The Senate defeated NSW Nationals Senator Ross Cadell’s motion to disallow the Improved Native Forest Management method 34 votes to 27 on Thursday afternoon, 34 minutes after he moved it and five days before the date the notice paper had carried. Three Greens senators voted with the Coalition and One Nation for disallowance, one Liberal voted against it, and the guillotine fell as Andrew McLachlan finished speaking.
The method survived on a deal the Greens struck with Labor that morning. The harvest cut a project must make before it earns any credit rises from 20 per cent to 30 per cent for projects registered from 1 July 2030, the Clean Energy Regulator can restrict who buys the Great Koala National Park’s credits where a state asks it to, and the definitions of plantation and native forest are to be clarified so regrowing native forest cannot be reclassified. The first and third changes are requests for advice from the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee and are not yet in the determination.
Below is the Senate Hansard for the debate, unedited, from the motion being moved to the division. The speakers in order were Cadell, Environment and Water Minister Murray Watt, Greens leader Larissa Waters, independent David Pocock, Greens whip Nick McKim, One Nation whip Sean Bell, and Liberal Andrew McLachlan.
The Hansard, Thursday 10 September 2026
Senator CADELL (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate): 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, be disallowed [F2026L00835].
As we go through and we look at what this is meant to do and what it’s all about, we see it’s about a mechanism to give Australian carbon credit units out there for carbon assimilation, for actually doing something for the environment, for putting things in. The INFM method has been a rort from the beginning about the realism of what it does and what it’s there for. It’s being used to justify the establishment of the Great Koala National Park with no additionality for the environment. The trees that are there will stay. The animals that are there will stay. We are not seeing any more absorption by this. In fact, it is just creating millions of ACCUs at a discounted rate for the sake of a state government looking to fund a koala park.
I’ve said here many times before that we saw what happened in the Pilliga in New South Wales when this happened. A group of 18,000 koalas lived in the Pilliga when it was locked up as national park, away from any state forest where logging happened. Just two years after it was locked up, a fire went through, and we now have the koala population of the Pilliga listed as functionally extinct. That is a population less than 500. That is all because we want to lock these things up. We want to do this and we just look for excuses.
We’re here with a method. We haven’t got an order for production of documents from the ANU, where the Macintosh method, as it was called in the beginning, was established. We haven’t got clarity about anything to do with the processes—who was involved, who contributed any gifts or undertakings or financing about how this goes. We’re stuck with this being approved now.
It is not good for the environment. It is all about a deal to lock up a section of land, and we’ve seen the stresses that this creates. We’ve seen the Greens’ own think tank, the Australia Institute; the Bob Brown Foundation; and all sorts of other groups coming out and calling this for what it is: a rort. The test is today. I know this will go down, and we’ll see who in this chamber has integrity about the ACCU system and those that want to do the deal, those that are environmentalists and those that are more pragmatists. We’ll see people who will stand behind a koala or a platypus in the front building and end up giving cheap ACCUs to the very industries they say they hate, because that is what this will do while cutting the jobs of the people on the north coast.
It’s interesting. I want to talk about Matt and Kirsty Parker, who lost their contract to log in this forest. They had trees that were cut at their coupe ready to pick up, and instantly, when this was announced, they were stopped. Trees already felled lay there rotting and emitting because they were no longer allowed on. Interestingly, just three days ago, I was given a video by Matt Parker, as he’s been rehired to go in there with his bulldozer to take down the path that he wasn’t allowed to go down because there is a bushfire raging through that area and a thousand hectares have gone already.
To those people up in the north coast, I say: I’m sorry we have failed to get the numbers here. To those people who will suffer because we now have millions and millions of ACCUs going on the market cheaply and given the effect of those: I’m sorry for what that will cause. This is opportunism over environmentalism. It is not a good way of going about counting ACCUs; it’s not a good way of going about absorption. There is very little additionality in the process there. I know there are some arguments about what it could be and what it can be, but this should have been a better method. There are better methods out there. We’ve had inquiries in the Senate about the authenticity, the value, the rigour around ACCUs, and, as soon as we come to something like this, it’s hands down and get it out the door and approve it as quickly as possible. I’m disappointed at where we are, but I accept it and I think it’s a shame that today, quite frankly, a party that talks about the environment all the time will be the ones that put the final nail in the coffin of the rigour of ACCUs.
Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water): The government will be opposing this motion. Today is a very significant day for the environment in Australia, for the koalas, the gliders, the birds and the trees that make up Australia’s native forests, because today we open the door to a new way of protecting our native forests: allowing them to generate money by remaining standing rather than by cutting them down. It’s also a significant day for forest workers, providing a more certain source of funds for our forests, which will require workers to manage them for generations to come as a result of this change.
