I can locally to help bring the Illawarra's clean tech manufacturing capabilities to the world's attention. Local companies are developing technologies that will shape the next generation of energy, transport and heavy industry, creating sovereign supply chains and revolutionising clean energy globally. Earlier this year, with the University of Wollongong, we held our second Made in the Illawarra: Innovation, Energy and Manufacturing Expo at Parliament House to bring innovative local companies, researchers and community leaders together to show the parliament and our world what this region can do. We had strong interest from some of the ambassadors, high commissioners and their staff who we invited along, who could see the incredible work that was happening across our region. That interest was so strong that I hosted a follow-up delegation of embassy representatives for a tour of our local industry, and the feedback was outstanding. The delegation visited the University of Wollongong, Sicona, Hysata, Green Gravity and Port Kembla Harbour as well as BlueScope. For the tour of Port Kembla they were hosted by the Port Authority of New South Wales.

So we're making the case on the global stage for action—not in five years, not tomorrow but right now. As the Prime Minister said in his keynote address to Climate Week, there's no avoiding the scale of our responsibility or the cost of inaction. We strongly believe that Australia has a critical role to play as we transition our global energy system. We believe in the benefits for all Australians, for jobs and for the economy. We know that the stakes are too high, and we're the only ones working every single day here to make real change. I'm proud to be doing what I can to support our region to transition and to seize the economic opportunities that our clear path to net zero provides. The choice is clear: retreat from action and surrender the industries and jobs of the future, or move forward with a practical plan that cuts emissions, strengthens our economy and backs Australian workers.

Climate action has dropped off the political agenda. It's no longer the top issue for voters. The government barely talks about it, even while Australia is co-hosting COP, which is an opportunity to drive coordinated international climate action. I understand why. Australians are facing more immediate pressures. Mortgage repayments are increasing as the RBA continues to raise the cash rate. Rents are increasing, and groceries, petrol and insurance are more expensive. With the cost-of-living squeeze it's difficult to think about the long-term state of our climate. But the threat hasn't changed; it hasn't gone away because we've stopped talking about it.

The climate crisis continues to escalate. We're now unable to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming. We've failed to meet the goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement; 1.8 degrees is now the best we can hope for, and even that requires dramatic action. Every year there are more floods that wash away towns, more fires ravaging rural communities, more heatwaves that kill the old and the sick, more droughts that break farming families, more households that are displaced, more climate refugees and more irreversible environmental degradation. Species that have been here for millennia are becoming extinct on our watch.

The physics of climate change does not care about the news cycle and about what's politically palatable. The true test of political leadership is not in doing what's politically popular. Anyone can do that. The test is in doing what must be done, even when it isn't popular. It's in spending political capital and spending it well. The climate crisis requires that kind of leadership. I accept that there's no appetite or political pathway for big, bold reform like a carbon price. But this is where our political leaders must pursue a different type of ambition: ambitious incrementalism—lots of small meaningful changes that make a difference, trying new things, fixing what's broken, doubling down on what works. That's how you continue to make change when you feel there's no appetite for bold reform.

What does that mean in the context of the Australian climate policy landscape? It means strengthening the safeguard mechanism by tightening the rules around the use of offsets and new entrants. It means ensuring the new vehicle efficiency standards are aligned with our emissions targets. It means amending the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme so that we're accurately measuring methane emissions. It means reforming the fuel tax credit system that continues to subsidise the use of diesel by Australia's largest and most profitable mining companies. And it means improving the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, ACCU, and that is what this bill tries to do.

The ACCU scheme lets projects that cut emissions or store carbon, earn tradable credits. For every tonne of carbon dioxide removed or avoided, a project receives one ACCU. The methods that receive the most credits are human-induced regeneration—largely, planting trees—landfill gas and avoided deforestation. These credits are then sold, mostly to larger matters who need to reduce emissions to meet their Safeguard Mechanism obligations.

Carbon credits have an important role in the Safeguard Mechanism. Some industries don't yet have the technology to cut emissions at scale. Others work on long capital cycles, so their emissions come down in steps as plant is replaced. A well-designed credit gives those facilities flexibility when they invest. But the whole system rests on one thing: integrity. A carbon credit is a licence; it lets someone else keep emitting. If the credit represents a real tonne then that's a fair trade. If it doesn't then it has not just failed to help; it has actively made things worse. It's actively contributed to further warming, worsening climate change.

The ACCU scheme has been full of integrity concerns. First, the integrity of ACCUs remains contested. Independent research has raised ongoing concerns about several ACCU methods, including human-induced regeneration. While the Chubb review concluded that the ACCU scheme is fundamentally sound, subsequent academic analysis has questioned whether credited areas are regenerating as claimed. Second, ACCUs are not a like-for-like substitute for fossil fuel emissions. Land sector carbon removal projects only store carbon temporarily and therefore cannot genuinely offset carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, a significant proportion of which remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Similarly, the ACCU framework treats carbon dioxide and methane as interchangeable, despite methane's significantly higher global warming potential over a 20-year timeframe.

