HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-03-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Passenger Transport (Point to Point Transport Services) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2025.)

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (15:25): I rise as the lead speaker and advise that the opposition does have amendments to this bill. The Passenger Transport (Point to Point Transport Services) Amendment Bill 2025 represents one of the most significant shifts in South Australia's passenger transport sector in recent years. It introduces changes that affect not only the regulation of taxis, rideshare services and other forms of point to point transport, but also the financial stability of long-term industry participants. The bill has generated significant concern for stakeholders, including the Taxi Council of South Australia, individual taxi licence holders and rideshare companies.

I want to put on the record that I appreciate the minister's responses to the opposition's questioning of the more polarising parts of this bill. We did spend quite a few hours in the other place getting some responses from the minister and, while there are still areas on which we feel the government has not quite addressed key concerns, I do thank the minister for taking the time to answer our questions.

The challenges facing the South Australian taxi industry today are not isolated occurrences, but a result of years of poor policy decisions and mismanagement. The impact of this bill must be seen in the context of how we got here—a process that started when the Weatherill government made the decision to see rideshare into South Australia in 2016. That decision, rushed and uncoordinated, created an unequal playing field and devastated a regulated taxi industry.

At the time, taxi licences were treated as valuable government regulated assets, with some licence holders paying up to $400,000 per plate. Many used their life savings or took out substantial loans, and I have certainly spoken with a number of taxi holders who had done that, with the expectation that their investment was secure under a stable regulatory framework. The decision to legalise rideshare instantly devalued those taxi licences and allowed competitors to enter the market without the same financial commitments or regulatory burdens.

During the House of Assembly committee stage the minister acknowledged that the introduction of rideshare services in South Australia in 2016 was a significant moment in the transport industry, but did defend the Weatherill government's decision, arguing that market competition was necessary to modernise passenger transport.

We know that rideshare coming into South Australia on the whole has been beneficial for people in this state and, with the regulation that the government made with the stroke of a pen only a few weeks ago, we will now see that in regional South Australia, which does give regional South Australians more options in terms of transport but still does not change the fact that rapid deregulation has had unintended consequences, particularly for taxi licence holders who have invested significant amounts of money under a government-endorsed system.

Despite this, the minister rejected an argument that the government could have handled the transition differently, stating that similar challenges were faced in other jurisdictions where rideshare services were introduced. However, he did not provide a clear explanation as to why a more structured or gradual transition was not pursued in South Australia. Instead, he framed the impact on the taxi licence holders as an unfortunate consequence of technological disruption, rather than a failure of policy management.

Critically, when questioned on whether the government had had time to consider alternative models—such as buyback schemes at market rates, staged regulatory changes or greater protections for existing taxi operators—the minister did not provide a direct answer. Instead, he maintained that the decision was made in the best interests of consumers, ensuring affordability and accessibility for transport services, and now we find ourselves at this point.

The government has committed to buying back approximately 1,000 taxi licences, but the pricing structure of this scheme has certainly been one of the most controversial elements of this bill. Under the proposal, the first taxi licence owned by an operator will be bought back at $200,000, and additional licences will be bought back at $10,000 each for up to six licences. During House of Assembly committee questioning, the minister defended this model, stating it was designed for simplicity and affordability. When asked why licence holders could not be compensated based on the original purchase price, the minister claimed that the government did not have a complete record of what individual taxi plates were sold for.

The industry has strongly disputed this claim. The Taxi Council has historical records for plate transactions and plate sales were recorded for stamp duty purposes. Many operators have also provided proof of purchase showing just how much they originally paid. The minister's response suggests that rather than conducting proper due diligence to determine fair compensation, the government has chosen an arbitrary amount to contain costs.

Adding to the financial distress of operators, stakeholders believe that this bill does not require buyback payments to be made within a reasonable timeframe. The Taxi Council has said it feels that it is essentially over a barrel, as any further delay in providing a scheme will ultimately cause more harm. Some operators will have to wait up to eight or even 10 years to receive their full compensation. I know that when the minister responded to our questions in the House of Assembly, he did acknowledge that this is very hard and it is not perfect. We certainly appreciate that it is not, but, as I will speak to further later on, we do believe that there could have been other avenues to explore.

Many of these licence holders are elderly and they are financially struggling, and waiting nearly a decade for their money is simply not feasible. In speaking with a taxi operator travelling between the airport and this place, I asked how much he had paid for his taxi plate and he had paid $350,000 in 2013, for which he had taken out a business loan. This fellow was my age. He still owes money on that business loan and the $200,000 will go some way to paying that off, and he will certainly still have an income when perpetual taxi licences are brought in, should this bill pass, but still, it is bloody tough for a lot of taxi owners and I do feel for them.

When asked whether government should consider shortening the timeframe of the plate buyback, the minister suggested four years could be possible, but did not commit to a shorter timeframe. In hearing from stakeholders, this lack of certainty has left plate holders in a position of financial limbo. They are unsure of how long they are going to have to wait for their money and, indeed, in the case of the gentleman who I spoke to in the taxi only a few short weeks ago, will still be paying interest on business loans into the future.

The scheme as it stands does not allow for individual operators to challenge their compensation amount, even in cases where they can provide evidence of having paid significantly more for their licences. Stakeholders have spoken to this lack of flexibility as only further fuelling concerns within their industry. I think that if the government were to truly commit to a position of delivering fairness in a buyback process, could it not have had a more equitable and transparent approach to recognise the vastly different amounts that licence holders have paid, with many before 2016 in that deregulation paying significant amounts of money and people after that paying significantly less?

Instead, this one-size-fits-all compensation model is not necessarily a fair approach. It could have involved a tiered structure, ensuring that those who paid significantly more were not left at the same starting point as those who entered the market at a much lower cost. A structured needs-based framework could also have been considered, taking into account individual circumstances, the financial commitments attached to each licence and the time operators may have spent in the industry. This could have ensured that those with the greatest financial exposure were not unfairly disadvantaged.

