30 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:38): I thank all honourable members for their contribution: the Hon. Ms El Dannawi, the Hon. Jing Lee and the Hon. Michelle Lensink. I should say I am a bit perplexed by the position of the South Australian Labor Party, who in the middle of a cost-of-living federal election indicate that they do not support a bill that would deliver tangible changes to South Australian renters and assist them in reducing their power bills at a time of economic crisis. I think that is disappointing.

I have made it clear that the second reading stage is, in effect, the device that is required to enable this bill to be referred to a select committee that will examine the bill. I have given notice that I will move a contingent motion, so should this bill pass its second reading stage I will then move subsequently that it be referred to a select committee. I appreciate the support of the opposition in that regard.

As the Hon. Michelle Lensink indicated, I have given her and other members who have expressed an interest in this committee an assurance that should a committee be established we will move quickly to get it finalised. It is important, I think, that the committee wrap up by the middle of the year and certainly, should the committee be established, I will be talking to members about that. In terms of the comments made again by the Labor government, it is also important to note that this bill applies to new tenancies. Of course, these are the sorts of issues that we can tease through in any committee process, should it get off the ground.

I should also say that I am proud of the work that the Greens did with the Labor government back in 2023 to negotiate important reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act. Some of those reforms are really good, tangible changes for renters, but there is still work left to be done. In particular, the energy standards space is an area that I think has been neglected by the parliament for far too long and I am hopeful that if this committee gets support there is an opportunity for us to work together and really address that. It is an area that would deliver some real, tangible change for South Australians who are struggling at the moment and who are in the rental market but, because of the record low vacancy rate, are not in a position to be able to really assert their rights and have been given a dud deal.

Bill read a second time.

Referred to Select Committee

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:41): I move:

1. That the bill be referred to a select committee of the Legislative Council for inquiry and report.
2. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. N.J. Centofanti, the Hon. J.M.A. Lensink, the Hon. T.T. Ngo, the Hon. F. Pangallo and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That the select committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records; to adjourn from place to place; and to report on 4 June 2025.

Motion carried.

30 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:06): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Regional Development on the topic of regional housing.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This morning, Anglicare released its annual housing affordability snapshot. The report shows that for a single person on JobSeeker or Youth Allowance there are no affordable homes in regional South Australia, not even in share house accommodation—not even one affordable home. For a single person on the minimum wage only 5 per cent of properties were affordable in north and west country SA, the Limestone Coast, the Riverland and the Murraylands. The report by Anglicare recommends more social and affordable homes and states:

With the private rental market failing so many people, we must invest in homes for people [that] need them most. Ending our affordable housing shortfall would be the most powerful way to tackle the rental crisis—and boost our regional economy. The Federal and State governments must work together [to] end this shortfall.

My question to the Minister for Regional Development is:

1. How many public houses and affordable homes have been built by the Malinauskas government in the regions so far?

2. When will people in the regions expect to see more housing delivered?

3. Is the minister concerned that affordable housing is out of reach for her constituents in regional South Australia?

4. Will she advocate for a rent freeze to finally provide renters in the regions with some relief?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:07): I thank the honourable member for his question. I will refer the question to the Minister for Housing and bring back a response.

29 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:56): I rise to speak on the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill 2025 on behalf of the Greens. I listened with interest to the speeches of my colleagues the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Jing Lee, and I suspect I am going to be the odd one out here in indicating that the Greens are not supportive of this bill.

I am very concerned that this bill represents a significant change in the way in which we do things in South Australia, and it requires very careful scrutiny. Obviously, we are going to undertake a committee process shortly but I am very, very concerned that we run the risk of handing the Malinauskas government a blank cheque and an opportunity to override existing laws and protections here in our state.

That is concerning for our democracy, and it is coming at a time when I think a lot of South Australians are very concerned about the way in which governments of both persuasions—Labor and Liberal—are disregarding their views when it comes to their embrace of the United States and their very dangerous foreign policy.

I hear the Hon. Michelle Lensink groaning. This is a view that I think most people in the South Australian community share; this is a significant issue in Australia at the moment. The Trump presidency poses a real risk to Australia, and I think people right across the state are concerned about the nature of our relationship with the Trump administration. This is an issue that has been playing out over in Canada just today.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: With respect, the bill specifically references AUKUS, and that is one of the key elements that the Greens are concerned about. AUKUS involves a collaboration between the United States and our country, and I think it is legitimate to talk about the risks of that relationship when it comes to our security.

