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.

28 August 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (23:46): I rise to speak very briefly in support of this motion on payroll tax by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and indicate that the Greens will be supporting the motion. Earlier this year, the Greens listened to the calls of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners when they argued for an end to payroll tax for GPs, and we supported the honourable Connie Bonaros's motion that passed this place in April in response to that issue. Indeed, I also put forward a motion on that important issue. Great minds often think alike on the crossbench, it seems, when it comes to these issues.

The motion notes that the business community is calling for payroll tax reform. It is fair to say that the Greens have a nuanced view on this issue. I do not necessarily support the calls of the business community in terms of the need to totally overhaul payroll tax. Indeed, it is my view that big corporations should pay more payroll tax. We have advocated for that previously, and I wrote to the Treasurer in the lead-up to the state budget advancing that position. But we certainly do not want to see payroll tax making it more difficult for small and emerging businesses to get off the ground in our state.

I should point out that it is the big corporations that are making millions or potentially billions of dollars in profit that we should be targeting here. They should not be given relief in their responsibility to provide for the greater good of the state. The money that comes from taxing big business can provide the funding we require for public services and social programs such as better health care; public schooling; trains, buses and even regional rail; and infrastructure that supports liveable cities and towns.

It is also the view of the Greens that we need to look at reform in terms of ensuring that gig economy businesses are subject to payroll tax. That was a recommendation out of the parliamentary inquiry into the gig economy, and I look forward to the government responding to that. This motion is a call to the Malinauskas government to support small businesses in remaining viable and maintaining their objectives and, of course, also looking at this issue in respect of GPs. We therefore support it on that basis.

In the interests of time, I might take this opportunity to indicate that the Greens will not be supporting the backslapping amendments of the Liberals, giving themselves a pat on the back for their time in government. We will not be a party to that, but I am happy to support the Hon. Connie Bonaros's motion.

28 August 2024

Bills

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:05): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to regulate government advertising and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government Advertising Bill that I am introducing today imposes guidelines on government advertising and restricts government advertising in the lead-up to elections. I think it is a bill that actually reflects the will and desires of the South Australian people, who want to see the best possible standards in place when it comes to spending of public money.

How often do we turn on our devices and see the government of the day spruiking the work that they are doing? Unsurprisingly, we see an increase in this type of spending in the lead-up to an election, where the incumbent government uses this type of advertising to show just how well they are doing and to bolster their chances at the polls. Indeed, one of the concerns of the Greens is that in the lead-up to elections there is a blurred line between government advertising and political party advertising because, of course, governments of both persuasions when they are promoting their agenda are also potentially promoting the political party agenda too.

Expenditure on government advertising has sharply increased under the Malinauskas government. In the 2022 to 2023 financial year, the state government spent a staggering $47.6 million on advertising. That is a record in terms of the expenditure of government advertising. That was up on $6 million on the previous year and represents the third year in a row with record high spending. The previous year there was a dramatic increase from $23.9 million in 2019 to 2020 to $41.2 million in the financial year of 2021 to 2022.

Let's consider this Labor government's advertising bill. Cha-ching! Think about the amount of money they are spending, and let us look at some of Labor's million-dollar items. They have spent $1.15 million on promoting the Housing Roadmap. They call it a road map; it is more a mud map. It was announced a few months ago. It is, in effect, a free kick to developers. It does not pledge any more public housing be built. Instead, it is a free kick to developers but, to add insult to injury, they are using taxpayer money to promote it—$1.15 million.

Surely, in the middle of a housing crisis Labor should be spending that money on actually building more housing rather than telling everybody how great they are. Given we have a huge backlog on maintenance for public housing, how can they justify spending over $1 million on that? I wish the Labor Party stopped talking about housing and actually started building some. We might not find ourselves in such a dire state in South Australia.

In addition to the huge amount of money that has been given to the AFL Gather Round, which we know is an important project for the Premier, they have spent $1.3 million on promoting it, not to mention the SA Magnet State campaign at $2.48 million. But the real doozy I think is the $742,775 that was spent promoting the government's own state budget—again, telling everybody how great they are.

The Labor Party needs to remember that this is not their money, it is taxpayers' money. I think a lot of South Australians would be offended to see their money being spent on a backslapping exercise for the Labor Party. Taxpayers have a right to know where the money is being spent and they need to be assured that the spending is not being used to influence opinion in the lead-up to elections.