Rather than stretching payments out over an unnecessarily long period of up to eight years, a defined and reasonable payback schedule could have been legislated from the outset, providing certainty for licence holders, instead of leaving them in a position of prolonged financial uncertainty. Importantly, a clear and fair appeals process certainly could have been implemented, one that allows operators to present evidence for their licence purchase price and to seek assessment for their compensation. But the current scheme does not allow for this, leaving many operators with no ability to challenge that decision.

The argument for a fixed-price model was that it is the simplest to administer, but it does not justify a fair outcome. A government that is serious about equity could have ensured that licence holders have a clear avenue for review and assessment, rather than expecting them to simply accept an arbitrary amount with no recourse. This could have been found.

Again, the minister stated that the government does not have a comprehensive record of what was originally paid for taxi licences, which was cited as a key reason for not structuring this buyback scheme around individual sale prices. However, as I understand it, taxi licence transactions have historically been subject to stamp duty reporting, and many operators would have records for those purchase amounts. The minister also stated that the former government had ceased recording individual sale price data for taxi licences, which was cited as a reason as to why the government could not structure buyback schemes around the original purchase.

I did find this reply rather curious, given the former government's term was 2018 to 2022 and this scheme applies to taxi licences issued before 2016, with a cut-off for eligibility to ensure that those who purchased licences before the introduction of rideshare would be included. Indeed, those who purchased up to 2016 would have known the market conditions, given rideshare was in the market at that point, and it certainly was in 2018 to 2022.

When further questioned on this, the minister acknowledged that some records do exist through stamp duty reporting and industry-held data, but he maintained that the government's approach needed to be administratively straightforward and deliverable within budget constraints. When questioned further on why available data was not used to develop more tailored compensation, the minister indicated that the government prioritised a simple, administratively efficient scheme, and that was simply that.

Another key issue in this bill, about which I have spoken at great length with stakeholders and others, is the doubling of the point to point transport levy from $1 to $2 a trip, and of course the extra 50¢ levy paid at the airport as well, which will go into the kitty to take care of this prescribed buyback scheme. The government has stated that this increase is necessary to fund the scheme, as I have said, but there is no sunset clause ensuring that the levy will be removed once the buyback is complete.

When the minister was asked about a sunset clause, his reply—and I certainly acknowledge his reply—was that if we do have a buyback, if we do have a sunset clause, it hamstrings the government in the sense that they do have to meet that timeline and they may not be able to meet it in terms of understanding how many rides will be affected by the increase of the point to point levy; that is, will they have that money to be able to pay back those taxi plates? I acknowledge that, and hence the amendments moved here today by the opposition tie that to, essentially, the completion of a buyback, giving the minister an ability to say, by gazettal, 'We have completed this buyback; therefore, the levy returns to the $1 point.'

I would make the point, and I have certainly made it to other honourable members in this place in the discussions around this bill and their amendments and my own amendments, that—when we are talking about regional people in South Australia who will pay a levy now, and disabled people who utilise rideshare or taxis who will be paying a levy—an extra $1.50 on top of a ride, while it might not seem a lot to us, does add up.

If we are talking about having more transport options, particularly in South Australia where our public transport system simply is not up to the standard that we do need it to be, I think being able to say, 'Once this buyback is done we can roll back this levy,' is a fair way to be able to take some of that pressure off people who do need to use these services. That is the intent of the amendments, not for any other reason but to say, 'We have done the job that we are required to do; let's go back to that $1 levy.'

I must admit that we have found it hard to find out how much even the $1 levy has raised over time and what it was used for. The minister in the other place spoke to it actually funding public transport in the regions, which I had not heard before. The minister was saying that this extra $1.50 will not only fund the buyback scheme but also minimise or subsidise the lifting fees in access cabs. That is what the $1 could be doing as well, and I am not sure if the extra $1.50 on top of that $1 should be doing that once we get past this buyback scheme.

That is certainly something that we may discuss a bit further. Again, the government claims this increase is necessary to fund the industry reforms, and yes, we acknowledge that. Essentially, that is what this bill is, apart from a few other things. There is no real clear transparency around how the additional revenue will be used and whether it will ever be removed.

I acknowledge the Hon. Robert Simms with his amendments, which I think are sensible. I am glad to hear that the government will be supporting them, although I think that we also need some robustness around the reporting of that levy as well. I think that might be something that the Hon. Robert Simms and the Hon. Connie Bonaros have been speaking with the government on as well. We certainly will be supporting the Hon. Robert Simms' amendments, even though I am quite heartbroken he will not be supporting mine. We will move on from that, the Hon. Rob Simms; you are still a good friend.

Regarding this point to point transport levy, the charge risks becoming a permanent burden on passengers. It is further driving up the cost of transport without any guarantee of improved services and without a public transport system that we currently have that is up to scratch. I certainly hope that the honourable members in this place and the government have considered the intent with which my amendments have been moved and that they are coming from a place of trying to make this a fairer system, understanding that once the buyback scheme is complete, that can be rolled back. We will see how that goes. During committee questioning, the minister was repeatedly asked whether the levy would be abolished. His response, again, was no.

Clause 37 of the bill introduces new restrictions on surge pricing, making South Australia the only state in Australia to regulate surge pricing in this manner. When questioned, the minister—and I certainly appreciate his response—referred to the Lindt cafe siege in Sydney and how there may have been an increase in surge prices, that people may have been taken advantage of in that case. I have not got to the bottom of that. In speaking with Uber, they certainly do not agree that that was the case, but we understand what the minister's intent here is, what the government's intent here is.

