Pages tagged "Energy and Mining"
Motion: Referring the Hydrogen & Renewable Energy Bill to a Select Committee
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.
Hydrogen & Renewable Energy Bill
14 November 2023
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:51): I rise to speak on the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill on behalf of the Greens. I should note that I am the spokesperson for energy for our party, so I will speak about the implications for energy policy and my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks will address the environmental considerations and the impacts for First Nations communities in her second reading speech.
I also indicate, as was alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition, that contingent on the second reading stage I will move to refer this bill onto a select committee for an inquiry. We believe that is a really important step in ensuring that we have a bill, a reform piece, that actually delivers good environmental outcomes for the people of South Australia.
By way of background, when the Labor Party announced their powering new jobs and industry for the future plan, their green hydrogen plan, in the lead-up to the last election, my response at the time—on behalf of the Greens—was to indicate that we were supportive in principle of the concept. Indeed, that has always been our view, but we wanted to see the detail of the legislation and to understand, to make sure, that the government had the energy mix right.
It was with that intention that I reached out to the government on several occasions to seek to understand what they were proposing, even before legislation was brought to the parliament, so that the Greens could be in a position to work constructively with the Malinauskas government and to get a reform piece through this chamber. It is why on 8 June I reached out to the minister directly and requested a meeting with him to discuss the plan.
My office then reached out again on 14 June via email, again on 7 August, again on 21 August, again on 23 August, and then, when we finally got a briefing with staffers, I reiterated on 20 October that I wanted to meet with the minister to discuss the plan. We finally got an audience with the minister last week and I expressed some of the concerns that the Greens had, and we have never received a response to those concerns.
So it is clear that we are a long way off being able to support this legislation. It does not mean that we are opposed to it, but it does mean that we need to apply some rigour, some scrutiny to the government's proposal to ensure that it does not have adverse consequences for our environment, and to ensure that it actually sets our state on the right path in terms of renewables.
For us, there are some significant concerns that we have with the legislation. I will talk you through those. To begin with, I think it is really important that this chamber understands the distinction between green and blue hydrogen. There is indeed a cross-section of hydrogen colours: pink hydrogen, which comes from nuclear sources, or brown hydrogen, which comes from coal. Green hydrogen—that is the form the Labor Party campaigned on in the lead-up to the last election—is derived from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and it is made through a process called electrolysis. It is this that the Labor Party allude to in its election manifesto, where the then Labor leader stated in his foreword:
A Malinauskas government will build a 250 megawatt of hydrogen electrolysers, one of the world's largest hydrogen electrolyser facilities.
That is a bit of a tongue twister. It continues:
These electrolysers will create hydrogen from water using green power.
It is this proposition that holds immense promise in the transition away from fossil fuels, particularly in terms of its industrial use, as in the production of green steel in Whyalla. The Greens are attracted to that. I have some knowledge of that issue from when I was involved in a Senate inquiry during my time in federal parliament. I am attracted to that proposition.
Creating a green hydrogen industry in South Australia can accelerate our transition to a sustainable future. The Greens are deeply committed to environmental sustainability and climate action, and we have stated publicly that we are supportive of green hydrogen in terms of reducing our reliance on methane gas in industrial settings. There is the potential for Australia to become a renewable superpower if we focus on green hydrogen and start to build an industry around it.
Certainly, green hydrogen aligns with our goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting clean energy and building a greener and healthier future for the community. But there is an important distinction that needs to be drawn between that and blue hydrogen. Blue hydrogen is the cuckoo in the nest of the Labor Party's proposal because it was not part of what they took to the people of South Australia at the last election, but it is part of the proposal for which they are seeking this parliament's support now.
It is really important that this parliament is cognisant of the risks associated with blue hydrogen. Blue hydrogen is produced from methane gas. It is referred to as natural gas, but we know of course that it is not natural in terms of its impact on the environment. The process reforms methane gas to hydrogen, with the carbon waste product being sequestered into the cavity created from extracting the methane gas.
To be clear, it is gas, it is blue hydrogen made out of fossil fuels. It should hardly be surprising then to anybody that the Greens are concerned about blue hydrogen as it locks us into a future reliance on fossil fuels. Furthermore, carbon capture storage could have detrimental environmental impacts, and that is an area of significant concern for us.
