Bills

Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 26 September 2024.)

Clause 1.

Mr PEDERICK: In terms of this bill regarding climate change and greenhouse emissions reduction, obviously we have a state with plentiful renewable energy. Apart from thousands of acres of solar farms, those either installed or about to be developed, and a similar thing with wind farms, in regard to emissions reduction, when all this hardware, including batteries, gets to its use-by date, how does the government intend to dispose of the spent products?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The question of what happens with the hardware is a question, obviously, that applies to all sorts of infrastructure and industrial hardware, not just to that which is used for the generation of renewable energy. While this piece of legislation does not naturally address the question of recycling of materials, I am able to provide some advice for the chamber that has come from the Department for Energy and Mining.

They are currently working on an energy white paper, which will include consideration of what happens with the recyclability of those materials and their end use and their end destination. They have also provided this advice for me to share:

The government supports, obviously, sustainable practices and end-of-life strategies in the context of the energy sector—

and I would add, of course, across the economy, as I am sure we all do. They continue:

Already, South Australia is a world leader in waste management, recycling and resource recovery, with more than 80% of the state's waste diverted from landfill. The Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Act 2023—

which has been passed by this place—

provides a framework for ecologically sustainable development and regulation of renewable energy infrastructure over its entire life cycle, including what happens to it when the infrastructure is decommissioned. Some of the options to be considered in managing renewable energy waste include ensuring large-scale renewable energy project planning considers end-of-life decommissioning to maximise circular economy outcomes and minimise embodied carbon, mechanisms to support effective recycling, re-use and repurposing of materials and fostering longer lasting and more sustainable products.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, minister, for that approach, but my understanding is that with most if not all of the photovoltaic cells that are used there is real difficulty in regard to battery disposal and currently wind farm blades are buried. In the event that that is the action needed by 2050, when we need to reach net zero, how is the government proposing to offset the emissions of the waste generated by this renewable energy?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The question that the member asks, of course, is relevant, not just to renewable energy infrastructure but to all infrastructure, so the question really is how is the government proposing to reach net zero by 2050, which includes all of the emissions that occur as a result of all of the activity that we undertake. This legislation gives not only that target but also pathways towards that target that the government of the day is required to take, including plans, five-yearly updates on targets, including proposals for adaptation and including having a statewide strategy for the achievement of the targets. The kind of detail that the member is referring to, which refers to, as I say, all infrastructure, all materials, not just those associated with renewable electricity generation, will be addressed through those policies, including particularly, as I have mentioned, the strategy for achieving the targets.

Mr PEDERICK: People involved in agriculture have a concern not just in regard to reaching carbon targets, or climate reduction targets, whatever you want to call them, but in regard to farming practices. I have raised this in this house quite a few times. We have had leading-edge farming practices for at least 30 years and longer. When I talk about 30 to 40 years, it is about the zero till practices with sowing crops with one pass. It is very effective and you only have to look at what has happened this year. I can assure you that if this year—which is the worst year in more than living memory, probably at least 100 years for agriculture in this state—was 40 years ago, we would have seen massive areas blowing in the breeze because of the farming techniques used back then.

It is certainly a concern, with all the measurements across all the industries and all the departments, as you are well aware, about where the baseline is for agriculture that these measurements will be read from, because the amount of carbon that is returned to the soil with this single-pass farming is phenomenal and farmers need to be recognised for that, because they have been doing this groundbreaking work for decades. My concern—and I have raised it in estimates—is that we have the appropriate baseline so that we can move into the future with those sustainable farming practices that farmers have introduced over many decades.

As I said, if these practices had not been in place now we would have seen thousands upon hundreds of thousands of acres of land blowing in the breeze with barely a leaf on them. We have essentially got a green drought, with just the success of getting plants emerging on little to no moisture, and certainly not much since seeding time. So my concern is how the government is going to work the baseline for agriculture so that it is realistic, noting the improvements not just over the last 30 years but with what has happened over the last century with improvements to farming practices right across the state.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Much of what the member has said I completely agree with. It is a terrible year and it is one of those years that is likely to be repeated over this century, as we understand the trends that scientists are telling us about, and I also completely agree with the recognition of the improvement of practices in farming. In fact, I think I gave quite a bit of my maiden speech time, 12 long years ago, to talking about the way in which our primary producers are so important in the way in which our environment is treated and that the best farmers are the most environmentally responsive farmers, so all of that is true.

On the question of baseline, the way in which baseline is measured for 2030 is on 2005 levels of carbon emissions and the way in which they are measured for 2050 is, of course, that there be no net production of carbon, so there is no baseline in that sense.

What we have seen is there has been a drop-off in carbon emissions in agriculture since 2005. That has contributed to a reduction in carbon emissions, not as substantially as the electricity sector, which has had a dramatic change in how electricity is produced, but there has nonetheless been a drop-off. Equally, what we have seen is a very large increase in the land use and the amount of greenery that has been grown across the state, which has significantly contributed to our current level of carbon emissions being at about 56 per cent below the 2005 base level.

While agricultural emissions have only dropped slightly, all primary producers are nonetheless part of that contribution in the measurement of the increase of carbon uptake that has occurred. I am grateful, as I am sure we all are, for their diligence in how they look after their land and how they make sure that they are growing as much as they can to hold soil together, as the member has said, but also to contribute to carbon and to biodiversity.

I anticipate there will be in the world and in Australia an increasing, escalating demand for carbon and biodiversity offsets. The world will not hit the Paris Agreement targets without significant offsets. In my judgement—and I am but one human making an observation—the world is unlikely to reach net zero by 2050 simply by stopping emitting. It is going to have to do it by also purchasing a growth of green offsets, particularly biodiverse plantings, and also through blue carbon in wetlands associated with the sea.

Given that, landholders are likely to be well positioned in South Australia to include as part of their primary production practices the growing of carbon-hungry plantings to assist in the achievement of the global targets that the vast majority of countries have signed up to.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I understand there are amendments filed on this clause, so it is appropriate that I do this now. I rule that the proposed amendments of the member for Morphett on schedule 1, excluding amendment No. 2, are outside the scope of the bill and are therefore out of order. The proposed amendments that I have ruled out of order relate to electricity pricing and grid reliability and are not relevant to the principal act, being the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act, in dealing with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. An amendment not relevant to the objects of the bill or not within the scope of the bill may not be moved.

Standing order 250 provides that an amendment may be moved to any part of a bill if the amendment is within the title or relevant to the subject matter of the bill. If the title of the bill is not restricted to a particular purpose, an amendment dealing with a matter not in the bill but which is relevant to the principal act or to the objects of the bill as stated in its title may be moved even though the clauses have limited purpose.

Mr PATTERSON: My first question will relate, and I will make some comments around that. I will seek advice from the Clerk in regard to that, because it is outrageous that you are saying that prices that South Australians are paying here in South Australia—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): You will not reflect on the Chair's ruling. If you object to the Chair's ruling, there is a mechanism through which you may do so. You may provide me with an objection in writing, and it will be dealt with by the Speaker. Otherwise, proceed.

Mr PATTERSON: Thank you, Acting Chair. I will go straight to the question, not wanting to tread on those grounds.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I just point out you can move amendment No. 2, if you wish.

