27 October 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak on the escalating damage that inappropriate off-road vehicle usage is doing to our coastal environment and our ecosystems in South Australia. Our beaches are the busiest they have ever been, but our presence is starting to have an environmental impact on the landscape that should not be ignored. Off-road four-wheel driving is a popular recreational activity and one that has only grown more popular as these vehicles have become more powerful and more widely accessible.

Unmanaged off-road vehicle uses cause significant long-term damage to our environment. In coastal dune environments, four-wheel driving can contribute to physical changes in the structure of the beaches, the destruction of dune vegetation and to the introduction and spread of pest species and diseases into the coastal environment, leading to a significant loss of biodiversity. A healthy dune system is also an important buffer, acting to protect the mainland from erosion and storm events.

This loss of habitat and native vegetation has profound impacts on our animal life. Macroinvertebrates, macrofauna and shorebirds are particularly affected by this disruption. South Australia has four species of resident shorebirds and all except for one species are listed as vulnerable or rare. The most critically endangered of these is the hooded plover. The hooded plover preferences high-energy beaches and breeds exclusively on ocean beaches in South Australia. They, among other species, are utterly dependent on these beaches and do not have the option of going elsewhere. The birds lay their eggs in the summer, coinciding with the peak period of beach use.

In addition to loss of habitat and food supply, vehicles can impact coastal bird communities directly by crushing their nests and their chicks. Indeed, studies along the Coorong ocean beaches showed 81 per cent of hooded plover nests had been crushed by vehicles—81 per cent. The disturbance caused by vehicles can also lead to distress for the nests to the point of abandonment by the birds. Recent surveys in the Fleurieu Peninsula only counted 29 breeding pairs, and beach nesting bird population numbers are subject to rapid decline. If we do not provide a helping hand, it will not be long before these species face extinction. We cannot allow that to happen.

We must strike a better balance between our enjoyment of the beach and the health of our coastal ecosystems. All signs would indicate that we are getting that balance wrong. The right to access beach areas must depend on keeping the environmental impacts of vehicles within acceptable limits. If we do not do this, we then risk permanent degradation of our unique habitat and the destruction of our animal life.

Other states have been able to recognise that unrestricted vehicle use on beaches is a significant threat. Let's look at what is occurring interstate. New South Wales and Queensland maintain permit systems whereby four-wheel drives require permits to access and drive on the beaches, thereby introducing greater accountability and protections. In Victoria, off-road and recreational vehicles are prohibited from driving on public beaches entirely. Sadly, that is not the case in South Australia.

The brunt of the work done to combat this coastal damage has fallen upon the shoulders of community groups who have spent their time rehabilitating damaged beach areas, and groups such as Birds SA are working very hard to protect our resident shorebirds in peak seasons. The negative effect of unmanaged beach vehicle use is mounting, and it is well past time for the government to show some leadership here. It needs to work to bring us up to speed with other jurisdictions in Australia.

Recently, I had the opportunity to host a screening of the film On the Right Track, looking at the fate of the plover and the impact of unregulated practices on our beaches on our native birdlife. We need to do something about this, particularly as we head into our summer months. We cannot afford to put our beautiful native birds at risk during this summer season. Really, it is time for the government to step up and to show some leadership.

14 October 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Treasurer on the topic of the feasibility study into the major cycling trail connecting Adelaide to Melbourne.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Ahead of the 2018 state election, the Marshall government, while in opposition, promised to build the 'Great Southern Bike Trail', describing the proposal as a premier tourist attraction that would inject millions of dollars into our economy. Today, reports in InDaily suggest that this plan has been scrapped, despite the government undertaking a feasibility study into the proposal in 2019. My question to the Treasurer is: will the government make the feasibility study into the proposal, and the reasoning behind scrapping it, public and will the government commit to redirecting the funds promised to the development of a cycling network throughout the regions?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): It is appropriate that that question is raised today, because we farewelled in a speech the Hon. David Ridgway, and this was a real passion of the Hon. David Ridgway. Not that I ever saw him on a bike, but it was a real passion for him. I don't know whether that would be an attractive sight, but this was a real passion for him as the shadow minister.

The PRESIDENT: I remind the Treasurer about injurious reflections, but once again he is a former member.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly, I can be as injurious as I wish now, within the standing orders. As I said, he certainly pursued this in opposition. He had discussions on it, I recall, with the Victorian either shadow or tourism minister at the time and also the federal minister at the time. That portfolio has obviously now been passed on to the Premier, who is now the Minister for Tourism. It was as the tourism shadow and then the tourism minister that he was pursuing the issue, not as the recreation and sport minister, which he was not. I am happy to take that particular part of the question on notice to see whether there is a business case, or whatever it was the Hon. Mr Simms referred to, and what might be made available.

