17 November 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I will speak very briefly, because I am conscious that we have a lot to get through tonight. I will not reprosecute the arguments, but the Greens will not be supporting the amendment from the government. I recognise, as I have done previously, the work of all sides of politics in this place in terms of taking action on climate. However, the purpose of this motion is not a collective backslapping exercise or some sort of celebration of the virtues of the Marshall government, as the honourable Treasurer has proposed. We do not share that assessment.

Indeed, the motion does call on the government to go further, to set meaningful targets for a transition to 100 per cent renewable energy for South Australia, and also calls on the government to block the ruling by the Australian Energy Market Commission to allow networks to charge solar customers fees for exporting solar energy to the grid.

The honourable Treasurer has made the point that this issue was dealt with yesterday. My motion on notice was lodged some time ago, well before we dealt with yesterday's bill, which had been pushed back many times. This may provide an opportunity for members who perhaps made an error yesterday to think more carefully about their position and to remedy that today. That is always a positive thing.

Just to conclude, to sum up the contribution I made previously, this sun tax that is being proposed is going to allow networks the power to charge solar households in a way that was previously prohibited under the national energy rules. It has been argued that this is justified as necessary to fund required upgrades on the grid, but this is despite the fact that solar surges have been shown to occur at night and in areas of low solar uptake, and we are very concerned that these charges will unfairly impact those who in good faith have made long-term investments in renewables.

These are South Australians who are wanting to do the right thing, who are doing the right thing for our environment, and the Liberals want to stand by and allow them to be penalised. I do not wish to be divisive, as the honourable Treasurer has inferred, but when a party has got it wrong, when a government has got it wrong, we have to call it out. I urge members to support my original motion and to reject the amendment proposed by the honourable Treasurer.

27 October 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this council—

1. Affirms that renewable energy is the future of South Australia;
2. Recognises the potential of rooftop solar to lower wholesale power prices for all consumers;
3. Calls on the Marshall government to set meaningful targets for a transition to 100 per cent renewable energy for South Australia by:
   (a.) rolling out community-scale batteries;
   (b.) subsidising solar-panel and battery installation;
   (c.) rolling out dynamic operating envelopes; and
4. Calls on the Marshall government to block a ruling by the Australian Energy Market Commission that allows networks to charge solar customers fees for exporting solar energy to the grid.

Back in August, the Australian Energy Market Commission ruled that distribution networks can now charge fees to solar homes and businesses to export their electricity. Known as the 'sun tax', this rule change will see networks given the power to charge solar households previously prohibited under the energy rules. This has been justified as necessary to fund required upgrades on the grid resulting from an excess of solar energy—at least this is the argument that has been put. That is despite the fact that solar surges have been shown to occur at night and in areas of very low solar uptake.

These changes will unfairly impact on those who in good faith have made long-term investments into renewables. We know that energy networks make significant profits so why is it that the cost burdens of future proofing the network is being passed on to a whole solar household, those who are already leading the way in trying to reduce their carbon footprint?

The cost for the distribution network should be shared among all generators including large multinational companies and fossil fuel generators, not just households. Australia's National Electricity Market's data showed energy contribution from renewables during 2020 in South Australia was the highest on record at 53 per cent, up from 7 per cent in 2019 and 5 per cent in 2018.

We need governments to encourage the uptake of rooftop solar, not penalise those who are doing the right thing for our environment, those who have already made this change. Despite both the Victorian and Queensland energy ministers stating their strong opposition to charging solar households in their states, our minister in South Australia has refused to follow suit and protect rooftop solar. Indeed, they have remained silent and in support of this solar tax.

South Australia's abundant wind and solar resources mean we are ideally suited to lead the nation and the world to a 100 per cent renewable energy future—a renewable-led recovery that would create jobs and tackle the climate change crisis and reduce energy prices. We know that as we transition away from coal and carbon we can create new jobs of the future in green innovation and renewable energy and we should be encouraging people to continue to switch to solar, not penalising those who are doing the right thing.

I do hope that members of this place will support this motion and send the Marshall government a clear message that they should be supporting those who are supporting our environment and they should be doing everything they can to reject this unfair solar tax.

8th September 2021 

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS:

This bill relates to the regulation of private mines and seeks to impose a similar regulation for private mines to other mines. By way of background, in 1971 private mines were exempt from the Mining Act, which means, unlike other tenements under the Mining Act, a private mine cannot be fortified, relinquished, suspended or cancelled and it does not expire. Private mines are antiquated; they are an old-fashioned scheme and they have very different legal protections to other mines in South Australia. I think most residents would be alarmed by the idea that you can have a private mine pushing up into your landscape, devouring that landscape and destroying your amenity.