Just to be clear, what we are debating here is the creation of a new method for generating carbon credits. The improved native forest method, known as INFM, gives state governments the option to support carbon sequestration alongside existing timber production and recreational uses. This creates new economic opportunities for regional communities while delivering emissions reduction and environmental and biodiversity benefits. This is practical climate action and forest protection that supports regional communities and should be allowed to pass through the Senate today.
It’s important to recognise that this simply provides an option for state governments. They may choose to take that option; they may not. Labor supports a sustainable forestry industry, and forestry will continue in various parts of the country. But, where state governments choose to preserve those native forests, they will be financially rewarded for doing so for the first time. The Albanese government has made sensible adjustments to the implementation of this method. The measures we’ve agreed to will enable the Clean Energy Regulator to give effect to the New South Wales government’s commitment to restricting the sale of Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs, generated within the Great Koala National Park in New South Wales to a specified class of entities. This will apply only to projects under the INFM method and only where a state government chooses to opt in to those requirements.
In addition, Assistant Minister Josh Wilson has written to the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee seeking advice on variations to the INFM method, including increasing the amount of forest that must be protected against established harvesting baselines before projects can receive any carbon credits, rising to 30 per cent for projects registered from 1 July 2030, and clarifying the definitions of plantation forest and native forest within the method. The ACCU Scheme is an important part of Australia’s pathway to net zero emissions, helping drive emissions reductions while creating opportunities for landholders, First Nations peoples, regional communities and businesses. These are sensible, practical steps that further strengthen the method and build upon Australia’s high-integrity carbon market.
The creation of this new carbon method has widespread support from the environment movement, including WWF Australia; Greenpeace; the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales; the National Parks Association of NSW; Environment Victoria; North East Forest Alliance; South East Forest Alliance; the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation; various prominent ecologists such as Tim Flannery, Professor David Lindenmayer and Professor Hugh Possingham; the Aboriginal advisory panel for the Great Koala National Park; and many more. I thank them for their support, and I thank those senators from the crossbench who have recognised that this is a practical, sensible step towards environmental protection. For those reasons, the government will be opposing this motion.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens): As Greens, we care deeply about protecting native forests, stopping extinction and cutting climate pollution. After careful consideration of complex regulation, the Greens party room has resolved to support an improved native forest management method because forest and habitat are inherently valuable, and because it helps us fight against the climate crisis. Through negotiations with the government, the Greens were able to secure important additional protections for native forests that will significantly reduce logging and provide an assurance that native forests can’t be reclassified as ‘plantations’. These improvements will help deliver the Great Koala National Park, protecting 176,000 hectares of native forest and safeguarding habitat for around 12,000 koalas and more than 100 other threatened species. And for the very first time, the Greens were able to secure a binding legal precedent to stop coal and gas from using these offsets. This is the start of a fight that the Greens will wage to stop all coal and gas from ever being able to use offsets, instead of reducing their pollution.
But, let’s be real, we are dealing with a Labor government that have approved 37 new coal and gas projects since they came to office. Time and time again, they’ve shown that they’re more willing to protect the profits of the big coal and gas corporations than to protect nature, the climate or the environment. By holding a national park hostage, Labor created a divisive choice between protecting native forests and challenging a broken carbon credit system. But I know this: we won’t allow that choice to divide a movement that is united by so much more.
I’m proud that, as a party room, we’ve remained grounded in our shared commitment to protect native forests, protect nature and cut pollution. And I thank everyone who’s engaged in discussions with the Greens over this matter. I want to acknowledge that this has not been an easy decision to make. As my colleagues have said, reasonable minds with good hearts can differ on the outcome. But it is significant that, in the process of negotiating with the Greens over the INFM, finally, Labor admitted that they are able to treat coal and gas differently when they buy offsets. Labor has conceded the principle that coal and gas should not get the same access to offsets as everyone else. Now the Greens will force them to apply that principle across the system, not just in the INFM, instead of continuing to give fossil fuel corporations a way to avoid cutting their pollution. For years, whilst letting them take our gas for free, Labor has set up carbon credit loopholes so that coal and gas corporations can buy their way out of actually reducing emissions. It’s a ‘get out of jail free’ card that lets them keep polluting, and it keeps coal and gas in the system for longer, all while communities face the worsening impacts of the climate crisis: severe flooding, devastating bushfires, debilitating heatwaves. Today’s legal precedent is the first blow, but the fight to stop coal and gas from ever being allowed to use offsets to get a free ride is just getting started.
