HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-06-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 June 2023.)

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:01): I think I came close to concluding my remarks, but I did touch upon the steel industry in my final comments and the importance of mitigation when it comes to the steel industry. Of course, these changes to the Environment Protection Act are changes to embody some expertise with regard to greenhouse gas mitigation and adaption, to embed some expertise within the body and to the body of the EPA, and to take into account mitigation and adaption in relation to greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the reasons that I have been keen on mitigation is that I do have, if you like, one of the dirtiest industries in the state in my community in Whyalla. It is a major emitter of carbon dioxide in the iron and steelmaking process. It is something that we do need to address. People are probably aware that the steel industry internationally contributes between 7 and 8 per cent—possibly up to 9 per cent—of greenhouse gas emissions globally, so it is important that we get serious about mitigation in that particular sector.

Of course, the only real pathway to serious mitigation in the steel industry is if you are talking about the use of virgin ore as opposed to recycled steel, which can be utilised in an electric arc furnace that can be renewable energy-run. But if you are talking about taking virgin ore and producing metallic iron, you need a reductant that is going to replace coking coal. The only reductant that is going to be able to do that is hydrogen. That is why the Hydrogen Jobs Plan and the selection of Whyalla are incredibly important, because a power plant in Whyalla needs a significant capacity when it comes to electrolysers. To get electrolysers in Whyalla is that first step on the road to mitigation.

We have to demonstrate that we can, using renewables, produce hydrogen commercially at scale. If we can do that, that provides a pathway for the steel industry in Whyalla. I have said before, and other people have said before, how interesting it is when you look at Whyalla and the resources available within the Whyalla region. It is one of the few places in the world that has that combination of resources.

A massive amount of magnetite in the Middleback Ranges, 50 kilometres to the west of Whyalla, is serviced by infrastructure that is already in place. There is a JORC reserve of four billion tonnes of magnetite and, if you put that into some sort of context, we use at the moment around 1.3 to 1.4 million tonnes of magnetite a year to produce intermediate and finished steel product at Whyalla, so we are talking about a massive resource in the order of billions of tonnes in the Middleback Ranges.

When you add to that the JORC reserve of magnetite throughout South Australia, it stands at somewhere between 10 and 12 billion tonnes at the moment, so we could produce steel in Whyalla for many years to come, and there will be a very strong interest if this all falls into place in iron briquettes that might well help steel industries internationally to help green up what they do, assuming we are going to use hydrogen.

This is incredibly important for our state. As I said, we have resources within the region, so you have the magnetite with the infrastructure in place, you have a port, you have a steelworks and you have a massive resource when it comes to renewables around Whyalla, Eyre Peninsula and the north of the state. You have a world-class wind resource overlapping a world-class solar resource. Once again, there are not many places in the world that have that combination.

Some of the companies are looking at Whyalla for the hydrogen hub, as opposed to the Hydrogen Jobs Plan, which is the state government initiative around the power plant. With the hydrogen hub itself, the companies that are looking at the region are talking about renewables in the gigawatt scale. We talk about renewables in this state, utility-scale renewables, in the megawatt range.

This is in the gigawatt range, very large projects, none of which are close to fruition, none of which have financial closure—and I think it is always important to put in that qualification because we are in a global competition here, with some countries willing to throw a lot of money at it, such as the United States with its Inflation Reduction Act. The Europeans are going to respond to that. We do not have the financial resources as a relatively small nation to compete on that level, so we have to be incredibly smart and play to our comparative and strategic advantages.

For my community of Whyalla, this is about a long-term future for steelmaking that will better make steel for generations to come. I am proud of the fact that three generations of my family, including me, have worked in the steel industry in Whyalla. I want to see that go on for many years to come, because at the end of the day it is the only integrated steel plant in the nation that produces long product that produces rail. It has significant strategic importance. If we can get it right there, we will be making a contribution to the global shift.

This year, 2023, will be a really interesting one, looking at the International Energy Agency and what it said. It looks like 2023 will be a game changer in terms of the scale of what is now happening internationally. A lot of people were quite pessimistic at one stage, but it is interesting that China, in just three to four months of this year, has built 71 gigawatts of solar capacity; in that very short period of time, they have built more than the whole of the history of the Australian national electricity market. The volume of what is going on in that country and in other nations that are now following is very significant. Some people who were quite pessimistic about reaching our goals now believe 2023 will be a watershed.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (11:09): I also rise to support the Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill 2023. We have all experienced the early impacts of climate change. It is sobering to realise that the environmental harm caused by climate change will continue to escalate until emissions effectively reach net zero levels, which sets huge challenges to reduce carbon emissions for this generation and those that follow. The risks of not acting are unequivocal and have already started to appear: more extreme weather events more often, real threats to our flora and fauna and devastating social and economic impacts.

This bill will amend the Environment Protection Act 1993 in order to clarify that the objects of the act extend to matters relating to climate change adaptation and also mitigation. The amendments make clear the existing role and function of the EPA to consider climate change when administering the act, particularly when executing its environmental authorisation and development assessment functions. The amendments also provide clarity and transparency while supporting the implementation of the government's climate change and emissions reduction targets and policies.

The objects of the Environment Protection Act are important, as they underpin the regulatory functions of the EPA. As they already do for the existing objects, with these amendments the EPA will need to start considering matters relating to climate change when considering applications for EPA licences and also considering development applications.

The bill also adds to the required attributes of the Environment Protection Authority Board membership. Climate change knowledge and capability attributes will become a requirement of the EPA Board membership to ensure appropriate expertise and guidance. This small but important change means that our EPA can only be guided by those with relevant knowledge and experience, just as it should be and just as I suspect all South Australians expect.

