5 February 2025

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

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

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

4 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:10): It is nice to be back. I rise to speak briefly on the budget measures bill of 2024 and to indicate where the Greens sit on some of the filed amendments. As is the case each year, this bill is the legislative companion to the government's budget. Some of the measures contained in the bill are positive measures that will support South Australians. In particular, the Greens are supportive of removing stamp duty for eligible first-home buyers on the purchase of a new home on vacant land and removing the value cap for the First Home Owner Grant for eligible contracts.

I recognise that these measures will support some people who are trying to enter the housing market, but of course we know that this is only rewarding those South Australians who are lucky enough to be able to purchase their own home. It does not do anything to address the broader issues that we face around housing affordability in our state. I have a bill before parliament that would increase the requirement on developers to build more social and affordable housing, lifting the requirement from just 15 per cent to 30 per cent, significantly boosting the availability of affordable housing and social housing in our state. I urge the Labor Party to support that.

We also need to see action for renters in this budget. The Greens have been campaigning for a long time to extend the Cost of Living Concession to renters. I acknowledge the Malinauskas government's leadership in doing that in the last budget, but we need to see the government go further in terms of providing support to renters who are struggling. We need a rent freeze. The Greens have been campaigning for this for some time. We know that a freeze of rents, if it had been instituted last year when the Greens first proposed it, would have saved South Australians thousands and thousands of dollars in rent.

It is not okay that we have some South Australians who are making a motza, some landlords who are making record profits, and rent prices continue to skyrocket while other South Australians are continuing to struggle to make ends meet and to be able to provide a home for their family. Renting is not a choice for most South Australians—it is the only option that they have—and housing is a fundamental human right. So I am disappointed that there has not been action on the circumstances that renters face within this bill.

I do recognise that the government has taken some action on payroll tax for GPs. It is an issue that the Greens, along with the Hon. Connie Bonaros and other members in this place, were very active on last year. We do call, however, for the government to extend that exemption in the regulations to practitioners such as physiotherapists and dentists, who are being affected in the same way as GPs. This comes after the New South Wales Supreme Court decision that found that tenant GPs, who pay a percentage of their earnings to a clinic rather than being paid a wage, count as employees for payroll tax purposes.

We will be supporting this bill on the basis that there is some positive change in that regard, and of course we support the budget measures bill as is the convention in terms of enabling the activities of the government. I am also disappointed, in terms of talking about health, that there was no action on ambulance call-out fees. The Greens made a submission to the government. We called on them to slash those fees and to bring South Australia into line with other states. Again, there is no action.

I just want to touch on the Liberals harping about debt. I think it is fair to say that some of their critique is disingenuous. They were in government, as we know, for that brief period when the Treasurer, Rob Lucas, handed down an enormous deficit. I make no criticism of that because he was dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, and I think it was right that the Marshall government provided support to some South Australians who were struggling. So I make absolutely no criticism of that, but to then come into this chamber years later and start banging on about debt is, I think, a bit rich, given the circumstances that every state government and every government has faced nationally as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Liberals talk about debt in their budget response, but they have no plan to deal with it other than cutting public services, which they say is not on the cards. They say they do not want to privatise public services either, which is good, but then I do not see how they are going to plug the debt. They talk about cost-of-living relief, but then when honourable members put forward suggestions for dealing with cost of living, they are vehemently opposed to them. So I do not know what exactly their approach is. I am none the wiser in terms of how they would do things differently. Maybe between now and the election they will actually outline a vision to the people of South Australia.

In terms of some of the amendments that have been filed on this bill, I note the Hon. Frank Pangallo has filed an amendment in relation to stamp duty. The Greens do not support the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment and I have indicated to the honourable member my reasons for that. Whilst we want to reform stamp duty, we do not believe this should be done as a standalone measure. To do so would blow a huge hole in the budget and not actually address housing affordability, unless it is accompanied by action on land tax. Indeed, I am very open to looking at what we can do in that space and whether there is a more equitable way that we can approach land tax and then reduce stamp duty.

So let's keep that conversation going, but we will not be supporting the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment on the basis that it really pulls the rug out in terms of taking action where it is needed. I also note the amendment from the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I do understand her sentiments in relation to that, but we will not be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment in this instance. I am keen to see, after many months, some movement on this bill. Rest assured, the Greens will be out there in the community talking about our alternative vision in terms of dealing with cost of living, and we hope that the government will take up some of those ideas when it comes to crafting their next budget.

28 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This week, it was reported in the media that the state government will rationalise advertising resources within the new government Advertising and Insights Hub to be set up in early 2025. I understand the hub will coordinate advertising for more than 30 state government agencies.

InDaily has reported that the consolidation effort comes after the state government's advertising spending reached record levels, swelling to a record $47.6 million—an eye-watering $47.6 million—in the Malinauskas government's first full financial year in office, and $39.7 million in 2023-24. This has included controversial spending like a $1.9 million ad for SA Health's 'Building a bigger health system' campaign and $1.6 million for the state prosperity budget campaign, not to mention money being spent on promoting their housing blueprint.

Premier Peter Malinauskas has told the ABC that the restructure would be 'moving things in the opposite direction of having too many spin doctors'. That is the Premier's words. He has also told parliament this week that the government is now, and I quote:

…leading a bit of [a] change within the public sector in the way that government advertising occurs across agencies.

