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.

28 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:29): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Regional Development on the topic of power outages.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: At the height of the storm that hit South Australia last night, 14,000 people were left without power and over 5,000 South Australians were still without power at 10am this morning, mostly in regional areas. Some of the worst hit regions were the Barossa, the Lower Murraylands, the Mid North and the Flinders. Last year, the secretary of SA Unions, Dale Beasley, wrote an open letter to the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, calling for a reversal of the privatisation of our energy network. In the letter he stated that, 'This model has seen under investment in maintenance and replacement of electricity distribution infrastructure.'

I asked the Minister for Regional Development about this matter back in September, and in the response to my question without notice that she has tabled today she stated:

The government believes that privatising the network by the then Liberal administration was a foolish decision which has resulted in sub-optimal outcomes for consumers. However, restoring the electricity network to public ownership would be a complex and expensive undertaking.

She goes on to state:

Any consideration of such a change would require thorough analysis rather than superficial thinking.

My question to the minister therefore is:

1. In light of her remarks, would she consider the Greens' push for a commission of inquiry into bringing electricity back into public hands?

2. What action has the minister taken to ensure that people in the regions have access to power during this storm?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:31): I thank the honourable member for his question. In terms of one part of that question, it is certainly the case that in the answer I provided to the honourable member, where I alluded to the advice received from the Minister for Energy in the other place, I stated there would indeed need to be a thorough analysis of any proposal to bring electricity back into government hands. We all remember of course how many problems have eventuated due to ill-conceived privatisation by a former Liberal government in this state. In terms of those sorts of steps, I am happy to refer that to the Minister for Energy in the other place.

In terms of the storm power outages, I am advised that, as the honourable member referred to, the storms did cause widespread power outages in addition to localised flooding. I am advised that approximately 155,000 lightning strikes were recorded, some 26,000 of those hitting the ground. Some of the lightning strikes hit electrical infrastructure, which caused damage. There was also damage from trees and vegetation falling on powerlines, and I am advised that this led to about 30,000 SA Power Networks customers being affected by an outage.

I am advised that SAPN mobilised additional crews and have been restoring power to most customers, and as of 10am today there remained approximately 5,000 out of those 14,000 customers who were still without power. SAPN prioritises work to protect public safety first, and then targets outages from the biggest through to single affected customers. I am further advised that the storm also affected some ElectraNet assets, but the transmission provider expected all lines to be in service by mid-morning, which is the most up-to-date information I have in that regard. Further, there was no loss of load from the transmission network.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:33): Supplementary: does the minister accept the analysis of SA Unions that privatisation has seen underinvestment in maintenance and replacement of electricity distribution infrastructure that has contributed to the power failure we have seen overnight?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:33): I think the privatisation of the state's electricity assets by a former Liberal government was a disaster.

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (28 November 2023).

1. In light of her remarks, would she consider the Greens' push for a commission of inquiry into bringing electricity back into public hands?

2. What action has the minister taken to ensure that people in the regions have access to power during this storm?

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

The record shows that the minister provided a detailed answer to the second of the Hon. Robert Simms' questions at the time it was asked.

In answer to the first question, as previously advised, the Malinauskas Labor government believes that the privatisation of the electricity system by the then Liberal government in 1999 was a mistake which has not delivered optimal outcomes for consumers. However, also as previously advised, to reverse the privatisation would be complex and costly. It would raise issues of sovereign risk which could deter investors from funding projects in South Australia. Reversing privatisation would require compensation to be paid by taxpayers to the companies which now operate the electricity system.

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) assesses the regulated asset bases of the network businesses in South Australia—distributor SA Power Networks (SAPN) and transmission provider ElectraNet. In the current determination period, the AER estimated SAPN's regulated asset base would be $4.9 billion as at June 2025. For ElectraNet, the AER determined the asset base at $3.9 billion on 1 July 2023, rising to $4.4 billion by June 2028. As well as their asset bases, the network providers might have a claim to other value elements of their businesses in the eventuality of a privatisation reversal.

