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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (2) to (4) and (6) on sheet 7907 together:

(2) Clause 5, page 3 (line 19), before "In this Act", insert "(1)".

(3) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 13), after the definition of Northern Australia economic infrastructure, insert:

  principles of ecologically sustainable development has the meaning given by subsection (2).

(4) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development:

  (a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations;

  (b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation;

  (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, biodiversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

  (d) the conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making;

     (e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.

(6) Clause 10, page 7 (lines 17 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

10 Matters covered by Investment Mandate

     The Investment Mandate:

  (a) must include a direction that the Facility must have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development when deciding whether to provide financial assistance; and

  (b) may include directions about the following:

     (i) objectives the Facility is to pursue in providing financial assistance;

     (ii) strategies and policies to be followed for the effective performance of the Facility's functions;

     (iii) loan characteristics for circumstances in which financial assistance is used to provide or support loans;

     (iv) providing financial assistance for purposes other than to provide or support loans;

     (v) eligibility criteria for financial assistance;

     (vi) risk and return in relation to providing financial assistance;

     (vii) any other matters the Minister thinks appropriate.

Again, this goes to the veracity of the assessment that is undertaken for such projects to receive public support. In a point related to the previous one, about the need for independent and full cost-benefit analysis, this requirement would say that the investment mandate has to specifically include consideration of the principles of ecologically sustainable development when the board is making its decision. As you rightly point out, Minister, there will be other assessment processes that are undertaken. Some of those, depending on which state approval is required, may require the consideration of ESD. Indeed, the consideration of ESD is meant to be a fairly standard thing these days—given our level of scientific knowledge about a whole variety of aspects of the natural world—and so it is perplexing that the board, having such weighty decisions and such vast amounts of dollars to hand out, is not required at least to take account of the principles of ESD, let alone be bound to implement decisions that would further ESD. So, Minister, I ask for your explanation as to why that fairly standard procedure and requirement for consideration has not been included in the investment mandate to date.