The Mining (Environmental Impact of Private Mines) Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Mining Act of 1971 to improve community consultation and ensure consideration of the environmental and health factors associated with private mines. I think this is something that the community really expects.

Under the current act, private mines are exempt from the broader definitions of 'environment' that the commercial mineral operations are required to adhere to; that is, the impact on, and I quote directly from the act:

• (a) land, air, water (including both surface and underground water and sea water), organisms, ecosystems, native fauna and other features or elements of the natural environment; and
• (b) buildings, structures and other forms of infrastructure, and cultural artefacts; and
• (c) existing or permissible land use; and
• (d) public health, safety or amenity; and
• (e) the geological heritage values of an area; and
• (f) the aesthetic or cultural values of an area.

This bill simply removes the limited definition of 'environment' that exists specifically for private mines within that act and instead ensures the broader definition that exists for other mining operations in South Australia, which, importantly, includes cultural heritage, is applied. I do not think this is controversial. My view is private mines should not exist in 21st century Australia; it is an antiquated concept. But this bill does not abolish those private mines. It is a simple amendment that ensures that these mines are no longer considered a protected species when it comes to their environmental footprint.

Currently, there are approximately 222 private mines across South Australia, 186 of those are understood to be actively mined and 86 are inactive, as determined from the royalty returns. An example of the challenges the community face when they are facing off against private mines wanting to expand their operations is the White Rock Quarry in the Adelaide Hills. Despite being a bit of a tongue twister, it is also a huge dilemma for the people of that area because it has impacted on their capacity to enjoy their neighbourhood and we know that it poses significant health consequences.

While Hanson were recently informed that they would be required to revise their mining operation plan and resubmit to the Department for Environment and Water within six months, we in the Greens remain very concerned that the environmental objectives that they are currently assessed against as private mines will not take into consideration the cultural value of the site. I think that is really appalling.

This bill will not only ensure that the impact of cultural heritage is part of any approved plan, but also that the impact of the mining operations on the health and safety of the population in the vicinity of the private mine is taken into consideration. It is high time that this parliament took a strong stance against vested interests, stood up to these large corporations that are devouring our landscape and said, 'Enough is enough. Back off. Move away from private residences and put the community's health and wellbeing first and put our environment first at this time of climate crisis.'

I think all members of our community would be rightly concerned about these private mines that are devouring our landscape and they want to ensure that there are appropriate controls put in place and that is precisely what this bill does. I commend it.

23 June 21

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this council—

1. Notes with concern the proposed expansion of the White Rock Quarry in Horsnell Gully and the impact that this will have on health, the environment and air quality for residents in the Adelaide Hills.

2. Notes the risks posed by the toxic respirable crystalline silica dust that is lifted into the air by blasting.

3. Further notes that the South Australian Environment Protection Agency (EPA) does not specify separation distances in their guidelines for the operation of quarries containing silicates, and where the activity includes blasting.

4. Calls on the Minister for Energy and Mining and the Minister for Environment and Water to heed the concerns of the Residents Against White Rock Quarry, and

(a) reject Hanson Australia’s revised mine operations plan for the expansion of White Rock Quarry; and

(b) amend the current EPA guidelines to ensure minimum separation distances from residential properties.

This motion seeks to express concern at the proposed expansion of the White Rock Quarry in Horsnell Gully and the impact that this will have on the health, the environment and the air quality for residents in the Adelaide Hills. It notes the health risks of that. It calls on the minister to address deficiencies within the EPA protections and it calls for the Minister for Energy and Mining and the Minister for Environment and Water to listen to the concerns of the residents, to reject the revised mine operations plan for the expansion of the mine and to amend the EPA guidelines to ensure minimum separation distances from residential properties.

On 23 September 2020, Hanson Heidelberg Cement Group submitted a revised mine operation plan for the expansion of the White Rock Quarry, and this has been met with significant community opposition. There are lots of concerns that the residents hold, relating to community health, the environment and the air quality of the surrounding areas. The Greens stand with the community in opposing this expansion. We are calling on the government to reject this mine operation plan and instead back the community campaign for minimum distance requirements for private mines.