Both Labor and Liberal governments and oppositions have tried in the past to tackle this issue and, actually, what the Greens have done is tried to draw on models that both major parties in this place have looked at. In 2019, the then attorney-general, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, introduced her Government Advertising Bill, which required the minister to publish guidelines and then for the Auditor-General to audit all government advertising. It also prohibited ministers or MPs from appearing in any government advertising. Sadly, the bill lapsed when parliament was prorogued.

In 2021, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan, who was then the opposition Treasury spokesperson, introduced his own government advertising bill, and later that week I moved an amendment to the budget measures bill to incorporate the provisions of that bill into the budget. It passed the upper house but, again, it lapsed in the lead-up to the election.

What we have done is taken the ideas that the Hon. Stephen Mullighan advanced in opposition and that I promoted in this place and put them into this bill. I am surprised that the Labor government has been in power now for over two years and they have not taken this issue up. They were very happy to apply that standard to the Liberal government when Labor was in opposition. Well, now they are in power, surely they are going to do it.

I assume what has happened is that it is just on the to-do list and they have not got to it yet. I assume it is sitting in someone's drawer, they are intending to action it and so the Greens are here, of course, as we often are, to help out the government and to remind them that this is a priority because to not action this would be, I suggest, an act of rank hypocrisy and one I think that would appal a lot of South Australians—an example of a government doing something when they are in opposition and then, when they find themselves in office, suddenly jettisoning that commitment.

I cannot imagine that this Malinauskas government would do such a thing. That would be a cynical act, I suggest. Really, the government would have more front than John Martin's to go down that path. So I am assuming this is on the to-do list and I look forward to the government getting on board and backing this bill.

I do want to, though, acknowledge that the Malinauskas government has already published some guidelines voluntarily, with a government advisory committee reviewing all expenditure over $50,000 for government advertising. We welcome that. That is a good transparency measure. But my bill goes further. It takes elements of both bills introduced in previous sessions by the Liberal government and the Labor opposition.

Provisions this bill includes from the Marshall government proposed reforms include a requirement that the minister prepare and publish guidelines for government advertising, prevent any minister or MP from being in advertising, and require the Auditor-General to audit and report on the use of advertising by the government. The bill also incorporates the following provisions from the proposal advanced by the then shadow treasurer, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan. Under this Green bill, no agency will be able to incur more than $10,000 on government advertising unless it is approved by the Auditor-General during the period of 1 July prior to an election, to the date of the election.

The Auditor-General would only be able to approve additional expenditure if it relates to public health, public safety, road and transport works, emergencies, material required to ensure that elections can be conducted, engagement of people in government services and attendance at events, tourism, sale of property, or courses of tertiary institutions. I think it is fair that the Auditor-General should cast an eye over any advertising in the lead-up to the election to ensure that it is appropriate.

The bill goes further than both the previous proposals from the Labor and Liberal parties, and I have also taken up the feedback from a report by the Grattan Institute titled, 'New politics: depoliticising taxpayer funded advertising'. The first of the new additions is to ensure that no advertisements can be allowed that relate to legislation before the parliament, and I think that is appropriate. Under our bill it would not be possible for the government to start advertising a budget that had not even passed the parliament. I think that is fair.

The Grattan report cites examples at both the federal and the state level where governments have used advertising to build support for reforms before they have even been legislated. I think that is an abuse of advertising, when the taxpayer picks up the dime for bills that promote the agenda of the government of the day. I will say that this is not just a Labor Party problem; the Howard government really had form on this. Let us not forget the campaign to promote the GST. They really set the standard when it came to using public money to promote their agenda. We have to do better than that here in South Australia.

Additionally, my bill ensures that social media is captured in these provisions. We all know that legislation can be slow to catch up to technological advances, and we have seen a huge increase in governments using social media to promote their work. A paper from the Australian National University, for instance, called for such a provision to ensure that there were no loopholes in our laws. This bill makes it clear that social media spending is considered advertising.

The final provision of this bill is to explicitly prohibit government advertising from influencing support for a political party. I think that one should really be a no-brainer. Anyone who is in the opposition or on the crossbench could consider that there is an unfair advantage for the government of the day if they use advertising to try to seek support. This bill is clear that the purpose of government advertising is not to influence political outcomes, and it should not be used to advance the political objectives of a political party.