My question to the Leader of the Government is: in light of the Premier's about face, will the government now commit to finally supporting my private member's bill in the other place to ensure that there are clearer regulations for government advertising and to give the Auditor-General new powers to investigate breaches and report to the parliament, and if they won't support it and make it law, why not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for his question, and I thank him for regularly pursuing things that he has a passion about in this chamber, bringing forward ideas, motions and legislation. Of course the government will, as it always does, thoroughly consider any proposals that are brought forward like legislation and make a determination about whether to support it or not.

27 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:14): I move:

That the report of the select committee be noted.

I want to make a few brief comments about the report, but before I do so I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who was involved with this committee, in particular the members of the committee: the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Reggie Martin, the Hon. Mira El Dannawi, and of course Ms Leslie Guy and Dr Margaret Robinson for all of the support they provided as well.

I think it is fair to say that this committee was timely in that there is significant concern in the South Australian community around food prices and the impact that high food prices are having. I think it is fair to say also that the prevailing view of the committee was that the federal government is looking at some of these issues and so we wanted to really focus our attention on what we could recommend for the state government to do within our jurisdiction.

I feel very proud of the recommendations that have been agreed upon by the committee because I think they are very sensible and they are tangible. I will not talk through all of them but there are a few that I think are worth highlighting in particular. Some of the recommendations relate to the need to improve competition in food retailers in South Australia. There was some evidence the committee received from the Woolworths group in particular that higher food prices in South Australia were actually being driven by the preponderance of independent food retailers in our state.

The committee did not accept that assertion; rather, we thought that actually a lack of competition is one of the big factors that is driving up food prices in South Australia, and we came up with a range of recommendations that would potentially address that. One of the big issues that came to light through the committee was the impact of planning laws on grocery prices. For instance, it is becoming commonplace in some regional communities for big food retailers to buy up greenfield sites and to then put smaller retailers out of business.

One of the recommendations in the report is for the Minister for Planning to investigate potential amendments to state planning laws to prevent rezoning of greenfield sites to retail in instances where this would have a negative impact on existing businesses. We also made a recommendation for the Minister for Planning to investigate opportunities to prioritise green space in new developments, to encourage community gardens and therefore access to fresh fruit and vegetables, and also for the government to look at what it could do to crack down on the practice of land banking by major food retailers, another big issue that is contributing to lack of competition in the market.

There are some recommendations in here, too, around the state government using its procurement guidelines to prioritise smaller food retailers where it has the opportunity to do so. In addition to anti-competition, another key factor that was flagged by the committee, in terms of contributing to high food prices, was the stringent nature of food packaging standards and the aesthetic standards that are applied to fruit and vegetables and the like.

I will say that one of the things I found really fascinating about being on this inquiry was learning more about the packaging requirements that are placed on our foods. I had no idea, for instance, that Australia imposes such significant and stringent requirements on the packaging of potatoes and the display of potatoes, and the impact that might have on pricing.

For instance, in Australia we put potatoes out for sale on an individual basis, whereas in Europe they are sold in a pre-packaged bag. That, of course, has an impact on pricing locally because it means that more potatoes have to be potentially discarded if they are no longer looking aesthetic. So one of the recommendations of the committee is that the state government review packaging standards and cosmetic specifications to ensure that these factors are not contributing to unnecessary food waste.

The other proposal is that the parliament legislate to increase the social responsibility of big supermarkets, including mandating their donation of damaged food, to ensure that supermarkets are responsible for the waste they produce. I think it was concerning to hear evidence at the inquiry that some of the big food retailers are discarding food that is not aesthetic, and we are in the middle of a food crisis.

There was an example provided, for instance, of big bananas being unappealing to some consumers. That struck me as a curious proposition—I know lots of people who would disagree with that—because something like a banana could be turned into banana bread or a range of other practices. So, again, let's look at some of these factors that might be contributing to high prices, and that is what the committee has advocated.

We have also suggested there is a role for the federal government to play here, in particular looking at things like increasing migration to South Australia to provide more workers to the farming sector; looking, of course, at things like increasing income support for South Australians who are struggling; and looking at national initiatives to improve transparency.

We also make some recommendations regarding cost-of-living relief. I think the committee recognised the really valuable work of Foodbank and other organisations that provide support, but we also noted that it is not the role of these organisations to plug all of the gaps. What is needed is broader structural reform.

We have made some recommendations for things the government could do to provide more short-term relief, in particular things like expanding access to free school breakfasts and lunches and looking at ensuring that Foodbank is appropriately serviced by public transport, particularly in regional areas, and also, of course, potential legislative action on things like grocery prices, rent, energy and transport, recognising that people who are paying more money for groceries are also paying more money for rent, electricity and so on.

That is a snapshot of some of the key recommendations. All of the recommendations bar one were supported by the full committee and across party lines. I think that speaks to the fact that they are sensible recommendations. Certainly from my perspective, there is always scope to go a little bit further, but I think where we have landed is good and provides a potential road map for the government, if they wish to take it up.

I hope the government will take the time to look over this report over the Christmas break. It is a time of year when lots of South Australians will be focused on food prices and the cost of living more generally, and I hope the government can come back in the new year, having looked at this report, and commit itself to take action on some of the very sensible recommendations.

Just before concluding, I should thank all those organisations and individuals that participated in the inquiry. We engaged with all of the key stakeholders, including business. We heard from Foodland, Aldi, AUSVEG, Woolworths and Coles, and we also heard from a lot of the organisations that assist vulnerable South Australians, organisations like Foodbank, SACOSS and SA Unions. We also had an opportunity to undertake a regional trip to meet with primary producers and other key stakeholders. I should also thank the Hon. Ben Hood for his assistance in coordinating that trip to Mount Gambier. With that, I conclude my remarks.