We know that the impact on the health and wellbeing of the community will be profound. Private mines should not be devouring our public landscape in this way. We should not see private mines in the Adelaide Hills pushing up against residential properties in this way. We are calling for the Minister for Energy and Mining and the Minister for Environment and Water to listen to the community's concerns and take action. It is not sufficient to simply go along to community meetings and nod sympathetically. People need the government to step up and back their interests against the interests of private corporations like the Hanson Group.

The Attorney-General spoke at the public meeting that I attended a few weeks ago. She spoke about distance requirements already being in existence within the EPA. The EPA evaluation distance guidelines in South Australia offer a very subjective individual assessment recommendation in terms of separation distances, and they do not mention the issue of respirable silica dust or blasting activities in this context.

If we look at what other jurisdictions are doing, they have a better system. The Northern Territory EPA separation distance guidelines recommend a buffer of 600 metres for qualifying activities with respirable silica crystalline present and a buffer of 500 metres from blasting activities. EPA Victoria has the 'Recommended separation distances for industrial residual air emissions' guideline, which has a delineation accounting for the presence of silica dust and blasting activities. There is no mention of silica dust in the SA EPA guidelines.

The proposed flattening of Mount Skye has many locals really concerned about what is going to happen to them and their community's health. They are concerned about the spread of silica dust and the potential risk of silicosis. Who can blame them, when one considers the appalling and deleterious health impacts that can flow from exposure to this dust?

There are other concerns for the community as well, though. Those concerns relate to air quality, noise, plants, the impact on cultural heritage, visual amenity and rehabilitation. In light of these concerns, I understand the government has informed Hanson Group Australia that more information is required and that the Department for Energy and Mining have indicated in the media that they will be requesting more information from the corporation.

We know what happens when private corporations are allowed to ride roughshod over our environment and community concerns. We saw the disgusting destruction by Rio Tinto of a cultural site, all for their own corporate greed. It is really important that a cultural heritage assessment is being conducted in relation to White Rock Quarry so that we can ensure that no culturally significant land is going to be impacted.

I think there is a real issue with these private mines. They are antiquated, they are an old-fashioned scheme, they have different legal protections to other mines in South Australia, and I think most residents would be alarmed by the idea that you could have a private mine pushing up into their landscape, devouring their landscape, destroying their amenity, and that we could see these mines in metropolitan South Australia.

It is high time that this parliament took a strong stance against vested interests, stood up to these large corporations that are devouring our landscape and said, 'Enough is enough. Back off, move away from private residences,' and put the community's health and wellbeing first and put our environment first at this time of climate crisis. I hope that all parties will come on board and support this motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

The White Rock Quarry expansion threatens our environment and community health. The Greens stand with the community in opposing this expansion, and will do everything we can to ensure the Minister for Mining and Energy and the Minister for Environment and Water heed the concerns of the residents in the Adelaide Hills, and reject this revised private mine operation.

The Greens moved a motion calling on the Government to reject the expansion plans and back minimum distance requirements for private mines, and also introduced a Private Members Bill to amend the Mining Act to improve community consultation and ensure consideration of the environmental and health factors associated with private mines. 

On 23 September 2020, Hanson Heidelberg Cement Group submitted a revised mine operation plan for the expansion of the White Rock Quarry, and this has been met with significant community opposition. There are concerns relating to community health, the environment and the air quality of the surrounding areas, and the Greens are calling on the government to reject this mine operation plan and instead back the community campaign for minimum distance requirements for private mines.

Private mines antiquated, they are an old-fashioned scheme, they have different legal protections to other mines in South Australia, and most residents would be alarmed by the idea that you could have a private mine pushing up into their landscape, devouring their landscape, and destroying their amenity.

It is high time that this parliament took a strong stance against vested interests, stood up to these large corporations that are devouring our landscape and said, 'Enough is enough. Back off, move away from private residences,' and put the community's health and wellbeing first and put our environment first at this time of climate crisis.

9 June 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this council—

1. Supports a Green New Deal for South Australia.

2. Notes that 2020 was an incredibly difficult time for South Australians, starting with drought and bushfires, and followed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. Further notes that increasing unemployment due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as well as climate change and rising economic inequality, are key challenges facing South Australians into the future.

4. Calls on the Marshall Government to adopt an innovative jobs growth plan through investing in:

(a) publicly owned renewable energy and storage projects to address climate change;

(b) social housing to help end homelessness;

(c) employing more educators, healthcare workers, nurses and social support workers to ensure all South Australians have access to the care they need;

(d) the expansion of the public transport network to reduce congestion and decrease emissions;

(e) reviving our CBD precinct to support local businesses;

(f) creative industries and the arts; and

(g) care for country and culture.

