Ms RYAN (Lalor—Chief Government Whip) (12:01): I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026 and the Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026 stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill.

The SPEAKER: I will call the member for Goldstein, but I understand he may want to hold something up during his contribution. I ask him not to use any props.

Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (12:26): I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance National Joint Replacement Register Levy Amendment Bill 2026. Let me say at the outset that the coalition will not oppose this bill. It is a sensible technical change, but it comes at a time when the Albanese government is making it harder for the very people this registry exists to protect to get a joint replacement at all.

The National Joint Replacement Registry has been tracking hip and knee replacements nationally since 2002. It's run by the Australian Orthopaedic Association and captures data on nearly every hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, wrist and spine procedure in both public and private hospitals. Last year, it recorded its one-millionth joint replacement, and that data tells surgeons which devices perform well and which do not.

When someone has a new hip or knee put in, they want to know it will last. This registry means surgeons can see how every device is performing, and patients can be told what to expect. When a device starts to fail, it is often this registry that raises the alarm first. Australia's registry was one of the first in the world to identify problems with a metal-on-metal hip that was later recalled around the globe. That is the value of good data. It protects people.

The registry is funded through a levy on medical device companies. At the moment, that levy is capped at $5,000 per device each financial year. This bill removes the cap, so the levy is shared according to how many devices each company actually supplies. It is fairer. It has the support of the Australian Orthopaedic Association, Private Healthcare Australia and the Medical Technology Association of Australia, and it comes at no cost to the Commonwealth.

I also note that this bill was referred to a Senate committee because, once again, the government did not give the opposition notice or a briefing before introducing it. Even a simple bill deserves basic courtesy. The committee reports on 16 October, and the coalition will consider its findings.

I cannot speak about a registry that measures joint replacements without talking about whether Australians can actually access them. Joint replacements are classed as elective surgery, but try asking anyone waiting for a new hip or knee whether it feels optional. A joint replacement might be called elective, but, for the person waiting, it's not optional at all. I know that many people in this place will understand that, for ageing parents—and we have an ageing population—it is a difference between walking to the shops or not, and it's sometimes the difference between that and walking at all. People need to be able to live independently. They need to be able to pick up their grandkids, to stay in work and to not have that pain, and this is why people have these operations.

Between 60 and 70 per cent of hip and knee replacements are performed on Australians aged over 65, and around 70 per cent of them are done in private hospitals. The people most likely to need a new hip or knee are older Australians, and most of them get it through their private health insurance, which is exactly why the Albanese government's cut to the private health insurance rebate for over-65s is so damaging. Up to three million older Australians will lose part of their rebate. Around 1.2 million of them are pensioners and around 700,000 are on the full pension. The department's own figures show a single person over 70 on gold cover will pay around $400 more a year. The Health Minister has told Australians that 44,000 older people will drop their cover. Documents released under freedom of information show departmental records are indicating 78,000 by 2029-30, and that is only the people who walk away altogether. Many more will downgrade.

This government has a habit of announcing first and doing the work later. It did not brief the opposition on this bill. Its own department has confirmed it did not consult on the rebate cut either, and it did not know how many pensioners this would hit until it was asked in the Senate. A department official told the Senate inquiry:

We didn't know they were pensioners …

I therefore moved the following second reading amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House

(1) notes that:

(a) despite joint replacements being considered elective surgery, they are often critical for a patient's overall health and wellbeing as well as their broader productivity;

(b) approximately 60 to 70 per cent of total hip and knee joint replacements are performed on individuals aged over 65;

(c) the majority (around 70 per cent) of total knee and hip replacement surgeries occur in the private sector;

(d) the Government's proposal to cut the private health insurance rebate for over 65s will force many older Australians to downgrade or abandon their private health cover;

(e) individuals who are no longer covered by private insurance for joint replacements will join public waiting lists; and

(f) public elective surgery waiting lists have blown out with some patients waiting months or even years to access joint replacement operations; and

(2) criticises the Government for cutting the private health insurance rebate for over 3 million older Australians, including over 1.2 million pensioners".

Here is why that matters for this bill. The department told the Senate inquiry that joint replacements, along with cataract surgery and dialysis, are among the most common services older Australians use that are only guaranteed under gold cover. Catholic Health Australia estimates that one in five affected over-65s will change their level of cover. That is around 665,000 downgrades. Every one of them risks losing guaranteed cover for a new hip or knee.

When they need that operation, they will not stop needing it; they will join the public waiting list. Those lists are already far too long. Across all elective surgery, one in 10 patients waits almost a year—329 days—and knee replacement patients wait longer than most. Half of all patients waiting for a knee replacement in a public hospital wait more than nine months. That is nine months of pain, nine months of broken sleep and nine months of losing strength, fitness and independence, and the longer people wait, the harder their recovery becomes. I hear from older people in my own community who have done the right thing all their lives and who now do not know if they can keep their cover. They are worried that, if they lose it, they will be waiting in pain for an operation they cannot afford to go without. This rebate cut is not a saving; it is a cost shift onto public hospitals and onto patients.

This registry does important work. It can tell us how well a new knee performs, but it cannot tell us about the people stuck on the waiting list. A registry can only record the operations that actually happen. So the coalition will not oppose this bill. We will support the registry and the work of the Australian Orthopaedic Association, but we will keep fighting the government's cut to the private health insurance rebate for older Australians. Many of these people have paid their premiums for 40 or 50 years. They have done the right thing. They deserve better than being pushed onto a public waiting list in their older age.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Rebello: I second the amendment in reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.

Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (12:35): I rise to speak on the Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026. I want to start by talking about Australian sport and what sport means to our nation. Australia is one of the greatest sporting nations on Earth, and I think our track record shows that. We really love our sport, not only because of what it does for our country and our community but also because of what it does for our national pride in bringing our country together as a nation and, most of all, the opportunities it brings. As the shadow minister for sport and also the shadow minister for youth and the arts, I know that sport and all the different codes bring a special opportunity for young people when it comes to participation and inclusion as well as when it comes to that very special word, 'opportunity'.

Not everyone is good at STEM—science and maths—and sport delivers an opportunity for young people who may otherwise not have the opportunity to compete or to be good at something to perhaps become a professional or, as in their wildest dreams, to be an Olympian. To be a gold, silver or bronze medallist or even participate at that level is something outstanding that Australians can aspire to. That is why I call sport the great leveller, and I apply that rule also to the arts. It gives to young people that opportunity that they otherwise might not be able to access. Sport also delivers resilience and life lessons. I think that's important, because it builds strength of character. And we do hold our sporting champions in the highest of esteem, even through some of those times when it could be difficult.

I want to rewind a little bit, back to the Olympics in 2000, which was the first time I was privileged enough to go to an Olympics. I think back to when we had the women's four-by-100 relay, and the outcome wasn't what we wanted; we were not successful in that race. But there was that feeling in the stand, the pride that Australians had—and continue to have—in our Olympians, when athletes are able to reach their dream and their goal of attending and competing in an Olympic Games, regardless of the outcome, regardless of whether the outcome was not a good one, as in the four-by-100 women's relay that I was in the stands to watch, or was indeed a great one, as we saw with Cathy Freeman, a gold medallist, in her race. So sport delivers something very special.

Fast-forward to the 2024 Paris Olympics, where our Aussie athletes became our most successful team ever, with 53 medals and a record number of personal bests, which is something very special. One of my favourite Olympics moments was when Kieren Perkins, a great Queenslander, was the defending Olympic champion, and he went on to win gold again in the 1996 Atlanta 1,500-metre freestyle, from lane 8, after being the slowest qualifier for that final. That was a very special time, I'm sure, in Kieren Perkins's life, as it was for all Australians watching him succeed.

Newcastle Knights fans might recognise that situation as well, if there are any in the chamber at the moment, as they came from finishing last one season to actually winning by just one point in the next season—this season, of course. These are remarkable moments of resilience for our sporting history. We never quite know who's going to win the finals, like in the NRL, when the Penrith Panthers—I see the member for Lindsay is here. How many times in a row did they win, Member for Lindsay? I think it was three, wasn't it?

Mrs McIntosh: No, more than that.

Ms BELL: More than that, I'm told.

Mr Conroy: It was four.

Ms BELL: Four! Do I hear five? Of course, when sporting teams are successful, it brings communities together, and it gives us that national pride and that local pride as well—the pride that I hold for my own teams, the Gold Coast Titans, who will be premiers one day, and, of course, the Gold Coast SUNS, who also will be premiers one day. But I do digress.

I want to talk about those moments of resilience as I talk about sport in our nation, and I want to talk about the big events that we have, before I get to talking about the bill. Let's talk about the Commonwealth Games in 2018 on the Gold Coast—70 nations, 18 sports, 6,500 athletes and, of course, all of the benefits to the local community in terms of those legacy infrastructure pieces that have been left behind and now, of course, are going to be used and upgraded for the 2032 Olympics. In the 2018 Commonwealth Games, we saw, for the first time, equal medals for men and women. I think that that is a milestone that the Gold Coast remembers fondly and that we should, as a nation, be proud of.

In world cup tournaments played here or played overseas—it was great for Australia to host the women's football world cup in 2023, with a valiant effort, of course, by our magnificent Matildas. We saw how that inspired young girls around the country and, indeed, around the world. The inspiration of the Matildas and the way they brought together our community was so important. I'll just remind Australians of the contrast, at that time, between what the coalition promised to deliver, which was $250 million in girls changing rooms across the country, and the Prime Minister's promise to have a public holiday if the Matildas were to win. I think that says volumes about the differences on this side of the chamber versus that side of the chamber. Our men's soccer team did us proud in a thrilling world cup competition, and we have many upcoming world cups, including next year's netball. Now, that netball—we are in a countdown. We're at 316 days until the world cup netball tournament, and we are thrilled to be hosting in Australia. I want to send a shout-out to our great Australian Liz Ellis for the work that she did in captaining the Australian netball team. We've got softball world cups coming up and the men's and women's rugby union world cups in 2027 and 2029, respectively.

And there are our national competitions. We have the magnificent AFL codes, the AFL women's code and, of course, the NRL. We have soccer. We have all of those codes that deliver participation for communities. Whether those communities are playing a social game or rigorously participating in their chosen sport, it is about communities.

In the electorate of Moncrieff, which I represent, many people participate in a sport that is known widely: surf lifesaving. I have nine surf clubs in my electorate; there are many surf clubs across the Gold Coast. I was recently at the Kurrawa Surf Life Saving Club at Broadbeach, on the barbecue, helping out the volunteers of that great surf club. I have been advocating strongly for some years now for surf lifesaving to be included in the 2032 Olympics. As a Co-Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Lifesaving, that is something that we would like to see included in the shortlist, which I believe is due out soon. But, most of all, I want to pay tribute to the volunteers in the surf lifesaving movement and the age captains that support our nippers. Indeed, those surf lifesaving volunteers and surf clubs are the glue that holds our community together, particularly across the Gold Coast.

But Australia more broadly is indeed a great sporting nation. It's not always about winning. It's about quality participation. It's about teamwork. It's about the culture of a club, the culture of a sporting code and the esprit de corps that we experience with sport. It's about what sport gives to community and what community gives to sport. It's a two-way street when it comes to sport.

The Australian men's rugby team, the Wallabies, is a great testament of proud Australians and their followers are proud to be Australian, even when they're up against one of the best teams in the world. We know they were up against all dominating All Blacks on Saturday in New Zealand. They have dominated that code for a long time. They've won the Bledisloe Cup for 24 consecutive years. They're pretty hard to beat, and the Wallabies have never won a game in New Zealand during that time. Yet our Wallabies put in a gallant effort in their games every time, and we're very proud of them. Our rugby fans remain steadfast with their support. This is an example of how sport also comes to be about what it gives to us as a community and what it means to us as a community and as a nation. The Wallabies are indeed a great example of how much Australians love our sport and how much sport is indeed part of our culture. A big shout out to Surfers Paradise Rugby Union Club, which has bred many champions that have played for the Wallabies on the world stage. It's a respected game. The rules are respected and the international competition, indeed, is respected.

That fair competition is at the heart of this legislation that we are debating today, and I mentioned that sport is also about what it gives to a community and what it can do for us as a nation. I just want to touch on the Brisbane 2032 Olympics while I have the opportunity. These games will bring significant economic, infrastructural and social benefits across Queensland and, of course, across Australia. The Queensland Crisafulli government is to be congratulated. It's done a great job to ensure that Queensland benefits from the games. It's not just South-East Queensland. All Queenslanders will be able to benefit from the 2032 Olympics.

The rowing event is a great example of that. Just last week I was up in Rockhampton with my very good friend the member for Capricornia visiting the rowing precinct on the mighty Fitzroy River, as it's known to central Queenslanders, a place where Australians have been rowing with great success for many years. I met with the President of the Rockhampton Rowers and Fitzroy Rowing Club, Sarah Black. Sarah and her family have been rowing on the Fitzroy River for generations, and she has two young children that will continue that. The club is so excited about the opportunity the Olympics and the Paralympics are going to deliver for central Queenslanders and indeed for young people.

The Brisbane 2032 Olympic Committee, together with the IOC and the Queensland Liberal-National Party government, has approved and back in Rockhampton as the location for the Olympic rowing, and as do I, as does the member for Capricornia and the Leader of the Nationals, Senator Canavan. However, the Minister for Sport has not backed it in and has not visited the rowing precinct in Rockhampton. Maybe it's because she's too busy doing other things like working out how to pay her fines for making the taxpayer fork out for her to attend interstate birthday parties on a Saturday night or planning another trip to New York. I don't know why the Minister for Sport has not backed in the 2032 Olympic rowing venue in Rockhampton. It's dumbfounding to me why a minister for sport wouldn't support that. It's a mystery in fact. Shame on this minister, who seems to have limited interest in rowing and certainly limited interest in regional Queensland and regional Queenslanders.

But to get to the legislation, I want to talk about Australia as a world leader in sport integrity. Australia has a longstanding record of supporting clean, fair and safe sport. As a signatory to the UNESCO Anti-Doping convention and as the Oceania Representative on the World Anti-Doping Association, or WADA, Executive Committee and associated committees, Australia, through Sport Integrity Australia, has been integral in shaping the World Anti-Doping Code. The World Anti-Doping Code provides the framework that allows athletes to compete under the same core anti-doping rules wherever they are in the world and allows countries to host international sporting competitions. It's updated every six years. The last time it was updated was in 2019, for implementation by member countries in 2021, which is exactly what we did under the former, coalition, Morrison government in 2021.

For this iteration, following a two-year global review by WADA, the code was approved in December 2025 and will begin on 1 January 2027. Specifically, the 2027 code strengthens the effectiveness, the fairness and the consistency of the international anti-doping system, including through enhanced operational independence; improved athlete appeal rights, which is very important for fairness; and updated public disclosure provisions. I'll talk to these in more detail shortly. Australia, through Sport Integrity Australia, participated throughout the review process, working with athletes, sporting organisations, the National Sports Tribunal, the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee, the Australian Sports Commission, peak sporting bodies and Australian anti-doping experts.

To maintain a globally harmonised anti-doping framework, all code signatories, including Australia, are in the process of reviewing and updating their frameworks to comply with the revised code and international standards by 1 January 2027. Implementing the changes to comply with the new code will involve passing this bill, which updates the legislation, which is necessary. It's necessary so that Australia can host major competitions and it's necessary so that we can compete in major competitions. Sport Integrity Australia, the agency responsible for combating doping in sport in Australia, will take the lead in the implementation of this work and has already been working with sports stakeholders to ensure that Australia implements the 2027 code ahead of 1 January 2027.

With 10 weeks to run, however—only 10 weeks to go and a couple of sitting weeks left in the year—why has the minister taken so long and left it so late to introduce the 12 pages of legislation into the parliament? Here we are with just a couple of weeks left to go. We haven't seen it before now. It was passed by WADA in 2025, which begs the question: why has it taken more than a year to get here to this point today in the chamber? The minister noted in her speech that Sport Integrity Australia has already begun implementation activities, before the legislation is passed, so they're ahead of the game. It's interesting that the minister needs to note that, given that she has left it very late to introduce this into the parliament, putting pressure on hardworking public servants to deliver this in time while she has caused the delay. You have to ask what the minister has been doing. She seems to be too busy travelling to New York, too busy paying the fines for making taxpayers pay for her to attend interstate birthday parties on a Saturday night and too busy playing with Ooshies—Ooshie, Ooshie, Ooshie! Oi, oi, oi!—in her Canberra office.

It's important that our athletes, our coaches and sports administrators, who give everything a fair go, should have trust they are competing in a fair contest. I'll come back to this concept of trust, but those at home listening may recall international investigations into Russian sport that identified institutional involvement in doping practices and the manipulation of samples and interference with anti-doping processes. I want to talk about that. These findings led to significant international consequences and demonstrated the harm that systemic doping can cause to clean athletes and confidence in international competition. That is why the world anti-doping laws remain important for Australia to implement.

I'd like to talk about the specific amendments to the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 and the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019. First, this bill makes amendments to strengthen athletes' appeal rights in relation to therapeutic use exemption decisions. Athletes will now be able to seek a review of therapeutic use exemption decisions through the National Sports Tribunal. This means that athletes who have been denied approval to use a legitimate medical substance or method which is usually prohibited in a sporting context can take their case to a national, independent appeal body.