13 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:10): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that not-for-profit hospitals such as Burnside Hospital, Glenelg Community Hospital, North Eastern Community Hospital and the Stirling Hospital play a pivotal role in providing health care for local communities.

2. Recognises that these hospitals partner with local health networks to deliver critical services, playing an important role in reducing the patient load burden on public hospitals.

3. Notes that the new national standards introduced by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, in particular standard AS4187 (now AS5369):

(a) imposes tighter minimum requirements for health service organisations’ compliance with reprocessing of reusable medical devices in health service organisations; and

(b) will necessitate major multimillion-dollar infrastructure upgrades at some health service organisations to remain compliant.

4. Calls on the Malinauskas government to make available no-interest loans to community hospitals to allow them to undertake the necessary infrastructure upgrades to remain operational.

On 14 December 2023, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care introduced new standards aimed at better protecting patients undergoing surgery. The commission was tasked with reviewing licensing standards around hospitals, day procedure centres and clinics where cosmetic procedures were being performed. This followed a joint investigation between Four Corners and Nine newspapers, which found that doctors without specialist qualifications were operating on patients in privately funded facilities with serious hygiene and safety breaches.

The Greens, of course, welcome the more stringent standards that have been put in place; it is appropriate that that occur. But this does mean that many not-for-profit community hospitals will need to undertake extensive infrastructure upgrades in order to meet these standards, and that is going to put a significant cost burden on those hospitals.

The Glenelg Community Hospital, for instance, I understand requires $8 million to upgrade their sterilisation department to meet these new requirements. I understand that the Stirling Hospital would require in excess of $50 million to undertake major infrastructure upgrades, including resizing operating theatres and replacing the building's water filtration system. Their most pressing challenge is upgrading the ventilation system in their theatre and procedure rooms, which is estimated to cost half a million dollars.

As not-for-profit community hospitals, any surpluses made by these hospitals are automatically reinvested back into the hospital infrastructure, the equipment and staff, so these major infrastructure upgrades are beyond their normal annual expenditure, and they do not have the capital reserves required to provide for these infrastructure upgrades.

The private health sector in South Australia is facing increased pressure. It is not my role to advocate for the private health system, but what we are talking about here is a community hospital that provides a very important community service. The closure of local hospitals at a community level has put increased strain on the public system. Indeed, over the last decade rising costs for consumables, wages and services have compounded the challenges that these small hospitals face. Furthermore, revenue from health insurance has not kept pace with the true cost of care delivery.

Despite these challenges not-for-profit community hospitals play an important role in not only providing health care delivery to their respective communities but also in reducing the patient loan burden. I understand, for instance, that the Stirling Hospital partners with the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network to deliver critical services such as ear, nose and throat care, and this is a really important partnership.

I also note that in the last financial year, ending June 2024, the Stirling Hospital had a total of 4,212 patient admissions, including 3,315 day surgeries and 595 overnight stays. The Glenelg Community Hospital in the same period treated over 7,000 patients and works with SA Health on waiting list initiatives and care for special needs children for dental surgery.

These are hospitals that provide a vital community service, particularly, might I say, the hospital in Stirling. It operates in an area where there are not local hospitals. It is a critical service for that community, and its future hangs in the balance as a result of this new regulatory regime. The Greens are calling on the Malinauskas Labor government to make interest-free loans available to these not-for-profit hospitals so that they can undertake the necessary upgrades so that they can do the work that is required so that they can remain operational.

We are not saying 'give private hospitals a blank cheque'; we are talking about only three small community hospitals. This is a bespoke solution for those community not-for-profit hospitals so that they can remain operational. It would be easy for the government to make an interest-free loan available and to work with those hospitals to develop a repayment plan down the track, and so I do urge the government to consider this as an option.

12 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:57): I rise to speak in favour of the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill and indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill. I want to start by saying how excited I am that we are finally at this point. It is interesting timing for me. If you will forgive me on a brief indulgence, this week is actually my 10^th anniversary in frontline SA politics. I was elected to the Adelaide City Council back in November 2014. As you know, I went into the Senate before I came here.

One of the issues that I have consistently campaigned on is the need to get money out of politics, to end its corrosive influence on our democracy, and indeed this has been a core mission of the Greens for many years in this place. After all, in our democracy, he who pays the piper so often plays the tune. If we are going to tackle the inequality crisis and the climate crisis that is gripping our state, we need to get money out of politics and end the undue influence of vested interest groups, groups that are strangling our democracy.

In Town Hall, I pushed for a developer contact register to log councillor contact with developers, which was opposed by the Team Adelaide faction. Here in the state parliament, I have moved to amend the Local Government Act to move towards continual disclosure of donations to candidates. I have also pushed for the publication of ministerial diaries and, of course, reforms to crack down on government advertising. The fight for those things continues, but today is a positive step forward. This is a reform that has the capacity to really strengthen our democracy.

The bill not only reduces the capacity for vested interests to potentially influence our decision-makers by making donations, it also reduces the capacity of these groups to exert undue influence over election campaigns, pouring huge amounts of money into election campaigns in an effort to sway election outcomes. We have seen examples of that here in our state in the past and I will highlight some of those examples for the benefit of Hansard.