To inform this bill, the EPA met with key stakeholders, including 17 of South Australia's largest greenhouse gas emitters. Feedback regarding the intent to develop a climate change environment protection policy was overwhelmingly supportive. Of course, many of these businesses already have plans in place to achieve net zero by 2050 or are in the process of doing so. This cooperation will be crucial in delivering the environmental outcomes that South Australians want and expect, and I want to place on the record my thanks to all those who came to the table and committed to taking real action.

Key stakeholders were also informed of the intention to develop a climate change environment protection policy to outline and provide more detail on the responsibilities of government, licensees and development proponents in addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation. A climate change environment protection policy was seen as a valuable instrument by some larger emitters, as it would set an equal playing field for industry with respect to climate change expectations and support company officers making a case for decarbonisation to company management boards.

The proposed amendments to the objects of the Environment Protection Act will clarify existing provisions to provide certainty to business and community of the EPA's role with regard to climate change. It is important that our state has a comprehensive regulatory approach to address the causes and consequences of climate change, to assist in achieving our ambition to decarbonise, and build greater preparedness and resilience to the risks of climate change. The EPA has a critical role in protecting our environment from the threats of climate and in delivering actions that will support SA to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

This amendment assists us to actively regulate greenhouse gas emissions and encourage the many South Australian businesses licensed by the EPA to transition to a net zero emission economy. While the EPA has always had a legal duty to protect the community and the environment from harm, it has never had a legislated direction like this to tackle one of the greatest threats to our health, to our environment and to our future prosperity: climate change.

Increasingly, communities across Australia and the globe are demanding that governments take effective and meaningful climate change action, and our government is committed to strengthening our response. Without substantial action, climate change poses a major threat to humanity. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change are important focuses of the South Australian government.

In May 2022, South Australia declared a climate emergency and committed to restoring a safe climate by transforming the economy to net zero emissions. The South Australian government has statewide goals of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 per cent by 2030, achieving net zero emission by 2050, and achieving 100 per cent renewable energy generation by 2030.

The government is delivering a range of actions to progress towards these targets and strengthen South Australia's climate change response. Building upon a strong foundation of existing government action, the South Australia: Responding to Climate Change strategy outlines the priority actions that the South Australian government will be focusing on to build a strong net zero emissions future and adapt to climate change.

The South Australian government is working with industries, businesses, communities, local government and the Australian government to implement these actions and encourage action beyond the role of government and there is no better example of the direct action that this government is taking than its Hydrogen Jobs Plan—a bold policy that will cement South Australia's position as world leader in renewable energy, create regional jobs and generate new export opportunities.

The Premier recently spoke of this government's commitment to implementing new hydrogen and renewable energy legislation, which will slash red tape and streamline processes for businesses wanting to invest in large-scale green energy projects, but these global interest-generating projects need to be appropriately supported and that is what this legislation does. South Australians can rest assured knowing that their EPA and, importantly, appointees to the EPA Board have an obligation to consider matters of climate as it exercises its powers.

Our government has a range of existing policies and programs that contribute to reducing the state's greenhouse gas emissions in areas including energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, transport, waste, waste management and buildings. Earlier this month, the state government progressed its transition to a zero-emission public transport system, with investigations into best technology solutions for bus and train services underway. A feasibility study assessing zero-emissions technologies for railcars on non-electrified lines, being the Belair, Outer Harbor, Port Dock spur and Grange services, will seek to identify appropriate fuel solutions.

Meanwhile, trial and testing of full battery electric buses continues, with five additional battery electric buses on order to support these efforts. This work will play a key role in determining the future of South Australia's public transport network and support the state government's objective of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

In the housing space, the state government continues to grow its Virtual Power Plant, an initiative that allows lower income families to share in the benefits of South Australia's significant renewable energy generation and output. An additional 3,000 households, including those in the community housing sector, stand to gain from low-cost electricity and the comfort of battery backup. The expansion of this program, which was implemented by the former Labor government, will deliver public and community housing tenants a $423 yearly saving, meaning we are not just producing more and increasing accessibility to green energy, we are using this energy to support some of our community's most vulnerable.

Businesses have been looking at the looming threat of climate change and at the new opportunities that it presents and are also taking action for themselves. Over the past decade, businesses and the community have been leaders, and I acknowledge and encourage their efforts. That is why it is so important that the government, whoever that may be, support these efforts, meet community expectations and accelerate change wherever and however possible. Right now, it is up to us. Future generations will look back on us all and ask what we did.

Those who stand on the steps of Parliament House or march on our streets will tell us that we are still not doing enough, and they are right: we do need to do more and we will. Government action is what Australians and South Australians now demand. There is no single button that we can press. We need a coherent approach that reduces greenhouse emissions, that deals with climate change that is already happening and that seeks a global solution.

This bill will enable the Environment Protection Authority to implement a range of enhanced regulatory measures. For example, it will consider how climate-related changes, such as sea level rise and more frequent extreme weather events, increase risk to or alter the environmental impacts and proposed developments.

The EPA will work with Green Industries SA and other government agencies on education, engagement and incentives to encourage businesses, schools and the community to implement circular economy opportunities and boost sustainable growth and address resource security. The Environment Protection Authority will assist licensees exposed to climate-related risk by reviewing licence conditions and supporting action to improve arrangements for dealing with more frequent extreme weather events.