On 12 August 2021, The Guardian reported a study, which found that the emissions from producing blue hydrogen are significantly high. Rupert Howarth, a scientist from Cornell University, who authored the paper said:
It's pretty striking, I was surprised by the results. Blue hydrogen is a nice marketing term that the oil and gas industry is keen to push, but it's far from carbon free. I don't think we should be spending our funds this way on these sorts of false solutions.
The Labor Party talks a lot about this being the next gold rush. We want to make sure they are not going after fool's gold, that they are not going to be spending a huge amount of taxpayer money in propping up the gas industry and in doing something that will not actually deliver demonstrable environmental outcomes.
There is no need for blue hydrogen in our state. We have abundant renewable energy resources. Renewable energy is currently meeting approximately 70 per cent of South Australia's total electricity consumption. Green hydrogen can play a role in stabilising the network and reducing industrial reliance on methane gas. However, we do not need to turn to hydrogen produced from fossil fuels to do that.
Over the last six years, South Australian energy ministers have been talking up hydrogen, and as early as 2017 the Weatherill government was touting hydrogen as a key part of its energy plan, particularly for energy storage. Since then the rhetoric has always been around green hydrogen. The Marshall government described hydrogen development as a greenhouse gas free fuel.
In the 2022 election, the Labor Party's policy document, titled the 'Hydrogen jobs plan', committed to building green hydrogen infrastructure. Nowhere in that document is there any reference to any type of hydrogen other than green hydrogen. It was not until late 2022, when the Malinauskas government first started talking about blue hydrogen in their issues paper, that this appeared. Since then, the government has referred to blue hydrogen in 'South Australia's Green Paper on the energy transition', where it states:
As we transition to a net-zero emissions future, the oil and gas industry will continue to play a critical role for South Australia—particularly in the short-to-medium term.
There was a map contained in Labor's election policy, and I will seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The map that was in the election policy document shows the potential for green hydrogen was reproduced in the green paper. However, this time the map identified locations for blue hydrogen in Leigh Creek, Cooper Basin and the Greater Adelaide region. I seek leave to table this document, 'South Australia's Green Paper on the energy transition'.
Leave granted.
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The federal energy minister, the Hon. Chris Bowen MP, stated his intentions to support green hydrogen. To quote from the minister in federal parliament, he said, 'The road to green hydrogen does not necessarily go through blue hydrogen.' This is in contrast to the state government's position, where it states:
Blue hydrogen is a potential route for large scale hydrogen production for domestic use or export that is cost competitive using currently available technologies.
There is a clear discrepancy between the positioning of the federal Labor Party and the positioning of Malinauskas Labor here.
We welcome the regulation of the renewable energy industry in South Australia. However, the Greens do not see blue hydrogen as the way forward for our state. We do have sufficient access to wind and sun in South Australia, and we should limit technology to green hydrogen to ensure that we have a clean energy future. There is no need to legislate to allow for blue hydrogen when we could be global leaders in clean energy. Taking a strong position to exclude blue hydrogen would show a clear commitment to our state addressing climate change.
We have declared a climate emergency. What you do when you declare a climate emergency? You do not continue with business as usual. You do not continue propping up the gas industry. Instead, you take dramatic action. I am concerned that what the government is doing here is engaging in a greenwashing exercise.
I am concerned that what the government is doing here is gaslighting the people of South Australia into thinking that this plan is something that it is not. That is why my colleague and I are committed to referring this bill on to a committee inquiry so that we can go through the bill and consider its implications in more detail. Should we be unsuccessful in that endeavour, we will be moving a series of amendments. I will leave the Hon. Tammy Franks to outline the nature of the amendments that she will move, but I will speak briefly to those that I am going to be initiating.
In addition to amendments to remove blue hydrogen from the bill, we will also move to ensure that gas cannot be used for residential purposes. Members will know I have talked a lot about this over the time that I have been in this parliament. It is concerning to us in the Greens that, in contrast to other states and other jurisdictions, South Australia under this government has no plan to move away from gas. Indeed, this is an issue that I have raised with the government. Whenever the minister cares to pick up the phone and take one of my calls, I would make him aware of that, because we are concerned about the fact that South Australia is at risk of becoming the odd man out when it comes to reliance on gas.