When the government first introduced this proposal back in June, the Greens indicated that we would carefully consider the details of the bill and that the devil would always be in the detail. We have spent many months working through the details with the government. We undertook our own consultation with stakeholder groups, including the Centre for Public Integrity and SACOSS, and we have also sought the advice of legal academics; indeed, I have met with a few constitutional law experts to seek their views on the bill that the government put forward.

I also sought the views of Greens SA party members and supporters via an online survey. I received many responses to the survey and the respondents encompassed a broad cross-section of Greens SA members, extending from those who are active at grassroots level to our office bearers to members whose involvement is limited to simply donating to the Greens or volunteering on election day. There was strong support for restricting donations and further regulation and compliance requirements for political parties and third-party campaigners.

Overwhelmingly, members of the Greens indicated to me that they supported a ban on donations to political parties from harmful industries in particular, and also regulations on third-party campaigners to limit their spending. It is clear that members wanted us to work with the government to improve this bill and to secure its passage through the parliament; indeed, that is what I have attempted to do in engaging with the government over the last few months.

Like Greens rank-and-file members, one of the issues that I was most concerned about in the government's original draft was the lack of regulation of third-party campaigners and interest groups. I did not want to see the emergence of US-style super PACs here in South Australia, and this has been a long-term concern of the Greens. If we turned off the tap for political donations to political parties there was, under the government's previous proposal, the potential for these groups outside of the parliament to have a disproportionate impact on our elections—because, of course, there would be nothing that political parties could do to be able to compete with those sorts of campaigns.

This was a key issue that stakeholders raised and one that the Greens raised with the government in our negotiations, so I am very pleased that the government agreed to improvements to the bill in that regard. As a result of these discussions, the government has agreed to impose a limit of $450,000 on statewide spending by lobby organisations. That is a $60,000 cap on expenditure in lower house seats for lobby groups and a $5,000 cap on donations to individuals by these groups. These third-party organisations or lobby groups will be required to register prior to incurring political expenditure. Exemptions for some of the work of civil society groups and charities have also been negotiated and that means that they will be able to carry on their important work without being unduly impacted by this new regulatory regime.

There is also going to be an advance post-election funding scheme. A reduction in the threshold for receipt of public funding for Legislative Council candidates from 4 per cent to 2 per cent has been proposed, allowing Legislative Council minor parties that have two members to be able to draw up to 50 per cent of their advance funding entitlement at the next election. We will also have some access to additional administrative funding and there will also be an increase in donation cap amounts for new entrants from $2,700 to $5,000. I consider that to be an important change because I note the concerns that have been expressed by some members around the potential impact on new and emerging players.

I do agree the last thing we want to do through this new regime is actually discourage new people from getting into our political system. But, might I say, I think giving new candidates the opportunity to accept $5,000 donations does mean that they are still able to build a base for themselves and compete at an election. They will also have access, potentially, to some advance funding as well. Again, I think that is a good thing, and I would imagine most donations that small emerging parties receive or, indeed, individual candidates receive would not be in excess of $5,000 in any case, so that is a positive improvement.

There has also been a switch to a decreasing marginal rate model for operational funding, which will provide adjusted funding for additional party members. As I mentioned before, a political party like the Greens that has two members will get a little bit more funding in recognition of the fact that a party like the Greens might have additional operating expenses. I should indicate that the Greens, in our negotiations with the government, made our financial statements available to the government. In the spirit of transparency, we made our statements available to them, and they have taken those into consideration in framing this model.

Critically though, as the Hon. Mr Pangallo has identified, there will be a statutory review that will occur after the next election. This is a significant undertaking, and a significant experiment in many ways. It is one that I think has the potential to really strengthen our democracy but, of course, we have to make sure we get it right, and so a statutory review that will occur after the next state election will give the parliament the opportunity to revisit this, and make changes if we have it wrong.

There are lots of other elements of this bill. I do not wish to touch on all of those because I feel the government members will delve into that in more detail, but I think it is important to talk about some of the principles that are at stake here, and why this particular reform is worthy of support. Is this the model that I would have chosen if I was coming up with my own bill? No, it is not. It is the government's proposal, and that was the basis for the discussions, but I think it is absolutely worthy of support because it addresses so many of the problems we have within our current political system.

One of the significant challenges we face at the moment in Western democracies is a lack of faith in governments and in politics. Part of this is based on the belief that parliament and governments are too captive to powerful vested interests. Indeed, the Social Research Institute at Ipsos conducted a study back in 2018 on this very point. It found that, and I quote from The Conversation:

Just 31% of the [Australian] population trust federal government. State and local governments perform little better, with just over a third of people trusting them. Ministers and MPs (whether federal or state), rate at just 21% [trust], while more than 60% of Australians believe the honesty and integrity of politicians is very low.

What are the three biggest beefs that the broader community have with politicians? Well, the public says they are not accountable for broken promises; they do not deal with the issues that really matter; but also, big business has too much power. Why would people say that? It is not hard to see why this is the case, because big business does have too much power in our democracy.

Why do we not see the action on the climate crisis that we desperately need? Why can we not crack down on the predatory tactics of big food retailers and corporations? Is it because they bankroll the campaigns of our major political parties? Why do we have a planning system that serves the interests of developers rather than the interests of the community? These are the questions that people ask out in the community. That is why people want to see money being taken out of politics: they want to be assured that the people in this place actually serve their interests rather than the interests of the big donors.