I can certainly recall, however, because I put the costings together, that the wording of the commitments in opposition was very careful, and there were certainly no specific elements of funding put aside in our publicly released costings documents in relation to anything other than exploration of the particular issue. We are always very careful in terms of what we put on the public record, and I can assure the Hon. Mr Simms there were no specific large lumps of money committed by the then Liberal opposition in relation to this issue. It was an issue we were prepared to continue to explore. My recollection was—and again I will take advice—that the minister, when he was the Minister for Tourism—

An honourable member interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —did pursue some elements of the project or the proposal, clearly the elements that were closer to Adelaide, I think, and there was some early discussion about the near-Adelaide part of the trails. But, again, I will seek some clarification and advice from the Premier or the Minister for Tourism, who has now inherited that particular portfolio area, and see what information, if any, I can bring back to the chamber.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Supplementary: noting the Treasurer's response, will he commit to redirecting needed funds to cycling infrastructure in the regions? That was the other part of the question that wasn't answered.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): Well, I'm happy to answer that question, because I don't believe there were any funds that were committed to this particular project. That's the point that I made: in opposition we made no commitment. Perhaps I should have extended that by saying in our first budget we made no specific commitment of funds. To my knowledge, other than funding for the exploration of the proposal—there might have been business case funding—in terms of actual dollars for projects, there was no, 'Here's $50 million or $100 million' towards this particular project.

As I said, the minister might have been able to get funds either from tourism or rec and sport or somewhere else to start elements of what might have been his proposal, but there was no separate bucket of money promised in opposition or indeed implemented in government for this particular project that can be redirected to the worthy cause that the member is espousing.

8th September 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak on the government's #GoToTown campaign, which was announced last week. In the Premier's own words:

South Australians are being invited to get behind the many businesses which help make Adelaide the most liveable city in Australia. Whether it’s date night, mate’s night, a lazy morning or a family weekend, your city needs you to #GoToTown.

As part of this initiative there is a series of events and activities that are being organised as part of a FOMO program, and the City of Adelaide is also offering free car parking at selected UParks and discounted parking at Wilson Parking for FOMO Fridays.

Of course, we in the Greens welcome any initiatives that are going to encourage more people to come into the city and that will support local businesses, particularly during this economic crisis, but what is really, profoundly disappointing is the focus once again from the City of Adelaide—the city council—and the state government on car travel as the only form of travel that is being incentivised and encouraged. Why on earth has the state government not considered putting on free public transport to bring more people into the city, to encourage more people to attend these events?

It makes sense for the government to say, 'Let's put the resources in to provide free bus services,' for instance, 'so that people are more likely to stay in town, have a few drinks at local restaurants and pubs and can get home safely.' Instead, we have seen a continuation of the car-centric vision that has really defined this government. We know, of course, that they have failed to roll out any more bikeways or indeed invest in cycling infrastructure at all.

It is not just me or the Greens that are making these comments. I think it is instructive to hear from the experts here. I quote from an article in CityMag and a lecturer from Flinders University in urban geography and urban and regional planning, Gerti Szili, who told CityMag that although the CBD suffered immensely in the wake of COVID-19 and recent restrictions:

'I’m not really convinced that offering free parking is the way to [bring people back].'

They’ve tried this in other cities in Australia and certainly overseas, and I don’t think it’s actually proven to bring revenue that’s been lost back to the city.'

She also says the move flouts the City of Adelaide's own ambitious plan to become one of the world's first carbon neutral cities.

'We know that emissions from transport are one of the biggest contributors to GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions,' Szili says.

'So to meet the targets that the council had set for themselves, I don’t think it’s a particularly smart idea to encourage people to drive to the city and then take up that free parking offer.'

It is not just Dr Szili who says this. The urban and regional planning senior lecturer at the University of Adelaide, Andrew Allan, also expressed cynicism about the plan. He says he is surprised that the council thinks that it will work:

'I don’t know if it’s going to make a huge difference. Doubling of patronage is not likely,' he says.

I can only agree with those sentiments. This initiative is costing the council around $300,000 in lost revenue, according to those media reports. Imagine what the city council could have done, or the state government for that matter, if they had put that money into pop-up bikeways during the pandemic in terms of trying to encourage more visitation to the city. You have Berlin, you have Paris, you have Sydney and Melbourne—so many cities around the world and in our own nation that have invested in pop-up cycling infrastructure as a way of encouraging healthy communities and as a way of encouraging clean and green transport.