In an emergency situation, there should not be the ability for companies to take advantage of the situation. We get that, but I think in that we also need to acknowledge that, especially from a rideshare point of view, everyday South Australians are utilising rideshare as most definitely a supplementary income; not a lot of them are using it as their only income. If there is an emergency and we do need to see more people enter the market—especially in an emergency—we think that the ability in surge pricing would necessarily be not a bad thing.

It certainly should not be taken advantage of, and they can go to that three times limit, but what our amendment does here is really just step out what 'emergency' is. We are very broad here. We are not saying that it has to be declared in any formal way before a minister can do that. It is simply at the minister's discretion to ensure that, should it be an emergency in which people's lives are at stake, then that is when the minister can restrict this surge pricing. The minister did claim it was designed to prevent price gouging, as I said, and he used that example of the Lindt cafe siege.

We do think that it could have the unintended consequence of limiting market pricing mechanisms that ensure driver ability, and we would not want to see a case in which this part of the bill could be in the future taken advantage of. I certainly am not suggesting that the current minister would ever do that, but of course when we legislate in this place, we legislate for future governments, and we never know who could be in that seat—it could even be me, and I would not do that.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: That is what you are worried about.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Not at all, the Hon. Clare Scriven; I certainly would not do that, but when we legislate we do—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: You would constrain yourself.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I would most definitely constrain myself and I think it is important that we do have that in the bill. Again, the opposition agrees: consumers and customers must be protected from predatory pricing, but we also need to ensure that we do have that balance. We will move an amendment to ensure that surge pricing restrictions apply in declared public health or emergency services so that it cannot be taken advantage of in the future—say, industrial action in public transport or something along those lines.

Clause 18 abolishes the Passenger Transport Standards Committee, removing an important industry oversight mechanism. In speaking with stakeholders, there had been some frustration around the Passenger Transport Standards Committee and we appreciate that, but we do feel as an opposition—and it is certainly the feedback that we have had from stakeholders—that this is an important industry oversight and we still probably need that oversight.

The minister argued that consultation will still occur informally and SACAT will provide the oversight when needed, although we have heard how SACAT is already overburdened. Removing that structured oversight mechanism means that we may in the future—again, I am not saying the minister would do this, or subsequent ministers, but we want to make sure that there is some kind of formal or informal input from stakeholders.

I heard from stakeholders that many times in the past they have felt not listened to. They may be feeling listened to now, and I put it to those stakeholders that I am glad, especially the feedback that has come from the opposition in our stance on this bill, that we have engaged with them in a fair and appropriate manner and we have been listening, but in the past others have not, so we need to think about how we actually do that.

That is why the opposition will move an amendment to establish an industry council with regard to passenger transport regulation, which would require a structured review of regulation in the first year, should this bill pass this place, and then every three years after that. That is just to ensure that the minister is not unilaterally making decisions affecting the industry without speaking with industry.

I note the amendment from the Hon. Connie Bonaros, which in some respects does a very similar thing—maybe not so much in a formal way, which of course was my concern with a minister not having the impetus to do that work. In the absence of support for our amendment, the opposition will not be opposing the amendment from the Hon. Connie Bonaros because in my mind, and I know in the mind of a lot of people here, some consultation is better than no consultation. I urge the minister to take people on the ride because—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: —pun intended—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Not 'for a ride'.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Not for a ride: on the ride, because, again, I have heard from other smaller sections of this industry that they have felt let down—the chauffeur industry in particular. They really have wanted to be able to continue to have their industry doing the good work that they do. These are small business owners, such as myself, such as taxidrivers, such as the people who we are talking about in this buyback scheme, but they have not felt like they have been listened to. They were promised the world prior to the last election—that has not followed through.

It really is important that we do follow that through, hence our amendments. I appreciate that the government most likely will not be supporting them. I know that the Hon. Rob Simms from the Greens and others may not be supporting them as well, but I urge the crossbench and the government to consider the intent in which these amendments have been given, and I hope that we do find a way through to ensure that some consultation is had.

The bill makes significant changes and while I appreciate the minister's acknowledgement, this has been a difficult process and this bill is not perfect—name a bill that probably is. It still fails to address some fundamental issues, hence why we have some of these amendments. We have heard from stakeholders that the buyback scheme in and of itself really is inherently baked into it unfairly, and I think the minister does acknowledge that as well. I appreciate that it is not easy to figure this out.

I think there has been data, the industry did have a way through, they had suggestions on how to get this done, but for simplicity that seems where we have got to. It is easy to say in opposition, but I do think there could have been a real opportunity to consider other avenues for this to make it somewhat fairer. In speaking with stakeholders and in speaking with taxi licence holders like my good mate, Ian Richards, who I have been speaking with over the last few days, he is pretty gutted on where we have got to here and he does feel that it is unfair.

As I said, the Taxi Council feels as though they have been over a barrel on this. They said to me, 'Ben, we've just got to get this through because we have got people who are struggling, and if it's going to take eight years, this has to happen quickly and it is not perfect.' I just cannot help but think maybe there could have been a better way, there could have been a fairer way.

The levy increase has no clear end date. We are not saying, 'Stick a sunset clause and some arbitrary date in the future,' where the government has to try to rush to get there and increase the levy further or what have you. We are saying to the minister, 'You can just let us know. When it's done, it's done, and then you can pull it back.' We would still have the dollar levy to be able to fund the things that the Hon. Robert Simms' amendment is speaking to, because again we do not actually know what it is being spent on. We have only found out in dribs and drabs what it is being spent on, which is not right. That reporting mechanism is going to be important as well, and I hope that commitments have been made by the minister for that.

The surge pricing restrictions, in our mind, need to have something built around them, keeping in mind that we need to protect our consumers from price gouging, but we think it needs to be a reasonable thing and that is why we have moved amendments about that. Ministerial powers have been expanded in this bill. There is a lot of stuff that is just going to be done in regulation, and we need to have some proper oversight and hence our amendment for an industry body, an industry council. The opposition will be moving these amendments to address these shortcomings.