This bill will ensure that our environment continues to be protected by the best possible environmental laws. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (11:20): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill 2023. In 2021, our Deputy Premier, the Hon. Susan Close, also our Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, tabled a petition with more than 10,000 signatures from South Australians calling for immediate action on climate change. This petition came after almost 10 years of inaction on climate change by the federal and state Liberal governments, which left Australia badly exposed to the effects of climate change.

How can we ever forget the former Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison bringing a lump of coal into federal parliament or labelling South Australia's world-leading big battery at Jamestown 'a big banana'? This is an example of why elections matter, because since the state and federal elections Labor governments have been getting on with the job of taking action on climate change.

In May 2022, Minister Close introduced the climate emergency motion, reaffirming the urgent need to decarbonise the South Australian economy and shift to renewable sources of energy. This declaration signalled our intention to take action and reaffirmed the state government's commitment to build science-based policies that can prepare South Australia for the realities of extreme weather, climate shifts and increased global warming.

The South Australian government has a statewide goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 per cent by 2030, achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and achieving 100 per cent renewable energy generation by 2030. The Malinauskas Labor government has also committed to building a world-first hydrogen power plant near Whyalla in Upper Spencer Gulf by 2024 and accelerating the growth of the state hydrogen economy. The Malinauskas government is also supporting:

the growth of green minerals and processing industries to support mining for critical minerals with the lowest impact on the environment;

a circular economy development, where resources are recycled and re-used rather than thrown away;

the increased use of electric vehicles, which included abolishing the former Liberal government's tax on electric vehicles;

carbon accounting to support the measuring and monitoring of carbon emissions;

solar, batteries and smarter homes;

large-scale renewable energy generation and storage;

urban greening strategies;

regional climate partnerships;

blue carbon;

carbon farming; and

coastal protection.

Our government is also leading by example by taking action to reduce emissions from our own state government operations and undertaking serval key pieces of work to respond to climate change.

The first piece of work is an amendment to the state's climate change act to enshrine our state emission targets in law and strengthen requirements around government climate change planning and action. Legislating our targets sends a clear signal that South Australia is serious about tackling climate change and is a place to invest in clean, low emissions business.

The second piece of work is to develop a world-leading net zero emissions reduction plan. This work will focus on addressing the gaps in our current effort to reach at least 50 per cent reduction in net emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The net zero emissions reduction plan will also focus on maximising the economic benefits from the transition to net zero.

Each year, the commonwealth government provides an SA greenhouse gas inventory, which includes a dataset dating back to the 1990 financial year. The most recent released data shows that our state currently emits around 21.5 million tonnes of greenhouse emissions each year. This means our emissions have reduced by 42 per cent since 2005. Over the next seven years, we will need a further 8 per cent drop to achieve our state's target of at least 50 per cent reduction in net emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels. To set us on track to net zero by 2050, we need to act to achieve this target as well as lay the foundations for longer term reductions.

More locally, in my community of Adelaide I have committed to greening our neighbourhood, delivering projects that increase our tree canopy and create more open green space to cool our suburb, increase biodiversity and improve community wellbeing through nature. As a country kid I took for granted the many trees I would climb and the open green spaces I would run and play in, living both on the farm and alongside the Naracoorte Creek. While we might live in a thriving city, I want these same experiences for our kids and grandkids.

I am very proud to have announced two brand-new pocket parks in Prospect on Main North Road and Churchill Road, with work starting just last week at the Main North Road location opposite Scotty's Corner and the famous big Scotsman. This dirt block, which would otherwise have been turned into some large concrete box, will instead transform into open green space to bring much-needed tree canopy to this pocket of our community. A further two pocket parks will also be created at Brompton and Bowden, increasing the benefits of the new Ovingham overpass community area.

Our communities deserve more open green space and more trees because we know there are so many benefits that flow from greening our neighbourhood. From improving community wellbeing and connection to biodiversity and cooling our suburbs, the importance of tree canopy cannot be understated.

Delivering on another election commitment, the Malinauskas Labor government has fully restored Parklands protection to Helen Mayo Park, ensuring the park's trees and open green spaces are saved for current and future generations. We have achieved this by scrapping the former Liberal government's plans to build a $662 million basketball stadium on the Parklands, which would have destroyed this area of open green space and beautiful trees.

It is worth pointing out that we also opposed the former Liberal government's plans to rezone parts of the Parklands along the Riverbank as entertainment zones as well as their proposed zoning changes, which would have paved the way for high-rise commercial and residential developments along the Riverbank, along our Parklands.

The Malinauskas government will also invest $1.5 million to revitalise degraded areas of Helen Mayo Park, to be delivered by the Adelaide City Council. By reinstating the Adelaide Parklands zone, Helen Mayo Park once again has full Parklands protection, ensuring no development can occur on the banks of the River Torrens, as was the plan of the former Liberal government.

On Saturday, I was very proud to join the Premier in unveiling the very first designs of a brand-new Adelaide Aquatic Centre to replace the current run-down and decaying facility. The new state-of-the-art centre will be built for purpose, making it greener and more energy efficient. It will provide both indoor and outdoor pools, more family fun activities like splash zones, water slides and a bombing pool, include major improvements to accessibility and inclusivity and provide a dedicated warm-water pool for rehabilitation and a dedicated learn-to-swim pool.

Importantly, we have unveiled a design that will return 1,000 square metres of Parklands back to the community. That is 1,000 square metres of extra open green space over what we currently have at the site today. I am advised by the department that we are also retaining established trees on Barton Terrace West and Jeffcott Street and are looking to replace non-native vegetation with native vegetation where possible.