Despite the lack of equivalence between fossil fuel emissions and both avoidance and land based removal credits, the Safeguard Mechanism allows facilities to use these credits to meet their emissions obligations. So it's not perfect. We can improve it. It's better than nothing, but it can be better. Against that backdrop, what does this bill do? Well, it's a large package. Here are a few things it does. It replaces the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee with a new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee with prescribed expertise, a requirement for at least one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander member, tighter conflict of interest rules and a duty to publish its advice. It moves the purchasing of credits from the Clean Energy Regulator to the department, and replaces 'least cost' with 'value for money'. It creates a method transition declaration allowing the minister to stop crediting under a method that fails the offsets integrity standards. It recognises registered native title claimants as eligible interest holders and requires consent in two stages. It extends the fit-and-proper person test to carbon service providers. It gives the regulator new relinquishment powers where credits turn out to be over issued plus infringement notices and the ability to reverse decisions made on false or misleading information. It changes the newness test to allow genuine research and development. And it makes changes to the NGER Act to allow more data to be published, and to the vehicle efficiency standard dates.

Now, much of this is sensible, and I'm not going to spend time on it. Many of these changes implement recommendations of the Chubb review, which I generally support for improving the integrity of this system. I do have some concerns about one measure, and that's the method transition declaration. At the moment, if a method is found to be flawed, projects already registered under it keep earning credits under the old rules. Now, that certainty is valuable for investment, but it also means a serious integrity problem can run on for years. The bill tries to fix that by allowing the minister to declare a method to be a superseded method where it fails the integrity standards and poses a material risk to the whole scheme. Industry says this creates sovereign risk. The Carbon Market Institute told the department it signals to investors that approved methods might later be challenged.

The final bill has more safeguards in it than the exposure draft, including advice from the committee, consultation and a delayed start. I acknowledge that. On the other side, the Environmental Defenders Office and others say the threshold is so high now that it may never be used. The minister must be satisfied that the method fails the standards, that it poses a material risk to the whole scheme and that there is a suitable alternative method for every affected project. That last condition is concerning. If the worst methods are the ones with nowhere to send the projects, then the worst methods are the ones that will escape this provision.

There's also a more specific concern. Human induced regeneration, which is largely planting trees, is roughly a third of all credits ever issued. Projects under that method face a reconciliation test later in their life where the forest cover that was modelled is checked against what's actually on the ground and the credits are returned if it hasn't materialised. With this power, the minister could move these projects onto a new method with no reconciliation test, effectively taking away the safeguard just when it's required. I understand that the minister has said this power is not intended to move those projects onto a different method without that test, and I welcome that, but a statement of intent is not a legal safeguard.

I will be asking the government for two things in relation to the method transition declaration: first, clarity on when this power will be used, because at the moment no-one really understands what it's for, and, second, a guarantee in the bill that moving a project to a new method cannot reduce the standard that it's held to, including the verification that applies to it. The government should closely consider amendments moved by the member for Mackellar to do just this. If the government is committed to not using this power to avoid reconciliation of all of the human induced regeneration projects, then it should have no issue confirming this in the legislation.

There are significant problems with our ACCU scheme and how it interacts with the safeguard mechanism that this bill does not address. There's no meaningful limit on the quantity of offsets that can be used to comply with the safeguard mechanism. While many carbon pricing schemes internationally permit some use of offsets, they typically include quantitative restrictions to ensure that regulated entities undertake genuine emissions reductions. In contrast, the safeguard mechanism's only guardrail is to require facilities that surrender ACCUs equivalent to 30 per cent or more of their baseline to submit a statement explaining why. Demonstrating the weakness of this guardrail, 23 facilities exceeded the 30 per cent threshold in the 2024-25 reporting year alone. This does not address the unlimited use of offsets in the safeguard mechanism. The government is about to review the safeguard mechanism, and when it's doing so it must address this issue. Access to credits cannot stay unlimited. We should be looking at a cap on the share of a facility's obligation that can be met with offsets that declines over time, with proper treatment of industries where emissions are a feature of the process itself, like cement. If we don't do this, we're asking the land sector to carry the weight of industry's choices, and the evidence suggests industry will keep choosing the cheapest credit over cutting its own emissions.

The second unaddressed significant problem is that the ACCU price is too low to drive the level of onsite decarbonisation required. Estimates of the marginal cost of achieving Australia's climate targets, including the values used by the Australian Energy Regulator, Infrastructure Australia and the New South Wales government, currently range from about $70 to $130 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, substantially higher than the price that facilities pay for ACCUs to meet their obligations under the safeguard mechanism, which are around $38 per tonne. The availability of relatively cheap offsets has contributed to their increasing use under the scheme. Even in industries where onsite abatement is cheaper than purchasing ACCUs, like underground coal mining, companies tend to prefer to purchase offsets rather than deal with the high capex and risk of a new decarbonisation technology.