After achieving the first ban on coal and gas federally using offsets, the Greens are launching a fight to stop coal and gas from ever getting a free ride again on pollution reduction. We demand real pollution cuts to protect our climate, not accounting tricks. I’m announcing today that we will oppose Labor’s upcoming carbon credits bill and move to block the new integrated farm and land management method that would allow the use of carbon credits to continue. This would wipe out up to 40 per cent of the offsets used by coal and gas corporations to hide their emissions and would significantly increase the cost of polluting for big corporations, forcing polluters to actually cut their emissions.
It’s very clear that the majority of Australians want these corporations to pay their fair share for our resources and to stop getting a free ride in continuing to pollute. So my message to them is this: the Greens are with you. To the coal and gas corporations: the days of your free ride are numbered.
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip): Since this debate started, I’ve been overwhelmed by the number of Australians reaching out and expressing a love for our forests. Australians care deeply about the natural world, and our forests are home to such incredible species. There are three distinct species of greater gliders, yellow-bellied gliders, koalas, masked owls, swift parrots—a whole range of species found nowhere else on Earth. Many of them are threatened, and some of them are critically endangered. Many Australians have been working to protect our forests and have raised concerns about the way that we’re managing them and about the lack of political will to do better as a country.
I came to this method very sceptical and concerned about what it meant for forests, so I began engaging with experts. Someone I’ve had many discussions with about this method is Professor David Lindenmayer, who is one of the nation’s leading forest ecologists, having worked in the field for some 43 years. Talking to him—I think he won’t mind my saying this—I found that he was also concerned about the method and has spent a lot of time going through it. After going through it, he came out broadly supportive. The people whose life’s work is finding the holes in carbon methodologies have looked hard at this one, and the overwhelming consensus is that the method should not be disallowed. I have taken the advice of the scientists who’ve spent their careers in the forests over the position of the Nationals, a party that has spent decades advocating for the forests to be logged and spent decades advocating for them to be logged even when it costs taxpayers’ money.
Having considered the method—and having taken advice from scientists—I’m satisfied that it does have integrity. Credits are only paid where logging stops altogether—not slowed but completely stopped. An earlier draft would have rewarded stretching out the gaps between harvests—an arrangement the industry could have played. That was identified and it was removed. That is what a good process looks like: experts raise a loophole; the loophole gets closed. The New South Wales government has ruled out selling these credits to coal and gas companies at all. I acknowledge Senator Waters’s work on ensuring that that is made a reality.
Let’s be clear about what this disallowance would achieve. It would not cap offset use. It would not retire a single junk credit. It would not require one covered safeguard facility to cut one single tonne of emissions. What it would do is remove a long-term funding stream for ending native-forest logging. I don’t think the Nationals have moved this motion because they’ve developed a sudden concern about carbon-market integrity. None of those concerns were raised during the Safeguard Mechanism debate. They know that this provides state governments with an off-ramp—with an alternative to logging our precious native forests.
We’re one of 17 megadiverse countries in the world, and we’re the only developed country that’s a deforestation hotspot. We log native forests, usually at a loss that is subsidised by taxpayers. For years, conservationists have been told: ‘We can’t stop, because we need an income stream. We need to fund the cost of transitioning workers, rehabilitation and managing new protected areas.’ That cost is often said to be too high. Well, here is an alternative.
I acknowledge that concerns about offsets in this country are legitimate, and I share them. Work from the Climate Council shows that polluters are paying to continue polluting by buying offsets, and they’re doing this rather than actually reducing emissions. This is an indictment of the safeguard mechanism, but I don’t think this is an argument against this method. The safeguard review is underway, and that is where the fight belongs. I’ll be calling for caps on offsets. We have to get the safeguard mechanism right, but we don’t get the safeguard mechanism right by disallowing potentially the highest-integrity ACCU this country has seen.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip): After much deliberation, three Greens senators—me, Senator Steele-John and Senator Bleyer—have decided to exercise our right to take a position on this matter according to our conscience. We do not support the Improved Native Forest Management methodology, and we will vote here today in the Senate to disallow it.
Just as there are different views in the environment movement about Labor’s proposal—which, let’s be clear, is to sell forest carbon to corporations so corporations can keep emitting and cooking the planet—so there are different views in the Australian Greens party room. And I want to be very clear that people of good heart and clear mind, both in our party room and in the environment movement, can and have come to different positions on this issue. We hope that people understand our position as we understand theirs.
