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

Thank you. I am interested in that point particularly, given that you say they are not the only elements to be considered. 'Public benefit' is a term that has been used in many different pieces of legislation in various different jurisdictions for many decades, and certainly in the environmental context it has been tested in the courts many a time, which is why I am particularly alarmed that you are not defining it in the bill and you are leaving it as what sounds to be a fairly vague and non-encapsulated suggestion to the board in what will become the final investment mandate. I do not think that is a strong enough test for people who are not accountable to be handing out $5 billion for large fossil fuel infrastructure. So I am afraid everything you have just said makes me all the more certain that we need independent cost-benefit analysis that looks at the environmental, social, cultural and climate impacts of these very sorts of projects that could seriously damage those values. Would you care to reassure me in any way that the board will be given some more guidance other than that two throwaway things might guide their consideration? I fear that that is quite dangerously uncertain guidance to give to any board.