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

Mr BOYCE (Flynn) (13:21): I stand here to make a contribution to the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. I'm also here to support the second reading amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Wannon. His amendment makes our position clear.

This House must refuse this bill because it pushes a failing net zero agenda. It increases legal battles, removes taxpayer protections and hands the minister broad powers without reason. In line with Mr Tehan's amendment, I want to explain the four main areas where this bill fails.

First of all is the expansion of native title to unproven claims. Let me start with the biggest problem in this bill, and it is the changes to native title under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011. Under the current law, conditional registration lets carbon projects start on native title land.

At the same time, formal consent is worked out during the first five-year reporting period, balancing progress with strict legal protections. Under existing law, native title holders already have clear, strong, consistent rights. No carbon credits can be issued unless full consent is approved by the determined native title holders.

This bill changes that completely. It says that the registered native title claim, a claim that has only been lodged and never been proven in court, becomes a full eligible interest. For a Central Queensland farmer, this forces them to negotiate with an unproven claimant whose legal rights are not established.

On top of that, the bill creates a two-stage consent requirement—first, consent just to apply for registration and, second, consent on how the project will actually be run. To make matters worse, section 34 gives the Clean Energy Regulator power to cancel a project's declaration at any time before the end of the first reporting period if the regulator thinks there is no reasonable chance of getting consent.

This is classic government mission creep. Native title laws have existed for 30 years, and lawmakers have always understood that practical rules are needed so land can be managed fairly. What we see in this bill is an extra red tape that helps no-one.

We must ask a simple question: what problem is this change supposed to fix? Under the current law, native title holders who have proven their claims already have full consent rights. Why extend these veto rights to unproven claims?

The assistant minister claimed in his speech that these changes come from the 2022 Chubb review. That is not correct. Recommendation 11 was the only Chubb review recommendation on native title.

It only suggested requiring consent from established holders, meaning determined native title holders. The panel noted project creators 'should consider the need for and the benefit of consent' as best practice, far from writing a legal veto for unproven claims into law. Now let's look at the facts.

According to the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network, 11 per cent of Australia's landmass is covered by active native title claims waiting for a decision in the Federal Court. The National Farmers' Federation provided real-world evidence showing what is happening on the ground. They reported that farmers trying to negotiate under current rules face long delays and are paying thousands upfront in sit-down fees just to hold an initial meeting with a claimant group.

The federation said that these upfront fees reflect a pattern being experienced nationwide. As the federation argued, a carbon credit scheme would not turn an unproven claim into an indefinite legal veto. Listen to peak industry bodies representing the people working our land and producing our energy.

AgForce Queensland, representing thousands of farming families managing over 50 million hectares, warns that these changes bring heavy risk, will drive up set-up costs and will cause severe project delays. Woodside Energy, AGL and the Business Council of Australia have all warned that these rules will stop investments, create legal confusion and lead to endless court battles.

While the government allocates almost $3 million for First Nations consent support and $5 million for community consultations from its $74.8 million package, grant money cannot fix giving unproven claims the power to freeze regional land management. The second issue is ditching least-cost abatement for a political slush fund. Let me move to the second major issue of this bill.

The government is removing the rule that protects taxpayer money when buying carbon credits. As it is, government carbon purchase must follow least-cost abatement, getting the most carbon reduction for the lowest cost to taxpayers. This is simple common sense.

But Labor wants to repeal least-cost abatement and replace it with a vague term called 'value for money'. At the same time, the bill shifts purchasing power away from the independent Clean Energy Regulator and to the department secretary. The explanatory memorandum reveals that value for money lets the government buy expensive carbon credits to support political goals, including whole-of-government emissions reduction, net zero strategies, and subjective environmental, social, economic and First Nations cultural co-benefits.

That is wrong. When the government spends public money buying carbon credits, its primary job should be to get the best result at the lowest cost to taxpayers. In this bill, 'value for money' is left completely undefined.

It gives the minister an open-ended excuse to spend taxpayer dollars on high-priced carbon credits to meet political targets. Look at how Labor handles public money without strict controls. The Capacity Investment Scheme is kept behind closed doors.

Rewiring the Nation suffered a billion-dollar cost blow-out. The Cheaper Home Batteries Program ballooned from over $2 billion to $8.5 billion. The three regional hydrogen project hubs have collapsed.

And the government has spent $150 million a COP climate trip, including $6 million for hotel rooms in Fiji. We should not hand the government a blank cheque to buy overpriced carbon credits. Major industry bodies have warned against scrapping the lease-cost rule.

The Business Council of Australia said that the government purchasing criteria should not be used to differentiate the abatement integrity of carbon credits in the market and that least cost must remain the foundation to which value for money is applied. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia warned that, because 'value for money' is not defined in the legislation, it creates unnecessary market uncertainty that requires a clear statutory definition.

The Australian Energy Producers cautioned that the proposal lacks sufficient definition and guidance, creating uncertainty for market participants while departing from the core principle of lowest-cost abatement. Origin Energy stated that it is neither appropriate nor reasonable to introduce undefined and unlimited powers to purchase carbon credits for subjective value-for-money opportunities to support undefined policies.

With that, I will suspend my speech until a later time today.