Understanding the importance of the tree canopy, the Malinauskas government also convened an expert panel in August 2022 to review the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 and the Planning and Design Code to ensure planning decisions encourage livability, competitiveness and sustainability. This review also included how the code and related instruments manage tree preservation and planting. The Minister for Planning, Nick Champion MP, further directed the expert panel to provide advice and recommendations on proposed amendments to the regulations as they pertain to trees, with the expert panel currently in the process of preparing their final report for the minister's consideration.

The next step in the Malinauskas government's plan to tackle climate change is this bill, the Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill 2023. This bill amends the Environment Protection Act 1993 to clarify that the objects of the act extend to matters relating to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The bill will also add further attributes to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Board membership in relation to climate change adaptation and mitigation. The amendments will clarify the existing roles and function of the EPA when considering these matters and administering the act, particularly when executing its environmental authorisation and development assessment functions. As the bill clarifies the existing powers enshrined in the act, these amendments have no regulatory impact. The amendments provide clarity and transparency while supporting the implementation of the government's climate change and emission reduction targets and policies.

The objects of the EP Act underpin the regulatory function of the act. The Environment Protection Authority, when considering applications for EPA licences and development applications under the EP Act and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, must consider and further the objects of the EP Act. The objects of the EP Act also inform the environment protection policymaking powers in part 5 of the EP Act in that an environment protection policy may be made for any purpose directed towards securing the objects of the act.

During the consultation and engagement of this bill, the Environment Protection Authority met with key stakeholders to inform them of the proposed amendment bill. During this consultation period, all 17 of South Australia's largest greenhouse gas emitters were contacted. The feedback received from these companies was overwhelmingly in support of our plan to develop the environment protection policy. Meetings were also held with DTI, DEW, DEM, DIIS, Conservation Council SA, the Climate Change Action Steering Group and the Premier's Climate Change Council.

The EPA will also form a government reference group, in consultation, to ensure joined-up decisions and messaging across government in regard to regulation, measurement and reporting. A climate change environment protection policy was seen as being a valuable instrument by some larger emitters, as it would set an equal playing field for industry with respect to climate change expectations and would support company officers making a case for decarbonisation to company management and boards.

The benefit of the proposed bill is provision of clarity and transparency to government, licensees, development proponents and the general community that climate change adaptation and mitigation falls within the scope of the objects of the EP Act. The addition of climate change knowledge and expertise to the membership of the EPA Board will provide necessary expertise and guidance on the EPA Board as the EPA's regulation of climate-related matters evolves.

I am very proud to be a part of the Malinauskas Labor government that is getting on with the job and taking active steps to tackle climate change. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (11:32): I rise to close debate. I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the second reading of the Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill 2023. This bill reinforces this government's commitment to stronger action on both climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation in recognition of the climate emergency that we are all facing.

We are delivering a broad range of actions to address climate change to protect the environment and to support jobs and growth at the same time. As I outlined in my introductory speech, this government is committed to statewide goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 per cent against 2005 emissions levels by 2030 and then to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

I think it is since I gave the second reading explanation that we have had the update in the Greenhouse Gas Inventory, as was referred to by the member for Adelaide, and have now seen that we have achieved a 42 per cent reduction on 2005 levels. One should by no means be complacent about the next 8 per cent, nor that the figures would remain stable from year to year, as there are transitory influences on the inventory as well, but it is very pleasing to see how far we have advanced along that pathway.

The Environment Protection Authority, as the state's principal environment regulator, is well positioned to play a pivotal role in assisting the government to deliver priority actions for government leadership and collaboration and to make contributions towards a net zero emissions future. It has had some runs on the board already. Environment Protection Authority regulation has already achieved a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the waste management, resource recovery and recycling sector from 1990 to 2019 whilst growing the circular economy, including the employment of 4,800 FTEs across the sector.

The Environment Protection Authority is also leading three actions under the South Australian government climate change actions. The Environment Protection Authority has powers that enable it to regulate a significant proportion of the state's emissions footprint and to assist small to medium businesses to adapt to climate change. The objects of the act underpin the functions of the authority. The amendments contained in this bill will clarify the existing role of the Environment Protection Authority in combatting climate change to ensure that all stakeholders—business, government and the community—are aware of their responsibilities with full transparency.

The Environment Protection Authority must have regard to the objects of the act when considering applications for environmental authorisations under the act and when considering development applications that are referred to it under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. The objects of the act also inform the environment protection policymaking powers in part 5 of the act, in that an environmental protection policy may be made for any purpose directed towards securing the objects of the act.

Therefore, the proposed amendments will also support future development of a climate change focused environment protection policy under the act. I think it is probably worth emphasising that point in the context of some of the questions that were raised in the opposition's second reading contribution, where it was questioned whether the changes to the act were of sufficient weight and would make much difference.

What is, of course, important is to understand that they assist in then creating the right environment for us to be able to have an environment protection policy that is targeted not only at climate change mitigation but also at climate change adaptation, which will be very necessary as we continue to regulate large emitting businesses.

The addition of climate change knowledge and expertise to the membership of the board of the Environment Protection Authority will provide necessary expertise and guidance on the board as the authority's regulation of climate change related matters evolves over time. The authority has broadly consulted with key stakeholders on the elements of this bill and the future work that this agency intends to do to clarify its role in regulating climate change matters, where the support for progressing this work was unanimous.

These amendments to the EPA 1993 and further policy-related work to come will assist the government to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and its circular economy and green industry transition. This bill is just one step towards addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation in South Australia. Other key South Australian legislation will be reviewed to strengthen climate action and will further demonstrate the Malinauskas government's commitment to strong climate change legislation and delivering meaningful action on climate change.