Finally, this bill does not support the growth of the carbon removal industry independent of providing a licence for continued emissions. I support the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The government's Net Zero Plan assumes about 167 million tonnes of gross emissions in 2050, which is fully counterbalanced by removals. The only way to reach our national and international net zero emissions target is through carbon removal, and the only way to return to a stable climate is to remove emissions after we've reached net zero and go net negative. The first way through this is through land based methods: capturing carbon in trees, plants and soils. But we also need to invest early in novel and engineered removal methods because those will take years to develop and are the ones we don't yet have methods for—direct air capture, carbon mineralisation and beyond—and this remains a challenge that the government has not yet solved.

To conclude, this bill makes a range of small technical changes to the carbon credit scheme. They're mostly non-controversial measures, and many of them are small improvements to the scheme. There are also some elements of uncertainty which need to be resolved. But, ultimately, it doesn't deal with the big issues around the scheme. It doesn't address some of the key integrity concerns of the scheme, particularly the fact that one ACCU does not actually offset one tonne of fossil fuel emissions, and it doesn't do enough to incentivise onsite abatement at our largest emitters. Instead it continues to provide an easy way out. I will keep pressing for a high-integrity carbon credit scheme that provides industry with flexibility and certainty while also driving onsite decarbonisation as the priority. This is the only way Australia can meet its emissions targets, meet its international agreements and meet its moral obligations to restore a stable climate and a prosperous economy for future generations. Thank you.

For generations, the Hunter has powered this nation. Coal dug out of our region has kept the lights on, powered industry and helped build Australia. Hunter workers have done the heavy lifting. Our miners, power station workers, tradies, engineers, rail workers and local businesses have all played their part. I'm proud of that history and I'll never talk it down. It's a contribution our country should remember and our parliament should also respect. But the Hunter has never stood still. We've always adapted, built new industries and taken on the next job. That's exactly how we need to approach Australia's energy transition.

We should be practical, back our workers and make sure regional communities get more good local opportunities. That's why the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 matters to communities just like mine. It strengthens the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, which is known as the ACCU Scheme. It also improves the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme and makes practical changes to the new vehicle efficiency standards. That might sound technical, but the basic idea is pretty simple. If a carbon credit is bought and sold, people need to know it represents real emissions reduction. Farmers, businesses, investors and the community need confidence that the system is fair, transparent and properly regulated. That is what this bill delivers.

The ACCU Scheme supports projects that avoid emissions or remove and store carbon from the atmosphere. That can include new technology, upgraded equipment, better energy use, changed land management, soil carbon, tree planting and capturing methane from landfill. Since 2011, the scheme has delivered 190 million tonnes of abatement through more than 2,600 projects. The market is now worth more than $4 billion. For communities like the Hunter, confidence matters. We have major industries that are hard to abate. They employ thousands of people directly and support many more thousands of jobs through local supply chains. They need workable ways to cut emissions while continuing to produce the materials, energy and products Australia relies on.

High-integrity carbon credits are one part of that job. They're not a licence to do nothing. They're practical tool for emissions that can't yet be completely removed through available technologies. If credits aren't genuine, the whole system falls over and businesses lose confidence. Investors walk away. Regional projects miss out. Australia's emission targets become harder and more expensive to meet. So integrity isn't just an academic argument. It affects jobs, investment and whether the system actually works.

The Hunter knows what happens when policy is written without regional communities in mind. Workers are left wondering whether anyone in Canberra understands what they do or what their families rely on. I do understand it. I worked in our coal industry. I was a tradie. I was a fitter. I know the pride people take in doing a hard day's work, and I know they want straight answers about what the next generation of jobs will be and where they will come from. They don't want slogans. They want a plan that backs existing workers, attracts new investment and keeps reliable energy at the heart of our economy.

The ACCU Scheme helps create that bridge. It supports hard-to-abate industries while encouraging investment in new ways to reduce emissions. It gives farmers and landholders another income stream. It supports research, technology and skilled jobs. It can also improve soil, water retention, biodiversity and resilience against drought. Take the Bonnie Doone property west of Monto in Queensland. The Burnham family has raised livestock there for five generations. Their soil carbon project covers 5,275 hectares of an 8,000-hectare cattle property. They're using better grazing systems, new fencing, upgraded water infrastructure and longer rest periods for soil and pasture. The project creates ACCUs as a secondary income stream while improving soil health and water retention. That is not locking up productive farmland. That's helping a working farm become more productive and more resilient. Another example is the Strathdene planting project in South Australia. Holly and Luke Crawford farm 750 hectares of wheat, barley and legumes. Their carbon project covers 32 hectares with native plantings that will store carbon and create habitat for local species. The farm keeps producing food. The farm gets an additional opportunity. The environment improves. That is practical action.

