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

Claydon argued that the bill strengthens the integrity and transparency of the carbon credit scheme, which is essential for building trust among businesses and investors. Claydon highlighted local examples in Newcastle where high-integrity credits support industrial decarbonisation projects, such as those at Orica. Claydon emphasised that the reforms align with the Chubb review's findings and provide a pathway for hard-to-abate industries to reduce emissions while maintaining investment certainty.

Willcox opposed the bill, arguing it introduces uncertainty for farmers and businesses by expanding native title consent requirements to include unresolved claims. Willcox criticised the removal of the least cost test for government purchases of carbon credits, claiming it weakens financial accountability for taxpayers. Willcox also raised concerns about new ministerial powers to alter carbon credit methods, suggesting this undermines investment confidence and contradicts the recommendations of the Chubb review.

Campbell supported the bill, framing it as a response to expert advice on strengthening the carbon market's integrity and accountability. Campbell highlighted the economic benefits of the scheme for regional areas and First Nations communities, particularly through savanna fire management projects. Campbell argued that the reforms close loopholes regarding conditional registration on native title land, ensuring free, prior and informed consent is obtained before projects proceed.

Small opposed the bill, describing it as a significant expansion of the native title regime that creates legal uncertainty and delays for project proponents. Small argued that extending eligible interests to mere native title claims, rather than determined rights, goes beyond the Chubb review's recommendations. Small also cited concerns about the removal of the least cost test and the potential for increased costs and complexity for agricultural producers and industry participants.

Miller-Frost supported the bill as part of the government's broader strategy to transition to renewable energy and meet net zero targets. Miller-Frost outlined how the legislation strengthens compliance powers, improves transparency, and establishes a new integrity committee with First Nations representation. Miller-Frost also noted improvements to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, which provides greater flexibility for vehicle suppliers and supports the uptake of electric vehicles.

Birrell opposed the bill, arguing it makes doing business harder and risks making Australia poorer by introducing regulatory uncertainty. Birrell criticised the expansion of native title consent requirements and the removal of the least cost test, citing concerns about taxpayer costs and potential lawfare. Birrell also questioned the effectiveness of the government's climate policies, suggesting they could lead to industry relocation and reduced economic competitiveness.

Smith supported the bill, emphasising its role in creating economic opportunities and jobs in remote and regional communities, particularly for First Nations peoples. Smith highlighted the success of savanna burning projects in providing income and role models for young people in Cape York. Smith argued that the carbon credit scheme allows for continued economic activity while offsetting emissions, contributing to both local prosperity and global climate goals.

Aldred argued the bill imposed excessive regulatory burdens on farmers and the timber industry, citing delays in departmental responses to environmental referrals. Aldred expressed concern that high domestic standards might encourage imports of products with lower environmental safeguards, such as timber and aluminium windows. Aldred also criticised proposed vehicle emissions standards and changes to native title consent processes, which she claimed would allow unproven claims to veto projects on prime agricultural land.

Clutterham supported the bill as a step to improve the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, which helps meet national emissions reduction targets. Clutterham highlighted reforms including the establishment of the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee to replace the previous assurance body, with improved conflict-of-interest rules and First Nations representation. Clutterham noted the bill extends fit-and-proper-person tests to agents and allows newness requirements to be assessed at application time to support project certainty.

Scamps welcomed the bill's aim to strengthen market integrity but argued it did not go far enough to address concerns about offset reliability. Scamps raised specific concerns about the method transition declaration power, warning it could allow projects under low-integrity methods, such as human induced regeneration, to avoid existing safeguards like forest cover reconciliation tests. Scamps indicated she would move amendments to ensure credits from transitioning projects remain subject to original integrity requirements.

Gregg argued the bill addressed serious faults in the carbon credit system by strengthening rules and improving oversight. Gregg explained that method transition declarations provide a necessary mechanism to address methods that fail integrity standards, with safeguards including independent advice and public consultation. Gregg also highlighted reforms to native title consent processes, which require agreement before project registration and credit issuance, and the separation of government purchasing functions from regulatory duties.

Boyce opposed the bill, arguing it expanded native title rights to unproven claims, creating legal uncertainty and veto powers for claimants. Boyce criticised the replacement of the least-cost abatement principle with an undefined value-for-money standard, which he claimed allowed for politically motivated spending. Boyce also warned that method transition declarations granted excessive discretionary power to the minister, undermining investor confidence and commercial certainty.

Coffey supported the bill as part of the government's broader climate action strategy, including legislated emissions reduction targets and renewable energy investments. Coffey highlighted the bill's strengthening of First Nations consent rights and the improved scrutiny of carbon projects to ensure credits represent real contributions. Coffey noted that reforms were based on independent reviews and extensive stakeholder consultation, aiming to build public trust in the scheme.

Webster opposed the bill, arguing it threatened food security by incentivising the conversion of prime agricultural land to carbon sequestration projects. Webster warned that long-term permanence obligations could lock up land for generations, reducing its value and complicating future sales. Webster emphasised the need for certainty in property rights and criticised the government's approach to renewable energy and carbon farming as disregarding the interests of farming communities.

Byrnes argued that the bill strengthens the integrity of the carbon market, which has delivered 190 million tonnes of abatement since 2011. Byrnes highlighted that the reforms address recommendations from independent reviews and support stakeholder confidence. Byrnes also noted that the bill fixes timing issues in the new vehicle efficiency standard and improves transparency in emissions reporting.

Chaney supported the bill's technical improvements but expressed concern that it does not address fundamental integrity issues, such as unrestricted offset application within the safeguard mechanism. Chaney argued that the method transition declaration power lacks sufficient legal safeguards to prevent weakening verification standards for human-induced regeneration projects. Chaney called for a cap on offset usage and higher carbon prices to drive onsite decarbonisation.

Repacholi emphasised that the bill provides certainty for regional communities and hard-to-abate industries by ensuring carbon credits represent genuine emissions reductions. Repacholi detailed how the reforms strengthen First Nations consent requirements and improve the regulator's compliance toolkit. Repacholi argued that the changes support investment in new technologies and maintain the economic viability of the carbon market.

Katter opposed the bill, claiming it contributes to rising electricity costs and the decline of the coal industry. Katter argued that carbon credits prevent First Nations people from achieving economic independence through property ownership and cited falling life expectancy rates. Katter advocated for alternative energy solutions, including algae-based power stations and ethanol fuel, rather than renewable energy transitions.

Abdo argued that the bill maintains Australia's competitiveness in global markets by strengthening the credibility of the carbon scheme. Abdo highlighted reforms that separate purchasing decisions from regulation and introduce value-for-money principles for government credit purchases. Abdo also noted that the bill supports research and development and improves transparency in national emissions reporting.