YANKALILLA, MOVEABLE SIGNS RESTRICTIONS

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:02): I move:

That council by-law No.4 of 2009 of the District Council of Yankalilla entitled Moveable Signs Restrictions, made on 17 September 2009 and laid on the table of this house on 11 May 2010, be disallowed.

I will be moving four motions this morning in relation to moveable signs, and members will be aware that there is a notice of motion relating to the City of Onkaparinga to be dealt with sometime during the Thursday morning session. The arguments that I am about to give apply to all of these but, under standing orders, I have to move them separately; and, whilst the arguments are virtually identical, there are a couple of slight variations between the councils in the by-law they have put forward.

The City of Onkaparinga was the first council to introduce the by-law, as far as I am aware, and, as a result, people are being fined $100 for what is not allowed under the by-law, and that is to have a sign on your car advertising it for sale when the car is in an area that is under the control of the council. That applies to residential roads as well as to arterial roads.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order. The member for Fisher indicated at the start of his remarks that he had a series of separate motions on individual councils. The first, which he is on now, is the District Council of Yankalilla, yet he is talking about the City of Onkaparinga which is the subject of a later motion. Is that proper procedure?

The SPEAKER: I uphold that point of order. I understand that you are going to try to speak to all four, but I guess we cannot presume that. Can you clarify that for us?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I have been advised by the Clerk that I cannot move these as a block, but I am just putting the issue in context, because I will be dealing with the City of Onkaparinga issue at some other time. So, I need to put in context how this type of by-law is being applied, but I will deal with the City of Onkaparinga issue at another time.

The SPEAKER: I think that is satisfactory. Are you happy with that? Yes. Please continue.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I have become aware of these by-laws because of what has happened already in two of these councils in relation to the implementation of a by-law identical to that applying in the City of Onkaparinga. People are being fined $100 for parking their car in front of their own home. In one case, because a lady was having renovations done, she moved the car out onto the road to allow a skip bin to be delivered, and she was fined $100 because there was a small 'For sale' sign on the car. In another case, someone was fined for parking a car on an arterial road (Black Road) so that she could visit a friend. In both those cases, the cars were legally parked, complying with the law. Someone else was fined recently for parking their car when they went shopping at Marion Shopping Centre. Marion, as far as I know, does not have a specific by-law, but I am sure it is working towards that.

There are many other cases I could outline, but the point is that the proposal, in this case the first one, involving the District Council of Yankalilla, is, in my view, unreasonable and unfair. What I do support, and what I am trying to do by moving for disallowance, is to have these by-laws redrafted so that they focus on two key issues: the safety of pedestrians and other road users, and whether or not there is any damage to council property.

If a car is parked legally on a road and there is no safety issue and no damage to council property or anyone else's property, why should that person incur a $100 fine? If someone parks on a lawned area belonging to the council, I have no problem with them being dealt with. If someone parks in a dangerous way on an arterial or suburban street, they should be dealt with. I would have thought that should be the approach, not this blanket prohibition on someone driving around and parking their car, even for a moment, with a small 'For sale' sign on it.

When I have taken up this issue with the council, the argument has come back that the primary test is whether the vehicle is driveable with the signage in place. That does not resolve the issue, because the council is saying that, if it restricts vision in front of the driver's seat, the vehicle is being advertised for sale. That does not resolve the issue because, unless you are a complete numbskull, you would not drive a car with a sign in front of you, anyway. What we have is a problem with these moveable signs.

If you take the by-laws to their logical conclusion, they can and will be applied to businesses. For example, if a plumber or an electrician parks their vehicle outside their home at night, it could be argued that they are putting it there principally to advertise their business because, clearly, they are unlikely to be doing electrical or plumbing work at midnight at their own home.

I think this by-law needs to be tidied up. People say that inspectors will not do these things, but inspectors will do and have done these things. They have been pinging people when the person concerned has a legitimate reason to put their vehicle in the street, and they are fining them $100. I have raised this issue with a senior traffic police officer who often gives advice on radio, and he told me when I spoke to him at the Clipsal event that they regard this measure as being petty. He said that he did not believe the police would enforce it, even though they could. That would be part of my response, but, more importantly, it does not focus, as it should, on the safety of road users and on damage to council property.

Members may think this is not an issue in country areas throughout the state, but it is. I have had people contact me from the Riverland, Yorke Peninsula and Port Augusta, and they have expressed concern about this very matter. I would urge members to ask around their electorate to see what the local people think about it. Where this issue becomes even messier is that it can apply to any magnetic sign attached to a vehicle. So, if someone puts a magnetic sign on their vehicle, that would clearly come within the interpretation, I believe. It is even more bizarre because these by-laws exempt garage sales. You can put a sign out saying you are selling your whole garage full of goodies. That is okay, and I do not have a problem with that. I do not think it should be prohibited, but the same package of by-laws says that you can have a garage sale and sell a truckload of stuff, but that you cannot sell your car.

It has been put to me that in some country towns where someone is leaving the area, they have limited options for selling their vehicle. I know in the Riverland people have raised the issue with me that on the Sturt Highway people have got into strife for advertising a vehicle there. They may not have the same number of options for selling a vehicle they no longer want as in the city.

We have an exemption for garage sales, we have an exception for land agents selling property, and I do not have a problem with that. I am just pointing out the inconsistency where the very same package of by-laws says that a land agent can put out signs here, there and everywhere saying properties are for sale, but if a citizen has a little sign on their car—a $100 fine.

There is also an exemption for charitable functions and I think that is fine, too. It could be a fete or a fair. There is an exemption, lo and behold, for council, state and federal elections. The public would say to me that here is a bit of a double standard: you are exempting politicians and would-be councillors and mayors but the ordinary citizen, the ordinary ratepayer, is going to cop it in the neck because of what is in these by-laws.

A $100 penalty is quite a large amount of money, particularly for people who do not suspect that this is what is going to happen to them. I make the plea, and I do not have to repeat the case other than to move the motion and just a couple of other minor points. These by-laws need to be redrafted. I am surprised that there is not a template that the LGA has because otherwise you would expect the by-laws to be the same. With those remarks, I commend the motion to the house that the District Council of Yankalilla council by-law No. 4 be disallowed.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:12): I will be brief in my remarks as this will obviously be adjourned shortly. I put to the member for Fisher the question as to whether he has spoken to the District Council of Yankalilla about this. I suspect not. I say that is because this is a problem across a variety of councils and it very often gets down to the individual officer, whether they are overenthusiastic, seeking to make a name for themselves, or whether they are reasonable and show common sense about the matter. I am not defending Yankalilla's by-law nor am I putting forward a party position: I am making my personal remarks on this.

Yankalilla must have reasons for doing this. It is a long, drawn-out town, quite frankly, from Yankalilla down through to Normanville, and they have limited areas for parking. I do not disagree entirely with the member for Fisher, but it is up to those council enforcement officers as to how they deal with it.

Let me tell you that in the city of Victor Harbor there is an officer who is overly officious and makes life an absolute misery for many citizens. However, the other officers down there seem to show a lot more common sense. That is how it varies. The council can put these by-laws in place but at the end of the day it relies on council officers as to whether they use of bit of sense and a bit of nous about how they deal with it. I do not know what the member for Fisher is going to say on his other motions; I suspect something similar. I am just of the view that he needs to speak to Yankalilla council, which happens to be in my electorate, about this issue before coming into the house on this particular motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Thompson.