22 September 2021

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

That this council—

1. Notes that the site proposed by the state government for a ‘Riverbank Arena’, Helen Mayo Park (Park 27), is designated Parklands under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005;
2. Notes that the Adelaide Parklands and city layout are listed on the national heritage register and parts of the proposed site fall within the area of the listing;
3. Notes that the proposed development of the site could impact adversely on the heritage values of the Parklands; and
4. Opposes the state government developing Helen Mayo Park on the basis that this represents a further erosion of the Parklands that is inconsistent with its status as a nationally heritage listed site.

The motion that I am speaking to today relates to the future of the Riverbank. Members will be aware that the state government has recently announced plans for a so-called Riverbank arena. Of course, as is often the case with projects such as this, the site that they have chosen is on our city's public green space, the Parklands, because this is free land and tends to be land that governments highlight for development.

That is a great shame because of course this is the land that belongs to all South Australians in common. But the land that has been chosen here is Helen Mayo Park, or Park 27 under the Adelaide Park Lands Act, and it is named after one of South Australia's most famous women, Helen Mayo, who was a pioneer in medicine and health education. I wonder what she would think of the Premier's plan to obliterate the park that had been named in her honour.

This is yet another project that has been earmarked for Park 27 over the last few years. It has already lost many hectares of public green space. There is now police, medical facilities, university buildings—the sky is the limit in terms of the developments that we see on that site. Indeed, a few years ago, it was the focus of potential development with a helipad. Members may recall the plans of the leader of the Town Hall arm of the Liberal Party, Team Adelaide, Houssam Abiad, who proposed that that site host a helipad for joy rides for the mega rich. Now, the state government are viewing this site and plan to use it for yet another development, this time, as I say, the so-called Riverbank arena.

It is not just the Greens that are concerned about the potential for this development to erode the Parklands and to damage our green space, the Adelaide Park Lands Authority has expressed concerns and on 25 March it sought an urgent meeting with Adelaide Venue Management Corporation. It says in a report, which I will read for your interest:

Noting that the Park Lands already hosts Adelaide Oval, Tennis Centre, two hotels, approximately 200 ha of licensed playing fields, a hospital, the Thebarton Police Barracks and the Road Safety Centre as well as other public infrastructure, the Authority is concerned about the impact of further built form on the publicly-accessible open space provided by the Adelaide Park Lands.

The Adelaide Parklands are on the National Heritage List register. This occurred back in 2008 under the leadership of the then environment minister Peter Garrett at a federal level. That national heritage listing means that the character of the Parklands should be protected for the public good. I am very concerned that this listing is going to be jeopardised if this Riverbank arena proceeds.

Those concerns were heightened when I read a report that was made available to the Adelaide Park Lands Authority from Lara Daddow, the Acting Associate Director, Park Lands, Policy and Sustainability at the City of Adelaide, and that looks at the implications of the Riverbank arena and what that means for the Adelaide Parklands.

I will read the relevant sections into Hansard. The report notes that under section 4 of the Adelaide Park Lands Act, there are seven statutory principles, which are person or body responsible for the care, control and management of any part of the Adelaide Parklands must have regard for and seek to apply. Of particular relevance here are the following—and, again, I will read them on to the public record:

• 33.1 The land comprising the Adelaide Park Lands should, as far as is reasonably appropriate, correspond to the general intentions of Colonel William Light in establishing the first Plan of Adelaide in 1837.
• 33.2 The Adelaide Park Lands should be held for the public benefit of the people of South Australia, and should be generally available to them [to use and enjoy]…
• 33.3 The Adelaide Park Lands reflect and support a diverse range of environmental, cultural, recreational and social values and activities that should be protected and enhanced.
• 33.4 The Adelaide Park Lands provide a defining feature to the City of Adelaide and contribute to the economic and social well-being of the City in a manner that should be recognised and enhanced.
• 33.5 The contribution that the Adelaide Park Lands make to the natural heritage of the Adelaide Plains should be recognised, and consideration given to the extent to which initiatives involving the Park Lands can improve the biodiversity and sustainability of the Adelaide Plains.
• 33.6 The State Government, State agencies and authorities, and the Adelaide City Council, should actively seek to co-operate and collaborate with each other in order to protect and enhance the Adelaide Park Lands.
• 33.7 The interests of the South Australian community in ensuring the preservation of the Adelaide Park Lands are to be recognised, and activities that may affect the Park Lands should be consistent with maintaining or enhancing the environmental, cultural, recreational and social heritage status of the Park Lands for the benefit of the State.

