2 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:59): I want to thank all honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Ben Hood. I thank members for their generous comments as well. I do always feel a sense of dread when I see the Hon. Tung Ngo rise to his feet on one of my motions because I know that he is being deployed to try to defeat it. You know when you see the Hon. Mr Tung Ngo on his feet that the Labor Party have sent him out to deliver—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Do not attack the Hon. Mr Ngo. Come on, the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am defending the Hon. Tung Ngo, Mr President, because he is always being deployed to deliver the bad news, so I feel sorry for him in that regard. But today it does appear that there is broad support in this chamber for the proposal. I recognise the fact that the opposition are not opposing this motion. If this motion passes today, as it appears that it will, I think that sends a clear message to the Malinauskas government as they craft their next budget that this chamber wants action on public transport fares,

We are seeing momentum building now for 50¢ fares. We saw a resolution pass the Adelaide City Council last month calling on the government to take this seriously. We are now going to see a resolution pass this chamber today also calling on the government to take this seriously. It should be noted that in their last budget the Malinauskas government actually increased Metrocard single fares by 15¢ to $4.40, which means that South Australian commuters pay some of the highest public transport fares in the country. That is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and the middle of a climate crisis. Reducing fares to 50¢ would provide real relief to South Australian families. Indeed, the Greens have calculated that 50¢ fares would save the average SA family of four that uses public transport five days a week up to $290 a month and $1,740 over a six-month period.

It is my view that public transport should be free, but at least a six-month 50¢ trial would provide families with some relief. I am calling on the Malinauskas government to follow the lead of Queensland and to roll that out here. In summing up, I recognise the point that the Hon. Ben Hood has made—and it is a fair point—about the need also to increase accessibility of our public transport network. Absolutely, that includes underground rail, that absolutely includes rail to Mount Barker and the Adelaide Hills, and it absolutely includes expanding public transport in the regions as well.

Motion carried.

20 March 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:09): I rise to speak on the Passenger Transport (Point to Point Transport Services) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Greens and to indicate, as other speakers have alluded to, that I will be moving some amendments to the bill. The passenger transport sector in South Australia has undergone rapid changes in recent years due to the growing popularity of rideshare services, and it is important that our laws keep pace with these changes. I note that last year the government released a review of the act, which made numerous recommendations and which were informed by feedback from industry, customers and key stakeholders to support the industry and make services safer and more reliable.

I understand this bill addresses many of the challenges facing the passenger transport sector. These include safety concerns and cracking down on fraudulent practices and inconsistencies in industry regulations. It adds stronger compliance provisions, including the automatic suspension and cancellation of accreditation for serious breaches, in addition to consumer protection measures such as a ban on surge pricing and declared emergencies to prevent price gouging.

An important aspect of the bill is the licensed buyback scheme—and other members have touched on that. This scheme will be made available for metropolitan taxi licence holders who resided in South Australia before rideshare's introduction. Taxi licences, once seen as a valuable investment, have plummeted in value, causing financial distress to many licence holders. This scheme will enable these licence holders to receive the financial relief they need.

I know that it is often a contentious debate as to when the parliament or the government step in when a business is no longer viable because of changes in technology or market forces. I remember that when I was a kid I used to go down to the local video store and hire a video. Then, when videos got replaced by DVDs, I would go and hire a DVD.

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: That is before my time, the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I would go and hire a DVD, but again that has all been superseded by streaming services and those businesses are no longer viable. I am not telling that story to trivialise what taxidrivers or that industry is going through, but I make the point that we have seen a huge disruption in our economy and our society over the last few years as a result of the gig economy, as a result of the wide ranges of options that are now available to consumers.

In the case of the taxi industry, I do think it is appropriate that they get support, and I recognise, as other members have done, that many of the people who purchased taxis years ago did so on the basis that it was a plan for their retirement. They have now got to that stage of life when they are seeking to divest that asset, yet it is no longer worth what it once was. Given that the taxi industry has always been a regulated industry by government, people would have invested in that industry with an expectation that it would have provided long-term certainty, so on that basis it does make sense for there to be a level of government support and intervention.

