Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (16:32): I rise in support of the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill 2022. This bill seeks to deliver on our election commitment to prevent paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre and also seeks to assist both consumers and shopping centre workers more broadly across South Australia.

In my electorate of Gibson, this would also prevent the installation of paid parking at Marion shopping centre. In fact, paid parking was once considered in Marion by the Development Assessment Commission back in 2012, but thankfully, to the relief of so many workers, customers and small business owners, this change did not eventuate. Ten years have passed since this was raised in my electorate, and this bill will help to ensure that any change to free parking arrangements in Marion are in line with the local community's best interests.

Doorknocking in my electorate of Gibson, I often hear stories of people going to Marion not just for their shopping but as a social connection with their community, just a regular catch-up with friends for coffee. Yet, due to COVID-19 and the rising cost of living, families, workers and small businesses are already struggling. As a government, it is our duty to pull the legislative levers available to us to assist our community.

The addition of paid parking to people's local shopping areas is an expense that we, as a government, are able to mitigate. Those who work at these centres and the small business owners who pay rent should not be penalised for going to work and running their business.

There are examples from the SDA's recent case study at West Lakes where workers have cited paying $35 a day to park to go to work. As of 1 July 2022, the national minimum wage is only $21.38 an hour, and in fact under many awards juniors are only paid a proportion of this full adult rate for their work. Based on this rate, more than 1½ hours' pay can go to paying for your car park while you attend work. This is particularly challenging for those who are doing minimum hours of three hours every shift. This means that hard-earned money is being chewed up simply paying for parking.

At a time when there is a shortage of workers, it is important that we do not discourage our youth or our unskilled workers from seeking to enter the workforce. It is important that the barriers to meaningful work are justifiable; paying for parking is not. As Peter Malinauskas, our Premier, once said, 'I believe in the dignity of work.' It is important to me and my government colleagues that this dignity is afforded to every South Australian, should they choose.

Not only will the inclusion of paid parking impact those who work in these shopping centres but it would also have an impact upon those who rely on these centres for their weekly shop. For customers to have to include the cost of their parking into their weekly shop or afternoon out is another way to discourage them from using these shopping centres. After the impacts of COVID-19 on these centres, it seems counterintuitive to discourage customers from accessing their shopping centres.

We have heard of retailers, supermarkets, financial institutions, travel agencies and cafes closing their shopfronts in the name of cost cutting. In order to ensure that businesses have a central place in our community, we should not deter customers from shopping centres by asking them to pay for parking.

Combined with other commitments this government has already delivered on, this bill will help people out in our community—workers and shoppers alike—and reduce the burden on South Australians' budgets. This government has already delivered on its commitment to make public transport free for our senior citizens. This measure has aided in reducing pressures on our older South Australians and encouraged them to be more mobile. It has also doubled the Cost of Living Concession, further assisting those on fixed and low incomes with the cost of living. I look forward to continuing to be part of a government that assists South Australians. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (16:36): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill and indicate that I will be opposing the bill. In this place, there are always difficult decisions to be made, and I have found that having a set of principles to guide you when it comes to these difficult decisions certainly comes in handy. A couple of principles that I have on my wall (and I transferred them onto a canvas) indicate small government, light regulation and freedom of enterprise. There are obviously plenty of others, but they are the ones that I will be drawing on here.

I am always mindful also of governments and their ability to overreach, and I despise retrospective laws where people have invested time and money only to find that the playing field changes later due to government intervention.

Having looked at the issue, I can understand why the government, and more particularly local members, believe this legislation will address an issue at Tea Tree Plaza, but it also appears to me Scentre management will create a declining business model if they impose car parking fees that drive people to other outlets. What they are really trying to achieve is a better experience and more availability of parking for those who support the franchises and the centres in question.

The National Retail Association, which represents more than 10,000 shopfronts in South Australia, has written to express grave concerns about this piece of legislation before us. The association said:

The franchisees' livelihoods very much depend on availability of nearby car parking spaces and turnover of vehicular traffic in these car parks.

Dominique Lamb, who is the CEO of the National Retail Association, said:

On behalf of these members, I can confidently say that removing paid parking is not the positive outcome that the Government may believe it to be. The regulation and payment of parking ensures spaces are not taken up by commuters and workers from nearby areas. Without it, we know that shopping centre car parks face significant demand from non-users of the centre. If this occurs, it makes it more difficult for customers to shop with our members and results in a proportion of those potential customers choosing to shop elsewhere—either at a different location or online.

