BUSINESS

Mr CALDWELL (Fadden—Opposition Chief Whip) (11:42): I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, having earlier been referred to the Federation Chamber by way of a programming declaration, being returned to the House immediately, and all remaining proceedings occurring in this Chamber.

The first order of business this morning that was moved by the chief opposition whip was regrettable in that it referred the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 to the Federation Chamber immediately. The consequences of that, Deputy Speaker Georganas, as you well know, are that it will now not be debated in this place and instead will be debated at the government's time of choosing in the Federation Chamber.

The purpose for which the Federation Chamber exists is effectively as a clearing house, if you like, for uncontroversial matters and to provide a place for statements to be made by honourable members in relation to their community, grievance debate and other programmed speeches. It is not there for the debate on legislation that is controversial. It is there when there is effectively a clear pathway to the passage of a bill.

That is not what we are presented with in relation to this bill. I say that because, in his speech on the second reading, the member for Wannon, Mr Tehan, moved an amendment to that bill, which by its very nature would suggest that the opposition does not agree to the terms of the bill. It is inherent in the fact that we have moved an amendment that we intend for there to be a significant debate on this bill.

For it to be scooped up and sent upstairs to the Federation Chamber, in my view, is an absolute abuse by this government of the intentions for the use of the Federation Chamber. This bill is of significant consequence and ought to be returned by the government to be debated here in the House of Representatives. Anything short of that, quite frankly, is a regrettable and unsatisfactory arrangement.

The member for Wannon, in his speech on the second reading, could not have been clearer about the opposition's significant concerns about this bill. We oppose this net zero bill. On its face, one might think that it makes uncontroversial administrative changes to the operation of Australia's carbon credit scheme—a market of nearly $50 billion.

However, this is what we have concerns about: the bill makes three serious and significant changes. First, the bill greatly expands the rights of native title claimants. The bill would allow a mere claim to native title, regardless of whether native title actually exists or may exist at law, to trigger a mandatory approvals process whereby a project proponent must obtain consent from the claimant before a carbon credit can be purchased.

Now, the Chubb review did not recommend this change, and it is for reasons like this one that we believe this consequential legislation should be debated here in the House. Second, the bill leaves taxpayers more exposed to the purchasing of expensive carbon credits for Labor's net zero objectives. Currently, the government can purchase carbon credits having had regard to whether the purchase would be at least cost.

This bill repeals the least cost consideration and inserts an opaque value-for-money test which can include, among other considerations, whole-of-government emissions reduction and net zero strategies. That's environmental, social and economic changes, and First Nations cultural benefits. The third significant change is that the bill hands the Minister for Climate Change and Energy sweeping new powers to disrupt carbon-abatement projects.

This bill newly allows the minister to declare that a methodology being used by a proponent to monitor their emissions is not valid. Stakeholders are roundly against this new power and argue it will increase risk, raise costs and increase investor uncertainty. We all know that those on the other side of this place have an ideological pursuit of certain aspects of the Australian economy that, quite frankly, Australians need to hear about.

That's why this suspension of standing and sessional orders, in my view, must be supported—in order to give the Australian public the transparency over this particular piece of legislation that they deserve; and, for each and every community across this nation who sends their parliamentarians to this place to debate legislation, so that debates on consequential amendments to bills be debated here.

This is exactly one of those moments. It was quite extraordinary that, when the government knows full well that we have a number of speakers who will want to make a contribution on this matter, the first order of business today was to kick the can down the road, squirrel it away and pretend like there's nothing to be seen so our members on this side of the chamber don't have the opportunity to scrutinise this and properly bring the level of visibility of what's going on that this bill deserves.

In my previous role as the opposition whip during this 48th parliament, I had made an early observation about the conduct of business by this government: there were more bills heading upstairs to the Federation Chamber on controversial legislation than we had previously seen. This is what happens when a government comes in here and has a 94-seat majority. They think they can just do this kind of thing.

Well, we are here small in number but big in voice. We will stand up for the Australian people, and we will make sure that this kind of behaviour doesn't go unseen and unchecked. Because it's the Australian public who are the ones that need to know that the coalition is here fighting for them day in and day out and that this government will be held to account.

The only way we can do that properly on this bill is to have this debate right here. I look upstairs, and I see the public gallery. Those people up there want to know what's going on.

They're here for a reason. If I said to them, 'I'll meet you up in the Federation Chamber,' as good a place as that is, they wouldn't know where it is. They're not in the gallery of the Federation Chamber.

They're here because they think this is parliament. This is where the debates take place. So, when the Chief Government Whip came in here this morning and said, 'We're going to brush this one upstairs,' that was a terrible, terrible thing for this government to do.

This is what they are doing. They are just trying to hoodwink the Australian people into thinking that there's nothing to be seen here. I just listed out the very reasonable concerns that we as a coalition have with this bill, just three points.

I could go on, but they're the top three. Those and all of the other matters that relate to the pursuit of the net zero ideology by this government and by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy ought to be shown the daylight of the House of Representatives chamber and nothing less. That's what the Australian people deserve.

On this suspension of standing orders, I hope that the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, who is opposite me, will join in having heard the debate that I've put forward and will support this most reasonable motion in order for this debate to be heard here in the House of Representatives, where it ought to be. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Georganas ): Is there a seconder for the member for Fadden's motion?

Mrs McIntosh: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER: The question is the motion moved by the member for Fadden be agreed to.