The three of us, Senator Steele-John, Senator Bleyer and I, want Greens members and supporters to know that we do not support the relentless commodification of nature, and we will not be part of making it easier and cheaper for big carbon polluters to continue to emit, which is what the INFM does.
I’m very proud to be aligned with Senator Steele-John, my close friend, on this issue, and I know that Senator Steele-John feels very strongly that the Greens in Western Australia have a long and proud history of being in solidarity with forest campaigners and that, over decades, they have fought for and won protections for native forests in Western Australia. That history and the strength of the forest and climate movement in Western Australia have strongly informed the position that Senator Steele-John is taking.
I’m also proud to be aligned with Senator Bleyer on this. She is someone I know has spent decades fighting to protect native forests purely for their intrinsic values, no strings attached, and Senator Bleyer is doing that again today.
I’ve been striving to save forests since I was arrested more years ago than I care to count at Farmhouse Creek, a place where I first met Bob Brown, who supports the position that Senator Bleyer, Senator Steele-John and I have taken today.
Let’s be very clear about this: this is a Labor shakedown. After repeatedly, unconditionally promising the Great Koala National Park, Labor is holding koalas hostage and threatening their extinction unless they can profit from their habitat. It’s an ecocidal threat, and the three of us have decided that we’re going to resist it. There is no guarantee that a single extra hectare of forest will be protected through this methodology.
This methodology is a neoliberal response to a crisis caused by neoliberalism. What could possibly go wrong? If it passes, we may never again see a national park or a marine protected area created unless the carbon or biodiversity can be monetised in some way. Forests are profound, complex ecosystems that deserve to be and must be protected for their intrinsic value, not for profit.
The tragic reality today, colleagues, is that climate change is a greater threat to native forests than logging, and we have decided we will not be party to making forest protection contingent on a mechanism that will drive their very destruction. Carbon offsets from forests rely on a fiction that no future government would protect forests without them. And history shows that, thanks to courageous activists and Greens in parliaments around this country, including this one, vast tracts of forests have been protected without being monetised, and we have no doubt that that would have continued in the absence of the INFM. The three of us are profoundly grateful to everyone who’s raised their voices and supported us to take this position. That includes forest defenders, not just in my home state of Tasmania but right around the country; every single state Greens MP in Tasmania; every single state Greens MP in Western Australia; Amanda Cohn and Abigail Boyd, two MPs in the state of New South Wales; and our close friends and mentors Bob Brown and Christine Milne.
Senator BELL (New South Wales—One Nation Whip): Here we are again, dealing with the absurd consequences of Labor’s net zero obsession. It’s got to the point where even the Greens are split over your absurd net zero obsession. What are we fighting about today? Today is a fight about whether Australia is a country that continues to do things and make things, or whether we allow Labor and the Greens to continue to shut down our industries, export our jobs and drive up electricity prices—and we know that’s what this is about, because the Greens have flagged it. They have explained how they get to use this as a thin edge of the wedge to further destroy cheap, reliable electricity, destroy coal, destroy gas and drive up power prices. The Greens are cheering that on. They’ve exposed that that is what this is about. That is what this regulation does.
On top of that you’re creating a perverse financial incentive for state governments to stop industry, stop harvesting timber in native timber plantations. Timber is a crop. Now[, the less] timber they harvest the more carbon credits they can claim. This is forestry shut down because of net zero, because you believe that your legislated targets are an excuse to sacrifice this industry and workers in it. The forestry and forest products [sector supports] around 20,000 jobs in New South Wales, including thousands of jobs in regional communities that can least afford another industry to be shut down. These are workers, families, small businesses and entire towns that depend on forestry paycheques—forestry workers, truck drivers, contractors, sawmill workers, apprentices, machinery operators—and this is about taking away their livelihood and destroying their jobs. As we heard Senator Pocock say, these credits only get paid when the forestry stops.
This is a job killer. Local mechanics, fuel suppliers, cafes and shops rely on a working forestry industry. When Labor and the Greens talk about a transition, regional workers hear something else. They hear, ‘We will stop at nothing to drive our net zero agenda, and, if your job disappears, if your family suffers and if your financial future is put at risk, then you are simply collateral damage.’ This scheme requires a cut in timber harvesting before carbon credits can be earned. It lets governments collect credits for taking forestry out of production, while regional communities are left to deal with the consequences. Australians will not suddenly stop needing timber. We need hardwood timber for homes. We need it for frames, flooring, bridges, pallets, packing paper, furniture, farming, manufacturing. We need it to keep Australia’s supply chains moving. If Labor and the Greens continue to shut down local supply, then where is that timber coming from? It’s coming from overseas.
