Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2025.)

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:43): I rise as the lead representative for the opposition to speak on the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill was introduced into the House of Assembly in late August 2024 by the Deputy Premier in her role as the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water and follows on from the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Targets) 2021, introduced into the other place by the then Minister for Environment and Water, the former member for Black the Hon. David Speirs.

I want to begin by acknowledging the need for this amendment to the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act. This bill was originally introduced with renewable energy targets which, while ambitious for their time, are now outdated. These targets were based on a 1990 baseline, which was also widely adopted in Europe following the reunification of Eastern and Western blocs, when heavy coal-fired emissions were standard. Today these measures fail to reflect current energy challenges or the realities of the South Australian energy transition.

Our current renewable energy targets are still anchored in a context from 2014, and here we are in 2025 facing a very different landscape. Since those early targets were set, renewable energy technology, market forces and energy consumption patterns have evolved tremendously. The need for updated targets is not just about the environment, it is about practical impacts on industry, businesses and households throughout South Australia. I believe that it is of critical importance that our targets must reflect the needs of the society we live in.

The timing of this amendment is especially critical, given the recent experiences of several South Australian businesses, such as Nippy's, an iconic company in South Australia. Nippy's reported a staggering increase in power bills from June 2023 to June 2024, rising from $51,600 to an eyewatering $109,580, despite a reduction in electricity usage.

That is right, they used fewer kilowatt hours or less power yet saw their cost almost double, largely due to the market and network charges which account for over $34,000 of their total electricity bill. Nippy's has invested heavily in sustainability, installing $1 million worth of solar panels, yet even with this investment, the company faces times when they have to halt production. Yes, that is right, they have to halt their core food and beverage manufacturing business due to soaring spot prices that made it completely uneconomical to operate.

How can it be good policy that a business that has reduced its power usage and invested $1 million on renewable generation still sees its power costs more than double and must shut down operations due to the power spikes? Their struggle is not unique. Many businesses are buckling under the weight of unprecedented and rising energy costs that impact their ability to compete and supply South Australia and the broader Australian market.

Robert Brokenshire, President of the Dairyfarmers' Association and former upper house MP, recently highlighted the significant financial strain facing the dairy industry, with electricity prices rising on average by 38 per cent. He shared that his own electricity bill has increased from $70,000 in 2023 to nearly $100,000 in 2024, illustrating the mounting pressures that businesses are experiencing.

South Australian fruit growers are also affected. Century Orchards reported a staggering 60 per cent increase in their power bills over the past three years. Since they cannot pass these costs on to consumers, they are left with no choice but to absorb them, which directly impacts business operations, employment and reinvestment in their properties.

Golden North, a very well-known South Australian brand, has also felt the sting of rising electricity costs, with their bills jumping by a massive 48.6 per cent. Their average monthly electricity bill in 2023 was $34,000, but in 2024 it soared to around $50,000 per month. While they have not yet raised the prices of their ice cream, their managing director has made it clear that if these price hikes continue they will have no choice but to increase the cost of their products, as they simply will not be able to absorb these rising expenses any longer.

I want to highlight a particularly telling development that occurred following the bill's introduction on the Friday afternoon after most media outlets had filed their stories for the day. The Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA) released its retail market offers report. This report, which detailed the average retail electricity prices paid by households and small businesses in South Australia, shed light on the significant and sustained price hikes being felt by consumers.

The timing of this release raises questions. Why would the government choose to release such a crucial report at a time when it could avoid public scrutiny? Was it an attempt to bury these findings or at least minimise attention on the hardships faced by South Australians? The numbers in the ESCOSA report are stark. Over the course of the year, the average household electricity bill in South Australia increased by $411, bringing the total to $2,621. At an increase of 18.6 per cent, it is the highest recorded average residential electricity bill in the state's history. Small businesses fared even worse, with the average bill climbing by a staggering $791, resulting in an average annual electricity cost of $5,364, the highest recorded for businesses since ESCOSA began publishing these reports.

These figures lay bare the reality for South Australians. Households and small businesses are facing unprecedented electricity price hikes, and this is directly tied to the ongoing energy transition in the state. These price increases not only add strain to the family budget, they also threaten the viability of small businesses that are already under pressure from rising costs and economic uncertainty.

