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.

19 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:44): Friday marks one year until the next state election and the Premier, Peter Malinauskas, and the opposition leader, Vincent Tarzia, will be facing off at a Press Club debate. While there are likely to be a few policy differences between them, one area where Mr Malinauskas and Mr Tarzia are on a unity ticket is the future of AUKUS. They are wedded to this toxic AUKUS plan, despite the fact that it will make South Australia less safe and despite the fact that it threatens to undermine our reputation as a clean, green state.

AUKUS is wrong for so many reasons. The last few months have provided citizens of the world with a grim reminder of why we can no longer rely on the United States as a friend and an ally. In recent weeks, while this parliament has been working together to support our state's steel industry, over in the United States our so-called friends have been slapping new tariffs on Australian aluminium and steel, damaging the South Australian industry at a time of crisis. If this is how the Trump administration treats its friends, I would hate to see how they treat their enemies.

The reality is that the time has come for us to think very carefully about our relationship with the United States. It is clear that the United States of America under Trump no longer shares our democratic values. Mr Trump is a dangerous and delusional man. He is an authoritarian, a sexist, a transphobe and a racist. He has no respect for the rule of law. He has no respect for the judiciary. He has no respect for democratic traditions. He has no respect for Australia. Does anyone seriously expect the Trump administration to come to Australia's aid if we are in trouble? A leader who is clearly in the pocket of Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime—give me a break. Yet, despite all of this, we are hitching our wagon to the Trump administration. Back in the sixties it was all the way with LBJ, now it is to hell in a handbasket with a basket case, Donald Trump.

By aligning our national security so closely with the United States, AUKUS puts our country at risk, and South Australia is right in the thick of it. At least five nuclear subs are set to be built in SA, with the promise of thousands of South Australian jobs, but there is a catch: we do not even start building these subs until the 2030s and 2040s. South Australians have heard all this before. Over the last decade, it has been clear to us that these submarines are so often a mirage. In this case Australia will get access to second-hand US subs, but only after we have paid billions of dollars to the United States to support their own submarine manufacturing capabilities, and a future US president does not even need to provide them if they are not assured that America can meet its own needs. How is this a good deal for Australia? How does this make our own country safer?

Billions and billions of dollars are being pumped into war machines that may never even materialise. Meanwhile, we have people sleeping on the street, people who cannot afford to get into the housing market, people who cannot afford to see a doctor when they need one and people who cannot afford to put food on the table. Surely this money can be better spent. Surely there are better ways we can support South Australians who are struggling during this cost-of-living crisis. The Greens are not alone in calling AUKUS a dud deal. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has described this as a terrible deal for Australia, dumb and a fiasco. I am no fan of Mr Turnbull, but a broken watch is still right twice a day. He is right on that one; it is a terrible deal.

Let us also consider the environmental risks. Just last year, state and federal parliaments backed new laws to allow nuclear waste to be stored at Osborne, just 25 kilometres from the CBD, close to Semaphore and Port Adelaide. But what about the residents who live nearby: has anyone asked what they think? What about the potential exposure to our waterways? What happens if something goes wrong? South Australians have made it clear time and time again that we do not want nuclear waste in our state. We have made it clear time and time again that we do not see a future for the nuclear industry in SA, yet Labor and the Liberals keep flogging this dead horse. It is time to let it go once and for all and to cement our reputation as a clean, green state.

Rather than tying our economic sustainability and future prosperity to a deal that will surely make our state less safe, Peter Malinauskas and Vincent Tarzia need a plan B. Linking our state's future to the reckless and volatile Donald Trump and the dangerous nuclear industry is not a sensible policy for SA. Do these leaders really think that AUKUS is in South Australia's best interests? What will they do if something goes wrong? What will they do if the promise of South Australian jobs is not delivered?

The Greens will be watching the leaders' debate closely to ensure their answers. South Australians deserve more than just more me-tooism on such important policy questions. Now is the time for our leaders to stand up for South Australia and dump AUKUS, and the Greens will be here to hold their feet to the fire until they do.