I also respond to the contribution by the opposition in being concerned that at this point we are not progressing with the legislation they are putting forward to add the targets that we have all agreed upon—the 50 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050—and that a lack of progress on their bill on that matter means a lack of interest in enshrining those targets in legislation. As I think has been explained in my contribution, and in the contributions of other people on this side, nothing could be further from the truth. We are committed to updating that legislation, but what we want is to do it in a thorough way that picks up all the changes that might be both required and useful for making changes to the way in which government guides the transition to a net zero economy.

We have therefore asked the Premier's Climate Change Council, under the very good leadership of Martin Haese, to review the act as well as prepare a climate change strategy that in fact sees a pathway to those targets, as opposed to the strategy we inherited from the previous government, and we have kept in place for now, that would get us nowhere near achieving those targets. We think it is important that we now take the process of being able to visualise and plan both the 2030 and the 2050 targets in a far more serious way.

We have also taken the time to have an industry and climate change conference over two days; 900 people attended, all South Australian small businesses and non-government organisations—a remarkable turnout. We are using the information that was received from the participants to assist and guide in both those pieces of work.

We are also supporting the Conservation Council to undertake a 12-month process of having discussions with the community about what the community wants to see in a climate change response. This is so that, when we come to updating both the strategy and legislation, we are not just saying, 'We have had these shared targets on both sides of parliament for some time and we will pop them in,' but we are actually making the changes to the 2007 act that are necessary for us to be up to date with what we understand the technology enables us to do, what our trading partners are requiring us to do, what the pace of change in climate change is requiring of us in terms of speedy action and, of course, in making that very significant economic transition.

I think the previous Labor government made a tremendous contribution to South Australia's economic transition through its efforts in promoting renewable energy. It was a remarkable change, from something like 1 per cent of our electricity being generated by renewable energy in any given year to 77 per cent being generated by intermittent renewable electricity. Because it is intermittent, that is world leading.

Nations and jurisdictions that have a higher proportion of renewable energy do it with hydro, with being able to store in dams. We do not have lots of large dams, we do not have lots of high rainfall, and so we are doing it with intermittent renewables, and that puts us right at the forefront of being able to make the transition even in places that do not have lots of hills and lots of water, which makes what we do important not just for ourselves but in our leadership elsewhere.

That contribution was significant. I make no claim to have had any part in it, but it was significant and important both environmentally and economically in making the transition. It was at that point that we saw that economic growth in South Australia was decoupled from growth in emissions, which was an immensely important transition point.

What we have now is the opportunity to take the next step, because we all now agree, across the world, that we need to get to net zero by 2050. We need to make not just the transition in what has occurred already but another staged leap in being able to dramatically drop our emissions. To do that, we need to get beyond 77 per cent. The investment in the Hydrogen Jobs Plan, in the plant that will be in the Upper Spencer Gulf, is enormously significant in that. It is taking not only a lot of public money but a lot of effort on behalf of this government and the very diligent public servants in preparing for that.

It is making way for further renewable energy expansion because not only will that be required for the hydrogen plant but there is now an interest and appetite from business to work out how hydrogen can be harnessed in various ways, including the production of fertiliser, to be able to assist in the transition. It must not be just the ability to produce hydrogen or even to turn that back into electrons; it must be to make an industrial transformation.

That is why, as the member for Giles was talking about earlier, the transition to green iron and perhaps even green steel is so significant, because if we can export our renewable energy in the form of a product—not just the hydrogen, not just the holder of the energy, but in the form of a product like green iron—then we are really establishing South Australia to be a secure and prosperous place for the demands of the new century.

I pay tribute to the opposition when they were in government in making a great leap forward in getting rid of some single-use plastics and introducing that piece of legislation. That was a significant moment in assisting consumers to be part of the circular economy and to get out of the disposable economy. We are making further changes, as was anticipated in the legislation, this September and the one after, to reduce the amount of single-use plastics that are able to be sold. We are addressing transport, significantly preventing the disincentive to have EVs which was captured by the previous government's piece of taxation legislation and which has now been repealed.

As was mentioned particularly by the member for Adelaide, we are working on a much more thoughtful approach to ensuring that we are greening not only Adelaide the city but also the regions. There are significant investments in heritage agreements, which are ways in which private landholders are able to look after the biodiversity they have—to protect it, to restore it—but also in the recent Cooler, Greener, Wilder Grants, released by Green Adelaide, and of course support for the national parks system, putting nature at the centre of what the protected areas are about and supporting the Friends of Parks, who are so intent on making sure that parks are properly vegetated both for biodiversity purposes and for resilience to climate change.

There is a significant amount of work that is occurring across government effort, all of which are supported by making sure that every part of government is doing what it can. The EPA has a particular role it can and will play in participating far more actively and with far more clarity through the amendment of this act, and I therefore commend it to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr BATTY: The minister spoke of stakeholders being consulted in the preparation of this bill. Can you outline who the EPA consulted in preparing this bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The EPA met with key stakeholders to inform them of the proposed bill, either face to face or virtually, from December 2022 to February 2023. All of South Australia's largest greenhouse gas emitters were contacted: those that are licensed under the EP Act and also report emissions greater than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting framework.

The large emitters the EPA met with were Santos, Liberty Primary Metals (which is Whyalla Steelworks), AGL, Pelican Point Power, Adelaide Brighton Cement, BHP, OZ Minerals, Aurora Group, Nyrstar, SA Water, Origin Energy, Cleanaway, Kimberly-Clark, and Pacific National Services. The Australian Gas Networks and Osborne Cogeneration Pty Ltd declined the invitation to meet but asked the EPA to inform them of the outcome.