In this report, it is further noted that the Adelaide Parklands and the city layout is listed on the national heritage register and that the boundaries of the proposed site for the Riverbank arena—that is, the Helen Mayo Park—overlap with those that are included within the national heritage register. What are the implications of this? The report notes, and again I quote:

Development on adjacent sites to land within the area of the National Heritage Listing, can still impact on the values of a National Heritage Listed site itself, for instance if the development impeded views into or of the Nationally Heritage Listed site.

And:

Together, or individually [in conjunction with the other projects], these projects could constitute actions under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation Act…which impact the National Heritage Listing Values for the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout.

It is noted further that:

Any construction on…Helen Mayo Park [or some of the other areas that have been earmarked for development by the state government] could be seen as actions which contribute to the cumulative erosion of Park Lands or possibly impact on the views/vistas across and into the Park Lands.

Further, it is noted that:

The Federal Government (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) has previously expressed concern about such cumulative erosions of the Adelaide Park Lands and these projects may constitute what is termed a 'controlled action' under the EPBC Act.

The State Government (as proponents) [of the project] will need to refer these…to the Federal Government.

In other words, what this report is highlighting is that if the state government is going to seize this public land and turn it into a Riverbank arena, that could jeopardise the status of the national listing of our Adelaide Parklands. That would be a disaster because we know that the Adelaide Parklands are some of the most unique parklands in the world. They are the lungs of our city and Adelaide is unique in being surrounded by a green belt such as this.

It has been recognised by the federal government through its inclusion on the National Heritage List and that unique character has been recognised by proponents in South Australia. We are waiting for the state government to provide associated recognition and inclusion on the state heritage list. There is also a campaign for this to be world heritage listed, so it would be disastrous if the national heritage listing were to be compromised in this way.

In terms of speaking to the benefits of the Parklands and their protection as green space, I do want to draw your attention to something that really the designers of our city knew all too well, and that is that there is a strong link between the physical and mental health and wellbeing of a community and their ability to freely access and enjoy green spaces.

A German study found the presence of parks helped prompt and facilitate greater social interaction as well as enhancing community satisfaction as a result of their aesthetic value. Access to green spaces has also been recorded to have a positive effect on those suffering from anxiety, depression and mood disorders. I think all of us would agree during the last few years where we have spent more time at home, particularly last year when many of us were working from home, having access to public green space has been vital for community health and wellbeing.

Before concluding my remarks, I want to make a few comments about the plans the Liberals have announced to redevelop the River Torrens under rezoning of the Riverbank Precinct. To accompany this Riverbank arena, it has been outlined—and I read this in The Advertiser a little earlier today—that the Riverbank Precinct rezoning will enable private bars, cafes, shops and tourist ventures to operate on both sides of the River Torrens. Apparently, departmental officers have outlined to the city council that the waterfront precinct between the Torrens Weir and Kintore Avenue will now provide opportunities for small, low-scale shops, cafes, and community, cultural and tourism activities located adjacent to the River Torrens.

So aside from all the existing developments that we have on the public space, we are going to see a Riverbank arena, or a sports stadium, as some have referred to it as, and then a series of shops, cafes and restaurants. So McDonald's on the Parklands alongside the Riverbank? This is a very dangerous precedent that is being established here in terms of commercialisation of our public space. If we go down that path, if we let the genie out of the bottle and allow commercial development on the Parklands in this way on our Riverbank, we will never be able to put the genie back in the bottle. We will never be able to undo it.

I fear that we will trash our unique Adelaide Parklands and we will lose their unique character. That is why I have moved this motion today and why the Greens are calling on all parties to join us in standing up for our unique Parklands and standing up for their unique status on the national heritage register by opposing this plan for a land grab by the state government.

