Opinion | Bush Telegraph

South Australia’s accommodation businesses have had a bruising year. Before the government adds another expense to their books, it should explain exactly how much it intends to charge—and what businesses might have to spend to comply.

The proposed Short Stay Accommodation Register is presented around concerns about housing availability, neighbourhood disruption and consumer protection. These are reasonable issues to address. Nobody wants unsafe accommodation or a party house making life unbearable for its neighbours.

But a worthwhile objective does not automatically justify every fee, reporting obligation or regulatory power attached to it.

For small accommodation operators, the detail deserves much closer attention than the reassuring promise of better regulation.

The discussion paper proposes application and registration fees, annual returns and recurring fees. It also provides scope for councils to determine rates and charges through short-stay land-use classifications, and anticipates possible fee increases as administrative demands grow.

No dollar amounts are supplied.

That leaves businesses facing another compulsory expense, with the size of the bill to be revealed later.

The timing could hardly be worse.

The Tourism Industry Council South Australia’s June-quarter 2026 barometer recorded its weakest business activity result outside the COVID pandemic since the survey began in 2010. More than 70 per cent of participating businesses reported weaker activity during the quarter. These are tourism-wide findings, rather than accommodation-only figures, but they demonstrate the difficult conditions surrounding the sector.

TiCSA’s earlier survey of 281 tourism businesses found 64 per cent were seeing fewer enquiries or bookings, while 53 per cent were experiencing cancellations. Operators reported customers shortening stays, cancelling trips and reducing spending amid fuel costs and uncertainty.

For a small accommodation business, an empty room or vacant site is income that cannot be recovered once the night has passed. Insurance, maintenance, electricity and other bills still need paying.

Another annual charge does not become affordable simply because somebody describes it as modest. Nor does completing paperwork become free because the owner does it after hours.

A large operator may spread administrative costs across many bookings. A small family business has fewer customers over whom to spread the same expense. It must absorb the cost, increase prices or cut spending elsewhere.

The paper envisages compulsory registration, platform checks before advertising, possible reporting of usage and revenue, a potential conduct code and penalties for operating unregistered. Fees would help fund administration and related activities.

Cost recovery may explain where the money goes. It does not establish that the system being funded is necessary, efficient or proportionate.

And the registration fee may be only the beginning.

What will a business have to spend to qualify for registration and remain compliant?

The paper refers to applicable minimum housing standards and supporting documentation without supplying a complete, costed compliance framework.

Could operators face inspection or certification costs? Could they need physical alterations? How would existing approvals be recognised?

Consider a simple hypothetical example. A business has four lights illuminating a guest pathway. Could a future standard require a fifth, different spacing or replacement fittings—even where the existing arrangement is demonstrably adequate?

No such lighting rule is proposed in this paper. The example illustrates the uncertainty: owners cannot calculate their exposure until they know what standards would apply.

Safety requirements should address demonstrable risks, and their cost should be proportionate to the improvement they deliver. Existing approvals and differences between properties should count.

For a small operator, an electrician’s bill, an inspection fee or a consultant’s report could exceed the registration charge itself. Arranging work, gathering evidence and completing paperwork would add further costs in time.

Government should assess that entire burden before committing businesses to a new system.

This brings us to the central problem: how can the public meaningfully assess a proposal without knowing its full price?

This is a consultation, not a binding public vote. Nevertheless, asking whether people support a regulatory scheme while leaving its financial burden unresolved risks producing an answer to only half the question.

Someone might support a straightforward register with a nominal charge. That same person might oppose substantial annual fees, additional council charges and expensive alterations to their premises.

Those are very different propositions.

Support for safer accommodation cannot reasonably be treated as approval for an undisclosed bill.

The government should publish proposed fees, compliance standards, expected administrative costs and protections against excessive increases. Businesses should then have an opportunity to respond to the complete package.

There is also uncertainty about who would be caught. The definition remains open to consultation; the paper does not settle whether hotels, caravan parks and camping businesses would be included.

That distinction matters enormously in places such as Coober Pedy.

A purpose-built tourism business is not automatically taking a house away from a long-term tenant. Applying a housing-supply measure to accommodation that could not realistically become ordinary rental housing would require a clear justification.

Established operators also deserve protection against duplicate regulation. Where a business already meets relevant requirements, government should explain what additional problem another layer of oversight would solve.

There is insufficient evidence to declare that revenue raising is the scheme’s concealed purpose. There is ample reason to demand that its costs, limits and practical consequences be made clear.

Submissions close on 30 October 2026 and can be emailed to CBSReforms@sa.gov.au.

Accommodation operators should insist on answers. What will registration cost? What work might compliance require? Who will be included? What prevents duplication? What limits future increases? And how will the government demonstrate that the benefits justify the burden?

After such a difficult year, small businesses deserve more than comforting language followed by another invoice.

Consumer protection is an appealing promise. Before welcoming a scheme wrapped in that promise, look closely at the fees, obligations and powers underneath.

Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing—especially when the price of letting it through the gate has not been disclosed.