Meetings have also been held with the Department for Trade and Investment; Planning and Land Use Services; the Department for Environment and Water; the Department for Energy and Mining; the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science; Conservation Council South Australia; the Climate Change Action Steering Group; and the Premier's Climate Change Council.

Mr BATTY: I think you indicated in your second reading speech that the vast majority of those consulted were supportive of this bill. Correct me if I am wrong, but you just said, in closing the debate, that there was unanimous support from all those stakeholders. Was it the vast majority that were supportive or was it unanimous support?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My advice is that everyone was supportive of the bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr BATTY: This is a clause that deals with the commencement of the bill. Can the minister outline what practical effect on climate change we will see from the commencement of this bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I think the house is now well aware, the EPA is already able to address climate change matters and does do so on an ad hoc basis—might be the way to describe it. As soon as the bill commences, the EPA will be in a position to start working on the environment protection policy, which as I mentioned in the close of the second reading speech is the device which is used by the EPA to guide with a greater level of detail what is expected of the entities it regulates.

That policy will reflect what is happening also at the federal level. The safeguards mechanism that is being discussed at present at the federal level would be acknowledged so that there is no double work for emitters—that they are having to deal at both levels. It will be able to consolidate what is expected or at least reflect what we are not doing because it is being managed elsewhere.

Constructing that policy, we will start negotiations or consultation with industry, government and also the Premier's Climate Change Council in order to bring together a policy that is functional and will make a real difference. The other change that will happen as soon as the bill commences is that it will give us an opportunity to select a board member with expertise on climate change, as is required, then, under the act.

Mr BATTY: Is there any reason why the EPA cannot get on with the work of this environment protection policy in the absence of this bill passing today?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: What is important to understand is that while it is true that one could read the objects, and likely in a court case might be required to read the objects, as being inclusive of climate change, it is not explicit. We are dealing with businesses that must make significant investments as they transition themselves. Many of them, indeed, already desire to transition to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and also prepare for the impacts of the more extreme weather events that are associated with the warming that is occurring.

Given that the investment climate is a matter of seriousness, changing this act means that it becomes beyond question that there will be an environment protection policy, that the EPA regards itself as having rightly a role to play in the management of climate change. It is a way of being fair to business—to all business—to be clear that that is what is happening, and to enable us to, in an orderly way, then sit down with industry alongside government and the Premier's Climate Change Council to develop this policy so that there are no sort of mixed signals, and 'Well, is that just an interpretation of the objects? Do you really need to do it?' It is in the act, we are going to develop a policy, business will be involved, industry will be involved in that policy.

While the opposition—well, anyone—could choose to characterise this as, 'Oh, well, it's already probably there, so it is not making much difference,' in fact the parliament choosing to endorse that it is in this act, and the government then acting and, importantly, the Environment Protection Authority acting in a way that then conscientiously delivers on that, is all part of creating an environment of certainty for industry and clarity about where we as South Australia are going.

Mr BATTY: Perhaps to assist with that clarity then, on commencement of this bill will the EPA have any additional powers or, maybe more importantly, will there be any additional obligations on major polluters? For instance, when the EPA were conducting their consultation on this bill with those major polluters, what did the EPA tell these major polluters they will need to do in terms of adjusting their operations following the commencement of this bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think the question is really directed at what will happen in the environment protection policy and, of course, the fact that there would be one was foreshadowed as part of these discussions about the bill. Just as WA and Northern Territory have done already, the idea of the policy is in essence to establish that emitters are required to say what their emissions will be and what they will be doing to reduce them.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr BATTY: This is a clause that inserts additional definitions into section 3 of the act; definitions of climate change adaptation, climate change mitigation and greenhouse gas emissions. Already existing in section 3 of the act is a definition of a pollutant. Is a greenhouse gas emission a pollutant?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We have received advice that greenhouse gases could be considered a pollutant, although I do not believe that that has been tested in a court, but it is likely, given the consequences of their emission, that they could be considered a pollutant.

The advantage of this clause and this bill is that it puts it beyond question and that it is able to use the definitions in the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act 2007, so that then, rather than debating whether this or that particular gas could be regarded as a pollutant, again this is about creating a much more certain environment for industry so that there is not a question, it is clear, and then we are able, of course, to act on that as we know we all need to.

It is also important that the piece of legislation talks about adaptation. We should not ignore the consequences—and the necessity of adapting to climate change.

Mr BATTY: A similar question: already existing in section 3, and ultimately section 5, is a definition of environmental harm. Is climate change environmental harm?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: One of the complexities I think we are dealing with is that unlike many, not all, other environmental harms, climate change is a global effect from the cumulative emissions that occur globally. What I mean by that is that whereas a spill of lead will affect that local environment, and there is a very clear link of environmental harm, emissions of carbon in the same place will not simply warm that place; they are a contributor to what we know to be a global challenge that we must address.

So, while we have had advice that climate change could be considered environmental harm, because by any common understanding of those words of course it is, it is important—given that question of the distance between individual action and the collective and cumulative result and that we need collective and cumulative action to reduce those emissions if we are going to have a global impact—that for the sake of certainty for industry we put that beyond doubt by making these legislative changes.