The bill will enable the state government to increase the point to point transport levy, which the Minister for Transport has indicated will rise from the $1 it sits at currently to $2 to fund the taxi licence buyback scheme and to regulate the passenger transport industry and support people with disability to access transport services. The Greens will be moving amendments to the bill to ensure that all of the funds raised from the levy are hypothecated towards these purposes, as well as the provision of active and public transport in this state. Many members have expressed concern around the potential for the existing levy to go into general government coffers, disappear into government revenue, without appropriate oversight around how that money is being spent.

It is my understanding that my amendment will be supported across the parliament today. It makes very clear what precisely this levy can be spent on, and of course it is my expectation that this expenditure will be appropriately accounted for within the budget papers so that there is a level of transparency around how this money is spent. Just to be clear on the specifics of my amendment, to save some time in the committee stage, I have filed two amendments: I will be moving amendment No. 1 [Simms-2], but not amendment No. 1 [Simms-1].

The amendment makes it clear that amounts collected as a point to point transport service transaction levy—amounts under schedule 2, that is—may only be applied for any one or more of the following purposes: the provision of public transport services in the state; the administration and regulation of the passenger transport industry in the state; measures to improve disability access to passenger transport services; the facilitation of active transport in the state; and implementation of a prescribed scheme under section 52AB. Section 52AB refers to the buyback scheme, so that is what we are talking about there. The amendment also defines 'active transport'; that is, walking, bike riding, scooter riding or other self-propelled means of transportation.

It is certainly my hope that this will give the minister, once the buyback scheme has been discharged, the opportunity to invest additional moneys into improving disability access, which is an area that has long been neglected. I recognise that many South Australians are in a very difficult position when it comes to access to transport in our state. There is a real shortage of access cabs, there is a real shortage of Ubers that are appropriately accessible and there is a real lack of accessibility when it comes to public transport infrastructure as well, so it is my hope—and indeed this amendment makes this explicit—that this money will go towards improving that accessibility for those transport users.

It also talks about the administration and regulation of the passenger transport industry. I took over from the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos last year on the inquiry into the gig economy. A number of recommendations were made there that relate specifically to rideshare, and I hope that as part of the administration and regulation of the passenger transport industry the government turns its mind to that—but also, might I say, this potentially guarantees a revenue stream for public and active transport projects into the long term as well. We know that we desperately need rail to Mount Barker. We need an integrated cycling network for our state. This is potentially a source of revenue for those things as well.

I know that the Hon. Ben Hood will be moving a sunset clause provision. I indicate that the Greens will not be supporting that. The reason for that is that these projects—public and active transport projects in particular—are long-term investments and if we implement a sunset clause it is going to make it very difficult for governments to be able to plan with certainty. Our view is that once we lock in what this money can be spent on, let's provide certainty as well, so that any future transport minister can plan and have a sense of what money might be coming in.

It is our view that if the government is going to make South Australians pay more every time they hail a cab or catch an Uber, we must ensure that the money that is being raised is being put towards improving passenger transport across South Australia rather than simply going into the government's coffers. It is certainly my hope that my amendment will be supported by all members in this place.

I do want to acknowledge that I and my office have also been engaging closely with Minister Tom Koutsantonis on this, and I have appreciated the opportunity to have conversations with him around this and the collegial way in which he and his office have approached this. Might I say, I actually think there has been goodwill across the whole parliament in terms of trying to address this issue. Everybody has recognised—as both the Hon. Ben Hood and the Hon. Connie Bonaros have noted—that this is a challenging area of policy. I think we are all trying to do the right thing by the stakeholder groups involved and also by the broader South Australian community, and I think that through the amendments I am advancing today we have struck the right balance.

19 March 2025

Motions

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:28): I move:

That this council—

1. 1. Notes the Queensland government's announcement that it will make 50¢ fares permanent on all public transport networks in Queensland following a successful six-month trial;
      
      
   2. Acknowledges that the implementation of 50¢ public transport fares in Queensland has resulted in a significant increase in public transport patronage and positive outcomes for cost of living, traffic congestion, business, and the environment;
      
      
   3. Notes that Adelaide City Council resolved at its meeting on 11 March 2025 to approach the state government to explore the possibility of implementation of a similar scheme in Adelaide; and
      
      
   4. Calls on the Malinauskas government to undertake a six-month trial of 50¢ public transport fares as part of its upcoming budget.

