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

Minister, I think you have answered your own question there in firstly saying that you did not need to consider ESD because the EPBC Act would require it to be considered, but then finishing up by saying that you might have a project that did not need EPBC approval and therefore would not have ESD factored in. That is a perfect example of why you should have ESD in this particular bill and investment mandate: either to catch those situations that are not covered by the scope of the federal laws—which, as you well know, only cover matters of national environmental significance—or, indeed, to capture projects that somehow might not trigger those particular protected matters under our federal laws. Again, it does not seem that there has been a lot of thought put into the rigour of the assessment process for handing out wads of public money, largely to fossil fuel projects and other very large, potentially destructive projects.

Why is it not in the CEFC? Because clean energy is consistent with ecologically sustainable development. So, Minister, I am somewhat incredulous at your lack of understanding in that regard. Again, is there any better justification for why this government could not be bothered to put this very simple, very standard parameter into its decision-making process? It speaks volumes that you want to set up a dirty energy slush fund that does not have to consider the principles of ecologically sustainable development.