Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:08): I rise to make a contribution to the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill was introduced into this place on 29 August 2024 by the Deputy Premier and follows on from the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Targets) Amendment Bill 2021, which was introduced into this house by the then Minister for Environment and Water, the Hon. David Speirs MP. The bill included targets such as net zero by 2050, reducing net emissions by more than 50 per cent by 2030 from 2005 levels and achieving 100 per cent net renewable energy generation by 2030. The bill never got to be debated before parliament was prorogued.

It should be noted that most of the reduction in the state's greenhouse gas emissions has occurred in the energy industries and land use and forestry, and I will talk about land use a bit more later on, with large changes occurring in 2020-21 and 2021-22 and coming after the summer bushfires in 2020.

The bill, in regard to the 2050 net zero emissions target for the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024, seeks to replace the existing South Australian target to reduce by 31 December 2050 greenhouse gas emissions within this state by at least 60 per cent to an amount that is equal to or less than 40 per cent of 1990 levels with a target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. A new interim 2030 target is proposed to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 per cent by 31 December 2030, and that is from 2005 levels.

The 2014 renewable electricity generation and use targets in the current act have been achieved and will be removed. The bill proposes to update the renewable electricity target in the act to 100 per cent net renewable electricity generation by 31 December 2027.

In regard to five-yearly interim targets, section 5 of the act will also be amended to include a requirement for the minister responsible for the act to set interim five-yearly emissions reduction targets for the state between 2030 and 2050, with each target to constitute a greater reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions in South Australia than any preceding targets, including the 2030 target. So these dates are set at 31 December 2035, 31 December 2040 and 31 December 2045.

An amendment is proposed to section 14 of the act to introduce a requirement to prepare a publicly available statewide emissions reduction plan that will be reviewed and updated in line with the five-yearly targets. The plan must set out the government's objectives, policies, programs and initiatives for reducing, limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill also proposes to add another subsection under section 14(1)(a) allowing the minister to develop a policy or policies that would outline how government agencies should consider and manage climate-related risks in their operations and activities.

I just want to talk about that for a moment, because coming off the land I am very concerned about what could happen in primary industries. Farmers have been doing such a great job for 30 or 40 years with either minimum till, or mainly now zero till operations in reducing carbon, in caring for their country, in increasing plant growth, increasing plant root growth by these excellent farming practices. We have certainly seen that in this very tough year.

As many farmers have said to me—and the member for Chaffey indicated it earlier today—it is a year where we have had not much rain and now we have been impacted by heavy frost, with severe damage right across the state. Even my property, which I have leased out, for the first time in my life I have seen whole patches of frost in wheat, where the wheat has just gone white and there will be nothing reaped there, mainly on the slightly sandy country, and we just have to see what happens in the end.

It is very hard work, with farmers looking at this and right now calculating whether or not to let the crops go through to harvest or cut them for hay. That creates another issue where if the crop is not long enough it will fall out of hay rakes as it is raked into rows and will not be able to be baled. That comes at a considerable cost in the cutting, raking and baling of that hay, if that is the option taken. People are making critical decisions.

As I said, I must commend our farmers for what they do. I saw beans sown on my property in ground that had been well prepared on the little bit of limited rain over summer, sprayed out, browned out, beans that were sown in what I thought was dead dry, and yet they germinated on some of the slightly sandy soils. It is amazing how the crops came up and have grown.

This is what happens with these advanced farming methods that farmers are using right across the state to make sure they get the optimum growth and optimum carbon retention into the soil. Farmers have been doing this, as I said, for 30 or 40 years. In the old days we used to go across our paddocks multiple times, sometimes eight to 10 times, whether we were working the paddocks with cultivators or harrows, and now, once all the preparation is done over summer and making sure there is no loss of moisture where possible with spraying weeds out, in one pass you can go in and sow your crop.

I certainly asked these questions in estimates, and what farmers are concerned about going into the future is what they will be required to do to make excellent farming practices even better. They acknowledge they have to keep up this high standard of agriculture but, as I asked the agriculture minister in the other place during estimates, where is your baseline point for measuring improvements in agriculture? You can only wring so much out of the land. But in saying that, I note that people with these practices are caring for their land even more every year because if they do not they do not get these yield results.

Even with a year like this, where it has been so tough—and it is tough—apart from the frosted areas, it is a green drought in many areas. There are some paddocks that have essentially died. Some people have put sheep on crops just to get something out of them. Farmers need to know that they have the ability to put their crops in into the future in a responsible way without having too many impingements and noting that they need to be rewarded for the amount of stubble that is left behind with their wide-row spacings, the ability that they use to sow between rows, whether it is with tined implements or disc implements, disc seeders, and making sure that they are recognised for that work that has been going on for decades.