What has the City of Adelaide done? It has knocked back money from the state government to roll out a separated bikeway, the east-west bikeway. Why has it done so? I can only assume that has been at the behest of the factional leader Alex Hyde, who works for Nicolle Flint and is a senior figure in the Liberal Party's right-wing faction. I can only assume that the climate scepticism of Nicolle Flint and the hard right of the Liberal Party has poisoned the well in Town Hall and also led them down the folly of rejecting sensible policy.

This Go to Town campaign is a missed opportunity. I do not mean to go to town on the idea, but it is a missed opportunity and more money could have been put into alternatives.

25 August 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this council—

1. Notes the announcement from the NSW government that they will waive stamp duty and provide rebates on electric vehicles;
2. Notes that Australian state governments were warned a road user tax on clean cars introduced without other support for the technology could discourage their uptake and impede greenhouse gas cuts;
3. Further notes this advice was received before South Australia and Victoria announced plans to introduce a charge on driving electric vehicles;
4. Recognises that the flawed Victorian approach to implementing a tax on electric vehicles has been described by 25 organisations, including global auto manufacturers Volkswagen and Hyundai and policy    experts the Electric Vehicle Council and The Australia Institute, as 'the worst electric vehicle policy in the world'; and
5. 5. Calls on the Marshall Government to support electric vehicles in South Australia by instead offering real incentives to increase the uptake of electric vehicles to combat climate change.

Right now, governments around the world are seeing the benefits of making electric vehicles cheaper by encouraging their uptake. The UK government recently announced that it would be banning the sale of petrol cars by 2030—banning their sale—and the Greens Labor government in the ACT is even offering electric car buyers free registration and $15,000 loans to encourage uptake.

With transport emissions currently sitting at around 20 per cent to 25 per cent of total emissions in Australia, we need to do what we can to support electric vehicles and to create the jobs that would flow here in our state. Offering incentives to increase the uptake of electric vehicles is essential if we are serious about combating climate change.

That is why the Greens continue to oppose the Liberal government's electric vehicle tax. This is a tax that will make our state an international pariah when it comes to fighting climate change, and this is a tax that will expose our state to international condemnation and ridicule. The future of cars is electric mobility, alternative fuels and public transport and it is time for the state government to recognise that reality and to actually invest, not penalise people who are doing the right thing.

Investment in truly innovative car manufacturing in Australia would see a shift towards electric cars instead of paying companies to make less efficient six-cylinder petrol cars. When you consider that the electric and sustainable car industry is set to be worth $1,200 billion globally by 2027, proper government support could help Australia play a really key role and, in particular, obviously assist us in South Australia. Of course, the federal government are dragging their heels. We know this federal government is useless in virtually every regard, but South Australia needs to step up and position itself as a world leader.

South Australia should be showing some leadership here. We have huge skills and experience in our state manufacturing industries and we need to be looking at what we can do to harness them. That is why it is absolutely ludicrous that this government, in last month's budget, confirmed that it is going to be proceeding with this standalone tax on electric vehicles—a bill that is coming at a time of climate crisis when transport is the fastest growing source of emissions in South Australia and when South Australia and Australia are lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to our uptake of electric vehicles.

What on earth are the Liberals thinking? What on earth is this Marshall government thinking when it comes to its absurd electric vehicle tax? Instead of penalising those who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, the government should be taking steps to make electric vehicles more accessible to more people. Let's expand the use of electric vehicles in our community. EVs are no longer seen as an expensive vehicle that is out of the reach of most people, but to ensure that trend continues we need a government to actually show leadership and play their role in taking on the climate crisis.

There are lots of examples of what they could be doing here. We can look at what has happened interstate where there are interest-free loans of two years or free registration. These are the sorts of things that could be done to try to encourage the uptake of electric cars. Once you remove some of those obstacles, the running costs are significantly cheaper than diesel vehicles. A recent comparison of four ACT government vehicles—two EVs, two petrol—showed that the EVs saved about $1,800 per vehicle in running and maintenance costs over an 18-month period. That is significant.

Research from the Australia Institute back in 2019 showed that South Australians strongly support electric vehicles and they want governments at all levels to implement policies that encourage their use. That same report found that 70 per cent of people want the government to build a network of charging stations for electric cars, two-thirds want to see the luxury car tax removed from imported electric vehicles and more than half want to see the government offering loans for electric cars. When you consider that Tesla have indicated interest in building cars right here in South Australia, it is absurd that the government are putting up more barriers to increasing the uptake of electric vehicles.

