2 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:26): I rise to indicate that the Greens will not be supporting the select committee. I understand the concerns that the opposition has in relation to this proposal and, indeed, I did call for there to be a committee established back when the hydrogen bill was originally put forward. However, since that time, the government has announced a major shift in terms of the policy approach that they are taking, with a reorientation towards Whyalla, and so the plan has been significantly scaled down.

The Liberal Party have also, since that time, made it clear that they want to just abolish the Office of Hydrogen in its entirety. The question I have then is: what is the purpose of an inquiry? If you already have an end goal in mind, what is the purpose of an inquiry? It seems to me that this is going to be used as yet another opportunity for them to undermine renewables, and another opportunity for the climate deniers in the Liberal Party to get a platform.

On that basis, the Greens will not be supporting the committee but, of course, we will continue to urge for transparency in terms of how this matter is dealt with. I recognise the Budget and Finance Committee has the capacity to look into this, and I hope that there will continue to be some level of transparency around this, but a forum to attack and undermine renewables is really not the best way forward.

2 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:50): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development on the topic of nuclear waste.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Dutton Liberal opposition has claimed that if they win the next federal election—God forbid—they will introduce nuclear energy to Australia. The details of the plan are unclear and yet to be released. The Coalition's plan includes a small modular reactor in Port Augusta. It is still unclear how much waste would be produced each year, and Australia does not have a national storage facility.

Mr Dutton has been rightly criticised for his claims that only a Coke can's worth of waste would be generated under his plan, given that the waste generated by the untested technology is unclear. According to estimates from Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe of Griffith University's School of Environment and Science, for a small 400-megawatt modular reactor you would expect that to produce about six tonnes of waste a year. It could be more or less depending on the actual technology, but it would certainly be multiple tonnes a year. My questions to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development are:

1. Which regions would be required to store nuclear waste, and what is the potential impact on those regions?

2. Has the Dutton opposition bothered to reach out to the Malinauskas government regarding their plans to store nuclear waste in our state's regions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:52): I thank the honourable member for his question. It is certainly the case that the amount of detail that has been provided by the federal opposition has been extremely limited. The number of questions that have arisen around their proposal—and I use that term very loosely, very loosely indeed—their thought bubble perhaps, some might suggest, would be a more appropriate term—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would like to be able to hear the minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The detail has been extremely scant. What we do know is that on 19 June last year the Liberal Coalition announced that if elected to government it would establish a nuclear power industry, but it was a policy announcement which, as I have already mentioned, fell extraordinarily short of any detail, including an indication of cost.

However, there are some reputable estimates of what the Coalition's thought bubble might cost in monetary terms. On 9 December last year the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) published its draft 2023-24 GenCost report for consultation. According to my advice, it again found that integrated renewables provide the lowest cost range of new build electricity technology, and the CSIRO found that a new, large-scale nuclear plant built then—that was, of course, in 2024—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —would require a capital cost of $8,655 per kilowatt of capacity. In contrast, a large-scale solar farm would cost $1,463 and onshore wind $3,223. That is, nuclear—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —would cost many times as much to build as some of the alternatives. The CSIRO report was a general overview of the costs of various technologies. We know the costs would be extremely high. For South Australia, nuclear, I am advised, would increase household bills between $384 and $1,160 a year. That is just the increase, according to the IEEFA. We can look at some real-life examples.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, you must be about to conclude your remarks so we can move on.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to leave it there.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Supplementary question arising from the answer.

The PRESIDENT: No. The Hon. Ms Lensink, I couldn't hear most of her answer anyhow, so I can't rule in or out.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: But I haven't asked my supplementary.

The PRESIDENT: I am saying to you that I can't rule on a supplementary when I couldn’t hear the answer.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: But I haven't even asked it yet.

The PRESIDENT: Ask your question. I am saying that I can't rule in or out a supplementary question because I couldn't hear the answer. There was too much shouting from both sides.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That's very disappointing.