There is no rational way of dealing with climate change without reducing emissions, and we not only need to do that in order to make our contribution to the decline in emissions collectively but we also need to do it because if we do not, we will be economically left behind. So what we need to do is make sure that we are working in South Australia to have a strong economy in a carbon constrained global economy, one that will increasingly test what products are being sold and how many emissions are associated with them, so we need to use all of the angles we can to assist the economy to make that shift.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr BATTY: The minister has already conceded that the objects of the act are already sufficiently broad to permit consideration of climate change adaptation and mitigation. This is a clause that effectively peppers the act with those words. Does this bill do anything more than pepper the act with words like 'climate change', in which case why do we need it? At its highest, is this bill just clarifying what powers and obligations already exist?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I feel like I am in some sort of groundhog day where I am being asked versions of exactly the same question and I am not sure if it is because my answers are not sufficiently clear or perhaps the questions are pre-prepared, so we just go on to the next one. What we are dealing with is a very complex environmental impact in the creation of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to the global harm of climate change and also the need for our industry to be ready in every way it can be for a warming environment that creates more extreme weather events.

Whether by legal definition one could interpret with certainty that these matters are already covered in the general terms of environmental harm and pollutants is a matter that has never been settled before the courts but one can receive legal advice on. What really matters is that, collectively as a parliament, as custodians collectively of the South Australian economy and by virtue of that of South Australian society and prosperity, we provide clarity and certainty so that decisions are not locked up in questions about whether that definition is sufficiently clear to cover this particular emission, but is removed from that world and taken into the real world of what climate change means, what is required of industry and all the instruments that are able to be used collectively to address it.

Whether one wants to get caught up in whether this is a semantic debate on an interpretation of a piece of legislation or whether one wants to understand that this is an important step in treating industry and their need for certainty and security seriously and that we collectively as a parliament choose to make that statement, that does have weight. It will have even more weight once the environment protection policy is able to be worked through with the stakeholders, but in itself it does have weight because it states beyond doubt that the Environment Protection Authority has a responsibility to contribute to our response to climate change.

That is one of the things that parliament does: it clarifies what is important, it identifies entities that are responsible for contributing to addressing that and it does so in a way that puts it beyond legal doubt or dispute and also, I hope, beyond political doubt or dispute about whether this is something that is important to deal with.

Mr BATTY: The minister mentioned earlier that there was no opposition raised with respect to this bill when consulting with stakeholders. Did any stakeholders raise any other opposition about work connected to this—for example, the environment protection policy that you foreshadowed?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Naturally, while all the businesses were very clearly supportive of the bill itself, there were questions and some concerns about what the environment protection policy will require of them and when. We have explained very clearly that they will be participating in the process for us to draw that up.

We need to pay attention to meeting our obligations for climate change—mitigation in particular—but also do that in the context of understanding what the federal government is requiring of businesses and how quickly businesses can reasonably act. This is custom and practice for the EPA; it works with businesses to make sure that they are successful but are responding to environmental challenges. This will be no different.

Mr TEAGUE: I just take up that line of questioning that the member for Bragg stepped through primarily from clause 3 to clause 4. Perhaps in the context of the minister's answers, I draw particular attention to subclause (5) and the reference there to the requirement that persons engaged in polluting activities 'ensure their facilities and premises are designed or progressively approved and so on'.

I note what the minister has had to say about the purpose of the parliament and what we are doing to refer to climate change and the broad nature of the effect of climate change. Is it not the problem that we are actually here with a responsibility to legislate in a meaningful way and that, as a first step, it is a therefore perfectly reasonable and necessary question, is it not, to determine whether or not the climate change inducing activities—the climate change inducing components—are caught by definitions in the act and in the regulations?

Section 3 of the act defines in, I think, three ways—pollute, pollutant, pollution—and there are references in the act and in the regulations to contamination and contaminating activities and so on. Is it not the case that the act is designed and geared towards the regulation of those polluting activities that are catalogued and then to determining things like pollutant, load-based components and so on, so that—and I see that, in addition to those pollutants that are set out, there is capacity to regulate the addition of other categories of pollutant—it is necessary to determine that with some precision for the purposes including of whether or not a person is engaged in polluting activities?

Without that, are we not then saying that we are going to apply this act, which was designed for a purpose other than to deal with climate change, only to those who are engaged in the more narrow—and, might I say, traditionally defined polluting activities, although 'polluting activities' is not defined; it is used discursively in the bill and by reference to pollution—because, otherwise, we do not know who is actually caught by provisions including that referred to in clause 4(5)?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will just try to decipher exactly what the question was, so if I am not answering the question please tell me. If the question was, 'Who is affected by the legislation now, once the definition is clear?', that will be determined. If I am understanding, it might be: 'Does a small business that emits a small amount of greenhouse gas get caught up in having to respond or not? Is there a cut-off?' That might have been part of the question in trying to understand who is affected by this clarity in definition. That will largely be captured through the environment protection policy so that we are able to determine which of the regulated industries are particularly needing to pay attention to the terms of that policy.

Mr TEAGUE: I come back to the definition of 'pollutant'. Maybe I have walked through the whole thing in one go. To answer the minister's question, the first point at which the rubber hits the road is clause 4(5), inserting a requirement that persons engaged in polluting activities ensure that their facilities and premises are designed and progressively improved so as to limit the risk of environmental harm from those activities in relation to the impacts of a changing climate. Does it not need to decide who those persons are?

The act as it has been so far applied and directed is defining pollutants and also defining contamination in ways that the minister has described are those more traditional ways that are going to have immediate effects in local areas and hence need to be regulated by the EPA. There is a regime for determining how those more immediate impacts are to be applied.

What we see here, then, as the member for Bragg has adverted to, is a 'peppering', to use his term, and some definitions applied in terms of objects. We are overlaying that broad question of how we might look at climate change mitigation, applying measures so as to improve and limit environmental harm in that broad sense, but we need to identify who is being obliged to do that in the act.