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.

8th September 2021 

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

That this council—

1. Notes the significance of the 'Conference of the Parties' (COP26) UN Conference on Climate Change taking place in November in Glasgow;
2. Recognises the latest IPCC report confirmed that the world is on track for 1.5ºC of warming; and
3. Calls on the state government to leverage South Australia's global renewable energy leadership, and Adelaide's ranking as the third most livable city in the world, to petition to host a UN Conference of Parties on climate change, as proposed by Business SA.

The motion I move today deals with a proposal by Business SA for Adelaide to host the Conference of the Parties (COP) climate conference at some time in the future, and that is happening in November in Glasgow.

To give members a little bit of information about this conference, it has only been held in the Southern Hemisphere four times, and the hosting state must be the COP president in order to host, and it would bring approximately 20,000 to 30,000 people to the city of Adelaide. I submit that our state is well positioned to host such a conference, given our natural environment, our commitment to renewables and of course also the impact that climate change will have on South Australia.

We know from the IPCC report that SA will be hard hit by climate change. We are going to see a projected decrease in rainfall, we are going to see an increase in agricultural and ecological droughts, we are going to see an increase in aridity and we are going to see projected increases in marine heatwaves and ocean acidity. These consequences alone mean that we really need to take an interest in the international response to climate change.

There would be an economic benefit for our state and in particular the city of Adelaide in hosting such a conference as well. Indeed, I suspect it is for these reasons that Business SA have been advocating this as part of their charter. I know, of course, that the Liberal Party are very attuned to the feedback of Business SA and that Business SA provides them with significant economic advice. My hope is that they will support this proposal as a sensible way forward and one that will enable our state to strengthen our climate credentials.

Let us consider some of those economic benefits that would flow for South Australia. The conference is estimated to translate into a $135 million boost for the hospitality industry—that is a pre-COVID estimate—and it would inject $200 million into the South Australian economy. That is certainly a significant boost at a time when we know that our state is struggling to deal with the pandemic and the economic consequences that flow from that.

In terms of some of the other reasons South Australia is well placed to host such an event, we know that there has been a lot of work done in terms of boosting renewables, and I recognise that there have been efforts made by all sides of politics in that regard. I acknowledge the work of our colleague in this place the Hon. Ian Hunter as environment minister and that of many others as well who have done a significant amount of work in terms of boosting our capability for renewables.

So we are well placed to host such a conference, but also it would, I think, put pressure on all of us collectively—this parliament—and on the government to do better and to ensure that we are really world leaders in this space. With that, I commend the motion, and I hope that all sides of politics will get behind this and recognise that this is something that could be a major boost to our economy and something that really gives us a chance to cement our reputation as a clean, green state.

9th September 2021 

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The latest SA Health report into Port Pirie lead levels, released on 30 August, shows that in the first half of this year the average blood levels of Port Pirie children under five was 5.7 micrograms. For children tested on their second birthday, it was 7.8 micrograms, the highest reading in a decade. Experts have issued parents with a range of warnings, including to ensure their air-conditioners are cleaned, their windows and doors are properly sealed, children's toys and clothes are cleaned daily, clothes are not dried outside, and prams are not pushed into the wind.

My question to the Minister for Health is: given the risks associated with high lead levels, what is the government doing to ensure remissions from the smelter are lowered to limit the adverse outcomes to children, including respiratory illness and socio-behavioural problems?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:41): With all due respect to the honourable member, I am not the minister responsible for the EPA. The reduction strategies within the smelter are coordinated by him. I will say that this government is a government that is very determined to make sure we improve the governance of the Port Pirie blood lead levels program, particularly through the Targeted Lead Abatement Program.

Recently an independent review was undertaken, seeing that the leadership of that initiative has been strengthened. The lead minister is the Hon. Dan van Holst Pellekaan, Minister for Energy and Mining, in partnership with myself and Minister Speirs. The recent deterioration is concerning, and certainly the work being done with the smelter to reduce emissions is a key part of the long-term strategy.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:42): A supplementary: noting the minister's reply, what is he doing, as the Minister for Health, to satisfy himself that young people and children are not being placed at risk in Port Pirie as a result of this smelter?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:42): One thing is being part of a government that is proactive. I am proud of the fact that it was this government that did a thorough review of the Targeted Lead Abatement Program.