The PRESIDENT: Ask your question, please.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That's very disappointing.

The PRESIDENT: I am disappointed, too.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I was wondering when the minister became an expert on energy policy if she had been provided the question before question time, but I will leave that.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Lensink, please just ask your question.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You can always throw me out, Mr President. I have been longing for that for 20 years. My question—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Are you going to ask a question or will I move on?

18 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:08): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development on the topic of regional power.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Last week, more than 26,000 homes were without power in the Mid North and on Yorke Peninsula at a time when the temperatures were in the high thirties. The outage resulted in business owners estimating significant financial impacts after having to discard thousands of dollars worth of stock. ElectraNet has claimed that there was a build-up of pollutants on insulators from dust and salt. A spokesperson for the company has said that this will remain a challenge until, and I quote, 'Good rain settles the dust and washes the equipment.' He went on to further state that it is 'simply not possible to wash all of the state's Stobie poles'.

My question to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, therefore, is: what is the minister doing to ensure regional communities are not left without power during heatwaves and bushfire danger days, and will the government commit to finally bringing the electricity network back into public hands to ensure that regional communities are not at the mercy of private corporations who put profits above services?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:09): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think most of us here would have been having grave concerns for those in the areas that were impacted by such a significant inability to access power. As the honourable member has pointed out, the electricity assets are in control of the private sector following, of course, those opposite or their predecessors selling off ETSA back in the nineties. It is something that looking at last week's experiences I would hope that they may reflect on, but I think they continue to defend it.

I am certainly happy to refer the question to the Minister for Energy in the other place to see if he has anything to add. Of course, he was on radio last week. I understand that he was in communication with ElectraNet, if I remember correctly, and was certainly placing as much pressure as was possible for them to fix the issue. If he has something to add to this I will bring it back to the chamber.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:11): Supplementary question: given the minister's concerns around privatisation of our electricity, will she be advocating for power to be put back in the hands of the people of South Australia?

The PRESIDENT: I think you did allude to the privatisation aspect, minister, so you may choose to answer, or you may choose to not answer.

Members interjecting:

19 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:23): I rise to speak on the Public Finance and Audit (Fossil Fuel Sponsorships) Amendment Bill, and in so doing I want to commend the leadership of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, who has put this forward and who really, I think, has belled the cat on some of the very concerning associations between some of our state's big events and fossil fuel companies. It is of serious concern to the Greens to see fossil fuel companies being able to hijack sporting events as a way of earning their social licence and one example of this that is, of course, of great concern to the Greens is the Tour Down Under.

The Tour Down Under showcases South Australia to the world and there is no question that it is a boost to our local economy. It has the added benefits of promoting healthy lifestyles and sustainable modes of transport, yet the Tour Down Under's major naming rights partner since 2010 has been Santos, a fossil fuel company.

It is appalling that a major cycling event, which should be about strengthening our state's green credentials, is being sponsored by a fuel company—a polluting fossil fuel company. We know that fossil fuels are not just bad for our environment—and the Tour Down Under is actually about promoting green transport—but are also bad for community health. Again, the Tour Down Under is about promoting active transport and promoting cycling.

This association is of serious concern and Santos' sponsorship of this high-profile event buys considerable social licence. It allows the company to greenwash its polluting activities and paint itself as being community minded. Indeed, this is an issue that I raised during my time on the Adelaide City Council. It has been a long-term issue of concern for the Greens. Surely, the South Australian Tourism Commission can find an alternative sponsor for this event. Why does it have to be Santos? It is not appropriate.

An Australian Conservation Foundation report revealed back in 2018 that 19 gas projects and facilities in Australia accounted for 81 million tonnes of climate pollution. Santos is part of that. Add this to the emissions from gas-fired power stations and our role as the world's leading exporter of liquefied natural gas and it is clear that Australian gas is a major driver of climate disruption.

