HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-06-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 May 2023.)

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I draw your attention to the status of the house, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There not being a quorum, ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (16:24): I rise on behalf of the opposition to make a brief contribution to the Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill 2023. It will be a relatively minor contribution because what we have before us is a bill that seeks to make relatively minor amendments to the EP Act. It is, in fact, a bill that I do not think will have even a minor effect on mitigating or adapting to climate change in South Australia; I do not think it will have any effect at all.

That is because what we are dealing with is quite a discrete bill that does little more than pepper the objects of the EP Act with the words 'climate change mitigation' and 'climate change adaptation'. Importantly, what this bill does not do is create any new requirements for businesses or the community or polluters. It does not create any new powers for the Environment Protection Authority, and it does not really create any real regulatory impact at all. At its highest what this bill might be seen to do is to make explicit what is already implicit in the EP Act. That begs the question, of course: what is the point? What is the point of these amendments?

I think the minister, in her second reading explanation, has gone some way in trying to explain what the point is, seemingly by trying to imply that this bill represents the government taking some real action when it comes to climate change, which is curious given that all the bill does is pepper the objects of the act with the words 'climate change'. It does not look like real action to me. The minister goes on to talk about the government's efforts to minimise the impacts of climate change. She references the state's goals to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and our interim target of 50 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels.

What the minister fails to point out, however, is that these are references to targets set by the former Liberal government. Although South Australia has had a net zero target since 2015, it was the former Liberal government that introduced that interim target and announced that interim target of a 50 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. Of course, it is this side of the house that is trying to enshrine those targets in legislation, but it has been scuttled every step of the way by those opposite.

The minister goes on to make other references in her second reading explanation to the government's record of adaptation to climate change and the great progress towards urban greening strategies. But once again she fails to point out that in fact it was the former Liberal government that was the champion of so many cooling initiatives and greening initiatives, which, very sadly, have been axed or defunded by the Malinauskas Labor government since the March election last year.

Indeed, I think it was one year ago this week when the minister saw fit to declare a climate emergency in South Australia. It is the one-year anniversary of the minister declaring a climate emergency, yet we have seen absolutely no emergency action at all, of course making that whole declaration entirely meaningless and virtue signalling at its very worst. Indeed, this week during the one-year anniversary of the minister declaring a climate emergency Labor have come into this house and voted against practical initiatives like banning corflutes, enshrining the climate targets in legislation and protecting our Parklands. On one side of the house, we see real practical action; on the other side of the house, we see meaningless words and virtue signalling.

Do not be fooled about this apparent record of cooling and greening initiatives from the Labor government. Indeed, it was this very government that slashed the Greener Neighbourhoods program, which was a scheme that would have seen over 10,000 trees and shrubs planted in suburban streets right across Adelaide. It was this very Malinauskas Labor government that slashed Greening Adelaide's Heart program, which again would have seen a range of practical greening and cooling projects for the CBD to respond to a warming climate, and it would have created more wetlands and plantings along the River Torrens.

While this bill may be perfectly harmless, in that it does not do anything at all, I think we are once again seeing the hypocrisy of Labor when it comes to its environmental credentials: all talk, all gesture and, in this case, all words but absolutely no action.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (16:30): I rise today in support of the Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill 2023 to amend the Environment Protection Act 1993. I would like to start by thanking our Deputy Premier and Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, as well as her team, for their work in bringing this bill before us. As one of your portfolio responsibilities as Deputy Premier (I presume she is listening at home because who does not when they are home sick?), this parliament is simply made better by your leadership in continuing South Australia's proud history of direct action on climate change.

Appreciation must also be given to all those stakeholders who contributed to the consultation on this bill. I would particularly like to highlight the Premier's Climate Change Council and the Conservation Council SA for their support of this bill and ongoing work in this space. As I understand, some of South Australia's largest greenhouse gas emitters contributed to consultation on this bill and were also largely in support of strengthening the Environment Protection Act and policy. This consultation is further evidence that good government can bring along business on our journey towards decarbonisation.

With more and more South Australians passionately demanding greater action on climate change, it should be clear to everyone in this place that even profit-driven business is turning towards more immediate decarbonisation. We know now more than ever that to say that addressing climate change is bad for business is simply not true.

Environment protection agencies and governments more broadly right across Australia are being rightfully challenged on not only what they say but what they are doing to mitigate the developing impact of climate change. All power to those who continue to respectfully challenge and demand better of governments of any persuasion right across the world, calling on us to use the power of government to influence and enforce climate change mitigation strategy across all sectors of the economy.

We have known for years now that over 70 per cent of global industrial greenhouse gases can be attributed to only 100 companies worldwide. We must consciously and rapidly adjust not only our consumption but, increasingly so, our production methods to reduce greenhouse emissions. As South Australia's principal environmental regulator, the Environment Protection Authority will continue to play a key role in assisting our government to meet our commitment to stronger action on both climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation.