We need to define, and maybe the question more particularly might be, who are those persons engaged in polluting activities. To whatever extent, there is at present uncertainty as to what polluting activities are. How do we know who the persons involved are? I am engaged in a polluting activity at the moment; there is some carbon dioxide being emitted.

Where we have gone from an EPA that is dealing with prescribed pollutants, prescribed contaminants, regimes for determining things like points and approvals and monitoring and all the rest of it, we are now talking climate change in the broad, but we are not possibly—or are we?—bringing that back to, as it were, putting the money where the mouth is and saying, 'Here are the pollutants now that tell us about what activities are to be mitigated,' and therefore making a contribution.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: A bit of graphology, a bit of semantics, a bit of legal—we are ready, I think. Schedule 1, as the member may well be aware, of the Environment Protection Act contains a list of activities that require the EPA to regulate an industry. There is no intention for any business or an industry that is not already being regulated, that already has a licence, to be added to the list of industry that is required to have a licence. So we are already dealing with a known quantity of industry; it is just a question of being able to deal specifically and explicitly with the greenhouse gas emissions. While the member may well be emitting carbon, he is currently not required to get a licence for causing environmental harm, nor will he be required to get a licence for causing environmental harm.

Mr TEAGUE: I am grateful for that indication, but maybe I will give a couple of illustrations. The minister may not necessarily have it to hand, but section 64A of the act talks about the obligation on the minister to take action where a pollutant is released, regularly or irregularly. It does not seem to me to limit itself to those prescribed activities or designated entities that are set out in schedule 1. It just talks about the emission of a pollutant in a way that gives rise to the obligation for the minister to take action about it. That is just one example of a series of provisions in that nature that hinge off the definition of pollutant in the first place.

To perhaps put that into some context, if we get back to the regulations, I will bring up regulation 31, and the minister might like to have a look at that as well. For example—and I mentioned this earlier when talking about pollutant load base components—it sets out for the purposes of the regulation a couple of tables by reference to particular designated air pollutants and those, for the purposes of that regulation, include the familiar ones: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, volatile organic compounds, and lead. Further on in the regulation, we see fee units and zone weightings for designated water pollutants, particularly in the context of desalination plants. We see those components are again tabulated, there are fee results, load is determined and so on.

The broad point is that the act is applying itself to what it goes through stepwise to define and then apply regulations towards in terms of specific pollutants, sometimes in relation to emitters of them, sometimes in the broad, as section 64A of the act, I think, exemplifies. The question remains: how can the overlay of an object to, as it were, progressively improve as it is applied to those persons engaged in polluting activities—so called, in subclause (5)—or the general references to mitigation and adaption have any work to do in the act without there being that legislative focus on what the pollutants or contaminants are?

If it is an attempt here to, as it were, overlay and apply climate change objects to the old act, we have not seen any indication—I am not aware of any indication—that there is the possibility to name all these pollutants by regulation. That could happen subsequently, but there has been no reference to it so far. Are we not talking about a couple of parallel concepts that are not actually connecting to one another in the legislation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There are a couple of things to clarify. The earlier clause that we passed talks about greenhouse gas emissions having the same meaning as in the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act 2007. That act does list what they are, so if we are concerned about what the gases are we can find them, and we have done that through a definition of referral.

The problem when we are suddenly leaping out of the bill and into the act—although perfectly entitled to do so—means that it is easy to get out of context. Section 64A is not a general requirement to deal with pollution, it refers specifically to auto protection areas, so it is not quite analogous I think to what the member might be seeking to ask.

The reality is that much of the detail that is being sought, many of the ways in which these matters will be addressed, will appear, as happens with many ways in which environmental harm is dealt with, through the environment protection policy so that it is able to be refined and adjusted and also to be consulted with industry, but it creates a much more flexible way of dealing with environmental harm than capturing definitively all the detail in the act.

Mr TEAGUE: I might be done, and I could do it in clause 5, only very briefly, if the Chair would permit.

The CHAIR: I will allow a supplementary.

Mr TEAGUE: It is supplementary. Going back to clause 3 and to the definition of greenhouse gas emissions, why in light of the minister's answer, for example, are greenhouse gas emissions not included specifically in an amended definition of pollutant? I just ask that rhetorically. Against the background of the answers that have been given so far, I cannot see any good reason why it would not have been, but I am just here to ask questions.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Would you like an answer?

Mr TEAGUE: You might feel like you have already answered it.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My understanding is that 'pollutants' includes the phrase 'gases' and then this gives us the definition of what greenhouse gases are, so I think the member's concerns about a lack of clarity have been answered through that chain.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr BATTY: This is a clause that amends section 14B, requiring the EPA Board to have a person with knowledge of climate change adaptation and mitigation. The existing section 14B(5) of the act already requires the board membership to have someone with experience relevant to environment protection and also knowledge of industry. Why does this do more? What work is left to be done by this amendment?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think it is important that we be clear that we want that specific expertise on the board. Simply saying 'environmental harm and industry' is fairly non-specific. This gives greater guidance not just for this government but future governments that climate change adaptation and mitigation is going to be increasingly an important part of what we all are dealing with—every part of government and every part of society. This puts beyond question the need for that practical knowledge and experience and I hope we will attract someone with that expertise to come onto the board to add value to what the board is able to do not only in the regulatory role of the EPA but in terms of looking forward to policy settings that will be required in the future.

Mr BATTY: Does the minister have any concerns about the current experience or qualifications of those on the EPA Board?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Of course not.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (12:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT