Yes, we'll have a wine later on!

The bill would enable the incredible espouser of taxpayer money, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, to get his hands into the lolly jar to advance his net zero obsession. That's not a positive thing in any way. The Business Council of Australia have stated:

The concept should not be used (or perceived to be used) to differentiate between the abatement integrity of some ACCUs versus other ACCUs in the market … The concept of "lease cost" should remain as the foundation upon which "value for money" is applied …

And that should be applied across the board when it comes to this government, but, sadly, it's not.

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA have stated:

However, 'value for money' is not defined in the legislation … This could lead to unnecessary market uncertainty, which could be resolved by a clear statement of the parameters that will and will not be considered in determining value for money.

Australian Energy Producers have stated:

As currently drafted, the proposal lacks sufficient definition and guidance, creating uncertainty for ACCU market participants. The proposal also departs from the core principle of lowest-cost abatement and should therefore clearly outline its policy intent and the extent to which departures from lowest-cost abatement are envisaged.

Origin Energy have stated, 'We do not consider it appropriate or reasonable to introduce undefined and unlimited powers to purchase ACCUs for subjective "value-for-money" opportunities to support undefined policies.'

To pre-empt an argument from the government that this change was recommended in the Chubb review, again, it simply was not. The Chubb review only stated that the attribution of co-benefits required more integration within the ACCU scheme—for example, how a carbon abatement project might create additional jobs. The review was silent on how this ought to occur. In fact, the review only discussed the integration of co-benefits, one being driven by project proponents, not government. Thus, the review states on page 29:

To facilitate these outcomes, clear, consistent and easily accessible information on project characteristics is required. Proponents who claim a co-benefit should provide evidence and verification of co-benefits to the CER before they can be published.

It is a clear perversion of the Chubb review to take from it the idea of an entirely new spending regime which would be under the control of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to splash cash on carbon credits, with the only criteria being it has to marry up with Labor's net zero policies. What could go wrong for the taxpayer given all this? So much that it's not funny. I ask the Albanese Labor government to remember: you have driven us to $1 trillion in debt.

Now, I'll turn to the new carbon methodology powers. Any law change which gives the Minister for Climate Change and Energy more unilateral powers to advance his net zero agenda will always be treated with the deepest suspicion by the opposition. And this is no different. In the new division 2A, the minister would be allowed to make a method transition declaration in relation to a particular method where the method transition threshold criteria are met. Those criteria include whether the method presents a material risk to the ACCU scheme. Before making this declaration, various other criteria must be met or considered by the minister.

In simpler terms, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy would effectively be able to shut down any carbon abatement project he wants. It's unclear why the minister wants or needs these powers, and it was not established in the assistant minister's second reading speech. Because of what was used in that speech in terms of the Chubb review, given the leadership of the Prime Minister and his propensity to not be up-front and not be clear and to tell porkies, tell untruths and not be straight with the Australian people, my worry is, here, that we'll be told that it was the Chubb review that directly said that this was needed. The National Farmers' Federation said the powers should 'be limited to genuinely exceptional circumstances'. Well, they shouldn't be given even that. The Carbon Market Institute warned that they 'undermine confidence and certainty for investors'. It goes on and on.

In recent developments concerning carbon credits, this bill was introduced prior to the proceedings on Thursday 10 September 2026. On that day, both the Senate and the House voted against the coalition's motions to disallow a carbon credit methodology—a native forest management method—that is hitting forestry jobs and communities very hard. We all remember that, basically, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy was asked to specifically address all the forestry jobs that were going as a result of that, and he would not mention one single job. He wouldn't even mention what was happening. That is why this bill is being opposed.

I just want to quickly touch on our plan for affordable energy. We want to make sure that the government's Safeguard Mechanism goes. We want to make sure all of the government's carbon taxes go. We want to make sure the government's agenda of shutting down the industrial capacity of this country goes. That is why the Safeguard Mechanism will go.

For the reasons I've outlined—so many reasons why, and I've tried to outline as many as I possibly can—the opposition will be opposing this bill. We do support the bill going to a Senate inquiry as we want to see the Minister for Climate Change and Energy explain why he's doing all this, because none of it makes any sense. I will be ensuring, if we can get it to a Senate inquiry, that there is an intense interrogation of why the minister wants to do this. I'll be formalising the concerns I've raised in my remarks by moving a second reading amendment to the question. Accordingly, I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading as it is of the view that:

(1) the bill:

(a) progresses the Government's failing net zero agenda;

(b) increases lawfare, undermines responsible emissions reduction, and raises costs on industry;

(c) repeals the 'least cost' test in favour of an opaque 'value for money' regime; and

(d) hands the Minister for Climate Change and Energy new, unilateral powers on an unfounded basis;

(2) the Government's deal in the Senate on Thursday, 10 September 2026, undermines the integrity of the Australian Carbon Credit Units Scheme; and

(3) the Government must scrap its punitive carbon tax, the Safeguard Mechanism".

Something is always afoot when the coalition and the Greens hold nearly identical positions on bills. It is very rare, and it means that the government is doing something absolutely nuts, like we saw with the cap and the $750 million tax grab from our veterans, and like we saw in the Senate where the crossbench, the Greens and the coalition all voted to say, 'Don't do this.' But the government continues to blunder on.

I just make the point that that is what is happening here again, because, in so many ways, this bill is wrong. It will cause the taxpayer of Australia more pain. It takes the climate and energy minister's net zero green ideological approach even further. It enables a precedent for new native title claims in this country. It means that the minister can interfere with projects that have already been put in place by landholders, to be able to access ACCUs. So, once again, I just sit here and think, 'Who dreamt this up?' It could only be someone with sheer incompetence, as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has, who could bring a bill like this before us.