There is a useful article that I want to highlight that comes from the website Market Forces and they release this every year looking at the contributions to the major political parties from the fossil fuel industry. This one came out on 1 February 2023. It asks the question:

So why do all three major political parties—

and by that they mean Labor, Liberal and the Nationals—

continue to back the fossil fuel industry at the risk of catastrophic climate change? A trawl of the latest political donations data, released on 1 February, offers some clues.

…fossil fuel companies donated $2 million to the ALP, Liberal and National parties [last year]. Yet given Australia's reputation for woefully inadequate political disclosure and 'dark money' donations, with 35% of all contributions coming from unknown sources, the true figure could be significantly higher.

Well, that should concern all members of the community. Here in South Australia, the government is presenting us with an opportunity to actually do something about it and to help restore some of the trust in our politics. Looking at some of those political donations that are of particular concern to me, Adani, in the year 2021-22, donated just over $107,000 to the Liberal Party. Alinta, in the same year, donated $12,000 to the ALP. Ampol, in the same year, donated $56,500 to the ALP and $32,250 to the Liberal Party.

APA donated $27,500 to the ALP and $30,000 to the Liberal Party. APPEA donated $56,700 to the ALP and $23,500 to the Liberal Party. The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association donated $27,500 to the ALP and $30,000 to the Liberal Party. BHP donated $16,704 to the Liberal Party. Cartwheel Resources donated $50,000 to the ALP. Chevron donated $45,470 to the ALP and $43,000 to the Liberal Party.

It is a disgrace and it needs to end and we are bringing it to a close here in South Australia, thanks to the Malinauskas government's work on these reforms. It is an important reform and it is time we take action on this and that is one of the reasons why the Greens are supportive. We do need to break the nexus between big money and politics.

I also think it is important to identify some of the examples of the nefarious influence, the unfair influence, that big money has had on our politics over the last few elections. I understand the concern that the Hon. Mr Pangallo flagged, but his party, the Xenophon Party, in 2018, was a great casualty, might I say, of the undue influence of external groups in our democracy. The state's gambling lobby in that state election contributed $100,000 to party coffers to campaign against Mr Xenophon and his team because they did not want to see them get a foothold here in the South Australian parliament. There was a huge amount of money that was given to other political parties so they could campaign against the Xenophon team. I quote from an InDaily article at that time. The AHA boss, Ian Horne, told InDaily that:

…over the 2017 calendar year the lobby group had provided $43,534 to the ALP, $49,973 to the Liberal Party and $20,000 to the Australian Conservatives…

They must have been desperate not to have Mr Xenophon in parliament if they gave money to that outfit.

This is an example of vested interest groups trying to influence our elections. It is not right that they should be able to give money to try to deny a party like Mr Xenophon's political party positions in the parliament. It is not right that they should seek to do that, and that is one of the things that we need to stamp out in our democracy, because that should not be the way that things work here.

I note the concerns of Mr Xenophon at that time, when he slammed the AHA not just for donating to the major political parties so that they could actually run in opposition to the Xenophon party but also for running television commercials saying that a vote for SA-Best would put thousands of jobs in the hotel sector at risk.

Again, I know the Hon. Connie Bonaros is passionate about the role of small parties, and I share her passion. I know the Hon. Frank Pangallo is passionate about that as well, and I share their concerns. The reality is that we in small parties can never compete with the deep pockets of these vested interest groups. At least under these reforms there will be a cap imposed on what these groups can do and they will be prevented from being able to make donations to political parties. I think that is a really good thing and a positive advancement in our democracy.

I also note some of the views of different stakeholder groups. I note in particular the report of the Australia Institute that came out in November 2023, where they talked about sweeping changes needed to reduce the influence of money in our politics. They push for a 'mega-donor cap that prevents any one entity from contributing election-distorting amounts of money'. They also talk about the need to consider a ban on donations from companies receiving large government contracts and the tobacco, liquor, gambling and fossil fuel industries.

I know many places around the world, and indeed here in our own country, have taken the approach of trying to exclude particular classes of donors, but I think what the government is doing here is they have gone a step further and said they are not accepting donations from anybody and they are levelling the playing field in that regard.

I note that over the last few days I have had the opportunity to talk to many members in the community who are deeply concerned about the events that have unfolded in the United States and the election of Donald Trump. I am concerned about that for a range of different reasons. One of the things that I think is really terrifying people about democracy in the United States is the influence of these super PACs, political action committees.

I looked up recently to see how much money these super PACs were receiving in donations and what kind of influence they were having on the US presidential election. Between January 2023 and April 2024, US political campaigns collected around $8.6 billion for the 2024 house, senate and presidential elections. A total of 65 per cent of that money—$5.6 billion—came from political action committees.

That is a huge amount of private donations flowing into that system. I think the risk with the previous bill that the government put forward was that we could open the door for those super PACs, or some kind of similar structure, to be rolled out in South Australia. We have closed the door on that, and I think that is a really good thing.

I talked about what we saw before, with the campaign that was run against the Xenophon team by the gambling industry and by the Hotels Association. I do not support that and I thought that was really appalling at the time, but we have seen it also happen at a federal level, with the mining tax campaign that was run by Gina Rinehart, Twiggy Forrest and others in an attempt to destroy the Rudd government. We have seen it here locally, with the campaign run against the former Liberal government's land tax reforms.

We also saw it with the campaign run by the big banks against the former Labor Party's big banks levy, which was a bold, progressive initiative that was opposed vociferously by the big banks. They went out there and said, 'We can't possibly do this. It's going to be ruinous for the South Australian economy,' and ran a huge campaign which people could not compete with. Again, those days are numbered in South Australia because at least there is going to be some level of regulation. I think that is a significant improvement.

I think it is important to address, before I conclude, some of the responses from key stakeholder groups. I note the media release from the Australia Institute that has been issued earlier today where they say that this bill will not improve trust in politicians. I think it references the phrase that the bill has backfired, there has been no public inquiry and a secretive consultation process, and they identify some of their concerns with the bill.

I have a huge amount of respect for the Australia Institute and the work that they do. I think they are a very influential advocacy organisation, but I do not think it is true to say that there has been insufficient consultation in relation to this bill. The government came out with a draft bill six months ago. They asked members of the community their views, and they have also undertaken ongoing consultation with civil and society groups and tried to address many of their concerns.

The challenge, I guess, for the government, and it is for them to articulate the rationale for the approach they have taken, but my guess would be that were this bill to be delayed into the new year then we run out of time in terms of being able to put forward this reform in time for the next state election, and of course then we run up against the federal election. So I understand that concern, but in this instance to delay the bill into the new year means we really are missing the opportunity for this reform to take effect, and that means another state election under the old regime where we see potentially the influence of these vested interest groups continuing without any regulation. This is an opportunity for us to fix that.

As I say, I respect the work of the Australia Institute, but I remember when I was in the federal parliament dealing with Senate voting reform. They were concerned about that at the time, but I maintained it was the right thing to do. Indeed, there was concern at that time that Senate voting reform could see the Greens being wiped out of the parliament. Well, fast forward years ahead and actually the Greens have their strongest ever representation in the parliament.

In that circumstance we voted with the Liberal Party to make that reform happen, so I am open to working with Labor or the Liberals if they come to the table with sensitive ideas to try to improve our democracy. That is the approach we have taken in this regard.

I want to also reference some of the comments that have been made by the Centre for Public Integrity, which I also had the opportunity to meet with when the government put forward their draft legislation. They note in their press release that very substantial improvements have been made to the original draft bill through what they call a rigorous, vigorous and constructive consultation process. They note the quantum of administrative funding that will be available to major party incumbents via not only generous taxpayer-funded payments but up to two nominated entities is substantial, and they reference the independent audit they understand is currently in process to find if it is justified, and they urge the government to amend the bill accordingly if it finds that there is a need to do so.

I share that view. If the auditor comes back and identifies issues with the funding model that we need to look at, well of course we extend an opportunity to the government to work with the Greens to try to get that right. They note one of the most important improvements to the original bill is the addition of a robust statutory review clause, which will see an independent panel examine its impacts after the 2026 election and provide a report to parliament. I think that is a really welcome safeguard in this bill.

They also referenced some of the key improvements that have been made to the bill as a result of the public consultation. There are now third-party expenditure caps. There is a statutory review clause. There is policy development funding. There is the provision for volunteer labour and professional services being treated equally, regardless of recipients. There is administrative funding only able to be used for administrative purposes, not political campaigning. There are donation caps for new entrants. There is a threshold of 2 per cent retained for public funding of candidates in Legislative Council elections. There is administrative funding scaled at a decreasing marginal rate.

These are all, I think, really important safeguards in this legislation. Is the bill perfect? Of course not. Are there things that I would have liked to see in the bill? Of course. Could we have gone further or adopted a different approach? Of course we could have. But my view is that this is an advancement on the status quo, and it is worthy of support. It is a bit of a leap of faith, in many ways, for our democracy. It is going to be a grand experiment at the next state election in 2026, but I feel optimistic that this is something that could really enhance our democracy.

Before concluding, I also want to touch on one of the elements that has come up in discussion around this bill, and that is the significant amount of public funding that has been put on the table here. I understand members of the community will be concerned about the large amount of public funding that is being put forward, particularly in the context of a cost-of-living crisis. I totally understand that. But my view is that one of the best ways that we can get action on inequality in our state is to actually break the nexus between big money and politics and to actually get political outcomes that serve people and our environment, rather than setting up a system that is so reliant on donors.

I guess the fundamental question for South Australians is: who would you rather politicians be responsive to: donors and big corporations, or the citizens? This new model I think ensures that our political parties are responsive to the people whom they should always serve: the South Australian taxpayers, not their donors. I understand the concerns about the public funding model, but lots of places around the world do this, and I think it is a better direction for us to go in in our democracy, rather than seeing us drift further and further in the direction of the United States and all the catastrophic outcomes that flow from that.

In concluding, as has been observed by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, there has been a huge amount of work that has been done behind the scenes to get this bill to this point, particularly on a very tight timeframe. I want to acknowledge the staff who have done a huge amount of work to make this happen, in particular of course the drafters, who I think have been working very hard to make a range of changes to enhance the bill. I want to acknowledge the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, for the collegial and collaborative way in which he has engaged with the Greens on these reforms, and Minister Dan Cregan. I have enjoyed working with both of them on this; we have had lots of discussions over the last few months.

I also want to thank Victoria Brown from the Premier's office and Lukas Price from Minister Cregan's office. I also thank my staff, Melanie Selwood and Sean Cullen-Macaskill in particular, who spent a lot of time over several weeks getting their heads around all the details of what is being proposed.

In closing, it is a leap of faith, but sometimes in life you have to take risks, and when opportunity comes, when the train comes, you get on. My hope is that it is going to carry us to a good destination for our democracy. Let's view this as an opportunity to do something positive. One thing I am hearing in my discussions in the community at the moment is that people are desperate for politicians to do things differently to shake up the system. I see this as an opportunity for us to do that.

12 November 2024

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This morning, The Advertiser reported that Ventia, a company that holds a $4 billion contract with the state government to look after buildings such as schools, hospitals and office blocks, has been criticised in a report by the Auditor-General for allowing contractors to overcharge and for taking too long to carry out repairs. The Auditor's findings came after allegations that some regional schools are being forced to use the government-mandated company rather than local tradies, costing them tens of thousands of extra dollars for simple jobs.

The Auditor-General's Report concluded Ventia was engaging subcontractors who charge above the maximum trade ceiling rates established under the contract, with participating agencies charged at higher rates than those allowable for some work. In one instance, a school in the state's South-East was quoted $65,000 to build a fence that a local contractor estimated would cost just $2,000. My questions to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development therefore are:

1. Is the minister concerned that the government's contract with Ventia is driving up costs for critical building and maintenance work in the regions?
2. Would the government support a public builder who could undertake this work?
3. What steps is the minister taking to address this issue?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:16): I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, this is a contract that was put together under the former Liberal government. This contract is, of course, currently in force. I think those opposite should talk about taking the blame for some of the issues that are the result of that contract. We talked, if I recall correctly, when we were in opposition and raised some of these concerns, with some suppliers from Murray Bridge who were out the front of Parliament House when this was being put forward by those opposite, or their predecessors, in the previous government.

It is very concerning that the sort of contract that was put together by the former Liberal government is potentially having very detrimental impacts. The relevant minister in the other place I heard on radio this morning describing this contract as such that he feels like he has one hand tied behind his back in trying to address the issues that have come from this. I think it is most unfortunate. I know that the minister is doing what he can in terms of reviewing the contract to be able to see how we can get a better outcome for our regional communities, despite the absolutely appalling situation brought about by the former Liberal government.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:18): Supplementary: rather than playing the blame game, will the minister consider a public builder so that this doesn't happen again?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:18): Contracts that are in place are obviously legally binding documents, but I know the minister in the other place is keen to see what can be done to address the issues that have been raised.

12 November 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:56): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General on the topic of the Victims of Crime Fund.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Earlier this year, the Adelaide Advertiser reported that the Victims of Crime Fund was holding approximately $200 million in funds even though only $16.9 million was provided in victim compensation in 2021-22. The fund is financed by fines paid by offenders and levies on offences. The current maximum compensation available for victims is $129,000. It currently costs $147,000 per year to house prisoners in South Australia. In the Netherlands, the prison population reduced by 44 per cent between 2005 and 2015 by introducing rehabilitation methods and programs that reduced recidivism. My questions to the Attorney-General therefore are:

1. What is the current amount of money in the Victims of Crime Fund?

2. Would the government consider increasing the percentage that is made available as compensation to victims and also allocating additional money to reduce offending in our state?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for his questions. Of course, the victims of crime regime is a very important regime that provides an ability for funding to be paid to those who have suffered as a consequence of criminal offending against them.

I do not have a figure in front of me, but I think the balance stands in the order of $200 million in the Victims of Crime Fund. From memory, the amount that was paid into the scheme in the 2022-23 financial year was exceeded by the amount that was paid out of the scheme in that financial year. One of the reasons in that financial year was a further substantial contribution to the National Redress Scheme made from the Victims of Crime Fund to cover future liabilities.

I believe that in the 2023-24 financial year there were a similar number of applications made, if not a slightly higher number than the year before, and a slightly higher quantum paid out in total to victims of crime but not an amount paid for future liabilities for the National Redress Scheme. I think it is very likely, before the National Redress Scheme applications close in 2028, that further payments from the Victims of Crime Fund will be needed, which will, I suspect, in total get towards, if not exceed, a couple hundred million dollars as South Australia's contribution to that.

So whilst there is a significant balance in the Victims of Crime Fund, we have seen in recent history, in the last decade and certainly even in the last couple of financial years, tens of millions of dollars being paid out to things like the National Redress Scheme, which I suspect there will be further calls on before the National Redress Scheme accepts final applications in 2028.

12 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:40): I rise to speak briefly on the Appropriation Bill. As is often the case when it comes to—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: —these discussions about budgets and appropriation, they are often defined more by what is missing and my big concern around what we have seen from the Labor government to date is that they are not doing enough to tackle the cost-of-living crisis that is gripping our state. There is not enough of a focus on building more public housing and building more social housing.

I had an opportunity to go along to the announcement of the Housing Roadmap a few months ago. The launch of that event was organised in conjunction with the Property Council. When I saw the details of the announcement, I realised why: because developers are getting a free kick and there is no new funding other than what had already been announced for more social housing to get the housing crisis under control.

That is not acceptable when one considers we have about 16,000 people on the social housing waitlist—16,000 people who are desperate for a roof over their head and a place to call home. Meanwhile, Labor is delivering a surplus—delivering a surplus while we have people sleeping on the street. There is something very wrong about the priorities of this government in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.

The Liberals have talked a lot about roads. Well, what about public transport? Once again, we are not seeing the appropriate investment in public transport in the regions or in metropolitan South Australia. While other states are making public transport free to reduce the cost that families are facing at the bowser and to reduce the effects of climate change, in South Australia we are actually seeing public transport prices going up and, again, that is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and in the middle of a climate crisis.

Where also is the leadership in terms of addressing the imbalances that exist in our housing market? Where is the action on rent prices? Why did Labor not come out and back the Greens' push for a rent freeze for two years to stop rent prices from going up and up and up? Why have Labor not taken action on vacant properties, as has happened in other states around the country? Where is the leadership on that? Why are they not taking action on Airbnbs? These things are starving our state of the vital housing we need.

Where is the leadership from Labor on energy prices? Why will they not support the Greens' push for a commission of inquiry into bringing back ETSA and ensuring that we have electricity that is owned by the people of South Australia and operates for the benefit of the people of South Australia? Low cost, publicly owned renewable electricity—we can do it if there is the political leadership from the government to make it happen.

I do not want to let the opposition off the hook, though, because it is clear that they have no vision to deal with the cost-of-living crisis in our state and no plan to actually reorient the economy here to ensure that it works for people. I heard the Leader of the Opposition in one of his first interviews. He was at the Royal Adelaide Show last week being interviewed by David Bevan. He was asked about what he would do to get the health system back under control. He was asked quite directly, 'Would you support new taxes? What new revenue measures would you back?' 'Oh, no. No new taxes.' 'What about debt? Would you take on more debt?' 'Oh, no. No debt.' 'Well, what about cutting public services?' 'Oh, no, we're not cutting any public services, and we're not going to be stopping any government projects.'

The question is: what would they do differently? I note that the opposition leader was at the Show. Perhaps he was looking for the recipe for a magic pudding, because that is the only way that the Liberal Party can make good on their promises, given they are not going to increase revenue and they are not going to cut services. Really, they are found wanting when it comes to a vision for the people of South Australia and a vision for the state budget.

Lucky the Greens are here to raise these issues—and we will continue. I note the attacks on me in the other place by Jack Batty, the member for Bragg, where he has slightly misrepresented some of the policy positions the Greens have taken, but at least we are putting forward ideas that are costed and can be done if there is the political will to do so, rather than promoting the ludicrous magic pudding economics of the Liberal opposition.

11 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:24): I thank the honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Ben Hood and the Hon. Tung Ngo. I thank the opposition and the Hon. Ms Game for their support of this bill. I do want to express my empathy with the position that the Hon. Tung Ngo is in. He is often wheeled out to sell the unsellable, and I feel sorry for him because, really, no amount of government advertising can make that position look good. It is pretty shameless. They really have more front than John Martin's to undertake this Olympic-style backflip.

Let us not forget that when the Labor Party were in opposition they were very happy to impose these rules on the then Marshall government. Indeed, in the upper house, I moved a private member's bill, or an amendment to a government bill at the time, which the Labor Party was enthusiastically supportive of. In the other place, they advanced a private member's bill. Now they are in government, they have an opportunity to actually put their money where their mouth is, and what do they do? They squib at the opportunity.

I cannot understand why that would be. What would lead to that about-face? When they were in opposition, they were very vocal on this. Why would they change their position now, I ask you? It is really an embarrassing about-face and very disappointing because this bill actually draws on ideas that have been proposed by both sides of politics, as the Hon. Ben Hood noted in his remarks. The bill draws on a proposal from the then minister, the Hon. Vickie Chapman. It also draws on the very sensible ideas of the Hon. Stephen Mullighan. It puts them all together, and it also introduces a few new elements that had been proposed by the Grattan Institute. So I am very disappointed that the Labor Party have adopted such an inconsistent approach on this.

The Hon. Ben Hood raised a question of clarification. To save time in the committee stage, assuming that this bill passes this stage, I might respond to a few of those points now. The honourable member raised a question about what would happen for a member of parliament who was inadvertently captured in advertising. There is a provision in the bill that makes it clear that it is not a breach if the photo or the use of their image occurred while they were not an MP or if they could not reasonably have known that they were going to be in the advertising.

For instance, if you had a scenario where a member of parliament was a community advocate or whatever, they were featured in some government advertising or stock photos and they did not know that they were going to be used in an upcoming campaign, then there would not be consequences that would flow to that member. I think the other question that was asked was around the $10,000 limit. Under the proposal, any proposal from a government department to expend more than $10,000 in the lead-up to an election would need to be approved by the Auditor-General.

I understand the opposition was interested in how the $10,000 figure was arrived at. It was the figure that was in the Labor Party's original proposal and, indeed, the one that I advanced back in 2021, I believe it was. The reason that quantum was arrived at, from my perspective, and why I continue to use that quantum, is that there was consistency with the proposal previously advanced by the then Labor opposition, but also it does set a very low threshold, which I think is appropriate, only in the lead-up to the election when we want to ensure that, if lines between government advertising and political party advertising are potentially blurred, there is a high level of scrutiny. That is what the bill proposes, but only in that lead-up period.

If this bill passes the upper house it would send a very clear message to the Malinauskas government that they need to lift their game in this regard. I think it puts them on notice that this chamber is watching what they are doing with government advertising and watching what they are doing in terms of spending government money on promoting themselves and on backslapping exercises, and that it really urges them to adopt a better standard.

The Hon. Mr Ngo says that the government is already doing it. Well, if they are already doing it, why would they not support enshrining these principles in legislation? The reality is that they know they are not meeting the expectations of the people of South Australia in this regard. I commend the bill.