HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Mr PATTERSON: Clause 10 talks to plans prepared by the public sector agencies. Obviously lots of different agencies cover a full gamut of services provided to South Australians. Of course, one very important agency deals with the population growth of the state and also with the commensurate housing as well. In summary, in terms of the interim target for 2030, but then also the plans prepared by those agencies, what population growth targets are the targets within this bill associated with?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The short answer is that the risk assessment plans and the targets that we have previously discussed are not based on any particular population target. In fact, the state does not have a population target. Plus the planning and land use services, part of the super ministry of housing that the Minister for Housing is responsible for, does do projections based on expectations of population growth. They do not represent targets so much as recognising what is likely to happen in order to prepare for them and, presumably, in that sense, would be a feature of the future as we scan what is happening and what risks exist. But this is not a population target, nor essentially a population-dependent policy approach that we are taking.

Mr PATTERSON: We have just had released an update to the 30-year housing plan around how we are going to do that. That is looking at projected population growth. This is the balance between overall emissions and then maybe per capita emissions, because, of course, the population in South Australia in 2005 was different from the population now, and obviously different from the population in 2030 and from that in 2050. How do the plans relating to housing population and emissions reductions interact, in terms of giving us a bit of a guide? Is there something that takes precedence—and this is similar to the questions I asked around power prices and similar to the questions asked around the provision of food? But in this case, of course, it is making sure that the population is housed and making sure that we can grow, or is there an alternative where emissions reduction takes priority over potential population growth?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: One of the terrific things about South Australia is that we have detached population growth from carbon emissions growth and we have detached economic growth from carbon emissions growth. So we have seen a drop in carbon emissions, a very substantial drop, and we have seen a growth both in the size of the economy and in the population. I am not sure that the interaction is quite the way that it might be understood by someone listening to the question that has been raised.

This piece of legislation is designed to recognise that it is economically extremely sensible for us to drop our carbon emissions and to reach a net zero contribution. In doing so and in putting it in legislation we have a strategic approach to how that occurs and we are also constantly monitoring risk associated with climate change, both in adaptation and in mitigation. These will be adaptable processes to the assessments to make sure that we are keeping on top of what is changing in the world and what is changing in South Australia.

One of many factors, of course, that changes is our population, but I do not actually see that as being a particularly significant one. Once you have renewable electricity supply, as long as you have enough electricity for the population, you are not adding to the carbon emissions from that population, just to use that as an example.

Mr PATTERSON: Adjacent to that in terms of the plans provided, as carbon accounting progresses—there is now scope 1, scope 2, scope 3 emissions—and in terms of the public sector agency responsible for the exports here in South Australia, some of what we export have emissions generated here in Australia. Yes, you make the point around decoupling the economic from the actual emissions, which I suppose would be necessary really for this to continue in a sustainable manner in terms of emissions going down and the possibility for economic growth. But also the plans with regard to scope 3 emissions—emissions generated overseas—how do you see that relating to our emissions profile? Is that something that these plans will have to consider? Will emissions, while generated overseas, be accounted for here in South Australia, or is that not something that needs to be considered?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The question of scope 3 emissions is interesting. As I understand it, scope 3 is we buy a product from, say, China, Vietnam, France. It has been made there, and we have brought it here and are using it here. Are we responsible for the emissions that were produced in that other place to create that item? If we are having a manufacturing sector, the company is building something here, but components come from overseas. Is the carbon from those components counted as theirs, and is it counted as South Australia's?

At present, scope 3 emissions are not counted for geographic entities, whether that is South Australia or Australia. Those emissions happened overseas so they belong to that country, just as our emissions from our manufacturing happen here, so they belong to us. The one thing is we must not try to double-count carbon, because that leads to poor choices.

However, it is true that companies, particularly big corporates, are increasingly interested in scope 3, because what they want to do is to drive different behaviour from their suppliers, so that when they buy a product it is low carbon, so the component that comes in is low carbon. As I say, that is not something that currently affects the way in which jurisdictions account. So it is conceivable but I do not think likely in the near term that a debate could start where there was a question about how scope 3 was accounted by a subnational jurisdiction like South Australia. There might then be a question in the climate risk assessment about whether we needed to understand how exposed our industry was to those kinds of components.