This motion is calling on this council to support a Green New Deal for South Australia and calling on the Marshall government to adopt an innovative jobs growth plan through investing in a range of measures that would help fight the climate crisis and rising inequality in our state. South Australia should be leading the way with a Green New Deal to change our state for the better. People are angry and anxious because the government has no plan for the big problems that are facing our state. We need to see ambitious and innovative ideas from our leaders and the Green New Deal will do just that.

Many in this place will be familiar with the term 'a Green New Deal'. It was first coined by US Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and essentially creates a bold agenda calling for government action on climate change along with the other social aims of job creation and reducing economic inequality.

What would a Green New Deal mean for South Australia? What would it look like? Many different groups have started to consider how we could harness a green recovery to address some of the biggest issues facing our state and our nation. To put it simply, a Green New Deal is a plan of investment and action to build a clean green economy.

The last 18 months have seen South Australia's economy take a significant hit. From the devastating bushfires that have ravaged parts of our state and the continued impact of the global pandemic to the highest unemployment levels in the country and the ever-present threat posed by the climate crisis, it is clear that now is the time for bold innovative new plans for our great state.

With the state budget just weeks away, and the last one before the 2022 election, I am calling on the government and this parliament to seize the opportunity to rethink our economy and to spend big on new projects and programs that would create green jobs and address the important challenges of our age.

I talked about the fact that this motion is calling on the Marshall government to adopt an innovative jobs growth plan for investing in a range of different measures. One of those, of course, must be publicly owned renewables in South Australia. South Australia's abundant wind and solar resources mean that we are ideally suited to lead the nation and the world with 100 per cent renewable energy, and we should do that by 2025. A renewable-led recovery will create the jobs we need, it will tackle climate change and reduce energy prices.

The Greens' vision for South Australia is one that will make the most of our state's skills in manufacturing and create new jobs for the future, and we know that as we transition away from coal and carbon we can create new jobs in green innovation and renewable energy. We should harness the skills of our state's manufacturing industry for the development of new technologies, things like cutting-edge renewables, light rail and electric cars, and we should be making those things in South Australia.

It is regrettable, of course, that we saw the previous federal Liberal government, led by Tony Abbott, totally deprioritise the support for the automotive industry in South Australia, and really we should be trying to kickstart that industry with new investment so that it can start manufacturing electric cars in a significant way.

We also need a Green New Deal so that we can tackle homelessness and the housing crisis. One of the most pressing issues in this state at the moment is homelessness and housing affordability. We need a housing system that is about people, not profit. Homelessness is not inevitable. We can solve it. Everybody has a right to a roof over their head and a place to call home. It is not acceptable to simply say it is inevitable for people to sleep on the street or that people are going to be sleeping in tents. We need to see leadership from government to ensure that we invest in the housing that we need.

We have seen some wonderful strategies recommended by the Adelaide Zero Project, but we need more of an investment from the government. This is not a quick fix, but we need a long-term housing strategy that will end homelessness in our state. Housing, after all, is a human right. To end homelessness, we need to provide homes for tens of thousands of people on the waiting list, and we can do this by building housing, creating jobs and ensuring that nobody is discharged into homelessness.

As part of a Green New Deal, we need to also consider what we can do to make our society a caring society. The implementation of a Green New Deal is not just about green jobs and the green economy. It is also about investing in other types of work, particularly those types of industries that are traditionally female dominated.

Through the pandemic, we have seen just how essential our caring professions are for our communities, from our healthcare professionals who continue to work on the frontline, to our educators who adapted with flexible teaching arrangements to the pandemic, to our community service workers who continue to support the most vulnerable people in our society. We need to ensure that they are remunerated properly, and we need to ensure that they are supported with more funding so that they can employ more workers.

We also need as part of a Green New Deal to deal with expanding our public transport network. Bigger roads are not the answer to traffic congestion. We in the Greens have a different vision. We need a well-funded and well-functioning public transport system that gets people where they need to go quickly, reliably, safely and cheaply. We need greater investment in bikes and walking infrastructure that will give South Australians the freedom to choose riding or walking as a safe, easy option and to leave their cars at home.

A few weeks ago, I introduced a bill to establish a walking and cycling commissioner to encourage walking and cycling as modes of transport in our state, to promote the health, environmental, social and economic benefits of this, and to prepare and to promote strategies to make walking and cycling inclusive for everybody in South Australia. It is really regrettable, I think, that we have not seen the investment in cycling infrastructure that we need in South Australia, in particular, in the City of Adelaide.