In relation to the program, the Port Pirie Environmental Health Centre, which is part of the health network, has implemented strategies to improve dust management in the community, including allocating additional caseworker resources, increased interventions offered to families with children at high risk of exposure, increased cleaning of public spaces in the community, and removing contaminated waste.

Through our environmental health centre, families of children at risk of elevated blood levels are given individual counselling, advocacy support and strategies to reduce their child's risk of exposure and absorption of lead. Interventions to reduce exposure are tailored for the specific lead sources in each situation. Some of the interventions that could be used include professional housecleaning, covering exposed yard soil, minor home repairs, assistance with access to healthy foods, offering subsidised childcare, and relocating families most affected to lower exposure locations.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:44): A further supplementary: will the minister be advocating to his colleagues, the Minister for Environment and Water and the Minister for Energy and Mining, to reduce the lead levels in the area, and is he advocating for more water to be available to reduce the proliferation of dust?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (14:44): This government, as I said, is taking a collaborative approach. The targeted lead abatement program is a multiportfolio response. We have certainly been discussing it a number of times, including recently as a result of the independent review, and all of the factors are balanced in consultation with my cabinet colleagues.

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.

24 June 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: My question is to the Treasurer regarding the budget, but before I ask my question, I seek leave to make a brief explanatory statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: South Australia is in the midst of a climate emergency. Over the last few years we have seen bushfires and drought ravage our state. My question to the Treasurer therefore is: given the climate crisis faced by South Australians, why did he fail to mention climate change even once in his budget speech?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): Because this government is already well renowned for being one of the leaders in terms of recognising the importance of climate change. It is just implicit in our DNA here in South Australia. We live and breathe it every day.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We don't have to parrot it at every particular public occasion. As I said, it is within our DNA. We live and breathe it every day—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am sure the Hon. Mr Simms would like to listen to the answer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —and no-one needs to convince the Premier—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —the Minister for the Environment or me as the Treasurer—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: It's a disgrace!

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Mr Hanson!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —of the critical importance of climate change and we are active leaders in many environmental issues.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Ms Bourke!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There are a number of very significant environmental initiatives outlined in the budget speech—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: You lead on the environment like Napoleon going backwards!

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —and as all members would know, I am just such an unashamed supporter of the environmental lead that our Premier and our Minister for Environment have taken over the last three years.

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. 

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.

27 May 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak briefly in support of this motion, but particularly in condemnation of the way the two ministers, the Minister for Energy and Mining and the Minister for Environment and Water, have handled this matter. I say 'handled the matter', but really they have bungled the matter. It is utterly reprehensible that it took so long for them to act, and the lack of transparency from both departments has been simply appalling.

It has now been a year since there were first signs that something was very wrong down at the mangroves, but it has been even longer since the ponds started to be filled by Buckland Dry Creek. I remind all members here that Buckland Dry Creek were not allowed to move water or brine where these ponds are under the holding pattern that has been in place. This was the care and maintenance plan put in place after the ponds were initially closed back in 2013 and drained, against advice, in 2014—although I note as well that there are separate issues with the holding pattern and whether or not that was even working.

Despite this, despite the holding pattern, there was early evidence of the ponds being filled on 6 December 2019. What follows is a damning time line in terms of the government's management of this issue. The first two ponds south of St Kilda, PA5 and PA7, had shallow brine right across them by 21 December 2019. The brine in those first two ponds continued to deepen until 15 January 2020. The gate to PA8 was opened and brine started to fill that pond, reducing the levels in PA6 and PA7, notably.

