Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Motions Renewable Energy Renewable Energy Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.A. Simms: That this council— 1.	Affirms that renewable energy is the future of South Australia. 2.	Recognises the potential of rooftop solar to lower wholesale power prices for all consumers. 3.	Calls on the Marshall government to set meaningful targets for a transition to 100 per cent renewable energy for South Australia by: (a)	rolling out community-scale batteries; (b)	subsidising solar panel and battery installation; (c)	rolling out dynamic operating envelopes. 4.	Calls on the Marshall government to block a ruling by the Australian Energy Market Commission that allows networks to charge solar customers fees for exporting solar energy to the grid. (Continued from 27 October 2021.) The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN Legislative Council The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:10): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker on this item and to thank the Hon. Mr Simms for bringing this forward. The opposition supports the motion and opposes the mooted amendment by the Treasurer. As the Hon. Mr Simms said in his contribution when introducing this, these changes will unfairly impact on those who in good faith have made long-term investments in renewables. We saw a similar issue when we had the debate in regard to the government turning solar panels on and off without compensation. People who have invested in solar have done so under a certain set of rules and then those rules, potentially, are changed. We have a similar situation here. What we need is no disincentives to encourage the uptake of rooftop solar. We need incentives. We need governments to encourage that uptake and not to penalise those who are doing the right thing, especially when these people have already made the changes necessary. So we are in support of the goals of this motion and I commend it to the council. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:11): I rise to support the essence of the motion, but I move to amend the motion as follows: Leave out paragraphs 2 to 4 and insert new paragraphs as follows: 2.	Recognises the role of rooftop solar to the power system as the state's largest generator. 3.	Commends the Marshall government for its policies that will ensure South Australians can continue to install and benefit from rooftop solar, helping to meet South Australia's aim to become net 100 per cent renewable by 2030: (a)	free and subsidised household battery programs; (b)	Switch for Solar program; (c)	rolling out dynamic operating envelopes; and (d)	Grid Scale Storage Fund, demand management trials and underwriting of interconnection with NSW. 4.	Notes energy policies should protect energy consumers from unnecessary imposts. I have a very long, erudite and what would be an eloquent contribution to make to this debate, which essentially summarises what wonderful things the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Environment and the government have done in relation to zero emissions, but given the time pressures this afternoon and this evening I can take that as read because I am sure even the Hon. Mr Simms acknowledges, as his motion does, that this government, unlike perhaps some others, has been at the forefront, has been a leader in relation to renewable energy, support for zero emissions by 2050 and very, very strong targets which I think the minister outlined again only in the last week or so. He may or may not have introduced legislation this week in the parliament seeking to put in targets for 2030 for South Australia. So I am sure, whilst there might be occasional differences between the Greens and the Liberal government on some issues, on this particular area there should be furious agreement between the Greens with their policy prescriptions and the policies that Premier Marshall, Minister Speirs and the government have adopted in South Australia. So I will not run through a very long list of three pages of very important initiatives that the minister and the government have embarked on. The amendment I have moved, in part I guess, in our humble view, has been largely determined and debated yesterday. That is, in relation to the last element of the honourable member's motion, which calls on the Marshall government to block a ruling by the Australian Energy Market Commission, etc., we had, I think it was yesterday, a debate about these particular issues—these days blur into each other—where the views expressed by the Greens and the Australian Labor Party, through this democratic institution the Legislative Council, were not supported by the majority of this chamber. SA-Best and the Hon. Mr Darley supported the government's position in relation to that issue. So it just seems to be a reprosecution of something that has already been determined, a second bite of the cherry. I think it is a bit of a shame because, in the absence of that and with some minor changes, there is the chance for the Hon. Mr Simms to have a unanimous position supported