In October of 2018, the IPCC special report warned that to keep global warming under 1.5° we must end our reliance on fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Expansion of the gas industry is simply incompatible with this target. Why on earth is the Tour Down Under, our state's premier green event, being powered by Santos in this way? Why are we allowing that brand association?

I urge the Malinauskas government to think differently about this. This is an opportunity for the government to put their money where their mouth is and to actually urge partnerships that are going to further the South Australian brand. Dumping fossil fuel sponsorship would show real climate leadership and I know that the government is keen for South Australia to host the COP. If they are serious about that, can they really justify having this association with Santos? Are they really serious about having the COP in SA when Santos is the major sponsor of the Tour Down Under? That is a joke.

They really have to put their money where their mouth is. A state that prides itself on its environmental and renewable energy credentials should be a leader in ending fossil fuel sponsors and this would set a precedent for other jurisdictions in Australia and across the world. Industries that are fuelling the climate crisis should have no place in sports.

This is not just an issue for us in South Australia. In the UK, several arts institutions have dumped fossil fuel sponsors, including the Tate, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the National Theatre and the National Galleries of Scotland. The Edinburgh Science Festival has also imposed a blanket ban on sponsorship deals with fossil fuel companies. In Western Australia there is now growing public pressure for Fringe World to end its sponsorship with Woodside and for the Perth Festival to dump Chevron.

One has to question why fossil fuel companies are so desperate to associate themselves with popular events. They are doing it because we know that they are losing social licence. They are doing it because they know that the jig is up, that people across our country are recognising that we are in the middle of a climate crisis and that we have to do something, and no amount of airbrushing and corporate spin is going to change that reality.

Another reason for South Australia to disassociate with fossil fuel companies is the direct impact that global heating is already having on the Tour Down Under, which will only be intensified as the climate crisis worsens. In 2020, the Vicious Cycle report, which was commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation, revealed the impact of the climate emergency on cycling, and in particular on the Tour Down Under. It concluded that the impact of climate change on the event and on the sport in general is already evident, with extreme heat threatening the safety of participants and resulting in race disruptions—and, of course, all South Australians have been dealing with extreme heat and record temperatures over February.

Held in mid-summer in a state that is highly vulnerable to climate impact, such as heatwaves and bushfires, the future of the Tour Down Under is being, ironically, threatened by fossil fuel companies like Santos. These are the companies that are driving the climate crisis and these are the sorts of companies that are making events like the Tour Down Under less viable and sustainable into the future.

I should say, of course, that the Tour Down Under is not the only event to have questionable associations. Who could forget LIV Golf? I was not one of the members clamouring to join the Premier at his press conference on the weekend, and that is because LIV Golf, the tournament, is backed by Saudi Arabia and its public investment fund. The tournament has been widely criticised because of the Saudi government's appalling record on human rights but also its direct ties to the fossil fuel industry—the oil industry.

Saudi Arabia, largely through the public investment fund, has spent billions of dollars on sportswashing by funding sporting tournaments, events like LIV Golf, to distract from its dire catalogue of human rights abuse. I will not cover that ground today because that is beyond the scope of this bill but it is worth noting while the public investment fund is not itself an oil company, its finances are substantially drawn from the major stake in Saudi Aramco, the national oil company of Saudi Arabia.

In February 2022, Saudi Arabia's crown prince transferred about 4 per cent of Aramco shares, worth about $80 billion, into the public investment fund, which he also chairs, so that is of significant concern.

The PRESIDENT: I thought you were not going to go down this path.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Sorry?

The PRESIDENT: I thought you were not going to go down this path because it is not relevant to the current bill we are talking about—

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Well, the issue of human rights—

The PRESIDENT: —which I very much appreciated at the time, but it did not last long.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Mr President, the issue of human rights may not be directly related to the bill but the relationship between fossil fuels and the Saudi government is worth highlighting, along with the myriad human rights abuses that their—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: That's why they need to sportswash.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: That is right. As the honourable member has pointed out, this is why—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks, interjections are out of order.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: —companies like this seek to associate themselves with those that have some level of popularity: so that they can gain favour, so that they can build some level of social licence. According to the Climate Accountability Institute, the oil and gas produced by Aramco, linked to the Saudi government and LIV Golf, was responsible for roughly 4.8 per cent of global emissions in 2018, and about 4.3 per cent of total atmospheric accumulation since 1965. That is the largest of any single firm.