By 27 January 2019, which was the next available date for the satellite imagery, the gate to PA9 had been opened and that pond had started to fill, reducing the brine levels in the first three ponds. On 6 May 2020, the satellite imagery shows considerably deeper brine right across the ponds—a clear ramping up of the pumping, which must have occurred in the few days before. By 15 July 2020, the orange patter visible in the false colour in the normalised vegetation index was apparent, signifying a loss of chlorophyll, which is a hallmark of the areas where mangroves and samphires had begun to die. By 30 July 2020, the mangrove dieback area was quite clear on the satellite imagery.

Yet, despite this, despite this evidence very early on in the piece, the government did not get involved until September. In fact, it was not until late September that DEM, DEW, the EPA, the Coast Protection Board and Buckland Dry Creek visited the mangroves and noted that they were sick. At that point as well you could see and hear the brine trickling out of the banks, and you could even see where the acidified brine had reached the surface. This is a damning time line, so it is mind-boggling really to hear from both departments that they were not aware of this issue until September. What is going on here?

It is frankly bizarre that it took until earlier this year—and we do not know the exact date—for a formal investigation committee to be established to look into the impacts of the leaking brine. Worse still, we are told that we might not even have a report until next year. Talk about being asleep at the wheel! None of this has come out of nowhere. We have had clear and consistent warnings as far back as 2012 that this could happen, some of those from the government and the government's commissioned reports.

When the salt fields were first set to be closed, a report prepared for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board outlined the risks of the pond closure, including the discharge of hypersaline brine and its impact on the environment. We have then actually seen a formal complaint—not just one complaint but several complaints—lodged under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in 2015, once again raising concerns around the risk of acid sulphates and brine leaking into the mangroves.

These complaints also related to concerns that while there was a holding pattern in place, it was not a long-term solution and was originally intended to end in 2014. By then the owners of the site—Ridley, at that time—were supposed to have a closure plan in place. Instead, since then we have seen the holding pattern extending until 2018, and then again until SA Water ran out of water intended for dilution of the brine sometime in 2019.

Then, as if that was not enough, once again a study commissioned by the department in 2019 noted a major issue that hypersaline and sulphide-rich sediments had built up over large areas of the ponds and the salt field, posing a potential environmental hazard and a barrier to the remediation of the site. All of these warnings, all of these concerns, have been ignored.

When we have seen action, the action taken has been inadequate. It has been done in half measures. We have been told that the departments and the EPA have pumped 50 million litres out of the leaking ponds, but what has actually happened is that water has been removed but salt remains. The brine was pumped from one side of the leaking ponds to the other, to a side that is slightly higher up, and that pumping was just to increase the evaporation of these ponds. So of course all the salt has been left behind, so when it rains all of that salt is just going to be washed back into the system.

What is more concerning is that apparently the DEM staff have admitted that they have no data yet to predict the impact of the rain. Instead, they just hope that, based on the annual moisture deficit, there will not be a significant mobilisation of the redissolved salt. This is terrible. What I think the department are hoping for is some sort of miracle, because while the year has been dry so far, the area where the salt fields are actually experiencing negative evaporation—otherwise known as significant rainfall—has been left lacking. So to pin your hopes on a year-long average, rather than on the real-time weather conditions, is simply ridiculous.

Beyond that, I am informed that the Department for Energy and Mining has fully acknowledged to the community that, despite the department's hopes of a second wave of the groundwater, this may move towards the marsh in winter. Let's be clear: they are once again fully cognisant of the possibilities of the risks, but they do not seem to be doing anything at all. This is certainly excessive risk-taking behaviour on behalf of the government. We are seeing far too little action, too little too late, from the state government, and we are seeing one department passing the buck to another, on to the EPA or the federal department, but no-one is prepared to step up and take responsibility, to hold the minister to account, and fix this problem.

When this motion was first introduced, my colleague Tammy Franks raised the fact that the trees in local backyards were suddenly dying and that we were seeing an explosion in mosquito populations, but since then we have seen a devastating impact. This disaster is having a terrible effect on migratory birds. I would commend the work of the St Kilda Mangroves Alliance in raising this issue, and I understand they have now lodged a complaint with the federal environment minister under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. There is a litany of failures here. It is very clear that the government needs to step up and take some action. More needs to be done sooner rather than later. It has already been too long. I commend the motion.