Other jurisdictions have taken action around government advertising. In New South Wales the minister is required to prepare and publish guidelines, and the Auditor-General must do an audit. In Victoria, government advertising must be in the public interest.

I welcome the discussion we are having in South Australia at the moment around transparency and donations reform. This is a real opportunity to clean up politics in our state, and I do commend the Malinauskas government for kicking off that conversation, in particular the Premier for his leadership in wanting to take on donations reform.

However, if we are going to have this conversation we also need to consider government advertising, because if we restrict the work of political parties there is the potential for government advertising to have a disproportionate impact. The Greens will continue to push this issue and I do plan to bring this bill to a vote.

This bill is an opportunity for us to make sure that any government of the day is not able to use their incumbency to influence support for their policies, especially in the lead-up to an election. This is a reform that the Labor Party was very supportive of when they were in opposition, and I hope they will embrace the opportunity the Greens have presented for them to now get on board with this bill and make it a priority.

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

4 June 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:48): I rise to speak to the Supply Bill on behalf of the Greens. In doing so I indicate that the Greens will honour the convention in this place of supporting supply and will, of course, support this bill.

I want to use this opportunity to talk a little bit about some of the issues we would like to see the government focus on in Thursday's budget. I think the number one issue for South Australians at the moment is surely the cost-of-living crisis. That is the water-cooler conversation out in the South Australian community, and I think that is the benchmark against which the Malinauskas government's budget will be measured. People want to see the government taking meaningful action on cost of living. It is a shame that the Hon. Clare Scriven is not in the chamber, because she will be delighted to know that I did make a submission to the government in that regard.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the issues that I flagged in that letter that I wrote to the Treasurer, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan. One of the issues we really want the government to take action on is, of course, rent prices. I have talked a lot in this chamber about spiralling rents, and the concerns that we have around rent prices. Over just the last year, rent prices have soared by 10 to 30 per cent across 92 suburbs.

I do want to acknowledge the leadership of the Malinauskas government in reforming our rental laws last year, and the Greens were pleased to work with the government to make some important changes to rental laws. One of the areas where we could not get the government to take action was on rent prices.

I previously had a bill in this chamber that would have capped rent increases in line with CPI. We could not get support for that—in fact, no other political party was willing to support it—and so I have introduced another bill which would freeze rents for the next two years to provide relief to people who are struggling with skyrocketing rents. I really urge the Malinauskas government to support that, and also to ensure that in this upcoming budget there is provision made for concessions for renters to address some of the cost-of-living pressures they are facing at the moment.

We are also calling for the government to take action on minimum rental standards. We are very concerned that many tenants are living in housing that is expensive to heat and cool and does not meet community expectations. We know, of course, that that results in increased energy bills for people who are already dealing with the rental crisis. We need to ensure that there are standards that keep our homes cool during summer but also warm during the winter months, and we are heading into the winter period at the moment.

We also need the government to take action in terms of building more public housing. I do recognise some of the announcements that the government has made in that regard, but the Greens are concerned that existing public housing tenants are going to be displaced, and that there is not a clear plan in terms of managing what is happening to those tenants during the construction phase.

We also need to see a public builder established, so that we can fast track the maintenance of existing social housing stock. I think all members of the South Australian community were dismayed to hear the news of subcontractors not being paid for their work by private provider Spotless. That is appalling, and the government needs to take real action on that in this budget. Set up a public builder, so that we can fast track the construction of public homes, but also fast track the maintenance work that is long overdue.

I note that the Liberals have spoken a little bit about the housing crisis in their remarks. I am not surprised because it was the Liberal Party that invented the housing crisis in Canberra with the policies of John Howard. The chickens have now come to roost through the exorbitant negative gearing policies, which the Liberal Party ramped up, and the capital gains concessions.

All of these things have overheated the housing market and, of course, they were aided and abetted in that project by the Labor Party here in South Australia that sold off our public housing stock. It has been a bipartisan project that has created the housing crisis, but the Labor Party here have a responsibility to do what they can to fix it, obviously here in South Australia but also over in Canberra, and they need to radically ramp up the investment in public housing.

