Bills

Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Intergenerational Equity) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 September 2025.)

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:25): I rise very briefly in support of the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Intergenerational Equity) Amendment Bill. This bill will amend the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act 2007 and make related amendments to the Parliamentary Committees Act.

The amendment, if passed, will require that the health and wellbeing of children and future generations in this state will be at the front of mind for key decisions made under acts that deal with energy, mining, planning and development and any other acts prescribed by regulation. South Australia has declared a climate emergency, but we are not treating it with the urgency that it requires. We are not looking ahead to the future, and we are not taking climate change into consideration as part of all of the decisions we make. I welcome this bill's focus on the needs of future generations and commend it to the chamber.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:26): I rise to speak on the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Intergenerational Equity) Amendment Bill 2025. I thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for bringing this bill to the council, but I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting this bill. I seek leave to insert my speech in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

The Opposition recognises her genuine commitment to the welfare of children, seen through this and her further advocacy across the Child Protection legislation space, and of course, to the future of our environment.

The Liberal Party believes profoundly in stewardship—of our environment, our economy, and the opportunities we safeguard for future generations. But we also believe Mr President, that stewardship is not achieved through additional layers of bureaucracy or processes that look impressive on paper yet deliver little in practice.

Good environmental policy must work Mr President—on the ground, in the regions, in our industries, and in our communities. It must plant the trees, restore the habitats, improve the water quality, and strengthen the ecosystems we all rely on. What it cannot be is a cycle of ever-expanding paperwork that slows down genuine environmental improvement while creating the illusion of progress.

Mr President, we on this side of the chamber believe that environmental leadership is not measured by the number of assessments or procedural hurdles imposed on decision-makers. It is measured by real, measurable outcomes: healthier soils, cleaner water, restored reefs, thriving biodiversity and resilient landscapes. That is the Liberal approach—practical, evidence-based action that delivers outcomes rather than obstacles.

This Bill proposes a new, mandatory Child Rights Impact Assessment for a wide range of administrative decisions. Decisions involving energy, planning, infrastructure, mining, and environmental approvals. It imposes obligations that go well beyond the existing, extensive safeguards already embedded across these Acts. It requires decision-makers to consider not only direct emissions, but also downstream and upstream emissions, including scope 3, over the lifetime of a project.

It would bind our decision-making to assessment tools created by the Australian Human Rights Commission, an organisation that may do important work but is not a regulatory authority, nor has any accountability to this Parliament or the people of South Australia.

This Bill, however well-intentioned, risks substituting practical environmental progress with procedural complexity. It adds another mandatory assessment regime to areas already governed by some of the most rigorous environmental and planning requirements in the country. It creates more red tape, more uncertainty, and more delay, without necessarily planting one additional tree or improving one hectare of natural habitat.

That is not the path to a stronger, more sustainable South Australia.

The Liberal Party believes in empowering innovation, supporting sustainable industry, partnering with community groups who are restoring landscapes, and delivering the infrastructure and programs that practically improve our environment. This is how we achieve intergenerational responsibility—not through duplicative frameworks, but through tangible, enduring environmental gains.

Mr President, South Australia already has robust environmental protections. Our frameworks already consider long-term impacts. And we already have obligations under the Climate Change Act.

From opening up greater recreational spaces for first-hand environmental participation, to circular economy innovations, to biodiversity protection, and water security projects, Liberal governments have delivered real, practical environmental outcomes.

The question before us today is not whether we care about children. We all do. The question is whether this legislation makes our State better governed, more competitive, and more sustainable.

I think there is a real risk with a burdensome, duplicative framework in deterring investment, slowing major projects, and injecting subjectivity into decisions that must be clear, consistent, and evidence-based. It would potentially undermine certainty for the industries that employ tens of thousands of South Australians and sustain our regions.

And most critically, it sends a message that our young people are defined by fragility rather than strength. I truly do have an issue with that Mr President. That is not the message they need.

Young people's mental health is reported, constantly, as at an all-time critical impasse. They need confidence. They need opportunity. They need a State that believes in their capacity to thrive.

Mr President, stewardship requires balance. It requires ensuring that decisions support both environmental protection and economic growth. It requires respecting the role of families and communities. And it requires legislation that strengthens South Australia's future, not legislation that complicates and constrains it.

For these reasons, the Opposition cannot support the Bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:26): I would like to advise the chamber that the government will indicate our support for the principles of taking action on climate change and reducing emissions in relation to this bill. This is evidenced by the fact that, just last sitting week, this chamber unanimously passed a government motion reaffirming our commitment to net zero by 2050. We will support the second reading stage of the bill to enable it to be further considered. We have not had time to properly consult on the impacts of the bill, so we are not in a position to progress it any further than the second reading stage today. We will reserve our right on our support of the bill for future stages.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:27): I rise to thank those members who have made a contribution: the Hon. Robert Simms, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and the Hon. Ian Hunter. I thank the government for their consideration. I would also like to thank Senator David Pocock and the duty of care team, on whose work I and my team have drawn. Additionally, there was a truly inspiring breadth and depth of stakeholder responses to that bill, too, that we will be very happy to provide the government with. I commend my adviser Joanna Wells for all of her extensive work on this.

I note also the support and engagement of Parents for Climate Action; Doctors for the Environment; the Environmental Defenders Office; the Law Society of South Australia; Melbourne Climate Futures, which is based at the University of Melbourne; Comms Declare; Jesuit Social Services; the Australia Institute; and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, just to name a few. They, just like I, want the best possible world for their children and grandchildren.

Many of the responses that were received on the Pocock bill called for it to go further and suggested improvements, so we have drawn on those, too. I wish to acknowledge the work and thoughtfulness for our children and future generations that went into those submissions. With that, I seek leave to insert the rest of my comments in Hansard.

Leave granted.

In 2024, 90% of global CO2 emissions came from burning fossil fuels, and yet we plan to produce more than double the fossil fuels in 2030, than is consistent with keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

We can't simply keep burning fossil fuels, increasing our emissions and try to offset our way to net-zero.

We can't plant our way out of this either. To achieve net zero through tree planting, we need a billion hectares, an area larger than the United States of America.

Only seven G20 members are on track to achieving their nationally determined contributions targets. Few are even on a clear trajectory towards their net-zero emissions pledges.

Much of the rise in fossil fuel electricity emissions may well be due to a hotter climate. Heat related events around the world and on most continents during 2024 consistently drove temperatures above 45 degrees. The direct cost of climate-linked disasters since 2000 has reached more than $US18 trillion since the year 2000.

The Greenland and Antarctic West ice sheets may well have already passed critical tipping points, and the Gulf Stream, which controls global climate, is weakening. We're in significant trouble when it collapses. Based on the pledges currently in place, the world is heading for up to 2.8 degrees of warming.

If we don't drive emissions down rapidly and sharply, future generations will pay heavily for our inadequate action.

Happily, in many cases, mitigation aligns with economic growth, job creation and energy security: we have no reason not to embrace the changes required of us to drive down emissions.

The recent International Court of Justice opinion on the obligations of states with respect to climate change states clearly that climate obligations are not aspirational; they are legal, they are substantive, and they are enforceable.

In the words of Inger Andersen, the executive Director of the UN Environment Program: Climate action is not philanthropy; it is national self-interest.

Acting in the best interests of future generations is also not philanthropy.

That too, is blatant self-interest: for when we make decisions that positively impact on our children, every single one of us does better.

Bill read a second time.