In May of this year, the Victorian government passed legislation, which will be effective from 1 July 2021, which will require road users driving electric vehicles to pay 2.5¢ per kilometre driven. This equates to around $375 annually, based on the national average of 15,000 kilometres per year. These laws also place a cost on plug-in hybrid vehicle owners to pay 2¢ per kilometre driven. That equates to $300 for every 15,000 kilometres.

Owners of these vehicles will be required to submit vehicle odometer readings and face vehicle registration suspension for noncompliance. Hybrid cars that are not able to be charged externally are exempt from this tax. The Victorian government explained that, as EV owners do not pay the national fuel excise of 42.7¢ per litre, this is the way of that government recouping costs they claim are associated with road upkeep.

The question remains, why on earth is South Australia following the flawed Victorian approach to implementing a tax on electric vehicles such as this when 25 organisations, including global auto manufacturers Volkswagen and Hyundai and policy experts the Electric Vehicle Council and The Australia Institute, have called it the worst electric vehicle policy in the world? The worst electric vehicle policy in the world is being exported from Victoria and brought over to South Australia.

Prominent signatories of the open letter against the tax include Hyundai, Volkswagen, Uber, JET Charge, the Electric Vehicle Council, Solar Citizens, Environment Victoria, Doctors for the Environment Australia and The Australia Institute. Instead of looking to the absurd approach that has been taken in Victoria, why has the state Liberal government not considered the New South Wales approach, which properly supports the electric vehicle industry and delays the introduction of any EV tax until 2027? Taxing EV drivers for not burning petrol is like taxing non-smokers for not smoking. It is a laughable proposition. It is an example of failed leadership from this Marshall Liberal government.

Quite frankly, I think the community expects a level of inaction and incompetence in Canberra because we know we have a Prime Minister who loves to kiss pieces of coal and does not care about the climate crisis, but they expect better from the South Australian Liberal government. This really is an appalling lack of leadership. It is an irresponsible decision at a time when real action on climate change is essential. We need to shift our focus to 21^st century technologies. We need to utilise manufacturing skills that exist in our state by building a world-leading electric car industry that will get our state economy back on track, so really it is time for the Liberals to change course.

23 June 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the minister representing the Premier, the Treasurer, on the topic of electric vehicles.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, the state government confirmed that it will be bringing back the electric car tax, despite being warned that a road user tax on clean cars, introduced without other support, could discouraging their uptake and impede greenhouse gas cuts.

My question to the Treasurer is: why is South Australia following the flawed Victorian approach to implementing a tax on electric cars when 25 organisations, including global auto manufacturers Volkswagen and Hyundai, policy experts and leading commentators, including the Electric Vehicle Council and the Australia Institute, have called it the worst electric vehicle policy in the world?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): The state government's position has been quite clear since last year. Since then, there has been growing momentum around Australia towards the implementation of a road user charge—a recognition of the inevitable. It is not just the Victorian government; the New South Wales government in the last week has now confirmed the proposed introduction of a road user charge. The two biggest jurisdictions in the nation have recognised the inevitability of where we are heading.

One can try to prevent the tide coming in in relation to this particular issue, but the reality is that we are going to move to a future where inevitably virtually every vehicle in the nation will be an electric vehicle of some type or another. The reality of that means that the motor fuel excise, which currently funds the maintenance of roads and the upgrade of roads, will disappear as a funding source for road maintenance and upkeep. Those who wish can choose to ignore the reality, but those who are prepared to accept the reality, including Labor and Liberal governments interstate and including this government, are prepared to commence that particular debate.

As I said last year, ultimately it's a decision for each of the individual parliaments. The Victorian parliament, even with significant crossbench representation in the Legislative Council, supported the introduction of the road user charge. Time will tell whether or not the New South Wales parliament, which also has significant crossbench representation in the upper house, will support the introduction of a road user charge in New South Wales.

This parliament will have the opportunity to express its view. But as I said last year when we first raised this particular issue, whatever the decision of this parliament, mark my words as I sail off into the political sunset: it is inevitable that there will have to be a road user charge because otherwise there will be no funding source for roads and road maintenance in the future.

9 June 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this council—

1. Supports a Green New Deal for South Australia.

2. Notes that 2020 was an incredibly difficult time for South Australians, starting with drought and bushfires, and followed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. Further notes that increasing unemployment due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as well as climate change and rising economic inequality, are key challenges facing South Australians into the future.

4. Calls on the Marshall Government to adopt an innovative jobs growth plan through investing in:

(a) publicly owned renewable energy and storage projects to address climate change;

(b) social housing to help end homelessness;

(c) employing more educators, healthcare workers, nurses and social support workers to ensure all South Australians have access to the care they need;

(d) the expansion of the public transport network to reduce congestion and decrease emissions;

(e) reviving our CBD precinct to support local businesses;

(f) creative industries and the arts; and

(g) care for country and culture.