It is estimated that in 2019, Saudi Aramco plans to produce and sell the equivalent of 27 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2018 and 2030. This is an enormous amount, equivalent to 4.7 per cent of the total carbon budget that the IPCC estimated the entire world had left in 2018 for a 50 per cent chance of meeting the Paris Agreement's 1.5° goal.

These are the companies the Malinauskas Labor government is rolling out the red carpet to, without any consideration about human rights, without any consideration of the terrible effects on our climate and on our state brand. Let's not forget that some years ago now one of the first acts of the Malinauskas government was to declare a climate emergency here in this place. I remember that debate, and the Greens welcomed that. But, emergency requires action. It is time for the Malinauskas government to show some leadership here and to dump Santos and to dump this association with fossil fuel companies, and to ensure that our state's big events have sponsors that appropriately reflect the values of our state and our mission to take the climate crisis seriously.

6 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:11): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Regional Development on the topic of the Whyalla Steelworks.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This morning, it has been reported that the government's proposed $600 million hydrogen project is in doubt due to the ongoing issues with GFG Alliance and the Whyalla Steelworks. Yesterday, the Premier revealed that GFG Alliance owes the state tens of millions of dollars. The hydrogen project was to be one of the key energy suppliers for the production of green steel at the steelworks and the cornerstone of the Labor government's jobs plan for the Whyalla region. Now, thousands of regional jobs hang in the balance.

In 2023, when this place was considering the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill, the Greens pushed for the bill to be referred to a select committee so that the parliament could examine the risks associated with the hydrogen project, including the economic benefits. At that time, Labor did not support any scrutiny of the bill.

My question to the Minister for Regional Development is: given the thousands of jobs that now hang in the balance, does the minister concede it was a mistake to block the Greens' proposal to refer the bill to a select committee so that the risk could have been properly scrutinised; why didn't Labor allow appropriate scrutiny of their hydrogen plan; and what does this mean for the regions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:13): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think this chamber has a good track record in scrutinising legislation and this one was no exception.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will listen to your supplementary, the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:13): Does the minister consider passing a bill of this magnitude—that committed the state to spending $600 million—in one sitting day appropriate scrutiny; why was Labor so reluctant to give this bill the scrutiny it deserves; and what does it have to say to the people of Whyalla who have their livelihoods on the line?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! A supplementary question has to arise from the original answer.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Well, actually, I don't think it did, okay? I'm sorry.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Dennis Hood, a supplementary question arising from the original answer.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:14): Supplementary: minister, are you suggesting that an item costing some 3 per cent of the state budget is not worthy of scrutiny by a select committee?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Is not worthy of scrutiny by a select committee?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, I disagree, but anyway.

The PRESIDENT: Order! While you are on your feet, the Hon. Dennis Hood, you can ask your next question. Okay?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

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.

11 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:19): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to Minister for Regional Development on the topic of regional businesses and power.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: As has been noted in this chamber this week, regional businesses such as Nippy's are reporting that their energy prices are crippling their operations. The Dairyfarmers' Association have also claimed that the average rise in electricity costs is 38 per cent, while an Australian Almond Board member, Brendan Sidhu, claimed that his business has seen a 60 per cent increase in energy bills. My question to the Minister for Regional Development, therefore, is:

1. What action is the Malinauskas Labor government taking to support regional businesses with soaring energy prices?

2. Will the government commit to a commission of inquiry to consider bringing our state's energy back into public hands, and, if not, why not?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:20): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think the topic of a potential commission of inquiry would probably sit, perhaps, with the Treasurer in the other place. I am certainly happy to refer that and bring back a response.