The bill establishes the Coordinator-General's Office, and I understand that where there is a project of state significance the bill allows the newly established Coordinator-General's Office to perform a series of functions or assessment processes that currently sit within other acts of parliament. This is a broad set of powers that are being proposed.

We understand that the government has undertaken consultation in the development of the bill, both open and targeted. However, while some concerns have been raised in the consultation stage and have been addressed, there are others that have not been sufficiently tackled by the government. One of these significant issues that has been raised with the Greens is the concentration of power to four unelected officials who will make up the Coordinator-General's Office.

The primary principle established in the bill, that the Coordinator-General's Office must consider the economic, environmental and social aspects of the project, is meritorious. We of course support that being included. However, there is not sufficient guidance being provided to the Coordinator-General's Office in terms of how that assessment is made. One of the fundamental concerns that we have, which I flagged in my introductory remarks, is the relationship between this bill and AUKUS.

The intention, as stated by the government very clearly, is to undertake projects of state significance, including increasing the supply of housing that is desperately needed for the state. Of course we support that, but I do not accept the government's premise that one of the major barriers to housing development in South Australia is a lack of fast-track approvals. Surely the major issue, when it comes to housing development in our state, is the lack of capacity to actually get the work done and the lack of investment from the South Australian government and the federal government in terms of public housing. That is the major barrier, not necessarily land release and certainly not necessarily red tape.

It is clear that the Coordinator-General's Office will be tasked with various AUKUS projects. Indeed, the bill makes it clear that one of the members of this office must have expertise when it comes to AUKUS. The Greens have been very clear that we do not support this dud deal. It is a dud deal for our nation and it is a dud deal for the people of South Australia. It trashes our reputation as a clean, green state and it makes our country less safe by putting us in the eye of the storm by tying our foreign policy interests and our defence interests to the delusional nutcase, Donald Trump. We do not believe that this is an equal partnership, we do not believe that we will ever see any benefit that will flow from this dud deal, and we have serious concerns about the toxic nuclear waste storage and transport that is associated with this deal.

I should say that this bill will also allow the government to, in effect, sweep in and find sites for nuclear waste and to potentially impose those on communities against their wishes. I recognise that the Malinauskas government and the Tarzia opposition are locked into supporting AUKUS. They are a unity ticket on this reform. But that is not the view of the community. For instance, the Port Adelaide Community Opposing AUKUS group have been advocating a long time into this project, and the residents of that area are directly impacted by the project in a number of ways.

There has been a lack of consultation and transparency from both state and federal governments when it comes to the implications of the AUKUS deal for that community. They have concerns about their health and their local environment. They have concerns about the potential impacts of any accidents that may happen in relation to nuclear waste.

It is interesting: when people talk about nuclear waste it is very easy to talk about it in the abstract, but no-one wants it in their backyard. There is a reason why the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has not visited one potential nuclear waste site during the federal election. He knows that people do not want nuclear waste in their backyard and for good reasons—because the health and the environmental risks are well documented and well known.

Here in South Australia, we pride ourselves on being a clean, green state, yet we have signed up to a deal that allows nuclear waste to be stored amongst our suburbs. The concerns of the community are valid, and we do not want to see the state government ignoring their views. We know that we cannot rely on a Trump administration to treat us equitably in any deal moving forward. Trump did not even know what AUKUS was when he was asked about it.

The atrocious public policy decisions being made by the Trump administration in the US should be making us question the state and federal government's dedication to AUKUS and our defence strategy in general. We know that South Australia is not set to start building submarines until 2030 or 2040, and in the meantime it is clear that there are going to be significant shifts in global politics that will impact on this deal.

The Greens will be moving amendments to the bill to ensure that this new Coordinator-General's Office's powers cannot be used for the doomed AUKUS project. Furthermore, we want to give assurances to the people of South Australia, and in particular the impacted community around Osborne, that these powers will not be used to establish nuclear waste sites, and so our amendments make that expressly clear.