We want to ensure that this legislation delivers fairness, transparency and accountability. I appreciate the process that we have been through, and I appreciate that this bill is not perfect. I appreciate that some stakeholders are really hurting—in fact, pretty much all of them—but I appreciate the intent with which the government has tried to move through with this bill. Although I feel that some questions still remain unanswered, we have expended the minister's time significantly in the HoA in committee stage. There are only a couple of questions that I will need to get on the record prior to us voting on this bill.

I will close by saying that it is of the utmost importance that South Australia's transport industry remains sustainable and equitable for all stakeholders.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:53): I rise to speak on the Passenger Transport (Point to Point) Transport Services Amendment Bill 2025. Can I start by saying that we have obviously just heard the contribution of the Hon Ben Hood, and we will hear from the Hon. Rob Simms and others, and I think we are all kind of on the same page on this issue. I do not think it is just the taxi industry, to a large extent, that are the ones who are over a barrel. I think we all are because we all want the best outcome.

We all acknowledge and absolutely accept that when rideshare came into South Australia it had a really huge adverse effect on what was a very heavily regulated taxi industry. I do not think the Premier of the day could have contemplated the extent to which that would grow between then and now, and the continuing adverse impact it would have on the taxi industry.

We know that previously the government has tried to address this by offering compensation to the taxi industry. There were problems with that scheme. There were problems in terms of the tax implications for that scheme and it did not work. To be fair, as the Hon. Mr Hood said, I think the minister will be the first one to put his hand up and say, 'Of course there are more ideal models.' I guess one of the problems is how do you fund it? Because I think if he went knocking on the Treasurer's door with his ideal model, he would be laughed at. I think that is the reality of where we are.

There is just no way that we are going to be able to pass that model of up-front payment to the taxi industry for all the adverse impacts this has had. There is nothing to say that either industry, frankly, in my view, are operating perfectly. I am really saddened by the fact that what once was a thriving taxi industry in our state has gone the way it has gone and, sadly, it has also resulted in sorts of behaviours that none of us deem acceptable, and certainly people who have worked in that industry would not deem acceptable.

Yes, it is the exception rather than the rule, but everyone seems to have an example of where things have gone horribly wrong. We have seen a terrible example just recently with Ali Clarke in terms of the sort of service she got. We have seen the fare gouging. Those things are unacceptable, but they are not limited—and I think that is really important here—to the taxi industry. I think they are indicative of the bad management on our part in terms of bringing competitors in who simply were not subject to the same rigour and regulatory regime as our taxi industry was.

When I had my briefings on this, and I think we all spoke to Uber and everybody else, I said, 'Look, this has been a political issue in South Australia that we have had to address for a number of years now. You have got Buckley's chance of not getting something up. We have to get something up, and I will be surprised if you find anyone in there who will disagree with that.' So when I say that I think we are all on the same page on that front, I genuinely think we are: we want a solution. Is it ideal? No, it is not the most ideal model. But getting the funding in advance out of the Treasurer, I think, would be like getting blood out of a stone in terms of being able to deal with this issue more appropriately, given all the competing interests.

We know that the bill itself comes off the back of the August 2024 review that the government instigated, which did make 29 recommendations, and that was informed by feedback from industry, from customers and key stakeholders, and it is intended, as the government says, to provide that enduring change in this sector. That remains to be seen. We do not know what the outcome is going to be because, as I said, I do not think the former Premier who allowed rideshare into the state—and this is not unique to South Australia obviously; it has impacted every jurisdiction—could have envisaged the extent to which this would impact an existing industry, the extent to which users would opt for services like Uber over taxis, and the sort of competition that that would result in.

Traditionally, this was people's super. We all know somebody who has bricks and mortar or a taxi plate. This is where they invested their money and they have lost a lot of money as a result. So it is, in my view, absolutely critical that we do something. I guess this is the option between doing nothing and doing something. Ideally, people would not have to wait as long as they are going to have to wait for the money to be paid to them that they would be eligible for under this scheme, but that also remains to be seen in terms of how long that will take.

In relation to a couple of points the Hon. Ben Hood raised, I have kind of read between the lines in terms of the briefings that I have had, particularly, for instance, about the sunset clause and the levy increasing to $2. I appreciate that we are in a cost-of-living crisis. I appreciate that $2 is a fair amount of money to whack onto a fare, but I think it also comes down to the customer service that they receive and the customer experience. If that is going to improve in any way, shape or form, then I think people are more willing to pay a little extra.

I think many of the things that have been outlined in the Hon. Rob Simms' amendment, which we will get to when we get to the committee stage debate or when the Hon. Robert Simms speaks—the criticism has been you were paid $30,000. You kept collecting the levy. Where did all that money go? I think the reality, reading between the lines, is it has gone precisely towards funding the sorts of things that the Hon. Rob Simms has outlined in his amendment. So in the absence of that additional funding we would have a minister who would still be knocking on the Treasurer's door, asking for additional money to improve disability access to passenger transport services and so forth, and the concern is that in the absence of that levy, they are going to have to find money to do those things.

So in relation to the increase to $2, I think there is a fine balancing act here. There are things we need to keep doing, which obviously in my view—and the minister may tell me I am completely wrong—that levy that we have been charging up until now has been funding. But on top of that, we want to be able to compensate our taxi industry and so, with a total of $2, the extra dollar is going to be going to that quarantined purpose.

Again, looking at the Hon. Ben Hood's amendments, I understand what he was trying to achieve. One of the first discussions I had with stakeholders was, 'Can we have input into the consultation?' Even without the amendment—and I will say this to the minister's credit—he had already agreed, like he did on a previous bill, that there would be consultation with the relevant industries and not just limited to taxi and Uber I might say as well. Country cabs obviously have a role to play in this. Consumers have a role to play as well as disability access, chauffeurs and so forth. So that had already been agreed in principle.