Any attempts to reduce emissions cannot be divorced from the need for affordable, reliable energy. The current approach focusing only on reducing emissions risks unintended consequences, as we have seen in South Australia with rising prices and reliability issues. The previous Liberal government understood the need to balance price and reliability against emissions reduction and working collaboratively to manage these elements in a way that made sense for our state. However, it is clear with this bill that the current government fails to strike the balance.

The singular focus on emissions, as evidenced by the aggressive emissions targets outlined in this bill, is made without broader consideration of the impact on South Australians and key industries. While the bill before us today proposes important changes to renewable energy targets, it is essential that the government also addresses the very real economic pressures that are facing South Australian businesses.

Businesses like Nippy's and the broader small business community are struggling to survive, and the government must do more than just offering finger pointing and vague promises. Concrete solutions are needed to protect both the livelihood of businesses and the financial wellbeing of households across our state as we transition to a more sustainable energy future.

The bill aims to establish an interim target of reducing South Australia's emissions by 60 per cent by December 2030 and achieving a 100 per cent renewable target by 2027. This is being proposed at a time when South Australian households and small businesses are facing the highest electricity on record. Given the circumstances, the opposition argues that the bill must be amended to ensure it does not focus solely on emissions and renewable energy goals but also incorporates measures to reduce the impact on consumers and businesses.

We believe that, alongside emission reductions and renewable energy targets, there should be clear objectives for guaranteeing affordable energy prices for households and small businesses, as well as ensuring the reliability of the energy supply. These considerations are essential and should be explicitly included in the policy within this bill, if passed, and would be set in motion. While the goal of reducing emissions is important, it must be pursued in a way that recognises the financial strain on South Australians and supports a transition that is both fair and orderly.

Given these conditions, the opposition believes it is essential to propose these amendments to the bill regarding energy pricing. These amendments would ensure that, alongside the focus on emissions reductions and renewable energy targets, the legislation also addresses crucial issues, such as ensuring affordable electricity prices for residential consumers and small businesses, as well as guaranteeing the reliability of the power supply.

As to the agricultural sector, which the state relies on, there are questions from farmers around what the impact will be and how it is going to affect them, because they produce food here in South Australia at a very affordable price and they need to be assured that they will be able to continue to do so. You would expect that also from all South Australians who consume high-quality food, including milk and dairy. I think it is important to point out that over the time of the former Liberal government emissions did come down, and at the same time we were mindful of other parts of the energy framework, including price and reliability.

In fact, I note that in the government's explanation documents for this bill the department's own charts show that South Australia's largest drop in greenhouse emissions was made under the previous Marshall Liberal government, and those changes were made without negatively impacting agriculture, so it can be done.

Many producers are very sustainable. They want the land they work to be healthy and productive so that it remains viable for future generations. Our state's primary producers are responsible for over 50 per cent of our economic exports. We must protect those responsible for growing our food and fibre or we forfeit the foundation of our state's economy.

I note that the minister in the other place said of the onerous nature of the reporting against targets: 'It ought make no difference to the price of food; it is certainly not intended to do that.' I believe this shows a remarkable lack of awareness of the implications of the minister's own bill. It is the consequences of this bill that matter, not the intent.

I indicate that the opposition has amendments to section 16 in this bill, addressing concerns from the primary producers sector and in particular about sector-based targets. I will speak to this further during the committee stage of the bill, but it is safe to say they seek to exempt the production of food and fibre from any targets aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the state of South Australia, highlighting the importance of food and fibre production to this state and noting that these targets bring onerous reporting requirements that directly impact on the cost of production.

As we consider this amendment bill in this chamber, I urge the government not only to modernise our renewable energy targets but also to address the broader implications of this energy transition. With that, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:56): I rise today to speak on the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill seeks to modernise South Australia's legislative framework to deliver climate change policy objectives and enshrine the state's short and long-term emissions reduction targets in the legislation.

The bill seeks to replace the existing target of a 60 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with a target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This 2050 net zero target was first adopted by the federal government in 2015, meaning that this bill will enshrine in legislation a policy that has been in place already for a decade.

A new short-term target for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2030 has also been proposed. The current act still has an outdated reference to a target for at least 20 per cent renewable electricity generation by 2014, which was achieved almost 15 years ago in 2011. The bill will update this, legislating a state target of 100 per cent net renewable electricity generation by 2027. As other honourable members have highlighted, the latest data shows that currently 74 per cent of our electricity is generated from renewable sources.