The scheme is also delivering important economic and cultural benefits for First Nations communities. Savanna fire management combines traditional knowledge with modern technology. Early dry season burning creates firebreaks, reduces destructive late-season fires and cuts emissions. Almost three-quarters of credits produced through the savanna fire emissions avoidance method are generated by Indigenous carbon businesses. The West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project covers 28,000 square kilometres. Revenue from credits support ranger jobs, education, women's ranger programs, cultural site maintenance and ecological monitoring. It also gives traditional owners opportunities to pass on knowledge to younger generations while caring for our beautiful country. That's real work, real income and real community benefits.

This bill strengthens First Nations consent requirements too. Registered native title claimants will be recognised as eligible interest holders. Consent will be needed before relative projects on native title or claimed native title land can be registered, and consent about how the project will operate will be required before credits are issued. People with rights and interests in the land should be involved early and able to negotiate how projects will proceed and how benefits will be shared.

This bill also strengthens the independent integrity body. The Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee will become the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. At least one member must be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. The committee will have clear functions, broad expertise and strong transparency requirements. This matters because methods need to keep pace with evidence. If a method creates a serious integrity risk, the government needs a careful way to deal with it. This bill creates a method transition declaration process. Before a declaration can be made, the minister must receive expert advice, consult publicly and consider the environmental, economic and social effects. A declaration can only proceed if affected projects could reasonably move to another available method. That protects the scheme without pulling the rug out from underneath those projects.

The bill also improves how incorrect crediting is handled. A project proponent will be able to voluntarily give back credits issued because of unintentionally incorrect information. The regulator will have clear powers when updated measurements show less abatement occurs than first estimated. At the same time, proponents won't be penalised simply because the government updates one of its own modelling tools or calculators. Again, it's a practical balance that fixes genuine errors, acts against wrongdoing and treats honest operators fairly.

The regulator will also get a better compliance toolkit. It will be able to review discussions based on false or misleading information and issue infringement notices for lower level breaches, instead of taking every matter to court. The fit-and-proper-person test will cover designated agents involved in these projects. The bill separates government purchasing from regulation by moving responsibility for buying ACCUs from the Clean Energy Regulator to the Department. That reduces actual and perceived conflicts and makes responsibility clearer.

Value for money will replace the narrow focus on least cost abatements. Price will remain important, but government will also be able to consider benefits like regional jobs, biodiversity and support for First Nations communities. For the Hunter, that's an important point. A policy decision shouldn't be judged only on the cheapest number on a spreadsheet. We need to look at what it means for local workers, local supply chains, industry capabilities and long-term strength for our communities.

The bill makes it easier for genuine research and development projects to participate. At the moment, the newest test can't stop a proponent beginning work while an application is being assessed. The reforms move the assessment point to the time of application and create a pathway for genuine R&D. That means people developing new emissions reduction technology can get moving sooner without losing eligibility. That's exactly the kind of work the Hunter should be competing for. We have industrial based skilled workers, researchers and energy know-how. We've powered Australia for generations and we should be at the forefront of the industries that will power it in the future. That includes renewable energy, storage, hydrogen, carbon management, advanced manufacturing and the ongoing work of making traditional industries cleaner and more competitive. The transition mustn't mean closing one gate and hoping another job appears somewhere else. It means building new investment alongside existing industries, training local people and using the skills we've already got.

This bill also gives landholders more flexibility. It will allow different sequestration and emissions avoidance activities to be credited within the same project. It will support framework style methods, including the proposed integrated farm and land management method. Project operators will be able to change crediting start dates more than once, receive extra time for some reports and more easily transition savanna fire projects between methods. Landholders will have the option to adjust parts of the sequestration project if relevant credits are relinquished. These changes respond to more than a decade of experience running this scheme. They are about moving pointless barriers while keeping the rules strong.

The bill also improves the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. This is Australia's national framework for company reporting on greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy use. Reliable public information matters. Communities deserve to know what major businesses are reporting, and government needs solid data to design policy to measure these programs. The reforms streamline publication, allow more detailed information to be required through regulations, close possible reporting gaps and let the regulator remove companies in liquidation from the register.

The final part of this bill makes timing changes to the new vehicle efficiency standards. The standards have encouraged manufacturers to send Australia a better range of more fuel efficient vehicles. More people now have access to hybrids and EVs, along with lower running costs and greater choice. In August 2026 more than 27,000 battery EVs were sold, making up 24.9 per cent of new vehicle sales in this country. EVs outsold petrol cars that month for the first time. The amendments don't change the headline emission limits or vehicles covered. They fix the sequence of key dates so suppliers get the intended two years to manage and extinguishing units. Industry asked for certainty, and this bill provides it.