Second, the independence of Australia's anti-doping system will indeed be reinforced by transferring responsibility for imposing consequences from sports bodies to Sport Integrity Australia. The 2027 code requires greater operational independence in the administration of antidoping programs. This avoids potential conflicts of interest where a sporting organisation is responsible for those decisions affecting athletes in their sport. The Sport Integrity CEO will issue provisional suspensions and sanctions where an antidoping violation may have been committed.

Third, the new approach to publication on the Sport Integrity Australia violations list balances the public interest with privacy safeguards and further protects vulnerable participants, and I think that's important. While the code still requires a public-facing list on antidoping violations that have occurred, there is now a broader scope to exclude athletes in certain circumstances. This includes those who have not been found to have committed an offence or who are not at fault. With respect to minors, protected persons and recreational athletes, there will be a greater consideration of whether publishing the details of a violation will be in the best interest of that individual while balancing that with the public interest.

Finally, the bill updates the Sport Integrity Australia Act definition of an 'athlete' to remove the domestic rule that automatically treats a person as an athlete for six months after they last competed. These changes bring the act into line with the definition and technical instruments recognised under the international antidoping framework, so it's simply a domestic update to the international framework.

I would like to come back to the concept of trust. It seems to be some behaviour from those opposite, but I'm glad that Sport Integrity Australia are the ones that are implementing the changes associated with this bill and that it doesn't rely on ministerial power or an increase in ministerial direction to do anything, because the minister has displayed concerning behaviour in terms of saying one thing but doing completely another. What is the job of the Minister for Sport, after all? It's to support sport for all Australians—well, not this minister. The minister didn't back in the IOC approved, the Brisbane 2032 Olympics committee approved and the magnificent Queensland LNP government approved decision of Rockhampton rowing as the facility for the 2032 Olympics. Shame on the minister. The member for Capricornia and I invited—and we invite; it's an open invitation—the Minister for Sport to visit Rockhampton and back in this important facility for Queensland, but still there's been no show.

The next issue where the minister has changed from what she said she would do relates to some recent job cuts, and this came up in Senate estimates recently. The minister claims to be investing in sport under this government. The Australian Sports Commission has announced at least 50 jobs are required to be cut. This Labor government are having to make cuts to sport because of their addiction to spending. When they're spending into the economy, they have to keep getting the money from somewhere, and now we're seeing 50 jobs cut from the Australian Sports Commission, which Kieren Perkins outlined at the last Senate estimates, and that's not a good thing. People losing their jobs is not a good thing. Raising taxes is not enough. They have to keep coming for more, and now they're coming for jobs in sport. Shame on this minister.

The next issue that I'd like to highlight where the minister has changed what she said she would do relates to the funding uncertainty the minister created for athletes. Earlier this year, the minister left athletes with funding uncertainty. The Albanese Labor government dealt a $182 million blow to grassroots sport. Australian Sports Commission CEO and Olympian Kieren Perkins OAM revealed during Senate estimates that the government ignored advice to provide ongoing funding for a group of key sporting programs. Programs that faced uncertainty beyond the next 12 months included Sporting Schools, Play Well, Local Para Champions and Local Sporting Champions. Mr Perkins said:

The participation based funding programs received a one-year terminating measure status for the 2026-27 budget year …

Mr Perkins warned that the Sporting Schools program alone would see close to two million children participate in free after-school sports this year and that ending the program would 'have an impact on the number of children getting the opportunity to play free sport after school'. There goes the golden opportunity that I was talking about at the beginning of my speech! He said this lack of long-term funding certainty would 'limit those organisations' capacity to provide participation based growth programs within their sporting environments'. Despite these warnings, the Labor government stripped ongoing funding for these programs and slashed the sporting grants budget from $331 million in 2025-26 to $151 million in 2029-30. That's a reduction of $182 million. That is not investing in sport. That is doing the opposite. That is creating uncertainty in grassroots sports, and it's a wrecking ball for opportunity. Shame on this minister.

The next issue where the minister's delivery on her policy comes into question relates to the protection of indicia and images legislation. Recently, the minister gave chapter and verse on how critical it was to have this legislation pass so she can quickly and easily provide protection for indicia and images through legislative instruments. Earlier this month, however, the Brisbane 2032 Olympic committee announced the Olympic Games emblem as the sulphur crested cockatoo in the shape of Queensland. You might have seen it. It's magnificent. Yet this minister has not registered the emblem for protection under the legislation. This means that anybody can reproduce the emblem on a T-shirt, on a key ring or as a fluffy toy cockatoo and sell the product, and they would not be in breach of any copyright law at this point.

Where's the legislation, Minister? This is all because the minister has failed in her duties. What has she been doing, and what has the Prime Minister been doing about holding his sport minister to account? The Prime Minister has been ducking for cover after it was discovered that he misused public money for a golf course in his electorate, of which he was an honorary member. The chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, former justice Whealy, has said the Albanese government misused public money for pork-barrelling—with $493 million into their seats. Former justice Whealy said:

I think there's a heavy onus on the government now to justify the process it has used. If they cannot justify that process, then I think the public in Australia would be driven to the conclusion that this is the misuse of public money at a serious level.

Marrickville golf course in the Prime Minister's electorate was the only golf course in Australia to be invited to the pork-barrelling scheme. It received $6 million despite other golf courses wanting to apply. The mayor said it'll be a reno for the space for events, live music and sport. Other reports state the funding was being used to fix the septic system—cleaning up the waterways from which house prices would increase. This would mean the Prime Minister's property, which is 200 metres away, would also skyrocket in value. There was no competitive process for the grant. Shame on the Prime Minister. If there had been a competitive process then other sporting clubs around the country, many in my own electorate, would've been able to apply for it, because many of them actually need that support.

In conclusion, the Labor government doesn't have a good track record in delivering in the sports portfolio. We need a government that governs for all Australians, not just for itself. They need to govern to deliver opportunity for young Australians in grassroots sports, and that clearly hasn't been the case under this prime minister's government and this minister. Australia is a great sporting nation despite the failures of the Minister for Sport and the Prime Minister. It is a good thing that this legislation will be implemented by the hardworking public servants at Sport Integrity Australia, and I wish to thank them and the representatives at our NSOs, our national sport organisations, including each sporting code peak body and the important role that they play on behalf of not only grassroots sports but also their professional athletes for the work they do to make our nation the great sporting nation that it is today.

This bill follows on from the good work that the coalition delivered when we were in government. It updates Australia's world-leading antidoping legislation. I do believe that the Minister for Sport and the Prime Minister are failing the sporting fraternity. They've created uncertainty. They obviously are under the microscope with what they've been doing with their pork-barrelling. The Minister for Sport has very limited interest in anything outside of South-East Queensland, in terms of Central Queensland or North Queensland, and the sports who will be part of the 2032 Olympics. I congratulate those regions for what they will be receiving under the Crisafulli LNP government in Queensland.

It was a delight—a pleasure, in fact—to visit the member for Capricornia last week and talk about the Rockhampton rowing club and what they are going to receive when it comes to hosting an event in Rockhampton. It will help locally. It will help the community. It will help small and family businesses who are crying out for help in the Central Queensland region. It will help all those owners of hospitality venues, coffee shops, hotels and everything else in Rockhampton. It will certainly help the local art gallery up there as well, which is a fabulous building that I also visited while I was there last week. But coming back to our position on the bill, this follows on from the good work of the coalition and, on that basis, the coalition will be supporting this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:06): I rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Iran and Syria) Bill 2026. Australia's autonomous sanctions framework is an important instrument of our foreign policy. It gives Australia the ability to act independently in defence of our national interests and to impose consequences on those who threaten international peace and security. The original Autonomous Sanctions Act was passed in 2011 with the support of the coalition. At the time, the then deputy opposition leader, Julie Bishop, told this parliament:

Sanctions are a necessary part of the armoury in international relations.

That was true then and it is even more true today. Australia faces its most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War. We are seeing an increasing convergence of economic and security interests, with economic power being used to advance strategic objectives. In this environment, Australia's ability to exercise all the instruments of statecraft have never been more important. But with these powers comes responsibility. Sanctions must be applied consistently and proportionately against a clear set of principles. Their application must be guided by our national interests, not political interests. Australia's credibility depends on the integrity with which we exercise these powers.

The coalition has a strong history of supporting and strengthening Australia's autonomous sanctions framework. It was the former coalition government under the then foreign minister, Marise Payne, that introduced Magnitsky-style sanctions in 2021 as an amendment to this bill. Those reforms of the coalition strengthened Australia's ability to target serious human rights abuses and corruption. It demonstrated the coalition's commitment to maintaining an effective sanctions regime. That brings me to the bill before the House today.

This bill seeks to put beyond doubt the validity and enforceability of certain sanctioned goods, instruments, including eight—and I've been advised by the government only eight—each of which, I've been advised, relates to either Iran or Syria, made between 2012 and 2016. These instruments were published as gazette notices, rather than registered as legislative instruments. The amendments provide legal certainty, ensuring Australia's sanctions framework continues to operate as intended. The coalition supports the bill because Australia must retain the ability to use these powers wisely in defence of our national interest.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr GORMAN (Perth—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Assistant Minister for the Public Service and Assistant Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (13:10): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr GORMAN (Perth—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Assistant Minister for the Public Service and Assistant Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (13:11): I move:

That the amendment be agreed to.

I understand that it has been circulated to members and that there's further detail available for members should they need it.

Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (13:11): I rise to speak on the message from the Senate in relation to the Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026. At its heart, this bill is about the machinery of Medicare. It sets up a legislative framework for programs that already exist: the Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program, the Practice Incentives Program, the Workforce Incentive Program and the General Practice in Aged Care Incentive. It's about how those programs are approved, administered, checked and enforced. These things matter because good administration matters and these are important programs. They back the doctors and nurses and the practices that hold our system together.

This bill enables certain decisions in relation to incentives to be made autonomously. While it might be suitable in some circumstances, we have already seen in other policy areas such as aged care how autonomous decision-making without human oversight has resulted in disastrous consequences. Yesterday, the Senate passed a coalition amendment that provides a small yet important safeguard on autonomous decision-making. The coalition's amendment imposes additional requirements on what decisions and actions can be made autonomously in addition to the requirements already contained in the legislation. It's not about prohibiting routine decisions from being made autonomously; rather, it's about providing greater clarity to policy- and decision-makers as well as stakeholders on when and where decisions can be taken by a computer program.

As noted, this government has an appalling track record when left to its own devices on automation. We've heard of hundreds of cases in aged care where autonomous decision-making without the capacity for human override has led to farcical and cruel decisions denying elderly Australians the care they desperately need. We therefore commend this amendment to the House and urge members to support it.

Question agreed to.

Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (13:14): I rise to speak on the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. This bill is intended to improve Australia's customs enforcement framework for illicit tobacco and make it easier for law enforcement agencies to disrupt the increasingly sophisticated criminal networks operating in this market. The bill creates new offences relating to the unlawful importation, possession and conveyance of tobacco. Importantly, it moves away from an enforcement model that requires prosecutors to prove an intention to defraud and instead introduces objective, observable indicators that can establish reasonable suspicion.

I thank the Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs for his engagement with me and with Cancer Council Australia on a previous customs related amendment that I moved to the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026. This amendment would have designated tobacco manufacturing equipment as a prohibited import under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956. It would have made it an offence to import that equipment unless written permission had been granted by the relevant minister or authorised person, providing a mechanism to intercept equipment intended for illegal tobacco production before it became operational in Australia. While we did not reach an agreement on that amendment, controls on tobacco manufacturing equipment remain an area where Cancer Council Australia does see merit, and I look forward to revisiting this with the minister in the future.

While the bill we are debating today does address real gaps in the current enforcement system, it comes at a time when the evidence tells us very clearly that Australia still has a long way to go in combating illicit tobacco. Estimates published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in June 2026, just a few months ago, suggest that around 80 per cent of all nicotine consumed in Australia in 2025 came from illicit sources. This trend is particularly concerning among younger Australians, with the Cancer Council's young adults study, conducted in early 2026, reporting an illicit purchase rate of 79 per cent among surveyed young adults aged 18 to 24. Together, these figures highlight the extent to which illicit tobacco and nicotine products have become entrenched in the Australian market.

This is all happening despite overall smoking rates continuing to fall. Australia's long-term tobacco control policies have contributed to extraordinarily important reductions in smoking, but the illicit share of the remaining market has grown dramatically. The Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner, the ITEC Commissioner, estimates that illicit tobacco accounted for between 50 and 60 per cent of the tobacco market in 2024-25. It's also estimated that criminal networks derived between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in net profit from illicit tobacco in that financial year alone. The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC, describes illicit tobacco as a 'serious organised financial crime problem', generating billions in criminal proceeds that are laundered through the Australian financial system. Its 2026 assessment says that the market is underpinned by transnational crime groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs, with competition for the market associated with widespread arson attacks, multiple homicides and other violent assaults. The ITEC Commissioner has said that criminal enterprises have streamlined their efforts—now, Australia, we must step up ours.

The health implications of tobacco use must also remain front and centre. Tobacco smoking remains our largest preventable cause of cancer and contributes to heart and lung disease and premature death. Illicit products bring additional public health concerns because they frequently sit outside Australia's regulatory requirements. The AIHW notes that illicit products may contain higher levels of nicotine, potentially increasing addictiveness.

But perhaps the most profound public health effect of the illicit market is that it makes a deadly, addictive product cheaper and easier to obtain. The latest national survey found that 50 per cent of people buying branded illicit tobacco obtained it from a tobacconist. Across the Northern Beaches, constituents are sick to death of watching tobacco shops appear in neighbourhood shopping strips, near schools and near bus stops—in places where children and teenagers walk every day. Residents from all over the Northern Beaches have contacted me about these shops. They have described tobacconists opening within walking distance of primary schools and displaying lollies, American candy and products that are attractive to children alongside tobacco and vaping products. They are selling illegal products in broad daylight, seemingly with impunity.

One of the key challenges we still face is enforcement of the retail environments in which these products are sold directly to our communities. Australia needs a comprehensive approach grounded in national consistency in enforcement reform. This would include: a nationally consistent licensing regime covering the entire tobacco supply chain; a unified national enforcement framework with minimum penalties and powers; a permanent national illicit tobacco and vape intelligence capability; mandatory national reporting of enforcement activity; and substantially greater resourcing of enforcement bodies.

The inconsistency of licensing rules between states and territories creates opportunities to exploit the weakest parts of the regulatory system. Queensland's multipronged approach to illicit tobacco is leading the way in reducing consumer use of these products. That state has the largest enforcement team per capita in Australia: strong penalties for retailers found selling illegal tobacco or vaping products and free nicotine replacement therapy and telephone counselling via Quitline for eligible groups. Other states and territories are still playing catch-up on strengthening laws and boosting enforcement workforces. Discrepancies remain between jurisdictions in holding landlords accountable for illegal sales. In addition to an increase in legal sales in Queensland, calls to Queensland's Quitline have doubled following their recent enforcement campaign.

The recent Senate inquiry into Australia's illegal tobacco crisis recommended that the Commonwealth work through National Cabinet towards a nationally harmonised illicit tobacco enforcement framework, encompassing licensing obligations, inspection powers, penalties, intelligence sharing, supply chain integrity and retail compliance. The Australian Medical Association has similarly called for: nationally consistent retail licensing; national data capability across health, police, border, revenue and corporate regulators; stronger closure and licence-cancellation powers; and legislation designed to close loopholes rather than create the next one.

And consider this: there are approximately 9,500 supermarkets across our country, but Australia now has around 40,000 retailers selling tobacco, despite the fact that only a minority of Australians smoke. This illustrates the scale of the problem we are facing and that we need to do more. Dramatically reducing tobacco excise, which has been suggested by some here, is an ill-considered kneejerk reaction and is not the answer. We must listen to our peak health bodies, who have the expertise in this area. Again, the Australian Medical Association says that tobacco taxation has contributed materially to declining smoking rates and warns that lower prices are particularly likely to affect young people and people who are experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage.

The AMA instead points to border enforcement, supply chain controls, retailer licensing, intelligence sharing and targeted criminal enforcement. The Public Health Association of Australia likewise says there is no evidence that a reduction in tobacco duties would eliminate Australia's illicit market. The Public Health Association warns that, if tobacco companies retain part of the tax reduction, consumers may see little benefit at all, and, if prices do fall, cheaper legal cigarettes could increase tobacco consumption without dismantling the criminal supply chains already operating throughout Australia.

The Canadian experience deserves particular attention. In 1994, the Canadian federal government and several provinces responded to a serious contraband problem by dramatically reducing tobacco taxes. Legal cigarette prices fell by roughly half in parts of Canada, but the illicit supply networks did not disappear. In the 11 years before the rollback, Canadian per capita cigarette consumption had fallen by 42.3 per cent. In the five years afterwards, it fell by just 3.2 per cent. Added to this, government lost almost Can$5 billion in tobacco tax revenue over that five years. The provinces that retained higher taxes experienced a much larger fall in consumption than those that cut them. Smoking rates among young people and young adults also increased following the roll-back. Provinces that cut taxes experienced more smoking initiation and lower quitting rates than provinces that maintained higher prices. Canada ultimately moved back towards stronger taxation alongside coordinated enforcement, licensing, supply chain controls and measures to disrupt contraband.