The minister will be required to set interim five-yearly emissions reduction targets for the state from 2030 to 2050, building in a greater reduction target each iteration to ensure progress is being made towards the long-term targets. In doing so, the minister must undertake consultation with experts to look to national and international best practice. The bill introduces a requirement for the government to prepare a publicly available statewide emissions reduction plan and to review and update it in line with the five-yearly targets. The plan must set out the government's objectives, policies, programs and initiatives for reducing, limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill also requires a statewide climate risk assessment to be prepared within two years of the bill being enacted. The risk assessment will be reviewed every five years and will help businesses and communities prioritise climate risk and adaptation planning. In addition, the bill allows the Premier to nominate a public sector entity to prepare an agency or sector plan that addresses emissions reduction and/or climate change adaptation.

During the briefing my office received from the government, we were advised that such plans and sector agreements would be voluntary and would be developed in collaboration with stakeholders to facilitate strategies to meet state targets. That is providing some reassurance to stakeholders. While the bill provides for such plans to be developed in future as needs are identified, these plans are not mandates in the bill. Sector agreements may also include climate change adaptation measures.

The bill will also require government agencies to include details in their annual reports about how they are addressing climate-related risks and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is intended to increase transparency and accountability and help review progress towards the targets and objectives of the act.

I understand the opposition has raised many valid concerns that the bill may allow for the government to set industry-specific targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and is particularly concerned about the impacts that such targets will have on primary producers and key industries in terms of both the potential for onerous reporting requirements and flow-on effects increasing the cost of food and primary products. I share those concerns. The opposition has proposed an amendment to prevent the minister from setting a sector-based target for the primary production sector, and I can see that this has merit and will warrant some further consideration.

The Greens have also filed a range of amendments intended to further strengthen the targets outlined in the bill and to reform the composition and functions of the Premier's Climate Change Council. I note that the government has also proposed a number of amendments in response to the Greens' proposal, and I will give due consideration to all amendments during the committee stage.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:00): When the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act came into operation back in 2007, it was the first of its kind anywhere in Australia. It has guided policy and planning in our state to achieve world-leading outcomes in renewable energy generation and climate change mitigation.

This bill will modernise the act to provide a more contemporary legislative framework to deliver South Australia's climate change policy objectives. The bill will enshrine South Australia's short-term and long-term emissions reduction and renewable electricity generation targets in legislation to help limit the extent of climate change. Importantly, it will also strengthen policy and planning provisions in the act to allow the targets to be achieved and to better understand and address the impacts of climate change in our state.

I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate thus far. I also thank the dedicated public servants who have supported development of the bill, including with very extensive stakeholder and community engagement. The government will be introducing, as has been foreshadowed by other members, several further amendments and I will expand on these further during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:02): By leave, on behalf of the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, I move contingently, on the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill being read a second time:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole Council on the bill that it have power to consider amendments relating to grid reliability target, residential power prices target and small business power prices guarantee target.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 2, line 13 [clause 2(1), inserted subparagraph (ii)(B)]—After 'electricity' insert 'generation'

This is a test amendment for No. 11 and interacts with Franks consequential amendments or related amendments Nos 2, 5, 6, 10 and 11 in set 1. This amendment clarifies the target as being one of renewable electricity generation and brings back the renewable electricity generation target at amendment No. 11. I understand that the government will have some support for some of the Greens' amendments. I do not believe they support this one, but it is a conversation that is going to unfold.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the honourable member pointed out, this is at least related, if not consequential, to amendments that are coming up to include a renewable energy target. Amendments Nos 2 and 11 [Franks-1] I think it relates to. The inclusion of a renewable energy target is not necessary; hence, this consequential amendment, in the government's view, is not needed to differentiate between generation and use target. I will expand on my reasoning and propose alternative amendments when we next discuss the primary amendment—that is, amendment No. 2 [Franks-1], which is next.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 2, after line 13 [clause 2(1), inserted subparagraph (ii)]—After subsubparagraph (B) insert:

(C) the renewable electricity use target; and

This retains the renewable energy target from the original act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I explained at the previous amendment, in the government's view the addition of renewable electricity use targets are not necessary. This is because generation and consumption are highly related, as electricity is generated to meet consumption needs. A target for net renewable electricity generation is more appropriate to guiding increasing investment in renewable generation in the state and to reflect the contribution renewables make to meeting state electricity use.