This motion is calling on this council to support a Green New Deal for South Australia and calling on the Marshall government to adopt an innovative jobs growth plan through investing in a range of measures that would help fight the climate crisis and rising inequality in our state. South Australia should be leading the way with a Green New Deal to change our state for the better. People are angry and anxious because the government has no plan for the big problems that are facing our state. We need to see ambitious and innovative ideas from our leaders and the Green New Deal will do just that.

Many in this place will be familiar with the term 'a Green New Deal'. It was first coined by US Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and essentially creates a bold agenda calling for government action on climate change along with the other social aims of job creation and reducing economic inequality.

What would a Green New Deal mean for South Australia? What would it look like? Many different groups have started to consider how we could harness a green recovery to address some of the biggest issues facing our state and our nation. To put it simply, a Green New Deal is a plan of investment and action to build a clean green economy.

The last 18 months have seen South Australia's economy take a significant hit. From the devastating bushfires that have ravaged parts of our state and the continued impact of the global pandemic to the highest unemployment levels in the country and the ever-present threat posed by the climate crisis, it is clear that now is the time for bold innovative new plans for our great state.

With the state budget just weeks away, and the last one before the 2022 election, I am calling on the government and this parliament to seize the opportunity to rethink our economy and to spend big on new projects and programs that would create green jobs and address the important challenges of our age.

I talked about the fact that this motion is calling on the Marshall government to adopt an innovative jobs growth plan for investing in a range of different measures. One of those, of course, must be publicly owned renewables in South Australia. South Australia's abundant wind and solar resources mean that we are ideally suited to lead the nation and the world with 100 per cent renewable energy, and we should do that by 2025. A renewable-led recovery will create the jobs we need, it will tackle climate change and reduce energy prices.

The Greens' vision for South Australia is one that will make the most of our state's skills in manufacturing and create new jobs for the future, and we know that as we transition away from coal and carbon we can create new jobs in green innovation and renewable energy. We should harness the skills of our state's manufacturing industry for the development of new technologies, things like cutting-edge renewables, light rail and electric cars, and we should be making those things in South Australia.

It is regrettable, of course, that we saw the previous federal Liberal government, led by Tony Abbott, totally deprioritise the support for the automotive industry in South Australia, and really we should be trying to kickstart that industry with new investment so that it can start manufacturing electric cars in a significant way.

We also need a Green New Deal so that we can tackle homelessness and the housing crisis. One of the most pressing issues in this state at the moment is homelessness and housing affordability. We need a housing system that is about people, not profit. Homelessness is not inevitable. We can solve it. Everybody has a right to a roof over their head and a place to call home. It is not acceptable to simply say it is inevitable for people to sleep on the street or that people are going to be sleeping in tents. We need to see leadership from government to ensure that we invest in the housing that we need.

We have seen some wonderful strategies recommended by the Adelaide Zero Project, but we need more of an investment from the government. This is not a quick fix, but we need a long-term housing strategy that will end homelessness in our state. Housing, after all, is a human right. To end homelessness, we need to provide homes for tens of thousands of people on the waiting list, and we can do this by building housing, creating jobs and ensuring that nobody is discharged into homelessness.

As part of a Green New Deal, we need to also consider what we can do to make our society a caring society. The implementation of a Green New Deal is not just about green jobs and the green economy. It is also about investing in other types of work, particularly those types of industries that are traditionally female dominated.

Through the pandemic, we have seen just how essential our caring professions are for our communities, from our healthcare professionals who continue to work on the frontline, to our educators who adapted with flexible teaching arrangements to the pandemic, to our community service workers who continue to support the most vulnerable people in our society. We need to ensure that they are remunerated properly, and we need to ensure that they are supported with more funding so that they can employ more workers.

We also need as part of a Green New Deal to deal with expanding our public transport network. Bigger roads are not the answer to traffic congestion. We in the Greens have a different vision. We need a well-funded and well-functioning public transport system that gets people where they need to go quickly, reliably, safely and cheaply. We need greater investment in bikes and walking infrastructure that will give South Australians the freedom to choose riding or walking as a safe, easy option and to leave their cars at home.

A few weeks ago, I introduced a bill to establish a walking and cycling commissioner to encourage walking and cycling as modes of transport in our state, to promote the health, environmental, social and economic benefits of this, and to prepare and to promote strategies to make walking and cycling inclusive for everybody in South Australia. It is really regrettable, I think, that we have not seen the investment in cycling infrastructure that we need in South Australia, in particular, in the City of Adelaide.