The motion that I am moving today—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, we have been glowing in our endorsement of your guests in the gallery, but if you are going to have a conversation, please do it outside.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: That is a shame, Mr President; I think they might enjoy this one. The motion I am moving today notes the Queensland government's announcement that it will make 50¢ fares permanent on all public transport networks in Queensland following a successful six-month trial. It acknowledges that the implementation of 50¢ public transport fares in Queensland has resulted in a significant increase in public transport patronage and positive outcomes for cost of living, traffic congestion, business and the environment. It notes that the Adelaide City Council resolved at its recent meeting on 11 March to approach the state government to explore the possibility of implementation of a similar scheme in Adelaide, and it calls on the Malinauskas government to undertake a six-month trial of 50¢ public transport fares as part of its upcoming budget.

To be very clear, the Greens support free and frequent public transport—that has been our policy for some time—but we do recognise that a reduction to 50¢ would be a significant improvement, particularly when one considers the fact that the Malinauskas government have actually increased public transport fares in their last budget. While in other states public transport fees have been going backwards, in SA they have actually been going up, so a 50¢ fare in line with what is happening in Queensland would be a really positive step.

In terms of the history of this, back in August last year, the previous Labor government in Queensland announced a six-month trial of 50¢ fares on public transport, including buses, trains, ferries and trams. The trial proved so successful in its initial stages that Labor promised to keep public transport fares at a flat 50¢ rate after the October election, and this is a commitment that was matched by the Liberal Party. The LNP formed government and they have continued with that commitment, making it clear that 50¢ fares will remain in Queensland.

It is worthwhile, I think, looking at some of the data in terms of what the evidence said. At the conclusion of the six-month trial, this is what the data tells us: the Department of Transport and Main Roads has revealed an 18.3 per cent jump in the number of people taking public transport compared to 2023. Train travel has gone up 18.6 per cent, bus travel went up 15.8 per cent, light rail usage rose by 27.5 per cent, and ferries saw the most dramatic increase in their patronage, with figures up by 42.8 per cent.

Some of the steepest increases were outside metropolitan Brisbane. In south-east Queensland, the number of people catching public transport increased by 49 per cent in Gympie, 37 per cent on the Sunshine Coast, 35 per cent at Noosa and 21 per cent on the Gold Coast. Patronage was also up 20 per cent on average across all regional bus networks, with the biggest increases being 49 per cent in Townsville and 40 per cent in Mackay.

The ABC has reported that a commuter taking the train from the Gold Coast to Brisbane used to pay around $29 a day. If they have been doing that five times a week for the past six months, except on public holidays, 50¢ fares would have saved that commuter $3,640. Those travelling into the city from Brisbane's suburbs for work have already saved $1,000. In total, the government says customers have saved around $181 million during the duration of the 50¢ fares. Leanne Wood from Anglicare says there is immense value in giving those who previously could not afford it the freedom to travel. She has said:

We're hearing stories about families being able to go out on weekends, taking trips to the Gold Coast, for example, from Brisbane. They couldn't afford to do that before.

She also said:

People are talking more about getting together with family and friends. We're starting to see people talking about feeling less lonely because they're out and about.

When the Queensland government announced that they were making this permanent back in September, the Greens called for the Malinauskas government to implement 50¢ fares as a trial. We are really pleased to see the Adelaide City Council has got on board with this push as well, and I understand that the council has passed a resolution asking the Lord Mayor to write to the transport minister, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis.

We are calling on the government to make this a priority as part of the upcoming state budget. Why not roll out 50¢ fares in the lead-up to the state election so that we can get some evidence on the increased patronage? This is a really good way of reducing congestion on our streets. It is a really good way of easing some of the cost-of-living pressures that families are dealing with at the moment.

We have worked out that an average family of four that take public transport to and from work and school could save around $1,800 in a six-month period. That is a significant saving for families, particularly when one considers that the cost of rent is going up, the cost of putting food on the table is going up and the like. So we urge the government to take this seriously. I indicate to members I will be bringing this to a vote and I will do that in the next sitting period.

27 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (23:15): I want to thank the Hon. Ben Hood for his contribution and other members who have contributed to this discussion previously. I should recognise that it is a real breakthrough that we have seen tonight because the shadow minister for transport has clearly read and engaged with the report but the Minister for Transport still has not done so. Despite the fact that this report was handed down nearly two years ago, the minister has still not engaged with the recommendations.