We need to also see action on education in this budget because many families are already paying exorbitant fees to send their children to public schools, and the Greens have been calling for many years now to scrap public school fees, so that these schools are accessible to everybody. It does seem very unfair that parents are paying quite excessive materials and services charges and other fees, particularly in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. We need to see adequate funding for our hospitals and our public health system. I do recognise that the Malinauskas government was swept to power on a pledge to fix our health system, and they have made some progress but they need to do a lot better. We need to see the implementation of the recommendations of the Ambulance Employees Association, including the provision of specialised transit wards.

We also need to see more GP positions being created, and the Greens have been calling for that: GPs who are focused on free consults for people with a health care card. We also need to see the government scrap ambulance call-out fees. It is really concerning to us that pensioners and concession card holders are being slugged up to $1,200 for a call-out fee for an ambulance if they do not have insurance. That is really concerning because what that means is that someone could be dissuaded from calling an ambulance if they are in a crisis situation and if they need help.

Finally, we need to see some action on public transport, and I do agree with the remarks of the Hon. Ben Hood. We do need to see a focus on regional public transport, and public transport across the board. In Queensland, the state government there have announced recently 50¢ fares for public transport to try to get people onto public transport, recognising that people are facing pressure at the bowser because we know that petrol prices are going up and up. That would be a really good initiative that the state Labor government could implement in this coming budget, to try to get people back onto public transport.

Also, there is a plethora of really good ideas in the report of the Select Committee on Public and Active Transport that was handed down over 12 months ago. If the minister is ever willing to meet with me, I would be happy to talk to him about those ideas. There are some really good opportunities that the Labor government could take up in this budget when it comes to public transport infrastructure if they are willing to make that a priority, recognising that it would reduce some of the cost-of-living pressures that families are under and also do something good for our environment, which we know is desperately needed.

In concluding my remarks, we really hope in the Greens that the government take serious action on the cost-of-living crisis that is gripping our state. I think that is the standard by which the community will measure the success of this next Labor budget, and I really urge them to heed the advice of the Greens and all the community groups that have been calling for support for South Australians who are struggling in the middle of this crisis.

11 April 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:16): I am sorry to break with the moment of collective kumbaya we had moments ago and indicate that I am not in a position to support this push for yet another committee from the Hon. Connie Bonaros. We have talked extensively about the fact that this parliament is overburdened with committees at the moment and the Hon. Connie Bonaros, whilst I understand she does have a significant passion in this area, is seeking to add another committee to the burgeoning list. For us in the Greens we do not see this as being appropriate at the moment.

I do recognise the concerns that the Hon. Connie Bonaros articulated in her speech, when she introduced this push for a committee, when she talked about healthcare workers. I submit to you, Mr President, that we do not require a committee because we have already passed a resolution of this chamber asking the government to take action on healthcare workers and the impact of payroll tax on the healthcare sector. We do not need an inquiry to know what to do; we have already asked the government to step up and take action.

I do not consider an inquiry to be appropriate in this circumstance. I understand the Hon. Connie Bonaros will be disappointed with my position on that, but I have also faced the bitter disappointment that comes from not always getting my committees over the line so I understand her pain. In this instance, we are not able to support this referral.

20 March 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:40): I move:

That this council—

1. Acknowledges that:

(a) the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners South Australia (RACGP SA) has launched a campaign for the state government to stop applying payroll tax to general practitioners; and

(b) South Australia is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and many people are already struggling to cover the costs of essentials like medical appointments.

2. Notes that:

(a) the patient engagement platform HotDoc has released figures that show that 95 per cent of clinics are planning to increase patient fees by an average of $12 per appointment in response to the payroll tax and only 28 per cent of patients would continue to see their regular GP (albeit less regularly), if fees increased; and

(b) the Queensland government has provided a payroll tax ruling clarifying that patients' fees paid directly to a GP for their services would not be subject to payroll tax.

3. Calls on the Malinauskas government to align with the Queensland government's approach to rule out payroll tax on patients' fees paid directly to GPs for their services.

This is a really important issue for this parliament to deal with. I note that the Hon. Connie Bonaros advanced a motion on a similar topic and I certainly share the concerns that she has expressed, but this motion from the Greens goes a little bit further than that because we are not just calling for an amnesty, we are calling for the Labor government to go a step further and that is actually rule out applying this payroll tax to GP services.