Mr PATTERSON: Why, minister, is there no mention of power prices and power reliability in this bill, when we know that the energy trilemma that faces South Australians is tied up with emissions reduction but also prices that South Australians pay for their energy bills and the reliability for their energy bills that then impacts on other emissions areas, such as agriculture, industrial processes and transport? Can the minister explain why there is no mention in this bill of those measures?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will explain why there is not. If I intrude on the matter that has been ruled on by the Chair, I am sure you will let me know. The reason that there is no reference to electricity prices is that this is not a bill that addresses electricity pricing. The purpose of the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act is to provide for measures that address climate change, to set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to promote the use of renewable sources of energy.

The electricity system has its own legislation. It is covered by a comprehensive regulatory framework through the National Electricity Law and Rules, which establish the National Electricity Market that ultimately determines prices and reliability for customers. The Australian Energy Regulator establishes the default market offer, which is the maximum price that retailers can charge for smaller electricity customers and standing offer contractors. ESCOSA also plays a role, and the Essential Services Commission Act 2002 regulates prices and conditions relating to prices and price fixing factors. It is therefore not appropriate for this legislation to intrude into a legislative area well governed by other acts.

Mr ELLIS: I have a quick question about the institution of these targets in theory. If we take, for example, the first target—which would be 2030, I understand—what will happen if the government, despite its best endeavours to reach the target it has set itself, fails to meet that 2030 target? Is there some sort of punitive measure that it will then impose upon itself? Is there some sort of extraordinary action that will need to be taken in order to meet it pre-emptively? Obviously, there would be the public indignation of not having met the target that one has set, but would there be any sort of punitive measure that would have to be imposed upon itself by virtue of the fact it has missed that target?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, there is no punitive element to that. There would not be an extraordinary measure that would be undertaken at the last minute to achieve any targets. They are designed to set the direction of the state, and their strength lies in guiding the exercise of other powers and obligations under the act. For example, there is a link in the proposal to introduce a requirement to develop a statewide emissions reduction plan that must be released. So the consequence of setting the target is that there need to be plans to give confidence to the state that there is a view by parliament that this is the pathway we need to take.

Mr ELLIS: I respectfully put that the contents of this bill are essentially superfluous, then. There is no need for this to be legislated. We could well publish something in the public realm that would make clear the goals of the government and its attempt to reach a certain target. We could publish something like that annually without having to legislate this. Putting aside the merits of the goals entirely, if there is no punitive measure, no punishment, nothing that results from a missed target—or, I assume by inference, nothing gained from meeting the target—what benefit do we have from adding this to the statute books? It is just a feel-good, fluffy piece of legislation that we could otherwise put out in a press release, probably.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: First of all, this is updating an existing piece of legislation that had targets that have been surpassed. We are updating, otherwise we have a piece of legislation that is out of date on the statute books. It also has some elements in common with a piece of legislation that was introduced by the previous Liberal government and again by the Liberal opposition in this place in this term of government, although ours has more substance to it.

The contemplation by the previous Liberal government and by the opposition in this place in this term was simply to update the targets. What we have proposed is not only to update the targets and to make them slightly tougher for 2030, given how well we are tracking already as a state, but to make sure that what we are doing is setting a trajectory by the updating of the targets every five years by being required to produce a plan.

There are many forms of legislation. The member has a law degree and I do not, so forgive me for appearing to lecture the member on the way in which law works; I am certain that he has no need of that. But, for the record, there are laws that stop people from doing things, there are laws that enable activity to occur, and there are laws that require activity to occur. What we are doing in this piece of legislation is requiring that there be action taken, in concert with the community, to set plans to achieve the targets that exist in the legislation. That could be done in policy while this government is in place.

By putting it into legislation we have parliament saying that that is something that ought to take place over a period of time. While legislation can of course change, it does give more sense of stability, certainty and predictability. What that does is signal to businesses that need to pay attention to their investment over a period of time, and also to voters who increasingly are very concerned about the impacts of climate change, and also how we are going to get our economy ready for a low-carbon international market, that this parliament accepts that that is necessary and expects the government of the day to continue to work towards that.

My view is that that is an exercise worth undertaking in that it creates a sense of predictability that this state could well use and, in fact, has long had, given that we had the original piece of legislation many years ago and were the first jurisdiction in Australia to do so. As we proceed to do things like bid for COP in a couple of years' time, and as we proceed to market South Australia as a destination for companies wishing to invest in renewable energy production, in hydrogen, as we do that, giving confidence for that investment economically through legislation can only be helpful.

Given that both sides of parliament to date have been supportive of these targets, there is no reason not to enshrine them in legislation, and it does give that economic investment security that is so often looked for and which only legislation can give, as opposed to what could be transitory government policy.

Mr McBRIDE: Minister, could you help explain to me and the house in regard to amendments in point No. 2 about the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act 2007? First of all, you gave a really great answer to the member Narungga which is appreciated, but what information do we have around meeting these targets? What information and data does the government have around the cost of living and what the impediment or connection is to the way that South Australia goes about its daily life—and that is everything from a beautiful newborn, through the education system, through being tertiary educated, going into the workplace to meet workplace arrangements, whether you are in a bureaucracy, whether you are a teacher, whether you are an exporter, whether you are a retiree and you are looking for health and security?

What data does the government have around meeting these targets? Is there any cost that the government can foreshadow or has foreseen, or can they give assurity that by meeting these targets we are going to be better off by 2030, 2040—as I see mentioned here—or 2045?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Thank you very much for the question. There are a few elements to that. One was how we are going to measure this, and that is taken care of through the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, which is done under the rules that are agreed internationally about how we measure carbon emissions. That has been in place for some time, although the methodology has been refined over time as we get better at doing it. Where we are able—particularly when it comes to the carbon storage that happens with the plantings and that level of detail—to take better photography of what we have in South Australia and across Australia, as that gets better, we are able to refine how we do that.

That is the one that has given us this figure of a bit under 60 per cent reduction since 2005 for the most recent reporting period. It looks at each of the sectors of the economy, including that land use carbon sink side, which has given a lot of the contribution to reaching not far off 60 per cent. That is the methodology that is used and, with refinements, will continue to be used.

The member has raised the question of the impact on cost of living, and I completely understand that, particularly right now in how people are feeling about their day-to-day living expenses. What I would suggest though is that we need to situate this policy trajectory in understanding what is happening across the world and across Australia. I believe that even the federal Coalition has agreed to net zero by 2050. Yes, it has been confirmed that they have. That is both sides of politics at an Australian government level that have agreed to net zero by 2050. The world has agreed to net zero by 2050.

Also, just by the by, the planet desperately needs us to get to net zero by 2050 because breaching some of the tipping points and the warming levels will have economic consequences that dwarf the current challenge of inflation. In fact, I was at a conference recently where they said that climate change will affect us in so many ways, including that by the end of the century people will have about half the economic power that they have now. So the idea of a massive recession caused by climate change, not least because of all the extreme weather events that cost so much, that interrupt primary production and that are wreaking havoc with our insurance industry and the cost of insurance—not least that, just as a way of understanding why that could be.

Recognising that net zero by 2050 is something that the world has accepted, that both sides of politics in Australia have accepted and that we as South Australians have accepted across the chamber, we need to work out how to do that in the best way. Clearly, doing it in a way that causes least economic harm and maximum economic opportunity is what any government would seek to do. Part of what we are in the process of doing is making it clear to the rest of the world that South Australia is a place where you can buy products and where you can invest in a way that will not be interrupted by this change of decarbonising the international economy.

There will be a lot of money looking for the safe haven of stable democracies that are decarbonising, and we have enormous early mover advantage already, given our renewable electricity record and the fact that we already have some legislation. Firming this up will help that to occur. There is no intention for this to cause economic hardship for South Australians, quite the reverse. As I said right at the beginning, we do not get to sit climate change out because we achieve our targets. What we get to do is have the kind of economy that will prosper because the rest of the world is doing the same thing. That is the context in which I think it is best to look at these targets.