The Hon. Ben Hood, the shadow minister, was not even in the parliament when this committee met, yet he has taken the time to read through the report, to look at the recommendations, to form a view and to provide a report to parliament. Meanwhile, the minister is missing in action. I do not intend to go through all of the recommendations again because I have talked to them many times before, but I will say that one of the glaring themes that runs through the report is the need to improve the frequency and accessibility of public transport, particularly in the regions.

The Labor Party talk a big game about representing regional South Australia, but I do not think you can be fair dinkum about representing regional South Australia if you do not seriously engage with the public transport question. These recommendations are not ideological. They were consensus recommendations that were supported by representatives from across the parliament. It was a committee that included crossbenchers and Labor and Liberal representatives. They were very sensible recommendations and central to them was the idea of looking at how we can expand the outreach of transport in the regions in particular. Surely, this is something that this Malinauskas government should engage with.

On the first anniversary of this report being handed out, I organised a cake with members of the committee to celebrate a year anniversary since the report was handed down, with no response from the government. As we head into February, it will reach two years without a response and I expect I will be celebrating it once again with members of the committee. We are heading into the Christmas-New Year period and my message to the transport minister is, when he is setting his new year resolutions, maybe one of his new year resolutions should be to actually read the report, to pick up the phone to the Chair of the committee and arrange a meeting to finally talk about the recommendations and to finally provide a response to the parliament and to the over 100 South Australians who took the time to engage with this report.

When people engage with these committees, they do not expect that the report just gets spat out and put in the middle of a drawer somewhere, they actually expect that the government is going to engage with the content. That has not happened with this minister and that is very disappointing.

I do have a bill before parliament that would force the government to provide responses to select committees in a timely manner, and the failure to engage with this committee demonstrates why that bill is needed and it is one I intend to revisit in the new year. I thank members for their support of the work of the committee. In particular, I thank the Hon. Ben Hood for taking the time to read the recommendations and to engage with the work of the committee.

13 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:44): I had not intended to speak on this bill because it had been my understanding that it was going to be referred to a parliamentary inquiry, so I was pleasantly surprised to learn that that may not be necessary. Of course, it would have been nice to have heard that from the minister and to have been advised where things were at. I know Christmas is coming, but Secret Santa is not always the best approach when it comes to matters in the parliament.

I received a number of representations from stakeholder groups in relation to this bill, and indicated that I would be happy to refer it on to a parliamentary committee so that we could address some of the issues they had raised, in particular the issues the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Ben Hood flagged around the potential impacts on people with autism, for instance, who might be using a motor vehicle that is unfamiliar to them when undertaking a test. That is of concern to me, but I am pleased to hear that the government is now setting up a consultative process to look at those issues, and it will be incumbent on the minister to make sure he takes on board that feedback and finds the right solution.

I recognise that a lot of regional people do not have a choice necessarily in terms of being able to leave their car at home or take public transport, because the areas they live in are not appropriately serviced by public transport. Many members in this place will know my strong views around the need for regional rail, but also the need for us to have a public transport network that is consistent and runs right throughout the state, not just in metropolitan areas.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo flagged the parliamentary inquiry into public and active transport, which I chaired. The report was handed down nearly two years ago. It has sat in a drawer, I suspect, somewhere in the minister's office gathering dust. I hope that, with just a year left before the next election, the minister will respond to the report or at least agree to meet with me to discuss the recommendations of the report, so we can look what we can do to improve public transport in our state, in particular in the regions because time and again we are reminded of how vitally important that access to public infrastructure is for people living in regional communities. With that, I conclude my remarks.

15 October 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:12): I also rise to speak in favour of the Statutes Amendment (Personal Mobility Devices) Bill 2024, and might I also congratulate the Hon. Frank Pangallo on his special birthday today. The Greens have been long supporters of e-scooters and e-skateboards as an important mode of transport in our state. We recognise in particular that we are in the middle of a climate emergency and one of the ways that we can reduce carbon emissions here in our state is reducing the number of cars on the road, and so we do see e-scooters as playing and important role in that regard.

