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

Joyce moved an amendment to scrap tax breaks for overseas buyers selling big green energy projects. Joyce argued that carbon credit schemes take land out of food production, hurting global food security and causing economic decline, including rising debt and homelessness. Joyce claimed the scheme helps foreign entities and billionaires while harming Australian industries and regional communities.

Farley seconded the amendment and argued the bill fails to address fundamental integrity issues within the existing carbon credit scheme. Farley cited evidence suggesting many issued credits do not represent genuine emissions reductions and criticized the bill for protecting existing credits and allowing flawed methods to continue operating for years. Farley contended the new oversight mechanisms are advisory and lack independent enforcement power, describing the legislation as administrative damage control rather than substantive reform.

Witty supported the bill as a measure to build public confidence in Australia's climate response through stronger accountability and transparency. Witty emphasized the establishment of the independent Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee to oversee credit methods and ensure rigorous standards. Witty argued the reforms support innovation, strengthen compliance, and respect First Nations consent, aligning with the government's broader strategy to reduce emissions and create economic opportunities.

Spender supported most reforms, including the new integrity committee and improved First Nations consent processes, but raised concerns about the method transition declaration and the shift to value-for-money procurement. Spender argued the transition power could create uncertainty and might allow projects to move to methods with lower integrity standards. Spender also questioned whether value-for-money criteria would lead to less efficient use of public funds compared to the previous least-cost approach.

Laxale argued the bill strengthens the nature economy by ensuring the carbon credit scheme remains credible and beneficial for farmers and landholders. Laxale cited examples of farmers benefiting financially from carbon projects and criticized opposition parties for seeking to abolish or cap the market, which would reduce demand and income. Laxale highlighted the scheme's role in funding biodiversity conservation and Indigenous land management, asserting that Labor is the only party committed to strengthening the system.

Wilson opposed the bill, arguing it creates uncertainty for project proponents by treating native title claims as established rights and granting the minister broad powers to void methodologies. Wilson criticized the value-for-money procurement test as opaque and potentially detrimental to taxpayers. Wilson highlighted concerns in his electorate about large corporations purchasing entire farming properties for carbon credits, which he claimed reduces food production and harms rural communities.

Mascarenhas began to speak in support of the bill, stating it strengthens a scheme that has already delivered results. Mascarenhas sought leave to continue her remarks later, which was granted before the debate was adjourned.