Sadly, the City of Adelaide has spent over $400,000 on planning the east-west bikeway only to knock it on the head under the leadership of Alex Hyde from the conservative wing of the Liberal Party that dominates town hall. I think that is really regrettable because South Australians, in particular people in the City of Adelaide, are desperate for cycling infrastructure to be rolled out. A Green New Deal would not only fund more bike lanes in the CBD area, it would also encourage greater use of public transport through free or subsidised tickets. This would not only help reduce congestion in the city, it would also encourage more people to come back into our CBD, which would be a positive knock-on effect for local businesses that are currently struggling.

We know that our CBD has been hard hit by this pandemic. Many businesses have been forced to close their doors, and many city-based employees are still working from home. A Green New Deal would ensure that we prioritise a plan that continues to enliven the city, extending the free wi-fi network, supporting entrepreneurs, growing small bars and live music, and setting some clear renewable energy targets for the city.

I know that a number of small businesses in the CBD are struggling and will be very alarmed by the Marshall government's plans to deregulate shop trading hours. They will be very alarmed that they are not going to be able to compete with Coles and Woolies and the big players, and that that is going to punish them and damage their business. The Greens certainly stand with them in that struggle.

As part of a Green New Deal, we need to look at creative industries. Creative industries are the engine room of our economy, and yet they were the first industry directly hit by the impacts of the pandemic. In the last 18 months, we have seen our cultural and creative sectors suffer enormous damage due to restrictions on public gatherings and performances and exhibitions that were cancelled in the interests of public health. Of course, I make no criticism of the government for doing that—it was necessary in terms of a public health response—but we do need to ensure that our arts sector is now supported in the days ahead because that has had a significant impact.

The knock-on effect of this has been substantial for our broader South Australian community, and for our economy, not least the many thousands of people who are employed in related industries that are driven so strongly by the arts here in our state. Those industries include tourism, hospitality, regional affairs and community businesses—all these things rely on a thriving, creative industry.

While South Australia has fared fairly well, and we can consider the success of things like the Adelaide Fringe Festival earlier this year, we must not lose sight of the fact that the disappearance of the Australian creative sector will have a major social, economic and cultural impact on our state both in the short and the long term. We know that the arts community have not been eligible for federal government support through JobKeeper, so that means they have been really hard hit by this pandemic.

Finally, a Green New Deal would also look at how we can care for country and culture. When I talk about caring for country, I am talking about First Nations people's approaches to land and water management. For First Nations people, it is increasingly documented that caring for country is linked to maintaining cultural life, identity, autonomy and health. The diverse environmental activities to which First Nations people contribute have positive outcomes for climate mitigation, biodiversity monitoring, the protection of endangered species, landscape health and more. It is for exactly that reason that a Green New Deal is really important because it would ensure that this knowledge and experience is at the forefront of policy and decision-making.

This is our chance to start thinking about how we can reshape our state, how we can create a fairer and more sustainable South Australia, how we can become a productive leader and how we can be a state that actually tackles the climate crisis and ensures that everybody has what they need to live a happy and healthy life.

We need to think differently. That has been one of the lessons of the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis. We need to think differently and now is the time for us to do that. Now is the time for us to commit to a Green New Deal. South Australia can create a cleaner, fairer future for all of us, and I urge all members of this council to support the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood. 

6 May 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question on the topic of ministerial cars to the Treasurer.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It's been reported that the state government will be replacing their ageing Holdens in the government's ministerial fleet with luxury Genesis G80 cars worth just shy of $85,000. That's despite previously indicating that the government would be looking to purchase electric vehicles and, following the news of the purchase of the Genesis G80 cars, the Treasurer saying that he expected the entire Public Service to shift towards electric vehicles in the 'very near future' and that 'we are certainly committed to the whole fleet, including the ministerial fleet, moving in that direction'.

The government state that they knocked back electric vehicle options at this time because they were deemed to be 'too expensive'. However, there are electric cars available in Australia for far less than $85,000. My question to the minister is: what is the justification for purchasing luxury non-electric vehicles to replace older cars in the government's ministerial fleet, particularly when they cost about $25,000 more than the cars they are replacing? Is the government's opposition to electric vehicles in their own fleet connected with their electric car tax?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): The answer to the last part of the question is no. With great respect to the media coverage of this particular story, I want to place some facts on the table. The first point is the supposed claim that these luxury vehicles that replace the no longer being produced Holdens are $25,000 more expensive. That's a comparison of a 2020 cost with, as I understand it, the list price for the Caprice back in 2017.