Mr McBRIDE: Minister, first of all, thank you for that brilliant answer that you have just given me, it is appreciated. This is not politically motivated. I would not care if the opposition shadow minister was on your side of the chamber, I would be asking the same questions. One of the things I find fascinating, to give you some explanation, is that we have at least two sectors in Australian terms, but not in South Australian terms, like forestry and wool as export commodities, and it is not even rated on the carbon chain yet beyond one cycle of a tree. It is not even rated that you can buy a woollen suit that will last 50 years and will lock up carbon. No-one is even talking about this yet.

You did explain that beautifully by saying, 'This is evolving, the rules are changing, and we are working out how we are going to get there.' This is why I am asking these questions. Not only do I want the opposition to hear it but I want the government to understand that when you are first out of the ranks—and you are talking about a new climate conference coming to South Australia, which may absolutely be brilliant for all the people it will bring to South Australia and will put Adelaide on the world map—one of the things about being first is you are actually almost like the guinea pig. You are the canary in the coalmine. You are the first one to taste all this.

We are going to see the ramifications of rolling out what could be the most renewable energy efficient state, but what I do not want to see is a barren landscape in economic terms because we have killed off our businesses and investments in the pursuit of being first. One of the things we have learnt to survive 100 years in agriculture is never actually be first, unless you are absolutely damn sure, but be an early adopter. Early adopters are people who see and watch what the rest of the world is doing, assess whether it would work in South Australia and then say, 'Yes, that's going to fit here, because there's its bit, there's its niche, and I can see that they have done this. Oh, we could even do it better? Fantastic.'

But when you go out there and are the first down the race, running the fastest speed to be the most environmentally friendly state in Australia or it could even be the world, but the landscape is dead, you would ask: 'What for?' The question then, too, is in regard to internationally we know that South Australia has mining, we have a lot of exports, we depend on exports and then we are also selling to countries that are not even interested in these targets.

I will give it to you clearly and say it out loud: China is not going to fall into line on some of these targets that the rest of the Western world is considering or the European economies and the like. Yet we know that a lot of our iron ore ends up in China. We do not have a lot of coal in South Australia but there is certainly in the Eastern States. I know that 80 per cent of the product that we are supposed to be good at, although we are struggling with it—producing wool—ends up in China, and they are not participating on these targets like the rest of the world is.

One thing that I hope for from this government and any jurisdiction around Australia and perhaps even federally—I do not care about the colour or the politics—is to recognise that when they put these targets in place there are two things happening. One is that the industries with the deepest pockets are having the biggest buy-in at the moment. We are seeing air travel—Boeing and aeroplanes—buying into this area to see how they can survive in whatever the world of 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 looks like in terms of targets and trying to buy into putting biofuel into their fuel mix and reducing their emissions. We are seeing the petroleum companies also trying to buy in to see how they can extend whatever they are doing now right through these targets. Some of the smaller industries, as I have already mentioned, like forestry and a natural wool fibre like wool, have no traction in these billion-dollar industries right now.

My question to you is: as we head down this journey of zero targets—2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, as I have seen in these amendments—what assurance do we as South Australians have that this government is not going blindly and meeting targets at the expense of what are really important export industries?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I agree and disagree with the member in his summary. Where I agree is the amount of complexity going on around the world right now on carbon. You can draw a picture that makes you feel quite hopeful, and you can draw a picture that makes it look like no-one is ever going to do anything that is enough. I land on that differently on different days, but in the end humans are pretty smart. We can collectively do some pretty crazy things on the way—it is not like everything has gone perfectly in the history of humanity—but we are good survivors.

It is recognised globally, including in China, that climate change is real. That is recognised, because the science in the end has become unarguable and the human experience of it is now becoming unarguable. In that context, there is a kind of push and pull internationally. There is a 'Yes, we should do something, everyone, collectively' and then 'How does my country get advantaged through this?'

The vast majority of countries have signed up to the Paris Agreement, which requires achievement by 2050. China is currently starting to push into the market of the kind of renewable generation of electricity, cars as well as solar panels and so on, so they can effectively be the winners out of that transition. The United States, the biggest economy in the world, has their strangely named Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that is actually a lot about attracting the money for investment in those kinds of technologies so their economy can capitalise on this big shift. So those very, very large economies, while there is a lot of political debate about it, are rushing to get into the technology that is going to help all of us decarbonise.

When we talk about South Australia being a leader, we have to be careful about exactly what it is we are claiming. We are not leading the world in climate change; we are leading the world in the production of intermittently generated renewable electricity. No-one does it better with wind and sun than we do percentage-wise. Not in volume, of course, because we have a very small population, but percentage-wise we have done something quite extraordinary that we should be very proud of.

What that does is put us ahead of the other states that are still dependent very heavily on coal. When you think about Australia and you think about Australia being very coal-rich you say, 'But what is going on in South Australia and how might we have a relationship with that state?' That is the basis on which we are saying that, if Australia is going to get COP31, it should be here because they should be proud of what we have done.

So there is that way in which we are better, but the truth is that most of the other states have targets. Australia has targets. Some of the other states have legislation. Some of the other states' legislation is tougher again than this is. Victoria has legislation that says they will get to net zero by 2045. New South Wales has worked on a piece of legislation.

So it is not, as the member might be concerned about, that we are so far ahead that we risk making the first moves mistakes and that the early adopters following us will be able to avoid them, which is an absolutely legitimate way of thinking about the way technology operates, it is that we have first-mover advantage within Australia on some elements and are an early adopter in very many other elements and we do not have coal. The feature of not having coal is that it makes us look different to the rest of the mainland states and that can be of enormous advantage when we are chasing after that international capital.

With the example that the member used of the fabric used to produce clothes, all of that is increasingly being measured as we start to really understand what it means to respond to climate change. As an example, when we were sitting a couple of weeks ago, in response to a question from the member for Morphett, I mentioned the dairy industry, which is busily working out how to track each dairy product that is produced for its carbon input in South Australia. That can create enormous economic advantage for us if we are able to do that well. There is some premium in green products at times, but I can tell you what there definitely is and that is trade barriers if they are not green. The trade barrier, particularly for Europe, if we do not demonstrate that, is going to really hurt us.

Getting ready for that is an economic decision we need to make. Making a virtue of our response to climate change is, as well as a good thing to do, an economically smart thing to do. What we have to do is recognise just how fast the rest of the world is changing, not uniformly, often not in language, but in action increasingly, and I have to say that, the more I read about what is happening in climate change, I cling on to my optimism about human ingenuity and resilience because on the current trajectory of warming the year 2023 was off-the-record hot.

I have watched Clarkson's Farm season 3. Ridiculously, I am a big fan of Jeremy Clarkson. He is not politically someone that most people would expect me to enjoy, but he makes good television and he surrounds himself with people who call him out for some of his behaviour, and I enjoy it. I have watched my way through Clarkson's Farm. In season 3, he is trying to farm in the Northern Hemisphere through 2023. Every single month was doing exactly the opposite of what the farmers need. It was a catastrophic year.

Across the world, 2023 was 1.5º warmer than pre-industrial times. Yet, one of the NASA scientists commented in Quarterly Essay, 'Highway to hell', about 2023 that on the current trajectory it will be one of the cooler years we have this century. We cannot have that. We cannot have primary production if that happens.