Queensland has done that. They have actually provided a payroll tax ruling that clarifies that patients' fees that are paid directly to a GP for their services would not be subject to a payroll tax. Well, the patients and medical practitioners of our state do not simply need an amnesty—in effect, a stay of execution—what they need is certainty going forward and for this money grab to be ruled out.

I understand that the state Labor government are in a difficult financial position. I understand that and that is through no fault of the government. We know of course the significant costs that have been associated with managing COVID, not just here in our own state but right across the country. But budgets are about choices and this government does not have to go down the path of slugging medical practitioners, and slugging, by extension, patients with increased fees. There are lots of other alternatives.

The Greens have referenced previously work of the Australia Institute, which finds that there was about $150 million that is going to fossil fuel companies in subsidies, direct money from the state government. That money could be put into our health system to deal with the crisis that we are facing. That would be an appropriate course of action, rather than a money grab that is going to cause vulnerable South Australians to be paying more to go to see a doctor. That is not something we want to see.

The Greens certainly support the campaign of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners for the government to stop applying payroll tax to the work of general practitioners, indeed all healthcare professionals. We are concerned that going to the dentist could also become more expensive in South Australia should this medical tax get the green light from the Malinauskas government.

I want to reference some of the work of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). They claim that the payroll tax for GPs would result in higher fees for patients, reductions in bulk billing or more GPs leaving the workforce. That, of course, would not be a good outcome for patients or the medical profession in general. We look at that with the backdrop of the ramping crisis that is getting worse and worse in this state.

Some might say, 'Do not trust politicians when they talk about dealing with these matters.' I will not repeat the phrase, but some say, 'That is all BS'. The reality is that people do rely on parliaments to deal with these sorts of matters. People do rely on governments to solve these sorts of matters and they do not expect budget black holes to be plugged by the sick in our community.

Out-of-pocket costs for medical services are rising and South Australians are unable to afford basic health care and the Greens believe, of course, that everybody is entitled to that. Last year, a Productivity Commission report showed that there was a 50 per cent increase in Australians who delayed or avoided seeing their doctor because they could not afford it. That was up by 2.4 per cent of people to 3.5 per cent. At the same time, GPs are increasingly being forced to stop bulk billing to ensure they can afford to stay afloat.

That same report also revealed there are approximately three million avoidable presentations to public hospital emergency departments that could have been handled by a GP. The reality is that if we do not fund GPs appropriately, if we do not invest in preventative care, you are going to see more people presenting in emergency and we know that our hospital system is already struggling to cope.

As we face both a cost-of-living crisis and an emergency health system at full capacity, we need to be looking at what we can do to relieve the pressure, not just compound it. In June last year, the Treasurer issued an amnesty on payroll tax to tenant GPs to 30 June of this year. This came after the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal 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.

The decision by the New South Wales court caught practices by surprise and according to the RACGP gave them no choice but to raise patient fees. The state government amnesty was welcomed by the RACGP to give them time to work through the implications for tenant GPs.

It is my understanding that it is not just general practitioners who fall into this category. Yesterday, a dentist contacted my office and reported that dental and psychology practices are also potentially impacted by this ruling, so the Greens call on the government to rule out applying this new tax not just to GPs but also to medical practitioners. It is important that we consider the impact that this could have on our health system in the middle of this health crisis.

Data from HotDoc reveals that 95 per cent of clinics are planning to increase patient fees by 12 per cent in response to this payroll tax. That is a terrible outcome for patients who are already feeling the pinch. Research from The Pharmacy Guild of Australia has shown that 48 per cent of patients would move to a different GP if they stopped bulk billing. Any sensible person would look at this and realise that this will end up with bulk billing facilities being overrun and being more burdened than they are at present. It will also result in patients either delaying their health care or forking out money they cannot afford to pay for the services they need.

On 21 February this year, the Queensland government issued its own ruling that patient fees paid directly to a GP for their services will not be subject to a payroll tax. The Queensland ruling applies to medical centres where medical practitioners are conducting business or providing medical services and I note that this would capture dentistry, psychology and other medical services in addition to GPs.