Reducing the legal price of cigarettes is not the silver bullet. If we are to make headway into addressing the problem of illicit tobacco in this country, it means a number of things. It means dismantling the illicit tobacco supply chain. It means stronger, nationally consistent licensing and consequences for people who facilitate this trade. It means every state and territory having consistent legislation, specialist teams, intelligence and resources to act. It means national consistency in shutting down shops selling illicit products. It means national data and intelligence-sharing. At the same time, it means reducing demand, supporting people to quit, investing in effective public awareness campaigns and preventing the next generation from becoming addicted in the first place.

This bill strengthens important parts of the Commonwealth enforcement architecture, but no Commonwealth customs bill on its own can solve what we are facing. Australia has made enormous progress in reducing smoking, and the rise of illicit tobacco should not cause us to abandon that progress. It should cause governments at every level to become more coordinated, more sophisticated and more determined in the way that we protect it and the health of all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (13:28): Going back to the former Liberal-National government, a lot of work was done in this place when it came to tackling illegal tobacco, from the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce to bringing in mandatory tobacco import permits—I was the minister responsible—to giving the Australian Border Force, who had the responsibility of looking after our borders, permits to quickly go to a magistrate and have products destroyed. The problem, though, is like when I visited the mail house in New South Wales, with the number of boxes of contraband coming in—the ABF were like Santa's little helpers. Every second or third box had tobacco in it. That's how massive this problem is.

Something I was trying to push for at the time—I had it on the national agenda—when we had the police and ministerial conference, where all the police ministers and the attorneys-general turn up, was for the states and territories to take account and be responsible for this. At the time, I spoke to the former Victorian chief commissioner of police and the Attorney-General and said: 'This is going to be a huge problem. You need to do something about it.' And they said: 'Do you know what? It's not a problem in Victoria.' Well, sadly, it's a massive problem in Victoria. The state Labor government has completely failed. So many victims and so many little supermarkets such as Ritchies and others have been really impacted by this. It needs to have a penalty regime in place that makes it easy for law enforcement to issue these penalties. When it comes to this, the coalition does support the bill. But, when it comes to excise, something has to happen, because criminals are making a mountain of money out of illegal tobacco.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ): I do apologise to the member for La Trobe. the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Leader of the House) (14:09): I declare that the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Reverend the Hon. Professor Michael Carter Tate is referred to the Federation Chamber.

The SPEAKER (16:10): Yesterday, the honourable member for Clark raised a matter of privilege in connection with a subpoena served on him recently, which was issued by the Federal Court of Australia in an action brought by Mr Alan Phillip Wykes against Mr Geoffrey Robert Swan.

The member has expressed concern that the subpoena is very broad and orders the production of a range of documents which might relate to matters the member has raised, or will raise, in the House as part of his parliamentary duties. It is on this basis that the member for Clark objects to communications between his office and Mr Swan being obtained by the applicant, Mr Wykes.

The member for Clark also raised that a subpoena of this nature could affect the extent to which members of the public will feel confident in providing material to members to inform their parliamentary work. The member for Clark has therefore asked that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests to consider whether the subpoena raises issues of privilege or contempt, such that the House should intervene in the court proceedings.

Section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act provides protections for 'proceedings in Parliament' which means 'all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of' the House. In the present case, the member for Clark has not presented detailed information which might lead me to be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of a contempt or a breach of privilege.

Nevertheless, I am willing to give precedence to a motion for a matter concerning privilege or contempt, in relation to the circumstances raised by the member, to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. Should the House agree to such a referral, it will then be a matter for the committee to consider the issues and recommend any further action to the House.

Mr WILKIE (Clark) (16:12): Thank you, Speaker. I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:

Whether the subpoena issued by the Federal Court of Australia to the member for Clark raises issues of parliamentary privilege or contempt such that the House should intervene in the court proceedings to assert the protection of privilege.

Question agreed to.

Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (16:17): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee's report entitled, Report on the National Capital Plan Amendment No. 102: Hume Circle Precinct.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Ms PAYNE: by leave—I am pleased to present the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories' Report on the National Capital Plan Amendment No. 102: Hume Circle Precinct. The committee considers this to be a very significant planning proposal.

It has generated considerable public interest and prompted important discussions about the future of Canberra, the operation of the National Capital Plan, and how best to balance the need for growth and renewal with the preservation of the characteristics that make Australia's national capital unique.

During this inquiry, the committee examined the legislative framework underpinning the National Capital Authority, as well as its consultation, strategic planning and long-term decision-making processes.

The committee received evidence from a broad range of stakeholders, including residents, community organisations, planning experts, the National Capital Authority, the ACT government and the project proponent JEGA. The evidence assisted the committee in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised by amendment 102.

Throughout the inquiry, stakeholders raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the National Capital Authority's consultation processes and whether the community had been provided with sufficient opportunities to participate meaningfully in the planning process.

The inquiry also considered the national significance of the Hume Circle Precinct, strategic and long-term planning considerations, urban design outcomes, the provision of supporting infrastructure, and opportunities for ongoing community engagement.

The committee heard clear evidence that future consultation processes must be more open, timely, transparent and meaningful, ensuring that community views are genuinely considered when planning decisions are made. Effective public participation is essential to maintaining public confidence in the planning framework for the national capital.

The committee also considers it important that future strategic and long-term planning processes are robust, evidence based and undertaken in a manner that clearly articulates how planning decisions align with broader national capital objectives.

The recommendations contained in this report are intended to strengthen future consultation and planning processes undertaken by the National Capital Authority.

The committee also seeks to improve cooperation between the NCA and the ACT government to ensure that planning outcomes are supported by appropriate infrastructure and are responsive to community needs.

In developing its recommendations, the committee has sought to ensure that national capital considerations remain central to future planning for the precinct while promoting greater transparency and public confidence in decision-making processes.

On behalf of the committee, I thank everyone who has contributed to this inquiry through written submissions and participation in the public hearing. The committee greatly appreciates the time, effort and expertise provided by individuals and organisations throughout this process.

I particularly want to acknowledge the residents of Staffordshire Terrace, who have been quite distressed by this process. I hope that, through this process of our inquiry, they feel that their voices have been heard and that the recommendations that we have made give them comfort about the future of their homes in Hume Circle.

I also want to thank my fellow committee members for their constructive engagement and their commitment to ensuring that community concerns were heard and properly considered throughout the inquiry. I particularly want to thank the deputy chair, Senator Andrew McLachlan, and Senator David Pocock, our ACT Senate colleague, for their important roles in the public hearing and the inquiry.

I also acknowledge the National Capital Authority, the ACT government and all stakeholders who participated in the inquiry process and assisted the committee in its deliberations.

Finally, I extend my sincere appreciation to the committee secretariat for their professionalism and dedication in supporting the committee throughout this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Does the member for Canberra wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

Ms PAYNE: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (16:22): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (16:24): The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 is designed to enable Commonwealth law enforcement to crack down on Australia's very serious problem of the growing illicit tobacco trade and the organised crime groups behind it, and to strengthen the government's ability to seize criminal profits and unexplained wealth. These are worthwhile objectives that address the supply side to reduce opportunities for illicit tobacco to enter the black market. But the government still hasn't tackled the demand side of illicit tobacco, and it fails to address the primary reason that the illegal tobacco trade is flourishing. That is because government policy, in trying to deter people from smoking through excessive tobacco excise, is driving law-abiding smokers to the illicit market because they can no longer afford legal, regulated tobacco products.

In 2017, illicit tobacco made up around 10 per cent of consumption. By 2025, that figure had exploded to about 80 per cent. Four out of every five cigarettes consumed in Australia are now estimated to come from the black market. Smokers in Australia have turned to illicit nicotine products because the price of legal tobacco has almost tripled, driven by relentless excise increases. Today, a legal packet of cigarettes costs around 50 bucks, with more than $30 of that price made up in tax. Meanwhile, illicit tobacco sells for as little as $15 to $20 a packet. These excise increases, made by successive governments, have handed a multibillion dollar market to organised crime. Labor's vape policy has been just as disastrous. Despite restrictions and bans, illegal vapes are available in shops across Australia. The government itself admits that almost 96 per cent of e-cigarettes sold in Australia are illegal, in a black market worth around $1.6 billion. The profits are staggering. Criminal gangs are making between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion from illicit tobacco alone. That is truly astounding.

That money is funding drug-trafficking scams, money laundering, extortion and violence, and the illicit tobacco trade has led to arson in Wide Bay, with a tobacco shop on the corner of Hilton Terrace and Earl Street at Tewantin set alight on Good Friday in 2023. A few days later, a tobacco and vape shop in Mary Street in Gympie was firebombed. In Victoria, there have been almost 200 tobacco related firebombings and six homicides linked to this trade. What was a health issue has also become a full-blown law and order crisis. And, whilst criminal gangs get richer, taxpayers are paying the price. The government's own illicit tobacco and e-cigarette commissioner estimates that illicit tobacco represents 50 to 60 per cent of tobacco sold in Australia in 2024-25, with an estimated market value between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion. Estimated excise and duty evasion was between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. The illicit market is costing Australian taxpayers billions that could be funding prevention programs, hospitals, schools and essential services. It's instead ending up in the pockets of organised crime.

The Labor government has no intention of tackling the root cause of the problem. When asked repeatedly whether he would rule out reducing tobacco excise, the Prime Minister has refused to give a straight answer. The coalition has a plan that will smash the organised crime business model. You do not defeat organised crime by protecting its profits; you destroy the profits. We will cut tobacco excise by 80 per cent, reducing the excise component on a packet of cigarettes from around $30 to roughly $6. We will also replace Labor's failed pharmacy-only vape model and end the ban on nicotine pouches by establishing a regulated, legal market for adults. If adults are already purchasing these products, they should buy them from legitimate Australian businesses operating under Australian laws, not from criminal networks.

But this is not just about tax; it's also about enforcement. The coalition will invest $200 million in a nationwide law enforcement surge to shut down illegal tobacco shops, stop illicit shipments at the border, seize criminal assets and target the gang bosses behind these operations. We will back that with a $60 million education campaign exposing the criminal links behind illicit tobacco and vapes. This is about taking billions of dollars out of the hands of organised crime and returning those dollars to the legitimate economy. Most importantly, it is about restoring common sense, because Australians deserve policies that improve health and economic outcomes. They deserve streets free from gang violence, and they deserve a government that is prepared to admit when a policy has failed and is prepared to take action to fix it.

I support the new enforcement powers to stifle supply of illicit tobacco. But the government must also take action to divert demand away from the illicit tobacco market and towards the legal retail market by taking action on tobacco excise.

Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:31): It's certainly a different perspective when you're in the galleries. I had the great honour just a few moments ago to accompany young students from St Joseph's School Murray Bridge into the chamber. They watched the member for Berowra draw the Speaker to the state of the House. They were interested about why people piled into the chamber and were then just as interested in why they piled out. In any event, having explained the nature of proceedings in this building, I'm down here making a contribution.

I wanted to mention the students from Murray Bridge because overnight in the commercial precinct of Murray Bridge, we had a commercial building set alight. It was an arson attack. I've had the great privilege of representing the community of Murray Bridge for some 13 years, and I'm happy to say that arson of commercial buildings is not something that is common in or around the CBD of Murray Bridge yet last night it occurred. A local journalist has reached out to me. His suspicion is that it might be related to the illicit tobacco trade. We can't confirm that, but I'll be sure to update the House. It is perhaps likely given the circumstances that this is yet another example of the livelihoods of people living in regional communities being put at risk by this illicit trade.

While I'm talking about Murray Bridge, recently a social media video of mine attracted substantial attention. It was simply a video of two packets of cigarettes. One was an illegal packet that on which no excise was paid and another was a legitimate packet of cigarettes. Both were packets of 20. One cost $20 cash—no receipt, I'm told—and the other costs something in the order of $50. That social media video got something in the order of 800,000 views. But what happened in response, I expect from that video or attention otherwise, is that the illegal cigarette shops at Murray Bridge were raided. Now, that is appropriate and the right thing to do. But what I want to draw the House's attention to is my understanding from people living in Murray Bridge that the very next day or the day after, one of those illegal tobacco shops was open again. It was selling tobacco not out of the premises but out of the tin shed out the back. I want to draw that example to the House's attention because, as a former criminal barrister, police would often say to me, 'We're not going to be able to prosecute our way out of—insert particular criminal offence perpetrated by serious and organised crime.' That is the case here.

Serious and organised crime has entered and now dominates the illegal tobacco industry. Those opposite have created an environment in which there is an economic incentive, and that incentive is being enjoyed by criminals. And, whilst the coalition supports the bill's measures, we want to be very clear. These measures don't go far enough. Quite frankly, you can close down as many shops, you can strengthen enforcement and you can modernise those measures, but, if you take action and within days the serious and organised crime gangs that are selling these illegal cigarettes or illicit tobacco to Australians open up again, then quite frankly we're just on this merry-go-round.

So what is the coalition's solution? The coalition's solution is to take away that economic incentive, to reduce it by reducing excise on illicit tobacco. You won't smash the crime gangs unless you smash their business model. There's this fallacy that serious and organised criminals are people that don't understand business or don't have high degrees of business efficacy. Can I tell you, as someone who worked in criminal law, that is a fallacy. The way to crush these gangs and their activity in illicit tobacco trade is to take away the economic and financial commercial incentives for them to do so, and that's exactly what the coalition's plan will do.

As we just heard, that's not the only thing we'll do. We'll strengthen enforcements. We'll move to legitimise and legalise vapes. All of that will move what is a substantial commercial trade from the hands of organised criminals back into the hands of businesses that employ locals, businesses that pay staff appropriately and businesses that take the kinds of measures that are required to ensure young Australians don't access these products in circumstances where they're not—and, quite frankly, shouldn't be—permitted to do so. If a young person enters one of these illegal tobacco shops, I don't reckon anyone is checking for ID. They're not checking for ID.

I know there have been some opponents, including those opposite, who say: 'You're just going to create a new generation of Australian smokers. Smoking rates are in decline.' Cigarettes in this country have never been cheaper. I'm not happy about that, but I'm not blind to the reality of it. They have never been cheaper and, I'd argue, have never been more accessible. So, for those opposite and others in academia and NGOs to suggest that smoking rates in this country are in decline, I really think they need to spend more time where young people are. I, on occasion, do—football clubs, sporting organisations, front bars and other places—and I don't think smoking rates are in decline. I think smoking rates of legitimate cigarettes, those on which excise are paid, are certainly in decline. I heard a figure referenced then, but I've seen other figures that would suggest four out of every five cigarettes sold in this country are illegal.

We've got to smash these business models. Has anyone done some time thinking about what serious and organised crime put that revenue towards? I think we can accept there is more revenue flowing to these organisations courtesy of this trade than you can fly a rocket ship over. But has anyone paused for a minute to say, 'What will they apply that resource to?' I don't think they're building playgrounds. I don't think they're funding schools. They're certainly not funding hospitals. It's being diverted into activity that, by its very nature, no-one—and I mean no-one—in this place wants to see encouraged.

Now, when I was studying economics—I think it was 1995 at Flinders University. The member for Berowra will appreciate this: I did it to get some casual relief from my studies of the law. If someone had told me in macroeconomics 101 that you could reduce a tax by 80 per cent—tobacco excise is a tax—and drive up government revenues by $6 billion to $8 billion, I would have told them they'd spent a bit too much time down at the university bar and that they might have been smoking but it wasn't tobacco. But that's the reality here. The reality is that we've gone so far past the curve, we have created such a gap between legal and illegal products, that we can reduce excise on tobacco and yet we'll raise billions of dollars in additional revenue, which we can spend on the kinds of things that serious and organised crime absolutely won't spend it on.

I've had the great privilege of being the member for Barker for a tick over 13 years now, and, in all my time in this place, I don't think I can remember another time where a policy put to the Australian people had so much upside: more revenue for government; less money in the hands of organised criminals; making it harder for people under the age of 18 to access these products, because, of course, supermarkets and other things are going to be very careful about complying with the law for fear that they might lose licences and other activity; more jobs; less money in the cash economy; more money to legitimate businesses that pay tax otherwise—taxes over and above the excise that's on the packet of cigarettes; more money for businesses that support community sport and other organisations, which is so critical in rural, regional and remote Australia, the likes of which I represent across the electorate of Barker. Win, win, win, win.

If there was ever an opportunity for those opposite to extend the hand and simply say, 'Let's agree that this is a good approach,' this is it. Like I said, it's less money in the hands of criminals; more money in the hands of government in terms of tax receipts; making it more difficult for people who ought not, must not and should not be accessing this product to access it; more money in the hands of legitimate businesses that pay tax—again, more revenue to government—and that employ Australians and do it legitimately and appropriately. Win, win, win, win.