What concerns me, because farmers are thinking about this type of legislation, and rightly so, is that we do sort out the appropriate baseline where we start this work so we can measure the carbon inputs. I am concerned that we will not get the appropriate carbon monitoring that we need to in regard to noting the work that farmers do in making sure that they are not overworking their soil, that they are actually managing emissions with one-pass farming and doing a great job. And it is of great concern to me if there is a serious impediment as to how farmers operate in this state. But they will work through it. Apart from this legislation and all the agencies having to respond, our farmers have a very serious year that they are working through right now.

The bill seeks to amend the act to require the preparation of a statewide climate risk assessment within two years of the enactment of the amendments, and after this the risk assessment will be reviewed every five years. It is proposed within the bill to introduce a new section, section 14B, which will introduce an ability for the Premier to nominate that a public sector entity prepare a plan for an entity or sector relating to emissions reduction or climate change adaptation or both.

Also, an amendment is proposed in regard to section 16 to clarify that sector agreements are intended to cover climate change adaptation measures, as well as strategies and methods to meet state targets for emissions reductions or renewable energy.

There will also be clarifying provisions that are included to outline the status and effect of policies and plans under the act. A new section is proposed to require government agencies and other public entities to include information in their annual reports about how they are addressing climate-related risks and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We, on this side of the house, are also seeking to move amendments, including:

• a residential power price guarantee—seeking to legislate a target to reduce power prices for the average households in this state with the target to be the average household bill as specified in the ESCOSA retail prices report as at December 2021;

• a small businesses power price guarantee—seeking to legislate a target to reduce power prices for the average small business by 31 December 2027, with the target to be the average small business bill as specified in the ESCOSA retail prices report as at December 2021;

• a grid reliability guarantee—seeking to legislate a reliability standard to keep the lights on, and based on AEMO's reliability standard of unserved energy in South Australia being no more than .0006 per cent of the energy demand; and

• inclusion of an objective detailing the importance of the agriculture sector, as I have just outlined, to South Australia, and acknowledging the fluctuation of emissions from this sector.

I note what has been happening in this state in recent years, and certainly I was here in September 2016 when the lights went out across the whole state. I am proud to say that for the four years when we were in government that certainly did not happen. We had put up the policy of EnergyConnect through to New South Wales, building that new interconnector through to New South Wales, and initially the current mining minister was all in favour of it.

I am a bit unsure where he stands because he comes in here talking that interconnector down, which will be a magnificent project that when completed—the South Australian side has been completed and we just need to see the New South Wales side completed to augment that line—will mean that renewable energy that we generate here, whether it is sun or wind, solar or wind, can be transferred through to New South Wales so that it can be more utilised there because we do have a huge amount of renewable energy in this state, and if we can do more to reduce emissions, not just here but right across the eastern connected section that we are in, that will be great work.

But we have heard the minister in recent times say that this EnergyConnect interconnector is no good. Yet, looking at comments that the minister made on 21 December 2023 with the completion of the South Australian side of EnergyConnect, he said, 'What a great thing,' and 'Isn't it great that we will have the ability to export this renewable power to New South Wales.' I am just not sure where the Minister for Energy sits on this.

We also have the issues with the so-called state prosperity plan. I for one hope that we do see prosperity in Whyalla and the northern areas, but there are so many billions of dollars that need to be invested. I have said it here before that certainly with the hydrogen plan no-one of any scientific ability—professors or engineers—can tell me how it will work because essentially there will be thousands of wind turbines go up and thousands of hectares of solar panels go in and 80 per cent of that power will be lost in the transition to hydrogen and that is if they can make the hydrogen work.

We had the Premier finally admitting in the house yesterday that there will be gas essentially making it work. I have said for a long time that, unless there is a big gas pipe up the back of that hydrogen plant, it will not work.

I am concerned, as we all are, about the GFG steel plant in Whyalla. The plant in Whyalla has been in place a long time and I just hope that that survives. Whenever the pegs go in for this hydrogen plant, which I think will blow out in cost by at least double and then only work because it is supplemented by gas, we will just have to see what happens into the future.

But we certainly do want to see how things progress. I want to hear in committee the government's answers to what happens in a sustainable way with the removal of wind towers after they reach their 30 or 40-year lifespan, whether it is the blades that currently have to be buried in landfill or whether it is the towers, which are probably the same thing. We heard from the climate change minister today about the problems with lithium batteries. In a world where we are trying to reduce emissions, we need to find out how to sustainably do something about disposing of lithium batteries that just are not operational anymore and the same goes for solar panels.

I have had solar panels on my farmhouse for many years and they do a great job in collecting power and utilising it for the house during the daytime, but, as we have seen over time with all of these issues, whether it is wind turbines or solar panels or batteries, what is the sustainable way in this carbon-constrained world to dispose of those suppliers of energy when their life comes to an end? If someone can hit me with that answer, I would be glad to hear it, but we certainly need a carbon-constrained way that can be done so that, if we are really serious about climate change and emissions, we can do that in a sustainable way for the state. I note the legislation and welcome the debate in committee.