Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Thwaites supported the bill, highlighting the ACCU Scheme's role in delivering 190 million tonnes of abatement since 2011. Thwaites emphasised the benefits for First Nations communities, citing the Arnhem Land Fire Abatement group and its economic and cultural impacts. Thwaites argued the reforms strengthened consent requirements for traditional owners and improved governance through the new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. Thwaites also noted amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard to improve transparency and fix timing issues.

Watson-Brown opposed the bill, characterising the carbon credit system as an accounting trick that allows polluters to avoid genuine emissions reductions. Watson-Brown argued the bill failed to address the integrity of dodgy credits and allowed existing low-integrity projects to continue. While acknowledging improvements to First Nations consent rights, she stated these were insufficient without broader systemic reform. Watson-Brown called for significant changes to remove low-integrity credits and advocated for increased federal funding for nature protection.

Berry supported the bill, stating it addressed recommendations from the Chubb review to enhance transparency and integrity in the carbon market. Berry highlighted local projects in her electorate, such as landfill gas capture and soil regeneration, as examples of genuine abatement. Berry argued the reforms strengthened compliance tools and ensured carbon credits represented real emissions reductions. Berry emphasised the importance of public confidence in the scheme for achieving net zero targets by 2050.

Penfold opposed the bill, arguing it risked politicising the carbon market by allowing government to commercialise the cessation of productive industries like native forestry. Penfold cited the Great Koala National Park as an example where carbon credits were used to fund pre-existing political decisions rather than genuine additional abatement. Penfold criticised the removal of the least-cost test and the expansion of native title consent rights, echoing concerns from industry groups about regulatory complexity. Penfold argued that sustainable forestry and koala conservation could coexist, questioning the evidence for shutting down the industry.