The government does, however, understand the importance of being more transparent on these matters. I will be proposing government amendments at clauses 3 and 6—that is, government amendments Nos 1 and 3 [AG-1]—to define 'net renewable electricity generation' and to make it clearer that two-yearly reporting under section 7 of the act will report on the use of both renewables and non-renewable electricity sources in this state.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: The opposition will be opposing the Greens' amendment, but we will be looking to have further discussion around the government amendments in due course.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 3, line 2 [clause 2((2), inserted text]—Delete 'targets' and substitute 'target'

This deletes 'targets' and substitutes 'target'. It is a test amendment for amendment No. 7 [Franks-1], and consequential to amendment No. 7, which brings the zero net greenhouse emissions target within the state forward to 2040 and eliminates the need for interim targets every five years because of that shorter timeframe.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate, and as the honourable member indicated earlier, the government will be supporting some but not other amendments. The government will not be supporting this particular amendment. This amendment is related to an amendment by the Hon. Tammy Franks, amendment No. 7 [Franks-1], to amend the SA target to bring forward the date of net zero to 2040, as the honourable member has outlined. The government will propose an alternative amendment at clause 4—government amendment No. 2 [AG-1]—that does not alter the proposed SA target date of 2050 but instead establishes a process for consideration of an earlier date.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: The opposition will be opposing this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–2]—

Page 3, after line 4—After subclause (3) insert:

(3a) Section 3(1)—after paragraph (b) insert:

(ba) to promote transparency in relation to the operation of this Act, including through the public reporting of information; and

I note that it is also identical, I believe, to amendment no. 4 [Franks-1] in your running sheets. This elevates the principles of transparency and public reporting in the act. As the Attorney-General has just alluded to, it has been of great concern to the Greens to make sure that there is greater transparency in the act. We believe that that will bring public trust as well as better outcomes. I understand that this has been a fruitful conversation with the government, and we look forward to progressing to having an act that is far more transparent than the current workings.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment. This amendment is to include an additional object in the act that will help promote transparency in relation to the operation of the act, including through public reporting of information. We will be supporting it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 3, after line 35 [clause 3(3)]—After the definition of net greenhouse gas emissions insert:

net renewable electricity generation means the contribution of renewable electricity generated in South Australia after taking into account non-renewable electricity generated in South Australia and interconnector flows over the course of a financial year;

This amendment defines the term 'net renewable electricity generation' in order to make clearer what is meant by net renewable electricity generation in relation to the renewable energy target in the bill. I propose this amendment as one of two alternative amendments to the inclusion of a renewable energy use target as proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks.

The other amendment is to clause 6 (government amendment No. 3 [AG-1]), which will make it clear that every two years information on the use of renewable energy and electricity and non-renewable electricity will be publicly reported under section 7 of the act.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To paraphrase the government previously, I think it is the Frank Sinatra approach of 'they will do it their way'. The Greens are happy to take a good idea and support it, even though we had it in a different form.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My amendment No. 7 deletes '2050' and substitutes '2040' but, given the vote on my previous amendment failed, there is not really a reason for me to formally move it. It would have brought a net zero greenhouse emissions target within the state forward to that 2040 date, making the multiple five-year targets redundant. However, I will not be progressing with formally moving that amendment at this point. I move:

Amendment No 8 [Franks–1]—

Page 4, line 13 [clause 4(1), inserted subsection (2)(a)]—Delete '2005' and substitute '2022'

This deletes '2005' and substitutes '2022'. The Greens intend to divide on this particular amendment. We think that this is a really important point. This amendment would tie the emissions reduction target to 2022 rather than to the current 2005, which was significantly higher and thus made the target that we have less ambitious. The Greens' target would choose a better base year to ensure that our actions were in fact the best that they could be, notwithstanding the use of '2005' in other jurisdictions.