We cannot produce the food that we need in that environment, because our farming depends on a degree of predictability of rain coming when it is helpful, and climate change will take that away. I am not the only person to notice this. We are not the only people to notice this. The world is aware of that. It is just that the way of expressing how it responds to it can seem frustrating at times.

Mr PATTERSON: Going to this clause as well, I ask the question around power prices—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I indicate to you that you do need to formally move amendment No. 2 if you wish to proceed with it.

Mr PATTERSON: Sure, but I am still doing questions at the moment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Okay. Go ahead.

Mr PATTERSON: I have only asked the one question. We have heard the commentary around the targets and the concerns from others that while South Australia's emissions might be going down we have other countries and other regions where by far they are continuing to go up; you would probably say they are accelerating as well.

As I mentioned previously, at the same time that this bill was put into the house we also had ESCOSA release their retail electricity prices report that showed that the average household electricity bill between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024 went up by $411. There was a massive increase, and in fact the last three ESCOSA reports that have come down during this government's term of office have shown that the average household electricity bill has risen by $798. So there have been massive increases, over 44 per cent increases, in electricity bills for households.

For small businesses, the pain is just as real. In the year from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, the average electricity bill for small businesses rose by a staggering $791. Overall, the three ESCOSA reports that have been handed down under this term of the government have seen power bills jump by $1,685, an increase of $45. You can see why there is significant concern among some members of this house around the power bills that people are experiencing and that small businesses are experiencing.

Yes, as a state, we are seeking to reduce our emissions, but at the same time we need to consider not only emissions reductions but the impacts that come with doing that, from an economic point of view. That boils down at brass tacks to the prices that people pay for their power bills, because if you look at where these emissions reductions have come from, principally they have come from the energy industries.

All the other sectors that are reported on by the state governments, that actually produce things, have seen their emissions stay stable. You can understand why there is significant attention placed on not only emissions reductions in the energy industries but also prices. While other jurisdictions are seeing their emissions increase and ours are coming down, our bills are going up.

The opposition certainly has been trying to work with that, and did that in government to make sure that power bills came down. They came down—according to ESCOSA, the ESCOSA bills handed down during the former Liberal government—by $421. So you can see that it is possible and it was great attention. It just makes perfect sense to not only worry about emissions targets but also have a mindful approach to prices and, in fact, put in place targets around electricity prices. It seems absolutely staggering that the government is not even prepared to consider that and debate that. They want to shut that debate down around putting in prices, but that is nonetheless—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Morphett! Here we go again. Please do not dispute the Chair's ruling. It was a process that—

Mr PATTERSON: I am not; I am just saying—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): No. I made the ruling, not the government. You will not dispute my ruling. Go ahead.

Mr PATTERSON: —that we will not have a power price target. My question, then, becomes: if the government of the day has small businesses being crushed by power bills and households not able to pay their power bills, is the government of the day able to prioritise cheaper power bills and reliability of that electricity over emissions reductions, if emissions reductions are not obtained and met in the targets because the government of the day is seeking to do things in a considered manner and is looking at the global impact of climate change, which you yourself have said that South Australia itself cannot directly control, of course, being responsible for only 0.04 per cent of global emissions? Is it within the government's power? How able is a government, should these laws be enacted, to prioritise those facets irrespective of the impact on emissions reductions?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I responded to a question from the member for Narungga, the non-meeting of the targets has no legal requirement to take sudden and serious action. I would like to make a couple of corrections, one of mine and one to something I think I understood the member to say. With mine, I indicated to the member for MacKillop that Victoria had enshrined in legislation net zero by 2045. They have a policy for net zero by 2045; their legislation is the same as ours—by 2050—so that is just to clarify that point. The other point that I think I heard the member for Morphett say was that the other states' emissions are going up while we are driving ours down; in fact, most states' emissions are dropping, they are just dropping in different ways and through different activities.

Mr PATTERSON: I have talked about electricity, but let's talk about something that is obviously very important to the population of South Australia, and that is being able to have its own autonomy to be able to feed and clothe the population. Of course, that goes to the heart of agriculture and how important that is to the state, and the ability of food producers and fibre producers to be able to produce their goods economically and efficiently. I think other members and yourself as well acknowledged the important role that agriculture can play in terms of actually helping South Australia in terms of its emissions targets, especially in light of the practices of food producers here in South Australia compared to other parts of the world. They are doing, you would say, world's best practice.

In terms of their ability to continue to produce food affordably and make sure that there is actually availability of food for the population here, specifically within South Australia but also to be able to export domestically to other states as well, how will these targets that are put in place impact on the ability of the agricultural sector to be able to provide food that is economic, cheap, affordable and highly available—obviously, you have seasonality around that—when we have to trade off against emissions reductions?

We know that there has not been significant movement in the emissions profile of the agricultural sector. What will the impacts be of setting this legislation in place and on future governments to be able to prioritise food availability and affordability when there are targets in place around emissions reductions? How will that impact and force food producers to be able to continue to provide what is fantastic produce here in South Australia affordably and then compare it to effectively what is going on in other countries as well? If their emissions are significantly increasing, as has been reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, how would this legislation allow our food producers here in South Australia to (a) feed South Australians and (b) remain competitive?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: A lot of the answer that I give will essentially be similar to ones I have given previously. If I can first of all conclude the anecdote I was starting about watching Jeremy Clarkson. I was so distracted by admitting that I liked Jeremy Clarkson that I forgot to tell you the end of the story which was that towards the end of 2023, when it was such a disastrous year for primary producers in the Northern Hemisphere, he said—and he knows the role that he has played over the years in trying to suggest that climate change is rubbish, and hooning around in his magnificent vehicles—the climate is awful and someone should really say something about it. That is Jeremy Clarkson. I noted that.

The reason I give you the end of that anecdote is that the counterfactual of doing nothing across the world is that primary production becomes like that all the time: something possible—so we know we have to do something collectively as a world. The questions, really, are coming from 'yes, but can we not do too much here that would hurt us because we are such a small part?' I understand that, which is why we have to do it economically sensibly.

Now, we have very good farmers in this country. One thing I did notice in Clarkson's Farm is just how reliant they are on subsidies. We would have no concept of needing subsidies like that with primary production in Australia. We are so much more efficient, so much more economically reliable. Because of that, what we are seeing are increasing groups of primary producers for the different areas very sensibly preparing to market their products across the world, particularly to Europe, in the context of having to demonstrate what they do about carbon. They know it is just built in to part of how they are going to have to do it. They are going to have to do it for biodiversity as well, and they are going to have to do it for water.

So in that very sensible preparation they have a partner on this side of the chamber and, I suspect—despite some of the tone of the questions—on the other side of the chamber, that governments in South Australia over the years as we get to 2050 are going to work alongside all elements of the economy, including agriculture and primary production, to work out together how we do this well. One way is that, as I mentioned earlier, we will get a lot of money if we play our cards right and do this smart from companies that need to offset their emissions.

There will be a hunt for places to put that money that can be guaranteed to be reliable over a period of time and therefore pass the increasingly stringent tests of reporting that are required by long-term capital investors, by insurers and by markets. These three categories are not greenies. These are 'we can see what's coming; we are only interested in putting in our money in a place that's going to be secure over the long term', and primary production is wise to that, is aware of that, is sensible about that.