We are pleased to see that the government has taken up the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public and Active Transport that private-owned e-scooters should be permitted by legislation. E-scooters are a clean, green transport alternative. They reduce congestion by getting cars off the road and they allow users flexibility to get to where they need to go in an efficient way. They are increasingly being relied upon in many cities around the world as a form of travel.

We have seen e-scooters for hire on the streets of Adelaide over many years. Indeed, when I was on Adelaide City Council, there was a proposal that came to the council for us to undertake a trial ahead of the 2018 Fringe Festival, and that trial ended up being extended over many years, so I do welcome the fact that we are going to see a consistent approach being taken.

One of the problems we have had in South Australia around e-scooters is an inconsistency within the law. Whilst we have had a number of local councils that have allowed people to hire e-scooter devices, individual use has been prohibited. Despite the fact that you can actually purchase an e-scooter from a store you can only use it on your own private property. This has created, I think, a lot of confusion for law-abiding South Australians who are seeking to do the right thing but make the assumption that if you can buy an e-scooter in South Australia then surely you should be able to use it on the streets of our state. So, finally, that has been cleaned up.

One thing that was really interesting for me, having the benefit of being on the public and active transport inquiry, was that we heard evidence that allowing individual ownership of e-scooters does actually promote safety outcomes, and that is because if you are hiring an e-scooter and you are participating in the kind of festival environment of a trial and it is not your own device then you might be more likely to engage in risky behaviour. But if you are actually using your own device, that you are more familiar with and you have purchased, you are more likely to take care of it and you are also more likely to know how it works and that reduces some of the risks associated with this.

It is important to note that the issues that honourable members have raised regarding pedestrian safety I think are very important and did need further consideration from the government. Indeed, one of the issues that we heard quite a bit of evidence around was this issue of insurance. I want to refer members to some of the recommendations from the public and active transport inquiry. I will read some of the recommendations out for the benefit of government members who I know have not read all of the inquiry recommendations.

An honourable member: Some of us have.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Some have, I wish the transport minister had because we might have addressed some of the issues that have come to us with this bill. Recommendation 8 is particularly important and relevant, I think. It states:

The Committee recommends that the matter of compulsory third party insurance for private and commercial e-scooters be referred to the Attorney-General for review and advice.

The Hon. F. Pangallo interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: An interesting question: the Hon. Mr Frank Pangallo asked whether this happened. I will be asking that question of the government in the committee stage. They have had two years to undertake that work so I am assuming that has happened. It states further:

The Committee recommends that the state government resolves:

(a) the classification ambiguity regarding commercial and private use of e-scooters, specifically whether they can be regarded as a motorised vehicle or as a bicycle; and

(b) outstanding matters regarding high insurance excess amounts, easily voided insurance policies, and the power of e-scooter providers in deciding the outcome of insurance claims.

One of the committee's findings was that:

There is potential for increased use of e-scooters in metropolitan Adelaide, but liability and accountability are highly complex matters that go beyond what the Committee can achieve…and Legislation and policy surrounding the use of small personal e-mobility vehicles (not just e-scooters) should be a matter of ongoing review by state government in collaboration with stakeholders.

I do not know what the outcome was of those recommendations. Indeed, I reached out to the minister, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, when this report was handed down in February of last year. I reached out again requesting the opportunity to meet with him so that I could draw his attention to some of these recommendations but, sadly, the opportunity never arose and so I am not sure whether or not these issues have actually been addressed by the government.

Some of the other issues that came to light worth highlighting for the benefit of this debate are:

The Committee recommends that state government, in collaboration with local government and other stakeholders:

(a) legislates to enable the use of privately owned e-scooters and other personal mobility devices in public spaces, in line with other jurisdictions

Tick; that is good. It goes on:

(b) considers adopting definitions of e-scooters and e-personal mobility devices consistent with National Model Law;

(c) considers ways that e-scooters and e-personal mobility devices can be safely moved into bike lanes on roads without compromising the safety of cyclists or device users;

(d) reviews speed limits of e-scooters and other e-personal mobility devices on footpaths to better protect the safety of pedestrians; and

(e) gathers data on the use of private and commercial e-scooters and other e-personal mobility devices, including compliance and injuries to pedestrians and riders.