Labor talks endlessly about a future made in Australia. Perhaps the future of Australian hardwood will be made in Malaysia. Australia has an abundance of one of the world’s most sustainable resources, timber, yet, instead of backing responsible local production, Labor’s agenda is shutting it down. I’ve seen the consequences firsthand on the New South Wales Mid North Coast. I toured the region recently and heard directly from the community facing unemployment, uncertainty and job losses because of the Great Koala National Park. While Australians shut down forestry, eucalyptus is being grown for timber in other countries, including across Europe. Apparently it’s acceptable for other countries to grow eucalyptus, create rural jobs and supply other industries, but, when Australia seeks to responsibly manage forests, employ Australians and produce renewable timber at home, Labor and the Greens want to shut it down.
Scrapping net zero means ending an ideological war on Australian production. It means protecting Australia’s forestry workers. It means securing hardwood timber for Australian homes, Australian manufacturers and Australian supply chains. That is why One Nation will scrap net zero. It is why I support this motion.
Please listen to the Greens when they tell you that they are using this as a way to further destroy cheap, reliable and effective energy. Listen to them when they tell you that is their ultimate agenda because that is what they’re doing. I think people should be very clear that this is the agenda behind it. They are seeking, through their obsession with net zero, to shut this country down.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scarr): We have 1½ minutes before the guillotine.
Senator McLACHLAN (South Australia): I’ll be opposing the motion. I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Pocock, I totally reject the arguments of One Nation and I express my appreciation to Senator McKim. I have deep philosophical questions myself. I have wrestled with this issue myself. I believe nature has intrinsic value, but I accept at this moment in time we live in a capitalist world and we must find some way to finance these forests. It may be an imperfect solution. It’s a solution that does not give me great happiness, but I can’t bring myself to not vote against the motion.
To the mover, I know he argued in good faith, but it comes from a place and a party that has an enthusiasm to log native forests. That cuts away those arguments and the motives in relation to those arguments. Whilst I want to put nature first at the heart of all decision-making, I feel that I have to oppose the motion.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scarr): The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Cadell be agreed to.
The Senate divided.
The division
Ayes 27 · Noes 34 · Majority 7
AYES
Antic, A. · Babet, R. D. · Bell, S. · Bleyer, V. E. · Blyth, L. · Bragg, A. J. · Brockman, W. E. · Cadell, R. P. · Cash, M. C. · Collins, J. · Duniam, J. R. · Gatenby, C. · Hanson, P. L. · Henderson, S. M. · Kovacic, M. (Teller) · Liddle, K. J. · McGrath, J. A. · McKenzie, B. G. · McKim, N. J. · Nampijinpa Price, J. S. · O’Sullivan, M. A. · Ruston, A. · Scarr, P. M. · Sharma, D. N. · Smith, D. A. · Steele-John, J. A. · Whitten, T.
NOES
Allman-Payne, P. J. · Ananda-Rajah, M. · Ayres, T. · Brown, C. L. · Ciccone, R. · Darmanin, L. · Dolega, J. · Dowling, R. · Farrell, D. E. · Faruqi, M. · Gallagher, K. R. · Ghosh, V. · Green, N. L. · Grogan, K. · Hanson-Young, S. C. · Hodgins-May, S. · Lambie, J. · McAllister, J. R. · McLachlan, A. L. · O’Neill, D. M. · Pocock, B. · Pocock, D. W. · Polley, H. · Sheldon, A. V. (Teller) · Shoebridge, D. M. · Smith, M. F. · Sterle, G. · Stewart, J. N. A. · Walker, C. · Walsh, J. C. · Waters, L. J. · Watt, M. P. · Whiteaker, E. · Wong, P.
PAIRS
Canavan, M. J. with Tyrrell, T. M. · Chandler, C. with McCarthy, M. · Colbeck, R. M. with Lines, S. · Hume, J. with Thorpe, L. A. · McDonald, S. E. with Mulholland, C. · Paterson, J. W. with Chisholm, A. D. · Roberts, M. I. with Cox, D.
Question negatived.
The debate above is reproduced from the Senate Hansard of Thursday 10 September 2026, Parliament of Australia, as published, and is carried unedited under the Parliament’s Creative Commons licence. Wood Central’s reporting on the vote, the deal that preceded it, and the method’s critics is at Greens Strike Eleventh-Hour Deal With Labor on Koala Park Credits.