In terms of the detail of the consequences of getting to the 2030 target, when you think that we are about 57 per cent, not far off 60 per cent now, the 2030 target will be achieved by all of the indicators that we have now. What we need to do as we head to 2030 and beyond is tilt ourselves at an angle that gets us to 2050 without a sudden panic at the end. That is why the legislation matters, it is why the statewide strategy matters, because it helps us do that in a way, in a pathway, that is gentle and achievable rather than dramatic and suddenly there is nowhere we can sell our products because the trade walls have gone up. That is why the detail of the question that has been asked will sit largely in the first statewide strategy, the second statewide strategy, the third, which we prepare in consultation with the sectors of the community and the economy which are affected.

Mr McBRIDE: This will probably be my last question, and I thank the minister for her answers so far; they have been very good. As I said, it would not matter what colour the politics here—I do not care if I was talking about Western Australia or Queensland, but we are here talking about South Australia—one of the things that I think is really nerve-racking for private investors, people who are out in the private sector, is where government are setting the rules and the standard.

Potentially, as the minister has clearly identified, these are world standards, this is a world movement, and I appreciate that. I am going to highlight what I have to tell the chamber, so that the government can feel and see why I think with this new legislation, from what I am feeling and seeing, you are giving confidence for a movement and transition into renewable energy, targets around 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, perhaps even 2050, as the minister has alluded to—and I understand it.

The apprehension and the concern I want the government—not just the minister but the government, and perhaps even the opposition, and even the shadow minister for energy and mining—to note is when governments take control of something, first of all it is never based on economic private investment and private operations. In other words, it belongs to a sector that perhaps lacks a lot of reality. Sometimes it lacks connection to the way that we actually function as a society and use other people's money. I will leave that without trying to run down anyone in particular, or any sector, or any specialty that we see in either South Australia, Australia or in the world.

There are three points that I want to make to the minister. Right now if I want to go out and trade in carbon, I am being told that I need to set aside 14 kilos of carbon per kilo of beef. If I grow a kilo of wool based on Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), they are talking 24 kilos of carbon for a kilo of wool that I am going to wear for 10 to 20 years. These are the current charts they are looking at, and these are world standards. These are not South Australian standards. These are not something that the Malinauskas government put in place, and neither did the Marshall government, neither did the Morrison government, and neither did the Albanese government.

The other thing I will add to this, and you made mention of this minister, is about the tough climatic conditions we see ourselves in. It is dry. I can tell you that in my neck of the woods, the Limestone Coast, I believe that most agricultural businesses for the financial year of 2023-24 made a loss. I think what we are seeing now in 2024, going into the 2025 financial year, is greater extensive losses out there because of the seasonal conditions.

Yes, you were talking about a warming climate. We have to be responsible. We are adaptive. We have moved to climate change as a species—and I love your terminology—and we are a clever species, and we do adapt, and we do think things through. My concern is then—and one of the things I saw down in my neck of the woods was a really passionate meeting in a local government where the ratepayers are concerned about the rates going up in local government in the financial year of 2023-24, and the local government is going to make more money out of their land than what the owner is going to because they are making losses.

What happens here is that we normally get taxed and levied basically on the fact that we are making profits, and if you do make a profit you have to pay your fair share to the government so that the government can function and look after everything that government is responsible for. This is going to suffer the same problem. In other words, there is not going to be any conductivity around price of production, the world market, the table I have talked about: the 14 kilos of carbon per kilo of beef and the 24 kilos of carbon for a kilo of wool.

Obviously, we would love to see the opportunities around soil carbon, capturing carbon, being able to sell off carbon, but we cannot even do this because we might need to capture it all for ourselves just to survive whatever the new paradigm is, what the new benchmark will be, not based on South Australian rules, based on maybe EU rules or maybe a Western world-type philosophy. It certainly does not cover the Third World; the Third World is just looking and saying, 'Holy hell, how do we get there?'

What I would say to you, minister, and to any government, is I love to share, I love to work, and we divulge more than we should as a business, not to tell anyone how to suck eggs but actually so we can learn as a business. We benchmark with other businesses. We love to compare because we want to see where our strengths are and we want to see where our weaknesses are. I am hoping you, minister, and your government, have the same sort of foresight or capacity to say, 'Righto, we are going to put these targets in place.' I accept. I know why you are putting these targets in place—I accept. I know that other jurisdictions, like Victoria and other states, are putting these same sorts of targets in place—I accept.

Then there is the federal government and whatever they might look at as well. I do not care the colour of politics, it has not been that well done, otherwise why have we seen the problems we have around energy, gas prices and electricity prices on a national scale, let alone a South Australian scale? Minister, what ability do you have as a minister representing the Malinauskas state Labor government to protect, to feel, to see or to monitor the impost that potentially could be out there that we do not all fall by the wayside and say, 'Well, the government killed us. We didn't have a chance'?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think that's largely comment rather than a question but I also take it as a bit of a plea to make sure that conversation and a sense of shared responsibility rather than 'That's your problem: go fix it' should prevail, and I completely agree with you. I not only think that that would be true on this side, but I think that would be true across the parliament.

What is happening with climate change is awful—I nearly swore, but I didn't. It is awful and it is going to shape much of the politics and the economics of the next 50 years. I wish it were not that way. When I look at my kids and when I look at the Hon. Ms Stinson's beautiful little one, I wish it were not that way because it is going to be painful across the world. It is already painful, people are already dying from weather events that are directly connected to the increased energy in the system that we have chosen to put there by making the greenhouse effect thicker.

It calls to mind a sense of what our obligations are to the future because we should not do to future generations what has been done to us by the past. Back when we had the Industrial Revolution, it was not unknown what the interaction between carbon and the atmosphere was. It was not like the average person had a sense of 'This is going to ruin the world in 200 years' time', but scientists knew that there was an interaction. Knowing how fast it would happen, knowing the speed of the impact and what the impact would be like, of course would have been very difficult to predict.

What did not happen as the Industrial Revolution unleashed all that energy from the sun that was stored in fossil fuels, when the Industrial Revolution decided 'We will release this in a big hurry and become immensely wealthy and immensely powerful through this' there was not a decision to say 'But because there is a negative consequence that will be borne out at some point in the future, we are going to immediately move to find alternatives; we are going to use all this power and wealth that we are getting to find alternatives', that did not happen. So here we are.

If it had happened, we would not even know to thank them, because we just would not have climate change. So the moral of the story is that we do have to clean up the mess that was created by the way in which the world harnessed the power of fossil fuels without appreciating the consequences, but let's not do it to future generations in other forms of harm that we can foresee. But having had that impact, we must react collectively. We have to.

We are not particularly good at that beyond a few people around us, but we have to. At the very least as a state we must do that. That is why we have an emphasis on consultation as we develop the strategic planning that comes out of this. It is why I have immense sympathy, particularly as you mentioned, in primary producers who are copping the impact of climate change first and are also going to have to make shifts economically that will be challenging. I think water and climate are going to be very big elements of our conversation in the next few years, and that we must do that as much as possible, not from partisan perspectives but from: how do we do this collectively?

Mr PATTERSON: I move amendment No. 1 in my name.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): No, it has been ruled out of order.

Mr PATTERSON: But I had not even moved it beforehand, so I am moving it now.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): No, it has been filed and it has been ruled out of order by the previous Acting Chair.

Mr PATTERSON: What did he rule out of order? Did he foreshadow that that would happen?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Shall we read out his ruling again?

Mr PATTERSON: I am still moving amendment No. 1.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Are you happy to just rule that it is out of order?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Yes, it has been ruled already. I am happy to read out the details of that ruling and repeat it if you like.