This is a test for the Labor and Liberal parties. They will say that this is not about nuclear waste. If that is the case, they will support the Greens' amendments to make this very clear to the people of South Australia. I suspect, however, that what we will see is the unity ticket of Labor and the Liberals voting together to give this new office the power to fast-track finding these nuclear waste sites.

The Greens are also concerned that this bill is bad news for the environment. The Conservation Council made a submission to an earlier draft of the bill and it states:

The environment sector does not support the delegation of decision-making functions without clear safeguards to ensure the existing integrity of environmental approval processes are upheld rather than subverted.

This bill enables the Coordinator-General's Office to call in the functions of, or to undertake approvals under, a series of important acts: the Native Vegetation Act, the Environment Protection Act, the Coast Protection Act, the Heritage Places Act and the pastoral lands act. Parliament took great care in crafting these pieces of legislation. We should also exercise our due diligence when a government comes along with a plan to hand those powers over to another office without the same level of ministerial oversight, without the same level of knowledge or expertise that exists within those departments when administering those acts.

Our amendments seek to remove those acts from the remit of this bill, as we believe these are important standalone legislative instruments that should have their unique status preserved. In particular, we recognise that these acts are fundamental to environmental protection. That is why we have identified them for discrete treatment.

We are also concerned about the potential implications for work health and safety. As a result, we will be seeking to remove the ability to call in the functions of the Work Health and Safety Act. We see no reason why the Coordinator-General needs to bring these functions into their remit. The Work Health and Safety Act is a vital piece of legislation for keeping workers safe. Why do we need to transfer the powers of that act over to unelected officials?

I understand, of course, that the government will claim that these concerns will be addressed by the fact that parliament can disallow some parts of the bill. We will be asking questions in the committee stage about exactly which provisions of the legislation will be disallowable, as we have received some contradictory advice about how this will work in practice.

We also have concerns about the composition of the Coordinator-General's Office. As I mentioned before, the Greens do not want to see these powers being used for AUKUS, and therefore we will seek to change the composition of the council to ensure that there is diversity of expertise. Our amendments will remove a requirement that there is expertise in AUKUS and instead ensure that a member of the First Nations Voice is included, a person with expertise in climate change and a person with expertise in planning.

If indeed this bill is to enable development, let's make sure that there is somebody at the table with planning expertise. If the government is serious in its commitments to addressing climate and engaging with First Nations people as part of our planning, then it should also make a commitment to ensuring that these decision-makers in the Coordinator-General's Office have expertise in that regard. It is vital that these voices are included in these decisions, and this would go some way to addressing the concerns of members of the community who feel that they are being shut out of this process.

I am concerned that this bill is a power grab from the Malinauskas government, so that they can establish yet another office to fast-track key developments. This office will be able to take on the roles of important agencies to do the bidding of the government of the day, to prioritise the projects that they see fit, and it further reduces the level of public scrutiny and oversight over the provisions of the toxic AUKUS deal. This is the Malinauskas government bulldozing their way through our state, and the Greens are not supportive of this approach.

I do urge the opposition to think very carefully about their position on this bill. I understand that they are moving a number of amendments. As the Hon. Michelle Lensink acknowledged, we have only just seen those, but we will consider those and form a position on them during the committee stage. At first blush, many of the amendments that the opposition are proposing are sensible and do introduce some level of transparency, but they do not go anywhere near far enough in terms of addressing the myriad concerns that the Greens have with this legislation.

Might I also express some frustration at the way in which the Malinauskas government has approached this issue. This is something that should receive a high level of public scrutiny and a high level of public engagement. I accept the government has conducted a consultation piece; however, dealing with this in the parliament this week, which is on the eve of the federal election when all eyes are focused on national politics, does seem a little bit too clever from my perspective. It is being a bit too clever by half.

The government could have waited until another week, so that this could get the level of public and media scrutiny that it deserves. It is a significant change. It is one that the Greens believe the public should be engaged with, and it is one that this parliament should really give due scrutiny or due consideration of. We are moving a series of amendments. I urge members to support those, but ultimately our view is that this bill sets our state down a dangerous path.