In generation, any proposed compulsory acquisition would be even more complex. There are more than 40 major generation plants in the state and a significant number more of commercial scale while not being market participants in their own right. These vary in technology, scale, plant age and condition, ownership structure and other factors.

With South Australia already linked to Victoria for transmission and soon to be linked to New South Wales, there would be further complexity as some companies operate portfolio generation across multiple plants, influencing the value of an individual asset.

Generation assets would amount to billions of dollars of invested capital. These identified costs would be the minimum burden on taxpayers from a privatisation reversal.

At this point in time, the Malinauskas government does not agree that a commission of inquiry into returning the electricity system to public hands would be a prudent use of taxpayer funds and government resources. Therefore, we will not be supporting the Greens' proposal.

Rather the Malinauskas government is focused on delivering a state-owned enterprise to run the Hydrogen Jobs Plan assets and business.

We are also developing a comprehensive suite of policies on the energy transition to ensure initiatives act in concert across sectors. The Department for Energy and Mining published a green paper to stimulate discussion, held discussions with stakeholders and invited comment and submissions. That work is well advanced.

The government is focused on regulatory and structural reforms to deliver cleaner, affordable, and reliable energy to all South Australians, including the most financially vulnerable.

16 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:37): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (National Energy Laws) (Other Gases) Bill 2023 in what will be my last speech during state parliament's gas week. This bill refers to the definition of gas in our legislative instruments, as has been noted by the Hon. Heidi Girolamo. Currently, the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 refers to natural gas throughout. I have talked a bit this week about greenwashing. That is no more evident than in the use of the term 'natural gas', because we know that natural gas is not really natural. It is a non-renewable fossil fuel. The word 'natural' has been coopted by the gas industry to buy a social licence for this polluting energy source, which mostly comprises methane.

Gas production and burning gas for energy produces greenhouse gases that are detrimental to our environment and our health and drive climate change. By clarifying the definition of gases, this bill will allow for gases such as green hydrogen to be subject to the same provisions as natural gas was previously. The Greens are supportive of green hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. I have indicated that during the various debates we have had this week.

According to the Climate Council, only green hydrogen—that is, hydrogen produced with renewable energy—belongs in a zero emissions future. South Australia has sufficient renewable energy to lead a green hydrogen industry. In fact, that was the promise of the Malinauskas government at the last election.

It was disappointing for us to see that what became a promise ended up being a non-core commitment when the legislation came before the parliament, and instead we saw the government being agnostic on the question of whether or not they should be using green or blue hydrogen. That certainly was not the proposition they took to the people of South Australia. I will be interested to know what the Premier's Delivery Unit says about that.

However, we would like to once again put on the record that we are opposed to blue hydrogen, in fact to any other colour in the hydrogen rainbow that is not green. Blue hydrogen produced from fossil fuel is not the way forward; it locks us into a non-renewable gas future. We do note, however, that this bill includes a reference to gas blends.

I should note that I am pretty cynical about gas blends, because they are talked about in the South Australian context as being pumped into homes through the existing gas infrastructure and being used for residential use, and the environmental benefits of that are negligible. I think, from memory, the best that you can hope for in terms of a gas blend is about 20 per cent hydrogen with so-called natural gas. That does not deliver demonstrable environmental benefits, I am advised.

There is concern about a lot of emphasis being put on that at a time when we should be focusing on transitioning households away from gas, looking at some of the approaches that have been taken in other states. Obviously, no other party supported the Greens' push to ban gas connections on new homes from 2025. There has not been support for the Greens' push to prevent developers from mandating new gas connections, but there are things the government could do in terms of putting money on the table, as has happened in the ACT and Victoria, to encourage home owners to move away from gas. That would reduce their energy bills and the environmental effect. That is the missing piece in the puzzle in terms of the government's approach.

We recognise there may be some need for gas blending in industrial settings, and therefore we will not oppose the inclusion of that in this bill, but we want to see much more work being done to support these industries to start to move away from methane gas, and we want to see fossil fuel being eliminated.