Mr PATTERSON: Yes, because I want to move this. I think it is important for South Australians who are struggling under massive high electricity bills and this is—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): There are mechanisms—

Mr PATTERSON: —a way to help them.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Member for Morphett! There are mechanisms to disagree with the Chair's ruling. If you would like to avail yourself of those mechanisms, you can. But you cannot move that amendment. You can move amendment No. 2, and I suggest you do so.

Mr PATTERSON: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Patterson–1]—

Page 3, after line 12—After subclause (7) insert:

(8) Section 3(2)—after paragraph (c) insert:

(d) recognition should be given to the importance of the agricultural industry to South Australia and it should be acknowledged that there is a fluctuation of greenhouse gas emissions in relation to the agricultural industry.

The reason for doing this is noting, as I have said in my questions before, and looking for support from all members of this house, that agriculture is vital for South Australia. It is vital that we have a fully functioning agricultural industry that is able to affordably feed South Australians and have high availability so when people need food it is available and provided by our own agricultural industry here in South Australia. Now, of course, the emissions profile for that agriculture sector, the make-up of those emissions, as reported by government, are that there has not been a significant change in that profile the whole way along.

We need to make sure in going forward—because this bill talks around enacting plans and policies throughout all the Public Service and throughout all of private industry—that at least those agricultural sectors are able to be protected and worked with and acknowledged, because, as I have said, they also are very important to emissions in South Australia. They are world's best practice. This amendment recognises part of the objects of the act, with the provision:

(d) recognition should be given to the importance of the agricultural industry to South Australia and it should be acknowledged that there is a fluctuation of greenhouse gas emissions in relation to the agricultural industry.

By that it means seasonality depending on the growing conditions. If there is good growing, there may well be more emissions, but that is a good thing because that means supply and demand, there is more food in the market, availability increases to South Australians, and there is affordability, and certainly costs come down, so you have affordable food sources there. As part of that, of course, there may well be greenhouse gas emissions that go in relativity to that high-yield season.

We need to make sure that the agricultural sector is not penalised and an impost not put on them unfairly. They are competing against worldwide markets. We need to make sure that they can compete properly and that we are not going to, in effect, enable other countries to come in and provide food that is cheaper while at the same time have their emissions profile drastically increasing, as we have seen in Asia. They are not having their emissions go up, without giving as much consideration that we here in South Australia give to emissions, but then that has a flow-on effect to agriculture. We do not want to see that.

This amendment at least allows this object to be put into the act. We on this side of the house—and I think everyone in this house, I would hope—are in support of this amendment, which would give recognition to the importance of the agriculture industry.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am inclined to support this amendment. There were some questions about it. The ESD principles are accepted around the world and are articulated in a certain way, so it is not exactly adding a principle to the ESD principles. But because the content of what is stated is something that I support, I am therefore happy to agree to the amendment. We may have a look between the houses at whether it fits somewhere else, but I suspect not; I suspect that we will just stick with supporting it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PATTERSON: We are talking about the interpretation of meanings here. After 'Australian jurisdiction' it talks about climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation as well. We have covered some of this ground, but I think it is worth going through it and seeking some answers to help clarify the intention of these interpretations.

Previously we talked about South Australia's emissions making up, as of 2019—I use that because it references that it coincides with the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their sixth assessment report, and certainly there will be a new one coming out so we will be able to move along. As of lining up those years, the emissions for South Australia's profile at the time was 24 megatonnes and it since then has been reduced further. At the time, the global emissions were 59,000 megatonnes, so that put South Australia's emissions at 0.04 per cent.

When we are looking at mitigation and mitigating emissions here in South Australia, is it fair to say that, at best, South Australia's ability to directly mitigate climate change as it happens here in South Australia and keep temperatures below 2° from pre-industrial times—noting that there was some conversation about the industrial revolution, so that refers to before that occurred—would be 0.04 per cent and that the remaining 99.96 per cent of mitigation relies on the rest of Australia, of course, but principally global efforts to reduce emissions?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I did not quite understand that as a question on the clause.

Mr PATTERSON: We are talking about climate change mitigation, but when policies and plans are being formulated they will be able to have an understanding via the interpretation—what the minister means by 'climate change mitigation'. In terms of that mitigation, when we think about our policy, like being able to clarify to those policymakers—mindful of our impacts here in South Australia directly on global emissions and mindful of how that will mitigate to prevent climate change—is it the fact that our efforts will effectively have a 0.04 impact and therefore what Australia does, what the rest of global emissions do, the remaining 99.96 per cent will have an impact on the South Australian climate?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think we have extensively canvassed the rationale for why we ought to seek to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of having these definitions of 'adaptation' and 'mitigation' is, to be clear, that they are not the same thing. I hear them, quite often, used interchangeably, and it is important we understand that there is adaptation, which is saying, 'As the climate changes, we need to do what we can to adapt to that,' and mitigation is what we do to reduce emissions.

So this is a definitional question, and even people who are reasonably well versed I hear occasionally swap those around. The importance of having this in the interpretation is that we are clear that there are two elements to climate change: one is how we reduce carbon emissions and the other is how we adapt to the warming that is occurring.

Mr PATTERSON: I agree with what you are saying: they are two separate elements of climate change and how it affects South Australia. The question was more honing in on the climate change mitigation aspect of those, but I do acknowledge what you are saying around adaptation and for clarifying that. So the adaptation is around dealing with the effects of it, and the mitigation is reducing emissions.

In terms of that climate change mitigation, as we go through this act, if we in South Australia are successful in meeting not only the 2030 target but the interim targets along the way—ultimately the principal goal is reaching net zero by 2050—South Australia does its job but the global emissions continue the trajectory that they are currently on, will South Australia's climate be less than 2° independent of the climate of the rest of the world?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Before the minister answers, I will just point out that clause 3 is simply about interpretation of other references within the bill. I will leave it up to the minister to answer as she sees fit, but it seems to me that these questions might be better suited to other clauses. I will leave it in the minister's hands.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Acting Chair, I agree with you and also we have had these discussions previously. The impression I have, and the member may well clarify that this is not the case, is that the member is very intent on indicating how little contribution to climate change South Australia makes through its emissions production. Not only have I freely accepted that—because maths—but also it is something that I have said in public and the member asked me about whether I had said that in public at estimates last year if not the year before—because maths. We do not produce that much carbon, therefore we, in turning off all of our carbon, do not stop climate change and we do not sit out climate change. These are expressions that I use all the time in speeches.

I think we are rehashing the ground of understanding that, because climate change is real and is happening across the world and requires emissions reduction, we would be at risk of having many stranded assets in our economy and many stranded industries that would be unable to get insurance, get capital investment or find markets if we did not do what the rest of the world is in the process of doing, which is to decarbonise. So we are doing what we need to do for our economy.

I will, at a certain point, feel that I am repeating myself to the point of being boring for the future readers of our Hansard—and I am sure there will be many—that that is the overriding necessity for us on the mitigation side, that we must get our economy in the best possible position, and we do that by decarbonising and therefore having access to capital markets, to insurance, and to markets where we sell our products.

We also do it by making sure that the rest of the world knows that we are of that ilk. Australia's reputation comes and goes because of various shenanigans in federal parliament, largely, and as a result of those shenanigans the absence of investment in changing our electricity production in other states. So trying to—with a single voice, if possible—be very proud of South Australia's shifts where we have made them is part of that economic positioning for us. The emissions reduction is utterly necessary for the future of our economy. As the Acting Chair has stated, we have extensively canvassed that in the discussion of the targets. We are now on the question of interpretation and I am unlikely to want to continue to repeat that particular set of facts.