I am not sure whether the Hon. Mr Simms has availed himself of the purchase of a car, either in a private capacity or under the new arrangements that are available to him as a member of parliament, but—surprise, surprise—car costs have actually increased in the last four years. Should the Caprice have still been produced in 2020-21 it would have been significantly more expensive than the $61,000 cost, or whatever it was, that was being quoted in that media article.

I think any fair person, and I am sure the Hon. Mr Simms would judge himself to be a fair person, wouldn't be comparing the cost of a new, supposedly luxury vehicle in 2021 with what might have been the cost of a vehicle back in 2017. An apples with apples comparison would have been much better.

The decision is not a recent decision in relation to the Genesis. When we first came to government we took a decision to reduce the number of ministerial cars and the number of ministerial drivers. We saved just under $400,000 a year from what we thought were the excessive number of cars and drivers that the former government had provided for themselves, but we had to go through the process of replacing the Holdens because they were no longer available. There is a requirement for the ministerial car to be available to transport other people within the car, in particular for the Premier and most ministers I guess as part of their daily routine or work patterns. That was the case with the former government, and it's the case with this government as well.

Some other jurisdictions, as I understand it, have looked at BMWs and others as alternatives to the Holden. As the Treasurer, I wasn't going to take a decision to provide a BMW to ministers as a replacement vehicle. We looked at a variety of vehicles. I think the article quotes the recommendations that eventually came to me after things like BMWs were ruled out. I think Skodas, Volkswagens and one or two others, together with the Genesis, were recommended.

They were all in and about that particular price range. The point I made to the media at the time was that the purchase price is not the key determinant of the cost of purchasing a vehicle, whether it be for members of parliament cars or whether it be for ministerial cars. The cost of fuel over the expected life of the vehicle, maintenance costs and the like are also factored in to a complex calculation. When that was done, the Genesis came out as being cost competitive, both with the former Caprice but also more cost competitive than the other models that were available.

They were also tested by the various drivers in the fleet in terms of usability and drivability for drivers. I do note that there are a small number of cars in the ministerial fleet that are provided to members who live in country electorates, which are more expensive again in terms of being, I think, Prados. I think the Hon. Mr Maher from the opposition might have a vehicle of that description as well. Former Minister Whetstone, and I think Minister van Holst Pellekaan, for example, have Prados, in terms of people who live in country electorates and have to do a lot of country driving in terms of the use of the vehicle, and they are more expensive again. They might be described as even more luxury vehicles perhaps, in terms of their fuel costs and the like as well.

That was the background to it. It certainly wasn't in relation to the electric vehicle tax. The government's position on the whole fleet, which is a much bigger number of car purchases and much more significant, is that the advice we have received from industry stakeholders is that by probably around about 2025-26 the purchase price of electric vehicles will be cost competitive with non-electric vehicles.

It will be at that stage, we believe, that not only large numbers of people in the private sector, but it will be clearly advantageous in the public sector for the government fleet to move completely to the electric vehicles. As that price becomes more competitive, the number of electric vehicles in the fleet will be able to increase in terms of its number.

27 May 2021

Mr President, I give notice that on Wednesday the 9th of June 2021 I will move that this council:

1. supports a green new deal for South Australia,

2. notes that 2020 was an incredibly difficult time for South Australians starting with drought and bushfires and followed by the COVID-19 pandemic,

3. notes that increasing unemployment due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as well as the climate change and rising inequality are key challenges facing South Australians into the future,

4. calls on the Marshall Government to adopt an innovative jobs growth plan through investing in:

a. publicly owned renewable energy and storage projects to address climate change,

b. social housing to help end homelessness,

c. employing more educators, healthcare workers, nurses and social support workers to ensure all South Australians have access to the care they need,

d. the expansion of the public transport network to reduce congestion and decrease emissions,

e. reviving our cbd precinct to support local businesses,

f. creating industries our creative industries and the arts and,

g. care for Country and Culture.

26 May 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The motion that I am moving today is calling on the Marshall government to allocate the $3 million that had been promised for the east-west bikeway to cycling infrastructure in the city, because we know that the Adelaide City Council, under the leadership of the failed Team Adelaide faction, resolved not to deliver the east-west bikeway.

I am relieved to note, though, that recently the state government have announced they will be spending this money on cycling infrastructure in the city, and the Greens certainly welcome that commitment. Might I say that it is a disappointing turn of events that we have seen in Town Hall over the last few years where we have seen backflip after backflip, U-turn after U-turn, when it comes to laying down basic cycling infrastructure in our city. It really is a travesty, when you consider what has unfolded in the Adelaide City Council when it comes to transport infrastructure.