This bill seeks to amend the Environment Protection Act to strengthen the Environment Protection Authority's existing powers to further consider climate change issues when administering the act. Amendments included in this bill provide definitions for climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and greenhouse gas emissions within section 3 of the act. Climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation are both necessary in responding to our changing climate.

Further amendments included in this bill to section 10 will strengthen the objects of the act to specifically include addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation when the act is administered. This bill also seeks to amend the Environment Protection Act to provide for the addition of climate change knowledge and expertise to the membership of the Environment Protection Authority's board. This amendment to section 14B of the act will require climate change adaptation or climate change mitigation experience as a required attribute of the membership of the board, ensuring that the necessary expertise is provided while the EPA carries out its important work.

While the existing Environment Protection Act does not specifically mention climate change, it does allow for consideration of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions in development referrals and environmental authorisations if those matters are relevant to the determination of an application. These amendments clarify the already existing powers to consider the impact of climate change during the administration of the Environment Protection Act.

This is an important clarification and shows again how all of us as individuals, collectives, businesses big and small, and indeed our parliaments, should always consider our impact on the environment and the actions we can all take to reduce the effects of climate change. By better articulating the Environment Protection Authority's roles and responsibilities, this bill will empower the EPA to support our government in accomplishing our objectives in urgently addressing the climate crisis.

We are utterly dependent on this Earth—consistent weather patterns, clean drinking water, fish in our oceans, crops in our fields and bees in our gardens. We need all of this to continue learning and growing as a global community. We need this, our children need this, and the next generation needs all of this. Not only do we obviously need our planet to survive but we want to enjoy the beauty it has to offer. We love the wilderness. We love our environment. South Australians enjoy our gorgeously diverse and welcoming environment each and every day.

Last year, I had the absolute pleasure of touring the Marion Riding Club, absorbing the scenery of the Shepherds Hill Recreation Park in which they are situated. Whether on horseback or pushbike or just my two little legs—well, they are not that little; they are pretty long and pretty tall—the people of Elder and nearby Waite and Davenport have a simply stunning background to enjoy our natural environment. While on the flatter side terrain-wise, the member for Gibson's electorate has some beautiful wetlands and beaches too.

Like much of my constituency, I have also had the pleasure of enjoying the River Murray. I remember learning to kneeboard on the river, but I am yet to master wakeboarding. In fact, I am absolutely terrible, and there are some excellent photos around of me trying to wakeboard. But I loved learning to kneeboard and soaking in how important the Murray is as the lifeblood of South Australia, which I got to do a lot when I lived in Renmark for a year when I worked for the ABC.

So much of our state's wealth and environmental sustainability come from this river and it must be protected. The Malinauskas Labor government will do just that. We are committed to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and will make the River Murray a priority for South Australia once again. By acting on every recommendation of the Murray-Darling royal commission and engaging with Aboriginal people on their water needs and interests, we have a plan to ensure our fair share of this precious water system both today and for the next generation.

Today, we acknowledge that, while South Australia has a strong reputation for leading both our nation and the world when it comes to renewable energy, we must do more and we must do it quickly. I am proud that for 16 years under a Labor government our state led Australia in renewable energy generation and moved away from our reliance on fossil fuels. In 2002, it was a Labor government that set the 26 per cent renewables by 2020 target, harnessing the abundance of wind and solar resources our state has to offer. We did not just reach that target: we more than doubled it by 2020.

In 2007, it was a Labor government that introduced the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act, making South Australia the first state to legislate targets to reduce greenhouse emissions. In 2017, it was a Labor government that built the world's largest lithium-ion battery, and now it will be a Malinauskas Labor government that builds a hydrogen power station, electrolyser and storage facility to generate clean energy and power new jobs and industry in South Australia.

It has been Labor governments that have protected our environment, and we will build upon this legacy by taking ambitious and immediate action to address climate change. The Malinauskas Labor government's Hydrogen Jobs Plan, as already flagged, will deliver three key elements: a 200 megawatt hydrogen power station, harnessing South Australian renewable energy to supply cleaner and cheaper power to South Australian businesses, factories, manufacturers and miners, creating new jobs and helping attract new industry to our state; a 250 megawatt electrical capacity of hydrogen electrolysers, using excess renewable energy to produce hydrogen, reducing the need to remotely switch off rooftop solar for households and businesses and unlocking the $20 billion pipeline of renewable energy projects in South Australia; and a hydrogen storage facility holding the equivalent of two months' operation or 3,600 tonnes of hydrogen, providing additional capacity when required.

South Australia has a proud history of direct action on climate change under the leadership of Labor governments, not under the leadership of those opposite. Liberal governments have refused to recognise the reality of climate change that we are already facing, burying their heads in the sand while global temperatures and sea levels continue to rise. We will not bury our heads. This bill amends one of South Australia's most important pieces of environmental legislation. Strengthening the Environment Protection Act only serves to improve the Environment Protection Agency's capacity to carry out its roles and duties, and I commend the bill to the house.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (16:40): I rise to support this bill because I will always advocate for the environment, and the people of Gibson feel the effects of climate change every day. I recently reflected in this place that I can feel the heat map change as I doorknock across the suburbs of Gibson due to the increased built environment and urban infill and the loss of our beautiful trees and open space.

My community raise their concerns with me about infill development, loss of trees, loss of habitat for native wildlife and loss of open space, so I am pleased to see these amendments to the Environment Protection Act. Environment protection authorities and governments across Australia are being challenged as to whether they are taking the best action they can regarding climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation.

We are lucky in South Australia to have the Malinauskas Labor government that is committed to stronger action on both climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation. I would like to acknowledge our climate, environment and water minister, the member for Port Adelaide, who is so committed to our environment and ensuring a better future for our children and grandchildren. Dr Close knows that we are undeniably facing a climate emergency that has the potential to have catastrophic effects across our planet.

As humans, it is our activities that are having this effect on the planet, and it is our responsibility to act to halt climate change and undo any damage already done as much as possible. Currently, the Environment Protection Act does not specifically mention climate change. However, the objects of the act are sufficiently broad to permit consideration of adaptation to climate change and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the Environment Protection Authority when assessing development referrals and applications for environmental authorisations.

The design, location and operational controls that reduce greenhouse gas emissions reduce exposure to climate-related changes, and increased resilience to such changes will become increasingly important. Therefore, this government believes that the objects of the Environment Protection Act should be clarified to add climate change knowledge to the attributes of the membership of the board of the EPA. The board cannot be expected to give due consideration to climate change adaptation and mitigation if it does not have the relevant expertise amongst its membership.

These amendments will provide certainty and transparency for industry and within the broader community and government itself of the role of the Environment Protection Authority in this critical area of environment protection. The objects of the act are very important, as they underpin all the functions of the Environment Protection Authority. It is therefore critical that the objects reflect community expectations and the role of the EPA in modern South Australia.

The EPA must have regard to them and seek to further them 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. This is where it will be critical for the authority to examine issues raised by my community members to ensure that new developments mitigate their climate change impact to be environmentally sensitive.

The objects of the act also inform the environment protection policymaking powers in part 5 of the act, in that an environment protection policy may be made for any purpose directed towards securing the objects of this act. The proposed amendments will also support future development of an environment protection policy under the act that will provide more detailed climate change policy.

An environment protection policy would be able to specifically set out matters that are to be taken into account by the EPA in relation to environmental authorisation applications or development application assessments. The development of a climate change focused environment protection policy will provide clarity, transparency and consistency of regulatory approach for licensees and development proponents, and will also provide a pathway to assist reaching the state's ambitious climate change targets.

The EPA has consulted thoroughly with key stakeholders on the elements of this bill and the future work the agency intends to do regarding strengthening its role in regulating climate change matters, and the vast majority of those who were consulted were supportive.

I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is committed to a future that values our natural environment, and this bill is part of that process. We are listening to the scientists, the experts and our community to ensure South Australia's future. While those opposite focus on themselves, we are focused on the future. I commend this bill to the house.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (16:45): I rise in support of the Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill as part of this government's commitment to having stronger action on both climate change adaptation and mitigation.

We understand that around Australia governments, as well as environment protection agencies, have been facing challenges on the adequacy of their policies and actions in response to climate change, adaptation and greenhouse gas mitigations. While the current Environment Protection Act does not have a specific mention of climate change, the objects of the act are broad enough for the consideration of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions in development referrals and environmental authorisations in the determination of an application.

Therefore, these amendments clarify what are already existing powers to consider climate change issues when administering the EP Act. With specific inclusion of climate change adaptation and mitigation definitions in the EP Act, the EPA's role and responsibilities will be clearly identified by administrators and courts in climate change action.

This bill proposes three changes to the act, the first of which is changes to section 10 that will strengthen the objects of the act to specifically include addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation when administering the act. Specifying this in the objects of the Environment Protection Act are important, as the objects underpin all the EPA's regulatory functions.

It means that the EPA must have regard to and seek to further these objects when considering applications for EPA licences under section 47 of the Environment Protection Act. The same must be done when considering development applications that are referred to them under the Planning Development and Infrastructure Act through section 57 of the Environment Protection Act.

Section 14B will require climate change adaptation or climate change mitigation experience as a required attribute of the membership of the EPA Board, and section 3 will include the following definitions added to the interpretation section:

'climate change mitigation' to mean any process of adjusting to the actual or expected effects of climate change;

'climate change adaption' to mean measures or activities that relate to reducing the rate of climate change including (without limitation) by limiting, reducing or preventing greenhouse gas emissions; and

'greenhouse gas emissions' as having the same meaning as in the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act 2007.

I understand that the EPA has met with key stakeholders to inform them about the proposed bill we have before us today and has also contacted all of South Australia's largest greenhouse gas emitters.

During the EPA's consultation, they provided key stakeholders with an overview of proposed amendments to the act, with the vast majority of stakeholders engaged with being supportive of the amendments to the act. With many of these companies themselves having plans to achieve net zero by 2050, they are appreciative of a clear direction being set by the government to help guide their transition to net zero.

Around this time last year, in May 2022 the Malinauskas Labor government led the declaration of a climate emergency. This declared our clear intentions to act on climate change and reaffirm our commitment to building up the science-based policies that will prepare South Australia for the realities of extreme weather, climate shifts and global warming. To help reduce our emissions to achieve a 50 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050, we are building the foundations to achieve those targets and for ensuring longer term reductions in emissions.

One way we are setting out to achieve that goal is through our commitments, such as the Hydrogen Jobs Plan—building a world-class hydrogen power plant near Whyalla in the Upper Spencer Gulf. With it up and running, we will accelerate the growth of South Australia's hydrogen economy and with the opportunity to produce green hydrogen through renewable energy, we could see it being used in everything from heavy vehicles through to the construction and manufacturing industries, as well as a replacement for natural gas.

We are at the forefront of climate change policy in South Australia and have been for some time. Remember when we got the big battery up near Jamestown? There were some who wanted to stall it or prevent it from happening. They said it was barely worth a mention. But fast-forward to today and we see many others around the country with similar schemes in place and at a smaller scale.

We have also recently seen Tesla announce phase 4 of the Tesla Virtual Power Plant, which helps bring the benefits of renewable energy to South Australians on low incomes. Supporting more than 4,000 public housing tenants, phase 4 will bring cheaper power to an additional 3,000 South Australians who can also enjoy the benefits of the battery backup system. Just like the decision to proceed with the big battery, Tesla's announcement for stage 4 of the program is a testament to the previous Labor government that invested in the program that still sees benefits to our state being delivered today.

Of course, delivering action on climate change is not all relegated to the area of how we power our state and we are working to deliver on our goal of 50 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050 in other ways as well, such as the development of carbon farming in South Australia, which will help our primary industries and other sectors to reduce their emissions through the generation and purchase of high-quality carbon offsets.

With more than $600,000 having been awarded to a variety of projects across horticulture, livestock, cropping and dairy industries, these projects are all helping to build on the growing carbon farming pilot scheme in South Australia and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the agricultural sector. We are also committing $6 million to protect nature on private land, enhance biodiversity and build ecological resilience to climate change.

With microgrants up to $1,000 and other grants up to $100,000, landowners can help maintain areas of native vegetation on properties. Since the Native Vegetation Heritage Agreement program came about in 1980, it has supported more than 2,800 landholders to ensure the long-term protection of more than one million hectares of the state's native vegetation. Programs such as this are helping to protect nature, enhance biodiversity within our state and build up our ecological resilience to climate change.

This bill today furthers our commitments to addressing climate change by amending what the Deputy Premier quite rightfully points out is the most important piece of environmental legislation we have in this state. This bill acknowledges the immense challenges posed by climate change and emphasises the importance of having experts on this matter, bodies like the Environment Protection Agency, to bring in the expertise needed to address these issues of great urgency.

It is also in recognition of the many contributions we have had from experts on climate change, as well as the general community, who are concerned about the potential impacts of climate change, putting it front and centre when administrating the act. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (16:54): I rise to speak in support of the Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill. Building on some of the earlier comments we heard when we talked about things like the big battery and some of the solar farms that have been approved in the state over the years, this is just one of many things that builds on our credentials. Although small in word count, the significance of such a bill should not be underestimated.

As I see it, the bill does two key things that will strengthen the act and better calibrate government towards addressing the realities of climate change. This includes amending the objects within the Environment Protection Act 1993 relating to climate change adaptation and mitigation, and ensuring there is knowledge of these principles within those appointed to the EPA Board.

As a government, and broadly across the community, I am pretty sure it goes without saying that climate change is something that we all take very seriously, but I do accept that not everybody is convinced. In saying that, I also note that the resistance is often linked to those now on the fringes of mainstream economic policy. While I will be talking about this bill through the lens of economics, I will begin by reinforcing the fact that this is undoubtably an environmental bill with the key intent of benefiting our environment.

Irrespective of the truth of the matter I just raised, it would appear that the market believes in the realities of climate change, and we should therefore have legislation that reflects this. I am no economist, but I understand that it is going to get harder and harder, without policies in place, to mitigate this risk. If we want to see investment from offshore, even from interstate, we need policies to accept and underpin the realities of human interference in our climate. This bill is one piece in the puzzle that does just that and helps reinforce our commitment to the statewide goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 per cent against 2005 emission levels by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

I think we have all been around long enough to have heard the cries of business seeking certainty on key policy issues that impact on the markets they operate within. Most in the community accept the realities of climate change and the need to adapt, but rightfully resent moving goalposts on targets, strategies and policies. It also does not help that the current iteration of the act does not specifically mention climate change. These amendments help provide clarity and transparency, which I am sure will be well received by anybody seeking to do business in South Australia.

In prioritising our commitment to the environment, we also recognise that sound environmental policy is good for business. With this in mind, I suspect that, by the end of this political term, there will be an abundance of bills like this before us that will reflect on the realities of climate change and make amendments to the objects of their respective acts.

I have seen this firsthand through my own experience in the Northern Territory working as their government's planning adviser and seeing the significant time and effort that went into achieving something similar through the Territory's Planning Act. While we were focused on reforming the planning system on multiple fronts, the passage of the planning amendment bill 2022 through the NT parliament was a successful opportunity to ensure climate change was front and centre of the act and, obviously, underpinning planning within the Northern Territory. We did not just do this because of environmental lobbyists, but also because business could see the writing was on the wall and was calling for certainty.

With an act that now has 12 objects, four of these are included and embrace the need for a greener tomorrow through an acceptance that the climate of our planet is changing. These include the following objects:

(e) to promote the sustainable development of land;

(f) to promote the responsible use of land and water resources to limit the adverse effects of development on ecological processes;

(g) to maintain the health of the natural environment and ecological processes;

(h) to protect the quality of life of future generations...

Having been part of the consultation process, there was a huge appetite to mitigate the dangers to the planet over several objects and expand on the environmental objects in the act in its previous iteration. Moving back to the present day, I had a brief look over the acts allocated to the executive, and could not help but notice the sheer volume allocated to the Minister for Climate Change. I do not wish to frighten anyone, but I suspect there will be a number of these that will receive similar treatment as time goes on.

Having cited an example from planning in the Northern Territory, existing acts that are not primarily focused on the environment will ultimately need similar amendments to embrace the principles and realities around climate change. As mentioned earlier, the argument can be debated now until we are blue in the face but, irrespective of where you sit, sound environmental policy is now good economic policy, and we can expect this to be reflected in revisions to many acts that are already in place.

With the change in objects, we will see an alteration to the key expectations and knowledge from those this act enshrines to serve on the EPA Board. This is a bit of a no-brainer, as clearly we want those with the right expertise to mirror the new objects clarified in this act. I should not see this as a big problem, given the credentials of the EPA Board, in accepting and embracing the realities of climate change already. As we heard from the Deputy Premier when this bill was introduced, the EPA published a role statement in early 2022, outlining its contribution to our response to climate change and the South Australian Government Climate Change Action Plan.

Noting that they act autonomously, I am sure the board will appreciate additional amendments that make it clearer that the existing role and function of the EPA is to consider the revised objects when administering the act. I understand that awareness of climate change is an expectation we will see more of in government boards. With this in mind, I would also expect similar amendments to appear before this chamber as the parliament proceeds. Again, this is all about rewriting our legislative framework to ensure it aligns to both market and global expectations. That said, when we think globally we must act locally, and South Australians have elected a government that will do just that.

They are seeing this through our commitment to establish the state-owned hydrogen plant and our move to ditch the blatant grab for cash through the electric vehicles tax. While I agree that the intention of this bill is to back up what I have been saying around business certainty, the EPA should be commended for meeting with key stakeholders to consult on this bill from December 2022 through to February 2023. This included the 17 largest greenhouse gas emitters in the state. In further reinforcing the credentials of the intent behind this bill, this includes names such as BHP, OZ Minerals and AGL.

I am told many of these businesses already have plans in place to achieve net zero by 2050. Again, this reinforces my statement from earlier, that irrespective of how you may feel about climate change the market accepts it as a reality. While I have placed a business slant on my thoughts on this bill, it does not escape me that beyond this and everything else this is an environmental bill. For this reason, I am also pleased that consultation has occurred with groups from the environmental lobby, including the Conservation Council, the Climate Change Action Steering Group and the Premier's Climate Change Council.

Before finishing, I note there are many people working behind the scenes who have done an excellent job in their contributions towards this bill. I take this moment to thank them and to express my willingness to meet with them if ever they feel the need. It is reasonable that the Environment Protection Authority, as South Australia's major environmental regulator, should play a significant role in assisting government in addressing its climate change targets. I believe this small but significant bill will help deliver on this, and with this in mind I am happy to commend it to the house.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Planning) (17:04): It is a great pleasure to speak on the Environment Protection (Objects of the Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I would certainly like to commend the Deputy Premier for bringing this important bill to the house.

As you know, Deputy Speaker, and as the house knows, the government recognises that we are in a climate emergency. We are committed to serious action on climate change, and this bill is yet another step towards addressing that commitment. Through this bill, the Deputy Premier is providing us with the opportunity to strengthen our response to climate change mitigation and adaptation through statute. Our laws must continue to evolve to meet our contemporary conditions.

In recent years, South Australians have experienced firsthand the effects of climate change with the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as droughts, heatwaves, bushfires and floods. We have to make every effort to mitigate the release of emissions that are causing, accelerating, enhancing or worsening these climate conditions. Adapting to our changing climate is vital to ensuring our communities are both resilient and continue to thrive.

Climate change mitigation seeks to reduce the release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, and that includes both reducing the sources of emissions and increasing the sinks that accumulate and store greenhouse gases, such as wetlands and forests. Climate change adaptation is a process of responding to the changing climate and its effects. Adaptation works through managing the risks caused by climate change already in train and also those caused by potential future climate change. As the Deputy Premier said in her second reading explanation, inclusion of these important definitions and strengthening the overall objectives of the Environment Protection Act will ensure that the act is sufficiently broad.

The objects of the act play a significant role in underpinning all the functions of the EPA, the agency. The bill will ensure that the EPA has regard to climate adaptation and climate mitigation when considering applications for any environmental authorisations under the act. They will also be required to seek to further climate adaptation and mitigation outcomes. Importantly, the broad objectives will provide a firm foundation for environmental policy improvement.

Environment protection policy can be directed towards securing the objects of the act. This provides an avenue for environmental policy specifically aimed at increasing adaption and mitigation responses. It also provides an ability for policy to set out specific considerations that the EPA must take when considering applications. That will include all development application assessments that have been referred to the EPA through the planning assessment process.

As Minister for Planning, I am particularly pleased to see the addition of objects that define and place focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation. There is a great deal of interaction between the Environment Protection Act 1993 and the planning legislation, regulation and policy. As I have mentioned, certain development applications lodged under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 are referred to the EPA.

If this bill is successful, it will provide that the EPA must have regard to climate adaptation and mitigation when considering those development applications. That will both strengthen and complement the significant work we are doing in planning with respect to climate change. Consistent with this bill, the South Australian planning system aims to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation.

By undertaking both mitigation and adaptation solutions in planning, we can deliver tangible climate change outcomes. An example of this is the promotion of urban greening, which can act as a store for greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, it helps to adapt by cooling our suburbs as average temperatures rise. That is something I know that you, Deputy Speaker, would be particularly concerned about. As northerners, we are a little bit further away from the beach than the rest of the city and temperatures are regularly just one or two degrees higher in the northern suburbs and on the Adelaide Plains and go higher again as you move north.

This sort of urban adaptation, the greening of our suburbs, is particularly important. I have certainly seen myself the importance of that because I have seen maps of the heat sinks, where urban heat becomes so dramatic. That has an effect on communities: it has an effect on activity, it has an effect on people's perception of what it is like to go out in summer but, importantly, it also has a degree of cost-of-living impact because, if you create hot suburbs, then everybody's air conditioner has to work just that bit harder. As a result, you have both hotter suburbs and all your infrastructure working just that little bit harder, so it is really important that we cool our suburbs.

There are a number of other ways our planning system is responding to climate adaptation and mitigation. We have State Planning Policy 5. It is an important policy, and I will read aspects of it:

The State Planning Policies set out a framework for land use that aims to improve the liveability, sustainability and prosperity of the state.

State Planning Policy 5 acknowledges that climate change impacts affect all of our society. The policy recognises that the wellbeing of our communities depends on how well we adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. This is also vital to ensuring the resilience of our built and natural environment. The policy provides direction to the regional planning process, and it includes ensuring provisions for development that are resilient and responsive to climate change impacts.

The policy also directs the Planning and Design Code to include a range of overlays to ensure climate resilient development. A number of overlays exist in the Planning and Design Code that specifically address climate change adaptation and mitigation. We have the urban tree canopy overlay, the water protection area overlay, the native vegetation overlay and the Ramsar wetlands overlay. This government is committed to the continual advancement of climate responsive laws, and the code is regularly reviewed with a view to improving that.

That is why we are currently finalising investigations for a flood and bushfire code amendment. I have recently also initiated the Murray River flood code amendment that is in part a response to the floods that we saw affect the state most recently in all our river communities. I know those opposite are particularly concerned with and supportive of that code amendment process. All those code amendments are about adapting our city, helping adapt our planning laws and giving some guide to development applications and the like to this challenge before us of a changing climate.

We also have a new publication, 'Planning for climate change', which will soon be released. It is a publication that is a joint initiative between the State Planning Commission and the department. It seeks to highlight how the state planning system is responding to those challenges and opportunities of climate change (I do not suspect there are that many opportunities), more opportunity for adaptation around energy efficiency and the like. It really highlights the continuing work that this state is doing as we promote more climate-friendly policy outcomes. That work has been endorsed by Green Adelaide and the Climate Council and will soon be available to download on the PlanSA website.

I have also had the great challenge, I would say, of helping to adapt our National Construction Code to new energy efficiency provisions, and so from 1 October 2024 all residential buildings will be required to meet a thermal construction rating of seven stars. I am pleased to report to the house that Renewal SA and SAHA already have that target in their building of housing stock to that higher energy rating.

That higher energy efficiency rating in the building provisions helps to mitigate climate change by, firstly, lowering greenhouse gas emissions through lowering demand. It is a demand management strategy and is driven by energy ministers from across the country, I might add. Secondly, it also helps households to adapt to climate change by significantly increasing the year-round comfort of new homes and also lowering energy costs over the life of the building.

We are also committed, as an election commitment, to having tree regulations that match Australian best practice. As I said before, the retention of our urban canopy is an example of how we can both adapt to and mitigate climate change. The work of the State Planning Commission and Green Adelaide, which involves significant analysis, is ongoing. There are a couple of pretty significant and detailed reports on the PlanSA website: one is an arborist's report and the other is a report from the University of Adelaide about our tree canopy and our tree laws.

There is currently an ongoing inquiry by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee and, of course, we have had the expert panel into planning also look at the tree regulations as part of the review of the Planning and Design Code. That is really important work. There will be recommendations for the government to consider and, of course, I am in the process of considering that as the minister. All of these planning responses are, I suppose, a clear connection to the merits of this bill, part of the ongoing work of the government.

I also acknowledge this bill seeks to ensure the membership of the board of the Environment Protection Authority reflects our climate response needs. The amendments provide that at least one member of the board has practical knowledge of and experience in climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation. I support that amendment. It provides that all the necessary expertise and guidance to the board will be key to ensuring the regulatory role of the authority continues to drive best practice climate outcomes.

In concluding, I certainly commend the Deputy Premier for bringing this really important set of amendments to the Environment Protection Act. The Environment Protection Act is one of the state's most significant pieces of environmental legislation, and it should have adequate regard to our climate emergency. These amendments will support environmental decisions that address climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation, and I think they are a further demonstration of this government's commitment to climate action here in the great state of South Australia.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (17:18): I also rise in support of this bill, the Environment Protection (Objects of Act and Board Attributes) Amendment Bill. It is an important piece of legislation, and I guess in some ways when it comes to the EPA it is the initial building block. We will see other actions flow from the move in this direction.

It was actually very interesting, what the member for Bragg had to say. It was an interesting take on the history in this state when it comes to mitigation. I am sure, over the years, the member for Bragg is going to make an amazing contribution to the house.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: Who knows how big? Who knows how large?

Mr HUGHES: Well, who knows? It is still to be tested. The speech he gave in relation to this bill left a little bit to be desired. They are trying to create a dichotomy between our side of the house and this side of the house. The emphasis was that, while they are practical and they do stuff and so on, we are just symbolic; we just change a few words here and there. I think, 'How can you possibly come to that conclusion, given the leadership that this state has provided when it comes to mitigation?' If we were a country, we would be up there with Denmark—probably solely with Denmark at this stage.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: We beat Denmark.

Mr HUGHES: We beat them. We did overtake them. I visited Denmark back in 2004. I visited manufacturing—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind the member for Giles to direct his comments through the chair, please, not to each other. I warn the other two members who have been participating.

Mr HUGHES: Thank you for that guidance, Deputy Speaker. I will take that on board. Anyway, back in 2004 Denmark was incredibly impressive when it came to the installation of wind technology and a number of other initiatives. As someone who spent part of his life in manufacturing, it was their manufacturing facilities that especially impressed me and everything that was wrapped around that.

Of course, Denmark became one of the major exporters of wind technology know-how. Indeed, one of the reasons for that visit at the time was in the hope that the mandatory renewable energy target would be increased from where it was, at 2 per cent, to at least 5 per cent, hopefully 10 per cent. It was too much to expect under the Howard government to go any further than that.

It was interesting to reflect upon the committee that was set up to look at that. That committee came back with a recommendation to increase the mandatory renewable energy target. Indeed, on the committee was a South Australian who should be better known than she is: Monica Oliphant, part of the great Oliphant family. She ended up as the President of the International Solar Energy Society. She is an amazing woman who worked for many years for ETSA and then went off to do a lot in the renewable energy field. Indeed, I had a fair bit to do with her in those years past.

Anyway, we were over in Denmark. We visited Spain and had a look at England to see what was going on. It was my hope that the target would be increased in the hope that a number of companies that had already engaged with Whyalla companies would look at the manufacturing of towers in Whyalla. But what happened when the Howard government failed to increase the target? All of that interest evaporated. We could have become a manufacturing hub for the Asia-Pacific region, but all of that interest evaporated.

It was left to the states, especially as a frontrunner—by far the frontrunner—South Australia under the Rann government, to start the whole push into renewables. The first wind farm in the state was at Starfish Hill. I am not going to count Coober Pedy. There are a lot of stories about the wind turbine in Coober Pedy. I think it was put in by ETSA. Some people argue that it was put there to demonstrate that it was not a goer, and other people say, no, it was the first attempt.

Indeed, there was some good history with ETSA and Labor going back to the 1980s, when ETSA actually mapped out a lot of the wind resources in this state in order to prepare for a possible transition down the track. But it was left to the Rann government to start the ball rolling in this state, and then of course it was picked up by the Weatherill government.

A whole range of utility-scale wind farms came to our state. There was a tweaking of the Development Act and a number of other initiatives to smooth the path so that wind could establish itself in South Australia. Utility-scale solar came hot on the heels of wind, and to a degree the two do complement each other. This state has an incredibly proud history when it comes to being an early adopter—

Mr Batty interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: The member for Bragg says that, well, it is all symbolic over this side. I would point out that nearly 70 per cent of the renewables, when you look at that four-year interlude, not a single project had its genesis in that particular period. I would have to say some of the sounds coming out from the Liberals were good sounds, but when you look at nearly all the projects that actually did start construction during that interlude, all had their genesis under the Weatherill government and even before then, given some of the planning and their time lines, under the Rann government, so there is a very proud history there. Of course, we have built on that history by the 100-megawatt battery, delivered on time and on budget—

The Hon. N.D. Champion: Now hydrogen.

Mr HUGHES: I'm getting to that. I could not, as someone who used to work in the steel industry—

Members interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: The cynics on this side. As somebody who used to work in the steel industry, I have had a longstanding interest when it comes to the—

The Hon. N.D. Champion interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister may have developed some habits in the parliament federally which may not translate to this chamber. Member for Giles, could you continue your remarks through the chair.

Mr HUGHES: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do that. I thought I had been doing that. I have had a longstanding interest in hydrogen, especially as it applies to the steel industry, but before getting on to hydrogen I want to return to the battery and the slagging off—there is no steel pond there—the battery was getting from especially the federal Liberals and the National Party.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: That's right.

Mr HUGHES: It was pretty disgraceful, and now what do we see? We see all the other jurisdictions and we see companies lining up, looking to invest in batteries. Batteries, of course, are not a major source of storage at this stage. They do play a role in storage, but they do play a very important role in grid stabilisation and ancillary services for the grid, so we should not by any means discount batteries.

Gas-powered peaking stations still play an important role in our energy system, and we have to be mindful about the transition and how that technology leaves the market, and this is partly the story of hydrogen in this state. Whyalla is the best place in the state to build it by far. Port Augusta would have been pretty good as well, but Whyalla is the best place in the state to build it. If we crack that—and I am confident that we will—this gives us something that we can over time replace traditional gas peaking power stations with, but we want to get there first.

Of course, the reason hydrogen is such an attractive proposition in this state is because of the penetration of renewables and it is because on the increments, the very short increments now—they are no longer half-hour increments—energy prices in this state go very low, and especially very low in the middle of the day, given our utility-scale solar and our very successful rooftop solar.

To have something that can be ramped up and down like electrolysers makes good use of electricity that might be spilled or potentially exported interstate. We can use it here to run our electrolysers and produce green hydrogen. Hopefully, we will take that extra step and draw nitrogen from the air to, if you like to simplify, add it to hydrogen to produce green ammonia. The hydrogen power plan is going to be a very important initiative, and the Hydrogen Jobs Plan overall is an important initiative.

The reason I was keen to see it in Whyalla is that we have a steelworks in Whyalla. We know the global steel industry produces about 8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, so it is a significant contributor. If we can abate CO2 emissions from this hard to abate sector through the use of hydrogen produced commercially at scale, it will be a big step forward.

I have said many times in this place that Whyalla is incredibly unusual in that it has literally billions of tonnes of magnetite on its doorstep in the Middleback Ranges. It is in a region with massive renewable energy resources, resources like wind and solar that overlap. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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