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11 September 2024).

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries):

1. I am advised that an 8.5 per cent cut in the default market offer for small businesses took effect on 1 July for this financial year.

This was the biggest percentage reduction in any of the areas where the Australian Energy Regulator sets the default market offer which is the ceiling price for retailers' standing offers.

Importantly, South Australian regional business pay the same electricity prices as businesses in Adelaide. The Malinauskas government supports this policy which ensures regional businesses in South Australia get a fair go. In some other states, city businesses get cheaper prices than regional businesses.

In addition, the Malinauskas government is inviting small business to apply for grants which enhance energy efficiency, and which will deliver long-term financial benefits.

Up to 8,000 small businesses will benefit from the Economic Recovery Fund, round 2, which is open now through to 29 November 2024.

Grants of $2,500 to $50,000 are available in matched funding for energy-efficiency investments.

The grants will be available for a range of assets, including:

• Power supply and generation
• Lighting and electrical
• Energy-efficient appliances
• Heating, cooling, and refrigeration
• Water heating
• Motors, pumps, and compressors
• Building upgrades
• Process automation, controls, and automation.

Small businesses are encouraged to go to the website of the Office for Small and Family Business for full details and advice on applications.

2. The Malinauskas government does not plan to hold a commission of inquiry into government ownership of the energy system.

The privatisation of the energy system has been a public policy disaster.

However, if the extremely complex and expensive task of resuming ownership were to be undertaken, there would be a high risk that if the Liberal Party were to be elected to government at some point in the future, they would reprivatise the system again.

When last in office, they privatised the operation of 277MW of generation which had been purchased to ensure reliability by being kept in reserve.

The Malinauskas government is focused on reforms to ensure consumers have clean, affordable, reliable energy.

19 June 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Before I address the substance of the motion, I wish to amend the motion as follows.

After paragraph 2, insert a new paragraph as follows:

3. Calls on the Malinauskas government to establish a commission of inquiry to examine reviving ETSA and returning South Australia's electricity distribution and transmission network to public ownership.

I might use this opportunity as well just to indicate that the Greens will not be supporting the amendments advanced by the Hon. Ben Hood on behalf of the Hon. Heidi Girolamo. In doing so, I do make it clear, though, that I do have some sympathy for the critique that the Liberals have made of Labor's inconsistency on the issue of privatisation. Were there to be a separate standalone motion dealing with the Labor Party's history of privatisation, that is something I would be open to considering.

But this is an opportunity to highlight what was in effect the original sin in South Australia's energy policy, the decision that has bedevilled generations of South Australians; that is, the Liberals' decision to sell off ETSA, to sell off our electricity systems here in South Australia and to sell out the people of South Australia and lock generations of South Australians into higher prices and unreliable power. That is a key event that should be condemned by this council.

Also, the Greens want to go further, and our amendment actually calls on the Malinauskas government to establish a commission of inquiry to look at what mechanisms there are that are available for us to take back ownership of our electricity distribution network here in South Australia.

To speak to the substance of the Hon. Reggie Martin's motion, it acknowledges that the decision to privatise ETSA has not delivered favourable outcomes for the South Australian community. With respect, that proposition should be a no-brainer for this chamber. I have not heard the Liberals, in their contributions, advance one positive outcome that has been delivered by the privatisation of ETSA, not one. In fact, all the evidence demonstrates that that has produced bad outcomes for the people of South Australia.

They talk about blackouts, but they have been locked in a state of perpetual blackout for the last 25 years. It is as if the last 25 years did not happen and they have this collective sense of amnesia, and they pretend that they did not sell off our electricity network and they were not the authors of the crisis that our state faces in terms of energy.

It is not just the Greens who are saying that privatisation has been bad news for South Australia. Indeed, 40 per cent of South Australians, according to the Australia Institute back in 2019, blamed the privatisation of ETSA for higher power prices. Three out of five people (60 per cent of South Australians) considered the privatisation to be one of the main sources of upward pressure on prices. They believe it, and they believe it to be the case because it is true.