The amendment that I am seeking to move in lieu of the Hon. Ben Hood's amendment is really designed, I guess, to hold the minister accountable to that undertaking that he has already given to keep people engaged in that discussion and in that consultation. I think it fits in very neatly and well with the undertakings that have been given by the government with respect to the concerns that have been raised about how that money is going to be applied and the support for the Hon. Rob Simms' amendment, which effectively sets out how that money can be used. It can only be used for one or more of the purposes that are outlined in the honourable member's amendments, which I am sure he will explain to us.

But, again, my concern would be that if we had a sunset provision or indeed if we went about this in a different way, given what is in front of us, we would be compromising many of those sorts of services going forward, because the reality is that is probably—I am taking a very educated guess when I say this—how they are funded.

We have seen that in other areas. We have seen it in the justice portfolio where the Attorney spoke about the proceeds of crimes and all the sorts of programs he has been able to fund through the funding that comes through that avenue but are all justice related. I think the minister would have the same sort of basis for saying, 'Yes, we need provision of public transport, we need improved disability access and active transport, but we need to fund all those things.' I think the levy to this point has at least to an extent contributed to us being able to do that. The concern would be that in the absence of having that levy we would have to fund it from elsewhere. Something else is going to have to go, and that is not what we want.

Overall, can I just say, again, I am not going to speak to every element of the bill. I appreciate absolutely that the industry does feel like they have been over a barrel on this one, and it is not dissimilar to, I think, the views of all of us where ideally we would have had a much better outcome than what we have, but realistically, at this point in time, I think that this is the best we are going to get.

The question is: do we forgo the best we are going to get and wait? In the taxi industry a lot of these people are getting old and they want out. They just want to be able to go and do what they envisage doing when they came into the industry when it comes to the taxi industry, and this is bringing them a step closer to that.

Would it have been better if they had received their total payment in one or two or three or four years? Absolutely. Are we still hoping that as things progress—we do not know how much is going to come in—perhaps that might be an option. Again, through the various mechanisms that we have talked about already, we need to be keeping an eye on that to ensure that that is the case. The minister will have to be able to provide details to us about how much is being raised through that additional dollar and how long it is going to take for those impacted to be paid out.

I will just go back to what I said at the outset. What we did back when we introduced rideshare is in a large part to blame for some of the issues that the minister himself has outlined in terms of fare gouging and so forth, but I think it is important to note also it is not a one-way street. It does not mean that the alternative has provided this super-duper service, and that it has been faultless. I think we have all probably had experiences with taxis and with Uber where services customers have received have been far from perfect and, indeed, very questionable. Overall, we also need to be concerned about the safety and quality of the service that we are providing to the people who are paying the levy and the fares.

I will just make one point about the price gouging. As an example of the sort of thing that we do not expect to see when it comes to rideshare, on the weekend of the LIV Golf I tried to get transport from LIV Golf to the western suburbs. It had come off the back of a briefing with Uber where we had just talked about promoting all the extra services that we are going to put in place for that. The first fee that was quoted was $270. We cancelled that one.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The car could fly to Melbourne, that is why. We then tried to book a new one to go three kilometres down Port Road and were quoted $67.50 for three kilometres down Port Road. We cancelled that one and tried to book to go from Port Road to Richmond to Mitcham: $350.

When we finally got into an Uber and spoke to the operator, we told him what had just happened and he actually said, 'The sad part about that is that I do not get any of that.' He is not going to benefit from that. That is, I think, the other sort of behaviour that we need to be looking at in this as well. It is all well and good to point at the bad behaviour of the taxi industry when we say that the service has deteriorated, and that is not across the board, but there are problems on both sides, and we need to be addressing the problems on both sides.

I, for one, am happy that we are doing something in relation to the taxi industry itself. I think it has taken us way too long to get here. Ideally, yes, we would have been here quicker and we would have been doing more but, for the time being, under the current circumstances, I am pleased to be supporting what the government has proposed in relation to that, subject of course to the amendments that will be moved throughout this debate.

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

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

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

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

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:18): I rise to speak on the Passenger Transport (Point to Point Transport Services) Amendment Bill 2025. The bill makes a number of amendments to the Passenger Transport Act in order to reform the point to point passenger transport industry, which comprises taxis, chauffeurs and rideshare vehicles. As many honourable members have already highlighted, the industry has changed significantly since the introduction of rideshare operators such as Uber in 2017, which had an undeniable impact on taxidrivers. It is clear that reforms are needed, and the bill draws on the recommendations from the Passenger Transport Act Review released in August last year.

One of the biggest changes proposed in the bill is the removal of the limit on the number of taxis that can operate and the removal of perpetual licences for taxis. Instead, there will be an uncapped annual taxi licence regime. The bill provides for the buyback of taxi licences to compensate those who have already invested in the taxi industry. I understand it is anticipated for this buyback scheme to run over the course of approximately eight years, with a set amount to be paid to each taxi plate owner in every year of the buyback period.

The minister has stated that each eligible licence holder will receive $200,000 for the first metropolitan taxi licence held and $10,000 for each subsequent licence, up to a total of six licences. It is proposed that access taxi licence holders will receive $100,000 for their first access taxi plate and $10,000 for each subsequent licence. This scheme will be funded by the point to point transport service transaction levy, which was introduced after rideshare entered the market in 2017. The $1 levy was introduced to help fund support packages for the taxi industry and also to support other industry initiatives, such as the lifting fee for people who use a wheelchair or a large mobility device in access taxis.

The bill would enable the levy amount to be set by regulation, and it will be doubled to $2 per trip. The bill will also introduce three distinct accreditation types of booking service providers, general passenger transport service providers and passenger transport drivers. There is a new framework for vehicle authorisation in the bill, with vehicles being required to meet prescribed standards, including identification and safety requirements. Provisions are also made for the cancellation of a person's accreditation if they commit a prescribed offence, breach the new general safety duty or no longer meet the accreditation requirements.

I now turn to the feedback I have received from industry stakeholders and raise some of the concerns that have been put to me about several key changes proposed by this bill. Firstly, the abolition of the Passenger Transport Standards Committee has been highlighted to me and to other honourable members as a key concern. In its place there is a significant expansion of ministerial discretion under this legislation and a removal of any mechanism for independent industry consultation.

While the minister has stated that there will be an internal review mechanism and provision for appeals to be made to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, it is concerning that the government is so keen to eliminate any independent oversight or review of regulatory decisions and standard setting. From the briefing my office received from the government, I understand that the minister and the department believe that the current standards committee is ineffective and largely focused on trivial matters that create an administrative burden for the department. While this may be the case, these concerns could be addressed through reform and modernisation, rather than abolition.

Further concerns regarding ministerial overreach in accreditation licencing have been raised, with stakeholders being concerned that nearly all accreditation decisions are under the direct control of the minister, with very few or no checks on this power. Other more specific concerns have been raised in regard to the introduction of surge pricing controls and vehicle camera requirements.

I understand from the government briefing that there is intended to be a significant lead time for the introduction of cameras in rideshare vehicles so that the government can work through the practicalities surrounding ownership of data and how it will be stored and accessed. I appreciate that cameras are an important safety measure for both drivers and passengers, but it is important that we get the implementation right, particularly in regard to rideshare vehicles that may also be used for private purposes.

There are a number of amendments that have been filed by honourable members addressing some of these concerns. I would like to indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Robert Simms' amendment, which clearly outlines the purposes for which the levy may be applied. This will strengthen the transparency and accountability of how money is spent. I am happy to support this sensible amendment.

The opposition has indicated that they will be moving amendments requiring the establishment of an industry council for passenger transport regulation that must undertake a review of all legislative instruments under the act. I believe this is an important measure to maintain a level of independent oversight and industry consultation in the interests of enhancing transparency, accountability and integrity. For that, I indicate my support for the opposition's amendment.

Should the opposition amendment not pass this place, I will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment, particularly given her amendment requires the minister to consult with industry and passenger representatives before making any designated regulations. I think that is very sensible. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (16:25): The joys of speaking last after everyone has said most of what there is to say. But that is okay; it was good, it was very thorough.

The Hon. B.R. Hood: Put your flair on it, Justin.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: It is alright, the Hon. Mr Hood. I will not take any interjections, but I will note that there was a lot of comprehensive debate, was there not? I rise, obviously, to make a contribution to the Passenger Transport (Point to Point Transport Services) Amendment Bill 2025. In recent years, the Department for Infrastructure and Transport has undertaken a review into the point to point passenger transport regulations, noting it would be informed by a public targeted consultation. As part of that review, the department undertook consultation with key industry and private consumer stakeholders through a YourSAy survey, one-on-one industry meetings and written submissions.

To further the review, the department considered the regulatory framework and reviews undertaken of the point to point industry within other jurisdictions as well as previously identified policy and operational issues, including those raised previously by the community and industry. The review process was undertaken in consultation with an across-agency steering committee, which was comprised of representatives from the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, SAPOL and also the Department of Human Services.

The review concluded in early August 2024 and was released publicly on 30 August. The scope of the review was focused on the point to point industry, that is, any service in a vehicle with 12 seats or less, which includes the driver, that can take customers on the route they choose at a time that suits them for a fare. That includes taxis, chauffeured vehicles and rideshare.

The review was aimed to address a number of matters, many of which have already been discussed, but the following matters in particular I will raise here: transitioning the taxi industry into a modern, fit-for-purpose regulatory structure; addressing the safety of drivers, passengers and other road users; supporting better services and better protections for customers; helping prevent the unacceptable and appalling behaviours that have been experienced by some drivers and, indeed, some passengers; and addressing longstanding service availability issues for users of access taxis.

The review set out 29 recommendations. Again, without me discussing ones already entered into in debate, key recommendations included: removing the limit on the number of metropolitan taxis that can operate and a taxi industry reform package, which was delivered to support industry transition to new models for metropolitan and access taxis; progressing a new service delivery model for wheelchair-accessible transport through a market sounding process to identify viable options for the delivery of accessible transport services; removing barriers for metropolitan point to point transport operators to operate in regional areas; and improving the regulatory framework, which would strengthen compliance arrangements and better address safety and consumer issues.

The current regulations have different requirements for taxis compared with rideshare operators, and that has raised a number of issues. Those include that, under the current taxi licence system, there is a cap on the number of taxis that can operate in the metropolitan area of Adelaide. Metropolitan taxis are also required to be fitted with a camera, whereas other point to point vehicles are not. There are differing regulatory requirements that apply around vehicle requirements, which include specifically passenger amenity. Only taxis can rank and do hail work. In addition, only taxis are eligible to take South Australian Transport Subsidy Scheme trips, which is funded by the government and operates to provide subsidised taxi travel for people with disabilities in metropolitan and, indeed, regional areas.

This bill aims to address a number of these issues identified. It will include the requirement for cameras to be in all point to point vehicles. The minister will be able to determine and publish standards for the purposes of vehicle authorisation. These standards will require vehicles of a prescribed class to be fitted with a camera or any other specific equipment required. The bill introduces a duty for booking service providers and drivers to ensure that surge pricing and queue jumping fees are not charged for the provision of a point to point transport service in prescribed circumstances.

The regulations will be amended to set out the prescribed circumstances. An example would be where an emergency has been declared under the Emergency Management Act. The bill also addresses issues around taxi licensing by implementing the review's recommendation of a 12-month annual taxi licence. That licence would not be leased or transferable and will be issued on an application by the department for an annual fee. The annual fee amount is not prescribed in the bill and is at this stage yet to be determined.