I welcome the fact that the government has moved on some of these matters, but there are some issues here that they do not appear to have addressed and that I intend to raise during the committee stage. I do make clear that I am supportive of the bill. I welcome this reform in terms of cleaning up some of the ambiguity we have in South Australia, but I am concerned that the issues around liability have not been addressed. I wonder whether or not the government has undertaken the level of consultation that was envisaged by the parliamentary inquiry when we made those recommendations.

Given that, and in the absence of any approach being made by the government to the contrary, I will support the amendments from the Hon. Ben Hood because I think we do need to have some sort of model in place to address some of the insurance implications. I look forward to some of the discussion that unfolds during the committee stage, and I will have a few questions to ask of the government around how some of the issues have been addressed.

28 August 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:33): The matter I rise to speak on this afternoon is one that will be of interest to all residents of Greater Adelaide who care about reducing carbon emissions and congestion on our roads—that is, of course, public transport policy. The Greens are strong supporters of free public transport for everyone, and I will continue to advocate for that here in this place, but there is a new approach in Germany that is proving popular that I want to draw to members' attention.

Some German states have implemented a policy whereby people can choose to surrender their driving licences in exchange for unlimited access to public transport for an entire year. The program has been very successful so far, with one state seeing about a thousand people relinquishing their driving licences. The free year on public transport allows German residents to travel on all modes of public transport, including train and bus.

Let us consider the benefits of such a scheme for Adelaide. First and foremost, it would improve safety. Fewer vehicles on our roads would significantly reduce the risks of accidents for all road users. By offering an alternative to driving, we can reduce congestion, which we know of course is a major contributor to collisions. I stress that this is not about forcing anybody to give up their licence. It's an optional scheme, but the evidence from Germany demonstrates that people elect to do it when they are given that choice.

There is also a significant economic angle for us to consider here. When you look at the eyewatering amount that the state government is spending on the north-south corridor—I think it is about $15 billion of state and federal government money—it is easy to see what could be achieved if we invested more money into public transport. One tram expert has advised me that one tram line could service the same number of people as the north-south corridor. Asking people to swap their licence for free public transport for a year would enable the state to focus more on public transport infrastructure, rather than simply overspend on excessive road infrastructure.

The program would also be a catalyst for increased usage of public transport, which would then create an incentive and the means to invest in better services, more frequent schedules and new routes. This improvement in public transport would benefit all residents, not just those who participate in the scheme, making our cities more liveable and accessible for everybody. A program like this also creates greater equality. The cost of maintaining and running a car can be a significant barrier for people on low incomes. Offering free public transport essentially puts money back into the pockets of all South Australians.

Let's not underestimate the benefits that could flow from such a scheme. Public transport is not just about getting from A to B, it is about communities. Encouraging more people to use public transport creates opportunities for social interaction and it reduces isolation. This initiative would also align perfectly with our state's environmental goals. By encouraging a shift from private vehicles to public transport, we could significantly reduce our carbon footprint. Fewer cars on the road means lower emissions, less congestion, improved air quality and it is a tangible step towards our state's climate change targets.

This would, of course, require some investment and focus from government and we believe in the Greens that any such scheme should be accompanied by an investment in expanding the public transport network because it has been neglected for a long period of time. This is an initiative that could be rolled out here in South Australia and I suggest is an initiative that the state government could partner with the City of Adelaide to implement.

I think it is something that would, to the point raised by the Hon. Russell Wortley, further cement Adelaide's status as a liveable city. One of the areas where we really lag behind is public transport infrastructure. I had the opportunity to spend the weekend in Sydney. Looking at that state, you do really see that they have a much better public transport network, a far superior network to Adelaide's, and really the state Labor government that has been in power for 30 of the last 50 years here in this state really needs to do something about public transport infrastructure. This is just one idea that I think the government should look at.

16 May 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:04): 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 rail.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The federal budget this week included an announcement of $16 billion for road and rail infrastructure across the country. Western Australia received $1.7 billion for their rail projects and Queensland received $1.7 billion for a rail line to the Sunshine Coast, but South Australia received funding for road interchanges and the South Eastern Freeway, but nothing for rail.

Recommendation 3 from the Select Committee on Public and Active Transport, which I chaired, is that state government 'considers reactivation of regional rail for freight (particularly grain) and passenger services'. Recommendation 4 is that the state government 'incentivises passenger rail between Adelaide and Melbourne stopping at regional towns in South Australia'.