This motion aims to put into action the calls from the RACGP for the Malinauskas government to match Queensland to exempt medical practitioners from payroll tax both to support healthcare professionals and to also ensure patients are not being slogged for extra fees in the middle of this cost-of-living crisis.

This is a government that was elected on a platform of fixing our health system. Well, you cannot fix our health system if you price South Australians out of getting in to see a GP. You cannot fix our health system and you cannot get ramping under control if you make it more difficult to get in to see a doctor, dentist or psychologist.

All of these things are fundamental to our health system, and we cannot see South Australians being priced out of getting the care that they need. So I really urge the Malinauskas government not just to extend the amnesty but to actually rule it out, knock the nail on the head and bring this matter to a close so that there is certainty for our medical professionals and certainty for vulnerable people in our community: the sick who need the support of those professionals.

7 February 2024

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

1. That a select committee be established to inquire and report on grocery pricing in South Australia with particular reference to:

(a) the trends in grocery pricing in South Australia, compared to other states in Australia and internationally;

(b) the disparities in grocery pricing between metropolitan and regional areas;

(c) the impact of high grocery prices on consumers, particularly for those on low incomes;

(d) the relationship between wholesale prices paid to farmers and the retail price paid by consumers;

(e) the prevalence of food insecurity in South Australia;

(f) the prevalence of price gouging practices and anti-competitive behaviour among grocery retailers and the impact on consumers;

(g) factors contributing to high grocery prices;

(h) potential opportunities for further regulation of grocery retailers and opportunities for state government intervention; and

(i) any other related matters.

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

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:19): I want to thank all members who have participated in this debate: the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Ms Game, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Ben Hood and the Hon. Mr Ngo. I think it is really welcome to see that this chamber is taking this issue seriously and there seems to be a consensus across this chamber of parliament that this is an important issue for us to deal with. We certainly welcome that in the Greens.

It is, as has been observed by other speakers, a really important and timely issue for the parliament to deal with. Indeed, just this week new data has come out from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that actually demonstrates that Adelaide not only leads the nation when it comes to inflation but also leads the nation when it comes to the prices of food and non-alcoholic beverages. We have seen in Adelaide a 16 per cent increase in the cost of food and non-alcoholic beverages over the last three years—that is ahead of every other capital city in the country. I think it is important for the South Australian parliament to look into this matter.

As has been observed, there is a real issue also with respect to the prices being paid to farmers and local producers for their goods. They are being dudded, and that is happening at a time when you have big corporations like Coles and Woolies making record profits, ripping off consumers in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. I really hope that this inquiry can hold those big corporations to account, hold their feet to the fire and really expose some of the price gouging practices.

I might just briefly indicate the Greens' position on the amendments. The government has reached out to me regarding their amendments. We are happy to accommodate those in order to get this committee over the line. I am aware of the amendments that the Liberal Party have put forward. I guess of concern to me is the fact that the Liberal amendment seeks to remove the potential for the committee to consider options for regulation, and I see that as being a key action point for the committee. It is important to shine a light on what is going on, but we need to insert some verbs in there as well and actually look at what we can do. The potential for regulation, I think, is important, so for that reason we will not be supporting the Liberal Party amendment. As I indicate, we will support the government's amendments.

30 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:26): I move:

1. That a select committee be established to inquire and report on grocery pricing in South Australia with particular reference to:

(a) the trends in grocery pricing in South Australia, compared to other states in Australia and internationally;

(b) the disparities in grocery pricing between metropolitan and regional areas;

(c) the impact of high grocery prices on consumers, particularly for those on low incomes;

(d) the relationship between wholesale prices paid to farmers and the retail price paid by consumers;

(e) the prevalence of food insecurity in South Australia;

(f) the prevalence of price gouging practices and anti-competitive behaviour among grocery retailers and the impact on consumers;

(g) factors contributing to high grocery prices;

(h) potential opportunities for further regulation of grocery retailers and opportunities for state government intervention; and

(i) any other related matters.

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

In moving for this inquiry, the Greens recognise the significant cost-of-living crisis that we are facing at the moment, and the impact that this is having on some of the most vulnerable people in our state. Since September of last year, we have seen a 4.8 per cent increase in food prices nationally and, in the previous year, there was a 9 per cent increase in food prices nationally. I understand that here in South Australia over the last five years, grocery prices have increased by 20 per cent.

Examples of some of the price increases over the last five years include the price of wholemeal sliced bread, which has gone up from $1.80 to $2.70; white sliced bread has gone up from $1.50 to $2.70; peanut butter was $5.70 and is now $6.40; white sugar has gone up from $1.79 to $2.20; and instant coffee has gone up from $7.50 to $11.50. Meanwhile, you have the large supermarkets making an absolute motza. Coles made a $1.1 billion profit last financial year; that is an increase of 4.8 per cent. Woolworths made a $1.6 billion profit, up by 4.6 per cent.

A report by UBS, an investment bank, has shown that prices have increased at Coles and Woolworths by 9.6 per cent between May 2022 and May 2023. I note that this is a figure that is disputed by Coles, but this is the assessment of the UBS. Let's consider the other cost-of-living pressures that people are facing. Indeed, Foodbank's 2023 Hunger Report found that:

• in the last year, 3.7 million Australian households experienced moderate to severe food insecurity;
• 48 per cent of the general population now feels anxious or struggles to consistently access food;
• 77 per cent of those households experiencing food insecurity did so for the first time this year;
• 56 per cent of food-insecure households did not get help in the past year; and
• high living expenses is the most common reason given for food insecurity.

The ABS data shows that households are cutting back on clothes, shoes, furnishing and household equipment due to cost-of-living pressures, and South Australian household spending has increased by 3.7 per cent.

We are seeing the cost of everything going up. The cost of electricity is skyrocketing, the cost of fuel is skyrocketing, interest rates are going up and up and up, rents are going up and up and up, and meanwhile we have big corporations making record profits. How can it be that we have South Australians who will struggle to put food on the table this Christmas while we have Coles and Woolies and the big food retailers making an absolute motza? How can that be right? Surely we have to do something. That is why the Greens are calling for this inquiry, because it is time for this parliament to step up and hold these big corporations to account and to see what can be done.

It is not right that we have families that will struggle to put food on the table this Christmas while Coles and Woolies make record profits—that is not right. We need to do something about it. I plan to bring this to a vote in the new year, and I urge all members of parliament to get on board and let's see what we can do.

New South Wales has had an inquiry into food prices. Victoria announced an inquiry into food prices earlier this week, and that was led by my Greens colleagues in that state. It is a key priority for us in the Greens, but it should be a key priority for everybody in this parliament, particularly as we head into the Christmas period.

17 October 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:11): I rise also to speak on the Appropriation Bill. In so doing, I echo many of the comments made by my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks. I want to reflect on the failure of this Labor budget to really tackle inequality. In doing so, I want to start with the housing crisis.

We are in the midst of the worst housing crisis we have seen in generations—in generations. We have a record low vacancy rate for rental properties. We have a waitlist for public housing of almost 20,000 people. As a result, we have people sleeping in cars, people sleeping in the street, people sleeping in tents. There are people who have employment who are not able to afford to find a place to live.

I do want to recognise the leadership of the Malinauskas government in attempting to tackle the crisis. They have taken some welcome steps. I know that Minister Hon. Nat Cook is passionate about wanting to address the homelessness crisis, and I know that Minister Hon. Nick Champion is equally passionate about wanting to see more land released for housing. We welcome that, but the government needs to do better. They need to do much, much better and we need to see a more radical approach being taken to housing policy here in this state.

This approach of simply saying, 'Let's let the free market decide,' is not working. It is turbocharging this crisis. Let's look at the rental crisis, where we have a record low vacancy rate and where we see rent prices climbing up and up and up. Rent in the city over the last two years has gone up by 20 per cent. In some regional areas it has gone up by 70 per cent.

What action has the government taken on rent prices? They introduced a bill that prevented people from being able to advertise properties in a range, which they said was banning rent-bidding, which we know did not actually ban rent-bidding. It does not prevent somebody from offering a bid above the asking price and clinching the property. It was a step but, quite frankly, far too little to have a meaningful impact on this crisis. They need to take action on rent prices.

I introduced a bill in this place that would have capped rent increases in line with inflation, a simple proposition, one in line with the model that has been in operation in the ACT over many years. I could not get one other political party in this place to support that bill, not one—not the Labor Party, not the Liberal Party, not the SA-Best independents, and not the One Nation party.

