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

Mr WILLCOX (Dawson) (11:04): When I was a tomato farmer, I learnt pretty quickly that you cannot run a successful business on uncertainty. You need to know what you're planting, what it's going to cost and whether you have a market when the crop is ready. You make decisions months in advance.

You put your own money on the line, and, once you've planted a crop, you can't simply change direction halfway through the season. That's the reality of farming. It's the reality facing businesses right across the electorate of Dawson.

Whether you're growing tomatoes, running cattle, operating a transport business or investing in a new project, you need clear rules and a reasonable chance of getting a return. This Albanese Labor government seems determined to make everything harder. The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 is another example of the government making it harder to do business.

Just scratch the surface, and what do we find? More red tape, more uncertainty and more power for the minister. It's like buying a tractor advertised as an upgrade, only to discover it costs more to run, takes longer to do the job and someone else is going to decide when you get to use it.

The coalition will oppose this bill because this legislation goes well beyond improving administration. It changes the rules around native title consent. It removes an important financial safeguard, and it gives the minister new powers to interfere with the existing carbon credit methods.

These are serious changes with real consequences for regional Australia, and those consequences deserve proper scrutiny. Let me start with the issue that concerns me most—the impact on farmers. Under the existing carbon credit system, eligible projects on native title land can be registered conditionally.

Project proponents then have up to five years, through the first reporting period, to demonstrate that the necessary consent has been obtained. Native title holders already have strong legal protection. Their consent is required, and they have the right to negotiate.

The coalition recognises these protections and their importance, but Labor wants to take this process much further. Under sections 27 and 28, a registered native title claim could become an eligible interest even before the claim has legally been determined. The bill also introduces a more complicated two-stage consent process.

Under section 32, the Clean Energy Regulator could revoke a project declaration before the first reporting period where there is no reasonable prospect of obtaining the required consent. Let's just think about that. A farmer could spend months planning a project.

They could engage advisers and consultants, prepare the paperwork and commit their own money. Then they could find themselves caught in negotiations over a claim that has not yet been determined. And, all the while, the costs just keep mounting.

I know what it's like to have your own money tied up in a farming operation. I know the pressure of making decisions when your livelihood depends on getting them right. And I know farmers don't have endless time or endless money to spend navigating complicated government processes.

Yet Labor wants to introduce another layer of uncertainty. And for what purpose? What problem is this fixing?

The government points to the 2022 Chubb review, but the review did not recommend everything contained in this bill. Its recommendation on native title dealt with obtaining consent before conditional registration. It did not recommend extending eligible interests to unresolved native title claims.

This is a very important difference between encouraging consultation and creating an additional legal requirement that could delay a project. Labor is trying to present the two as though they are the same. They are not, and the people who understand these processes are raising serious concerns.

The National Farmers Federation has warned that negotiations under the existing arrangements can already be lengthy, difficult and expensive. It has raised the reports of landholders being asked to pay money upfront simply to arrange an initial meeting. Now imagine adding even more complexity to that process.

AgForce Queensland has also warned that the proposed changes could increase costs, create uncertainty and delay projects for the agricultural producers. In Dawson, where agriculture is a major part of our economy, those concerns deserve to be heard. Our farmers already have to contend with floods, fires, cyclones, rising input costs and unpredictable markets.

They don't need the Albanese Labor government adding legal uncertainty to that list. Farmers need to farm, not do unnecessary paperwork. The concerns don't stop at the farm gate.

Last week, the High Court handed down a significant decision concerning the Mount Pleasant coalmine in New South Wales. The court found that planning authorities had failed to properly consider scope 3 emissions—the emissions produced when Australian coal is used overseas. This has raised serious questions about investment certainty across the Australian resources sector.

In Dawson, where the coal industry supports thousands of jobs, that uncertainty matters. From the mines of the Bowen Basin to the workers and businesses servicing them from Mackay, our community sectors deserve and depend on a strong resources sector. We cannot afford a situation where Australian jobs and investment face growing legal uncertainty over emissions produced when our coal is used in other countries.

