26 November 2024
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:08): I rise to speak on the National Electricity (South Australia) (Orderly Exit Management Framework) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Greens. From the outset, I want to join in the sentiments of the Hon. Heidi Girolamo when she remarked on the arrogance of this Labor government in approaching a bill of this magnitude in such a hasty way. I do find it highly frustrating and might I say insulting to the crossbench members in particular, but also to the opposition, that the government would seek to deal with a bill with this level of complexity in the last sitting week before the Christmas break. Not only do they want us to deal with the bill in terms of doing our second reading speeches, they want us to go through every stage of the bill.
When did we get this bill? It was introduced into the other place I think this morning. It has been rammed through there and now it has come through here. This is not a sausage factory. It is meant to be a house of review. Our role is to work through bills and to form a position on bills that are put to us based on engagement with stakeholders, based on consideration of the relevant issues. My office did not have an opportunity to have a briefing on this bill until Thursday of last week. I have not had any time to undertake any consultation.
This is a bill that apparently has national implications. There has not been an opportunity to consider what this might mean for other jurisdictions. I have repeatedly asked the government for more time and I have been told, 'No, it has to be done now.' I think the government really needs to justify to this chamber what the urgency is, when the relevant minister became aware of this proposal and why it has only been brought to the parliament now. I find it very hard to believe that the minister only found out about this last week and that there was no opportunity for members of the parliament in the opposition or indeed the crossbench to be given information and to form a considered position.
It is arrogant, and it is inappropriate. I am all for the government working through their agenda in the parliament, but the role of the crossbench is to look at bills the government puts forward and to work out whether the government has got the balance right. I am not sure how we are meant to do that at literally a minute to midnight under a timeframe that has been imposed on us by the government.
I think they are going to have some explaining to do at the committee stage: who knew what and when, what is the urgency here and what are the potential implications? Simply reading a second reading speech into Hansard and saying, 'Hey, presto. Just back this bill,' I do not think is the appropriate way to be dealing with people in this place.
I will make a few general comments in relation to the bill, and they are of a general nature because I have not had the opportunity to do the deep dive I would like to do into a bill such as this, because we simply have not had the time.
I understand that the purpose of these laws, for which South Australia is the lead legislator, is to ensure the reliability and stability of our electricity grid in circumstances where the operator of a thermal generator indicates that the generator will make an early exit because of its age, unreliability and inability to compete. Under the rules set out in this bill, I understand there will be a three-step process that could lead to a ministerial intervention, which is described as a backup tool for governments to address any reliability or system security shortfalls and, if not, to ensure enough other capacity in renewables has been built in time.
It is essential that we have a stable and reliable electricity grid, but it is concerning to the Greens that under these laws state energy ministers will be given the power to force coal-fired generators and other fossil fuel plants to stay open for up to three years if they believe the capacity is necessary for grid reliability and security and if a negotiated deal with the market operator cannot be reached.
I understand that these powers are only intended to be used as a last resort—that is, when there is a risk to grid stability and when there are no viable alternatives to replace the outgoing capacity. Nevertheless, it opens up the possibility of artificially extending the life of not only coal generators but potentially gas generators too.
I am concerned about the Malinauskas government's reliance on gas. They do seem to like hot air, and I am concerned about the way in which gas is forming part of their hydrogen plan. The Greens warned about this over a year ago. We sought to have a parliamentary inquiry so we could look at the implications of what the government was putting forward then, and again they said, 'No, we can't possibly have that. Let's just invest a huge amount of public money in this project. Let's go down the gas path, and God forbid we have any parliamentary scrutiny of this proposal.'
We are now starting to see, a year on, that the agenda of the Malinauskas government when it comes to hydrogen is fraying at the edges. It is looking more like a mirage for that community. We were told at the time that it was going to be a gold rush for the people of that community. It is looking a lot more like fool's gold now for the people of that community because the government did not allow the parliament to do the due diligence.
When are they going to stop rushing ahead with energy policy like this without giving us an opportunity to actually look into the details? I am concerned about what this might mean for gas. It is concerning that the cost of this framework could be recovered from consumers through distribution network service providers. The last thing South Australian families need now is yet another spike in energy bills.
We have long known that Australia's fleet of fossil fuel generators are aging and increasingly unable to compete with renewable energy sources, just as we have known about the urgent need to transition to renewables to address the climate crisis. It is threatening our planet and we need to take action. Disappointingly, state and federal governments have dragged their heels on investing in large-scale renewable generation and storage, and this is what we need for an orderly transition to renewable energy. Of course, the result is the failures that we are seeing today. These laws must not be misused to prop up the failing coal and gas industry or to further delay the inevitable transition to renewable energy.
Now more than ever we need governments to step up and commit to the large-scale public investment in renewable energy and storage that we need to replace every coal-fired power station in the country, ensuring that we deal with the climate emergency in time. Again, this is a national approach that is being taken here. I would like to really understand what the consequences might be for coal-fired power stations in other jurisdictions. Are we throwing them a lifeline? What are the long-term consequences of what the government is proposing here?
It is going to be very difficult for us to work through that in the timeframe that the government has imposed on us. I really make a plea to them: when you are dealing with energy policy in the future, please give this chamber of parliament the time it needs to do its job. Stop rushing ahead on these complex matters.