These are some of the key changes that this bill aims to address. It is important that we continue to improve and make the point to point transport industry safer and more sustainable. Taxis and rideshare services both play an important role in our transport mix, and there are many people across our state who rely on these services due to disabilities or distance and schedule limits in our public transport system.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:31): I would like to thank all those members who have made a contribution on this very important bill—the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Rob Simms, the Hon. Jing Lee and the Hon. Justin Hanson.

I think the importance of this bill has been well emphasised. As several members have made the point, some of the significant issues that this seeks to address are not specific only to one part of the transport industry. In terms of being able to provide services that meet the needs of consumers in South Australia as well as providing, for example, simpler accreditation for providers of services, all of those will assist in continuing to support the needs of people for point to point services. I commend the bill to the house and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 7 passed.

New clause 7A

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hood–1]—

Page 5, after line 37—After clause 7 insert:

7A—Amendment of heading

Heading to Part 3 Division 3—after 'report,' insert 'Council,'

Essentially, this is an amendment ahead of amendment No. 2 [Hood-1] in regard to the formation of an industry council, which I will speak to when that comes up, if this one gets through.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that this links to the later amendment I will address the reasons why the government will not be supporting it now. The department engages with industry segments separately. A committee or council approach works well when there is a common interest for members to work towards; whereas, according to my advice, in practice point to point industry participants, understandably, advocate for their own interests and have constraints on what they can disclose in an industry forum, as they need to protect their commercial interests.

Also, the government queries the need to remunerate members as proposed in what would be the foreshadowed amendment, noting that industry representatives will be representing commercial interests. It would not be appropriate for the government to be effectively paying a member of the council to lobby the government for their own commercial interests.

A three-yearly review of legislative instruments in their entirety has the potential to create significant regulatory uncertainty, noting the department regularly progresses amendments to the Passenger Transport Regulations in response to feedback and to address emerging issues.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to save time, I might indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment or the others that are associated with this proposal. In discussions with the government it had become clear to me that, whilst I do commend the Hon. Mr Hood for putting this idea forward, there were some issues potentially with implementation. I am persuaded by the government's claim that potentially you are going to have diverse sectors trying to come together advocating for their own interests.

They may find that difficult do so, particularly if that involves the potential disclosure of commercial-in-confidence information, so we will not be supporting this amendment, but we will be supporting the amendment from the Hon. Connie Bonaros, which sets up a more fluid advisory process that gives the minister the capacity to get that feedback, which we do think is very important, so we will be supporting that as an alternative approach.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just for the benefit of time, I, too, will not be supporting the amendments for the same reasons that have just been outlined by the Hon. Mr Rob Simms. I acknowledge where they are coming from. We are worried about those issues that they may give rise to. I guess the long and short of it is that we all want to ensure that there is consultation and that everyone is on the same page with respect to that.

As the Hon. Rob Simms has just said, I think the amendment that we will be considering shortly provides a more fluid approach to being able to ensure that. I just note again for the record that in the discussions that I had with the minister right at the outset, that was one of the undertakings that he had provided in terms of going forward with this scheme.

New clause negatived.

Clause 8 passed.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hood, your amendment to insert new clause 8A appears to be consequential.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Yes, it is consequential and therefore I will not be moving that amendment.

Clauses 9 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Hood–1]—

Page 11, line 8 [clause 14, inserted section 32A]—Delete 'an accredited person' and substitute:

a person who holds a passenger transport driver accreditation granted by the Minister under section 29

This amendment seeks to clear up some issues that were brought to us by stakeholders in regard to the use of the term 'accredited persons' and substitute that with 'a person who holds a passenger transport driver accreditation granted by the minister under section 29'. In questions put to the minister in the other place, we did query this and it relates to the auto cancellation of someone's accreditation.

The minister outlined that that would really be in the case of maybe a drink-driving charge or something along those lines. This clears up that this is referring explicitly to a passenger transport driver and not an accredited person, which may be, as we understand it, considered as a booking service or an actual company in and of itself that could be auto cancelled.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government does not support this, as the impact of this would be that automatic suspension would only be available for driver accreditation. The intention of the provision was to allow automatic suspension to any accredited person or entity, as while a booking service may not be able to commit a prescribed offence—for example, a criminal or driver licence offence—their accreditation should be automatically suspended if they fail to comply with a direction from the minister, which is only made after an audit and noncompliance with the act has been observed, or if they have failed to comply with a safety duty. It is an important provision that ensures that there is the possibility of suspension for a booking service where such a matter could occur.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 15 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I would like to ask a couple of questions that we missed in the House of Assembly and get them on the record. We did have some concerns from the Taxi Council, which at times criticised the old system in regard to light penalties, but they also worry about the fairness and due process if the minister's powers are expanded under this act. The council just wanted some assurance that these new powers will be used consistently and fairly. They do support stronger enforcement if it targets persistent offenders, but remain worried about the absence of an independent body to review the departmental decisions.

My questions are: will the strengthened disciplinary powers address recurring minor and major offences more promptly than the old system? Secondly, what safeguards exist to ensure accredited parties receive fair notice and have an opportunity to respond before penalties are imposed?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, in relation to the first question, the expectation is that, yes, there would be more speedy actions undertaken. In terms of the second question, it is envisaged that in many ways the changes proposed in this bill would make it easier for those who do feel aggrieved. So, first of all, procedural fairness needs to apply as it currently does, and so that is not in question.

