Parliamentary Committees

Legislative Review Committee: Climate Emergency Petition

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (15:53): I move:

That the report of the committee on House of Assembly petition No. 62 of 2021, climate emergency, be noted.

On 24 August 2021, Dr Susan Close MP, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, presented this petition to the House of Assembly. The petition, signed by 10,366 residents of South Australia, requested that the House of Assembly declare that we are facing a climate emergency and commit to immediate measures to achieve net zero carbon emissions in South Australia as quickly as possible and to draw down excess carbon from the atmosphere.

The Legislative Review Committee recognises that an inquiry into the petition would likely be a substantial undertaking, given the gravity and complexity of the topic. During its inquiry into and consideration of the petition, the committee considered its other work, including its work on other petitions, the Legislative Council petition No. 2 of 2020, planning reform, and its scrutiny of subordinate legislation work. In the committee's view, its ability to conduct an inquiry into the petition is impaired by its existing obligations, especially its scrutiny of subordinate legislation work.

On 3 February 2021, the committee tabled in the parliament a report, entitled Workload of the Legislative Review Committee, to advise parliament of the unsustainable workload of the committee with its current functions. The report of the Select Committee on the Effectiveness of the Current System of Parliamentary Committees, which was tabled in parliament on 25 August 2021, recognised that the referral of eligible petitions to the Legislative Review Committee increased the committee's workload to an untenable level. That report recommended that eligible petitions be referred to a portfolio committee based on the subject matter of the petition.

Were this committee to undertake the inquiry with its current workload, it would place a significant strain on the resources of the committee and may result in delays that would be of concern to the parliament and to the petitioners. The referral of an inquiry by one committee to another is also not without precedent and in the opinion of this committee is appropriate in this circumstance.

The Legislative Review Committee considers that the Environment, Resources and Development Committee would be better placed to inquire into, consider and report to parliament on the climate emergency petition. Measures to achieve net zero carbon emissions and to draw down excess carbon from the atmosphere is a topic that corresponds with the subject matter expertise of that committee. It also fits with that committee's functions under section 9(a)(i) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 to inquire into, consider and report on any matter concerned with the environment or how the quality of the environment might be protected or improved.

In its report, the committee noted two ways in which the petition may be referred to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee: first, by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee referring the subject matter of the petition to it of its own motion under section 16(1)(c) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991; and second, by both houses of parliament referring the subject matter of the petition to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee under section 9(b) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. The subject matter of the petition may also be referred to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee by resolution of either of that committee's appointing houses under section 16(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991.

I would like to thank the other members of the Legislative Review Committee for their work on this report: in the House of Assembly, Mr Peter Treloar MP, Mr Nick McBride MP and the Hon. Zoe Bettison MP; in this place, the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC and the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos MLC. In addition, I would like to thank the committee secretary, Mr Matt Balfour, and the research officer, Ms Maureen Affleck, for their assistance with the report.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.T. Ngo.