Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (5) on sheet 7907:

(5) Page 6 (after line 13), at the end of Part 2, add:

8A Cost - benefit analysis to be undertaken

     The Facility must not make a decision to provide financial assistance for the construction of Northern Australia economic infrastructure unless:

  (a) a cost-benefit analysis has been prepared in relation to the infrastructure; and

  (b) the cost-benefit analysis has been published on the Facility's website for a period of at least 30 days before the decision is made; and

  (c) the public has been consulted in relation to the infrastructure; and

  (d) regard has been had to any submissions received as result of the consultation.

This amendment relates to the requirement, which we say should apply to any project that is seeking support under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, for a cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken. As people out there listening might assume, to do that would in fact be a good requirement, but sadly our environmental laws, whilst alluding to that, do not explicitly require it. It is my understanding that the bill does not explicitly require it either.

Again, I would have thought that the bar for seeking not just project approval but actual taxpayer support for your project would mean that the highest standards would be applied to make sure not only that your project met all of the legal requirements in relation to environmental approvals and other project approvals but also that you had done a proper and fulsome cost-benefit analysis about whether or not this was a good spend of public money. This amendment proposes that all proposals be subject to an independent cost-benefit analysis—not one done by the proponent, like environmental impact statements so often are, but a genuinely independent cost-benefit analysis that not just looks at the economic costs and benefits but genuinely looks at the environmental, climatic, cultural and social costs of the project. We will be seeking support for this amendment. Again, I am holding my breath as to whether we will get it. But I would urge that an assessment process of the highest standard be undertaken with large projects like this, which have huge potential for environmental damage in particular but which also have the huge boost that comes with public support through funding. The highest standards should be applied.

Minister, could you please outline for us the assessment process that these projects will be required to undertake in order to successfully receive approval under various different bits of legislation and also to receive the tick under this proposed fund.