The Scentre Group have put the following concerns in writing:

1. Claims by the Government that all customers will pay for parking at Tea Tree Plaza are false—the vast majority of people who visit the shopping centre will not pay for parking. A free period is provided comparable to Westfield West Lakes which has a managed car park system and 98% of customers do not pay when they visit.

Claims that retail staff will incur a fee of $35—which absolutely concerns me and something I would be aggressively against—are false, according to their written statement, and car parking for staff will be $3 per day. Of course, this is where I would weigh in because I do not think you should have to pay to park to attend work.

The LGA Board of Directors met on 22 July to endorse a formal position. In the first instance, they are of the opinion that the state government should seek to dissuade paid parking in large shopping centres, but they also went on to say that it should not involve decision-making on the part of local government. For consistency of approach, a state government department, such as Consumer and Business Services, should be responsible for making the decision.

The LGA has a range of concerns about the way this bill has been drafted. No reason has been given for why the CEO of a council is a decision-maker. There is potential under this bill for the CEO to make a decision without reference to elected council members. This bill provides no detail on how the CEO should reach a decision about whether or not to allow managed parking; there is merely a reference to 'consult with community'. In the absence of a framework or guidelines, the LGA is concerned about how this exposes councils to challenges from private parking area owners.

In relation to consultation, the bill does not currently provide the clear understanding as to what is meant by the term 'community of the council', noting that the retail catchment area of a large regional shopping centre can sometimes extend well beyond the local government area it is located within.

The bill should require the approving authority to undertake due diligence to support an assessment of the proposal, such as examine the impact on local roads, amenity and economic impact. The bill should provide for conditions of approving, such as periods for free parking, provision for disabled car park spaces, and fees. The bill does not provide clarity as to whether a council could charge a fee for undertaking this process, which will obviously involve costs.

I believe that the Liberal Party also has amendments on file to the Health Care Act 2008 that will continue to provide hospital workers with ongoing access to free parking and free public transport provisions that were made available to them during the previous government's term. The previous Liberal government also provided staff reimbursement for non-site-related parking of up to $101 per month. My point is that if we are going to do it for one, we certainly need to do it for all.

To highlight the impact of hospital parking, and certainly declare a conflict of interest—in fact, there has been plenty of conflict with my daughter Joirdan, who is doing a gap year before going to university. She works at the Memorial Hospital in a clerical role just over the road here in Adelaide. She earns $20 an hour. She has to also pay $18 a day to park at the Memorial Hospital—in essence, working one hour per day just to park at the site of her work.

What is also interesting to me is that doctors, specialists and senior technicians park for free. So here you have the lowest paid, on $36,000 a year, paying $4,320 per year for parking, yet if you are on a salary of over $200,000—and some of those doctors are on way more than $200,000 a year—you pay nothing for your parking. So, if we are going to pass legislation, I think it definitely needs to be extended to our health workers. With those comments, I conclude my contribution.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:44): I rise to speak in support of this bill. I will not repeat the excellent arguments for the bill which have been put by not only the minister in his opening speech but also the members for Newland, Wright, Playford, King and other speakers who have spoken to this bill already.

Very importantly, this is an election commitment, and I think it is important that if you go to an election and you get elected to government then you actually undertake your commitments. It is quite simple. It is a commitment we have made and we are honouring that commitment, like a whole range of other commitments that we are honouring. The announcement of the Women's and Children's today is a commitment we made, and it is a commitment to the community that we are honouring.

I was interested in hearing some of the speeches on this side of the house, particularly by the member for Heysen. He spent about 12 minutes or thereabouts basically saying that this bill was not required because, essentially, we should let free enterprise determine its own needs and it will not charge for parking because that is what free enterprise does. What he could have said in 30 seconds took him 12 minutes, like a good lawyer. Essentially, we do require this legislation because shopping centres have indicated they do want to charge it. So it is—

Mr Teague: I think you misunderstood my contribution.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Perhaps I did misunderstand your contribution.

Mr Teague: Look at the Hansard.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order! The member will be heard in silence.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There are a couple of points I would like to make. The importance of shopping centres is beyond getting your goods and services, etc., which people get from various shopping centres; obviously, they provide employment for people who work there and they also, as mentioned by some speakers, provide a very important social role.