When I get the opportunity, I will update the House on whether the arson that took place in Murray Bridge overnight was a consequence of this illicit trade. If it was, I'll remind the House that, in addition to all the harm I mentioned, this trade is putting the lives and livelihoods of Australians at risk. It is not an uncommon sight now, on our news bulletins of an evening, to see that a delicatessen or a small retail shop has been set alight. I'm not suggesting that it relates to this illicit trade in every case, but I am suggesting that a whopping proportion of them do. There is a serious turf war going on all over this country. The people who are running this trade are rotten, mean and nasty, and they will stop at nothing.

The first responsibility of government and those of us in this place is to keep Australians safe, so the action that we must take—not that we could take or should take—is to strip these criminals of the revenue model that they're operating. We've got to smash their business model, because seeking to prosecute or enforce our way through this to the other side simply won't work. As I said at the beginning of this contribution, one of these illegal stores was shut down in Murray Bridge, only to open up days later. These criminals are agile, and the only way to beat them is to smash their business model. That's our proposal. It'll be good for Australians. It'll be good for Australia. It's putting Australians first, and it's not before time that those opposite reconsider their position and adopt ours.

Mr GEE (Calare) (16:46): The explosion in the sale of illegal tobacco and vapes across our country is set to go down as one of the greatest policy failures in Australia's history. This is not only a health crisis; this is not only a revenue and taxation crisis; this is now a full-blown law and order crisis. Right across our country, from our smallest country towns in regional Australia to our largest city streets, illegal tobacco shops are the new boom industry, and the government's policy of repeatedly hiking taxes on tobacco has clearly failed catastrophically. The tax on tobacco has been made so high that it has created a thriving market in illegal tobacco products around Australia. It has created a boom industry for the crooks, criminals and organised crime syndicates. It is outrageous.

We have seen a 4.3-fold increase in the excise on tobacco since 2013. Back in the middle of last year, when I first brought up a policy proposal to slash the excise, the tax on a single pack of 20 cigarettes was $28.06. Today, following further tax hikes through automatic indexation, that excise has ballooned to over $31 per pack. That's more than $1.55 per single cigarette just in tax. We need to slash the tax on tobacco. We need to pull the rug out from under the feet of the organised criminal syndicates and gangs that are running this industry.

Since calling for the slashing of the excise on tobacco last year, I'm pleased to see that my policy position has been plagiarised by One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals. It's very heartening to see that my ideas are once again being lifted by these political parties. Originality is not their strong suit, and I can look back on bills that I brought to this place. My bill to stop the buying of residential property in Australia by foreigners for two years—that's the ban on foreign buying of residential property—was plagiarised by the opposition and then plagiarised by the government, and it is now, in fact, policy. You have my bill to protect prime agricultural land. As soon as the Nationals got a whiff that that was in here, they had to rush in with their own. I'm not sure that it's going to save them. Then you had my gas reservation policy, which I took to the last election. It was very clearly set out in the election platform that I took to the people of Calare. Again, it was plagiarised by the Liberals and Nationals and then plagiarised by the government. So there you go—they are getting the message.

But the point is that when you push this tax on tobacco to eye-watering levels you do not eradicate demand. You simply hand a multibillion-dollar market to criminal networks. That is what is happening here. It's created a boom industry for crooks. The ABS, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, has estimated that 80 per cent of cigarettes and vapes consumed in Australia last year were illegal. Even if that is at the higher end of estimates, the figure is still unbelievably high; we all know that. How much federal excise has been lost through this misguided policy? Estimates vary, but it's between $7.7 billion and $11 billion. Do you have any idea how many Great Western Highways we could have fixed with that, or how many roads and hospitals and schools we could have built and fixed with that money?

Then there is the violence: the firebombings, the extortion and the hold-ups that are plaguing our communities, from our smallest villages and towns to our largest cities—more than 200 firebombings since 2023; that is staggering. And this is all through a government policy. This has been created by the government. It's the greatest policy fail of its type since prohibition in the United States. I feel really sorry for the legitimate businesses out there who work hard and do their best to employ people. Recently I was at the opening of the new SPAR supermarket at Bloomfield near Orange Hospital. One of the issues the owners raised with me was illegal tobacco and how their sales have plummeted because the sales of illegal tobacco have skyrocketed, and all it has done is enrich criminals. These business owners are hardworking people who employ local people, make big investments—major investments in our area—and what are we doing to support their businesses? We are handing a new business to organised crime.

Nobody in government seems to know which stores are selling legal products and which are selling black-market goods. I mean, you can see them driving around our areas. It is not a secret. In fact, some of them even boldly put up signs advertising vapes—which are illegal, because vapes need to be sold through pharmacies. That's how blatant the disregard for the law is and how ineffective the enforcement has been. And every few months we get a new announcement from the government saying, 'Yep, we're going to do it this time; we're going to crack down on the illegal trade in tobacco and vapes.' It always comes out with a press release, and sometimes there's a press conference. They do a bit of work here and there, but the illegal trade flourishes nevertheless.

So, as I said, since last year I've been calling on the government to take direct, commonsense action and slash this excise and back it up with genuine enforcement. That also needs to be backed up by resources. I know that in the past the federal government has tended to push this onto the states—in my case, the New South Wales government—but there's only so much they can do. I think they're trying. But, honestly, they're fighting a losing battle. The reality is that you cannot tax your way out of this law-and-order crisis. You cannot simply try enforcement on one hand while creating business opportunities for criminals on the other.

So I'm pleased that other parties have now copied, plagiarised, my proposal to slash the excise on tobacco. I'm pleased to see them coming around to the reality on the ground. But talk alone will not fix this crisis. The state and federal governments need to follow through with an effective enforcement regime and system that stamps out the illegal trade coupled with a complete overhaul of these exorbitant taxes that have been the default position and that are creating this flourishing trade in illegal tobacco, which has been a major boost for organised crime. I think that is undeniable. While the government assures us that action is being taken, I don't think government action on this has been anywhere near enough. It hasn't been effective. It's as simple as that.

The safety of our communities and the health of our residents are too important to risk. This cannot go on. Twenty-four thousand people a year die from smoking related illnesses. This is a health crisis. This is a 'law and order' crisis. This is a massive policy fail. We cannot keep handing organised crime a flourishing business. We need to be supporting legitimate businesses in our states and in Australia. Action is needed on this issue now, and the government has dragged its feet on this for too long. So I would urge the government to take action to not only protect the health of Australians but also protect Australians safety and clamp down and do something on this 'law and order' crisis that is sweeping the country through government policy settings. If you do that, you'll actually get more revenue to pay for the schools, roads, hospitals and all of the things that our communities so desperately need. Action on illegal tobacco and vapes is needed right now. What the government has done so far has not been good enough. Fix this problem. Take effective action immediately.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (16:56): I agree that we need to fix this problem and take action on the illegal trade of tobacco and vapes, but I strongly disagree with the contribution of the member for Calare and the coalition in this place. The hypocrisy is staggering when claiming that it is all the fault of excise that has brought us to the crime crisis that we have. For the benefit of listeners, I will point out that tobacco excise in Australia has gone up under both sides of the major parties whenever they have been in government. In fact it was in 2013, under a coalition government, that the Commonwealth accelerated the tax trajectory by legislating a series of four annual 12½ per cent tobacco excise increases. My understanding is the member for Calare was a member of the coalition at the time. In 2016, the government announced a further multi-year plan for 12½ per cent annual tobacco excise increases running through to 2020, and then under Labor in 2023-26 we've had another round of legislated five per cent annual tax increases over three years.

What we have now is all of the proponents who have gotten us to this situation purporting—without any evidence before this House, I might add. I haven't heard any speaker bring any data that suggests that, by lowering the excise, you will get into a price war with crime and somehow you are going to have legitimate and legal tobacco sales that are going to price beat illegal tobacco which will end up with people choosing to buy legal tobacco and thus revenue will be raised through the excise. What we've seen in other jurisdictions, like in Canada, where the excise has been dropped is a significant increase in smoking rates, which comes at a cost through increased health consequences. What we need to do is make sure that there is strong enforcement. For that reason, I do support the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026, but I am calling on the government to do more. I agree; this is a huge problem in our communities, and there has to be a way to do more.

I've talked to a local constituent who tells me that illegal tobacco is $9 a pack, and she has no idea what she's smoking. She has no idea what rubbish is in it. When I hear the previous speaker from the coalition even talking about legalising the sale of vapes again—my goodness. Is there no limit to the harm you want to do to Australians? I look at the students that come here, and we know the impact getting sucked into vapes and smoking has on young people. I and the community in Warringah have deep, deep concerns about the resurgence of tobacco and smoking. It's a massive public health issue, and the association with vaping and crime extends deep into every community in Australia.

The bill seeks to amend the Customs Act and Proceeds of Crime Act to uplift the deterrence of criminal conduct with respect to the unlawful importation of tobacco to Australia and to support more effective enforcement and prosecutions. I think this is an important bill. It's the most significant modernisation of Australia's illicit tobacco customs enforcement framework since 2018, and I support the central intent of this bill to strengthen enforcement—more effective penalties, improved seizure and forfeiture arrangements, strengthened investigative powers and greater capacity for law enforcement agencies to pursue the proceeds of crime. It's what we need to work towards stamping out illegal tobacco importation.

We know enforcement alone isn't going to solve this problem. It has to sit alongside a public health education campaign, quitting support, coordinated state and federal enforcement, transparent oversight and proper resourcing. When I was talking to my local constituent who was telling me she was choosing the $9 illegal cigarettes, I pointed out the risks that she was taking—that she was supporting organised crime. She hadn't even thought about it that way. So we need a campaign to remind people of just what it is that they are choosing when they are supporting illegal cigarettes and vapes.

Along with my community, I've been steadfast in calling for stronger controls to control illegal tobacco sales. In 2023, I raised concerns that illegal vape shops were popping up in Warringah. Parents remain deeply worried about vapes in schools and shops operating close to schools. I called for stronger action on importation, disposable vapes and retail proximity to schools, and government assured us that they were doing that. That comes back to a question of changing zoning requirements—for example, so that convenience stores that are going to sell these products cannot just get approval from local government to open in certain locations.

In 2024, I again spoke in support of vaping reforms—the regular concern raised by Warringah parents, carers and educators about young people accessing vapes and the need for strong national legislation to ban importation, marketing, distribution and commercial possession and the much greater marketing or information campaign for people to be aware of and understand the dangers and the toxicity and the risks of vaping. Some of these concerns have been addressed by ramping up enforcement on illegal tobacco, but it has been a piecemeal approach, and the widespread availability of illegal vapes and illegal cigarettes remains incredibly concerning.

We have a great track record in Australia of building one of the most successful tobacco control systems in the world. We have established plain packaging, advertising restrictions, public health campaigns, excise settings, quit support and strong regulation. That is a great achievement, but that success is absolutely being challenged by the fast-growing illicit tobacco and vaping market.

The rapid rise in vaping among young Australians is particularly alarming. NSW Health reports that 16- to 24-year-olds have the highest vaping rates of any age group, at around 20 per cent, and according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in 2023, 28 per cent of 14- to 17-year-olds had tried an e-cigarette, almost triple the rate from just before, in 2019. More than 87 per cent of 14- to 17-year-olds who used nicotine e-cigarettes obtained them without a prescription. More significantly, tobacconists are popping up within 300 metres of schools, all over the place in our areas and communities. Products that should never be in the hands of children are being sold through ordinary-looking shopfronts, often with little regard for the law. That is unacceptable.

There are vapes for sale at pocket-money prices. I'm regularly contacted by parents and carers whose teenage kids are addicted to illegal vapes. Parents feel powerless. One local mother described it as being 'traumatic to be battling an addiction and facing dealers at every street corner'. At a local government level, they can't do anything to deter tobacconists from opening close to schools in their area. So we need some strong leadership and some change to town planning rules, and that comes back to working with state jurisdictions around where we can and can't have these stores. We have to make sure we deter tobacconists from opening up.

I'm supportive of the government's response to the illegal tobacco trade. Legislative reform to tackle illegal tobacco remains important to disrupt the criminal supply chains, making illegal tobacco less profitable. I also support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Kooyong, Monique Ryan. We cannot ignore years of enforcement failures and then claim that reducing tobacco excise is the solution. Again I say: we haven't actually seen any data or any PBO costings that would even suggest the link that is being proposed by many members in this place. Tobacco excise has been a critical part of Australia's successful public health approach to reducing smoking. There is no good reason to cut tobacco excise at this point in time. Rather than making smoking cheaper, we need to make illegal tobacco harder to obtain and less profitable to sell. Making smoking cheaper will just kick the can down the road and make sure we have greater rates of smoking, and we will then pay the price of a public health crisis.

The priority must be stronger enforcement, effective retail licensing and meaningful penalties that deter criminal activity. But legislative reform for enforcement is only part of the solution, so I urge the minister and the government to consider the four areas that need to have more focus. Commonwealth, states and territories need a nationally coordinated enforcement model. We need stronger controls on retail locations, ensuring that tobacco and vape shops are not opening up near schools. We need urgent, sustained public health advertising and education in schools and workplaces about nicotine addiction and vaping harms, particularly for young people—they simply do not think that vaping is as bad as smoking, and that is horrendous. We need better public information on enforcement outcomes and illegal sales. We must make it harder to sell illegal tobacco and vapes and harder to profit from it, and we have to make it easier for young people and all people to quit.

The bill provides better tools to disrupt criminal tobacco importation and recover criminal proceeds. Those powers need to be backed up by adequate resources for the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police and other relevant enforcement agencies. Stronger penalties will only deter criminal conduct if there is a credible prospect of detection, prosecution and enforcement. The measure of success must be fewer illegal products on our streets, fewer young people becoming addicted and less money flowing to organised crime. Without these complementary measures, we risk strengthening enforcement at the border while leaving serious gaps in the domestic market.

Australia has demonstrated that strong, evidence based tobacco regulation works. We have reduced smoking rates, protected public health and saved lives through decades of reform. The growth of the illegal tobacco and vaping market demands a stronger and more coordinated response. Every day the illegal retailers continue operating, more young people are exposed to nicotine addiction and criminal networks continue to profit. Schools should not have to compete with illegal vape sellers operating just down the road, and communities should not have to live with the consequences of organised crime exploiting gaps in our regulatory system. I support the bill, but I urge the government to go further. In particular, we should be banning any donations from these harmful industries in relation to tobacco or vaping. I note that the National Party remains the party that accepts donations from the tobacco industry, so that puts in question a number of things. I urge the government to be tough and to continue with sensible reforms.

Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (17:08): I rise to speak in support of the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. This bill creates new offences for importing, possessing and conveying illicit tobacco, including an aggravated offence carrying up to 10 years imprisonment for large-scale and organised offending. It closes the loophole that has led to duty-refundable tobacco leak from duty-free shops into the black market. It streamlines seizure and forfeiture powers. It tightens obligations on the customs depots, warehouses and brokers that sit in the gateway of our supply chain. It also strengthens proceeds-of-crime laws so that the profits of this trade can be stripped from the people who make them. I do support this bill wholeheartedly.

I've spoken in this House before about Australia's illicit tobacco problem, so I won't repeat the evidence today, but it is serious. I've consulted widely, spoken to people on all sides of this debate and looked at the evidence, including the experience in Canada and elsewhere. And I'll be honest: I'm frustrated by where this debate is heading and by the stubbornness on all sides about solving this properly. Successive governments have watched a slow-motion car crash, and this government has watched it accelerate. Excise rates have gone up while excise receipts have gone down. Crime has grown. And, seriously, I never thought I'd hear so much mainstream reporting about the Laffer curve. We have passed enforcement measure after enforcement measure, and we are not seeing the progress that we need. That is my fundamental concern in relation to this bill. While I support the measures, I do not yet have the confidence that this is actually going to fundamentally address the issues nor do I have clear guidance from the government about under what circumstances it will consider going forward, including reviewing the excise as a potential measure.

I want to protect public health. Of course I do. Australia's low smoking rates are something that we should be celebrating, because this is about outcomes that are good for Australian families. But health is no longer the only objective at play. We are also talking about organised crime, community safety and billions of dollars in lost tax revenue. These matter too, particularly the organised crime element of this and community safety. That really matters in our community.

On price, let me be clear I don't believe we will ever really undercut the criminals, but we can stop making the gap worse. At the very minimum the excise should be frozen. I do not understand why the government hasn't taken the action to at least freeze the excise now rather than continue to increase the gap between the cost of cigarettes on the black market and the cost of cigarettes on legitimate markets. I am open to considering a reduction beyond that, but I want to see the modelling and I want to see greater detail in terms of that first. The numbers put forward by One Nation and coalition are about as scientific as a finger in the air, and that is why I won't be supporting the amendments here. I want to see the government take these options in terms of excise cutting seriously. What I want to see the government do is, honestly, come up with a goal that is measurable in a time period after which they will change or not make further changes in terms of illicit tobacco, including excise cuts, because we don't have enough clarity about what the government is seeking and what the government's own success measures that are in this bill are seeking to achieve.