Although I do not know if that particular one would come up, I think it is a reasonable example of why it is important to have a climate risk assessment so that we are looking forward to what is changing, what technology is coming up and what opportunities, what are the risks, how are trade barriers being deployed and what is the economic landscape that we are operating in? It could well be that the treatment of scope 3 emissions could become part of that landscape and would be worth contemplation in the risk assessment.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr PATTERSON: In terms of sector agreements, this clause talks about coming up with agreements with individual sectors or even particular enterprises and industries. We have talked a little bit about agriculture broadly producing food. One of the key areas identified in regard to emissions in the agricultural industry is animal methane emissions. The methane obviously has a carbon dioxide equivalent. In fact, proportionally to carbon dioxide, it is significantly more.

We have protein animals, animals for meat, and also dairy animals in South Australia. In terms of the sector agreements, are there issues that need to be worked through? How will issues be worked through with this particular industry subsector of the agricultural industry overall? For the 2030 target and also the 2050 target, is any modelling being undertaken or are we able to provide to them indications around the sustainability of the number of protein animals and the number of dairy animals, or is there going to be the ability for that to be increased in line with economic growth and with feeding and exports? Or is there the risk on the other side that there will need to be a reduction in the number of protein animals and dairy animals here in South Australia?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The amendment that is being made here, for the purpose of clarity of the clause, is that we currently have sector agreements in the legislation. They are voluntary agreements that can be entered into. What we are proposing is to make it explicit that they can be both about adaptation as well as mitigation. If we go back to those initial definitions, it may have been interpreted that they were only about emissions reduction, so mitigation, whereas we want to make it clear that they can also be about adaptation. I personally think that is going to become more and more a topic in some regional areas sooner than others where they are going to want to be prepared for the heatwaves, the droughts, the fires, the risk to infrastructure and so on that are likely to come.

We already have some sector agreements. They tend to be with regional groupings. There has been one in the past with, I think, SA Water and one with the city council. They are a voluntary mechanism by which the government can have an arrangement. The member has asked pretty detailed questions about animal protein in the state that may or may not one day be voluntarily something that that sector wants to work on in the form of the sector agreement. It is a challenge for emissions reduction.

It is a challenge that will be met both through emissions reduction in the way in which the animals are managed, because there is that technology—I do not know if you can call seaweed a technology, but a change in diet that dramatically changes the methane output, and also through offsets. I say again that I think South Australia stands to be the big winner in offsets as time goes on. They are looking for places with stable democracy, a commitment to responding to climate change and a legal environment where you can invest in a bit of land and know that that is going to be looked after safely and legally.

We may well find, as time goes on, when big corporations like McDonald's want to make sure that they can sell their burgers as being climate and biodiversity neutral, they might well want to invest in our landscape, and that will be great. It is hard sitting here right now identifying all of the changes that are likely to occur between now and 2050 and beyond, but I do not think it is as bleak as the member might be thinking in terms of head of cattle permitted and any kind of establishment of a cap. I do not think that is how these things will unfold.

Mr PATTERSON: Thank you for that answer. Along that vein, that it would also provide a benefit, I think, for the agricultural sector, one of the other major emissions sources that is very beneficial to agriculture is fertiliser and making sure that the industry here in South Australia has access to fertiliser that is affordable and at the quantities required. Of course, in our environment it is obviously very useful to have fertiliser at the best of times but also, with our soils, it really does help along those lines.

Maybe you can make some further comments around the effect of fertiliser, too, and adjoining that, the ability of fertiliser to be produced here in South Australia as opposed to potentially importing it, where the emissions have been released externally to South Australia but then the use is here. We want to make sure that there is encouragement for fertiliser to be used here but also to be produced here. How do you see sector agreements playing out to facilitate that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are stretching somewhat the question on this particular clause given how minor the amendment is to the existing act, but just in the spirit of continuing to have useful conversations about climate change, I do not represent myself as an expert in agriculture nor in fertiliser, but I am certain that the approach that is being taken by the bodies that represent people who are primary producers in South Australia and across Australia is carefully working towards ways in which they will continue to have market access to those jurisdictions that will insist on knowing what the carbon consequences of their product are.

