Road Traffic (Issue of Free Tickets by Parking Ticket-Vending Machines) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 September 2015.)

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (10:49): I thank the member for Unley for bringing this bill forward to the house. It seeks to address what perhaps could be described as somewhat of an anachronism or an anomaly in how we manage in a legislative sense parking in local government areas.

The bill seeks to allow local councils as parking authorities to determine that a ticket must be obtained where a permissive parking sign applies, but without payment of a fee. Signs would read, for example, 'free ticket' or 'free parking', with a requirement for a ticket to be obtained and displayed as soon as possible after parking. I understand that failure to obtain a ticket or overstaying the time period will be subject to an expiation fee or further court ordered penalties.

The aim of the bill is to give not just councils more broadly flexibility, but I think particularly to build on the work that the City of Unley commenced some months ago, when they trialled such a regime with what I understand was some success; although they discontinued a trial whereby tickets were being issued to enable people to park free of charge on advice of their lawyers that it would be a breach of the regulations under the Road Traffic Act, and this is what the member for Unley's bill seeks to address.

The bill proposes amendments to the Road Traffic Act to allow permissive parking signs to state the need for a ticket. While in practice the government would usually say that any change is best made in the relevant regulations, the Australian Road Rules and the Road Traffic (Road Rules—Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2014, the government is happy to support the member for Unley's bill.

Currently, these regulations are unclear on whether a ticket must be paid for. Although Australian Road Rules regulation 207(1) and 22 both provide that 'a fee is payable…by buying a ticket', Australian Road Rules regulation 207(2) provides that a driver must 'pay the fee (if any) payable on under the law of this jurisdiction'. I think that is where the confusion or uncertainty arises.

The Australian Road Rules clearly contemplated free parking when they were introduced in 1999, I am advised; however, whether a ticket may be required is not clear. Other forms of free parking not requiring a ticket, for example, the ¼ hour permissive parking loading zones, etc., have existed for many years.

I mentioned earlier that free ticket parking was trialled by the Unley council in June 2014, but was discontinued in February of this year, given the uncertainty as to the legal status of the regime. The Unley council acted on an interim report, and I think began to introduce the 20¢ charge for parking, whereas previously it was—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It was $1, I am advised by the member for Unley, who of course is a little closer to the action from the rest of us. This will create the opportunity not just for the Unley council but for all local government jurisdictions to entertain this new regime. The government is largely comfortable with it. I think we would perhaps contend that these parking matters in general are best left up to local government, particularly on those roads or on those facilities where DPTI is not the road manager. The benefits and the costs of allowing free ticket parking will be for local councils. The costs of installing machines, enforcement and any revenue will be a matters for them to consider. The government would incur no cost in providing for this.

I do not intend to speak much further on this. I think this is a relatively straightforward yet meritorious proposal by the member for Unley, and the government supports it.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:54): Thank you to the minister for his support of the bill. I also should note and thank Steven Marshall, the Leader of the Opposition, for this new era of cooperation that we are seeing here in the chamber this morning. It is extraordinary how politics can work sometimes. We are a reflection of the communities that we represent. I think we all know that on different days you are talking to different people who want the same outcome, and I think this morning's two bills show how productive that can be. I thank the minister for his understanding and support for this bill. I thank parliamentary counsel, of course. I thank my parliamentary colleagues and, of course, the City of Unley and Councillor Rufus Salaman, in particular, who brought this problem to me.

I just want to quickly recap what has happened in Unley, over the last five years in particular, where we are seeing many parts of Unley turning into a car park. As you know, Unley is one of the few places in the metropolitan area that has a lot of strip shopping and, consequently, car parking is very important for those businesses to survive. People need to be able to park their cars in order to attend those businesses. Anyone who has been to King William Road lately will see that there are a number of empty shops and so we are very keen to make sure that we do not have anything in place that will deter people from parking their vehicles and using the facilities, whether it be the cafes, fashion or beauty stores, that are on King William Road.

This came about because—the minister is right—the council did attempt to supersede the old chalk marking for the two-hour and three-hour car parking in the council-administered car parks on private land in behind shops that agreed to open their back fences to maximise car parking. This was a program that was started about 20 years ago within the City of Unley. Rather than sending inspectors around every few minutes marking tyres with chalk, they thought, 'Well, why don't we put in a parking meter. People can press the button at the time they arrive and it tells them what time their two-hour or three-hour limit finishes. It will not cost them anything and if our inspectors actually see that a car on that basis overstayed their stay, then we can enforce our desire to keep parking turning over so we do not have all-day parkers using those carparks.'

Unfortunately—and being the nature of the Unley electorate—I think that somebody, who had an understanding of how the law worked, received a fine for overstaying in that car park and, consequently, the council was advised that the law does not actually allow them to issue parking tickets that limit time without a fee being paid. What this bill does, of course, is remove the need for that fee.

Again, I thank the minister and I thank the government for supporting the bill. We look forward to seeing more innovative ways in which the increasing pressure on the inner suburban area can be managed so the residents who enjoy and live in the inner suburbs can enjoy their lifestyles without too much interruption from the growing use of the streets as car parking for city commuters.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.