I refer to a question that was asked by Councillor Phillip Martin about the costs associated with the investigations of the east-west bikeway project for the years 2016-17 to 2020-21, and the response is on the public record. He asked the council how much money was spent on planning this east-west bikeway, the east-west bikeway that was felled by the Team Adelaide faction, under the leadership of Alex Hyde, who is at the far right of the Liberal Party and works for Nicolle Flint.

He asked the council how much money was wasted by the Adelaide City Council in terms of its failure to progress cycling infrastructure. The answer he got back was staggering: $422,000. That is $422,000 of ratepayer funds thrown into the wind because of the ideological opposition of the hard right of the Liberal Party that dominates Town Hall. It is an embarrassing failure of leadership at this time of climate crisis that the council has failed to deliver the east-west bikeway. We have countries around the world rolling out cycling infrastructure, from Paris to Berlin, Melbourne and Sydney, and yet it is all too hard in Adelaide. That smacks of a failure of leadership.

Whilst I welcome the fact that the government has said they are going to spend this money on cycling infrastructure, it is vital that they ensure that the money is actually spent and that we have a meaningful investment in cycling infrastructure in our city, so that we can deal appropriately with the climate crisis, so that we can protect the safety of cyclists and so that we can promote health and wellbeing. I think residents in the City of Adelaide expect this but also residents in our state more broadly want to see this kind of leadership. I call on the Marshall government to step up here and ensure that this project gets back on track.

26 May 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The purpose of this bill is to establish a walking and cycling commissioner to encourage walking and cycling as modes of travel; promote the health, environmental, social and economic benefits; and prepare and promote strategies to make walking and cycling inclusive for everybody in South Australia.

At a time when places around the world are rapidly investing in cycling infrastructure and incentivising that infrastructure and active transport, South Australia is lagging behind. In London and Manchester, where walking and cycling commissioners have been appointed, there are plans to transition from passive to active transport and create sustainable cities of the future. Indeed, London has had a Walking and Cycling Commissioner in place since 2016. Bold targets, such as 80 per cent of all trips into London to be walking, cycling or public transport by 2041, are being set and, similarly, in Greater Manchester there is a goal of 50 per cent by 2040.

Last July, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson—and I am not usually a fan of his, but he has done some good things when it comes to cycling—committed £2 billion for a walking and cycling revolution to deliver thousands of miles of new protected bike lanes, cycle training for children and adults in the first ever zero emission transport city.

Scotland is also taking the opportunity, coming off the back of COVID-19 lockdowns, to restructure their transport system to prioritise health, the community and the environment. Their Active Nation Commissioner has stated that the restructure is not anti-car or anti-economy but rather it is pro-people. That is the thing I think we need to remember when it comes to transport policy in our own state, this is about being pro-people, protecting our environment and advancing community health and wellbeing.

In Austin, Texas, Adelaide's sister city, we have seen more affordable, accessible and safe transport choices due to the fact that 14 per cent of constituents' annual income was spent on travel costs. Adelaide is not far off this number, at a staggering 13.7 per cent. Resulting action in Texas, including investment in bikeways, has seen families downgraded from two to one-car households, saving thousands of dollars and therefore increasing their spending capacity. That is money that can be spent on our local shops, our retail sectors and other struggling industries.

Why is this needed in South Australia? Adelaide is no longer the 20-minute city, with commuters spending up to 60 per cent of their morning commute in congested traffic. We also have more car parks per capita than any other capital city. Adelaide is in danger of becoming a city in a car park rather than a city in a park. It seems ludicrous that South Australia spends the least in the country on cycling infrastructure—0.6 per cent of road spending—spending just $4 million in 2015-16 on cycling infrastructure, meanwhile spending $569 million on roads, so $4 million on cycling compared with $569 million on roads.

More money on roads and more money on parking is not the solution. We need a rethink and we need to rethink the way that travel occurs in our state and my hope is that the establishment of a walking and cycling commissioner would be a good first step. We have already seen the city council fail to implement the east-west bikeway, despite years of discussion and despite the commitment of state government funding. This has failed the 2,000 cyclists who enter the east and west sides of the city each work day and the 60 per cent of the population who would ride and cycle more if separating cycling infrastructure was delivered. They need this infrastructure for their safety.

Not only would this improve the health of our communities by encouraging physical exercise, it would also free up parks in the city as commuters turn to cycling instead of cars. It is time for us to have a strong independent advocate who can make the case for government investment and policy change to encourage active transport. At this time of climate emergency, at this time of climate crisis, it is vitally important that we promote active transport, and the establishment of an active, dedicated commissioner could be the reset on transport policy that our state so desperately needs.