Emissions Reporting Scheme

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (14:37): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Primary Industries a question on the emissions reporting scheme?

Leave granted.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In an article in The Advertiser on 4 November 2024, entitled 'You can't eat carbon', it was reported that a $2.3 billion mandatory carbon emissions reporting burden was being passed on to farmers. No other country is putting this type of burden on its farmers. The article states, and I quote:

South Australian farmers warn they face huge costs and crippling red tape, compromising their mission to produce world-leading food.

This burden on farmers will inevitably be passed on to consumers. National Farmers' Federation president, David Jochinke, has said that the changes would 'lead to more red tape and higher costs, but the full extent of the burden remains unknown'. My questions to the minister are:

1. Has the minister expressed any concerns to her federal counterpart relating to the onerous nature of the reporting requirements on South Australian farmers and the costs of compliance?

2. Given food and fibre production is fundamental to this state, does the minister support an exemption in carbon emissions reporting for our food and fibre producers here in South Australia and, if not, why not?

3. What measures does the minister have in place to assist farmers with the cost of compliance?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:39): Again, we have those opposite running out of questions about state government actions and state government activities to instead bring into this place—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I note that the Leader of the Opposition in this place shouts out that this is a South Australian article.

The PRESIDENT: Interjections are out of order.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I sometimes read The Advertiser, and I see things about the American elections.

The PRESIDENT: Responding to interjections is out of order.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Perhaps we should be responsible for the American elections as well. Sometimes in The Advertiser—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —I see articles about Tasmania or Queensland. Perhaps South Australia is responsible for those as well. This is a scheme that has been developed by the federal government. I don't know if the member is aware—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —that only large companies listed under the Corporations Act are directly impacted by this and that the stated goals are consistency and clarity to make it easier for those large companies listed under the Corporations Act. If she wants to talk about federal matters, again, I suggest she talks to her mate Tony Pasin about getting federal preselection.

The PRESIDENT: Sorry, you can refer to Tony Pasin as the federal member for Barker, thanks.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I suggest she speaks to her mate the federal member for Barker about getting preselection.