I was a Chair of a parliamentary inquiry into privatisation when I started in this chamber, and we received a submission from SACOSS that talked about the impact of the privatisation of South Australia's electricity network on increasing inequality. I will draw from some elements of the media release that SACOSS issued in relation to that submission. I will quote from the release directly:

'This new analysis draws on the internationally famous work of economist Thomas Piketty on the drivers of inequality,' said SACOSS CEO Ross Womersley. 'While the data is not perfect, it is…[very] clear that the privatisation of the electricity network in SA has contributed to increased inequality.

'And while it is concerning that the privatisation of the South Australian electricity network looks to have increased inequality, it is even more alarming that the energy regulator is setting rates of return on capital at levels which will continue to increase inequality in years to come.'

The SACOSS submission put three propositions to the multiparty committee:

• The rate of return to the owners of the network is greater than the growth rate of the economy, which (as per the analysis of economist Thomas Piketty) will lead to increased inequality.
• This is the case based on both the regulated rate of return and the final return to shareholders.
• Because of the regressive consumer expenditure patterns, in theory, new capital investments, and in practice schemes like the Residential Energy Productivity Scheme, are more equitably funded from the tax base…rather than by the electricity companies where costs are passed on to consumers.

So SACOSS, through their research and drawing on the views of a leading economist, concluded that privatisation was one of the key factors that was driving inequality. Indeed, over the last 25 years since the privatisation of ETSA we have seen power prices go up here in South Australia by more than 200 per cent. That is astronomical. That is a fact.

There is an opportunity here for the Liberal Party to make amends with the people of South Australia, for them to say, 'We made a mistake,' and to learn from those mistakes. But no, instead what we have seen from the Liberals is brain flatulence over in Canberra: a bizarre, ill-conceived proposal from the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, to create a nuclear reactor here in South Australia—to set up a nuclear reactor and to put that impost on the people of Port Augusta, with no plan for what is to happen with the nuclear waste.

We know that whenever the Liberals talk about nuclear they are happy to dump the waste on remote communities. That has always been their approach. Where else is it going to go? They do not want it to be in the city and they are happy to dump it in the regions. What is the cost? This proposal has not been costed by the Liberal opposition, but we know, based on the experience in other jurisdictions that have gone nuclear, other places around the world, that the cost will blow out by billions and billions of dollars, and that it will be impossible for us to address our energy needs within the time frame that the Hon. Peter Dutton and the Liberals have identified, because we know that nuclear technology takes a very long time to establish and get off the ground, and it is hugely costly.

This is a burden that the Liberals are proposing should be carried by the taxpayer. Why on earth would we go down that route when we could instead beef up renewables here in South Australia, beef up battery storage and ensure that we can provide publicly owned renewable electricity to the people of our state? Why would we go down the Liberals' radioactive path? It does not make sense.

The other thing that I find really baffling about this latest brain flatulence from the Liberal Party is the fact that they are reviving this idea of a royal commission into the nuclear industry. We had a royal commission, so why are they flogging that dead horse? We had a royal commission and the commission found that this was not economically viable for South Australia. Instead of coming up with any new ideas, the Liberals just pull out that frozen pizza, get it out of the freezer, heat it up again and serve that stale offering up to the people of South Australia. Surely they can do better than that.

I urge them to repent and to support this motion that has been put forward by the Hon. Mr Martin. Mr President, I see you waving at me. I have listened to some of my colleagues speak for two hours tonight and this is my first contribution of the evening, so I am being short, but there is an important point to make, with respect, Mr President. I urge members of parliament to—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, I was just waving to you; I just love seeing you, that's all.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Thank you. I urge my colleagues to support this but also to support the Greens' amendment that actually adds some verbs into the Labor Party motion and compels them to do something to ensure that we can take ownership of our electricity providers here in South Australia.

