“Unsupported by evidence:” CMI slams carbon farming veto powers for minister

Published by

Proposed changes to the Emissions Reduction Fund that could allow the federal agriculture minister to veto proposed carbon abatement projects have been slammed by a key industry body, which says there’s little evidence such powers are justified.

The Morrison government is considering granting the federal agriculture minister potential veto powers over proposed ‘carbon farming’ projects – including revegetation and native forest regrowth projects – due to concerns the projects may reduce the amount of land available for agriculture.

The proposed rule changes would apply to projects that seek to store carbon in regrown forests or in areas undergoing regeneration, including areas where land has been cleared for agricultural use.

Such carbon offset projects are covered by two methodologies under the Emissions Reduction Fund; the human-induced regeneration (HIR) method and the native forest from managed regrowth (NFMR) method. Around 95 per cent of the carbon abatement purchased by the federal government under the Emissions Reduction Fund have used either of these two methods.

The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources released a consultation draft of the new rules late last year, establishing a new “category” of carbon offset projects that would be excluded from participating in the Emissions Reduction Fund.

Under the proposed rules, the federal agriculture minister would have the power to designate particular projects as being within the excluded category, when they “are bigger than 15 hectares and make up more than a third of a farm”, in an attempt to limit the amount of agricultural land that may be locked up by the revegetation projects.

“It is important to ensure that such projects do not have unintended adverse effects on local communities through inadequate management of weeds, pests and fire risks, or through negative impacts on agricultural production or regional communities,” the consultation paper says.

“The Government is consulting on potential changes to the Rule to exclude projects that would have a material adverse impact on local communities and agricultural production and to improve monitoring of compliance with rules to manage pests and weeds.”

There are fears that the exclusion of projects using the two methodologies could cut off a significant source of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), which can be sold to the government under the Emissions Reduction Fund, or sold to the growing number of corporate emitters looking for ways to offset their emissions footprint.

ACCUs have become increasingly lucrative for carbon offset projects and landholders and have almost quadrupled in price – nearing $60 per tonne – over the last 12-months.

The proposed changes have been panned by the Carbon Market Institute, which represents carbon offset projects and carbon market traders, which said there was no evidence suggesting the need for the new powers and that the government had not undertaken sufficient consultation with potential stakeholders.

The department sought stakeholder feedback on the proposed changes in mid-December and closed the consultation to new submissions on 14 January – meaning much of the consultation period spanned the summer holiday period.

CMI CEO John Connor said the reforms could also undermine government compliance efforts and the emergence of a voluntary market for carbon offsets.

“Unsupported by any firm evidence, this is an extraordinary double whammy proposal from a Liberal National government. It is a direct intervention into landholder decision making and imposes excessive red tape,” Connor said.

“The proposals risk supply to the Government’s flagship climate market, the Emission Reduction Fund, and to corporates investing in the Safeguard Mechanism compliance as well as the voluntary markets the government has been encouraging.”

“Rather than being beneficial for regional Australia, the restrictions would have a disproportionate impact on landholders, particularly smaller farmers, and their decision making. They add unnecessary administrative burden, potentially delaying investment into regional areas, sustainable agriculture and drought resilience as well as goals for emission reduction and to reverse deforestation by 2030.”

CMI has called on the federal government to postpone the potential implementation of the rule changes – at least until after the next Emissions Reduction Fund auction expected to be held in April – as well as clarifying any possible appeal and review rights that affected offset projects may have.

“Detailed research has already commenced into these concerns, and until this is complete, along with the reviews set to be undertaken by Climate Change Authority at the request of both major parties, the proposal’s consideration should be postponed,” Connor added.

The rule changes may be made through a legislative instrument issued by the minister for industry, energy and emissions reduction, Angus Taylor. Such an instrument will not need approval from federal parliament and could be in place before the next election.


RenewEconomy is seeking your feedback. Our websites and daily newsletters are proudly free to access for all readers and subscribers. But what sort of added features, data and specialist editorial content would you be willing to pay for? Please complete this three-minute readership survey to help us weigh our options. Thank you!

Michael Mazengarb is a climate and energy policy analyst with more than 15 years of professional experience, including as a contributor to Renew Economy. He writes at Tempests and Terawatts.
Michael Mazengarb

Michael Mazengarb is a climate and energy policy analyst with more than 15 years of professional experience, including as a contributor to Renew Economy. He writes at Tempests and Terawatts.

Recent Posts

Remote gold mine sources 88 pct of its power needs in last quarter from wind, solar and battery

One of Australia's biggest gold mines is sourcing nearly 90 per cent of its power…

20 January 2026

SwitchedOn podcast: Why energy companies should be forced to act in their customers’ best interests

Former regulator, Ron Ben-David argues that loyalty penalties, consumer confusion and endless rule-making all stem…

20 January 2026

Gladstone attracts another solar battery hybrid, with $2 billion project that would be Australia’s biggest

A new $2 billion solar and battery hybrid project has entered the federal EPBC queue,…

20 January 2026

New Queensland big battery now fully operational five months ahead of schedule

Akaysha Energy completes its second big battery project - five months ahead of schedule -…

20 January 2026

“When coal breaks down, bills go up:” Anger and frustration as Origin extends life of biggest coal plant, again

Origin confirms Eraring to be kept online until 2029 - nearly four years after its…

20 January 2026

Ireland’s oldest wind farm closes down to make way for one of Europe’s largest projects

Ireland's oldest wind farm decommissioned to make way for expansion of adjoining project that will…

19 January 2026