Housing for Women Leaving Prison

3 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:06): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services on the topic of housing for women leaving prison.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This morning the ABC reported that advocates are calling for more gender specific support to help women who have been incarcerated in their transition back into the community. According to Linda Fisk, the co-founder of a support service for women leaving prison, the main challenge is finding long-term housing, with many struggling with homelessness after leaving the system. Without references, it is very difficult to obtain private rentals and these women can often end up waiting for a long time for public housing.

Women's Justice Network chief, Gloria Larman, told the ABC, 'They get put into what is often referred to as temporary accommodation, which quite often is a dodgy hotel that's quite often not safe for women.' My question, therefore, to the Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services is: what is the minister doing proactively to reduce the risk of homelessness for women who exit the prison system?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:08): I thank the honourable member for his question and interest in this space. Following on from the program that I was just mentioning—obviously that was not about housing but about giving people opportunities for employment, which starts whilst they are in the correctional system and follows them out of the system as well—I know there are many opportunities available. It is about DCS working with a number of private organisations, but also organisations that can provide that appropriate housing, like SA Housing Trust.

I am meeting with many organisations about this—Seeds is one of them—and I look forward to hearing what they can provide in this space. Programs available that women can go to would be Catherine House placement for women on bail who require support housing. This can be either on bail or prerelease.

Also, there is the Integrated Housing Exits Program, a partnership between DCS, OARS and another couple of organisations, whereby they can provide appropriate housing for up to 12 months. I believe there are about 60 properties that are scattered throughout regional and metropolitan South Australia. I am happy to try to find more details for you about the particular details of each of those programs, if that is of help.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:09): Supplementary: is the minister concerned about reports of women being housed in temporary accommodation, such as dodgy hotels, that may not be able to appropriately ensure their safety? The minister referenced the range of housing solutions. I am interested to know whether she is concerned about the adequacy of accommodation currently available through the hotel system.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:10): I thank the member for his question. I am happy to look into those specifics if you have further details as well. As I said, I am always happy to discuss these matters and provide further details about the existing housing opportunities that are available.

20 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:15): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development on the topic of food production areas.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On Monday, the Malinauskas government announced their plans to allow agricultural land to be developed by amending the environment and food production area. Yesterday in question time the Minister for Regional Development stated that only 1 per cent of the Greater Adelaide food production area would be impacted by the government's plan. It has been noted, however, that some of the land is South Australia's prime agricultural land.

According to PIRSA data, primary industries and agribusiness contributed $7.78 billion to South Australia's gross state product and supported 78,000 jobs in 2022-23. The field crop sector represents 42 per cent of total state revenue for the year. My questions to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, therefore, are:

1. Can the minister indicate what a 1 per cent loss of prime food production land in Greater Adelaide would mean in dollar terms?

2. What impact would this have on the state's gross state product?

3. What would be the total impact over the 30 years of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:16): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think it is important, again, to reiterate the need to get a balance between addressing the very significant housing crisis that we currently have and the number of people who are unable to find housing or affordable housing and the production of our vital food supply. They are areas that can work together that can be complementary; notwithstanding, there are obviously tensions when we are looking at the usage of land.

However, I think the fact that it is less than 1 per cent of the agricultural land within the Greater Adelaide area is significant in that it is an opportunity to increase housing supply very significantly, and it is an opportunity to work closely with primary industries around how best to manage those, working closely together, side by side.

It is also important to emphasise that whilst the Greater Adelaide plan and the proposals before parliament will enable that land to change—that less than 1 per cent—there is still a lot to go through. There needs to be the code amendments and the other processes that are an important and essential part of any changes, and of course no-one will be forced to sell their land. Farmers won't be required to sell their land.

So in terms of the impact, until we know which landowners will take up the opportunity to have their land changed in use and sold, we can't guess at what the impacts in terms of value will be.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:18): Supplementary: has the minister done any estimation of the economic impact of this plan, and, if not, why hasn't she or her department done any modelling before announcing such a plan?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:19): I thank the honourable member for his supplementary question, or his additional question, as the case may be. There has been a huge amount of work that has gone into developing the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan. There was a draft plan released, and the Minister for Planning was involved with a great deal of consultation, as was his department. That consultation included, of course, other government departments, as well as peak bodies and many more.