My question to the Minister for Regional Development therefore is: is the minister concerned about the lack of funding for regional rail in the federal budget, and what action has the minister taken to advocate for regional rail for South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:05): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think it's fair to say that there is a lot of connection, I guess, or desire to be able to utilise rail in ways that will suit both passengers and freight. In terms of that discussion, there are multiple factors that are involved, including, for example, on Eyre Peninsula. This was a discussion that came up at country cabinet in regard to freight, not in regard to passenger rail, last week.

There were discussions around the impacts on ports if regional rail was reinstated for freight, and whether a monopoly which could ensue would necessarily be in the interests of our farmers and in the interests of the region more broadly. It's certainly fair to say that all aspects of rail have multiple factors to be taken into account. In terms of what the minister in the other place may have advocated for to the federal government, that is something I can certainly ask him and bring back a response.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:07): Supplementary: has the minister herself raised this matter with the Minister for Transport or with her federal counterparts, given the importance of regional rail for development in the regions?

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 supplementary question. Certainly, I have frequent conversations on many matters to do with regional areas, including transport and rail transport, with my colleague in the other place. It is obviously within his portfolio area in a direct sense.

27 August 2024

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16 May 2024).

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries): The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport advises that any request for project funding to the Australian government must be supported by evidence of the project benefits.

The state frequently works with the rail industry through rail infrastructure managers such as the Australian Rail Track Corporation, Aurizon and Bowmans Rail.

Aurizon and Viterra have submitted a business case to the Australian government for the reactivation of the rail-based export grain supply chain on Eyre Peninsula.

On 25 October 2023, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis MP, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport provided a letter of support for the project to the Hon. Catherine King MP, federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government following country cabinet and discussion with local councils. The Department for Infrastructure and Transport (the department) will now deliver a business case for the Eyre Peninsula export grain supply chain for $200 000 which will be 25 per cent funded by local government, to inform advice to the Australian government on investment priorities.

As part of its election commitments, the South Australian government committed a total of $1.4 million to Great Southern Rail from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2026, to support the operation of the Overland passenger train between Adelaide and Melbourne. A condition of the funding is that services stop at Bordertown and Murray Bridge.

The department is investigating the feasibility of providing a rail passenger service to Mount Barker using the existing rail corridor and will be considering rail options in a business case for mass transit between the CBD and Mount Barker.

In addition, the 2024-2025 state budget included $10 million in partnership with the Australian government to plan for outer metro and regional passenger rail service extensions.

This will inform potential future rail bids as part of the future budget process.

21 February 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:00): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the minister representing the Minister for Transport on the topic of Adelaide's tram network.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On Monday morning, in response to a renewed push from the Greens to extend the trams to the eastern suburbs, Minister Tom Koutsantonis told the ABC, 'I just don't think a tram up the eastern suburbs would do anything to decrease congestion, and it will probably make the problem worse.' He went on to say, 'We won't be building a tram to Norwood.'

I refer to Labor's election policy from the 2022 state election, where under the title 'Taking back our trains, trams and stopping privatisation', they state:

Each train or tram in South Australia could take up to 540 cars off the roads. They are also some of the most energy efficient modes of transport, with greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometre up to five times less than that of cars.

My questions to the minister therefore are:

1. Does the government agree that getting cars off the road will reduce congestion?

2. Why has the Labor government abandoned its commitment to trams?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:01): I thank the honourable member for his question. I think the answer is that, in terms of congestion, it will of course depend on all the other factors, including the particular road in question, and I do not accept the premise of the second half of the member's question.

21 February 2024 

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:19): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that:

(a) in 2016, the Weatherill state government undertook a multi-criteria analysis of a proposed tram network for Adelaide, AdeLINK, which proposed five tram routes radiating out from the city; and

(b) AdeLINK and the tram to the eastern suburbs were abandoned after the change of government at the 2018 state election.

2. Acknowledges that:

(a) the tram extensions to the Botanic Gardens and the Adelaide Entertainment Centre have been successful public transport projects for Adelaide;

(b) over 7.4 million journeys were taken on Adelaide trams in the 2022-2023 financial year;

(c) until the 1950s, Adelaide was serviced by a comprehensive network of trams connecting outer metropolitan areas with the centre of the city;

(d) there is a demand for additional public transport across the metropolitan area; and

(e) trams would reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Calls on the Malinauskas government to conduct a feasibility study to explore options to extend the tram network including to the eastern suburbs.