by all and sundry in this chamber rather than seeking to reprosecute an issue that was already determined yesterday. I think it would be disappointing if we had to end up dividing this chamber on reprosecuting an issue that we determined yesterday after a long and extensive debate. I do not want to go over that debate again, because we had it yesterday. As I said, with the support of SA-Best and the Hon. Mr Darley, that particular position was not supported. The amendment that we are moving is consistent with the position we adopted yesterday, so we urge the chamber to, in essence, join us all in celebrating the position of South Australia being a leader in zero emissions. We can all take pleasure and glory in our role in South Australia being a leader in this area, rather than dividing us on an issue which we already determined yesterday, that was not supported by the majority of the Legislative Council. The Hon. R.A. SIMMS Legislative Council The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:15): I will speak very briefly, because I am conscious that we have a lot to get through tonight. I will not reprosecute the arguments, but the Greens will not be supporting the amendment from the government. I recognise, as I have done previously, the work of all sides of politics in this place in terms of taking action on climate. However, the purpose of this motion is not a collective backslapping exercise or some sort of celebration of the virtues of the Marshall government, as the honourable Treasurer has proposed. We do not share that assessment. Indeed, the motion does call on the government to go further, to set meaningful targets for a transition to 100 per cent renewable energy for South Australia, and also calls on the government to block the ruling by the Australian Energy Market Commission to allow networks to charge solar customers fees for exporting solar energy to the grid. The honourable Treasurer has made the point that this issue was dealt with yesterday. My motion on notice was lodged some time ago, well before we dealt with yesterday's bill, which had been pushed back many times. This may provide an opportunity for members who perhaps made an error yesterday to think more carefully about their position and to remedy that today. That is always a positive thing. Just to conclude, to sum up the contribution I made previously, this sun tax that is being proposed is going to allow networks the power to charge solar households in a way that was previously prohibited under the national energy rules. It has been argued that this is justified as necessary to fund required upgrades on the grid, but this is despite the fact that solar surges have been shown to occur at night and in areas of low solar uptake, and we are very concerned that these charges will unfairly impact those who in good faith have made long-term investments in renewables. These are South Australians who are wanting to do the right thing, who are doing the right thing for our environment, and the Liberals want to stand by and allow them to be penalised. I do not wish to be divisive, as the honourable Treasurer has inferred, but when a party has got it wrong, when a government has got it wrong, we have to call it out. I urge members to support my original motion and to reject the amendment proposed by the honourable Treasurer. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The first question I will put is that paragraphs 2 to 4, as proposed to be struck out by the Treasurer, stand as part of the motion. Ayes	8 Noes	9 Majority	1 AYES Franks, T.A. Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Simms, R.A. (teller) Wortley, R.P. NOES Bonaros, C. Centofanti, N.J. Darley, J.A. Girolamo, H.M. Lee, J.S. Lucas, R.I. (teller) Pangallo, F. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. PAIRS Bourke, E.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. Hood, D.G.E. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The next question I will put is that new paragraphs 2 to 4 as proposed to be inserted by the Treasurer be so inserted. The council divided on the question: Ayes	9 Noes	8 Majority	1 AYES Bonaros, C. Centofanti, N.J. Darley, J.A. Girolamo, H.M. Lee, J.S. Lucas, R.I. (teller) Pangallo, F. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. NOES Franks, T.A. Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Simms, R.A. (teller) Wortley, R.P. PAIRS Hood, D.G.E. Maher, K.J. Lensink, J.M.A. Bourke, E.S. Question thus agreed to. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The question I will put now is that the motion moved by the Hon. R.A. Simms and as amended by the Treasurer be agreed to. The council divided on the motion as amended: Ayes	9 Noes	8 Majority	1 AYES Bonaros, C. Centofanti, N.J. Darley, J.A. Girolamo, H.M. Lee, J.S. Lucas, R.I. (teller) Pangallo, F. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. NOES Franks, T.A. Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. Simms, R.A. (teller) Wortley, R.P. PAIRS Hood, D.G.E. Bourke, E.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. Motion as amended thus carried.