Against that backdrop, the Albanese government wants to introduce even more uncertainty into the carbon credit system. Our mining communities need clear rules. They need investment confidence and certainty that the industries supporting them regionally have a future.

That brings me to another deeply troubling part of this bill: taxpayers money. Under the existing legislation, the government must have regard to achieving carbon abatement at least cost when purchasing carbon credits. I think that's a sensible requirement.

If you're spending public money, you should be looking for the most economical way to achieve that result. It's the same principle any family with a budget or a small-business owner understands: you don't spend more than you need to just because you can. But Labor wants to remove that least cost test and replace it with a 'value for money' test.

That might sound harmless, but here's the problem. The legislation doesn't clearly define what that means. Instead, the accompanying documents point to a range of other considerations including environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits.

Those considerations may have merit in particular circumstances, but they should not be an excuse for looser spending rules. Under Labor's proposal, the government could justify paying more for carbon credits based on a broad assessment of those additional benefits, and taxpayers would be left asking: How much more? Who decides?

Where is the accountability? Families across Dawson are watching every dollar. Small businesses are doing the same.

They're dealing with higher power bills, higher mortgages, higher rents, higher insurance costs and the rising price of just about everything, and they expect the federal government to show the same financial discipline that they have to exercise every single day. Taxpayers deserve better than that. The government should be tightening accountability, not weakening it.

That leads me to my third concern: more power to the minister. Under part 3 of this bill, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy could make a method transition declaration when specified criteria are met. Those criteria include whether a carbon credit presents a material risk to the scheme.

In practical terms, an existing project could be required to move away from the method it was established under. The declaration would be subject to parliamentary disallowance. That provides some oversight, but it doesn't eliminate the uncertainty facing people who have already invested.

Imagine putting your savings into a project, following the approved rules and then discovering that those rules could change before you've earned a return. Would you feel confident making that investment? Would your bank?

Would your business partners? Of course not. That's why the National Farmers Federation have argued that these powers should be limited to generally exceptional circumstances.

We've already seen how political decisions can create uncertainty in the carbon credit market. In September the government reached an agreement with the Greens during a dispute over the native forest management methodology. Changes affecting carbon credits associated with the proposed great national koala park were also announced.

The full consequences remain to be seen, but it demonstrates why parliament should be cautious about giving ministers additional powers over established projects. For regional industries, investment certainty matters, and this bill risks undermining that. It also sits along Labor's safeguard mechanism, which is already placing pressure on major industrial facilities through declining emission baselines.

The coalition has made it clear that we will scrap Labor's safeguard mechanism, because Australia's economic future depends on keeping our industry strong, competitive and capable of employing more Australians. Nowhere is that more important than in regional communities, like mine in Dawson. When I look at this legislation I see the farmer wondering whether another investment is worth the risk, the contractor trying to keep local workers employed and the small-business owner who is already struggling with rising costs.

And I see the families whose livelihoods depend on the success of those businesses. These are the people for whom I fear the consequences when Labor gets it wrong. They deserve certainty.

They deserve fair rules. They deserve a government that treats their money with respect. Integrity is not achieved by creating more uncertainty, transparency is not achieved by weakening a clear financial test, and confidence is not achieved by giving a minister greater powers to change the rules.

The Albanese Labor government should refer these contentious provisions to a Senate inquiry—let the farmers speak, let the industry experts speak, let the people who actually operate under these laws speak, and then listen to them. The people of regional Australia should not be expected to pay the price of poorly designed policy. As a former farmer, I understand that you reap what you sow.

If this government keeps planting uncertainty, adding costs and changing the rules, it cannot expect regional Australia to produce the investment, the jobs and the growth our country needs. Dawson deserves better. Australia deserves better.

That is why I and the coalition will be opposing this bill.