I think we're also not talking about how easy these products are to get. There are estimated to be more than 40,000 tobacconists in Australia. That's more than fast food or takeaway outlets. It is now easier to buy a packet of cigarettes in this country than a cheeseburger. It's simply incongruous with the advertised rates of smoking. Equally, we cannot realistically expect underresourced police and health officials to monitor that many outlets. The Commonwealth should be working with the states and territories to substantially tighten retail licensing. Tobacco should be sold by fewer businesses and only by those with diversified product ranges and the reputational considerations that outweigh the incentives to break the law.

I think it is irresponsible for the coalition to be considering introducing new legal nicotine products before first considering how to make these products harder to get in the first place. Yes, some legitimate businesses will be affected. I don't say that lightly, but this problem has gone so far that we have to be prepared to make hard choices. Some bad operators will reopen as mixed businesses. That's, again, something we'll need to accept, but it will stop the neon advertising of tobacco on every street corner and make consumers less certain of which products are and are not selling.

That is what a comprehensive response to this problem looks like. Stop widening the price gap. Make it harder to access these products legally or illegally, and be ruthless on enforcement. Let's be honest. We may need to make adjustments to these approaches over time. We are in uncharted territories, and we don't know what is going to work or what isn't. International case studies are few and far between, and the most representative one is 30 years old. The system isn't working currently, and the government needs to be honest about that and tell the public when and by what measures they are going to consider altering their approach, including considering changes to tobacco excise. It is up to the government now to do this and to make sure that what they're putting in place this time actually works.

Mr HILL (Bruce—Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and Assistant Minister for International Education) (17:14): I thank the previous speaker for her thoughtful, intelligent contribution, and I'll thank all but one of the members who've contributed to this debate on the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026. I was on chamber duty last night and I had an OH&S issue as I listened to the member for Goldstein screaming in an unhinged way, drifting, to the point where he was just really goading us to take points of order as he offensively compared the government to a bunch of organised criminals. It reminded me of when Peter Dutton compared us in opposition to a bunch of paedophiles, but I wasn't going to give him the satisfaction of making him withdraw. It was offensive. But everyone else, I think, has made genuine contributions.

This bill delivers a comprehensive package of reforms to modernise Australia's response to illicit tobacco and strengthen the tools available to law enforcement agencies to combat a growing and increasingly sophisticated criminal enterprise. The reforms address elements in the current framework that have been exploited by organised criminal groups involved in the importation, distribution and sale of illicit tobacco. They will improve enforcement outcomes, strengthen supply chain integrity and ensure that criminal groups face stronger consequences for their conduct.

The bill strengthens the illicit tobacco offence framework by introducing new offences that better reflect the realities of modern illicit tobacco offending. Current offences often rely on proving what an offender knew or intended at the time of importation yet, of course, criminal groups have adapted their methods to make this increasingly difficult. The bill focuses more closely on the unlawful conduct itself, and this will make it far easier to hold offenders to account, and will improve deterrence against illicit tobacco activity.

The bill will also help ensure that the seriousness with which prohibited tobacco imports are treated under the customs framework is elevated. This will ensure that enforcement responses more appropriately reflect the harms caused by illicit tobacco and the profits generated by organised criminal activity. This bill closes a legislative loophole that allows duty refundable tobacco to fall outside customs control while it remains in Australia. This was a result of the 2018 reforms, which were well intentioned, but it needs to be closed. This reform will reduce opportunities for diversion of cheap tobacco into the black market, while improving a practical compliance framework for legitimate duty free operators.

The bill modernises seizure and disposal processes for illicit tobacco, enabling more efficient enforcement action and preventing criminals from exploiting administrative procedures to delay or frustrate the destruction of illicit tobacco. The bill also strengthens integrity across the customs supply chain by introducing additional statutory obligations for customs brokers, depots and warehouses, and establishing new oversight mechanisms for applications for depot and warehouse licences. These reforms support legitimate businesses while targeting those who facilitate illicit tobacco activity.

Finally, the bill strengthens Australia's proceeds of crime framework by clarifying and strengthening production order powers used to investigate criminal assets and recover the proceeds of crime. The bill also improves the operation of pecuniary penalty orders so that offenders are more effectively deprived of the financial benefits derived from their criminal conduct and can no longer exploit uncertainty in the current framework to retain illicit profits. And the bill clarifies the operation of unexplained wealth provisions.

All of this is important, because, as the Federal Police and state police have explained to us, prosecutions are important but they're slow and expensive. What really hurts these crooks is to go after them immediately and take their cash, their houses, their cars, their boats and their toys away, and the bill will modernise the proceeds of crime framework to make that easier for the authorities to do that. Together, these reforms as a package will strengthen Australia's ability to identify, trace and take away the proceeds and benefits of crime, making the illicit tobacco trade less profitable for criminals. The theme here, as we've said before in the debate on the previous bill a few months ago, is to change the equation and reverse the equation and make it more risky and less profitable as a trade.

I'd like to now just record the government's response to the coalition and Greens senators' recommendations in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report. This bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for consideration and report, and the committee recommended that the bill be passed. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of these important reforms and support of the bill. Some senators raised issues relating to the implementation of the new supply chain integrity measures in schedule 5, including consultation with industry, the provision of guidance material, education and compliance support and ensuring that obligations remain practical and proportionate for legitimate operators.

The government recognises the important role played by customs brokers, depot operators, warehouse operators and other law abiding supply chain participants. Since the introduction of this bill, the Australian Border Force has engaged with these affected stakeholders, and schedule 5 will be implemented in consultation with them. I actually met this morning with the customs brokers and freight forwarders association and had further productive discussions. Broadly, I think they support the bill as long as they're consulted about the implementation, which is what's happening. Compliance arrangements will be designed to focus on reasonable and practical steps that support supply chain integrity while minimising unnecessary regulatory burden on legitimate businesses.

Senators also highlighted the importance of ensuring that legislative reform is complemented by broader operational and policy measures to combat illicit tobacco. The government agrees—and the previous speaker made the point, rightly—that no single measure alone can resolve the illicit tobacco problem. This bill forms part of a broader government response that now includes several rounds of legislative reform and significant investment in border enforcement, with the Australian Border Force achieving record levels of seizures at the border through Campaign Printwall and now Operation Printwall; criminal investigations, which have accelerated; proceeds-of-crime action, which is being increased by all jurisdictions; disruption of illicit tobacco supply chains, now led by the national disruption group led by the Australian Border Force; cooperation with the states and territories, which continues apace; and public health measures.

The government has already introduced major tobacco and vaping reforms and enhanced enforcement capabilities and resourcing across Commonwealth agencies. It continues to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need—the powers in this bill reflect the requests and advice of our law enforcement agencies—to investigate, disrupt and dismantle organised criminal networks involved in illicit tobacco and vapes.

Some senators proposed additional measures relating to track-and-trace, retail regulation and state and territory enforcement arrangements. I want to assure the House that the government will continue to work collaboratively with the states and territories on measures that strengthen the integrity of tobacco supply chains, improve compliance and enforcement outcomes and support efforts to disrupt the sale of illicit tobacco through retail channels.

Previous assessments have not identified sufficient operational benefits, however, to justify the very significant cost to industry of a track-and-trace regime. The government is conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the requirements under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control's Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, including track-and-trace. This consultation is currently underway. Track-and-trace is unlikely, though, to materially disrupt illicit tobacco markets at this time—you've always got to look at the cost-benefit of these things—as criminal actors already operate outside regulatory frameworks, and a track-and-trace scheme, on the advice we have at present, would not impact consumer demand for cheap illicit tobacco. Intelligence, compliance and enforcement activities remain the key drivers of illicit-tobacco detection and disruption. The government will also continue to consider measures that enhance visibility and transparency across the tobacco supply chain.

Senators also emphasised the importance of reducing demand for tobacco products and supporting smoking cessation, and this is incredibly important. The previous speaker and, I know, a number of speakers, including those on the coalition side—some of them may have a different view on some aspects of policy, and I heard a range of views, but there are some coalition members that remain very committed to Australia's longstanding policies over generations to reduce tobacco consumption and therefore save lives. The government remains committed to a comprehensive public health approach to tobacco control. This includes maintaining strong tobacco control measures, supporting smoking cessation initiatives, promoting evidence based approaches—not 'the vibe of the thing'—to reducing smoking prevalence and continuing public education efforts aimed at improving health outcomes and reducing the harms associated with tobacco use.

It is still the leading cause of preventable death in our country. I don't want to see the next generation return to what my grandpa's generation suffered. Frankly, I know the communities you represent, Deputy Speaker, have the highest rates of adult smoking anywhere in our country. The Northern Territory has by far the highest rates of adult smoking anywhere in the country. Today, 66 Australians will die of a smoking related illness; tomorrow, 66 more Australians will die of a smoking related illness. This government will not surrender the gains which have been hard-won over generations in driving down adult smoking rates.

Finally, some senators also advanced alternative policy proposals concerning tobacco excise, vaping regulation, public awareness initiatives and operational enforcement settings. The government is working with and supporting all jurisdictions to overhaul their laws, scale up enforcement and shut the shops. Frankly, I'll say it again, the big states have been too slow to act. But I acknowledge action is now happening, which is welcome. Just last week, I released data showing that sales of legal tobacco in Queensland have increased and that the Queensland model, which was built on the pioneering South Australian model of enforcement, is driving people to then call the Quitline. We've correlated that there's a spike in calls to the Quitline when they go out and enforce in a particular region, and that's a good thing. These laws will make it easier for all jurisdictions, right across the country, to go after any business involved in this trade. It doesn't matter whether they're a tobacconist, a convenience store, a lolly shop, a gelato shop, a servo, a barber, a clothing shop, a restaurant or any retail outlet. Any retail premises that chooses to engage in illegal tobacco trade and support organised crime can be targeted for closure, and they'll lose their business and livelihood under these laws.

We can win this fight against organised crime. It is a disgrace that the coalition has decided to get into bed with One Nation, big tobacco and criminal syndicates to let vapes rip through a new generation of Australians and then make money by taxing them as the market grows, which it will. I'll finish on this point. I do accept that views differ as to the most appropriate policy settings. The government considers that this bill delivers important and necessary reforms that will strengthen Australia's response to illicit tobacco, better protect the community from organised criminal activity and provide law enforcement agencies with more effective enforcement tools. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Scrymgour ): The question is that the member for New England's amendment to the member for Kooyong's amendment to the second reading motion be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than seven members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

The question now is that the member for Kooyong's amendment to the second reading motion be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr HASTIE (Canning) (17:33): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) together:

(1) Title, page 1 (line 2), after "2002,", insert "and to reduce customs and excise duties on tobacco,".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4, column 1), omit "Schedule 6", substitute "Schedules 6 and 7".

(3) Page 50 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 7 — Reduction of tobacco customs and excise duties

Customs Tariff Act 1995

1 After section 19ACA

Insert:

19ACD Reduction of tobacco duty rates

(1) Despite anything else in this Act, each tobacco duty rate is taken, on the day (the commencement day) on which this section commences, to be replaced with a rate that is 20% of the tobacco duty rate on the day before the commencement day.

Treatment of indexation

(2) To avoid doubt:

(a) in working out, for the purposes of subsection (1), a particular tobacco duty rate on the day before the commencement day, take into account any replacement of that rate that occurs before the commencement day under section 19AB; and

(b) for the purposes of applying section 19AB in relation to the first indexation day that occurs after the commencement day, subsection (1) of this section applies when working out the tobacco duty rate on the day before that indexation day.

(3) If the commencement day would, apart from this subsection, be an indexation day under section 19AB then, for the purposes of applying section 19AB, the commencement day is not to be treated as an indexation day.

Effect on other rates for tobacco

(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) of this section applies for the purposes of determining an applicable rate under section 19ACA.

Which goods?

(5) This section applies in relation to goods that are entered for home consumption on or after the commencement day.

Definitions

(6) In this section:

commencement day has the meaning given by subsection (1).

tobacco duty rate means a rate of duty that is a tobacco duty rate for the purposes of section 19AB (see section 19AC).

Excise Tariff Act 1921

2 After section 6AAC

Insert:

6AAD Reduction of duties of excise on tobacco

(1) Despite anything else in this Act, the rate of duty applicable under subitem 5.1 of the Schedule is taken, on the day (the commencement day) on which this section commences, to be replaced with a rate that is 20% of the rate of duty applicable under that item on the day before the commencement day.

Treatment of indexation

(2) To avoid doubt:

(a) in working out, for the purposes of subsection (1), the rate of duty applicable under subitem 5.1 of the Schedule on the day before the commencement day, take into account any replacement of that rate that occurs before the commencement day under section 6AA of this Act; and

(b) for the purposes of applying section 6AA of this Act in relation the first indexation day that occurs after the commencement day, subsection (1) of this section applies when working out the tobacco duty rate (within the meaning of section 6AA) on the day before that indexation day.

(3) If the commencement day would, apart from this subsection, be an indexation day under section 6AA then, for the purposes of applying section 6AA in relation subitem 5.1 of the Schedule, the commencement day is not to be treated as an indexation day.

Effect on other rates for tobacco

(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) of this section applies when determining the rate of duty applicable under subitem 5.1 of the Schedule for the purposes of applying sections 6AAB and 6AAC.

Which goods?

(5) This section applies in relation to goods that are entered for home consumption on or after the commencement day.

(6) In this section:

commencement day has the meaning given by subsection (1).

Australia's tobacco wars have become a national organised crime crisis. We've seen hundreds of firebombings, even murders, in relation to the trade. The government estimates that organised crime groups are making between $4.1 billion and $6.9 billion in profit from illicit tobacco. In 2017 illicit tobacco accounted for around 10 per cent of consumption. By 2025 the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that the illicit share was around 80 per cent.

There need to be stronger measures that will potentially give our border and law enforcement agencies more-effective powers to combat this scourge, and the coalition's position on illicit tobacco could not be clearer. We support stronger legislation, better laws and tighter border controls. For that reason, we won't oppose this bill. But it does not go far enough. We need a broader response, and that's what the coalition is proposing through our amendments. We have put forward a comprehensive commonsense plan to crush organised crime gangs that are benefiting in the order of billions of dollars from the illicit tobacco industry. Our amendments would give legislative effect to some of the key components of the coalition's policy package. This includes our proposal for an 80 per cent reduction in the tobacco excise.

An 80 per cent excise cut would see the price gap dramatically narrowed, shifting sales from the black market back into legal businesses. It would see the price of a standard pack of 20 cigarettes reduced from $30 to $6, reducing the price advantage enjoyed on the black market. Currently a legal packet of cigarettes costs around $50, with more than $30 of that coming from the tobacco excise. Meanwhile, illegal packets sell for just $15 to $20. The objective is simple: remove the huge price gap that has made Australia one of the most lucrative markets for illicit tobacco in the world. Our plan and these amendments would make it harder for criminals to undercut legal retailers. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that an 80 per cent excise cut is sufficient to bring legal and illegal prices into alignment, making it difficult for the illicit market to compete. This would be reviewed after two years to ensure that the illegal market cannot rebuild.

We have also proposed necessary legislative changes to establish a regulated market for nicotine vapes and nicotine pouches while maintaining strong protections for children. Under the coalition's plan, vapes and nicotine pouches will be legalised, regulated and taxed. This will replace Labor's failed pharmacy-only vape model and total ban on nicotine pouches.

Of course, not every component of our policy can be implemented through amendments to the bill. The coalition will also introduce a $200 million law enforcement surge and a $60 million public campaign educating Australians about the risks of tobacco and smoking. And Deputy Speaker Freelander, I know you're a doctor yourself, and you know how bad smoking is, and I want to make very clear that the coalition encourages all Australians not to smoke. But we need to smash the illicit tobacco trade, and that's what our amendments will do. These are administrative and funding measures. We live in a world where, regardless of the risks, people are still going to smoke. But, where we have the opportunity to address the settings that have seen the rise in illicit tobacco, we should do so. Our approach is not enforcement instead of prevention, regulation or education. It is an effort to bring those elements together.

There is a clear difference between the coalition and the other side of the House when it comes to illicit tobacco. Under the government, we are seeing more illicit tobacco, more organised crime and more Australians purchasing illegal products. The coalition wants to crush organised criminal gangs by reimposing and enforcing the law and breaking the model used to sell illicit tobacco. That's what our plan will do, and that's what these amendments set out to achieve.

Mr HILL (Bruce—Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and Assistant Minister for International Education) (17:38): I thank the member for Canning for the tone in which he brought that. He could probably give some tips to the other leader of the opposition about the way to prosecute an argument with substance.

The government is not going to agree to these amendments. I appreciate that it's the opposition's policy to get into a bidding war with organised criminal syndicates, but that's not the government's approach. We've reached a farcical situation over the last couple of months. Last year they were talking about a 30 per cent cut to excise, then it was a 50 per cent cut, then One Nation pre-empted them and said they were going to do a 75 per cent cut, and the next week they announced 80 per cent. By next sitting week they'll be back here paying people to smoke! The difficult reality is that, despite whatever fantasy modelling or advice—if you can call it that—that underpins what passes for their policy, even if you wiped out all tobacco excise the illegal products would still be cheaper.