Regional communities have heard plenty of noise in the energy debate. Too often people come to places like the Hunter with a lecture already written and no interest in listening. That's not how I operate, and it's not how I expect any government to operate. The people I represent are practical. They know that energy is changing. They also know Australia still needs reliable power, strong industry and secure jobs. They expect government to manage change, not simply just announce it. This bill is practical. It improves integrity without killing investment. It protects First Nations rights. It gives farmers more options. It strengthens transparency. It supports research and makes three important national schemes work better together. It also helps build confidence in regional Australia. When the rules are clear and credits are genuine, businesses can invest, landholders can participate and communities can share in the benefits.

The Hunter has carried this nation on its back for generations. The coal from our mines and the power from our stations have built cities, supported manufacturing and kept homes running right across the country. Our contribution deserves respect. It also deserves a serious plan for the next decades ahead. I want the Hunter to keep powering the nation. I want workers building, operating and maintaining the next generation of energy and industry. I want our kids to have a choice to stay in our region, get a trade, build a career and raise a family close to home. This bill helps do that by making Australia's carbon market stronger, clearer and more trustworthy. I commend the bill to the House.

I just feel so sad that a member representing the coalmining area of Australia can get up and give the speech that he gave. It is a reflection upon the party system in this nation and in this place. A representative from the coalmining heartland of Australia is standing up and applauding this bill that closes down his industries. I just can't believe what I'm hearing. It is the party system that reduces a good person to a party apparatchik—you hold up your hand when you're told to.

You've got to understand what is happening here. The price of electricity in Queensland went from $900 to $3,200—$1,200 of that was for carbon credits, which is an imposition upon the people of Queensland, and another $1,000 was because of the inefficiencies that are in the system now, because 54 per cent of the daytime electricity in Queensland is coming from solar panels. Where do we get solar panels from? China. Where do we get ethanol from? Australia—or we should be getting ethanol from Australia. So, instead of going to ethanol and fuelling our cars with ethanol produced from one of the four biggest grain and sugarcane exporting countries in the world, we've chosen to buy our fuel—solar panels—from China. That's in keeping with the fact that 52 per cent of our motor cars sold this year have also come from China.

Once upon a time, in the 1980s, in my lifetime, 62 per cent of our cars were built here in Australia, and, if I may be excused for using a crude term, they were bloody good cars. Thanks to the stupidity of the ALP and the LNP, we now have no car manufacturing in this country. Now we have a bloke who comes from the coalmining capital of Australia getting up here and advocating that we have no coalmining. Just how hypocritical is this place?

Now, they referred to the first Australians. Well, shame upon you. Shame upon you, because in every speech that becomes available, I'm going to remind this place that the life expectancy of first Australians living in their homeland has fallen from 54 to 49. Now, these people are not only friends of mine but they're relatives of mine as well, so there's a personal basis for my rage on this issue. You say, 'Oh yes, you know, they did it really good.' They firestick farmed. Read the great Australian historian's Triumph of the Nomads. They firestick farmed this country. I mean, the hypocrisy of you.

I met a young lady and I asked her: 'What do you do?' She said, 'Oh, I'm in economic development.' So because I don't notice any economic development taking place in the northern half of Australia, I asked, 'What economic development?' And like extracting teeth, I found out that she sells carbon credits. Now, that means that those people there can never, ever make a quid. They can't ever make a quid. You're condemning them to nothing for the rest of their lives. And is it any surprise that the suicide rate is absolutely heartbreaking in the community areas of Australia?

Now, in sharp contrast, what people are doing is ignoring your whitefella laws because we've had a gutful of your whitefella laws, right? And a great hero called Jason Ned had mustered more cattle than any other person in human history. He was getting a good Australian award from the Prime Minister, but he died two weeks before. But he just went out and said, 'I'm not worried about your whitefella laws. I'm just taking up this block of land here, which my family lived on for 40,000 years, and I'm going to call it my cattle station,' and everyone in Doomadgee applauded him. In fact, four other families have gone out and done the same thing now there is a precedent for that. New South Wales was taken up under squatter's rights. They said, 'We don't care what your British government's saying. I'm just going to go out there and take up this land.' All of New South Wales was taken up under squatter's rights. So God bless my fellow Australians, because they're telling you to take your laws and telling you what you can do with your laws, right?

The hypocrisy of this gentleman before representing the coal mining industry and telling us this is good for us. I mean, this is good for us? The Queensland economy is based upon coal. If you close it down, the state is bankrupt. There are 50,000 jobs in the coal mining industry and this place is constantly and continuously advocating the closure of the coal industry. Now, if you had any brains or any energy to do proper work on the issue, you would know that the modern power station will be built where there is a lot of water and where they will have algae, which will grow on the CO2 in the ponded areas. Now, no less a person than Tanya Plibersek knew the names of all the algae and has actually done some very good research on it. It's very sad that she's been removed from those portfolios.