I think there needs to really be a strong emphasis on how we can move forward together, both agricultural industries and housing. They are both important and I am very pleased that we have had a number of productive meetings talking about how to best move forward. I am surprised, I must say, that the honourable member seems to be implying that we don't need additional housing. He is saying that it is not important. I did hear him on the radio recently.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I did hear him on the radio recently saying that there should be—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Simms! The Hon. Ms Girolamo!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I did hear him on the radio recently, and whilst obviously I can't remember the words verbatim, it was along the lines of there should be more high rise. They should be living in high rise or medium density here in the city.

The important part of our housing plan going forward is that we are able to offer choice to people. It may well be at certain times in one's life that living in an apartment in the CBD might well be an appropriate choice. When people are then partnered and have children they may not wish to live in an apartment in the CBD. So I think it is important that we have a variety of housing styles. We are constrained at the moment and I think anyone in this chamber should be concerned about those people in our community who are finding it incredibly hard to find housing.

19 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:38): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development on the topic of the removal of food production areas.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Malinauskas government has announced their plan to allow agricultural land to be developed by amending the environment and food production area. Several primary production advocates have publicly raised concerns about this proposal, including Grain Producers SA, Livestock SA and Primary Producers SA.

Grain Producers SA chief executive, Brad Perry, has said that the changes would take some of the best farmland in the state out of production. He told the ABC that, and I quote:

We can't be sacrificing prime cropping land with good rainfall and turning that into housing—that's land that will never go back into production after that.

The minister has previously told this place that she has a respectful relationship with primary production organisations such as Grain Producers SA, and that they meet regularly. My question, therefore, to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development is: did the minister consult with local food producers on the removal of cropping land before the plan was announced, and is the minister concerned that South Australia will be losing prime agricultural land?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:40): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think the important point to note here is that we need to have both prime agricultural land and food security, and that of course requires a strong agricultural sector. We also need to have housing for the population of Adelaide, which is growing. The Greater Adelaide Regional Plan attempts to meet all of the necessary requirements, both for now but, more importantly, for the future, for the next 30 years. It sets out the expected land supply for the next 30 years.

The impacts on the food production areas are less than 1 per cent of the agricultural land within the Greater Adelaide region. It also looks at land that is, according to my advice, adjacent to existing developments. I have had conversations with Primary Producers SA, with Grain Producers SA, and with Livestock SA, among others, about this matter as well as other matters to do with the importance of agriculture going forward.

I think it is also important to note that the opportunity to be able to thoughtfully design future development and provide certainty for the next 30 years is important to all sectors, including agriculture. So whilst I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised, I certainly reiterate that the amount of land that is affected is less than 1 per cent of the agricultural land within the Greater Adelaide area.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:42): Supplementary: did the minister have these discussions with stakeholders before the government made the announcement or did stakeholders simply read the news in the paper on Monday?

The PRESIDENT: Minister, you talked about your engagement with stakeholders.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:42): I have spoken with stakeholders very recently. The development of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan has been part of a very long process. There has been a lot of consultation and that, of course, is under the auspices of my colleague the Minister for Planning in the other place.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:42): Supplementary: as part of the discussions that the minister referenced in her original answer, did she flag that an announcement would be made on Monday, or did these stakeholders simply read of the news in the paper? Did they get any advanced warning of what was coming down the line?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:43): I am not in the habit of saying exactly when I meet with stakeholders and exactly the nature of the discussions, but I think what I can say is that I provided as much information as early as possible.

5 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:05): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development on the topic of regional housing.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, the ABC reported that regional housing shortages are being exacerbated by the lack of essential infrastructure, such as sewerage, water supply and power. Kingston District Council has said that such infrastructure projects will be multimillion dollar ventures that are far beyond councils' financial capacity to deliver.

The National Regional Housing Summit last year heard evidence that small towns have plenty of residential land available, but a lack of infrastructure has made them not ready for development. The government's own document from 2023, A Better Housing Future, states there is strong demand for housing in regional towns and, according to data from the Valuer-General, the median house prices for regional SA have increased by 14 per cent over the last 12 months. My questions, therefore, to the Minister for Regional Development are:

1. What communication has the minister had with these regional councils?

2. What action has she taken to ensure they have the infrastructure they need, or is this just another case of 'that's not her job'?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:06): I thank the honourable member for his question. He asked what engagement I have had with councils and I am pleased to say that I engage very regularly with councils across the state, whether that be through formal forums, and that could include things such as our country cabinet forums, through one-on-one meetings or other mechanisms.