In addition, criminal gangs have significant elasticity in their profit margins to adjust their price downwards. This is a global issue. There's a massive surplus of cheap production of tobacco globally that's been weaponised and industrialised by these organised criminal syndicates. They're like multinational businesses. They're highly sophisticated, and they're attacking nations across the world regardless of their excise policies. That's just the reality of it. In addition, they're commodity agnostic. It's not enough. There's no magic solution. I wish there was. I genuinely wish there was, as other nations do. But they're commodity agnostic, and you've still got to go after them and dismantle them. The kind of money they're talking about just doesn't do that. Look at the money the government's investing through the federal police in chasing organised criminal syndicates onshore and offshore. You've got to think about this stuff pre border, at border and post border. Pre border, the best container of illegal tobacco is one that never reaches Australia.

I'm proud of the work of the Australian Border Force. They've been dialling up their international partnerships. We're working with trans-shipment points across the world—the cooperation with the Chinese customs authority has been well publicised—and with the UAE, Singapore and other nations. At border, the Australian Border Force have achieved record levels of seizures of tobacco and vapes over the last 12 months—over a kilotonne in just four months. That's a thousand tonnes through Operation Printwall, which is ongoing. Operation Printwall is still achieving those results. But it's post border that the biggest gains can and need to be made. As I said in summing up on the bill and as I've said before, we need the states and territories to dial up the urgency and shut the shops. We don't have the constitutional power to do that, but the states and territories do, and $98 million is now flowing over just two years to support them in that work.

I'll address the other points that were made in the amendment there. I get the seductive argument. It's a charlatan argument; it's not real, and it doesn't stack up. But I get the seductive nature of the argument around excise and price. The most pernicious and evil part of what the coalition are proposing is to let vapes rip—to legitimise and legalise vapes and put them in every corner store and to tax them. So their genius policy is to cut tax on cigarettes and legalise vapes and tax them. That's the only way it stacks up with so much revenue, which they've now spent 2½ times, since they announced their policy, on other measures. It is peak irony.

I heard the conspiracy theory of the member for Barker in his contribution—that the data wasn't right, somehow. Well, the gold standard data that was released two months ago by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that, despite everything these organised criminals are chucking at our country, adult smoking rates have continued to decline to the lowest on record—around 5.8 per cent—tracking towards the national goal of under five per cent. The government is not going to surrender those hard-won gains. Today 66 Australians will die of a smoking-related illness. Tomorrow 66 more will die, and 66 every day after that. The most important thing in the long run, though, is to stop young people ever taking it up, because if someone doesn't take up smoking by the time they're 25 they almost certainly never will. That's the pernicious evil in the vapes policy. They are not a way to get off cigarettes. If you want to do that for people, they can already go and get them on a prescription. They are a pathway to taking up cigarettes, which explains why those opposite have not released and will not release any credible modelling. They know it will kill untold thousands of Australians and condemn them to disease and early death. This idea that you let vapes rip as some kind of cool flavoured thing and then tax them is deeply irresponsible. I'll say it again: it's not the Labor Party or the government that takes donations from big tobacco and the vaping lobby. The same cannot be said for the National Party. The government's approach is to double down, not back down to organised crime.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Canning be agreed to.

The SPEAKER (17:49): (In division) The members for Clark and Tangney entered the chamber whilst the doors were closed. I'll ask them to remove themselves from the division.

Bill agreed to.

Mr HILL (Bruce—Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs and Assistant Minister for International Education) (17:52): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (17:54): This bill amends the laws behind the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme. The scheme has delivered more than 190 million tonnes of abatement from more than 2,600 projects since 2011. This is a value of more than $4 billion. Two separate independent reviews, the Chubb review in 2022 and the Climate Change Authority's review in 2023, have reached the same conclusion: the scheme is working. The Climate Change Authority's most recent review found that it remains fundamentally sound and important to Australia's climate change policy framework.

In my home state of Western Australia, on Wanjina‐Wunggurr country in the Kimberley, fire has been used to care for and protect the land for thousands of years, guarded by lore and knowledge passed down through generations. Traditional owners have always known about how to read this country and how to look after it the right way at the right time of the year. What they learned through generations of careful observation is the same science that we now rely on. It hasn't been replaced by modern research; it's been confirmed by it.

Under the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, landholders, businesses and Indigenous corporations run projects that avoid emissions or store carbon, earning one credit for every tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent that they abate. Those credits can be sold to the Commonwealth directly, to companies meeting obligations under the safeguard mechanism or to businesses who voluntarily offset emissions.

In 2021, Wilinggin Fire Project was awarded the 100-millionth carbon credit issued under the scheme nationally. It's run by Wanjina‐Wunggurr Aboriginal Corporation on country in the north of Kimberley. Two ranger groups, Wunggurr Rangers and Nyaliga Rangers, carry out this work. They burn early in the dry season deliberately and carefully to stop the far more destructive wildfires that come later. The income this generates funds ranger jobs. It funds the protection of threatened species and also sacred sites. It funds the passing on of this knowledge to the next generation because every year older traditional owners walk younger ones through country and teach them to burn the right way. A peer-reviewed study covering Kimberley traditional owner groups Balanggarra, Dambimangari, Wilinggin and Wunambal Gaambera found some remarkable things. Here's a super fun fact: measured per person, nobody in this country is pulling more weight on reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the traditional owners of the North Kimberley. This is the exact kind of community that this bill is designed to protect.

It makes sure that the next Wilinggin, that next community doing this work on their own country, has a genuine legal right to consent before a project goes ahead, not just a promise that consent will eventually follow. For the first time, registered native title claimants will have a formal legal right to consent before a carbon project can be even registered on their land. Under the existing law, a project can be conditionally registered and run for up to five years before consent from traditional owners is actually required. The project exists first, then the negotiation happens after, with the bargaining power sitting on the wrong side of the table. Under this bill, consent comes first. It introduces a genuine two-stage process: upfront consent before an application can proceed, and a second, separate consent on exactly how the project will be carried out before a single credit is issued. It brings the ACCU scheme into line with the same standards already applied under the government's nature repair scheme, and it reflects the principle of free, prior and informed consent that traditional owners have been asking to be honoured for years.

This bill also replaces the old Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee with a new Carbon Abatement Integrity committee for the first time. That committee will be legally required to include at least one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. This is the body responsible for overseeing the integrity of every method used across the entire national scheme, and communities who have been doing this work longest will now have a guaranteed seat at the table. The Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation and the Indigenous Carbon Industry Network have both welcomed these changes. Native title was first recognised in this country in 1993. This bill applies the same principle to the modern carbon market—a real say for traditional owners over their country.

This bill also strengthens the integrity of the scheme more broadly. It gives the minister a new power to require a project to transition off a method if it's found to pose a genuine risk to the scheme's integrity, with safeguards built in, consultation, advice from the committee and the regulator, and enough time for proponents to move to an alternative method rather than losing income literally overnight. It moves the responsibility for purchasing ACCUs to the department, with a new mandate to weigh value for money rather than lowest cost alone so factors like First Nations cultural benefit and regional economic impact can actually count in the government's decision making, not just price.

It also allows a single project to credit both sequestration and emission avoidance activities together, supporting the kind of integrated farm management methods our agricultural sector has been asking for. It strengthens transparency under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act so that the public has better visibility of corporate emissions data. It fixes a technical timing issue in the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.

All of this rests on one thing continuing to exist, and that is the safeguard mechanism. It's fascinating because the safeguard mechanism is a policy that was introduced under a coalition government. It was introduced with the whole point of safeguarding emissions increases across the economy. What's fascinating is that the Leader of the Opposition has committed to abolishing the safeguard mechanism. The safeguard mechanism is what requires Australia's largest industrial polluters, more than 200 of the country's biggest facilities, to buy carbon credits when they exceed their legislative emissions baselines. It is the single biggest source of demand for Australian carbon credit units. It is what has taken this scheme from one where the government was the main buyer, propping up a market with taxpayer money between 2014 and 2023, to one now driven by genuine private compliance demand.

I know this firsthand. Before I worked in the federal parliament, I worked in decarbonisation, helping companies set their emissions baselines under this very mechanism. Under the coalition, those baselines were so generous that I'm going to say that the safeguard mechanism had no teeth at all. It was not safeguarding anything whatsoever. It's interesting because the point of the safeguard mechanism is to make sure that we don't see increases in the economy. I also worked on projects where we saw fantastic greenhouse gas reductions. This included CBSP's nitric acid plant in Western Australia, where a new catalyst bed was used to reduce their nitrous oxide emissions., one of the most potent greenhouse gases there is. I have to say that there were many companies in Western Australia that were leading the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I also worked in mining operations where we were looking at replacing diesel powered plants with gas and renewable energy such as solar and wind turbines. They were doing this because it is the cheapest form of electricity available to these mines.

I'm proud to be part of a government that accepts the science on climate change. To achieve our greenhouse gas reduction goals, it's not good enough for some companies to lead the way. What we actually need to do is see the whole economy decarbonise. To mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, that's what we need to do, and do you know what? Climate change is happening now, whether it's seeing floods in Queensland, bushfires in Victoria or the recent floods in Nepal. We really need to make sure that this has a direct contribution to the lives of people in not only Australia but also the world more broadly.

Markets also have a role to play. Global frameworks like the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures are pushing listed companies to disclose their climate risks so that investors can make better decisions. This was introduced through the global stability board. Basically, the goal of that board is to make sure that financial markets are stable, so what it showed was that, by disclosing risks, investors can understand those risks in a much more detailed way and fundamentally make better investment decisions. But this only works if companies are listed on the stock exchange. It doesn't reach every polluter and it doesn't replace every legislative compliance obligation. Most companies won't reduce emissions if they don't have to, and that's why the government still has a job to do here.

This government reformed the safeguard mechanism in 2023, which turned it into a genuine declining baseline compliance system. That is when it actually started driving demand and putting money behind carbon abatement. In his budget reply this year, the Leader of the Opposition called it a carbon tax and pledged to tear it down altogether, which is ridiculous because it was a policy that they introduced. If you take away the safeguard mechanism, you remove the reason a polluter has to buy a credit from a Kimberley ranger program, a Wheatbelt farmer or anyone else that's doing this work. You take away the markets these communities now rely on and you replace it with nothing.

We can't forget the substantive issue at the heart of so much of what this government is doing. Too many Australians are locked out of opportunity, whether it's the housing market or a fair share in the economic transition this country is going through. This bill is part of making sure that the transition includes everyone—not just the polluters, who've always had a seat at the table, but the traditional owners, who have been managing this land for tens of thousands of years, and the farmers and landholders across Western Australia and Australia who are just beginning to see what this scheme can do for them.

The United Nations Environment Programme released a report last month that confirmed what scientists have been warning for years. On current trajectories, the world is likely to breach the 1.5 degree threshold at the heart of the Paris Agreement in the next few years, not the next decade. That is exactly why the mechanisms in this bill and the broader task of decarbonisation cannot be treated as settled and left alone. Policy has to keep up with the pace of science. A scheme built in 2011 needed this update in 2026, and this government has a responsibility to keep reviewing and strengthening these mechanisms. This bill strengthens a scheme that already works. It gives traditional owners a genuine legal say over what happens on their country. It guarantees Indigenous representation on the board that policies the whole scheme's integrity. It protects the market that pays for ranger jobs, cultural knowledge and real emissions reductions. I commend this bill to the House.

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—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): 'Each to his own,' I say. Each to his own!

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.

Ms JARRETT (Brisbane) (18:24): Protecting our environment, including our transition to net zero, is fundamental to ensuring that there is a future world for future generations—for my kids and everybody else's. It's certainly something my community of Brisbane cares deeply about, including the very young people who are too young to vote and who I met earlier in this House today. That's why I rise to speak in support of the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about trust: trust that when Australia issues a carbon credit it represents a genuine emissions reduction or carbon storage outcome; trust that businesses investing in our carbon market can rely on storage rules and effective oversight; trust that farmers, landholders and First Nations communities who are participating in carbon projects are treated fairly; and trust that, as Australia transitions to net zero, the systems supporting that transition are transparent, credible and accountable. If carbon credits are to play a meaningful role in reducing Australians emissions, Australians have every right to expect that those credits have integrity.

The Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme has become an important part of Australia's climate policy. It rewards projects that avoid emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere through activities such as restoring native vegetation, improving land management, and supporting new emissions reduction technologies. These projects can provide additional income for farmers, they can create jobs in regional communities and they offer opportunities for First Nations communities to combine economic development with caring for country. They also give businesses flexibility while they work towards reducing emissions at the source. But all these benefits depend on one thing, and that's integrity. The carbon credit has value only if people have confidence in what it represents. If one Australian credit unit is meant to equal one tonne of emissions avoided or removed, Australians must have confidence that the abatement is real. That's why integrity must be built into the architecture of the carbon credit market.

Our government has listened to many independent reviews, including the Chubb review and reviews by the Climate Change Authority and the Australian National Audit Office. None of them recommended abandoning the scheme. Instead, they recommended strengthening it, and that's exactly what this legislation does. One of the most significant reforms in this bill strengthens the recognition of First Nations rights and interests. It's not overreach, as referred to by those opposite. Carbon projects often involve land, and in Australia land issues frequently intersect with native title. Under these reforms, consent requirements for projects on native title land will be strengthened, and registered native title claimants will be recognised as eligible interest holders.

Importantly, consent will be required earlier in the process. That matters, because consultation should not be a box-ticking exercise. Genuine consultation occurs before key decisions are made. It allows people to understand proposals, raise concerns and negotiate agreements. It builds partnerships rather than seeking approval after decisions have already been made. These changes provide greater certainty for project proponents while better recognising the rights of First Nations Australians and aligning the scheme more closely with the principles of free, prior and informed consent.

The bill also reforms governance arrangements by replacing the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee with the new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. This committee will provide independent expert advice on the methodologies used to generate Australian carbon credit units. Methodologies are important, and they sit at the heart of the carbon credit market. They determine how emissions reductions are measured, what evidence is required and what activities qualify. Their credibility is critical to the integrity of every carbon credit. The new committee will have enhanced independence, broader responsibilities and stronger transparency requirements. It will also include at least one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander member, ensuring that First Nations knowledge and perspective contribute to safeguarding the integrity of Australia's carbon market.

This bill also strengthens institutional independence. Responsibility for regulating carbon projects will be separated from responsibility for future government purchasing of carbon credits. The future Commonwealth purchasing function will move from the Clean Energy Regulator to the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. This reform responds directly to the recommendation from the Chubb review and establishes a clear separation between regulation and purchasing decisions. The legislation also shifts government purchasing arrangements from a narrow focus on least-cost abatement to a broader value-for-money approach. That matters because many carbon projects deliver benefits beyond just emissions reduction. Projects may improve biodiversity, restore habitats, strengthen soil, support regional employment and advance First Nations land management. Considering these broader outcomes does not weaken fiscal discipline; it recognises value more comprehensively.

The bill also introduces safeguards to address serious integrity risks when they emerge, and one such safeguard is the method transition declaration. This mechanism is intended for exceptional circumstances where a methodology is found to present significant integrity risk. Importantly, it is designed as a circuit breaker, not a routine intervention. Farmers and businesses need certainty when making long-term investments, and government should not change the rules arbitrarily. However, certainty cannot come at the expense of integrity. When compelling evidence reveals that a methodology is failing to deliver genuine abatement, there has to be a mechanism to respond. This legislation provides that mechanism while surrounding its use with safeguards, criteria and consultation requirements. This reflects the balance at the heart of this bill: certainty for participants and accountability for outcomes.

The bill also strengthens provisions for relinquishing carbon credits. Project proponents will be able to voluntarily relinquish credits where credits have been issued because of, say, incorrect information. The Clean Energy Regulator will also gain stronger powers to require relinquishment where updated information reveals overcrediting. The principle is simple. If credits have been issued for abatement that did not occur, this system must be able to correct that record. Integrity isn't just about making the right decisions initially; it is about correcting mistakes when they are discovered. Similarly, the regulator's compliance powers will be strengthened, including powers to address decisions based on false and misleading information and issue infringement notices for lower-level breaches. While these reforms may appear technical, they are essential. Credible markets depend on clear and enforceable rules.

This bill recognises that integrity and innovation must also go hand in hand. Australia's path to net zero will require new technologies and new approaches to emissions reduction. Researchers, farmers, universities and businesses must be supported to develop and test innovative ideas. Current arrangements can sometimes create unintended barriers by treating legitimate research and development activities as inconsistent with project eligibility requirements. This bill addresses that issue through more tailored arrangements that support innovation while maintaining integrity. The legislation also creates flexibility for future methodologies to recognise projects that combine multiple emissions-reduction activities. For example, a landlord may simultaneously reduce agricultural emissions and increase carbon storage through revegetation. Our carbon markets should be capable of recognising the sophistication of projects that meet robust integrity standards. That's how we encourage innovation. It's how we broaden participation and ensure the scheme evolves alongside science and technology.

The reforms also extend beyond carbon credits. The bill strengthens the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, Australia's key framework for collecting information on greenhouse gas emissions and energy production and energy consumption. This data underpins major components of Australia's climate policy, including the safeguard mechanism and Australia's domestic and international emissions-reporting obligations. The legislation increases flexibility around the publication of reporting data, promoting greater transparency. Climate policy should be informed by credible and accessible information. Australians should be able to track progress. Researchers should be able to analyse trends, and governments should be accountable for results. The bill addresses practical administrative issues including reporting requirements where registrations may have been delayed and deregistration of corporations, say in liquidation, that are unlikely to continue participating in the scheme.

