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

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (18:09): There is a whole lot not to like about the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. The coalition will oppose this bill, which we see as being fundamentally flawed and a regressive net zero piece of legislation. The bill very much expands Australia's native title regime, it removes the least cost financial test, and it hands the minister sweeping new carbon credit powers.

These are things which the coalition cannot support. I want to step through some of the issues around the native title elements—certainly in relation to this bill, but it's happening right across a large tract of New South Wales, and elsewhere, right now. A report dated 13 October 2026, by Oliver Jacques, in Region Riverina absolutely underlines the concerns many in south-west New South Wales have in relation to a massive native title claim covering areas around Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Leeton and Narrandera.

Those last three centres largely form the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area—already under pressure because of water buybacks by this federal Labor government, already concerned that the buybacks have not stopped. Indeed, only recently, there was another 86 gigalitres purchased, mostly out of the southern connected system—trying to reach that illusory target of 450 gigalitres set by former prime minister Julia Gillard on the banks of Goolwa in 2012.

That takes productive farming water away from the world's best environmentalists—and they are our farmers—for no environmental gain whatsoever. I say that because farmers are under more pressure now than ever before, and the native title elements of this bill, and other things that are happening at present, are of great concern to our food producers. Our growers of food would be very alarmed at the fact that, only today, in Sydney, there was a nest of fire ants discovered.

They are already alarmed at the prospect in the west, where this Labor government is dismantling the live sheep trade to the Middle East, and that process is going on. They are already concerned that we are in an El Nino event, and they well remember that it wasn't that long ago that, with the Bureau of Meteorology suggesting we were about to go into a very prolonged dry spell, every farmer who had sheep in the paddock took them to process—ewes, mutton, older sheep, lambs, potential breeding stock, you name it.

What we are faced with now is a reduction of the national herd. I had a conversation just last Friday with Will Barton, who owns and operates the lamb processing plant at Gundagai, and he is very concerned about what he may do with this reduced stock, given the fact that Trade Minister Farrell is out spruiking that we are going to fill all these gaps and that the good times are ahead for our sheep producers and for our balance of payments—well, not so if we don't have the flock to process, not according to Mr Barton, and I think I would very much take heed of what Mr Barton said if I were Minister Farrell.

It is a concern. Now, with the native title claim in southern New South Wales, the Southern West Wiradjuri people have launched Federal Court proceedings, seeking recognition of traditional rights and interests in land and waters across the Riverina. On behalf of descendants of 29 named ancestors, seven representatives were nominated to progress this particular claim.

Now, I heard the member for Swan talking about, as part of this legislation, in her concluding remarks, the fact that we are in a housing crisis, and we are. I would suggest that the last thing that our developers need when we are in the midst of a housing crisis is more bureaucracy placed over what they do. There are fears that the native title claims could create yet another hurdle, yet more bureaucracy and yet increased red tape for developers whilst we have this housing crisis.

It is difficult enough for developers to open subdivisions. I am encouraged by the fact that there are some subdivisions going ahead at Wagga Wagga—at Rowan, south of the city—at Boorowa, a little town which is really looking to grow; in the Yass Valley; and elsewhere in my electorate. But I am concerned that developers will face this myriad of compliance and red tape.

Certainly, with native title claims going ahead, what does that do for their ability to get on? It's already hard enough getting through local government sometimes, with development applications and getting those approved, let alone having another layer of bureaucracy placed upon them. Our planning laws already have too much bureaucracy, and our developers don't need yet another layer on top of that.

The coalition is concerned with the changes to native title arrangements. Currently, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 provides for the conditional registration of eligible offsets projects on native title land before the consent of eligible interest holders has been obtained. Now, in practice this means that a project may be established for up to five years, the first reporting period, before being required to provide evidence to the Clean Energy Regulator that eligible interest holders' consent has been obtained to undertake a particular project.

This bill, certainly in section 27 and the following one, drastically upends this particular process. The bill establishes that a mere claim to native title would become an eligible interest. What would happen then?

Someone wanting to establish a carbon abatement project would have to deal with a claim to native title regardless as to whether that title actually exists or exists at law. What we will see will be a picnic for lawyers—an absolute picnic. It will be payday for lawyers.

The new approvals process will be part of a more onerous, cumbersome—call it what you like—two-stage consent process for setting up a carbon abatement project. Among other things, the Clean Energy Regulator, at section 32, would be permitted to unilaterally revoke a proponent's project declaration any time prior to the first reporting period—that five-year period—if there is no reasonable prospect the consent will be obtained between proponents and eligible interest holders.

We acknowledge that native title has been in place for more than 30 years in Australia, but the bill before us does go too far—way, way too far. The first thing that strikes you is 'what is this proposed change actually fixing?' My father was very practical. My late father, Lance, a good farmer, always used to say, 'If it ain't broke, why fix it?' Under the current carbon credits regime, native title holders already have absolutely rock-solid legal protections.

We know that because we read about it often in judgements. We see it regularly. This includes that a project proponent must obtain consent of the native title holder, and there is a built-in right to negotiate.

Each year I go to the Minerals Council dinner and each year I have always heard Tania Constable and her predecessors with that august organisation talk about the negotiations—the good faith negotiations—that the mining sector has with native title holders. What we as the coalition are concerned about is that this is overreach. According to the Carbon Indigenous Industry Network, who obviously support this bill and have met personally with the assistant minister, 11 per cent of Australia's landmass is currently under native title claim and awaiting a decision to be made by the Federal Court as to the area's native title status.

But I would argue that, in a situation where we need more homes, where we need farmers to produce more food and where we need to have progress not inhibited by court decisions, court delays and procrastination, does this just throw up more compliance and more unnecessary red tape than we actually can afford? This is what I fear is happening with the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026.

Under the current act, the government can purchase carbon credits with regard to whether that purchase is being conducted at least cost to achieve carbon abatement. In effect, the act requires the government to purchase carbon credits without having an undue financial impact, and the coalition would argue that this is prudent. It's entirely appropriate, but Labor wants to remove the least-cost test and instead replace it with what could only be seen as an opaque value-for-money test.

Why? Who would know? This means that the government could buy very expensive carbon credits if it were satisfied that the purchase would achieve 'value for money'.

What this value for money might be is—wait for it—not specified in the act. Why would it be! Why would the government do that!

It's a little bit like what you read the budget papers, which I do sitting up in bed of a night. I see the minister at the table and the Deputy Speaker both grimacing, but, yes, that's what I do; I sit up and read legislation. I sometimes actually— Mr McCORMACK: You would expect me to do that and say that.

When you read the budget papers, you will come to page four hundred and something and you will see—certainly when it comes to water purchases—NFP. One could surmise as to what 'NFP' might stand for, but I reckon it's 'not for publication'. I reckon that's what it stands for.

It really beggars belief that, in the budget papers that are talking about the financial document, the blueprint, the vision for the nation, the federal Labor government sometimes won't acknowledge or actually put down in black and white how much it intends to spend on water buybacks, and that is wrong. You could argue that, when the government goes in and purchases water, it distorts the water market, and that is very much the case.

By the same token, at the same time, the government has an obligation to fess up to how much it intends to spend on this unnecessary quest to provide the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder with even more water. The CEWH already has 72 per cent of available water in the Murray-Darling Basin. But I digress.

I think you get the point. I could go on and on about Indigenous water that's going to become part of the claim. I could go on and on about the native title claims.

This does worry me. I do not want to see it stymie progress, stymie development or upset the chance of actually addressing the housing crisis. The coalition does not agree at all with this particular legislation.

It's unnecessary.