Changing the definitions for gas in the Gas Act will allow us to become a green hydrogen superpower, if this is the government's ambition, and I sincerely hope that it is. We are ready to support a green hydrogen plan if the Malinauskas government really wants us to be a leader in a zero emissions future. We, of course, welcome any moves away from methane gas, but we want to ensure that we are not just throwing another lifeline to the fossil fuel industry and prolonging the use of gas under another name.

We will continue to monitor this closely, and of course I will continue to ask questions in this place and give speeches outside of our energy week on this topic to ensure that we can keep the issue on the burner, so to speak. With that, I conclude my remarks.

16 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:29): I welcome the opportunity to speak again on gas week, or energy week, as it has become. It is the theme of the week.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: There is a lot of hot air in here, as the honourable member accurately observes. There is a lot of gaslighting that has been happening in this chamber this week and a lot of greenwashing as well.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Energy Resources) Amendment Bill. The bill makes amendments to the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000. The name of the act will be changed to the energy resources act as I understand it will cover resources such as geothermal resources, naturally forming hydrogen, underground coal gasification, carbon dioxide, and carbon capture and storage.

Produced hydrogen and renewable energy are dealt with under the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill, which we discussed at length into the late hours last night. The bill inserts some provisions that require licensee holders to undertake engagement with stakeholders in preparing environmental impact reports and statements of environmental impacts.

The bill also introduces rent for the use of the state's natural reservoirs to store regulated substances, such as carbon. Under the bill, I understand that rent will only be applicable to imported substances but does not require a rent to be paid for locally produced substances. What we are talking about here is carbon capture storage. Carbon capture occurs when a material, such as methane or hydrogen, is extracted from underground leaving a cavity in its place. The idea is then to replace resultant carbon in the space that is left behind.

The Greens are not supportive of carbon capture storage, as we are concerned that this is a delaying tactic for the coal and gas industry to justify fossil fuel projects. It is a form of greenwashing and it gives a social licence to fossil fuel industries. According to the Climate Council, carbon capture storage is a licence to ramp up emissions. Around the world, carbon capture storage projects are being built to allow for continued oil and gas production.

In Australia, the coal and gas industry is pushing for CCS so it has a licence to keep its polluting project going, not because it wants to cut emissions—that is the view of the Climate Council. Greg Bourne, an energy expert at the Climate Council, has also said:

Carbon capture and storage is not a climate solution but rather an expensive attempt to prolong the role of fossil fuels in the energy system… right now the Government needs to be focused on building a resilient, renewable economy, not throwing taxpayer dollars at fossil fuel producers and failed technology.

In our briefing on this bill, we were advised that Japan and Korea are looking for places to store their carbon. This bill proposes to charge those places rent for disposing of polluting by-products, but it exempts local producers who are doing the same thing. Therefore, I will be moving amendments to ensure that local companies have to pay for the storage as well as any imported carbon. It is important that we put a price on the storage of carbon that comes as a result of extractive industries.

It is the Greens' policy to stop using fossil fuels, stop the greenwashing that we see from the coal and gas industry, and stop the continuation of non-renewable energy. It is appropriate to charge a levy for storage of carbon, even though we are not supportive of carbon capture itself as a technology.

Indeed, as I speak today, I know that there are students sitting on the steps of this place calling on the government to take action on climate, and I had the opportunity to meet with them earlier today and earlier in the week. These young people know that we need to do better for our environment. We need to stop using fossil fuels as a way to power South Australia. We need to commit to renewable energy for the future and we do not want to see the prolonged use of technologies that rely on fossil fuels.

Whilst we will be supporting this bill, we will be moving amendments to ensure that any carbon capture has a price tag applied to it at a local level as well as at an international level, and the Greens of course will continue to campaign for action on this important area. I do urge the government to give favourable consideration to this amendment. We know that they are in the pocket of the gas industry. We know that they are the political arm of the gas industry in this place. They are absolutely in their pocket.

I urge them to show some leadership when it comes to addressing the climate crisis, not to simply do as the Minister for Energy, Tom Koutsantonis, has said, 'Roll out the red carpet for gas. Come on down. Whatever you want, we're here to help you.' Show some leadership and let's start cracking down on these dirty polluting industries.