There will be numerous ways in which they will be managed, including the ways in which fertiliser, and what is known as green fertiliser, is used. This will transpire over a period of time. What is important is that, as the world sees the impacts of climate change and starts to respond, we are well positioned and not caught short.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr PATTERSON: This clause talks about the status and effect of the policies and plans. I am just interested to get an understanding of that. Previously, we have had questions around whether the targets are enforceable and what is the impact should they not be. That is certainly one area around targets, if they may or may not be met.

The other aspect to that is for individual enterprises, for people themselves, sectors, who wish to undertake activities that could well cause emissions to a lesser or greater extent. Can the minister give some clarity around this? It seems from reading this that any policy or plan under this act does not affect the rights and liabilities. Further to that in subsection (2):

No action may be brought on the basis that an entity has acted in a way that is inconsistent with a policy or a plan under this Act.

If you have plans in place and you are on a trajectory to reduce emissions, but an enterprise comes to South Australia, whether that be mining or manufacturing, and wants to undertake an activity that could well cause emissions to increase, maybe not substantially but that is counter to policies in place, can you confirm, minister, that recourse for those aggrieved at such undertakings happening will not be able to tie up and use this bill, should the amendments carry, to be able to stymie and prevent those activities occurring here in South Australia?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Indeed, I think the member has summarised why this is a useful clause. This act is not intended to be punitive: 'You must, and if not the full consequences of the law will rain down upon you, primary producer, you, manufacturer'. This is not that law.

This is a piece of legislation that establishes the view of the Parliament of South Australia that this is where we need to go, that this is wise and sensible to go, and creates facilitatory mechanisms to get there. There are obligations on the minister to create plans, there are opportunities for the minister to enter into sector agreements should that be voluntarily wanted by the sector as well, and the minister can require government agencies to enter into some risk assessments and plans. It is not about making life harder for businesses and communities in South Australia.

While clearly it has not been drafted with any such consequences, we wanted to make that beyond all question by adding this clause so that entities, whether they be a primary production group or an individual manufacturing company or a small community, can enter into the kinds of plans and so on that we are talking about without fear. What this is about, I hope, is capturing the sentiment, desire and ambition of South Australia to position ourselves intelligently in the face of the decarbonising global economy so that we avoid risk and reap the maximum reward we can and honour our obligation to do our best for the future generations.

Mr PATTERSON: Thank you for that answer. Maybe if you could talk through, minister, what is meant by 'no action may be brought on the basis': is that purely legal action or is that action around decision-making for awarding of grants or for directing organisations? To help outline and give an understanding of the terminology that 'no action may brought on the basis', maybe articulate in detail what 'no action' entails.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is legal action. On the basis of any policy or plan under this act there cannot be an action brought that an instrument is inconsistent with it.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (13 to 15) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (16:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In so doing, I do not wish to take people's time, nor just express meaningless platitudes saying, 'Thank you, everyone has been fabulous.' The truth is that it has been a very good discussion. It has been a good series of questions through the committee stage, very thoughtful questions, and the contributions made by all members during the second reading debate were useful and, again, very thoughtful.

We face what it is not an exaggeration to say is an existential crisis for, if not entirely our species, at the least the way of life to which our species has become accustomed. It is the most complex challenge we have for humanity, because it requires the action of so many different places, different individuals and different activities. As I said in the course of the estimates stage, I cannot believe that humans are not sufficiently ingenious, resourceful or lacking an interest in self-preservation that we will not rise to this challenge.

I suspect what will happen is that there will be a sudden and decisive shift once it becomes apparent that looking the other way and positioning for your own jurisdiction's advantage over another is not going to work anymore. When that shift happens, South Australia will be ready, because we have never denied the science of climate change. We have always accepted that it is real and that it requires a response. We have positioned to date the jurisdiction in a way that sets us up well in comparison to the other mainland states, and with this legislation and with all of the actions that are undertaken across government and across the community we continue to prepare ourselves for this existential threat.