The opposition may try to use it in some way—I am struggling to see how—to say, 'We might as well keep emitting carbon because it is not going to stop climate change.' Surely the opposition understands not only that everyone already knows that, because we are a pretty small population, but also that we are sensibly positioning ourselves economically, because it is not just the government saying it, it is many sectors of industry, including many sectors of the agricultural industry, that are saying, 'Damn it, we are going to have to do this, and we are going to have to make a virtue of how we are doing it as part of our marketing and as part of our investment attraction capability.'

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PATTERSON: As to clause 4, talking around the actual targets themselves, this has been canvassed in some way before, but just to help reinforce. In terms of these targets once set up, and the interim targets as well, are the targets enforceable and what happens if these targets and interim targets are not met?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I have answered that question to the member for Narungga at clause 1, so I probably will not repeat myself.

Mr PATTERSON: Has there been modelling undertaken around what the anticipated costs are to South Australia to achieve the interim target that is put in place at 2030 and ultimately towards the principal final target of net zero by 2050, and if there has been can the minister outline what the costs are and the feasibility for each of the emissions sectors?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are well on track to achieve the target for 2030. As I have stated before, we are not far off 60 per cent now. It does rely on how land use goes and the carbon sinks. A huge fire could do damage, for example, but let's hope that does not occur. Nonetheless, we have every expectation of achieving the 2030 target under the current settings. As I was explaining earlier, what is important is that we are not just saying, 'We don't have to do anything until 2030,' because the more gentle the slope can be to 2050, the easier it will be, rather than deferring until the last minute.

There has been some analysis of the economic benefit to the state overall of having a low-carbon economy in the future, so there is excellent evidence that that will be of benefit to the state. However, the question the member is asking, quite legitimately, is: what might be the impact on individual sectors or businesses as a result of any individual policies that they undertake or that the government undertakes in order to start to further drive down emissions? That properly belongs in the statewide strategy discussion which is required to occur.

We will have interim targets, and we will have strategies to get there. While the 2030 target is not one that requires us to have detailed economic or cost-to-business modelling given how well we have done to date, we will, as part of developing statewide strategies over time, be looking at different costs of different approaches that different industries might be taking.

Mr PATTERSON: For clarification, what you are saying is that there is no specific modelling at the moment around costs, but there is around what the economic opportunities are for the 2030 target, and then going forward, of course, there will be plans put in place. Certainly, when you are talking about the short-term targets, we have one here around 100 per cent net renewable electricity generation by 31 December 2027. Could this target be achieved without an interconnector between South Australia and New South Wales being in place?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The 2027 target had been, I think, set by government policy for 2030 previously. It was brought forward to 2027 a little while ago by the Premier and the Minister for Energy and Mining on the basis that the expectation was that we were going to achieve that on current trajectory. AEMO has us getting to 90 per cent by 2025-26, so the current trajectory for net renewable electricity production is well on track to achieve by 2027. In regard to the specific question about the role of the interconnector, either of them, we do not have advice on that, because we are reliant obviously on a different portfolio, but we can provide that between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PATTERSON: In regard to the functions of the minister and the functions that can be put in place, the minister has declared a climate emergency. When we look at the emissions reductions that have gone on in South Australia, in 2005 they were 36 megatonnes, and by 2018 the emissions profile for South Australia was 25 megatonnes, and then by 2022 they had been reduced further to 16 megatonnes. So there has been substantial reduction already, as reported there.

Sixty per cent of the 36 megatonnes, going against the 2005 levels, sees overall the emissions of greenhouse gas equivalent at 14.5 megatonnes. So to achieve the target that has been put in place for 2030, it requires 1.5 megatonnes of further reduction over what was in place by 2022. If you look at the trajectory over the last 17 years, it has been a reduction of 20 megatonnes, from 36 through to 16. That is about 1.2 megatonnes per year on average. In the last four years, as I said, it went from 25 megatonnes down to 16 megatonnes. That is a nine-megatonne reduction over those four years, just over two, 2¼, megatonnes per year. That is the trajectory it is on. The remaining eight years have a reduction of 1.5 megatonnes.

If you look at the trajectory, it is significantly slower than the historical average and certainly slower than the recent years. When you hear about a climate emergency, that has connotations of effectively a higher priority than would ordinarily have been in place previously. Certainly, if you look at the impact that messaging has on different demographics, it can cause anxiety. It can cause thoughts of urgent action, yet here we do not have a target that you would have to say, in terms of looking at its trajectory, correlates with that sort of language. I am interested to understand, bearing in mind there was a climate emergency declared by the minister, how that is played out in terms of these targets.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Again, for the life of me—

Mr Patterson: A function of the minister.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): If you will let me finish my ruling, again, I will let the minister answer if she chooses, but I fail to see how it is relevant to that particular clause. I will leave it up to the minister.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is very kind of you. I suspect you are absolutely right technically, but I understand why the question is being asked. The correction I would make for the member, though, is that I did not declare a climate emergency: parliament did. I presented a motion and parliament agreed to it, this chamber agreed to it, as happens with many motions. That is not a function of the minister: that is a motion that has been supported by this parliament. It is curious for me to hear the member saying maybe we should have a tougher target because there is a climate emergency, having just spent—

Mr Patterson interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The question of if, in fact, we have this climate emergency or the government believes there is a climate emergency, why would we not have a faster rate between now and 2030, as we have had previously? I have a few answers to that, but one is the irony of having listened to so many of the questions being based on the fact that nothing we do will make any difference. To then say we should go from 1.5 megatonnes to a higher average per year, as we have had previously, appears to me to put back in the question that how fast we go actually stops the climate emergency. I thought we kind of addressed the science of that.

Let us have a look at why it is the government has proposed—and we have already passed that section—a target of 60 per cent by 2030 when we are at about 57 per cent now. We may well overshoot. At the current trajectory, we ought to overshoot, in which case, excellent, because it gets us closer to the 2050 target earlier, which means that the trajectory is easier on everybody. If we overshoot, that is excellent.

The nervousness I have is the degree to which we are still reliant on the carbon sink element of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory. There are emissions that we produce every year and they have come down substantially in electricity production and, in a relatively small, but nonetheless important way, in other sectors, and some have gone up a bit and so on, over time. Where we have seen significant change is in that land use and carbon sequestration effort that is undertaken by growing things across the state.

The way that that is measured has altered over time and has indicated that there has been more effort there than we had thought previously, with the process that is used, the methodology that is used by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory office. But, equally, as I mentioned in a previous answer, the kinds of fires that occurred in New South Wales in that 2019-20 summer—we had devastating fires here—took out huge amounts of land and generated a lot of carbon in doing that. Similarly, the fires in Canada over recent years have generated a huge amount of carbon.

Assuming that successful trajectory that we have had will just continue without any additional effort, and that we could safely say that we will achieve, without recognising the volatility of that part of the measurement, I think would be unwise. Therefore, we have proposed this target hoping that we will be able to overshoot it, both because there has not been that kind of devastating impact and because we will be able to achieve even more in the other sectors because people are moving fast. Sometimes you go on a slow trajectory and then there is a technological breakthrough and it makes a sudden big change—and we very much hope for that—but that is the reason.