The use of '2005' for South Australia does suggest a lack of ambition—an ambition that we had when we led the country in this sort of legislation. I note that we have often rested on our laurels here in leading the way. We could yet again lead the way. If the argument from the government is that everyone else is doing the other year, the Greens do not think that is good enough. We think we need to use the right base year to get the right results.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: On this occasion we will not be supporting the Greens' amendment to amend the baseline of the 2030 interim target from 2005 to 2022. It is my advice that what would be a 60 per cent reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions from 2022 levels would equate to an 83 per cent reduction from 2005 levels. It is the government's view that this represents a significant change to the 2030 emission reductions target on which we have not had any public consultation or assessment or feasibility of social, economic and environmental impacts, so the government proposes to retain the 2005 baseline.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: The opposition will be opposing this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 2

Noes 16

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Franks–1]—

Page 4, line 15 [clause 4(1), inserted subsection (2)(b)]—Delete '100%' and substitute '125%'

This aims to generate more renewable electricity than we require in this state for export interstate and elsewhere, and subsequently increase the use of renewables in other jurisdictions from our state.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate the government will not be supporting this amendment. The government is concerned that the amendment shifts the focus of the target from ensuring we have sufficient renewable energy and electricity to meet demand for South Australian consumers to one where the additional 25 per cent is about the export of renewable energy to other states. In the government's view that would be a significant change.

In addition, the government does not wish to set targets that are not feasible and considers it would likely be impractical to achieve 125 per cent net renewable electricity generation in the state by 31 December 2027.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: The opposition will be opposing this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendments Nos 10 and 11 are both consequential, and I will not be moving them. Amendments Nos 12 and 13 are consequential as well, and I will not be progressing with them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AG–1]—

Page 5, after line 10 [clause 4(1), inserted subsection (2d)]—After paragraph (b) insert:

and

(c) consider whether zero net greenhouse gas emissions within the State can reasonably be achieved before 31 December 2050.

This amendment will require the minister responsible for the act to consider and report on whether zero net generation gas emissions within the state can be reasonably achieved before the target date of 2050. The minister will consider this matter when setting interim emission reduction targets, which occur in 2030 and every five years thereafter, with a report to be tabled in parliament.

If an earlier net zero emissions target is feasible and acceptable, then the act allows the minister to subsequently vary the SA target. This approach will allow for consultation with stakeholders in the broader community.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting the government's amendment. I note it is an alternative way forward on some of the Greens' [Franks-1] set of amendments, and we appreciate the conversation with the government that has come to this compromise.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendment No. 14 [Franks-1] is consequential. I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–2]—

Page 5, line 16 [clause 4(4), inserted paragraph (ba)]—After 'calculating' insert:

the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the State,

This requires reporting on real zero; that is, to require reporting on total greenhouse gas emissions without any removals of emissions from the atmosphere from offsets outside the state. The current situation we have essentially allows for greenwashing, with offsets outside the state able to be used in the calculation of total net emissions. This aims to capture the real picture of total emissions for our state to end that greenwashing, so I look forward, hopefully, to the support of the government to end the greenwashing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am pleased to fulfil the hope of the honourable member, and indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment updating the method for calculating greenhouse gas emissions. I also indicate we will be supporting the next amendment, amendment No. 3 [Franks-2].

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Franks–2]—

Page 5, line 18 [clause 4(4), inserted paragraph (ba)]—After 'offsets' insert 'from outside the State'

This is consequential on the previous amendment ending the greenwashing and ensuring we have better transparency and honesty in our system.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendments Nos 15 and 16 [Franks-1] are consequential.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: On behalf of the Hon. Ms Centofanti, I move:

Amendment No 6 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 5, after line 36—After subclause (6) insert:

(6a) Section 5(5)—delete 'The' and substitute:

Subject to subsection (5a), the

(6b) Section 5—after subsection (5) insert:

(5a) The Minister must not set a sector-based target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions under subsection (3)(c) in relation to the primary production sector.

This amendment seeks to exempt the production of food and fibre from any targets aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the state of South Australia, highlighting the importance of food and fibre production to the state and noting that these targets bring onerous reporting and requirements that directly impact cost of production.

I appreciate that currently the state government have not set sector targets, however the legislation does permit for sector targets. We know that these targets come with significant costs. In fact, it has been estimated by Treasury that the federal government's compliance scheme, known as Scope 3 emissions reporting, set to begin in 2027, will cost an estimated $2.3 billion in the first year alone, which is likely to be passed on to the consumer.