Often, people who use shopping centres for a social role are people who, generally speaking, are isolated in our community, marginalised in our community, and the shopping centre is a place where they meet and do things. It actually plays a very important social role. Some of those people may or may not have a vehicle. For those people who do need to get to the shopping centre with a vehicle, this sort of imposition would be a disproportionate burden on those people in our community who can afford it the least.

In some of the shopping centres in my own town, I have seen a number of people who go there to buy a cup of coffee and socialise. Sometimes I think to myself that they should be paying rent for the amount of time they spend there, but it is an important social function and I think that this would disadvantage those people.

It is important in suburban centres more so than in the city because people generally congregate at their local community level. They will not come to the city for that same social interaction. They will meet their friends in the local shopping centres, whether that be in Gawler or at Tea Tree Plaza, etc. That is what people do. It is unusual for people to go, for example, from Gawler to the city to meet with some friends on a daily basis. They might on an occasional basis but not on a daily basis, so these suburban shopping centres play an important role and that is why they are different from the city.

It was interesting to note the comments made by the member for Schubert, that her born-again interest is in looking after workers' interests. It was interesting that, when the previous Marshall Liberal government increased charges/fees at our hospital car parks, she was actually working for the government at the time. I do not recall her standing up at any time, saying that was a bad idea. She was the principal media adviser, so she would have been the one helping to communicate why it was a good idea to increase charges for our frontline workers in the hospitals, etc., and why they should be paying more.

If it were not for COVID, they probably would still be paying more. That is the reality. They were forced into reducing those fees to zero because of the COVID implications. So, if the member for Schubert is going to talk about workers' rights, she should be more consistent in what she does as well as what her party does.

Issues that address people's rights and obligations in their working environment should be addressed by enterprise agreements. That is the best place to detail and deal with issues regarding conditions of employment, etc. They should be, quite rightly, dealt with in the enterprise agreement, and this government has given a commitment that those matters will be discussed and dealt with under those enterprise agreements. What does this bill do? Quite simply, as it is currently drafted, the bill provides:

(1) The owner of a regulated shopping centre parking area must not, without the approval of the chief executive officer of the council for the area in which the regulated shopping centre parking area is situated, charge a person a fee for the parking of a vehicle in the regulated shopping centre parking area.

Before granting any approval, the chief executive officer of the relevant council must consult with the community in the manner in which they see fit. That is not an unusual thing to ask a council to do. I think the councils are closer to the communities and I think they have a better idea of what the implications are for that community, so I have no problem with asking councils to make that decision.

The fact that it is delegated to the CEO is not unusual either. If you actually stipulated each step the CEO had to go through in every situation in the Local Government Act, as it is suggested in this bill, you would increase that already quite lengthy act about four or five times. To suggest that the CEO would not consult their council, that would be a decision for the council to make and the relationship that the council has with the CEO.

A good CEO on an issue like this, I would have thought, would consult their council in addition to consulting the community. The fact that they have to consult with the community is very important because the community can then bring the information they need to take into account before the council and the CEO. I do not think the additional amendments are worthy of support. The other place may have a different view about that matter, but I certainly do not think we should be supporting that in this chamber.

I would just like to raise one issue regarding private parking areas. It gives me a chance to raise an issue with what I believe are some of the matters that need to be addressed in this act. I think the act is a good idea. In one of the provisions, provision no. 4, it gives private parking area people the ability to have agreements with councils which they have policed. I think that is a sensible, practical thing to do. In other words, you have council employees to ensure that those parking areas are used consistent with the laws, to ensure compliance and to ensure they are used consistent with parking on public roads, etc. In other words, they would make sure that, if there is a disabled park in a private parking area, that is who uses it and nobody else. That is a good idea.

However, some councils are sometimes a little too diligent in the way they apply their compliance work. I will give you an example of my own council, which was quite diligent in its duties, beyond the law in fact. The council had an agreement with a particular shopping centre in Gawler. For whatever reason, the council was unaware that the agreement actually expired two years prior to them issuing a whole range of fines to people who actually used the car park.

If that is not bad enough—issuing fines when they actually had no authority to issue the fines—they were quite diligent, for example, in issuing fines for reserved car parking in this car park. The reserved car parking was when there was a particular retailer there and they needed to reserve car parking for that retailer. That retailer had come and gone. The council was still issuing fines for people who had parked in the reserved car parking, even though the retailer was no longer there.

Secondly, the council was issuing fines for people staying in the car park for more than three hours when, on any day, that car park was used to the maximum of 10 per cent. That is when I think compliance is taken to its extreme and one has to question the objective of that compliance work: whether it is to raise money for the council or to actually use in compliance, given that nobody was disadvantaged.