20 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:43): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Leader of the Government in this house, the Attorney-General, on the topic of the Whyalla Steelworks.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This morning the government announced that a rescue package of $2.4 billion across the state and federal governments will be offered for the Whyalla Steelworks. The package includes $384 million to fund the operations of the steelworks during administration to ensure workers and contractors will have ongoing work and will continue to be paid. Additionally, there is a $1.9 billion investment in upgrades and new infrastructure. My question to the minister, therefore, is: will the government consider giving the public an equity stake in the steelworks to ensure that we don't see any repeat of the mistakes we have seen over the last few years, flowing from private ownership?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (14:44): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I am sure the honourable member will appreciate, this is the very early stages of administration before we see what comes next. As I say, what we are aiming for is ongoing continuing operation with a new owner. I think it was around 2017, the last time the steelworks was in administration—it was about 17 months, if I am remembering correctly, of administration before a new owner was found.

Issues to do with what it looks like coming out of administration are, obviously, a lot of work to look at that, but I think it is fair to say what the state and federal governments wish for—and what I think we all wish for in both houses of the South Australian parliament—is whatever happens and whatever structure it takes to give it the best possible chance of success for the people of Whyalla for decades to come.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Supplementary.

The PRESIDENT: Supplementary question, the Hon. Mr Simms. It would want to be good, given that you are only semi-dressed, but I will listen.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It has gone out of my head now, Mr President. You have embarrassed me.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: is there a dress code for this chamber that we should be made aware of?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks, your point of order is well made. There is a convention that we try to adhere to. I know the Hon. Mr Simms is a very handsome man, but I would still prefer him to have a tie on like everybody else. If he chooses to defy me, it will be okay.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: when you say 'everybody else', do you include everyone in this place?

The PRESIDENT: No, I am sorry: the males, the Hon. Ms Franks. The Hon. Mr Simms, let's have your supplementary.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:46): Thank you, Mr President. Should a private owner be found for the Whyalla Steelworks, which we all hope is the case, will the government consider giving the taxpayer a public equity stake commensurate with the public investment to ensure that taxpayers have more oversight over what happens in Whyalla?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (14:46): I thank the recently described 'very handsome' honourable member for his question. As I say, I think it would be foolish to start trying to forecast what sort of structure or shape it might take after administration. As I say, I think we would all hope that whatever shape it takes gives it the best possible chance of providing for the people of Whyalla, South Australia and Australia for decades into the future.

20 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:30): I rise to speak in support of the motion. In so doing I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I think in many ways the honourable member has been the canary in the mine shaft on Whyalla, raising the issues over many years. Indeed, certainly during the time that I have been in this place he has been a consistent voice on the issue, so I recognise his work on this.

I also want to reflect a little on what occurred yesterday in that I think what was really significant about the events that unfolded in the parliament is that you saw all sides of politics working together to confront what is a significant issue facing our state. Everybody put party politics aside, and we worked together for the common good. It does not always happen—it is not always possible for us to move outside our political party lenses—but yesterday it did happen.

I think that is a good thing for politics in our state. I think it speaks to the integrity of our system, and I think it is actually what the people of South Australia want from us when we are confronting challenging situations like the one that has been faced in Whyalla. So I want to acknowledge the role that all members of parliament have played in that but of course also the leadership of the government in taking this decisive action, which, as the Hon. Frank Pangallo reflected, I think is welcomed by the people of Whyalla.

I think it is appropriate when we are dealing with industry that is such a significant job creator that there is government intervention. I remember what happened back in 2013 and 2014 with the car industry in this state when we did not see any federal government support for the car industry. As a result we saw the end of those jobs, and that has been a disaster for South Australia and our economy and our manufacturing capability in South Australia.

That has not happened in this instance. I welcome the fact that the federal government have come to the table today with a significant package for Whyalla. I understand—I was reading news reports this morning—that they are going to be investing $2 billion and that the state government is also going to be investing a significant amount of money as well. Notionally, I think from what I have read, the state government is investing a significant portion of the $600 million that was originally planned for the green hydrogen project.

The Greens welcome that public investment in Whyalla. Our view is, though, that public investment should result in public equity in any business that is going to be running the steelworks so that we do not find ourselves in this situation in the future where we are trying to dislodge a private business that is not effectively running the steelworks. What we would like to see in the future is a long-term pathway for Whyalla. Public investment should result in public equity.

In speaking to this motion I note that the people of Whyalla have endured repeated threats of job losses and economic hardship over the past decades. I first went to Whyalla in 2015 as part of the campaign the Greens were running at the time against the TPP—the Trans-Pacific Partnership—which a lot of people in Whyalla were concerned about because of the impact it would have had on procurement policies, particularly sovereign steel. There have been so many challenges that the people of that community have had to deal with over several decades.

Indeed, almost nine years ago, the then owners of the steelworks, Arrium, entered administration with debts of $2 billion and, once again, plunged the town into turmoil until the steelworks were purchased by Mr Sanjeev Gupta's GFG Alliance. We now know how that ended up. Given his financial failures and the fact that he is subject to regulatory investigation around the world, it is clear that Mr Gupta was never going to be giving the long-term solution that was needed for the steelworks. State and federal governments must now, of course, continue to work together on a solution for Whyalla.

Last week, the Greens wrote to the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, and the federal Minister for Industry and Science, the Hon. Ed Husic, urging them to work together to protect steel production in Whyalla, including protecting jobs and the community from any negative economic consequences. We have, therefore, been pleased to see the actions that have been taken in recent days, and we welcome the support that is flowing from both the federal government and the state government.

It is critical that we preserve Australia's sovereign capability in steel production into the future. We know, as we face significant supply chain delays because of what is unfolding overseas, that we cannot rely on being able to import steel. We need to be able to make it here, and South Australia has a vital role to play in that space. We know that Australian companies are capable of producing very high-quality steel, a critical resource for 21^st century jobs in the renewables and clean manufacturing sectors.

Whyalla's steelworks are able to produce over a million tonnes of raw steel each year, which is necessary for building wind turbines, grid infrastructure and energy storage facilities required to support green energy transition. In addition, the Whyalla Steelworks are the nation's only Australian-based manufacturer of the rail infrastructure that we need to expand the network for both freight and passengers.

I think it is very clear from what we have seen in the parliament over the last 24 hours that all members of parliament, all political parties representing all parts of the state, care deeply about the people of Whyalla. We recognise the extraordinary stress that people in that community have been under, and I think we all hope, collectively, that the events of the last 24 hours will provide them with some reprieve, and it is our hope that this will set that region on a pathway for long-term sustainability and viability.

Before concluding, I do just want to touch on the reports this morning around the government deferring the $600 million green hydrogen plan so that they can bolster the investment in Whyalla. I actually think that is appropriate in the circumstances. It is appropriate to defer that project in light of what is going on, given the success of the green hydrogen plan is predicated on the steelworks. You cannot have a green hydrogen plan if you do not have a viable steelworks, so I recognise the government has had to take that course of action; however, I do urge them to ensure that public funding in Whyalla and new business also ensures that we are delivering some environmental outcomes as well in green iron, green steel and that technology. That is vitally important as well. With that, I commend the motion.

6 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:11): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Regional Development on the topic of the Whyalla Steelworks.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This morning, it has been reported that the government's proposed $600 million hydrogen project is in doubt due to the ongoing issues with GFG Alliance and the Whyalla Steelworks. Yesterday, the Premier revealed that GFG Alliance owes the state tens of millions of dollars. The hydrogen project was to be one of the key energy suppliers for the production of green steel at the steelworks and the cornerstone of the Labor government's jobs plan for the Whyalla region. Now, thousands of regional jobs hang in the balance.

In 2023, when this place was considering the Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Bill, the Greens pushed for the bill to be referred to a select committee so that the parliament could examine the risks associated with the hydrogen project, including the economic benefits. At that time, Labor did not support any scrutiny of the bill.

My question to the Minister for Regional Development is: given the thousands of jobs that now hang in the balance, does the minister concede it was a mistake to block the Greens' proposal to refer the bill to a select committee so that the risk could have been properly scrutinised; why didn't Labor allow appropriate scrutiny of their hydrogen plan; and what does this mean for the regions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:13): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think this chamber has a good track record in scrutinising legislation and this one was no exception.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will listen to your supplementary, the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:13): Does the minister consider passing a bill of this magnitude—that committed the state to spending $600 million—in one sitting day appropriate scrutiny; why was Labor so reluctant to give this bill the scrutiny it deserves; and what does it have to say to the people of Whyalla who have their livelihoods on the line?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! A supplementary question has to arise from the original answer.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Well, actually, I don't think it did, okay? I'm sorry.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Dennis Hood, a supplementary question arising from the original answer.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:14): Supplementary: minister, are you suggesting that an item costing some 3 per cent of the state budget is not worthy of scrutiny by a select committee?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Is not worthy of scrutiny by a select committee?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, I disagree, but anyway.

The PRESIDENT: Order! While you are on your feet, the Hon. Dennis Hood, you can ask your next question. Okay?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

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 (17:13): I thank all members for their contribution: the Hon. Mr Martin, the Hon. Jing Lee and the Hon. Ben Hood. In addition, I thank the Hon. Mira El Dannawi for her contribution to the committee. As other members have observed, I think this committee was an example of actually what this chamber does well, and that is all of us of different political perspectives coming together to confront a challenging problem.

Of course, there is no greater problem facing the people of our state at the moment than the cost-of-living crisis. It is front and centre for so many South Australians, and so many people in our community are doing it tough at the moment, in particular when it comes to being able to put food on the table for their families, so grocery prices are a really important issue for us to confront as a parliament. We know of course that it requires leadership from politicians in Canberra. That was one of the things that was identified in the report. But there are also some things that can be done here locally within our jurisdiction, and the recommendations of the report speak to that.

I want to thank all of the members who engaged with the committee for the collaborative and collegial way in which they engaged. In particular, I want to thank the Hon. Ben Hood for his work in assisting us in Mount Gambier and finding people for the committee to meet with. That was very helpful, and I do appreciate that. I look forward to being able to engage with the government around the recommendations in coming months, but also there are things that the opposition and indeed all members of the parliament may wish to take up as we head towards the next state election. I look forward to engaging with members around the recommendations.

30 October 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:52): I move:

That this council calls on the government to refer to the South Australian Productivity Commission the operation and impacts of the gig economy in South Australia, requiring the commission to investigate and report to the government on matters including:

1. The emerging nature, incidence, scope and complexity of the gig economy and in particular digital platforms that offer labour hire, ride share, disability and aged-care services or a goods and services delivery function;

2. The extent to which workplace health and safety laws and regulations currently apply to digital platform businesses engaging workers as contractors, sole traders or employees;

3. Consider the role of workplace health and safety laws in creating a safe working environment for all South Australians with regard to the emerging ways of working in the gig economy;

4. The extent to which the Return to Work Act 2014 currently applies to digital platform businesses engaging workers as contractors, sole traders or employees;

5. The application of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 (Cth) to South Australian legislation;

6. The taxation regime that applies to the gig economy at both a federal and state level, including the recent decision of Uber v Chief Commissioner of Revenue NSW;

7. Experience of other jurisdictions, whether that be in Australia or overseas to identify potential opportunities for reform to ensure that equitable arrangements exist for platform providers to contribute to the community in which they operate, including the potential for gig economy businesses to pay payroll tax; and

8. Any other related matters.

This motion calls on the government to refer to the South Australian Productivity Commission the operation and impacts of the gig economy in South Australia, requiring the commission to investigate and report on a range of matters. I will not go through all of them because they are quite clearly detailed in the motion. I think one of the key elements that I am interested in is around payroll tax and the potential of whether or not these businesses, gig economy businesses, should contribute payroll tax.

This was a key issue that came up in the inquiry into the gig economy that the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos initiated and chaired initially during her time in the parliament. You may recall I then took over the chairing of the committee towards the end of the committee's life. One of the key recommendations was looking at this issue of payroll tax and what that means for the gig economy.

We did receive a number of submissions from stakeholders, and unions in particular, that said it is not fair that businesses that have fixed employment arrangements, or traditional employment style arrangements, have to pay payroll tax and yet those that operate off these platforms, like Uber for instance, are not subject to the same payroll tax requirements.

I think the Productivity Commission should consider this question. There may be the potential to alleviate some of the costs that are paid by other businesses, for instance, were these gig economy businesses required to pay payroll tax. I do not know how much money such an arrangement would generate. These are the sorts of things the Productivity Commission could investigate.

I think the other element that is really important here is requiring the Productivity Commission to look at the role of workplace health and safety laws in creating a safe work environment for South Australians who are working in the gig economy. There are also some elements here that look at fair work legislation and also the complexity of the gig economy and what that means for labour hire, rideshare, disability, aged-care services and the like.

I think this will be a really interesting piece of work that the Productivity Commission could undertake and I hope that members of parliament will support it and that this is an issue the commission takes up and considers worthy of investigation.

5 June 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:05): I move:

That the report of the select committee be noted.

Before I go into the detail of this report, I want to acknowledge the work of the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos, who established this committee. She was Chair of the committee, and I was elected to take on the role of Chairperson after the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos's resignation from this place. I think it is worth reflecting on the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos's intentions when she established this committee back in 2022. She said:

The flexibility of the gig economy is often promoted as modernising and positive to both workers and businesses. In reality, the gig economy works by undercutting the traditional model of employment upon which many of our rules for worker protection are based.

The committee has recognised the work of the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos in the report, and we thank her for her contribution to the inquiry.

I think it is fair to say, in reflecting on some of the evidence that we heard, that gig work has been on the increase in South Australia in recent years. Gig work is defined as work where those undertaking this work do so on demand through digital apps, such as Uber, DoorDash or Menulog. Gig workers fall into a different category from other self-employed workers. Many of the protections that are provided to employees under workplace awards or health and safety laws are not valid for gig workers, who operate under online platforms that are not traditionally considered employers.

It is worth noting that the federal government has recently introduced legislation to close the loophole to protect these workers; however, our South Australian committee considered that there were some areas in which the state may introduce other measures to address remaining issues and provide additional protection to these workers.

One of the key concerns the committee heard was that gig workers often lack minimum employment conditions. There is an absence of workers compensation for these workers, they do not have access to paid leave, and there is no guaranteed minimum wage for the hours worked, no penalty rates and no allowances. It is concerning that, according to research from the McKell Institute, 45 per cent of gig workers are regularly earning less than the minimum wage.

The committee also heard about the practice of deplatforming, where gig workers are removed from the app due to a complaint being received. The Transport Workers' Union told the inquiry that in a normal employment situation you would have a formal recourse; however, that is not available to gig workers. I think that is concerning. We also heard evidence around health and safety concerns, with there being an absence of controls on the minimum hours worked and a lack of regulation of time of rest between long shifts.

While the flexibility of gig work has been attractive to some lifestyle situations, the committee heard that 81 per cent of gig workers were relying on that type of work to make ends meet and were working longer hours or working across multiple platforms during a 24-hour period to achieve financial stability. So whilst it may have suited people in terms of their lifestyle, in effect they were actually working much longer hours without access to some of the benefits that other workers have.

Some of the businesses that host these platforms told the committee that they are attempting to put protections in place. However, I submit that it is clear that we should not rely on ad hoc protections from these platforms and instead there is a strong case for industry regulation. The committee therefore recommended developing accountability standards for platforms in South Australia to give them better protections for risk management, health and safety measures, PPE and minimum pay and conditions.

Not only does this sector impact on the workers involved but also on our state economy across the board. One of the issues that was brought to the committee's attention is the fact that these platforms are not subject to payroll tax as they are not considered to be employer groups. This results in lost revenue for the state, especially given some of these platforms, such as Uber, are replacing services that offer more traditional forms of employment. I guess one example is the impact on the taxi industry.

The committee therefore recommends that the state government investigate amendments to payroll tax systems to consider applying the same obligations to digital platforms so that these digital platforms are subject to the same taxation requirements as those who employ workers directly. There was a concern that payroll tax being applied on businesses that employ people in a direct way was actually penalising those businesses that are in effect doing the right thing.

I will summarise the key recommendations. The first recommendation was that the government review legislation and make changes necessary to ensure consistency with the commonwealth's definition of employee-like workers. The second was that we call on the state government to consider developing accountability standards for platforms operating in South Australia. That would include procedures for identifying and addressing risks for gig workers, workplace health and safety standards, provision of PPE and appropriate training and induction programs for delivery drivers, information being provided to gig workers on the terms and conditions of their work relationship, regular reporting on workplace data and, of course, minimum pay and conditions.

The third recommendation called on the government to develop strategies to ensure international students and migrant workers receive consistent information on their rights at work and different employee relationships and arrangements. The fourth recommendation called on the government to investigate the potential to expand the workers compensation scheme to ensure access by gig economy workers.

The fifth recommendation called on the government to investigate establishing a portable leave entitlement scheme for gig workers. The sixth recommendation called on the government to review occupational health and safety laws to give protection to gig workers. The seventh recommendation called on the government to consider amendments to state procurement policies to prioritise local companies that directly employ workers or meet minimum standards for gig workers. We did receive some evidence in that regard that the government as an organisation that has significant buying power could use that more effectively to incentivise some of the businesses that are doing the right thing.

The eighth recommendation called on the government to consider adopting the approach and features of the Queensland government's state-based industrial relations system for jurisdiction over non-employees, with the power to make binding determinations, set enforceable standards and resolve disputes, noting that the South Australian Employment Tribunal appears well suited to this role.

The ninth and final recommendation called on the government to investigate amendments to payroll tax systems to consider applying the same obligations to digital platforms as to businesses that directly employ workers.

In concluding, I want to acknowledge the work of the members of the committee: the Hon Reggie Martin, the Hon. Mira El Dannawi, who replaced the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos, the Hon. Ben Hood and the Hon. Dennis Hood. It was a committee that included a broad cross-section of the parliament, and it is certainly my hope that the government will review the recommendations and provide a response in due course.

I also acknowledge the work of the secretariat for the committee, Emma Johnston, who put in a lot of work to ensure that we have a thorough report that is available for the government's consideration. With that, I conclude my remarks.

27 September 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:36): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that since January 2023, at least four major South Australian construction companies have gone into liquidation, resulting in:

(a) over 125 job losses;

(b) over 250 new residential buildings left incomplete; and

(c) over $50 million in unpaid debts.

2. Acknowledges that South Australia is experiencing a housing crisis, and it is the responsibility of the government to stabilise the building industry and to improve the supply of affordable and public housing stock.

3. Calls on the Malinauskas government to investigate the establishment of a publicly owned builder to:

(a) undertake construction of new public and affordable homes;

(b) provide maintenance to existing public and social housing; and

(c) intervene to complete houses that are partially constructed where building companies have collapsed.

This motion notes that since January 2023 at least four major South Australian construction companies have gone into liquidation in our state. That has resulted in 125 job losses, over 250 new residential buildings being left incomplete, and over $50 million in unpaid debts.

The motion acknowledges that South Australia is experiencing a housing crisis and that it is the responsibility of the government to stabilise the building industry and improve the supply of affordable and public housing stock. It calls on the Malinauskas government to investigate the establishment of a publicly owned builder to undertake construction of new public and affordable homes, to provide maintenance to existing public and social housing, and to intervene to complete houses that are partially constructed when a building company has collapsed.

The signs of this housing crisis are plain for all of us to see. We have people sleeping on our streets, we have people sleeping in tents, people couch surfing. There are 15,000 people on the public housing waitlist in our state, and across South Australia many individuals are grappling with skyrocketing rents, unattainable home prices, and the constant fear of eviction—and this problem is only going to get worse with our construction industry being plunged into crisis. According to reports in The Australian there have been over 60 building company insolvencies in South Australia in the last financial year alone—over 60. We have seen more than four major construction companies collapse in the last three months alone.

Let's look at some of those examples. In July 2023, we saw Felmeri Homes leave more than 100 customers in the lurch when it collapsed after amassing over $30 million in unpaid debts. At least 20 of those homes were left unfinished; those are South Australians left high and dry waiting for their homes to be completed. In August this year, we saw 7 Star Construction also collapse, leaving 27 homes unfinished, and Quattro Homes collapsed this month, with over 200 homes left unfinished and the loss of 25 jobs. Just last week, we saw 100 staff lose their jobs at the Wake Concepts business after they also went into liquidation.

The link between the housing and construction crises and the need for a public builder is clear. By investing in public sustainable housing projects tailored to the needs of our state, a public builder could directly address the shortage of affordable housing. It is the responsibility of government to step in when market failure occurs, and that is what we need to see here in South Australia. At its peak, the South Australian Housing Trust was building almost half of all residential dwellings in South Australia. It is time for the South Australian government to once again play a much more active role.

A public builder would stabilise SA's building industry and provide well-paid jobs and the opportunity to strengthen building standards. More public and affordable homes would mean fewer people being pushed into homelessness and fewer people needing to compete in the private rental market, also making renting more affordable.

As well as constructing new public and affordable homes, a public builder could step in and complete houses that are partially constructed in instances where a builder has gone bust. In those circumstances the state could acquire equity in that individual's home, and it could be paid back over time. There are examples of that in other jurisdictions around the world.

Currently, the housing system relies on contracts with private developers to address the housing demand, including some affordable and social housing within private projects. A publicly owned builder could intervene when companies such as Felmeri or Qattro collapse. By completing the construction of half-finished homes, the government could be then repaid over time.

In the United Kingdom, a program such as this was funded back in 2009. It was known as the Kickstart Homes program. The government then allocated £1 billion to kickstart housing projects that had been stalled during the recession—that was the GFC. The goal was to ensure that jobs were not lost, while unfinished homes could be completed. Developers were given five years to pay back loans, and they were used to complete construction. The program in the UK ensured that a total of 22,050 homes were completed over two rounds between 2009 and 2010.

There are other examples around the world of publicly owned construction companies. Germany has two publicly owned building companies, and Turkey is the same. In South Australia, Renewal SA is the state government's property development agency, but they do not actually do the building work themselves. They rely on private industry agreements to carry out their developments. Again, there is a risk involving these private partners if one of them falls into financial difficulty.

There are examples of that happening. For instance, back in October 2022, Oneconstruct, I understand, went into liquidation while working on a number of homes for the SA Housing Authority, along with school upgrades. Having a public builder would mitigate the risk of private agreements not being fulfilled.

There are other benefits to a public builder as well, such as ensuring construction jobs are considered public sector jobs, with the protections and conditions that come along with that. Of course, let's not forget that there is a backlog of more than $300 million in terms of maintenance works that need to be completed on our public homes. A public builder could step in and ensure that those things are done as a matter of priority. Such a builder would also have significant purchasing power that would be able to reduce costs for building new properties.

This motion calls on the government to investigate this idea from the Greens. I must say the government has a responsibility to step in and help those South Australians who have been left high and dry as a result of this construction crisis. It is not enough to simply say, as the government has said so far, 'Oh well, people need to read the fine print.' It is not enough to simply say, 'Oh well, it's a market matter, and the customer needs to read the fine print.' That is not acceptable. The government needs to show some leadership here.

Let's consider where we are. We have at least four major South Australian construction companies that have gone into liquidation over the last six months. We have hundreds of South Australians who have lost their jobs. We have more than 250 new residential buildings that are incomplete—South Australians left high and dry—and we have unpaid debts of more than $50 million. If this is not an example of market failure, I do not know what is. The Malinauskas government needs to show some leadership here and investigate this idea from the Greens.

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