Finally, the legislation makes targeted amendments to the new vehicle efficiency standard by adjusting the timing of key compliance milestones and calculations. These changes provide greater certainty to the automotive industry and help ensure the framework operates effectively as intended.

There is a broader principle running through this legislation. Climate policy is not strengthened simply by setting ambitious targets. Targets matter, but institutions matter too. Measurements matter, transparency matters, governance matters, independent scrutiny matters, and public confidence matters. Australians expect that emissions reductions claimed by governments are genuine and measurable. Businesses expect transparent and consistent market rules. Farmers and landholders deserve certainty, and First Nations Australians deserve meaningful recognition of their rights. Taxpayers deserve confidence that public funds are spent wisely.

That's why this bill matters. It's not simply about carbon accounting; it's about strengthening the institutions that Australia will rely upon during one of the most significant economic transformations in our history. There are enormous opportunities in that transformation. Regional communities can benefit, farmers can benefit, First Nations communities can benefit, researchers and innovators in Australian industry can benefit, and our environment—and therefore our society—benefits. But those opportunities will only endure if systems supporting them are credible. Integrity is not a barrier to the growth of Australia's carbon markets; it is what makes growth possible. Transparency is not unnecessary red tape; it's what creates confidence. Independent oversight is not inconvenience; it protects the reputation and value of the entire system. Continuous improvement is not an admission of failure; it's the hallmark of responsible government.

Labor has a proud record of protecting our environment, and this bill supports that. We've established Australia's first national environment protection agency. We've strengthened environmental laws with higher penalties for serious breaches—new protection orders, for instance. We've passed laws requiring large polluters to cut emissions, putting Australia on the path to net zero by 2050, with a commitment to reduce emissions by 62 to 70 per cent by 2035. We're working towards 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 too, with more than 140 renewable projects approved to help power Australian homes and businesses. We've protected an additional 95 million hectares of ocean and bushland and now protect more ocean than any other country in the world. We established Environment Information Australia and doubled funding for national parks, including Kakadu and Uluru. We continue to support the Indigenous rangers, including doubling their numbers to help manage feral animals and weeds and protect native species. We're investing in restoration projects that protect threatened plants and animals. We've cleaned up urban rivers and improved recycling capacity. We've established the world's first nature repair market and invested in protecting the Great Barrier Reef through better water quality, stronger environmental protections and climate action. And we ratified the high-seas biodiversity treaty and strengthened water security through projects across Australia, including in remote and regional First Nations communities. It's quite the list and something this government is very proud of.

The Albanese Labor government understands that Australia's transition to net zero must be economically responsible, environmentally credible and socially fair. This is careful reform, it's evidence based reform, and it's another important step towards building a cleaner, more competitive and more sustainable Australian economy. It's about policies that deliver genuine emissions reduction while creating opportunities across the country. That's the purpose of this bill, that's why these reforms matter and that's why I commend this bill to the House.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (18:39): I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. This legislation goes to a fundamental question: can Australians trust that the emissions reductions being claimed by the government through this legislation are actually happening? Remember that, many times, these claimed reductions through carbon credits and other schemes are what have been used to justify the continued approval of coal and gas projects—in particular, new ones. Whilst members in this place have listed the achievements and commitments that the government has made, they certainly do not continually also list the over 37 projects that have been approved under the Albanese government's watch.

That takes us to why it is important that the carbon credits system be robust and work. Every carbon credit used to offset climate pollution carries a promise that somewhere an equivalent amount of greenhouse gas has been avoided or removed from the atmosphere to counter the other effect. If that promise is not kept, the pollution continues and climate risks escalate and grow. Communities and households concerned about insurance costs, businesses investing in decarbonisation and farmers doing the hard work of restoring their land all deserve a scheme whose environmental claims stand up to scrutiny. For a business deciding whether to invest in cleaner equipment or buy credits, the rules shape where its money goes. Investors, businesses and landowners need confidence that the credits being traded represent real value and real decarbonisation. If confidence in the market is undermined, legitimate projects and responsible participants will suffer. During the debate on the safeguard mechanism in 2023, I argued that emissions from our biggest polluters must come down and called for much stronger methane monitoring and reporting. Three years on, that has still not been actioned by the Albanese government, but those principles remain essential. Our largest emitters must invest in reducing their own pollution, using credits to address residual emissions that are difficult or impossible to eliminate. Carbon credits must not become an excuse to postpone that investment or expand fossil fuel production while claiming progress towards net zero.

Nevertheless, there are worthwhile reforms in this bill. I welcome stronger consent requirements for native title holders and registered claimants and the requirement for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander representation on the integrity committee. That stronger consent really must represent informed consent, to make sure that there is proper disclosure of information to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples impacted by projects. Strong consent processes are essential, but consultation alone is not enough. Carbon projects should deliver benefits for country, biodiversity and local communities alongside carbon outcomes. First Nations people should be partners in the design, governance and delivery of projects that affect their land and waters. Transferring responsibility for future government carbon credit purchasing away from the Clean Energy Regulator is also sensible. It helps separate purchasing decisions from regulation. Stronger powers to correct overcrediting and publish emissions information are welcome. The changes to the new vehicle efficiency standard also address a timing problem in its compliance arrangements.

These improvements deserve support, but the government must also confront the scheme's harder integrity problems. The first is the strength and independence of the proposed Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee, or CAIC. Renaming the existing committee and broadening its functions will achieve very little unless it has the resources and authority to challenge the assumptions behind the credits being issued. At its core, integrity means that a carbon credit represents a real climate benefit: a lowering of climate pollution. That requires projects to be additional, meaning that the activity would not have happened anyway. It requires permanence so emissions reductions are not later reversed—it must be permanent climate pollution reduction. It requires safeguards against leakage where emissions are simply shifted elsewhere. And it requires accurate crediting so one tonne of claimed abatement genuinely reflects one tonne of climate pollution benefit.

Under proponent-led method development, commercial participants help design methods from which they may benefit financially. Their expertise is valuable, but their incentives make independent scrutiny essential. Climate Integrity's submission identifies practical reforms that the government should adopt. The committee needs its own scientific capacity to test those proposals, examine the underlying evidence and commission independent assessments. It must be able to recommend rejecting a method where the evidence shows it could award more credits than the emissions reductions would, in fact, justify. Where evidence is uncertain, we should take a cautious approach to awarding credits. Australians should be able to understand why a method has been approved and what would trigger a review.

Stronger safeguards against conflicts of interest are also needed. I support a five-year restriction on former committee members taking paid roles in carbon credit trading, project development and related advisory work. Conflicts should be publicly disclosed. The evidence behind crediting decisions should be available for scrutiny, with clear limits on claims of commercial confidentiality. The committee should report annually to parliament on integrity concerns and any ministerial decisions that depart from its advice. That would help ensure emerging problems are addressed promptly.

The second issue I want to raise is how projects move away from methods with serious integrity problems. The bill introduces a method transition declaration to help move affected projects onto another method. That is sensible in principle, but the protection must be clear. The change must improve integrity. If a project has received credits for carbon savings it cannot demonstrate, if it can't show a reduction in climate pollution0, moving it into a different method does not make that problem disappear. This is critical, particularly for projects intended to regenerate native forests through changes to land management. Research has raised serious questions about whether some projects are, in fact, delivering the additional forest growth claimed. Those findings are contested, and the regulator defends its checks. That makes independent assessment and access to the evidence all the more important. I call on the government to put a clear protection against backsliding in the legislation. Any transition should face independent scrutiny, with excess credits identified and corrected and being required to be returned where appropriate.

Another side where the system is failing in integrity is around methane pollution that is not properly counted. Accuracy in measuring the pollution that companies are responsible for has to be the starting point for this to have any credibility. We know methane escaping from coal, oil and gas operations is a particularly powerful driver of warming in the near term, in the first 20 years. Gaps in its measurement and independent verification risk understating the pollution entering our atmosphere. Remember, every time a question is put to the government as to justification for approving a new fossil fuel project or gas project, we get the answer that that is taken care of through the safeguard mechanism, which then relies on the offsetting through ACCUs. None of that stacks up with any credibility if we are not properly measuring the actual emissions that these projects represent.

I've previously called for fossil fuel companies to properly measure their methane emissions and make that information public. Australians are entitled to independently checked figures that they can trust. Underreported emissions not only means deceiving the public for the emissions but also that the government is deceiving the international community as to the current and true state of emissions. Overstating carbon savings and understating pollution both allow polluters to avoid responsibility and the government to fool and, I think, defraud the rest of the world. Australia's climate policies must address both.

Proper investment in monitoring infrastructure, combining satellite observations with measurements on the ground—when those measurements tell a different story from a company's report, the discrepancy in methane emissions must be investigated and resolved. Verified emissions data must inform what companies are required to do under the safeguard mechanism. Underreporting must be corrected, and the rules must be enforced. Accurate measurements also help identify where pollution can, in fact, be cut. Because that's the good news in all of this; there is plenty of technology and opportunity to cut methane pollution. It is actually one of the lowest hanging fruits available to us. It beggars belief that the Albanese government has already sat on this for three years without doing anything about it, because this will drive action. Companies will fix leaks. They will reduce emissions at their source. They will adopt the technologies that already exist and are available.

The failure, of course, has consequences for people well beyond the carbon market. Climate damage from pollution reaches into every household budget through insurance premiums, repair bills and the cost of rebuilding after disasters. It damages public infrastructure and puts our health and safety at risk. We need to start to talk about climate related inflation because, at the moment, that is a huge driver of the cost-of-living crisis that we have, yet no-one is actually acknowledging that part. In Warringah we've seen the rapid rise of insurance costs due to increasing climate risk. In fact, over about the last five years, I believe, insurance premiums have increased by 50 per cent. It is one of the fastest growing inflationary measures of a household budget, whether it is home-and-contents insurance or full house insurance.

I've repeatedly called for greater investment in adaptation and resilience, with major polluters contributing to the cost. It is time polluters pay. The responsibility cannot keep falling on communities and taxpayers. What happens when infrastructure fails is that local governments are left to pick up the bill, and that means they pass on that cost to local citizens and our communities. They have to pay for it through levies and greater rates.

This week, I've launched a climate resilience green paper calling for a climate pollution levy on coal, oil and gas corporations to help fund climate resilience and preparedness. Companies have profited from activities that drive climate harm. They should contribute fairly to protecting communities and helping them recover. It is time for polluters to pay. That contribution would support practical action: safer homes, better urban infrastructure, nature based solutions that can help communities withstand the conditions ahead.

But preparation alone is not sufficient. Efforts must be accompanied by faster cuts to climate pollution. We need to reduce the harm while preparing for the risks already upon us. What's amazing is there is no other industry that we just allow to continue to pollute with impunity. We've dealt with that in so many ways, yet fossil fuel companies still enjoy a system where we allow them to pollute with impunity, with subpar processes of accountability.

For the people of Warringah, climate action and integrity have always gone together. This bill is an opportunity to strengthen both, but that requires independent oversight, carbon credits backed by evidence, and honest reporting of the pollution those credits are used to offset. So I urge the government to ensure major polluters take responsibility for their emissions and contribute fairly to the costs they impose on our communities. Australians are entitled to expect that a bill promising integrity and transparency actually delivers that in practice.

Finally, I think we have to be honest. There's a trust gap between what the Albanese government does here at home and what it says and commits to and the announcements it makes internationally. Having attended pre-COP in Fiji and seen the commitment from the Prime Minister and the minister to our Pacific neighbours around caring for the dire straits they find themselves in—we have to have that accountability at home when it comes to the approval of more coal and gas and those extensions, because the reality is that we are putting fuel on the fire, we are making the situation worse, every time we approve another project. You cannot just justify those decisions on the basis of the carbon offset scheme and the safeguard mechanism if that system does not have the integrity to genuinely show that there is real climate pollution abatement occurring through those offsets. So I urge the government to match their actions at home with the announcements and commitments they make to our Pacific neighbours.

Ms COKER (Corangamite) (18:53): For my communities across the Bellarine, Surf Coast and Geelong region, the impact of climate change is absolutely real. Locals understand that protecting our coastline, oceans and the hinterland means taking meaningful action to reduce the emissions driving climate change. And they're not alone; I know so many Australians take the same view. It's why the Albanese government has a target of net zero emissions by 2050, and one of the tools that will play an important role in achieving this target is the carbon credits mechanism.

The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 is about making sure the carbon credits mechanism works as it should. The Albanese government is a reforming government, and that's why we're delivering this bill to ensure the market contributes to Australia's emission reduction efforts. On top of that, we need to give Australians more confidence that those credits represent real and genuine abatement, because this is not always the case. Under the coalition government, carbon credits were misused. The scheme was watered down. It lacked the robust guardrails needed to ensure the scheme delivered its objectives to significantly reduce emissions. This bill, through stronger oversight of how credits are created, greater transparency about the projects involved and better protections for people whose rights and interests may be affected, makes the difference. This bill will make important changes in each of these areas. It means better protection for significant environmental landscapes and recognises that genuine carbon storage capacities is vital to emissions reduction.

This bill responds to recommendations from the independent review of the Australian Carbon Credit Units Scheme, led by Professor Ian Chubb, and reviews undertaken by the Climate Change Authority. So it's based on sound foundations. It strengthens oversight of carbon credits, improves transparency and provides clearer rules for landholders and businesses while giving greater recognition to First Nations rights and interests.

The bill establishes the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee. This will replace the existing Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee and provide independent advice to government on the integrity of ACCU methods. This is a positive step in the right direction. The new committee will have broad functions, enhanced expertise and stronger transparency obligations, and it will be required to include at least one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander member, because good decision-making benefits from having the right expertise. That's particularly true when it comes to First Nations knowledge and perspective.

One of the key roles of the committee will be to advise government on the development of new carbon abatement methods. We want people developing new ways of reducing emissions to be able to participate, and we want to make sure that new methods meet the integrity, standards and safeguards our communities expect. This provides an important safeguard through the introduction of the methods transition declaration. This gives the government a mechanism to respond to exceptional circumstances where a method used by a proponent is found to be illegitimate and a risk to the integrity of the scheme. This gives government an important backstop to ensure nothing slips through the cracks. People who have invested in projects need certainty and, importantly, the regulator needs to respond when new information identifies a serious integrity problem.

The bill also makes changes to how the scheme allows proponents to relinquish ACCUs. Project proponents will have a voluntary pathway to correct the record when they have provided incorrect information that leads to receiving ACCUs. The regulator will also have stronger powers to require relinquishment where new or updated information identifies inappropriate overcrediting. The bill also recognises that regulation needs to be workable. That's why our measures to simplify administration and reduce regulatory burden are so important.

The bill also allows for new methods that combine storing carbon with reducing emissions. For example, an integrated approach to farm management could support projects that restore native vegetation while also helping farmers reduce methane emissions from livestock. A farm is a whole system, and this approach absolutely reflects the way many farmers actually operate. These changes can support a broader range of participants coming into the scheme while maintaining its integrity. There's also an important regional dimension here. For communities like mine in my electorate of Corangamite, climate policy is increasingly part of the economic conversation. Farmers are considering new markets, businesses are looking at new technologies, and landholders are considering how they can improve their properties while responding to climate change. That's where the nature repair scheme can be applied. The Albanese government is absolutely committed to ensuring regional communities have opportunities to participate in the transition, and the ACCU scheme can provide one of those opportunities.

This bill also makes changes to government purchasing of ACCUs. The bill changes the purchasing principle from securing least-cost abatement to making value-for-money purchases. That allows government to consider the broader benefits that can come from carbon projects alongside the emission reductions they deliver. Those benefits can include better biodiversity outcomes, regional economic activity and land management improvements. That's particularly relevant for regions like mine, where a carbon project could deliver several benefits at the same time.

The bill also strengthens transparency and administration under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. This scheme is such a significant source of information about greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and energy production across our economy. As we work together towards our emission reduction targets, we need reliable information about where emissions are coming from and how they're changing. We want to see emissions continue to come down, and we want to ensure our communities have confidence in the scheme that is delivering those results.

One of the most important elements of this bill is the strengthening of First Nations rights and interests in the ACCU Scheme. The bill changes the arrangements for projects on land that is recognised or claimed as native title land. Consent will be sought upfront, through a structured process, rather than being dealt with after a project has already been registered. This gives native title holders greater awareness of proposed projects from the outset. It also gives project proponents a clearer process for engaging with rights holders. The bill also recognises registered native title claimants as eligible interest holders. These are important changes, because our First Nations people—people who have longstanding connections to our landscapes—should have a meaningful role in the decisions affecting country, and I know that is important for you, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour.

The carbon market is operating in places where people live and work. It is operating on farms, across bushland and in communities where people are making long-term decisions about how they manage their land. These projects affect people making long-term decisions about their land. Landholders need clear rules, communities need to be properly consulted, and First Nations' rights and interests must be recognised right from the outset.