15 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:11): I think Socrates would not be able to turn this one around, based on the feedback I have heard from my colleagues. It is a shame we cannot make renewable energy from the hot air that I have heard in the chamber tonight during this debate. It is disappointing to hear once again the Labor and Liberal parties clambering over themselves to support gas and dirty fossil fuels. One of the most erroneous arguments that we have heard I think during this debate is the ongoing suggestion that gas is somehow cheaper. We know, of course, that that is simply not the case.

I want to refer the chamber to a report that was released just a few days ago by the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, which reviewed and brought together leading electrification research and looked at the impacts of electrifying the residential sector with more affordable energy efficient appliances. As part of that, the report found that in almost all contexts, electricity would cut household energy bills and that electrifying Australia's entire residential sector would save households $4.9 billion in total annual energy costs.

The author, whose name is Amelia Pearson, said that there was a time not long ago that using gas to heat our rooms, water and stovetops was the cheaper choice. Those days are now behind us and electric appliances are both more efficient and cost effective. As gas prices continue to overtake the cost of electrification, electrification only makes more financial sense for Australian households, she says. The report looked at the yearly energy savings that could come from four primary sources: gas network connection fees, electrifying hot water systems, electrifying heating and induction cooking appliances.

What the report found was that on average wholesale gas prices increased by 234 per cent over the past decade compared to 137 per cent for electricity. Gas rose an average of 6.37 per cent a year compared to 3.77 per cent for electricity, so the constant refrain made by the Labor and Liberal parties that banning gas connections for new homes is going to hike up energy prices is a pure fiction. It is not supported by the evidence.

It is disappointing that the two major parties in our state are hooked on gas, because it is bad for carbon emissions and it is bad for community health and wellbeing. A few weeks ago, we saw the universities of Adelaide and South Australia merge; now we are seeing the Labor and Liberal parties merge on this question and it is very, very disappointing.

You have other jurisdictions around the world, other states around the world, that are showing leadership on this and banning new gas connections. The ACT has done it and Victoria has done it—another Labor government—but here in South Australia you have the Labor government in the arms of the gas companies and in the arms of the fossil fuel industry and it is profoundly disappointing. The Labor Party needs to do a lot better. I will call a division so you can all justify your position to your constituents in the middle of a climate emergency.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 2

Noes 15

Majority 13

AYES

NOES

Second reading thus negatived.

15 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:13): By leave, I move contingent notice of motion No. 3 in an amended form:

1. That the bill be referred to a select committee of the Legislative Council for inquiry and report.

2. That the committee consist of six members and that the quorum of members necessary to be present at all meetings of the committee be fixed at four members.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

I have already outlined in my second reading speech the rationale for this committee, but to make it very clear to this council, the Greens have always been open-minded on the proposal that the government has put. Indeed, my default position when it was canvassed during the election was to be supportive in principle of the proposal, but we always said we wanted to see the detail. We did try over many months to get briefings with the government. We did eventually secure one and that was a welcome breakthrough for us, but it would have been good to have had the opportunity to dive into this bill in more detail.

That is why I will be moving to refer this on to a committee, so that there is an opportunity for the parliament to scrutinise in greater detail the implications of this bill. What are the implications for the environment? What are the potential implications for native title? What are the implications for our economy and do the benefits stack up? What do the individual provisions of the bill mean? How do they interact?

I think there is a dangerous precedent being established in this parliament; that is, when the government has big picture projects, they seek to rush them through with limited scrutiny. I really urge crossbenchers in considering this proposal to consider their role in this place. It is not the role of the crossbench to acquiesce to the government of the day. People do not vote for crossbench members because they want them to simply wave through the legislation the government presents. They vote for a crossbench because they want bills scrutinised.

This is not about trying to delay or stymie the government; it is about ensuring that we do our due diligence as a parliament and consider a significant proposal, so I urge crossbenchers in particular to turn their minds to their role when they consider this question.