Whilst the federal Coalition has committed to overturning the climate-related financial disclosure scheme if elected at the next federal election, this bill provides an opportunity to ensure that with state legislation, primary production is not targeted in emissions reductions ensuring more affordable South Australian produce to our supermarkets in the future.

This amendment provides not only our primary producers but indeed all South Australians with the certainty that their food prices from South Australian farms will not increase due to direct sector costs associated with emissions targets. This amendment acknowledges that farmers may choose to report emissions to access certain markets or potentially earn product premiums, although it is worth noting that such premiums have yet to materialise in any significant way.

While this choice is theirs to make, mandating emissions reporting through legislation, especially when it goes far beyond the requirements in other countries, imposes unnecessary burdens on local producers. Such a move risks creating an uneven playing field where our farmers face higher compliance costs and greater operational challenges than their international counterparts, potentially undermining their competitive advantage in the global market.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government does not support the amendment. It is the government's view that the primary production sector should not be excluded. This, in the government's view, sends a signal that primary production does not need to do anything to contribute to reducing emissions in the state and that the burden of emissions reduction should be borne by other economic sectors.

Rather than seek to exempt primary production, industry organisations and government should do more to encourage the sector to adopt low-emission technologies and practices. This could have the advantage in terms of investors, consumers and markets, particularly export markets that are increasingly seeking low-emission products. Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens oppose this amendment. Farmers across Australia are moving towards emissions efficiencies and climate and environmental responsible farming methods, many of which are actually bringing financial gain to farmers who take a long-term view and are keen to pass on not only the family farm but the lifestyle and opportunities that come with it to the next generation. Emissions reduction is a win-win with financial opportunities, environmental benefits and improved productivity that reduces costs. Opportunities will no doubt emerge for ag industries and producers that can demonstrate emissions efficiencies and reductions or better still carbon neutrality.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 4

Noes 11

Majority 7

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: Our view is that amendment No.8 [Centofanti-1] is consequential.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Yes, that is correct.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AG–1]—

Page 6, lines 18 and 19 [clause 6(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Section 7(2)(f)(i)—delete 'energy' and substitute:

and non-renewable electricity sources

Every two years, the minister must report on the operation of the act in achieving the emissions reduction and renewable electricity targets set under the act. This amendment makes it clear that the report will include a summary of the levels of use of both renewable and non-renewable electricity sources. The amendment replaces the more general reference to renewable energy. As I said, I propose this amendment as an alternative to the inclusion of the renewable electricity target proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks MLC.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. It makes it clearer that the two-yearly reporting under section 7 of the act will include information on the use of renewable and non-renewable electricity sources and defines net renewable electricity generation.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Franks–2]—

Page 6, after line 19—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) Section 7—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) For the purposes of subsection (2)(f)(i), information on the levels of greenhouse gas emissions must include—

(a) the level of net greenhouse gas emissions within the State; and

(b) the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the State, without taking account of any removals of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere due to activities within the State, or any emissions offsets from outside the State.

This is another amendment that is quite important to the Greens. This requires reporting on real zero to require reporting on total greenhouse gas emissions without any removals of emissions from the atmosphere or offsets from outside the state. Currently, it is possible for bodies to include and exclude the bits they like to make their performance look better. For example, you can include removals from outside the state or avoid mentioning emissions from outside the state. This would address that issue.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment, which in our view will improve transparency in reporting in line with the new transparency object proposed and accepted by this committee previously through amendment No. 1 [Franks-2].

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 17 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, after line 19—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) Section 7(2)—after paragraph (j) insert:

and

(k) an assessment of the effectiveness of policies, plans and initiatives that are being adopted or developed to manage climate related risks, including those identified in the statewide climate change risk assessment.

I note that the Attorney-General has possibly no support for this amendment, but it requires the minister to report on the effectiveness of the policies, plans and initiatives in place. There is a further amendment, however, that was filed in the second set that does the same thing but probably has looser wording. Our preference would have been this amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate the Hon. Tammy Franks is correct: we will not be supporting this amendment, but we will be supporting an alternative amendment instead, which I think is amendment No. 9 [Franks-2]. So we will not be supporting this, but I indicate support for when we get to amendment No. 9 [Franks-2].