The final part of this bill concerns the new vehicle efficiency standard. The bill adjusts the timing of several key milestones under the scheme. For industry, certainty around those timelines is important. Businesses make investment decisions over many years. They need to understand the requirements they will be working towards and have enough time to adjust their vehicle mix. These changes provide that certainty while supporting the emissions reductions the standard is intended to deliver.

As we strengthen the foundation of our carbon market, the transition to net zero will involve large industries, small businesses, farmers, landholders, researchers and communities. There will be different pathways in different parts of our nation, and regional communities will have an important role to play. In my electorate we know the value of agricultural land, our natural environment and the people who manage it, from farmers to small businesses and local government. We also know that change works best when people have the opportunity to understand it, participate in it and benefit from it.

The Albanese government has committed more than $75 million since 2023 to deliver reforms to the ACCU scheme, informed by the independent reviews and consultation with scheme participants. The bill is the next step in that piece of work. It recognises that maintaining integrity is an ongoing responsibility, and, as the carbon market develops, our rules will need to continue to be reviewed and improved. That is a strength of the scheme. We can support participation while maintaining strong standards. We can encourage innovation while protecting integrity.

For the Bellarine, the Surf Coast and the wider Geelong region, those opportunities are worth pursuing. Our farmers, our landholders and our regional businesses deserve a carbon market they can have confidence in. They deserve rules that are clear, fair and workable. And Australians deserve confidence that the emissions reductions represented by this scheme are genuine. The Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026 makes important progress towards those objectives. I would like to thank the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the assistant minister for their work in strengthening our ACCU scheme, and I commend the bill to the House.

Dr HAINES (Indi) (19:05): I rise to speak on the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026. Australia's carbon credit system provides a framework through which individuals, businesses and communities can undertake emissions reductions projects and be rewarded by earning Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs, for every tonne of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions that is avoided or stored. It plays an important role in our progress towards lowering emissions, and it presents unique opportunities for farmers and regional landholders to participate in and benefit from the energy transition.

The debate has moved on from whether carbon markets should exist. The reality is that they do and they must. The question is how to ensure they operate with the integrity, the transparency and the accountability that's required. Carbon markets have the potential to support regional economies, reward good land stewardship and provide additional income streams for local farmers and businesses. The landholders I speak to want to play their part in reducing emissions. They're ready to harness these opportunities, but they can't get there alone. It's why I fought so hard for sustainable agricultural facilitators, and it's why I support measures to improve the integrity of the ACCU framework. Regional communities deserve a carbon market that they can rely on, that they can trust, that they can be proud of.

Much of this bill responds to recommendations arising from the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units, better known as the Chubb review, and reviews conducted by the Climate Change Authority. Those reviews identified a number of improvements to strengthen the integrity, transparency and administration of Australia's carbon credit scheme. Evidence based policymaking is not just about commissioning reviews and gathering information; it requires governments and parliaments to act in response to what's been learned. In that sense, this bill is walking the walk.

The bill makes a number of amendments to improve the transparency, integrity and effectiveness of the ACCU scheme. It renames and reforms the independent statutory committee, which will be known as the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee, allowing it to advise on method development priorities, review methods before they expire, seek independent advice, undertake longer public consultation and publish more of its work. The committee's governance and composition will also be improved through better conflict-of-interest requirements and greater clarity about the kinds of expertise its members should have.

The bill facilitates investment in research and development by relaxing 'newness' requirements that have inadvertently penalised early operations and failed to accommodate the stop-start nature of iterative projects. The bill also makes important changes to consent requirements for projects on native title land. It replaces the existing system of conditional registration—which the Chubb review found was at odds with the principles of free, prior and informed consent—with an upfront, two-stage consent process that requires proponents to engage with native title holders and claimants before projects are registered. This allows for earlier, more genuine negotiations and gives all participants more certainty about what best practice actually looks like. In addition, the bill amends the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme to allow additional information to be disclosed under the regulations.

One of the key measures in this bill is the minister's ability to make method transition declarations, which prevent the ongoing issue of ACCUs if they are based on methodologies that don't stack up. Now, this is important because the value of carbon markets depends entirely on the integrity of the carbon credits. When an ACCU is issued, it must represent genuine and additional reduction or abatement. To make a declaration, the minister must be satisfied that a method no longer complies with the offset integrity standards and that its continued use would pose a material risk to the integrity of the ACCU scheme. The minister must seek advice from the independent committee on these matters, and the committee must consult publicly before providing that advice. Once the initial threshold is met, there are a number of other conditions that must be met, including the availability of suitable alternatives for all affected projects and various matters that the minister must have considered. And the minister must undertake separate public consultation before deciding to make a declaration. Once the declaration is made, the relevant methodology becomes superseded and within a specified time frame cannot be used to earn any further ACCUs.

Critics of these declarations say they reduce certainty for participants and investors—and they're right; it does create uncertainty if approved methods can be taken away again in the future. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the time to assess the integrity of methods is when they are first approved. Ultimately, that's the system we're working towards. But the reality is that the science is still evolving, and it's appropriate to ensure that we have mechanisms to protect the integrity of the scheme when it becomes apparent that we need to.

The provisions of this bill include additional limitations and safeguards that were not in the exposure draft, which have been welcomed by proponents and other market participants. And the assistant minister has confirmed that declarations are intended to be used as a circuit breaker in exceptional circumstances and not as a tool for routine intervention. However, other stakeholders question whether the power is in fact too limited and conditional to serve its purpose. For example, method transition declarations can be made only if the minister is satisfied that an alternative method exists for all affected projects. This protects projects that were commenced in good faith, but it does create a paradox whereby the most-problematic methods—the ones without any credible equivalent—might not be subject to a declaration, because they are such outliers.

I note that the member for Mackellar has put forward amendments that respond to this very issue and that make other changes to preserve the integrity of the declaration regime, and I'll support those amendments. I've put forward amendments myself to recognise the unique risks to agricultural productivity and domestic food security that are posed by substandard methods. Many offset projects take place in high-rainfall, high-biomass areas that overlap with productive agricultural land. These areas in fact look a lot like parts of my own electorate, where reliable rainfall, productive soil and established natural assets provide ideal conditions for both primary production and carbon farming. The ability to earn ACCUs for offset projects obviously changes how landholders assess all their options. Most of the time it's simply a matter of opting in to gain some extra productivity. Carbon sequestration and agricultural production coexist peacefully and are often mutually beneficial, improving production of the land.

However, in some instances there's an unavoidable trade-off. Where ACCU-earning projects displace agricultural production, it's especially important that the underlying methodologies are sound. There must be a real environmental return on the loss of agricultural capacity. Choosing to participate in carbon projects instead of farming is a significant decision. Landholders need confidence that they're opting into a system with high standards, strong oversight and genuine return on investment. Low-integrity offset methods pose unique risks to Australia's agricultural productivity and domestic food security where they incentivise land use changes that aren't supported by credible evidence. This can lead to overconversion of land, avoidable path dependence and reputational damage, not just to the carbon economy but to landholders participating in good faith. Most projects are long term, and land is finite, so these risks indeed compound over time. When deciding whether to make a method transition declaration, the minister should be required to consider the individual and cumulative risks to agricultural productivity and domestic food security as well as the effect that making the declaration would have on those risks.

I'd like to thank Farmers for Climate Action for their work on this issue and acknowledge their tireless advocacy on one of the most significant challenges facing Australian agriculture and regional communities: climate change. Farmers are committed stewards of the land. They have much to lose from unmitigated climate change, and they are critical to the success of the ACCU scheme.

The reforms before the House are not perfect, but they are largely a step in the right direction. Public trust requires ongoing scrutiny, regular review and a willingness to make improvements where they are needed. I support this bill and I'll support further refinements in future if they are warranted.

Mr MONCRIEFF (Hughes) (19:15): Right across this country, Australians are getting on with the job that eluded those opposite for the entire duration of their government. They're putting up solar panels, installing batteries, taking up EVs in record numbers and investing in progress. Decarbonisation comes in the form of millions of daily decisions made by businesses and households throughout the economy—and, increasingly, many of these decisions are influenced by the growth in and success of Australia's carbon market.

The Australian carbon market is one of the largest, most effective and highest integrity schemes of its kind anywhere in the world. Under the Australian Carbon Credit Units, or ACCU, scheme, thousands of consumers and businesses are running projects that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions or remove and store carbon directly from the atmosphere through sequestration. Since its inception in 2011, the ACCU scheme has abated an extraordinary 190 million tonnes across more than 2,600 projects. Today, it underpins a carbon market valued at over $4 billion. Participants run projects that reduce emissions or store carbon through installing cutting-edge technology, upgrading heavy industrial equipment, changing practices to fit productivity and lower energy use, and improving the way our landscapes and vegetation are managed. The scheme is playing a critical role in helping Australia achieve our ambitious emissions reduction targets, including our legislated 2030 targets and commitments to reach net zero by 2050.

The ACCU scheme extends beyond carbon metrics to deliver substantial economic, social and cultural benefits for Australians too. Contrary to some of the things you might hear from those opposite, the transformative power of the ACCU scheme is felt most acutely in the regional, rural and remote communities of Australia. In many ways, ACCUs have become an important agricultural commodity. They are giving farmers and landholders the ability to diversify their income streams, droughtproof their businesses and attract new private capital. Through soil carbon sequestration, plantation forestry or reforestation through environmental and Mallee planting, the ACCU scheme makes environmental stewardship profitable. According to the independent Carbon Market Institute, carbon projects can provide landholders with diversified income and improved cash flow through carbon farming projects. The market for carbon farming is attracting more capital into Australian agriculture, with the safeguard mechanism acting as a critical driver of demand. By pricing carbon emissions, these settings incentivise emissions reductions while also encouraging investment to flow into projects such as restoring vegetation, protecting waterways and active land management. Public finance also plays a complementary role through institutions such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, helping de-risk investments in new areas and crowd in large-scale private capital investments.

High-intensity carbon markets provide a mechanism to connect private capital with farmers and land managers that are working to improve environmental and emissions reduction outcomes. And this bill, the Carbon Credits and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2026, directly supports farmers and landholders. But don't just take my word for it. According to the National Farmers' Federation, these reforms strengthen confidence in the ACCU scheme and improve the integrity and transparency of carbon markets.

The scheme is also helping to advance Closing the Gap targets by creating robust employment and economic opportunities for First Nations communities. In northern Australia, First Nations cultural fire practices are being channelled into carbon capture and the prevention of devastating wildfires. Under the ACCU scheme, these practices are encompassed in two new savanna fire ACCU methods, generating an estimated $7.7 billion across northern Australia. Almost three-quarters of all carbon credits generated through savanna fire management come from Indigenous owned businesses, with the revenue from these cultural burning projects supporting job security, education initiatives, Indigenous ranger programs, preserving cultural heritage and empowering traditional owners in remote communities.

This bill strengthens the recognition of native title rights by ensuring project proponents obtain eligible interest holders' consent before an ACCU project can be declared on native title land. By treating registered native title claimants as eligible interest holders, the ACCU scheme will align with the procedural rights under the Native Title Act and embed the principles of free, prior and informed consent. It allows traditional owners to negotiate fair benefit-sharing arrangements and protect their cultural heritage before the commencement of projects.

This bill ensures that the key architecture of our climate policies support Australia's emissions targets while delivering cheap, reliable energy, efficiently facilitating decarbonisation across our economy and delivering benefits for local communities. It provides the certainty that is so critical for reducing risks that threaten sustained investment and confidence in our $4 billion carbon market across the broader energy transition. It delivers on our commitment to implement the recommendations made by the independent Chubb review into the Australian carbon credits, in careful consultation with industry, businesses and First Nations communities.

This bill amends the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 and the national vehicle efficiency standard framework. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme provides a national framework for companies to report information regarding greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. The data collected through this reporting framework provides reliable evidence for governments to design effective climate policies while also holding large industrial emitters accountable to national reduction targets and integrity in energy markets. Our amendments enable increased transparency in emissions and energy data submitted under the reporting scheme, streamlining arrangements for publishing data, giving investors and the public confidence in the data driving the energy transition.

In 2024, the Albanese Labor government passed our world-class new vehicle efficiency standards. For decades, Australia has been treated as a dumping ground for inefficient, fuel-guzzling engines because previous governments lacked the courage to mandate efficiency standards. Imported cars sold in Australia were less fuel efficient than cars of the same make and model in markets with more demanding standards. But while it might be cheaper for manufacturers to produce a less fuel-efficient car, the fuel costs over the vehicle's life cycle can be vastly more expensive for consumers and fleet buyers. Our new vehicle efficiency standards give car manufacturers bigger incentives to produce more fuel efficient cars. In combination with our electric car discount, which reduced cost barriers to people buying cleaner vehicles, our efficiency standards have contributed to a massive take-up in hybrid and EV adoption.

The data backs this up. Just last month, EV sales in Australia overtook those of petrol cars for the first time in history. And guess what? The weekend is still here. Drivers across the country are embracing cheaper cars and greater choice. New vehicle sales figures show that more than 27,000 battery electric vehicles were sold, representing 24.9 per cent of all new vehicle sales, a record monthly high. Last month's EV sales skyrocketed by 171 per cent compared to the same month last year, with battery EVs outselling traditional vehicles, with 25,824 sales.

Under the new vehicle efficiency standards, regulated entities submit annual data concerning their emissions and the mass of the vehicles they import. This calculates an initial emissions value. If a manufacturer imports low-emission vehicles and achieves a negative value, they earn compliance units that can offset positive balances over the following two years. Manufacturers with a positive value can purchase these units to reduce their final emissions value down to zero and avoid civil penalties. This 'cap and trade' scheme allows market participants the flexibility to purchase units and improve emissions according to their needs while delivering more fuel-efficient vehicles to consumers in the most cost-efficient way.

The CEO of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries recognised that the evidence increasingly demonstrates that the new vehicle efficiency standards are encouraging manufacturers to bring more low-emission vehicles to Australia, which increases both consumer choice and the technology available. The amendments made in this bill correct a drafting anomaly in the original legislation that restricted the window in which entities could utilise these units to adjust their initial emissions value which, if left uncorrected, would unnecessarily limit a manufacturer's ability to trade or apply units earned from importing low-emission vehicles. This bill fixes that gap, which gives automotive manufacturers the regulatory certainty to plan their future fleet imports and arrange unit trading without administrative distortions and gives the industry the ability to keep delivering affordable, low-emission vehicles for Australian families.

By strengthening the governance of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme, our government is lowering risk for investors in order to unlock billions in private capital for regional and remote Australia. A robust carbon market supports skilled research jobs and innovation in agriculture, forestry management and environmental restoration, which delivers real growth dividends from decarbonisation. When it comes to climate change and the energy transition, we know that those opposite are no friends of markets. What we saw from the coalition for their entire term in office was a series of slogans and focus grouped phrases with no delivery—meaningless incantations, like 'technology, not taxes', with no detail about what technology looks like. Even worse were their attempts to pick politically favoured winners through furphies like nuclear energy or backing in ageing and unreliable coal assets when the market is moving away from it.

The Albanese Labor government's approach is delivering real results by setting the right conditions for market actors to drive the clean economy transition, crowding in private capital and delivering real economic benefits to farmers, landholders, regional areas and First Nations communities. We came to government after inheriting a broken national energy grid that was plagued by a decade of policy failure and attempts to paper over this failure by changing the law to hide energy price rises. Our government overhauled the safeguard mechanism, which ensures Australia's 212 largest industrial facilities reduce their emissions in a fair, orderly and predictable way. We introduced the Capacity Investment Scheme, which drives enormous amounts of investment in dispatchable renewable energy generation and firming storage to strengthen the grid's reliability as ageing coal power plants retire. We invested $20 billion into Rewiring the Nation to modernise our electricity grid in order to connect low-cost renewable energy zones to major population centres and industrial hubs.

Upgrading our transmission network is essential. It is absurd for those opposite to claim, as they so often do, that we wouldn't need to invest in transmission if it weren't for the rollout of renewables. Australia's transmission network is one of the oldest and most extensive in the world. Between now and 2050, Australia's energy consumption will surge. Coal power plants will close, whether those opposite like it or not. Energy generated from solar and wind farms will increase. The notion that a coalition government would stand athwart the market to keep expensive and unreliable coal assets alive isn't just illiberal; it is absurd. It's just as absurd as the myth that nuclear reactors could replace coal power plants and plug into the grid without requiring new transmission. The transmission lines are already close to capacity from renewables, and a fleet of nuclear reactors would likewise require new transmission, which is the exact thing that those opposite are so fervently against.

This side of the House recognises that it is our government's responsibility to build the transmission network of the future, not to delay, obfuscate and perpetuate the myth that there is some alternative energy system where this investment would not be required. Those opposite can continue to engage in the culture wars of 15 years ago. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job and getting it done. Our government introduced cheaper home batteries, which makes rooftop solar and domestic energy storage accessible to everyday households. We know that batteries are critical for storing and firming. More batteries are good for the grid. The Albanese Labor government is delivering cheap, reliable power while building the new green manufacturing industries of the 21st century. This bill strengthens Australia's world-class carbon markets, delivering real benefits to farmers and landholders, regional communities, energy users and First Nations communities. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.