There are10 power stations which account for almost all the electricity in Australia and three of them have announced closure dates. I've asked again and again in this place: how are you going to stop the lights from going out? I mean, the sun? If you're talking about solar panels, the sun doesn't shine overnight. You've got a bit of a problem there, and there are no storage facilities in Australia. There's one pumped hydroelectricity station in the Snowy and that's it.

So when we come here today and talk about giving carbon credits to first Australians, remember this young lady who said she was in economic development and who I eventually found out was selling carbon credits, which means that the people of Doomadgee, the people of Pormpuraaw, will never, ever, ever be able to make a living. If you want to make a living then you have to go to the bank to borrow some money. If you don't own property, the banks won't give you any money.

One of the more important works of recent times was by Hernando de Soto, an economist with the World Bank. His cousin was head of the third-biggest mining company in the world, Rio. Hernando de Soto, in his book The Mystery of Capital, said the three poorest countries on Earth are Peru, the Philippines and Egypt. Why are they the three poorest countries on Earth? Because you can't get a title deed. You can't own property. If you can't own property, the banks won't loan you money. If the banks won't loan your money, you can't build a house, you can't open a business, you can't do anything. With no property rights, there is no money. If there is no money, there is no home, no farm and no economy. That is the fate of Peru, the Philippines and Egypt—and that is the fate that you have imposed upon the First Australians of this nation. Their life expectancy has fallen from 54 to 49. Whose fault is that? If there are high alcohol rates and other things, whose fault is that? The tooth fairy's or penguins from Antarctica's? It's your fault. You passed the laws that made it impossible for these people. So I come here and praise the people of Doomadgee—and, if you dare interfere, God help you. They're just doing what Australians did when they first came to Australia. They're taking up squatters' rights—'It's a big empty land and we're going to run cattle on it, and, if you don't like it, well, too bloody bad for you.'

The last speaker in this debate represents the coal industry, and he came in here justifying the closure of the coal industry in Australia. He's talking about motor cars that are electric. They come from China. The electricity comes from China through Chinese solar panels. Don't you like your own country? Do you want it to be an economic colony of China? That is what, of course, it is rapidly becoming—an economic colony of China.

Build a 3,000-megawatt power station, which is almost twice as big as the 10 biggest power stations in Australia. Build it at the headwaters of the Burdekin River, the third biggest river in Australia. We have got flat land going on forever and it's called the Desert Uplands. There's nothing growing there; it's a rain shadow. Just put it there and then have these algae ponds. I praise Minister Plibersek for her great work in this area, and it's very sad that she was removed from the portfolio. If you do that then you will have the cheapest electricity in the world. People have had $1,000 a year dumped on them in electricity charges. They've had an extra $1,000 a year dumped on them because we export all of our oil and import all of our petrol. What sorts of lunatic governments do we have in Australia? We export our oil for $8,000 million and we import our petrol for $62,000 million. Are we mad or something? Brazil is on 60 per cent ethanol and they were filling up for $1.70, the last time I looked. Ethanol was introduced in every country in the world because they needed oxygen to replace the lead that was taken out. It got a very poor burn, so there was a serious problem with particles getting into your lungs. The Premier of New South Wales, Morris Iemma, introduced ethanol because it's got oxygen, you get a much better burn and you don't have 9,000 people dying in the Greater Sydney area every year from lung disease that comes from motor vehicle emissions.

I plead with people in this place, particularly younger people: do your research; do your homework; know what you're talking about. You don't follow the latest pop ideology that's out there. It was overpopulation; now we're a dying race. Most of the European sorts of countries are all dying races. We're vanishing. When 20 Australians die, on present trends they'll only be replaced by 15 people.

Similarly, on the issue of energy, I don't hesitate to say I'm an expert in this field. I was the energy minister in Queensland. We had the cheapest electricity in the world. And I put in the first standalone solar system, not because I'm some pop ideology follower but because it was cheaper. In an isolated, remote situation like the Torres Strait, it was cheaper, and we didn't have the maintenance problems. So I know a hell of a lot about it. To put solar panels on your roof to get electricity in a city is absolute madness and a criminal irresponsibility. In a remote area, it is magic, but not in the cities. So where do you get your power from? The next power station should be built on the upper Burdekin River, the third-biggest river in Australia, on the Desert Uplands. There will be ponds that will absorb the CO2 and grow algae, which produces diesel fuel for you—renewable diesel fuel! Or it can produce pig feed, cattle feed—whatever feed that you want.