The process would be that if someone had a grievance first of all they could apply for an internal review. After that if they were still aggrieved they could apply to SACAT. I am advised that in the current act following an internal review the mechanism would involve the District Court, which is a far more difficult and perhaps onerous avenue to take. So the expectation is that where there is a grievance that cannot be resolved this would in fact improve the situation.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I appreciate the minister's response to those questions. With regard to step 1 and step 2 (heading off to SACAT) at what point are penalties imposed? Will it be after they have gone to an appeal with SACAT, or will there be penalties in between that process?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice comes, first of all, with a caveat in that the level of detail has not been specifically worked out at this stage and therefore is not available in a document or similar. However, the expectation is that a penalty would be imposed but they would then appeal that, essentially, or ask for it to be reviewed, and usually under those circumstances it is probably not expected that that would be paid in the meantime. However, I have the strong caveat that those sorts of policies have not been specifically derived and released as yet.

Clause passed.

Clauses 20 to 36 passed.

Clause 37.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Hood–1]—

Page 32, after line 20 [clause 37, inserted section 52E(3)]—

Before the definition of queue-jumping fee insert 'prescribed circumstances means—'

(a) in relation to a fare that is calculated by reference to an element of surge pricing—

(i) any circumstances that the Minister has, by notice in the Gazette for the purposes of this definition, declared to be an imminent risk to public health or safety; or

(ii) any emergency circumstances that are the subject of a declaration under Part 4 Division 2 of the Emergency Management Act 2004 or under Part 11 of the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 if the Minister has declared, by notice in the Gazette for the purposes of this definition, that the emergency has caused significant disruption to passenger transport services; or

(b) in relation to a fare that includes a queue-jumping fee—circumstances of a kind prescribed by the regulations;

This is an amendment to clause 37 with regard to prescribed circumstances in terms of the restriction of surge pricing, given the minister's ability to effect that. Essentially the amendment is that in 'any circumstances that the minister has, by notice in the Gazette for the purposes of the definition, declared to be an imminent risk to public health or safety', or in relation to 'any emergency circumstances that are the subject of a declaration under Part 4 Division 2 of the Emergency Management Act'. As I outlined in my second reading speech—and I will not go over it—it really is to put some more rigour around that, bearing in mind that when we legislate in this place we do so not for when we have great people like ourselves here but in case there might be some nasty ones coming up.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government does not support this amendment. My advice is that this, if supported, would limit the ability to enable faster and more flexible responses to situations. Examples are given of the Lindt Cafe siege and the 2016 South Australian blackout as instances that would rely on the Emergency Management Act or public health emergency provisions and the minister publishing a notice in the Gazette. The intention is to draft the regulations with more nuance and more flexibility and enable a proportionate and more rapid response to unfolding circumstances, should they be required.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens do not support the amendment being advanced by the opposition for the reasons that have been outlined. We support cracking down on surge pricing. I guess the only point I would make is that I urge the government, when they are crafting the regulations, to make sure that vulnerable workers are not disadvantaged by those changes.

Of course, it is vital that South Australians have access to a diverse range of transport options, particularly in the middle of emergency situations, but I also recognise the point the Hon. Connie Bonaros made earlier in her second reading contribution—that is, even when there are these significant surges in prices, it is not the individual Uber driver who is making that profit. I do urge the government to make sure that individual drivers are not being short-changed, given these are some of our state's lowest paid workers and they do not have access to the other protections that other workers have within the sector.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 38 to 41 passed.

Suggested new clause 41A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–2]—

Page 36, before line 1—Insert:

41A—Insertion of section 62B

After section 62A insert:

62B—Application of levy amounts

(1) Amounts collected as point to point transport service transaction levy amounts under Schedule 2 may only be applied for any 1 or more of the following purposes:

(a) the provision of public transport services in the State;

(b) the administration and regulation of the passenger transport industry in the State;

(c) measures to improve disability access to passenger transport services in the State;

(d) the facilitation of active transport in the State;

(e) implementation of a prescribed scheme under section 52AB.

(2) In this section—

active transport means walking, bicycle riding, scooter riding or other self-propelled means of transportation.

I outlined the rationale in relation to that in my second reading contribution.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: As already indicated, I will be supporting this amendment.

Suggested new clause inserted.

Clause 42 passed.

Clause 43.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 36, after line 12—After subclause (3) insert:

(3a) Section 64—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) The Minister must ensure that consultation is undertaken (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) with the following classes of persons before any designated regulation is made under this Act:

(a) persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, represent industries involved in the provision of passenger transport services;

(b) persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, represent consumers of passenger transport services (including consumers with disabilities or other special needs).

I have already spoken to it, and the purpose of the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can indicate the government will be supporting this amendment, and I guess more broadly I want to place on the record my appreciation to the Hon. Connie Bonaros for, first of all, her acknowledgement of the minister's existing commitment to rigorous consultation and engagement, and for bringing this amendment to the chamber.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 36, after line 19 [clause 43(4)]—After inserted subsection (6) insert:

(7) In this section—

designated regulation means a regulation that is, in the opinion of the Minister, made for the purpose of implementing the Passenger Transport Act Review undertaken by the government of South Australia and published in August 2024.

This is a consequential amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 44 passed.

Clause 45.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hood–2]—

Page 37, lines 30 and 31 [clause 45(4)]—Delete subclause (4) and substitute:

(4) Schedule 2, clause 2(3)—delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) The amount of the levy is—

(a) until the designated day—the prescribed amount for each point to point transport service transaction that occurred in the assessment period for which the levy is payable; and

(b) on and after the designated day—$1 for each point to point transport service transaction that occurred in the assessment period for which the levy is payable.

This amendment seeks, as I explained in my second reading speech, to tie the increase of the levy to the prescribed scheme of buyback, and I would note that this essentially would take back the $1.50—the extra $1 plus the 50¢—at the airport levy back to the $1 levy that we already have, which we do not tend to have some understanding around exactly where it is going. That $1 would still go to do the many things that are reflected in the amendment that we have passed from the Hon. Robert Simms.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government will not be supporting this. I think the importance of retaining the funding of important measures going forward has been outlined earlier by other contributors to the debate today.

Suggested amendment negatived; clause passed.

Schedules 1 and 2 and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT