PRIVATE PARKING AREAS (PENALTIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2007. Page 1183.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:53): I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill. There was some confusion as to whether it was the responsibility of the shadow minister for consumer affairs or local government; however, I am representing the opposition as the spokesperson for consumer affairs, so I will be the lead speaker.

The intent of this bill is to increase maximum penalties under the Private Parking Areas Act 1986 from $200 to $1,250. The regulations will, in turn, be varied so that the expiation fee for someone without a disabled permit parking in a disabled person's parking space will be brought into line with the same offence committed in a public area under the Road Traffic Act 1961. The introduction of uniformity in maximum penalties and expiation fees is a positive and logical step, which we support. The amendment will rectify the considerable inconsistency which currently exists between fines and maximum penalties for the same offence between the Private Parking Areas Act and the Road Traffic Act.

It is my understanding that the Local Government Association has also pursued this issue with the state government, mainly in an attempt to eliminate the discrepancy between expiation fees for illegally parking in a disabled zone under the Road Traffic Act ($218) and the Private Parking Areas Act ($75). The association is obviously happy that this amendment will address its requests.

Authorised officers of local councils and South Australia Police officers can issue an expiation notice for offences relating to disabled parking prescribed under the Private Parking Areas Act and Australian road rules.

I will point out at this stage that this does not mean that the notorious Damian Lester, with his Adelaide city parking fine company, will be able to run around slapping fines on people in parking areas that are privately owned but give the appearance of being public parking areas.

A parking ticket can be handed to you, or secured under a windscreen wiper blade of your vehicle, or you can be sent a ticket in the mail. As was the case prior to this amendment, individuals who are issued a ticket have the right to dispute the notice, and then elect to be prosecuted. It is generally accepted, when addressing the issue of maximum penalties, as can be imposed via the court process, that there is a balance needed to ensure that expiation fees are set at such a level that offenders who feel that they have in fact breached those parking conditions will pay the fine rather than contesting it, as the consequences for losing the appeal with the court case may be somewhat higher than the fine itself.

In South Australia disabled parking permits are available to those in our community who are unable to use public transport because of permanent physical impairment or whose speed of movement is severely restricted because of that impairment. Permits are also available to those organisations providing transport, to a minimum of four people, who have disabilities placing them in the above categories. For those who are temporarily afflicted with a disability a temporary disabled parking permit can be issued for six months, and for a maximum of one year.

There is no doubt that those in our society who use disabled car parks without a permit and valid cause are not only a source of frustration and discomfort to those who are disabled and have a need for limited spaces available but their selfish and inconsiderate behaviour is the cause of much annoyance to the majority of law abiding and responsible users of both public and private parking areas. That is obviously something that is a worldwide view.

People do not regard people in a very high light when they see a perfectly able person parking in a disabled car park to save them walking a few extra metres to the end of the car park. We all know that that happens at the expense of spaces for the disabled. I am pleased that the member for Mawson is paying attention because he would relate to this, and I can mention the Seinfeld program, where George's father's car was smashed to pieces because Kramer parked it in a disabled car park. So it is a worldwide feeling that people have about—

Mr Bignell: I missed Seinfeld. That was in the same timeslot as me, 7pm, after the sports news.

Mr PISONI: Well, you should have watched it before the repeats, at 7.30, and you can get it on DVD. So it is a worldwide phenomenon and a worldwide feeling that people have. People see that as not being just, not being fair. In fact, in my own experience it could be argued that the general public, which includes, of course, many thousands of carers, are as outraged by those who show a lack of respect and consideration to those with a disability as the disabled themselves.

When looking into the issues of disabled parking more broadly, it is quite amazing to find how far some individuals are prepared to go in order to abuse the system that was set up in order to create a more caring society. In one case, interstate, a rather dodgy character had acquired a disabled sticker on the basis of leg and back injuries, but it was reported by fellow workers, who tired of him claiming disabled car parking status yet openly going for a jog at every lunchtime.

It is, I think, encouraging to see that there is community understanding of the frustration and community backlash. I have a very close friend who has been in a wheelchair for the last 21 years, and there is still a lack of understanding about mobility and other difficulties that people have when they are restricted to a wheelchair. A classic example is when you make a restaurant booking and you say at the time of booking, 'We will require one less chair'—or one fewer chair: I will have to check with the Attorney-General which is correct in that instance. You can count them so I imagine it is one fewer chair.

Ms Fox interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I thank the member for Bright. What happens is that, automatically, if the restaurant has not had a lot of experience with people in wheelchairs they think, 'Oh, my God, we have someone in a wheelchair, they must dribble and scream involuntarily, let's put them at the back of the restaurant.' So you arrive for your meal, all dressed up, and, suddenly, you find your table right at the back of the restaurant and everyone in the restaurant has to get up so you can get through with the wheelchair. However, I think more restaurants are understanding the need for access for people in wheelchairs.

Putting that aside, a survey commissioned by a large car insurance provider of 5,000 Australian drivers last year showed that while only 32 per cent of drivers surveyed did not admit to speeding, 82 per cent believed that it was a serious taboo to park in a disabled parking space without a permit. Eleven per cent of those surveyed admitted to the offence, and feeling bad about doing it. Hopefully, the increased uniformity of expiation fees and maximum penalties allowed by this amendment will assist them to be brought to an understanding of the legal as well as social implications of their selfish actions.

This particular survey could very well be of interest to the Treasurer, given his well-documented low opinion of female drivers. It shows that, nationwide, 51 per cent of ladies regularly clock speeds above the legal speed limit compared to only 48 per cent of men. There was some suggestion by the Treasurer that women drive slowly, but this survey tells us they drive faster. My wife would argue that is because they are given a lot more to do in the house than the man, so they have less time to get things done, whereas men tend to be in a daze doing their own thing. They have the leisure time to be slow, but women do not have the time to be slow. They have so much to fit into their day because a lot of men do not pull their weight around the house. So women have two jobs to do.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Never mind the tea-towel. The real test of whether a man shares domestic duties is the last time he cleaned the toilet. When was the last time you picked up a toilet brush?

Mr PISONI: Every morning. But I think that's too much information, minister.

Members interjecting:

Mr PISONI: There is a high percentage of metrosexuals living in Unley, I have been told. It is a small statistical difference in one survey, but the Treasurer may wish to keep it in mind. Personally, I consider women to be, generally speaking, accomplished and considerably good road users. However, as an MP who lives in my small suburban electorate, I spend less time on the road than my colleagues on this side of the house who have large rural electorates and those opposite who choose to live quite distantly from their constituents and consequently spend much more time travelling if they choose to visit them.

Of note is that when these survey figures were broken down further, it was revealed that South Australians were even more unimpressed by those who improperly use disabled parking spaces, with 86 per cent saying that they had never parked in a disabled car parking space. So, very few people will be affected by these changes. Only the small number of selfish people who deliberately disobey the laws will not be able to do that under the private parking areas act. I believe we should take comfort from the obvious negativity displayed by South Australians towards the anti-social habit of misusing disabled parking spaces and, hopefully, if this attitude prevails, there will be less need to impose the fees and penalties for breaches which are subject to this bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:05): I rise to support the bill and most of what my colleague said during his speech. It was the interjection that came from the other side that I had difficulty with. I am open and frank in my life but I do not discuss those matters in the house. But I did hear what the minister said, and I thoroughly agree. There is nothing worse than going to the small room and glimpsing that, but we all have to do our own thing, particularly in this place.

Anyway, I again congratulate the shadow minister for putting the case, not only to the government but also very strongly to our party, and winning the day after a lengthy heated discussion. After much discussion the shadow minister carried the day, and it is good for young MPs who have been here only a short time to get that experience. He put a very good case and spoke strongly and passionately on the matter, and we have come out supporting the bill.

I think parking problems are a problem of the new age. As Adelaide grows, the public transport system has not grown with it and we are now the most car-aligned city in Australia, if not the world. Our parking spaces are at a premium: you can never get a car park. You can even buy a permanent car park in the city. I believe that the highest price has been up to $10,000 per annum for a car park, although the more common figure is between $3,000 and $4,000 per annum for a car park. City car parking stations are generally full and casual parks around the city are almost non-existent, unless one walks a long way.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I did say in the house yesterday that we do not have freebies, but we do have privileges. I think one privilege we do enjoy is the car parking. Certainly, when I retire one of the things I will miss most is the ability to park the car 24 hours a day under cover. Car parking spaces are at a premium and we enjoy the privilege of not having that problem; and some of us do forget how lucky we are. City car parking stations are full and one often has to walk a fair distance from casual parks. Suburban shopping centre car parks are huge and often one has to walk a mile to the shop.

We are even seeing minibus services circulating the large car parks, not so much in Adelaide but certainly in other capital cities of Australia. It is becoming very common. It is all about being a car-centric city, which is sad, indeed. The problem needs to be solved by the government addressing the public transport situation, particularly its availability. I would like to catch public transport from West Beach into the city, but the bus service runs only every three-quarters of an hour, which is not often enough. If I could get to the beloved trams at Glenelg, I certainly would; and that needs to be addressed. There is nothing beautiful about a car park. They are a necessity but they would not get anything for being beautiful or adding to the city.

A lot of the misdemeanours to which the shadow minister has alluded occur in suburban car parks. That is where the anxiety is, particularly in relation to disabled car parks. We all have seen a disabled car park close to the door of a shop and seen able-bodied people whiz in and park their car, jump out and run away. I fully support penalties for those sorts of people because it is not fair when a person who really needs that car park has to park further back and walk. Even though I am usually against penalties on most things, I think in this case it is certainly justified.

We have an environment of anxiety and frustration, with people pushing and shoving for their rights and convenience. There must be some car parking etiquette, and disabled reserved parks are one of the problems we have. We all have been annoyed when we have seen this abuse. I am happy that this legislation brings in uniform practice in relation to car parking penalties.

These penalties should be shown in car parking stations. Car parking etiquette, the rules and the fines should be shown on a wall, so if anyone who breaches the rules, questions are not asked because you have been warned and you run the risk of picking up a hefty fine; and in this instance they are fairly hefty. I support the bill, and I thank the shadow minister, who is getting good at this.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Volunteers, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting in Early Childhood Development) (16:11): I thank the opposition for its support for this sensible piece of legislation and I thank members for their comments today. We all become frustrated when we see people abuse disabled car parking because we know the people for whom it is allocated. They are entitled to use them and it is about their having a quality of life in our community that equates to what all able-bodied people enjoy.

In saying that we have to be cautious in not giving licence to people to openly attack anyone they see using a disabled car park because disabilities are not always visibly obvious. For example, someone may have a severe breathing disorder and, as a consequence, they are entitled to a disabled car park. It is not only those with a mobility disability (such as those in a wheelchair) who are entitled to use those car parks. I add that word of caution when expressing our frustration at people who abuse those situations.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.