I was an electrician before I came here. In that trade, if someone signs off saying the work complies, everyone down the line relies on it — right up to the next person who opens the switchboard. A carbon credit is no different. It's a claim, and it's only worth anything if you can trust it.

Link to Bill Amendment

One sentence under all the jargon

The title of this bill won't pack out the pub on a Friday night, but underneath the acronyms it's simple. If we're going to put a value on cutting carbon pollution, we have to be confident the reduction is real. An Australian carbon credit unit represents one tonne of emissions avoided or removed. That's a claim. If it's reliable, the credit has value. If it can't be trusted, we've got a problem.

Near enough doesn't cut it

In the electrical industry you cannot run a system where everybody just says "near enough; probably complies." The same applies here. The scheme has run for more than a decade, and reviews by Chubb and the Climate Change Authority found sound foundations but real room to strengthen governance and transparency. This bill does that. First Nations consent will be required at the start of a project on native title land, not discovered after the contracts are signed. And a new circuit breaker lets government step in when a method develops a serious integrity problem — with legislated thresholds, independent advice and public consultation, not on a whim. If a testing method could no longer tell you an installation was safe, you wouldn't keep issuing certificates. You'd fix the method.

Getting the numbers right

The bill separates the buyer from the regulator and lets government buy for value for money, not just lowest cost — so biodiversity, regional benefits and First Nations outcomes can count too. It tightens enforcement: if someone was credited ten tonnes but only eight were achieved, two come back. Carbon credits aren't frequent flyer points where an error becomes a permanent bonus. Honest mistakes can still be corrected and put right.

Integrity is what makes investment possible

Some people hear "carbon market" and reject the word carbon; others object to the word market. The rest of us have to make the system we've actually got work. If credits are issued, they should mean genuine reduction. If farmers and landholders invest, they deserve stable, credible rules. That's not radical climate policy — it's competent administration. Our carbon market will only ever be as strong as the confidence people place in it, and that's why I support this bill.

-Tom