HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-09-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2024.)

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) (17:27): I am looking forward to this bill passing. We have had an extraordinary experience of climate change in the last few years across the world, and anyone who thinks that that is something that South Australia gets to sit out and does not have to respond to is, of course, misleading themselves and not looking at the harsh reality square in the face, which is not only that we will need to decarbonise rapidly in order to remain economically relevant to the rest of the world but also that we are going to be facing the serious implications of a warming globe and we need to prepare our infrastructure, social as well as economic, for that.

The good news is that as we make those shifts, and as we have already made those shifts, we will not only see improvements in our economic positioning and our moral contribution to the reduction in emissions but also we will see important shifts in the strength of our environment as we do this in a way that is cognisant of the challenges to nature that are occurring at the same time as climate change.

As we make this shift, we can see just beyond the horizon a new economy that emerges that is lighter on the earth, both in greenhouse gas emissions and also in the way in which nature is treated and respected. We see primary production that is healthy and based on the demands of our markets, and also reflective of the demands of the planet. That is just around the corner for us. There are many efforts that need to be made in many sectors, but the role of legislation is of note and of weight, and that is what we will be contemplating today. I thank all those who have made contributions and I look forward to going through the committee stage and passing this piece of legislation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PATTERSON: I refer to some of the information released via the South Australian government website and also more globally. A quite common graph used in the South Australian context says that in the 2005 year South Australian net emissions were approximately 36 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and, as at 2021-22, it is down to approximately 16 megatonnes. So that is a downward trajectory.

At the same time, as I referred to in my second reading contribution, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their assessment report back in 2022 that gave figures up to 2019. One of those reports was the Mitigation of Climate Change. It showed that while in 2005 global emissions of CO2 equivalent were 47,000 megatonnes, by 2019 these had risen to 59,000 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent. That was at that time. Since 2019, there have been further reports from different agencies, the International Energy Agency being one of them. Coal, oil and gas use have reached new records globally in 2022 and we have a similar trajectory in terms of gas, particularly in Asia.

Taking all that into account, and noting that there have been reductions made here in South Australia, have the reductions made by South Australia so far made a direct difference to the temperature here in South Australia? Also, have the effects of climate change been experienced in South Australia? If so, please explain, and also by how much?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We had a similar discussion I think at either the most recent estimates or the one before, where the member questioned whether I had ever said in public that it did not make much difference to the world if we lowered our emissions or not. It was a question along those lines. I think the tenor of the question here is that, first of all, clearly we have a very small amount of greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to those contributed by the world—a very small proportion—also noting that, while ours have come down, the global emissions have continued to go up.

I think that the intention, if I understand it correctly, in asking what difference we have made to climate change is clearly—and I know the member is a very well-educated man—that the contribution of South Australia's greenhouse gas emissions to the amount that is sitting in the atmosphere is tiny. Whether we turn off tomorrow or not will not stop climate change. That is accepted, and it is something that I say in public frequently. The next stage of the question is: so what? Do we just put up as many emissions as we want or not?

When you are talking about climate change, which is something that is caused in multiple places across the world and experienced in multiple places, very distinct say from a lead smelter, that if the lead comes out of that smelter it poisons immediately around that site, climate change, the emissions of fossil fuels into the atmosphere, occurs in a diverse number of places and is experienced everywhere because that is how the climate works, that is how the greenhouse effect works.

The purpose of South Australia setting stringent targets is not in order to save the world by ourselves, nor is it to get somehow permission to sit out climate change. What it is is primarily preparing ourselves for the economic requirements of a world that will recognise it needs to decarbonise rapidly. An example of that requirement is the way in which Europe is increasingly moving its trade restrictions to recognise that if they are going to be lowering carbon emissions, they are not going to give a free pass to goods coming into Europe that have not similarly had to do the same.

As those barriers to trade go up, we will see that those states and nations that have not responded to climate change by decarbonising their economy will pay the price. There is an economic rationale for doing it. There is also, of course, a leadership rationale for doing this. While South Australia is a very small place in the big wide world, we nonetheless lead the world in our contribution by saying that you can reduce carbon emissions from your electricity grid using intermittent sources. The most recent annual figure, being 74 per cent of our electricity generation coming from renewable resources, puts us at the forefront of the world because they come from wind and sun. There are jurisdictions that do better but they do it using hydro. We do not have a surplus of mountains, fast flowing rivers, the willingness to dam, nor rain. Because of that absence of hydro, the fact that we have been able to do this using wind and sun and, of course, storage to back those up, such as the big battery, demonstrates leadership for those other jurisdictions that are in the same situation as us.