I think it is something the Malinauskas Labor government has taken a strong lead on in terms of addressing the housing crisis. We established the Office for Regional Housing vey early in our term and of course the things that that office is looking at include those very matters—the infrastructure. As a government we have been looking at those now for several years.

A number of initiatives have already been announced. Of course, we have a vast state, but to mention a few: over on the Eyre Peninsula they are facing severe threats to their water supply, with the basin getting to unsustainably low levels, which is why there is going to be a desal plant finally constructed on the Eyre Peninsula—incredibly important for water security for existing residents, not to mention expanding developments. I think there is a strong focus from this government. I am pleased that we work as a team across this government, because we are keen to be able to deliver for all South Australians. We have a strong focus on our regional communities and will continue to do so.

5 February 2025

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.A. Simms:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire and report on the short stay accommodation sector in South Australia with particular reference to:

   (a) the role of short stay accommodation in contributing to the rental affordability crisis;

   (b) the social and economic impacts of short stay accommodation on South Australian communities;

   (c) the potential to regulate the short stay accommodation sector;

   (d) the effectiveness of regulatory models adopted in other jurisdictions, both nationally and overseas;

   (e) potential taxes or levies that could be applied to short stay accommodation and long-term vacant residential property;

   (f) incentives that could be provided to home owners to transition properties listed on short stay accommodation platforms onto the long-term rental market;

   (g) other strategies that could be adopted to activate residential property that is vacant long term; and

   (h) any other related matters.

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

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:45): I thank honourable members for their contributions, and in particular I thank the government for their support of the inquiry. Indeed, I presume from the opposition's comments that they are also in support, so I thank members for that. Just to be clear, I want to touch on some of the themes the Hon. Frank Pangallo raised. It is certainly not my view that this is the only cause of the housing crisis. I do not think anyone has suggested that.

My reason for proposing this inquiry is that it may be playing a role. I asked my office on 21 January to look at the number of properties that were listed on the long-term rental market on websites like realestate.com.au and to compare those to the number of properties that were listed on short stay accommodation like Airbnb. The results of that were, I think, quite disturbing. What they found was that there were only 2,524 properties listed as long-term rental on that date versus more than 9,000 properties that were advertised on short stay accommodation websites like Airbnb.

Some will argue: is there a cause and effect? I would like to understand what is the relationship. Why is there such an over-representation of short stay accommodation versus such a shortage of long-term rental. I know from conversations I have had with people in the Port Lincoln area that there were a lot of people in some regional communities during COVID that, because there was a ban on overseas travel, moved properties that had been previously listed on the long-term rental market onto short stay accommodation.

My office found the issue much more pronounced in terms of the disparity between long-term rentals and short stay accommodation in some regional areas. For instance, on the Fleurieu south coast, there were more than a thousand properties listed on short stay platforms during the period that we examined versus just 19 long-term rentals in that area. I am really keen to look at these factors and look at what can be done.

I will certainly go into any committee with an open mind in terms of looking at what options there are. I am very keen to hear from key players. The Hon. Frank Pangallo has referenced an article in today's paper by Jamie McClurg. Thanks to the honourable member I no longer have to read the article; he has gone through it in great detail. Mr McClurg may well be somebody who we choose to hear from, along with the city council, which are taking action on this, and a range of other stakeholder groups. I thank members for their support and look forward to being able to sink my teeth into this this year. I think it is a really interesting area and one that is worthy of parliamentary inquiry.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. Justin Hanson, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Tung Ngo, and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, and to report on 4 June 2025.

Motion carried.

5 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:35): I rise this afternoon to speak on a matter that will be of importance to all South Australians who care about the homelessness crisis, and that is the future of the Aspire Program being run by the Hutt St Centre in Adelaide. This program is not just about providing hope to those who experience chronic homelessness. It also serves as a testament to our state's commitment to social justice, community wellbeing, and the fundamental human right to a safe and stable home—yet the future of this program still hangs in the balance.

The Aspire Program is designed to support individuals aged 18 to 55 who are experiencing chronic homelessness in metropolitan Adelaide. It offers medium to long-term case management, with the goal of helping participants achieve sustainable housing, employment and community connections. The program operates through three critical stages: stabilisation, re-engagement and monitoring. Each of these are tailored to address the unique needs of the participants.

The Aspire Program, I understand, has demonstrated remarkable success in reducing the use of government-funded services such as hospitals and emergency accommodation. Participants have significantly decreased their reliance on these services, leading to substantial service reduction for the government. Moreover, many participants have secured stable housing and employment, showcasing this program's effectiveness in changing lives. This is the kind of program we need to see more of from government.

The Aspire Program is a partnership between the Hutt St Centre, the South Australian government, and various community housing providers. This collaboration ensures that participants can receive the best possible support and resources. I understand the program's initial funding through a social impact bond is an example of its innovative approach and its commitment to achieving measurable outcomes. However, private investment through the bond ceased in June 2024 and now the program is entirely reliant on funding from the South Australian taxpayer: that is, funding by the government. That makes sense, of course, because there is a broad community benefit that flows from funding a program like this.

The key aspect of the Aspire Program is the 'Housing First' principle, which prioritises quickly moving people experiencing homelessness into suitable and permanent housing. This approach has proven to be highly effective, as stable housing provides the foundation for addressing other life challenges. It is really hard to get long-term work, it is really hard to be able to access the support you need, if you do not have a roof over your head. That is fundamental.

The Aspire Program is accessible to individuals who meet specific criteria, ensuring that those most in need receive support. The program's staged referral and intake process allows for a manageable and sustainable approach to assisting up to 524 referrals between December 2021 up to June 2027, but there is a need for ongoing funding.

The Aspire Program is not just a temporary solution but a long-term investment into the wellbeing of our community. Continued government funding is essential to maintain and expand this vital program across the state. Supporting the Aspire Program will not only address the immediate needs of those experiencing homelessness, it will also invest in a brighter, more inclusive future for all South Australians.

I understand that the Aspire Program is calling for an additional $3.8 million over the next five years, on top of the current government funding, to ensure that they can really meet the need. Mr Acting President, I submit to you that this is vitally important at this time. We know that our state is in the midst of the worst housing crisis in generations, and I fear that it is only going to get worse unless we see meaningful action from state and federal governments.

Of course, the Greens have been pushing for an increase in the investment in social and affordable housing that we need. We are going to have discussions today about what we can do to activate vacant housing and ensure that some of those are moved onto the long-term rental market. We need to look at rent prices, which are skyrocketing out of control.

The Greens are going to continue to push for action on those things, but we also need to ensure that there is funding for programs that work. The Aspire program is a program that works and is getting meaningful results for people who are experiencing homelessness and so we cannot afford to lose it. Rather than forcing this program to keep going cap in hand to the government year after year for bits of piecemeal funding, I urge the government to provide the funding that is required to provide certainty to this vital service so that we can ensure it meets the needs of this community.

27 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:13): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire and report on the short stay accommodation sector in South Australia with particular reference to:

(a) the role of short stay accommodation in contributing to the rental affordability crisis;

(b) the social and economic impacts of short stay accommodation on South Australian communities;

(c) the potential to regulate the short stay accommodation sector;

(d) the effectiveness of regulatory models adopted in other jurisdictions, both nationally and overseas;

(e) potential taxes or levies that could be applied to short stay accommodation and long-term vacant residential property;

(f) incentives that could be provided to home owners to transition properties listed on short stay accommodation platforms onto the long-term rental market;

(g) other strategies that could be adopted to activate residential property that is vacant long term; and

(h) any other related matters.

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

This motion is to establish a select committee looking at the short stay accommodation sector in South Australia. In particular, I am proposing that the committee will have reference to:

• the role of short stay accommodation in contributing to the rental affordability crisis;
• the social and economic impacts of short stay accommodation on South Australian communities;
• the potential to regulate the short stay accommodation sector;
• the effectiveness of regulatory models adopted in other jurisdictions, both nationally and overseas;
• potential taxes or levies that could be applied to short stay accommodation and long-term vacant residential property;
• incentives that could be provided to home owners to transition properties listed on short stay accommodation platforms onto the long-term rental market;
• other strategies that could be adopted to activate residential property that is vacant long term; and
• any other related matters.

In moving for this inquiry, the Greens recognise the severe nature of the housing crisis that we are facing at the moment in our state and the impact this is having on some of our most vulnerable people. While short stay accommodation such as Airbnb and Stayz have become popular features of our state's tourism economy, they also contribute to the housing crisis by reducing the amount of housing that is available to rent or, indeed, buy. This impact can be felt not only in the city and the suburbs but also in regional and coastal areas, where houses are often left empty for six months of the year during the off-season.

How can it be that we have some homes in our state that are vacant for months on end while people sleep on the street? That is not sustainable in a housing crisis, and this parliament has a responsibility to do something about it. We have rent prices that are skyrocketing out of control and a rental vacancy rate that is just 1.13 per cent. That is the latest data according to October.

Last week, new data was released that showed rental affordability in SA is at its lowest level in a decade and that the average renter is spending 30 per cent of their income on rent. Meanwhile, we have perfectly good homes sitting there vacant for protracted periods and we have some people making a lot of money from short stay platforms like Airbnb. It is not sustainable, and we have to look at what we can do to move some of these homes into the long-term rental market.

The Greens have advocated for a long time for the government to build more social housing, and also for parliament to take action to encourage the development of more social and affordable housing at the private development level, but in terms of getting this housing crisis under control we need to look at what we can do to activate stock that has already been built. Are we making the most of properties that are already in the system?

The census data conducted a few years ago found that there were more than 80,000 properties vacant on census night. I am not suggesting all of those were on Airbnb. Even if just a small fraction of them were, though, that demonstrates the significant scale of this crisis. I know from my time being a City of Adelaide councillor that this was a significant factor in the CBD. From memory, there was some data that came out from PropTrack recently which I think found that 2,000 properties were vacant in the Adelaide CBD area alone—about 20 per cent of all properties. That is significant and, again, the government has to do something about that.

Other states have begun to implement a range of different approaches to addressing the impact of short stay rentals and accommodation on housing and looking at what they can do to encourage the owners of these properties to put them back into the housing market. New South Wales was the first state in the country to impose limits on the number of nights that short stay accommodation could be let each year, applying a 180-night cap on otherwise empty properties across Greater Sydney. The Victorian government has introduced a 7.5 per cent levy on short stay accommodation bookings, and that will begin next year. The revenue collected from this levy will go to support building and maintaining social and affordable housing across that state.

Western Australia has recently had a parliamentary inquiry, and as a result they have resolved that all short-term rentals need to be registered with the government by 2025, with a $10,000 incentive to be provided to hosts who make their properties available for long-term tenants. In Tasmania, hosts are now being required to get a planning permit from their local council. Evidently, there are a whole range of mechanisms that governments can deploy to rein in the impacts of short stay accommodation and free up properties that can be used for longer term accommodation.

I know I often talk about a more punitive range of options available—that is, increasing taxes, some of the disincentives that could be placed on Airbnb—but we should be looking at both a carrot and a stick approach. One of the things I would really like to look at through this inquiry, should it get support in this chamber, is what incentives we can provide to landlords as well to get them to think differently about their investment.

We have also seen several councils in South Australia consider tightening their regulations on short stay properties. Adelaide City Council, for instance, has recently made a change so that if a property is listed for short stay accommodation for 90 days or more in the previous financial year, it is subject to higher rates. I think that makes sense because we know, of course, that these short stay rentals have a significant impact as well on council services and amenities, but we should not be relying on a hotchpotch approach at local councils. We need to actually have a systemic, whole-of-government, whole-of-state approach.

An inquiry will be an opportunity for the parliament to investigate the impact of short stay accommodation on the housing market and to consider what measures could be implemented locally. The housing crisis is a key priority for the Greens, here in the state parliament, and I think this inquiry could play a very important role in informing the policy positions that all of the political parties take as we head towards the next election. With that, I conclude my remarks by indicating that I do plan to bring this to a vote when parliament resumes in the new year, and I would encourage members to discuss this within their caucuses to form a position over the Christmas break.