It may be that we fail. As I say, I refuse to believe that that will happen, but we will not fail for the want of trying in this state, and I therefore commend everybody who has participated in a positive, constructive way on this element of our response, which is this bill.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (16:18): I wish to add to comments previously made, I suppose looking at the committee stage and updating or adding to the comments made previously in the second reading speech. Of course, in that speech I did outline that I think all of us here in the chamber understand that in South Australia we really do have a vital interest in the success of global efforts to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Of course, we are the driest state in what is the driest continent, so where the impacts of climate change cause dryness we are materially affected because we are already quite dry. Certainly, that is the case and it has been canvassed where the state is going and where there have been reductions in emissions.

However, when we talk about some of the issues, it is a wicked problem because it is relying on all jurisdictions throughout the world to have the same ambition and to act in unison, which is very difficult, of course, because different jurisdictions are at different stages of their development. We have the developed world and we have Third World countries all trying to manage their populations, feed their populations and give their populations energy.

A lot of the efforts here in South Australia, as I said, have gone into two areas: the land use side of things and energy. Energy is itself technologically demanding because of the technologies we have available today. In the energy trilemma that exists with current technologies—which is what we have to deal with while we await other ones coming online—there are emissions, there are price impacts and there are reliability impacts. Unfortunately, the lived experience is that pushing too far in the direction of one results in adverse effects in the others. Certainly, here in South Australia, that is a serious issue.

During the second reading debate, I talked about the impacts of power prices we have seen here in South Australia, where the last three ESCOSA reports released under this Labor government have seen prices for households, the average electricity bill for households, go up significantly by $798, or 44 per cent. Small businesses are the same.

The intention to have climate emissions taken into account and updated in this bill was a perfect opportunity to also try to put into legislation the energy trilemma. Amendments I sought to put in on behalf of the opposition tried to account for that by putting in place targets for residential power prices, targets for small business power prices and targets for grid reliability, all of which are in line with this bill to do with emissions reductions and putting in place targets relating to electricity. To have those amendments ruled out of order really denied the opportunity—

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order: the member is reflecting on a ruling of a previous Chair and I ask that he be brought to order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Hughes): I think that is a fair point; you are reflecting. It has been very amicable, at least while I have been in the chair, so if you would like to continue, but not in that vein.

Mr PATTERSON: I am not trying to talk about a particular ruling. While we did have debate around the energy trilemma and how to handle it and the opportunities afforded to us, we sit here now that we have been through the committee stage of the bill that we have before us, to be decided on at the third reading, and it makes no mention of power prices, it makes no mention of power prices for residential houses, it makes no mention of small businesses and it makes no mention of grid reliability. At the same time, it does make mention of renewable electricity. So while there is that ability, I think the debate has been the poorer for this house to not be able to talk openly and frankly. Of course, I am trying to not defy the rules. So I would say the opportunity was there—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Hughes): I will just pull you back a bit. The bill was far narrower than you are trying to paint it, so to go down these particular tangents I do not think is particularly fruitful. I am sure you will get plenty of other opportunities in the house, in the days and the weeks and the months and the years to come, to talk about all of those issues but, in relation to this particular bill, I would ask you to come back to the bill itself.

Mr PATTERSON: Certainly. I think it is incumbent on all of us in this house to understand the complexities of what is involved with greenhouse gas emissions reduction, with climate change, with adaptation as well, and those areas have been canvassed. Woe betide that they be elevated to discussion here. I will be interested as we go forward, as this bill goes through this parliament. Of course, we have another house and I will be interested to see what their view is of emissions reduction and what their view is of the energy trilemma and how they seek to articulate that. I certainly welcome articulation of discussion around the energy trilemma. It is a difficult issue to grapple with, it is complex, there are trade-offs required, and I look forward to those continued discussions as we move forward.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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