So the question: how much has the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions contributed to climate change is a nonsensical question, with respect, because the very small amount that is produced here makes very little difference to how much is in the atmosphere. But the fact that we have been able to decouple economic growth from growth in fossil fuels, the fact that we have been able to do that in a resource-rich environment where we have no hydro power to produce electricity, the fact that we have been able to do that serves as an exemplar and it also sets us on the journey to be ready to be a place that can continue to trade in an increasingly carbon-constrained global economy.

Mr PATTERSON: Taking that into account, and the transition that is involved, how can farmers be reassured that unlike what has occurred in the energy industry where it has resulted in seeing power bills skyrocket as part of the renewable energy transition, that food production costs will not suffer the same fate and cause cost increases that will then flow on to the prices that South Australians pay for their food?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I read with some interest, although slight mystification, one of the amendments that the member has put forward. The impact on prices for our primary producers in not being able to demonstrate that they are coming from a low carbon and increasingly ESG environment will be significant. The impact on anyone producing, including our farmers, in not being able to demonstrate to the markets into which they are selling that they are responsive to the challenge of climate change will be enormous. That is why we need to make sure that we are preparing our economy in all sectors for that reality.

The truth is, as so often happens, the community and the economy—the businesses, the primary producers in the economy—tend to be ahead of politicians. It is certainly true when we compare the community and the economy with Canberra politicians; I will not say so much here, because there has tended not to be a fight over climate change here. If you talk to the dairy producers about the way in which they are preparing to track the carbon input for all of their dairy production, no-one is making them do that from a government perspective nor from a legal perspective, and this legislation does not require them to do that. They are doing that because they recognise the demands of the market and where it is going.

So what difference will this make to the price of food? It ought make no difference to the price of food; it is certainly not intended to do that. What it ought to do is say as a state we recognise the need to drop our carbon emissions and also to adapt to climate change. These two things are bigger than us and we do not get to choose.

We do not get to choose about the impact of climate change, which we see all the time in the intense bursts of weather that we experience, the fires and the overall drying—we are seeing that right now in the South-East, which is in quite desperate circumstances. We also do not get to say to Europe, 'We're not going to worry about your standards when we sell our wine, when we sell our wheat, when we sell our dairy products. We're just going to keep doing whatever we want and we are not going to tell you what our standards are.' We do not get to do that. That is happening anyway. What this does is give the picture overall for the state about where we need to be and the role that government plays in working with different sectors on how we get there together.

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, you can ask your lucky last question.

Mr PATTERSON: Yes, thank you for reminding me, Chair. Just in terms of those sectors, let's talk about homebuilders. Regarding the situations that have occurred in the energy industry, where there have been increased costs and that has flowed through to power bills that South Australians are paying, which have increased massively, how can they be assured that this bill and the targets being set will not have an impact on construction material costs such as concrete, bricks and steel and that they will not suffer the same fate and have cost increases that will flow through to the prices South Australians pay for their homes?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think that the foundation of the question is coming from a misunderstanding of what is happening with electricity prices. Electricity prices are not going up because of climate change; electricity prices are going up because for 10, 15 years we have across Australia experienced the most illogical argument about whether climate change is real and needs to be responded to, which has absolutely frozen the willingness and the capacity to invest in new infrastructure for electricity. We have ageing power stations interstate, coal power stations, that are well beyond their lifespan because no-one has known what to invest in.

I do not blame your side of politics in this house, because you have never publicly said you do not believe in climate change, but I will blame your side of politics in Canberra. The fact that someone who went on to become Prime Minister felt that it was amusing to bring a lump of coal into parliament and laugh about how inert and harmless it is says everything you need to know about their incapacity to recognise that there needed to be clear lines set and established for the way in which infrastructure needed to be invested in. It is that immovability and that paralysis that has led to the increase in electricity prices.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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