Sadly, the City of Adelaide has spent over $400,000 on planning the east-west bikeway only to knock it on the head under the leadership of Alex Hyde from the conservative wing of the Liberal Party that dominates town hall. I think that is really regrettable because South Australians, in particular people in the City of Adelaide, are desperate for cycling infrastructure to be rolled out. A Green New Deal would not only fund more bike lanes in the CBD area, it would also encourage greater use of public transport through free or subsidised tickets. This would not only help reduce congestion in the city, it would also encourage more people to come back into our CBD, which would be a positive knock-on effect for local businesses that are currently struggling.

We know that our CBD has been hard hit by this pandemic. Many businesses have been forced to close their doors, and many city-based employees are still working from home. A Green New Deal would ensure that we prioritise a plan that continues to enliven the city, extending the free wi-fi network, supporting entrepreneurs, growing small bars and live music, and setting some clear renewable energy targets for the city.

I know that a number of small businesses in the CBD are struggling and will be very alarmed by the Marshall government's plans to deregulate shop trading hours. They will be very alarmed that they are not going to be able to compete with Coles and Woolies and the big players, and that that is going to punish them and damage their business. The Greens certainly stand with them in that struggle.

As part of a Green New Deal, we need to look at creative industries. Creative industries are the engine room of our economy, and yet they were the first industry directly hit by the impacts of the pandemic. In the last 18 months, we have seen our cultural and creative sectors suffer enormous damage due to restrictions on public gatherings and performances and exhibitions that were cancelled in the interests of public health. Of course, I make no criticism of the government for doing that—it was necessary in terms of a public health response—but we do need to ensure that our arts sector is now supported in the days ahead because that has had a significant impact.

The knock-on effect of this has been substantial for our broader South Australian community, and for our economy, not least the many thousands of people who are employed in related industries that are driven so strongly by the arts here in our state. Those industries include tourism, hospitality, regional affairs and community businesses—all these things rely on a thriving, creative industry.

While South Australia has fared fairly well, and we can consider the success of things like the Adelaide Fringe Festival earlier this year, we must not lose sight of the fact that the disappearance of the Australian creative sector will have a major social, economic and cultural impact on our state both in the short and the long term. We know that the arts community have not been eligible for federal government support through JobKeeper, so that means they have been really hard hit by this pandemic.

Finally, a Green New Deal would also look at how we can care for country and culture. When I talk about caring for country, I am talking about First Nations people's approaches to land and water management. For First Nations people, it is increasingly documented that caring for country is linked to maintaining cultural life, identity, autonomy and health. The diverse environmental activities to which First Nations people contribute have positive outcomes for climate mitigation, biodiversity monitoring, the protection of endangered species, landscape health and more. It is for exactly that reason that a Green New Deal is really important because it would ensure that this knowledge and experience is at the forefront of policy and decision-making.

This is our chance to start thinking about how we can reshape our state, how we can create a fairer and more sustainable South Australia, how we can become a productive leader and how we can be a state that actually tackles the climate crisis and ensures that everybody has what they need to live a happy and healthy life.

We need to think differently. That has been one of the lessons of the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis. We need to think differently and now is the time for us to do that. Now is the time for us to commit to a Green New Deal. South Australia can create a cleaner, fairer future for all of us, and I urge all members of this council to support the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood. 

9 June 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Gas Infrastructure) Amendment Bill 2021 aims to deal with a problem that South Australian consumers face with respect to gas connections. Despite all the recent innovations in energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy storage, there are many South Australian families who are being locked into higher energy bills, and they are being locked into a lack of choice thanks to the conduct of certain property developers in South Australia.

These developers want to stop South Australian families from being able to choose what kind of energy they use in their homes and they do this by locking them into legally binding arrangements that force them to use fossil fuels in their homes forever. This may sound like a familiar statement, and I can assure you it is. In 2018, my friend and former MLC the Hon. Mark Parnell introduced this exact bill into this place. He hoped then that common sense would prevail. Sadly, three years later we are back here with a second attempt to deal with this issue.

While there are currently no laws in place in South Australia that mandate gas connection to newly developed properties, these connections are mandated by property developers in new developments. This bill seeks to do one simple thing: to legislate to void requirements for mandatory gas connections in new residential developments.