Why is it that Victoria has a plan to move away from gas on residential properties, the ACT has a plan to move away from gas on residential properties, but in South Australia there is no such plan, and that is absent in this bill. There is a risk that this bill commits South Australian households to a reliance on gas in the long term, which is totally the opposite to what the Greens have been seeking to achieve. Indeed, it is diametrically opposed to what I had expected the Labor Party would put forward.
The government has also stated their intention to blend hydrogen with methane gas and pump this into homes. While this has been tried in other countries, South Australia's renewable energy abundance means that we are in a better position to electrify our residential energy needs, rather than maintain a residential gas network into the future.
This discussion around hydrogen blend through gas pipelines really requires further explanation because it is a pipedream. It does not deliver environmental outcomes. Indeed, the best that one can hope for, I am advised, is about a 20 per cent hydrogen blend that has negligible environmental impacts. Why on earth would we be spending huge amounts of taxpayer money to potentially deliver hydrogen blend technology to households when we could be ramping up renewables and we could be spending government money on alternatives to gas?
Another concern we have with the bill as it currently stands is that those who are granted a special enterprise licence can be made exempt from any other part of this act at the discretion of the minister. This is an extraordinary power that the Greens are not comfortable with. The submission dated 23 June 2023 from the Law Society highlights their concerns. I quote from that document:
Finally, and of most concern, is the Minister's ability in proposed section 23 to exempt a special enterprise licence from compliance with a provision of the proposed Act. The Society opposes this provision which grates uneasily against the Rule of Law and may give rise to circumstances where a landowner is not given notice and is therefore unable to challenge any decision made.
This is a serious matter that the Law Society have raised, and the Greens share their concern about giving the minister this excessive power.
The final amendment I will move is to ensure that owners of adjoining properties will also need to be notified in accordance with the notice of entry provisions that exist under section 76. The Law Society's submission touches on this point and addresses the rights of adjoining landowners whose neighbouring properties may be impacted by proposed developments. Their submission states:
As a minimum, provision should be made for those adjoining landowners to be notified and consulted. For example, in respect of a windfarm, it is easy to contemplate a proposal where individual towers are placed on the boundary of land far from the owner's dwelling or habitable areas, but directly adjacent to their neighbour's dwelling or habitable area.
Communities can be divided over issues like this, especially in regional areas. The Greens believe that ensuring neighbours are notified is a simple measure that would open up channels of communication and ensure people in the vicinity of a new hydrogen or renewable energy facility are given this information. We want renewable energy to be viewed positively in the community, and a key way to do that is to build community consensus and ensure that people are kept in the loop about what is happening in their neighbourhood.
To be very clear, the Greens are committed to renewable energy. We are committed to ending the reliance on gas across the country. We are supportive of the role of green hydrogen; however, we are concerned about this bill's capacity to fast-track blue hydrogen production. It is vital for us that the future of our planet is protected and that we do not see more fossil fuel projects.
The Greens have been open-minded on this plan. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we were open-minded when the Labor Party announced it during the election. Indeed, I made it very clear that my party was supportive of this proposal in principle, and it is for that reason that we reached out to the minister responsible on 8 June, 14 June, 7 August, 21 August and 23 August and I indicated that I wanted another meeting on 20 October. We have tried to reach out to the government and to work with them on this.
The reality is that they have not been willing to do so. I do not know why, but we now find ourselves in a position where we are not able to support the bill in its current form and where we will be moving to refer it to an inquiry so all the issues that have been raised with us by stakeholders can be ventilated. I hope the parliament will support this sensible proposal from the Greens.
We cannot allow the Malinauskas government to continue to steamroll this chamber to push ahead with significant reforms like this without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and we cannot allow them through sleight of hand to potentially gaslight the people of South Australia to embark on what could be a smoke and mirrors campaign for a continuation of the gas industry.
Gas Industry Consultation
18 October 2023
In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15 June 2023):
My question to the Attorney-General therefore is:
Did the Attorney-General receive any representations from the Minister for Energy and Mining on behalf of Santos or any organisation involved in the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference regarding potential amendments to the Summary Offences Act, and what does the government have in mind when it talks about 'offering to help' the gas industry?
The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): The Minister for Energy and Mining has advised:
He did address a conference of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) in Adelaide in May this year and that he is aware of a report in The Guardian about his comments.
The minister advises that he told the APPEA conference that the government of South Australia is committed to decarbonising the economy as soon and as efficiently as possible.
The minister spoke of this state's leading role in the energy transition including:
- Achieving more than 70 per cent of electricity generation from renewable sources, a world-first for a grid of more than one gigawatt without hydroelectricity.
- Pioneering grid-scale batteries.
- Investing $593 million in the Hydrogen Jobs Plan.
The minister spoke of hydrogen and its trajectory to deliver multiple benefits—creating value for excess renewably generated electricity; long duration firming to facilitate more investment in renewables; and decarbonising hard-to-abate heavy industries.
Hydrogen is the only known, commercially viable alternative to using coal to transform iron ore and the most prospective alternative to natural gas in cement manufacture. We face a choice between continuing to pollute the world, ceasing production of steel and cement, or employing hydrogen.
The minister advises that the Malinauskas government will not accept either of the first two options. We must stop pollution, but we cannot condemn future generations—including billions of people in developing countries—to enduring and worsening poverty because they cannot build homes and cities of cement and steel. That is why this government has chosen to develop a hydrogen industry.
That industry will depend on people who have the skills and experience of workers in the petroleum sector. That was the minister's message to the APPEA delegates: We cannot decarbonise the economy without them. Indeed, the theme of the APPEA conference was 'Lead, Shape, Innovate—Accelerating to Net Zero'.
As representative of the host jurisdiction, the minister told delegates that the Department for Energy and Mining was available to help them hold a successful conference. Unfortunately, those quite ordinary words from a host city were interpreted as an open invitation for the unbridled exploitation of the state. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
Unfortunately, not only was that misleading report published but the honourable member has repeated it in this place.
Opposing One Nation's Energy Motion
27 September 2023
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:23): I rise to speak against this motion on behalf of the Greens. In so doing I want to debunk some of the, quite frankly, ridiculous claims that have been made by the One Nation political party in relation to energy policy over the years. Taking advice on energy policy from One Nation is like getting empathy lessons from Scott Morrison. They have no idea.
Let's actually listen to what they have had to say, let's take a look at some of the things that the One Nation Party has had to say on energy policy. I read through some news reports with great interest heading into this debate; I thought, 'What has the One Nation Party had to say?' Some of the things they have come up with are really worth putting on the Hansard, because I think they should inform consideration of this motion.
Let's look first at Senator Malcolm Roberts. In his first speech to parliament, Mr Roberts made some claims about climate change. He said 'there is no data proving human use of hydro-carbon fuels affects climate'. Well, we know that is false. He also went on to say:
[the] 1930s and 40s were warmer than the current decades…The original records are…first of all, that the data has been corrupted…
'By whom?' he was asked. 'By NASA,' he replied. NASA, of course, have corrupted the data. Of course; why did we not think of that? He says these models are 'hopelessly wrong'.
What did NASA I have to say about that? Well, a senior NASA official took the extraordinary step of personally rejecting the claims of One Nation where he claimed the agency had falsified data to exaggerate warming in the Arctic. Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said Senator Roberts was mistaken in his assertion that the US agency had removed Arctic data to mask warming in the 1940s. A news report quoted him:
'You…hold a number of misconceptions which I am happy to clarify at this time,' Dr Schmidt told Senator Roberts in letters and emails obtained by Fairfax Media. 'The claim that [NASA] has "removed the 1940s warmth" in the Arctic is not correct.'
Dr Schmidt refers to data available on their website. Interesting. These are the people we are meant to take lessons on energy policy from. Senator Roberts went on to refer to climate change as being 'a conspiracy of the United Nations.' Wow.
He made some other really unusual claims here too. This is really worth noting. He wrote a letter to the then Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, in relation to the carbon tax. This is a good one, and I think it's worth putting on the public record. The letter he sent in 2011 was addressed to—and I quote from his letter—'The Woman, Julia-Eileen:Gillard' and contained a 28-point affidavit that sought to establish Mr Roberts' exemption from the need to follow the rules of the Australian government. He referred to himself as 'Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul' and identified himself as the 'beneficiary, administrator' for a corporate entity called Malcolm Ieuan Roberts. He went on to say:
…Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not…been presented with any…facts or evidence that I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul am not a beneficiary of the public trust, or evidence that the Australian Government is not a trustee in the public trust and believe that none exist.
This is interesting stuff.
It is worth clarifying for the One Nation party that Elvis has actually left the building, COVID was not a made-up conspiracy, climate change does exist and the world is not flat. There are a range of other strange and nutty views the One Nation party has, and I will not bother to put all of them on the public record. We know they peddle lies and misinformation not only in relation to energy policy but in relation to vulnerable people, queer people, people of colour and a range of other groups. That is the One Nation party's MO in our parliament.
On this particular issue, I think it is worth noting that the One Nation party really have picked the wrong target here. They say that the Malinauskas Labor government continues to mismanage energy policy and imply that renewable energy is the cause of high energy prices. That is not true, and the evidence paints a very different story.
If you want to know why energy prices have gone up in this state, take a look at this side of the chamber. They have gone up because the Liberals privatised and sold off ETSA back in the 1990s. That is what has driven up energy prices. Why is not the Hon. Ms Game going after her mates in the Liberal Party for the position they have taken on privatisation and the terrible effect that that has had on energy prices in our state?
That is the cause of the problem we find ourselves in. That is the problem we face in our state but, for reasons unbeknownst to me, One Nation is running a protection racket for the Liberal Party on that issue. They are not to be believed on energy policy. They peddle lies and misinformation and this motion should be dismissed.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.
Emissions Reduction Objectives
12 September 2023
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:18): I rise on behalf of the Greens in support of this bill. I think it is important to reflect, in talking on this bill, on the impact of the climate crisis on our state and, indeed, our planet. This is a crisis that is already negatively impacting all aspects of modern life, contributing to the destruction of ecosystems, biodiversity and human societies through sea level rises, extreme weather events, changing weather patterns and posing a significant threat to food security, water, the economy, social cohesion and the wellbeing of humans and all other things on this planet, and these impacts will only get worse in the months and years ahead.
We often reflect on the huge disruption that we have seen in our society as a result of COVID, between 2020 and 2022 in particular, but that was really the curtain-raiser for the climate crisis. That really is the tip of the iceberg when one considers the huge disruption that will flow to our economies and to our societies if we do not address the climate crisis. We need to transform Australia into a greenhouse powerhouse, a greenhouse-gas-negative powerhouse, that creates new jobs and a cleaner planet.
Australia and South Australia's climate policy must be consistent with our commitment under the Paris Agreement to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Multiple independent analyses show that the Earth's average surface temperature has already warmed by about 1.1° Celsius since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1850. That is a significant amount. A nationwide systemic response is required to drastically reduce emissions from all sectors, including the energy sector, draw down greenhouse gases and be greenhouse gas neutral or negative by 2035.
Australia has the capacity to ensure that all our energy needs can be provided by renewable sources. I know that the emissions reduction targets in South Australia, as set by the Malinauskas government, are 50 per cent by 2030, from 2005 levels, and net zero emissions by 2050. This is a start but it just is not enough. We know we need to cut our emissions by 75 per cent by 2030, based on 2005 levels, and reach net zero by 2035, and that is what the Greens have been pushing for in Canberra and, of course, here in this place.
I will say, though, it is a relief to me, and I am sure to many Australians who care about the future of our planet, that we are finally seeing some movement on the climate crisis after the years of the Morrison, Abbott and Turnbull governments—the failed governments in Canberra. It is appropriate, I think, for me to reference the Morrison government's climate record, and I want to refer in particular to a report from the Climate Council on a catastrophic failure, 'The Lost Years: Counting the costs of climate inaction in Australia'. This report from the Climate Council, issued in 2022, found that the federal Liberal-National government has overwhelmingly failed on climate action over its three terms of government.
The report contained a national poll of 1,299 Australians, conducted by the Climate Council, and it showed that, on average, Australians rated the Morrison government's performance on climate change and its response to worsening extreme weather events as three out of 10. I think that is actually generous, based on what they did—the complete failure of leadership we saw from that government. One in four (26 per cent) surveyed rated the Morrison government as zero for doing absolutely nothing at all. Among 18 to 25 year olds, the average score was 1.5. Of the 1,299 surveyed, no segment (by age, voting preference or location) rated the government as more than 4.8 out of 10. How pathetic.
That is because the Australian people figured out the Morrison government. They got them right, they dispatched them at the ballot box and they recognised that this was a party being dominated by fossil fuels and by fossil fools: people who were not watching the climate science, people who were completely out of touch with mainstream opinion and the need to address the climate crisis. So whilst it is disappointing that we are not going far enough in our response to this climate catastrophe, at least we are finally seeing some movement, and I certainly welcome that.
I do want to express some alarm, though, at the Labor Party's obsession with gas in South Australia. I am not surprised: some in the Labor Party do love their hot air—they do enjoy a bit of hot air. Their obsession with gas is disappointing, because what we need to do is end gas connections for new homes by 2025, as the Greens have been calling for.
They are talking a lot about green hydrogen, and I am interested in learning more about that, interested in learning more about their plans, but the reality is that we simply cannot have an approach to tackling the climate crisis in our state that is based on natural gas being propped up and propping up the natural gas industry. The Labor Party does need to do better. That said, I welcome this legislation as some movement in the right direction. The Greens will continue to push for 75 per cent reductions. That is what the people of our state want, that is what is necessary for getting this climate crisis under control.
Taking Back the Power
Privatisation of South Australia's energy has delivered high electricity prices and poorly maintained infrastructure.
Since ETSA was privatised in 1999 electricity prices have surged while South Australia’s private transmission company Electranet and private distribution company SA Power Networks have made billions of dollars in profit.
Essential services like electricity should not be in private hands and run for profit. The Greens have a plan to reverse privatisation of our electricity system and save the average South Australian hundreds of dollars each year by redistributing private profit back towards cheaper electricity bills.
The Greens are campaigning to:
- revive the Electricity Trust of South Australia as the sole public retailer and network provider for South Australia’s electricity system.
- phase out private electricity retailers over two years.
- bring South Australia’s electricity distribution and transmission network back into public hands and under the control of ETSA.
- establish ETSA as a statutory authority with a board comprised of at least two worker and consumer representatives.
- direct ETSA to run at cost, eliminating profit from the system and cutting the average power bill.
In Parliament I’ve moved a motion calling on the State Government to establish a commission of inquiry to examine bringing back ETSA so that we can put SA’s electricity back in public hands, where it belongs. You can watch my speech introducing the motion here.
Environmental Impact of Private Mines Amendment Bill
23 March 2023
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I want to thank honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Clare Scriven and the Hon. Heidi Girolamo. As has been mentioned, the purpose of this bill really is to ensure that private mines are subject to the same consultation requirements as other mines and in particular ensure that they are required to consider the implications for the environment and health—two issues that are very important, particularly in the community around White Rock Quarry.
We have talked a bit about being tongue-tied today and tongue twisters; White Rock Quarry is a tongue twister. There has been a significant community campaign addressing the issues and the effects of the mine. The Hon. Connie Bonaros, in her remarks, queried whether it would be possible to get an update on where things are up to with White Rock Quarry. I can advise the honourable member that on 7 December 2022 there was a call from the Back Off campaign to treat private mines the same as other mines, which my bill reflects.
In September 2022, White Rock Quarry issued a warning that there was blasting occurring near the area of Pizey's Knob, which is close to the nesting grounds for falcons and a spring that flows into the main cave. I understand there have also been community meetings with the mining corporation, so there are ongoing community concerns. Whilst this bill would not prevent private mines, it would ensure that they are subject to the same requirements as other mines, and I think that is entirely appropriate.
I recognise that there is obviously not the support for this bill to advance within this place. I think that is disappointing. I think voters in the community of Bragg will be particularly disappointed with the Liberal Party's position given White Rock Quarry sits within that electorate. I think voters will also be intrigued by the position of the Labor Party because when they were in opposition, while they did not support the bill, I do want to revisit the remarks that were made at that time by the Hon. Clare Scriven on behalf of the minister in the other place. At the time the bill came to a vote, she said:
We want to understand the impacts so that we can ensure that any changes made have the best possible outcomes for all affected parties. The opposition's preference—
that is, the Labor Party's at that time—
would be that we actually have a select committee look into this, but, of course, we are at the very end of a parliamentary session. It is therefore not feasible for a suitable select committee to be established to investigate and report within the time frame. However, I do want to put on the record that that would be a possible future action in regard to this matter.
In summary, while we cannot support this bill at this time, we are very keen to have a detailed and robust investigation in the future with a view to making changes that will address the issues that are raised with this current difference between the definitions but that will have the evidence and research behind it to ensure that we do get the best possible outcome.
The honourable member and indeed the Labor Party are now in government, so they are in a position to initiate such an investigation. Certainly, were they to establish a committee, the Greens would be very keen to be involved, and were they to inquire further into these issues, we would certainly welcome that. It is not sufficient to simply say no. I hope that the Labor Party, now they are in government, will actually look into the matter, establish a committee if they see fit and investigate through the other means that are available to them in government.
I do want to thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros, in particular, and the SA-Best party for the strong and consistent position they have taken on this and the support they have provided to the community campaign. With that, I conclude my remarks.
National Energy (Ministerial Reliability Instrument)
9 March 2023
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to indicate the Greens' support for this bill, which will introduce a ministerial reliability instrument in other states that is already in place here in South Australia. In the transition to renewable energy, the stability of electricity is vital. This bill allows energy ministers to intervene three years before a predicted failure in the energy market.
We have seen successes here in South Australia in producing and supplying high levels of renewable energy. In 15 years we have shifted from 1 per cent renewable energy to almost 65 per cent of South Australia's power coming from wind, rooftop solar, large-scale solar and battery storage.
A renewable, reliable grid is vital to our state's energy needs. This bill allows the national energy market to implement reliability instruments, as is already done here in South Australia. Reliable energy ensures the demands of consumers can be met consistently. The ministerial reliability instrument is only for stability issues that can be forecast and thus it will not provide outcomes for storm-related blackouts, such as those that were experienced by South Australia last year.
According to the Australian Energy Regulator, there are currently three reliability instruments in place for South Australia for 2024, 2025 and 2026. A reliability instrument was in place for the current period but has been revoked. Many of these reliability instruments are revoked before implementation as the need no longer exists. What this shows us is that this is a safeguard mechanism that is only enacted when necessary. The Greens will be supporting this bill to ensure ministers can step in to provide safeguards for a reliable network in the transition to renewable energy.
But I do want to point out that it will take more than this bill to provide security for South Australians in terms of our state's energy needs. Some months ago, I proposed here in this place that the government hold a commission of inquiry into bringing back ETSA. We have seen, since the privatisation of our electricity network 20-odd years ago, the disaster that has faced South Australian consumers in terms of skyrocketing costs and the unreliability of the network. Indeed, our electricity network cannot even weather a storm.
So we need to bring our electricity network back into public hands, and the South Australian people should own the distribution and production of that network. That is precisely why the Greens have been advocating to bring back ETSA. Unfortunately, that is a position that is opposed by both of the major parties in this place. I am not sure why. They seem to be beholden to corporate interests rather than the interests of the South Australians they represent.
That said, the Greens will continue to push for public ownership of electricity. We believe that public assets belong in public hands. That is the way that we guarantee the stability of our network. But, that said, we will support the legislation that has been proposed by the government.
Motion: Establish a Commission of Inquiry to Examine Reviving ETSA
30 November 2022
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: First off the bat, the Greens will not support the Liberal Party's amendment, which I submit is designed to rob the motion of its veracity, and is in keeping with the Liberal Party's revisionist view of South Australian history, this idea that they cannot take any responsibility for the original sin that has bedevilled our electricity network in this state, that is, of course, the disastrous decision of the Olsen government to sell off ETSA, to dud South Australians and to negotiate a totally dud deal for our state, one that has resulted in higher electricity prices and an insecure electricity network.
There is something seriously wrong in our state when we have an electricity network that cannot weather a storm. It is unacceptable that we had thousands and thousands of South Australians being denied power for days and days on end following the storm that occurred the other week. On the one hand, some will say, 'Well, acts of God happen, we are going to see freak weather events, that's part of life'. Certainly, as the climate continues to change, we will see more freak weather events, but that is why it is so vitally important that we have an energy system that is fit for purpose.
The private sector has not been delivering on the energy needs for South Australia because there has not been the appropriate investment in resources in the workforce over time so that we can be prepared for these sort of events. The Greens certainly stand with the union movement in its critique of the approach that has been taken to electricity in our state.
I must say that I am a little perplexed by the position that has been taken by the Labor government because, on the one hand, they purport to support many of the elements of this motion, yet they do not intend to vote for it. With all due respect to the Hon. Russell Wortley, who made a contribution on behalf of the Labor Party, it is not what people say in this chamber, it is what they do with their feet, it is how they vote that is the important test. If the Labor Party is really serious about looking into bringing back ETSA, if the Labor Party is really fulsome in its condemnation of the appalling record of the Olsen government, they will support my motion. The proposition is very simple.
I flag with honourable members that I intend to test that proposition by calling a division on this matter. In summing-up, I also want to read into Hansard an excerpt of a public letter that has been sent from Dale Beasley, the Secretary of SA Unions, to the Hon. Peter Malinauskas MP, and it is a letter that has been published publicly. He says in this letter:
Privatisation of the South Australian electricity system by the Olsen Liberal government has been a boon for foreign owned corporations but has been a disaster for South Australian electricity users.
Clearly it is not in the best interests of South Australians that the natural monopoly of public electricity supply is run by private corporations to create huge profits. This model has seen under investment in maintenance and replacement of electricity distribution infrastructure and a failure to build the renewable energy generation and grid scale energy storage that we require to maintain security of supply and price stability.
We in the Greens agree. The letter goes on to say:
SA Unions respectfully suggests that your Government consider establishing a public trust (ETSA may be a good name) to plan, build and operate electricity generation and storage assets for the benefit of all South Australians.
We agree with those sentiments. Many will say that this cannot be done, that we cannot bring back ETSA, we cannot unscramble the egg. I urge those who make that claim to consider the remarkable success of the Andrews Labor government in Victoria last weekend, a remarkable achievement given the appalling fear and smear campaign that was run by some in the right wing media and the appalling misinformation campaign spread by the Liberal Party in that state.
One of the really exciting elements of the platform of the Labor Party in Victoria is their commitment to revive the State Electricity Commission with a majority share owned by the state. They are wanting to bring back public ownership of their electricity. Why can we not do it here in South Australia?
When the Labor Party came to government here in this state, they promised a commission of inquiring into bringing back public ownership of the trains and trams. The transport minister has announced more recently that that is not necessary because the government is going to progress with it and we welcome that, but why not take the same approach when it comes to electricity? If it is good enough for our public transport network, why not do it for our electricity network? That is why the Greens are testing that proposition with this motion today.
National Energy Laws (Regulatory Sandboxing)
17 November 2022
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the Statutes Amendment (National Energy Laws) (Regulatory Sandboxing) Bill. This bill, as part of the national energy law reforms, introduces options to trial emerging innovative technologies and business models in the national energy market.
As I have stated earlier in this place, we are in a climate crisis. For over 100 years, fossil fuels have been providing the energy that we need to stay warm, to keep the lights on and to build industry. According to the National Greenhouse Accounts, energy industries were responsible for 17 per cent of South Australia's greenhouse emissions in 2020. To move towards a cleaner and greener future, we need to evolve our electricity distribution, infrastructure, storage and generation. New technologies are vital to move to a carbon neutral society, and this bill allows for trials for energy technologies in a safe and regulated manner.
While the Greens are broadly supportive of the bill, we do have some concerns regarding clause 33, the innovative trial principles. This section of the bill focuses on developing natural gas services. As this is a national energy law, we are advised that there will be reluctance to move amendments to this element.
I do note, of course, that has happened in the past but, recognising the position of the parties and also the desire to expedite this bill, I will not pursue the amendments that I had previously considered. I will, however, ask the government some questions about that during the committee stage.
After the National Hydrogen Strategy was developed, it became clear that a new definition would be required for gas. According to a policy paper released by energy ministers, a decision was made on 20 August 2021 by the ministers that the national gas regulatory framework should:
…be amended and that the amendments should be expedited to ensure that regulatory barriers do not restrict proposed investments in projects and existing regulatory arrangements and protections continue to work as intended where renewable gases are supplied.
On 28 October this year, energy ministers agreed to amend national gas laws to facilitate this change. The public consultation draft to enact this agreement includes greener fuels such as biogas, biomethane, hydrogen and synthetic methane.
We should not need to wait for a future bill to change the terminology in this proposed legislation. We should be doing it here and now. I will certainly be pursuing the government on that matter. By changing the terminology in this bill, we will move away from natural gas, and we could make provisions for future fuels such as green hydrogen. Creating an environment where we can be agile in our energy and trial new innovations will be beneficial to the transition away from fossil fuels. It is in that spirit that the Greens will be supporting this reform.