Mr. Ed Hearne:

Demolition probably has not explicitly been included. I do not see any logical reason it should not be.

Anything that constitutes the construction activity that generates the asset really ought to be included. There is no reason it should not be. We certainly will take note of that point and follow up on it.

The second element is the more induced impact the asset ultimately has. If there is a cycle lane that engenders a modal switch from cars, for example, then there is obviously a climate impact. That will be a big step forward in how we look more holistically at projects.

There is one other element, which is very technical. In essence, we put prices on carbon emissions. For every tonne of carbon that is emitted because of a project, we evaluate that as part of the cost-benefit framework. We will be substantially increasing the value per tonne of emissions, which will mean projects that have a more favourable emissions impact will be more favourably treated in the cost-benefit analysis. That is a very technical piece of work that has to be done. The evaluation has changed because our national climate action targets have changed, which means the price will be more expensive. This will make a big difference at the marginal level for various projects.

Finally, as Ms O'Loughlin mentioned, the tagging will give us a lot more information on the whole generality of green investment and what the likely impacts might be.