We know that for new houses, all-electric households are cheaper to run, compared to households with gas and electricity, in the medium to long term. Mandated gas connections for newly built properties are expensive, burdensome, unsustainable and environmentally harmful. With more environmentally friendly, cost-effective alternatives available, it is imperative that we move away from this harmful practice. When allowing these clauses of mandatory gas installation to exist, we take away people's autonomy and we condemn our state's future to the continued use of fossil fuels.

I want to make it very clear that I am not saying that people cannot use gas. That is not what this bill is seeking to do. It is about giving consumers, new home owners and those who are purchasing a new property choice. This is a bill about choice. It is not an ideological position. It is about respecting the rights of consumers to determine where they would like to source their energy.

The way that South Australian developers are mandating the use of gas is through these legally binding covenants that are registered on the certificates of title for new houses and land packages in new housing estates. To give you a concrete example, the Lightsview property development is one worthy of consideration. This property development by Peet Limited has been undertaken in partnership with Renewal SA. This is a government agency, and I quote from their mission statement:

…to initiate, undertake, promote, and support urban development activity to help deliver key strategic priorities of the Government of South Australia, particularly the new urban development directions outlined in the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

More than 85 per cent of this development has been sold as at June 2021.

Upon further investigation, my office has been advised that these developers are mandating a gas connection to all newly built dwellings. A simple read of section 10.7 of their vacant land contract states that gas connections are mandated alongside the installation of either a gas-boosted split solar system or a six-star instantaneous gas hot water service. It says at section 10.7 of that agreement:

You must install a gas-boosted split solar hot water system or a six star instantaneous gas hot water service on the dwelling to be erected on the allotment in accordance with the requirements of the Lightsview Design Guidelines. A six star instantaneous gas hot water service can be erected on the dwelling as an alternative only when a photo Voltaic system of 1.5 kw or greater is installed also.

The deal is, if you want to buy into the Lightsview estate, you have to agree to connect to gas, and you have to agree to use gas at the very least for heating your home and for heating your water. What this contract means is that you are legally prevented from becoming more energy efficient and from using electricity as an alternative.

This bill is very simple: it outlaws this practice. It declares null and void any attempts to force householders to use fossil fuels in their homes if they do not want to. It puts energy choice back into the hands of South Australian families and takes that power away from the developers. It also frees up the opportunity for South Australian families to save money and to contribute to reducing carbon emissions and reducing our pressure on the climate.

There are significant savings to be made here. According to the Grattan Institute, running a new Adelaide house on all-electric energy would save up to $2,183 over 10 years and up to $5,556 over 10 years. That is if they switched from gas cooking, hot water and space heating. The practice of property developers mandating gas connection and gas use in these homes is locking South Australians into higher energy bills and higher emissions. I know that this will be an issue at the forefront of many South Australians' minds as they consider the harsh winter conditions that we are facing.

I also want to draw this council's attention to the new research that has come out looking at the health impacts of gas cookers in homes. In particular, I refer to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 6 May this year, where it was noted that gas cookers in homes and gas heaters used in thousands of New South Wales classrooms pose serious health risks for children with asthma or allergies. The Climate Council research highlights the danger of gas use domestically, as gas cooking can have the same impact as passive smoking on children with asthma. The fuel should be consigned to the past like coal, wood and kerosene. This is a health risk we can no longer afford, the report says.

I agree. Why on earth are South Australian families, South Australian home owners being denied that choice when they buy a new property off the plan? It seems absurd that in modern South Australia families are being shackled with gas against their will and forced into a situation where they are going to face spiralling energy prices as a result and where they are going to be contributing to carbon emissions. This is a straightforward bill. It is about choice, and I hope that all South Australians will be supportive. I think most South Australians will be supportive—I have positive feedback—but I hope that parties in this place will get behind this simple reform.

27 May 2021

Mr President, I give notice that on Wednesday the 9th of June 2021 I will move that this council:

1. supports a green new deal for South Australia,

2. notes that 2020 was an incredibly difficult time for South Australians starting with drought and bushfires and followed by the COVID-19 pandemic,

3. notes that increasing unemployment due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as well as the climate change and rising inequality are key challenges facing South Australians into the future,

4. calls on the Marshall Government to adopt an innovative jobs growth plan through investing in:

a. publicly owned renewable energy and storage projects to address climate change,

b. social housing to help end homelessness,

c. employing more educators, healthcare workers, nurses and social support workers to ensure all South Australians have access to the care they need,

d. the expansion of the public transport network to reduce congestion and decrease emissions,

e. reviving our cbd precinct to support local businesses,

f. creating industries our creative industries and the arts and,

g. care for Country and Culture.