For those people that come in here and start preaching about ideology and saving and rescuing the nation, 30,000 square kilometres of my homeland has been taken over by prickly tree, and that's because there's no-one living there anymore. You destroyed the wool industry, and the cattle industry has never picked up, so it's just empty land. There's no-one looking after it. The blackfellas firestick farmed, but now there are no blackfellas there firestick farming, so you changed the ecology. The cassowary is doomed because you've banned shooters from going into the national parks. The pig numbers are exploding, and it'll be on my watch—I predict that within 16 years there'll be no cassowaries. So you've got 30,000 square kilometres of prickly trees destroying everything over there. You've got the Forty Mile Scrub, the most iconic national park in northern Australia, burnt to a cinder because there was no-one there to look after it. There are three cattle stations around it with not a single leaf burnt because there are people there looking after it. I own a 250,000-acre cattle station. When I and my neighbours had a fire, I had a dozer, my neighbour had a grader, and the other neighbour had a water tank on his truck, and I also had a water tank available. So, if we had a fire, we had a very formidable way of combating it. (Time expired)

Thank God for time limits! I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. Australia is home to one of the largest and most robust carbon markets in the world. The total value of Australia's carbon market is worth over $4 billion as of 2025, spanning over 2,600 projects in our economy.

Okay, I'll just—

You've had your go.

Member for Calwell, I'm presiding over the House, okay?

Sorry, yes.

Member for Kennedy, did you have a point of order?

Yes, I did, and I want to put it on record, thanks.

Well, I didn't hear it, so, if you do want to make a point of order, I request that you do that again so I can hear it.

The point of order is that we are not making any money out of carbon—

Okay, that's not a point of order. Thank you so much. Member for Calwell, you may resume your speech.

Our carbon market plays a significant role in protecting our environment and supporting our economy. This is as much an economic argument as it is an environmental one. Global standards are shifting, and technology and innovation are reshaping industries and supply chains around the world. Australia cannot afford to fall behind. In an increasingly competitive global market, keeping pace with technological progress and innovation is essential to ensuring Australian industry remains competitive and can access emerging markets and opportunities. When we fall behind, we risk closing doors for Australian businesses, not only by limiting their ability to compete in global supply chains but also by restricting their access to new investment, new technologies and new markets. A credible and effective carbon market helps Australia respond to these changes. It creates incentives for businesses to invest in new technologies, improve efficiency and develop innovative approaches to reducing emissions. In doing so, it supports our environmental objectives while helping Australian industry remain competitive, productive and well positioned for the future. The opportunity before us is not simply to reduce emissions; it is also to ensure Australian businesses can adapt, innovate and compete in a global economy where environmental performance and technological capability are becoming increasingly important.

At the heart of this market is the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, which provides the regulatory framework for carbon crediting in Australia. The scheme encourages individuals and businesses to undertake projects that reduce emissions or store carbon. It does this by supporting the adoption of new technologies, the upgrading of equipment, changes to business practices that improve productivity or energy use, and improvements in vegetation management. Carbon credits generated under the scheme also support other key mechanisms that help Australia's largest emitters reduce their emissions. These include compliance with the safeguard mechanism and participation in voluntary carbon markets. The safeguard mechanism is Australia's principal policy tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the country's largest industrial facilities. Like the ACCU scheme, it operates through an incentive based framework, encouraging facilities to keep their net emissions below legislated baselines. The safeguard mechanism applies to entities with operational control of facilities that emit greenhouse gases.

The scheme also works alongside voluntary carbon markets, where individuals and businesses choose to take action beyond their legal obligations. This can include purchasing and cancelling ACCUs and other eligible offset units as well as surrendering large-scale generation certificates and renewable electricity guarantee-of-origin certificates when they are not legally required to do so. Individuals and businesses may choose to take these actions for a range of reasons, including their commitment to environmental sustainability, the desire to distinguish themselves in the market and the pursuit of internal organisational targets.

Taken together, Australia's carbon market reflects both voluntary and compliance-driven demand. The bill before the House today recognises the importance of this market to our environment and, importantly, to our economy. It builds on existing regulatory frameworks and voluntary action by strengthening Australia's carbon credit scheme, implementing recommendations from independent reviews and responding to stakeholder engagement undertaken over many years. At its core, the bill strengthens the integrity and transparency of the scheme, improves its administration, enhances emissions reporting and makes technical adjustments to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. The bill implements findings from independent reviews and introduces administrative improvements, informed by more than a decade of experience operating the scheme.

The changes provide greater flexibility and ensure an appropriate separation between purchasing decisions and the regulation of the scheme. The bill also replaces the purchasing principle of least-cost abatement with value for money. This will allow the government, when purchasing ACCUs, to consider a broad range of factors, including non-carbon benefits, where appropriate to its strategic priorities. The bill introduces a new ministerial power to make a method transition declaration in extraordinary circumstances. This power is intended to prevent existing projects from continuing to earn ACCUs under a method where an integrity issue has arisen that is of such seriousness that it poses a risk to the scheme as a whole. Importantly, however, this power is constrained by legislative criteria and conditions. Any decision must be informed by advice from the independent Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee, public consultation and consideration of the impacts on existing project proponents.

The bill also strengthens the Clean Energy Regulator's compliance and enforcement powers. These changes include extending the 'fit and proper person' test to agents of project proponents, introducing new ACCU relinquishment provisions to ensure that credited abatement is accurate and conservative, and empowering the regulator to issue infringement notices and injunctions. These measures will help resolve lower-level compliance breaches and support more-efficient enforcement.

The bill further supports investment in emissions abatement research and development by introducing newness requirements tailored to projects that are undertaking research and development that supports the development of new methods. It also enables a single project to include both sequestration and separate emissions-avoidance activities. This will support the development of innovative ACCU methods and allow new activities to be incorporated over time. The bill also streamlines and simplifies scheme administration. This includes making it easier for projects to transition to new methods and extend their permanence or crediting periods, providing greater flexibility to adjust the audit framework in the future and giving the regulator more flexible tools to manage projects with outstanding consents or regulatory approvals. Together, these reforms are designed to strengthen the scheme's integrity while making it more practical and effective to administer.

The bill also introduces more flexible powers to require the publication of information reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme. The scheme provides a single national framework for companies to report information about greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. By enabling more of the information submitted under the scheme to be published, these amendments will improve transparency around emissions and energy data. They will also make the scheme more effective and efficient to administer while allowing more detailed information to be published when needed through a flexible regulation-making power.

The bill also makes technical amendments to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act 2024 to adjust the timing and alignment of key milestone dates, ensuring that the standard operates as originally intended. The Albanese Labor government legislated the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard in 2024. This helps give more Australians more choice when it comes to buying their next vehicle, with a greater and better range of cars, including more hybrid and electric vehicles. And we can see these new standards at work, with Australians increasingly choosing to buy electrical vehicles. In the last month alone, electric vehicle sales overtook petrol car sales in Australia. More Australian drivers are choosing lower running costs and greater choice. More than 27,000 battery electric vehicles were sold, accounting for nearly one in four new vehicle sales. These figures reflect the broader trend across the year, with electric vehicle sales increasing significantly.

The amendment in this bill addresses a timing issue affecting how vehicle suppliers meet their emissions targets under the standard. It will ensure that the scheme continues to operate as intended. Australia's path to net zero depends on credible action and on institutions that people can trust. Our carbon market is an important part of that effort. It supports emissions reduction, encourages investment and provides a framework for businesses and individuals to contribute to our environmental and economic objectives. This bill builds on that foundation. It strengthens the integrity and transparency of carbon crediting, improves emissions reporting and makes practical adjustments to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. These are important steps towards ensuring that our policies remain credible, effective and fit for purpose.

These reforms in the bill before the House are just one part of the Albanese Labor government's achievements when it comes to the environment and the transition of our energy sector. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has taken real action to protect our environment and secure our future energy supplies whilst investing in the workforce and industries of the future in the clean energy sector. And we haven't wasted a moment. The Albanese Labor government has approved a record number of renewable energy projects, enough to power more than 11 million homes. While the coalition spent years during its wasted decade waging climate wars and lobbying against renewables, we on this side the House are getting on with preparing Australia for its future energy needs, harnessing the economic opportunities of the transition and ensuring that Australian industry and workers remain central to this process.

To achieve this, the Albanese Labor government has ensured that renewable projects are considered as quickly as possible. This includes investments through our Future Made in Australia plan. This investment will develop and maintain a national priority list of renewable energy projects and accelerate environmental assessments for some projects on that priority list. The National Renewable Energy Priority List supports critical renewable energy projects across Australia. The list specifically focuses on projects that are important to help Australia meet its renewable energy targets and supports the facilitation of faster approvals through a 'faster to yes or faster to no' approach when it comes to environmental decisions. As of March last year, the priority list had identified 56 priority projects, including 24 transmission projects and 32 generation and storage projects. Faster approvals and timely rejections allow the sector to get on with the job of supporting the projects needed for the energy transition and create the jobs that come with it.

We're also giving households more agency over their energy consumption through our Cheaper Home Batteries program. Over 500,000 cheaper home batteries have now been installed across Australia under this government's program, helping households and businesses store cheap solar, cut power bills and take pressure off the grid. This is a game changer for energy bills, with many able to save a thousand dollars or more on their energy bills each year. And, with those savings on bills, people will be able to pay down the cost of their battery faster. In my electorate, 2,396 cheaper home batteries have been taken up across our community to date, with Mickleham and Craigieburn leading the way. This demonstrates that families in our outer suburbs, right across this country, including in my electorate, are centre stage of this government's efforts for more, cheaper and cleaner energy. That's local households and businesses investing in energy upgrades that help lower their bills and give them back control of their energy costs, helping families save both now and into the future.

These reforms are not just about strengthening environmental integrity. They're also about maintaining a credible and effective framework that gives businesses the confidence to invest, innovate and participate in Australia's transition to a more competitive, lower emissions economy. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.