The final point I will make before wrapping up is that I do commend the Malinauskas government for supporting a bill that I initiated on behalf of the Greens to prevent the privatisation of public assets in the future without consideration of a parliamentary inquiry, and without approval of both houses of parliament. This is a really important safeguard and it will ensure that we never repeat these mistakes again. But today is a time to condemn the Liberals for selling off and selling out our state.

9 April 2024

I rise to speak in favour of the Statutes Amendment (National Energy Laws) (Wholesale Market Monitoring) Bill 2023. This bill improves the transparency of energy contracts between energy wholesalers and retailers by giving the Australian Energy Regulator monitoring powers to analyse the efficacy of competition and to identify features of contracts that are detrimental to energy supply or cost.

The sale of ETSA back in the 1990s was a major blow to South Australia, exposing the vulnerability in our electricity systems. Now we are in a situation as a result of that appalling decision where we are relying on privatised wholesale and retail markets to provide efficient and affordable energy supply. What we are seeing in energy prices is an increase over time, even though renewable energy has dramatically reduced the cost of producing energy in our state. These increased costs are placing a huge burden on household budgets and putting the viability of small businesses at risk. This is simply not a sustainable situation.

It is for this reason that the Greens have been calling for the re-establishment of a new ETSA to bring power back into public hands and address the ongoing issues of our privatised energy market. Indeed, back in 2022 the Labor Party promised during the election that they would establish a commission of inquiry into bringing back public ownership of our trains and trams. They have not needed to proceed with that inquiry, and I recognise the work of the transport minister in that regard, but we could use that same model to examine the issues associated with our energy network, look at what it would take to bring back ETSA and give South Australians control of our electricity once again.

Local government is starting to take the power back into its own hands. Indeed, the City of Mitcham has become a leader in the energy industry, creating a community renewables program that gives local communities agency and control over their power. I understand that over 760 households have signed up to receive solar panels or batteries and their next step is to establish a virtual power plant. For those who may not be aware, a virtual power plant, also known as a VPP, shares renewable energy generated at individual properties across a local network. It helps prevent blackouts, reduces electricity costs and addresses climate change. As more people move towards models like this, we will see a total shift in our energy market. It is the democratisation of energy generation and distribution.

This bill is necessary for the Australian Energy Regulator to address the lack of transparency in contracts with the big retailers and the big wholesalers. If we were to bring back publicly owned electricity to South Australia and establish more local power networks, as could be achieved through virtual power plants, we could entirely change the energy landscape and entirely remove the need for the types of measures included in this bill. The problem here is not simply transparency; the problem is that the Liberals sold off ETSA to private providers who are more interested in making a buck than serving the public good. We need to see that reversed and we need to put the power back into public hands.

I do want to take this opportunity to caution the Liberal Party against ever going down the privatisation path again. I do welcome the fact that the Malinauskas government has worked with the Greens to support a bill that will make it very difficult to sell off key public assets in the future without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. That is a really good step, and I think it will ensure that this parliament does not repeat the folly of the Liberals in the future.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (27 September 2023): Can the Minister for Energy and Mining advise:

1. Are energy retailers in South Australia able to recoup the following from customers through their pricing structure?

(a) Lobbying

(b) Public relations spending

(c) Trade association fees

(d) Political advocacy

2. Are energy retailers in South Australia able to include any of the above costs in their retail allowance?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries): The Minister for Energy and Mining advises:

Unfortunately, the energy system in South Australia was privatised by the Liberal government of the time. Consequently, the government of South Australia has no oversight of the business decisions made by privately owned energy retailers.

These retailers are subject to the same set of laws and regulations as any other privately owned business selling goods and services to consumers, including but not limited to the Commonwealth's Corporations Act 2001 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

In addition, in the energy market, retailers are obliged to operate under the National Energy Retail Rules. The Australian Energy Regulator is responsible for monitoring and enforcing these rules. Provided they do not breach any applicable laws and regulations, how costs of doing business are recovered are matters for the retailers.