Regulations and Determinations — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative-Improved Forest Management in Multiple-Use Public Native Forests) Methodology Determination 2026

Dan Tehan

I move:

That the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative-Improved Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forests) Methodology Determination 2026 made under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 on 25 June 2026 and presented to the House on 29 June 2026, be disallowed.

This is a very simple motion. It seeks to prevent the federal and state Labor governments from stopping the destruction of native forestry industry on the altar of net zero. This is about jobs. This is about timber industry jobs and how the government wants to absolutely destroy them. And the worst thing is, they want to do it without being upfront about it. This is another sneaky way of hurting jobs in this nation, and especially jobs in rural and regional Australia. It has to stop.

What have you got against regional and rural Australia? What have you got against timber worker jobs? We need these timber worker jobs. We need them. And not only that, we need the timber because the timber is sustainably harvested in this country. And do you know what happens when you close it down here? It all gets imported. And where does it get imported from? Those countries that don't sustainably harvest. That is what is occurring here, and the government should be up front about it. That is why we have moved this disallowance motion. Enough with your pretence of trying to get to net zero. All you're doing is killing jobs and industry in this nation time after time after time after time, and we are going to oppose it every single step of the way.

The regulation, which was authorised by the member for Fremantle on 25 June 2026, allows state governments to cash in climate credits for forestry they have saved. So let's put what they've done into real language: when you lock up the timber industry, you're going to allow state governments to get the carbon credits from it. That's what you've done. Basically, the minister sitting here at the table, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, cannot meet his targets, will not meet his targets, but is quite happy to target timber workers for his net zero approach. That is what this is about. We will not stand here and allow this to happen.

The interesting thing about this is that we know that this is what this is all about, because the New South Wales state Labor government are the ones who've asked for it, with their Great Koala National Park—which they can't afford to pay for. We know this is going to lead to noxious weeds and feral animals in the farms adjacent to this state forest because the government will not finance and they will not fund the state parks around it. This is junk credit costing timber industry jobs. We will not sit here and allow it to happen.

If allowed to stand, the new regulation would see the cessation of commercial timber harvesting across entire regional forest agreement areas. These areas were negotiated in good faith so that timber jobs could stay in Australia. And yet this sneaky, underhanded way just seeks to undermine these agreements. We all know what will happen. One state government after another, Labor state governments will fold, and the timber industry will pay the price. The worst thing is it's not only the timber industries which will pay the price. Where will we get our timber from? We'll have to import it. Will it be sustainably harvested overseas?

This is the question that we want answered by the minister today. Let's hear him stand up today and say: 'All the timber that we begin importing as a result of my policies will be sustainably harvested. There'll be no issues, and it will all be done in the same way that we harvest timber here.' Let's hear him stand up and say that. It'll be a bit like his commitment that all batteries installed would be done safely and to all technical specifications. Did we get that guarantee? No, of course not. Will we get a guarantee on this? No, we will not.

Despite the fact that we are having this debate publicly in the parliament, understanding how this net zero regulation has come about has been cloaked in mystery. Work by the government to activate this net zero regulation began in 2024 by the Australian National University. Despite multiple FOI requests—why doesn't this surprise you? Remember, the sun was going to shine in, the Australian sun was going to shine in. Despite multiple FOI requests, which have been blocked, the modelling on which this regulation rests has never been released publicly. They believe in their cause so much, but of course they cannot release—

Yes, that's it! The consultation period for the enactment of this regulation ran over summer for just 28 days. There is no transparency. There's as much transparency on this as there is in the Capacity Investment Scheme. Of course, there is so much so much transparency around that one—billions and billions of dollars being locked away, and we get nothing from the government. There is no transparency.

I'm going to allow others to speak, because we've only got 40 minutes. I would like to go my full time, but I want to make sure there are others in the debate. These transparency issues are our substantial concern. First of all, it's net zero window dressing. Second, carbon leakage will increase. Third, and most importantly, is where those opposite should apologise today in this place. I don't think the minister has the word 'apology' in his vocabulary, but this is where he should apologise. This will cost forestry jobs. Not only that—it will hurt prime agriculture land.

NSW Farmers has raised that concerns the park declaration restricts private native forestry on adjacent private holdings and creates pest, weed and fire management risks. I saw the minister scoffing about this. It is creating a bad precedent, and that is why this House must oppose Labor's net zero zealotry.

Sharon Claydon

Is the motion seconded?

Darren Chester

I second the motion. We've just heard from a regional member of parliament who actually understands what a sustainable timber industry looks like. Throughout his speech, I saw many members opposite shaking their heads, occasionally laughing, but they represent seats where there's no timber industry. There are no plantations or a native hardwood timber sector in their communities. There are no forestry workers. There are no indirect jobs affected. They sit here and vote on issues that are a matter of economic and social life and death in my community and in the member for Wannon's, and they never take the time to understand the issue itself.

When it comes to timber, you have two simple choices. You use your own timber grown in your own country in a sustainable way, or you use someone else's timber. If you don't believe me, take a look at what the Victorian state government has done with its ban on the native hardwood timber industry. In Victoria we are still using everyone else's timber. In Victoria, look no further than the beautiful St Kilda Pier in Port Phillip Bay. Go to the Parks Victoria website. On the Parks Victoria website, they actually gush about the beautiful aesthetics of the hardwood timber decking as it curves around the bay, giving wonderful viewing opportunities for the people of Melbourne. Every piece of timber used on the decking on the St Kilda Pier is Darwin stringybark, brought to Victoria for a couple thousand kilometres of transport costs and the greenhouse emissions that go with that. That is the hypocrisy of Victorian Labor government.

There's not just one example. You can go for a little drive across the western suburbs to the West Gate Tunnel and out onto the Werribee Plain. There's a new structure on the freeway as you drive through the West Gate Tunnel and out the other side. I don't know when we got to a point where you need to have architectural works on the side of a freeway; I think they should just fix the roads. Anyway, there's this architectural structure there that's promoted on the Victoria's Big Build site, which describes the impact of the Indigenous people in western Victoria who used eel nets to capture eels. This huge timber structure that stretches across the freeway is meant to represent the Indigenous people and their eel nets. That timber was provided by Red Stag Timber in New Zealand. We're still using timber in Victoria; we're just importing it from New Zealand, Queensland or the Northern Territory.

The best one since the ban on native hardwood timber harvesting in Victoria is the Anzac Station on St Kilda Road. It's one of these examples of a tram and train interchange. It's a nice piece of engineering, I've got to admit. Go on the website there and read the description of this piece of work. It says it's 85 metres long and 23 metres wide. There's this timber canopy on St Kilda Road. May I say St Kilda Road is basically in the shadows of the Shrine of Remembrance just down the road. That beautiful timber canopy was made using spruce imported from Europe by a company called Hess Timber, housed in Germany. That is what the Victorian Labor Party has done to the native hardwood timber industry in our state. Two choices: use your own timber in a sustainable way, or take someone else's. The Victorian government has decided to keep taking someone else's.

Just 200 kilometres away from St Kilda Road in Victoria, there's a business called Australian Sustainable Hardwoods in my electorate of Gippsland. It's based in Heyfield. It employs more than 200 people. Despite all of the efforts of the Victorian Labor Party to shut them down, they have managed to survive. They are bringing in timber from interstate and overseas to compete against imported products in Victoria on a daily basis.

My interest in this issue is both personal and professional. I've had family members work in the timber industry in Gippsland for decades. I had one cousin killed in a logging accident when he was just 21 years old. My professional interest relates to the economic value of the timber industry and its importance to the future of my region, because the timber industry, and the native hardwood timber industry in particular, has social, economic, environmental and cultural importance to our community. If those opposite bothered to spend any time in a regional community, they would start to appreciate just a few of those elements.

The social elements are incredibly important because these are the communities where these people grew up. This is where their jobs have been and where they've added value to timber products. They've managed to build houses and provide the componentry for hardwood or for window framing. To people who live in the suburbs who say, 'I don't need timber; I don't like the forestry industry,' don't take your kids to an indoor netball court, indoor basketball court or indoor gymnasium and run around the hardwood floor. If you don't want timber, don't take your kids to those facilities, because you can't do that with pine; it has to be hardwood, and it has to be hardwood sustainably harvested here in Australia. The people in my community are proud of the jobs they've had and the jobs they've done in building the infrastructure in their own communities and also right throughout Australia.

The economic importance is well understood on this side of the House—80,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs associated with the timber industry. But those opposite, in their self-righteousness, in their desperation to appease the Greens, have never bothered to understand the environmental argument for a native hardwood timber industry. They are so desperate to make sure they get those preferences from the Greens, to shore up some of that left-wing vote and make sure it votes for the Labor Party to keep their own primary vote higher, that they've never bothered to understand what a sustainable hardwood timber industry does for the environment of this nation. Well-managed, harvested forests are part of the solution to reducing emissions, because a young re-growing forest absorbs more carbon than a mature deteriorating forest. That's a simple fact.

The member for Fremantle says, 'No, it's not.' I invite him to stand up at some point—I'm sure he'll get his opportunity—and he can run through how he came up with this strategy. He was the architect of methodology that Labor's applying here. The assistant minister, Mr Wilson, was the architect of this methodology. Shutting down the Australian native hardwood timber industry is the deliberate design strategy of what he's trying to achieve here. He has stated on many occasions that he hates the native hardwood timber industry. From the wooded suburb of Fremantle, from the heavily timbered suburb of Fremantle, the member for Fremantle has always wanted to shut down the native hardwood timber industry. He was happy when they shut down the industry in Western Australia. He was happy when they shut it down in Victoria. He would love to see all harvesting in the native timber industry end. Tell me that's not true. The silence says it all. This bloke wants to shut down the native hardwood timber industry right across Australia—

Sharon Claydon

Direct your comments through the chair, please.

Darren Chester

The member for Fremantle interjected, and I invited him to comment.

Sharon Claydon

I am just trying to bring a point of order here.

Darren Chester

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. So we have a member with not a single harvestable tree in his electorate lecturing the rest of Australia about how they should manage their forests.

Josh Wilson

Come to Freo sometime!

Sharon Claydon

The member for Fremantle is not helping.

Darren Chester

Member for Fremantle, I've been to Freo. You come to Gippsland, you come to Australian Sustainable Hardwoods in Heyfield and you come and visit my timber workers and say why you want to shut down their industry. Come and tell them why you want to shut down the industry.

Sharon Claydon

I'm not going to say this again. I have already dealt with the interjection from the member for Fremantle. I'm asking you to direct your comments through the chair. This is not a personal attack on either side. You can make a robust argument, but you direct your comments through me.

Long debate text truncated.