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 18 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, after line 19—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) Section 7—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) For the purposes of a report under this section, without limiting the manner in which levels of greenhouse gas emissions or renewable electricity generation or use may be expressed, the report must, in providing information in relation to those matters, where relevant, express the information using an appropriate unit of measurement (and not just express the relevant information by reference to a percentage).

This requires the reporting of hard data rather than merely reporting in percentages. For those of us who prefer hard data than just percentages, this will come as something welcome. I note also that the former Leader of the Government in this place will welcome this, no doubt, because in debating the original bill, the Hon. Rob Lucas then stated on the importance of numbers:

If you are talking about reductions, you have to know from what. Is it 32.4 megatonnes, which is the Australian Greenhouse Office figure for 1990, or is it some new state-adjusted figure? As one of the members of the committee highlighted, the minister can change these figures. We need to know what the figure is. If you are going to talk about staying at the same level or reducing by 20, 25 or 30 per cent, what number are you starting from? What is the number?

A broken clock can be right twice a day, and the Hon. Rob Lucas was right.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment at the grave risk of being on a unity ticket with to the left of me and to the very, very far right of me. I find myself agreeing with both the Greens and the ghost of the Hon. Rob Lucas.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 6A.

The CHAIR: There are proposals for new clause 6A. I am advised that both the amendments basically came at the same time. I will go with the Hon. Ms Franks first.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 19 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, after line 19—After clause 6 insert:

6A—Amendment of section 9—Premier's Climate Change Council

Section 9—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) The Council must include—

(a) at least 1 person who has knowledge of, and experience in, the calculation, assessment, measurement or reporting of greenhouse gas emissions; and

(b) at least 1 person who has knowledge of, and experience in relation to, climate science; and

(c) at least 1 person who has practical knowledge of, and experience relevant to, ruminant livestock.

(3b) If the requirements referred to in subsection (3a) are not fulfilled by those persons who make up the membership of the Council immediately before that subsection comes into operation, those requirements do not apply until the first appointment made by the Minister required to fill a vacancy in the office of a member of the Council that occurs after that subsection comes into operation, and, to the extent that more than 1 appointment is required to fulfil those requirements, the second appointment, or, if required, the third appointment, made by the Minister after the subsection comes into operation.

The alternative amendment does not mention ruminant livestock, so I would ask the Libs to make their position clear on this as I move this amendment. This brings expertise on carbon accounting, climate science and ruminant livestock into the PCCC. Contrary to the view of the department, climate science is the study of regional and global science as a system and is of critical importance. The addition of ruminant livestock expertise to the PCCC acknowledges the importance of reducing the methane emissions from this sector as well as the importance attached by many farmers right now across our state, and elsewhere and beyond, to address their sector's emissions with a view to that sector's longevity. With that, I commend the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AG–1]—

Page 6, after line 19—After clause 6 insert:

6A—Amendment of section 9—Premier's Climate Change Council

Section 9—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) In making an appointment under this section (being an appointment required to fill a vacancy in the office of a member of the Council that occurs after the commencement of this subsection), the Minister must have regard to the desirability of including, within the expertise of the Council's membership, a person or persons who have an understanding of—

(a) the calculation, assessment, measurement or reporting of greenhouse gas emissions; and

(b) science related to climate change.

The government will not be supporting Ms Franks' amendment and instead proposes this amendment of our own. It is the government's concern that the amendment reduces flexibility and that we need to ensure a membership that is responsive to changing issues and priorities for addressing climate change over time. The government is also concerned that this amendment would narrow the scope of the Premier's Climate Change Council with more focus on one specific issue, such as ruminant livestock emissions. In the government's view, this begs the question of why focus on this particular issue and no other specific issues such as building emissions or mining and industrial processing emissions.

It is the government's view that the act already requires the minister to consider membership from a wide range of sectors, including the scientific community. This can already cover agricultural expertise, including ruminant livestock, as well as science and emission measurements, so the government will not be supporting this member but propose our alternative.

The Hon. T.A. Franks' new clause negatived; the Hon. K.J. Maher's new clause inserted.

Clause 7.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 20 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, after line 29—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) Section 11—after subsection (4) insert:

(5) The Department of Premier and Cabinet must ensure that adequate resources are allocated to the Council to enable the Council to perform its functions under this Act.