Why did I bring to this parliament a climate emergency motion that people voted for? Because the people outside of here know that it is a climate emergency, and for us to continue to deny it by refusing to bring it in, where it has been passed by many councils across the country who recognise it, would be to deny to the people who know that we are in the middle of an emergency in this world—known even to Jeremy Clarkson, what he has seen and experienced—which is that we are in a climate emergency. To acknowledge that is important—to acknowledge it to the young people who we are giving this heating, drying globe to because they need to know that we understand that.

We then need to take sensible action. The face of the climate emergency requires all of us to reduce our carbon emissions, of course, around the world, but it also requires us to prepare, and the adaptation side of this is very important because we are already experiencing it and we will experience it more severely over time.

Mr PATTERSON: If we could pick up on the land use and clearing and forestry, yes, I concur in terms that a lot of the reductions have come in that sector. As you have seen over time, in terms of the emissions reporting, since 2005 there have been periods of course where it has approached the levels that have been reported, certainly in 2020-21, and there have been other years where there have been similar effectively equivalent reductions compared to the 2005 levels, and 2021-22 was the most that has been reported on since 2005.

The minister talked about different reporting mechanisms, and I am hoping that the minister can provide a breakdown of how those 2021 and 2022 reductions were arrived at specifically. In 2021 it was down to about six or seven megatonnes in terms of reduction on 2005 levels, and then in 2021-22 it was about 10 megatonnes.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are straying into very interesting territory but away from the legislation, particularly from the clause. What I will do is offer a briefing to the member as to how the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory works—obviously he has quite a lot of familiarity with it—but also some of the changes in methodology over recent times, and the way in which the carbon sink element of it has been measured over time. That might be useful anyway, and it would certainly answer the question that has just been asked.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Are there any more questions on clause 5?

Mr PATTERSON: A clarification question around that. Maybe if we do not go into that specific detail around the land use, but in terms of the risks going forward, you have said potentially if there is a fire. Are there other instances where there are opportunities for it to be further reduced? Or, alternatively—I am just asking questions based—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): You have not heard my ruling yet. I was going to congratulate you on the strength of your question. No, I was not really. Your clarification relates to the minister's answer, presumably, in which she said that the line of questioning was irrelevant to the clause and that she offered you a briefing. Unless you have a further question on this clause, I think it is time to move on. So no further questions?

Mr PATTERSON: No.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr PATTERSON: Clause 6 talks about two-yearly reports around the targets that have been set in place. There will be two-yearly reports, even though we have the 2030 interim targets. I am assuming there will be reports coming out two years hence from this in terms of the reports that are there. Will those reports detail not only the reductions that have taken place but the economic impact of those reductions pertaining to the costs, the opportunities, as you have outlined, in terms of industry as well, and how will they be broken down specifically? We already have reports on different breakdowns of emissions sources in terms of agriculture, industrial processes, etc.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: To be clear, the two-yearly reports exist already. They go on the website every two years. These amendments under the section called 'Two-yearly reports' are just to have consequential amendments to some of the language that is slightly different, to change 'renewable electricity target' and say 'targets set under section 5', which is the renewable electricity target, and to insert after the word 'energy' the word 'sources'. This amendment itself does not create those two-yearly reports, the act that has been in operation since 2007 has certain requirements and we meet those obligations.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr PATTERSON: This clause talks about the Climate Change Council and the costs associated with climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. It looks at putting in some requirements for the Climate Change Council to consider. Specifically, does that then infer that the Climate Change Council will consider power prices for South Australians, both households and small businesses, and also the reliability of that power?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Again, what we are dealing with here are some consequential amendments in terms of language that has previously been agreed to. The current act already talks about costs associated with limiting climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, and this is to include the adaptation, and there is a bit of other language that is used. So it is already an existing part of the functions of the council; it is just refining the language to reflect the changes in the legislation that we have agreed to.

Mr PATTERSON: Further to that, it does outline around the costs; with respect to the Climate Change Council it gives further directives in terms of what costs they look at, such as climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and mitigating those affects. So the costs for agriculture in terms of food production and the like: can the minister outline how this change will give direction to the climate council and ensure that in their deliberations they are considering costs to the agricultural sector, and also, in terms of their planning, how you expect them to work alongside the plans around reducing emissions in the agricultural sector?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am just re-reading the original bill. The language change is quite minute, when I re-read it. This is a function for the council that it is able to provide advice to the minister on these issues, should the minister ask or should they choose to provide it. It is not the same as the two-yearly report, which has certain requirements for reporting. So they are able to do that should they choose to. As I say, the only amendment we are really making is to very slightly change the way that the function is expressed.

Clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Mr PATTERSON: If we look through here there are some questions around policy. The questions afforded to me probably have been asked in other areas. In terms of the policies, it now looks to also allow for plans to be put in place as well. In terms of this, on reading it, it does not seem to me that there is mention around consideration in these policies and plans to take into account the cost of power prices and reliability of power prices. If I could clarify that and ask: whereabouts in this amendment does it ensure that the policies and plans will take into account power prices and reliability? Particularly noting that the opposition were trying to afford the ability for that to be considered explicitly through amendments by putting in targets around power prices, where in this now will power prices and reliability be able to be taken into account?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Where South Australia is almost unique—and I should acknowledge that Tasmania is at about 100 per cent net renewable electricity production; it is just that it does it with hydro, which is controversial in its own way. But South Australia is very, very close to achieving net zero renewable electricity production—well, 100 per cent renewable electricity production and net zero carbon. So the idea that talking about reducing carbon emissions and having plans over the next 10, 20 years to do that will have an interaction with electricity prices misunderstands that for the purposes of this act we are almost there and will be there very soon under AEMO's predictions. So therefore it would be unusual for it to have to specifically deal with the issues that are being raised by the member.

Mr PATTERSON: So, in terms of these policies and plans, if it is not going to explicitly state that, as the minister answered then, how will these policies look into the effect of the different jurisdictions that have different emissions profiles? We have South Australian businesses operating in South Australia with the emissions profiles there. What directions are in here about policies to protect and to assist manufacturing businesses here in South Australia to make sure they can manufacture here and produce products that are not only low emission but are competitively priced compared to potentially imported product where the emissions from other countries may have a higher profile?

Are there any explicit directions in here to ensure that, when plans are put in place and policies are put in place, it does take into account the fact that South Australian businesses—manufacturing businesses specifically for the point of this question—are producing in South Australian energy environments and to guard against effectively offshoring emissions whereby we might reduce our emissions here in South Australia but actually globally they are not reduced because effectively there is a replacement?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The member touches on an interesting challenge that is being addressed at the commonwealth level about how to deal with industries that are affected by import competition and by difficulty in exporting. This is an issue that is rightfully being looked at by the commonwealth and is being done so through their powers and also what is occurring through AEMO. This legislation is not the legislation that interacts with the National Electricity Market (NEM). That is why there was a ruling, as I understand it, that the amendments were out of order, that this is not that legislation and having multiple bits of legislation trying to do the same thing at the same time is unhelpful.

That said, the broader question of how do we understand the impact on various segments when we construct these plans, including importantly of course manufacturing, as well as, as we have extensively canvassed, agriculture, is that these plans are required to be consulted on and to be worked through so that the best possible policies are being approached, considered and adopted in concert with industry, in concert with the South Australian community and also recognising the kind of issues that have been raised by the member but that are addressed through that national discussion about what to do with the safeguard mechanism and how the safeguard mechanism interacts with vulnerability to exports and imports.

You should recall that what is happening in Europe is that they are increasingly using that very mechanism as a means of putting up trade barriers so you cannot export to Europe if you are not doing the same things they are requiring of their people. That is not the rest of the world yet, but it may well become so.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.