This motion calls on the Malinauskas government to conduct a feasibility study to explore options to extend the tram network, including to the eastern suburbs.

In considering this motion it is worth reconsidering the history of the tram extension project in our state. Back in 2016 the then Weatherill government undertook a multi-criteria analysis of a proposed tram network for Adelaide. That was AdeLINK, which had a series of tram routes that would radiate out from the city. The Greens were certainly supportive of seeing trams back on the agenda.

As we know, the Labor government was not re-elected, and the incoming Liberal government abandoned the AdeLINK project. However, from the perspective of the Greens we have continued to be concerned about the lack of investment in public transport, in particular the potential for trams. It is for that reason that I took to the airwaves earlier this week to spruik the benefits of a tram extension and, in particular, talk about the potential to extend the tram from the city to Norwood.

I understand that in Labor's original proposal they were talking about extending the tramline up to The Parade. We in the Greens said, 'Let's look at all the options, let's look at potentially extending the tramline from the Botanic Gardens stop, up Payneham Road and up to the Portrush Road intersection. We could allow cars to run on the tramlines, as we have seen in Melbourne, which would reduce congestion.'

It has long been the policy of the Labor Party that they are supportive of trams; indeed, in Labor's election policy document from 2022 they make a statement about the benefits that flow from trams. The policy document states that, 'Each train or tram in South Australia could take up to 540 cars off the road.' The policy document reads that they are some of the most energy-efficient modes of transport, 'with greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometre up to five times less than that of cars.'

With that in mind, when I suggested that the Greens would be moving for a feasibility study in the parliament this week I assumed I would get enthusiastic support from the relevant minister, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis. Well, I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I heard the minister's response, where he flatly rejected the idea and said that he was ruling it out and that there would be no tram up to Norwood. He went further to say, 'I don't think a tram would do anything to decrease congestion, it will make the problem worse.' That is a real contradiction with the policy position the Labor Party has had for some time.

Of course, he was backed up by his ideological soulmate in the party, the Hon. Vincent Tarzia, who came on the airways as well to support the Labor Party's policy position, their 'do nothing' position, on trams. We have heard about Thomas the Tank Engine; well, we have Thomas the car engine in Minister Tom Koutsantonis in South Australia, because he does not want to look at trams. He is committed to cars; indeed, this is a government that is pumping billions and billions of dollars into the north-south road corridor project but will not even consider a feasibility study to look at how we can get trams back on the agenda.

Trams cost approximately $120 million per kilometre, whereas a six-lane highway, which would carry the same number of people, costs $150 million per kilometre. The route that the Greens have proposed in terms of extending the tram network down to Norwood would cost 3 per cent of the total budget of the north-south corridor project—just 3 per cent—so it is a question of priorities.

Most of the issues that are raised with trams are solvable. People say there is a loss of car parking or that there could be a loss of grass and the like; all of these things can be solved. After all, we are not talking about sending a man to the moon, we are talking about laying some tram tracks and I think we can do that. What we do know is that when you build tramlines people use them—they are popular. Last financial year, 7.4 million trips were taken on Adelaide trams.

The extension to the Botanic Gardens and the Adelaide Entertainment Centre has been a very successful public transport project for Adelaide. Let us put trams back on track for our state. It is really disappointing to see this U-turn from the Labor government. I hope that the minister, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, was misspeaking. Perhaps he got it wrong and has taken the wrong turn on behalf of this Labor government. The Greens are here to help, as always. If he has made a mistake he can of course support our motion and we can work together to explore this.

It is some time since an analysis was done of the potential to expand the tram network in South Australia. We are recognising that the costs may have increased due to inflation and the like, and that is why I have proposed to do this study. Let us look at what options are available and at how much it would cost to get this happening again.

To say that in this era of climate crisis, to say that in this era of cost-of-living crisis, that trams are not going to play a role in terms of the public transport solution for South Australia is a real shame. I hope the minister is less like Thomas the car engine and a bit more like Thomas the Tank Engine in terms of turning his mind to the potential for trains, trams and public transport to really deal with the climate crisis and to reduce the pressure that South Australians face at the bowser.

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