Cost of Living

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:22): I move:

That this council—

1. Recognises that:

(a) inflation in Australia is at its highest level in more than 20 years putting enormous pressure on South Australians, particularly those on low incomes; and

(b) the cost of living is soaring with South Australians facing price hikes on food, fuel, housing and other essentials.

2. Notes the release of the Anglicare Australia Rental Affordability Snapshot 2022 which found:

(a) only two of 1,125 homes on the market in Greater Adelaide were affordable for single people living on the minimum wage;

(b) none of the homes on the market were affordable for single people living on pensions or income support; and

(c) none of the homes in regional and rural South Australia were affordable for a single person without dependents living on income support.

3. Calls on the Malinauskas government to take steps to relieve the cost-of-living pressures faced by South Australians in its first budget by:

(a) making public transport free;

(b) introducing rent caps and rent subsidies;

(c) increasing the wages of public sector workers;

(d) abolishing materials and services charges and subject fees for public school students; and

(e) significantly increasing the investment in public housing.

The motion I am moving today recognises that cost-of-living pressures in South Australia are continuing to soar. Inflation in Australia is at its highest level in more than 20 years and that puts huge pressure on South Australians, particularly those on low incomes. We have the cost of living soaring, with South Australians facing price hikes on food, fuel, housing and other essentials.

This comes at a time when interest rates have been increased for the first time in 11 years and when the Anglicare Australia Rental Affordability Snapshot 2022 study found that there are only two out of 1,125 homes on the market in Greater Adelaide that are affordable for people living on the minimum wage. None of the homes on the market were affordable for single people living on pensions or income support—not one—and none of the homes in regional and rural South Australia were affordable for single people living without dependents trying to live on income support.

This is the backdrop against which the Malinauskas government will hand down its first budget. We in the Greens are calling for the new government to take action to reduce cost-of-living pressures on South Australian families. I recognise that this is not the sole responsibility of the federal government. We know our Prime Minister does not hold a hose. He has taken no action in relation to spiralling inflation and has taken no action to ensure that we see wage growth in our country or to improve the conditions facing working Australians.

It is very interesting for me to note that whilst the Liberal Party claim that they are the superior economic managers, they have been in government on both occasions over the last 12 years when interest rates have increased. It is also curious to note that they are running advertising at the moment claiming to be able to control interest rates, yet they deny any responsibility for the increase in interest rates that is occurring.

We know that interest rates are set by the Reserve Bank, and that is an independent process, but it is incumbent on governments to provide cost-of-living relief to families. It is in that spirit that the Greens are making these suggestions.

There are some really clear things that the South Australian government could do to help people who are struggling at the moment. They could make public transport free. They could introduce rent caps and rent subsidies to help people who are struggling to pay their rent. They could increase the wages of public sector workers. They could scrap public school fees because at the moment we know that parents are slugged extensive materials and services charges and subject fees. They could also increase the investment in public housing beyond the mere 400 houses that they have pledged to build in their first budget.

You may ask, Mr President, it is all very well for the Greens to put these ideas on the table but how on earth would a new government pay for them? Well, one of the things that we did in the recent election campaign is announce a suite of potential revenue measures for the new government to consider, whether that be Labor or Liberal, and we are certainly going to put those ideas back on the table in this parliament.

What we found was that we could potentially generate $7 billion of revenue by ensuring that developers pay their fair share of tax and by ensuring that they pay a tax on the benefits that flow from rezoning, as occurs in other jurisdictions like the ACT and as has been proposed in Victoria. We could generate a new revenue by finally increasing mining royalties. They have not had an increase in the last 15 years and it is high time they made more of a contribution. We could also generate more money through a levy being imposed on the big banks, banks that we know are going to be raking in record profits particularly as interest rates continue to rise.

That is not a new idea. It is an idea that the Labor Party put on the table when they were last in government and that they then abandoned following a campaign from vested interests. We hope that the new Malinauskas Labor government does have the moral strength to stand up to the vested interests, does not fall into the same trap as the failed Marshall government—and that is to capitulate to the big end of town—but instead shows the leadership we need to get our state back on track and provides relief to families who are struggling in the middle of this economic crisis.

South Australians need relief now. The ideas that the Greens are putting forward in the lead-up to this state budget are sensible. They would have an immediate effect and they reflect the kinds of priorities we would like to see from this new government. I urge Premier Malinauskas and our new Treasurer Mullighan to take note of this motion that the Greens have put forward, to listen to the debate and to consult with us. We would be very happy to give them some ideas for the kinds of actions they could take to help South Australians who are struggling at the moment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:28): I rise to speak in firm support of this motion put by my colleague the Hon. Robert Simms. This motion recognises the cost-of-living pressures we currently face in our state and across this nation. It does call on the Malinauskas Labor government to take some steps to relieve those cost-of-living pressures in their first budget, most specifically by making public transport free, introducing rent caps and rent subsidies, increasing the wages of public sector workers, abolishing materials and services charges and subject fees for public school students, as well as significantly increasing our investment in public housing.

Cost-of-living pressures impact on all households, and we know that when the costs of basic necessities like housing, utilities, food, health and transport increase the most vulnerable people in our society are hit the hardest. Low income households are disproportionately affected, and we are seeing many households struggling through our state as incomes and income support payments consistently fail to keep pace with price rises. We know that so many people were plunged into poverty under successive federal governments' abandonment of them through our supposed welfare system.

We have just come out of a state election campaign and into a federal one, where we have seen politicians being asked about the price of bread, the wage price index and other sundry items. What has been missing from this conversation is not a conversation about keto, is not a rattling off of some numbers: it is actually missing the point to ask these questions when in fact the questions people are asking themselves is how they are even meant to afford that loaf of bread when the payments they receive are below the poverty line. What choice do they have? Is it the choice to skip meals or to skip medications?

Is it acceptable that South Australians in 2022 are having to make these choices because our politicians have refused to make the hard political choices to stand up to vested interests? The cost-of-living crisis is an inequality crisis. Currently, the gap between the rich and the poor in our nation has never been wider—it only continues to grow. Many billionaires doubled their wealth during this pandemic, while around the country over three million people are living in poverty. Our essential services have been sold off and now electricity, housing, health and education are all too expensive, when they should be universal, should be accessible and should be affordable.

We now have record low wage growth, endemic wage theft and out-of-control insecure work. Governments are the key to solving these crises, this inequality crisis, and they have the power to improve our state, but they must make the deliberate choice to do so. One of the government's key duties is to provide essential services, and to ensure that we all have the ability to live a healthy life, chase opportunities and to be happy. How can people access their essential services, such as health and transport, when prices continue to go up? People who cannot afford fuel or cars are looking at continual price rises, yet public transport is also not affordable for many either. How can people apply for jobs or get the treatments they need or access the services they deserve when they cannot even afford to pay their phone or internet bills?

I think it is important that the parliament does seriously consider this motion, particularly as we head towards the Malinauskas government's first budget, just one month from now. Budgets are about choices and, put simply, they tell us what the government of the day chooses as being worthy of funding and what it does not. The impact of those choices on us and on future generations are the result of very deliberate political decisions. The government can make a very real and meaningful change for the people of this state, and I urge them—and I urge this council—to support and implement the measures outlined in this motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.E. Hanson.