It is outrageous that not one party would step up and support renters in this place, not one party. Instead, they kowtow to the likes of the Property Council, they kowtow to the big end of town who are advocating for the interests of landlords at the expense of those South Australians who are feeling the pinch of this housing crisis. The Greens will continue to hold this Labor government to account on that. They need to do better.

I am not just here to complain about the lack of leadership in this regard. The Greens have also put some concrete ideas on the table. I am a proud South Australian but sometimes Victoria comes up with some good ideas. Recently, they suggested a levy on the Airbnb sector, the short stay accommodation sector. That would have a really positive impact in terms of incentivising more housing back onto the long-term rental market.

Mr President, I ask you to consider whether it is fair, whether it is equitable, that in the middle of the worst housing crisis we have seen for generations we have perfectly good properties sitting there vacant for six months of the year while people sleep on the street. That is not right in our society. At least the Andrews government in Victoria, in introducing a levy, are trying to address that, and the money raised could be put into social housing. So the Greens support that and we urge the Malinauskas government to take some lessons from what their counterparts are doing in Victoria.

We also urge them to look at applying a tax on vacant property and vacant land. In Victoria, they apply a tax of 1 per cent on property that is vacant without good reason for six months, and on land that is vacant without good reason for five years—1 per cent on the value of the property or the land, with the money again going to boost social housing. We need that investment in housing in our state and we need to crack down on land banking. That is what the Labor Party is doing in Victoria—they should be doing it here.

We also need to ensure that there are better concessions available for renters and that is why, in the lead-up to the recent state budget, the Greens called for an increase in the Cost of Living Concession for renters so that it was at the same level as home owners. We have called for that over the last two budgets, the first two budgets of the Malinauskas Labor government, and they still have not delivered it.

We also want to lift the eligibility for the Cost of Living Concession so that it is in line with the threshold for the Low Income Health Care Card and introduce a partial concession for low income earners who live in share housing. That would really help give a helping hand to those renters who are doing it tough. And, of course, we need to build a lot more public housing. We have been calling for 10,000 public homes over the next 12 months—that is 10 times what the Malinauskas government has put on the table—because we know that whilst what they are doing is a start it is just not enough.

It is not just in the area of housing where the Malinauskas government have failed to take action on the inequality crisis that is engulfing our state. They also need to invest more in our public schools and in providing support to parents. We have been calling to increase the South Australian government's share of the Schooling Resource Standard funding from 75 per cent to 80 per cent for public schools. We have also been calling for the government to abolish materials and services charges and other fees for parents at public schools so that public schools are actually free.

We want a universal free, healthy breakfast and lunch program in every public primary and secondary school in South Australia, and I do want to acknowledge the leadership of the minister, the Hon. Blair Boyer, in that regard. The government has put more money on the table for free breakfast programs in some schools, and we welcome that. That is going to help a lot of kids, but they need to go further and make it available in every school.

We also want more money to upgrade infrastructure in our public schools. By way of example, I recently went to my old stomping ground, Aberfoyle Park High School. I think I am one of the few people in this parliament who went to a public school. I am proud of that.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: There are a few in this chamber, but not many in the other place. I am proud of that, but I might say that it was very disappointing to go to that school and see that it still has not seen the investment in infrastructure that is needed, 20 years after I graduated. There needs to be more money for maintenance of our public schools.

The other area where the Malinauskas government needs to step up, I would suggest, is in public transport policy. We conducted a major inquiry into public transport here in this chamber, and six months on I could not get the Minister for Regional Development to actually read the report for some time. I understand she may have done so recently—I certainly welcome that; that is a real move in the right direction—but we have not seen action in terms of the recommendations in the report.

That is, what is the government doing about rail for the regions? What is it doing to ensure that people living in regional areas have access to public transport? Where is the money for cycling infrastructure, when South Australia falls so embarrassingly behind other jurisdictions? There is lots of work to do, and the Greens will continue to push the government to go further.

In respect of transport, we saw recently that there had been a decline in the use of public transport over the last few years. We have been calling for free public transport to try to get people back onto the network and, in the context of a cost-of-living crisis, to try to provide relief to families who might be struggling with the rising cost of petrol.

There are lots of things the government could do, and the Greens will continue to put forward positive ideas here in this chamber. With that, I conclude my remarks.

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