I think we are very close now. This amendment ensures that the PCCC is well enough resourced without bringing in the need for funding into the legislation. It simply seeks to make sure that we have an effective body.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting the amendment. The government considers matters of resourcing should be addressed through administrative not legislative means. It is our view that a minister's responsibility is to ensure proper administration and legislation, including appropriate resourcing for their departments and associated boards and committees rather than through legislative means.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendments Nos 21, 22 and 23 [Franks-1] are consequential. I move:

Amendment No 5 [Franks–2]—

Page 8, after line 3—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) Section 14(2)(b)—after 'emissions,' insert:

which may include consideration of a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target or targets,

This amendment requires government entities to consider emissions reductions in their operations. I commend it to the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be supporting the amendment. It clarifies what the minister may include for consideration.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 24 [Franks–1]—

Page 8, after line 33 [clause 10, inserted section 14A(2)]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) without limiting paragraph (a), must include an assessment of the following:

(i) the impact of climate change on the State's biodiversity and ecological communities;

(ii) the impact of pollution as a contributor to climate related risk in the State;

(iii) the impact of climate change in relation to water management in the State, including risks of flooding and rising sea levels,

and must take account of—

(iv) the State's progress towards a circular economy as a means of mitigating the impacts of climate change; and

(v) the transition to lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions in a just and equitable manner; and

(vi) the importance of preventing or minimising reasonably foreseeable significant harm to the environment and to future generations in the State; and

This amendment strengthens the requirements of the statewide climate change risk assessment; adds biodiversity and ecological communities into considerations of climate change risk assessment; adds pollution as a consideration; brings water management, flood risk and rising sea levels into consideration; and causes consideration of progress on circular economy as well as requiring consideration of a just transition. Finally, it brings into consideration duty of care to both the environment and to future generations. With that, I commend it.

The CHAIR: Before the Attorney responds, the advice, the Hon. Ms Franks, is that you should move amendment No. 6 [Franks-2] instead.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It goes to the same issues.

The CHAIR: You cannot really have a fallback, so our advice is that you are probably better to move amendment No. 6 [Franks-2].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Procedurally, I will take your very considered advice and thank the clerks for that direction. Therefore, I move:

Amendment No 6 [Franks–2]—

Page 8, after line 33 [clause 10, inserted section 14A(2)]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) without limiting any other matters that may be taken into consideration, should be prepared having regard to—

(i) the impacts of climate change on biodiversity; and

(ii) the impacts of climate change on water management; and

(iii) measures mitigating the effects of climate change, including measures to progress towards a circular economy; and

(iv) the impacts of the transition to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

I will not proceed with amendment No. 24 [Franks-1]. It goes to the same issues; it is just not as strong.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government would not have supported amendment No. 24 [Franks-1], but will support what is in effect the alternative amendment No. 6 [Franks-2]. We will support the amendment before the committee.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Franks–2]—

Page 11, after line 29—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) Section 16—after subsection (6) insert:

(7) A register of sector agreements under subsection (6)(a) must be kept available for public inspection, without fee, on the Department's website.

This requires sector agreements to be publicly available and goes to transparency and community confidence in government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are big on transparency. We will support the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 12 and 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have notes that amendment No. 8 [Franks-2] will not be required if amendment No. 25 [Franks-1] has been successful.

The CHAIR: Again, we cannot really have a fallback position.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government would not support amendment No. 25 [Franks-1] if it were moved, but will support amendment No. 8 [Franks-2].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On that note, I move:

Amendment No 8 [Franks–2]—

Page 12, line 17 [clause 14, inserted section 20A(3)(a)]—After 'section' insert:

including in relation to the reporting of the level of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the operations or activities of the agency

This requires reporting from government departments and agencies on their greenhouse gas emissions.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 14A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Franks–2]—

Page 12, after line 25—After clause 14 insert:

14A—Amendment of section 21—Review of Act

Section 21(2)—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) insofar as is reasonably practicable, the extent to which measures adopted by the State Government to facilitate climate change adaptation have been implemented; and

This is somewhat consequential. We will progress with it because amendment No. 17 [Franks-1] failed, so I am trying it a different way. At section 21(2) after paragraph (a) it inserts:

(ab) insofar as is reasonably practicable, the extent to which measures adopted by the State Government to facilitate climate change adaptation have been implemented; and

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that this alternative to amendment No. 17 [Franks-1] finds favour with the government and we will be supporting it.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clause (15) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.