Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:08): It's a shame Minister Bowen isn't here to answer these questions. What a surprise. But, because we've seen blowout upon blowout upon blowout upon blowout—and I think that the minister's starting to get the nickname 'Blowout'—it's no understanding that he's not here.

I would hope that these questions might be passed on to the minister who is getting the nickname 'Blowout'. We turn to the Capacity Investment Scheme. What is the true cost?

What is the true cost of the Capacity Investment Scheme? There's a very simple answer. I understand that with every single project there might be—and I only say might—a valid reason as to why they might be commercial in confidence.

But there is no reason why the whole program should be. And do you know why? It's because the Capacity Investment Scheme promised 40 gigawatts of power across 75 projects yet Senate estimates just confirmed only one project has actually been built.

So how much money is being poured into this scheme and what's the blowout in the budget? That is what we would like the answer to. Please, the Australian people deserve some transparency around this scheme, which is absolutely failing.

We have the Cheaper Home Batteries Program blowout. It's unbelievable. It was budgeted for $2.3 billion and it's now $8 billion.

It blew out by so much that the regulator had to put money out the door. The question I've got is: is it good governance when you blow a scheme out so much that the regulator, who's meant to oversee it, is the one who's funding it? Under what regime would that be good governance, apart from that of Old Blowout, who seems not to care that everything blows out.

Green hydrogen—why did you cut $1 billion out of the green hydrogen scheme? Is it because it is completely failing? There's another billion in there.

Are you going to blow that as well? Please, can you be upfront about what is happening with green hydrogen. Are you going to blow another billion dollars on green hydrogen?

We would love to know the answer to that. There's something else we'd like to know. In the budget papers it says that you've got no idea what each individual department is spending on net zero.

That's what the budget papers actually say—that you do not know what each individual department is spending on net zero. So how much is each individual department blowing on net zero? Do you have any idea about this?

There is a blowout of such significance—seriously, there are going to be gale-force warnings soon because of this minister. So we want to know what each individual department is going to do. Last of all, what we'd love is some real honesty around the Office of the Presidency.

Did the minister whisper to the secretary: 'Could you name it Office of the Presidency, because that'd make me feel really good. I'm blowing all these programs to kingdom come, so I need something to make me feel like I'm sort of doing my job'? What I'd love to know is how many staff will be ongoing in the Office of the Presidency after this year.

At the end of this year, when the Office of the Presidency is no longer needed, do you think the minister is going to keep the Office of the Presidency, just to make him feel good, or will it go? Can we get an answer to that? Is the Office of the Presidency only for this year, or will there be another reason for the minister to keep the Office of the Presidency and the 30 staff working in it?

It would be great to get an answer to all of those questions today.