When it was drawn to the council's attention that the agreement had expired and that perhaps issuing these fines was not legal, the council dutifully refunded some expiation notices. They refunded them. The interesting bit is that the agreement had not been in place for some two years and they had issued the fines for the whole period, and the council then refused to let previous people, who paid, notify them of that.

They said that if they came forward they would get a refund; if they did not come forward, they would not get a refund. The point the council made is, 'We don't know who they are,' yet they issued an expiation notice. The expiation notice went to that person, and there would have been recovery action, but they did not know who they were.

Putting that aside, they then got legal advice to say that once the person paid the fine it is expiated and therefore they have no legal right to a refund, even though the fine was illegally imposed up-front. I am hoping that some time in the future the appropriate minister will take action to clarify the regulations to make sure that councils that issue fines are doing so lawfully and have the legal authority to do so. There are probably a number of councils in this state where these agreements have expired and they issue these notices without proper authority, and the law seems to say that once a person pays a fine, the council does not have to refund it.

Most people would not ask to see the agreement in place because not many people would know about part 4 of the Private Parking Areas Act, and therefore people are disadvantaged. Private parking areas are important. It is important that they are complied with in terms of the law, and private parking areas are important to make sure they are free to users. For those reasons, I support the bill.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (16:56): I rise to make a very brief contribution to this bill. The first thing I would say is that this bill honours an election commitment. It was clear going into the campaign, particularly doorknocking with people like the member for Newland and the member for King—you have to draw the line somewhere; I did not doorknock with the member for Wright—that it was a very big issue in the north-east. My understanding is that the petitions and feedback generated by those particular members in the north-east were overwhelming. If this bill is opposed by the opposition today, I look forward to campaigning again in those seats and gauging community reaction to how the opposition has responded to this very sensible measure.

This bill seeks to prevent owners of regulated shopping centre parking areas from charging people for visiting a shopping centre with a gross lettable area of 34,000 square metres or more, importantly without the approval of the chief executive officer of the local council who has, by resolution of the council, agreed to approve charging people for parking in that particular shopping centre, as the member for Light has traversed quite well.

Of the two shopping centres this applies to, one is directly in my electorate, the Elizabeth City Centre, and the other one is Munno Para Shopping City, I believe it is called. Both fit the criteria; they both have a gross lettable area of more than 34,000 square metres. Elizabeth City Centre, certainly the larger of the two, receives 6.9 million visits a year, which equates to 19,000 people a day. Interestingly, it also boasts Australia's largest retail centre solar installation, which doubles as the car parking centre, which is quite an achievement, if you have seen it.

Not only is the Elizabeth City Centre home to supermarkets, restaurants, specialty stores and entertainment spaces but it also hosts essential government services. It hosts Service SA and Housing SA. Service SA and Housing SA are frequented by many people in my electorate and surrounding electorates. They spend a large amount of time working on very complex cases.

Anyone who has been to Service SA at the Elizabeth City Centre knows that sometimes the wait times, through no fault of their own, are very long, and sometimes the cases they have to deal with are very complex. Some of the customers may also be vulnerable people. They are accessing Housing SA, they are accessing some of the services of Service SA, and some may need more time than others to go through some of the paperwork and bureaucracy involved in those agencies.

To add the burden of paid parking on to those who are accessing those government services is, in my view, unconscionable. That is not to mention the burden that will be placed on those who keep shopping centres open, such as retail workers and cleaners. People have spoken about those at great length already. In other areas of the state, retail workers, such as Caitlin from Coles at West Lakes, remarked:

I often need to park in the Westfield parking, sometimes having to pay up to $35 because I'm unable to move my car on my breaks. I don't feel safe walking from the staff car park to the back entrance of Coles when I finish at 10pm at night either.

So there is a safety issue to this too. It is a huge price to pay for someone to get to and from work safely, especially when they are working irregular hours of the night and day as retails workers do.

The bill we are contemplating here, and the bill we will be debating in the committee stage shortly, I believe is a sensible solution to that problem. It prohibits paid parking in regulated shopping centres of a certain size unless, as the member for Light has traversed, the local council resolves otherwise. Local councils do have a close relationship with their residents and the local businesses they serve, and if a local council were to consider paid parking there would be extensive community consultation and debate. I am confident, particularly in my council area, that a sensible solution would be reached.

While it is wrong for essential workers such as retail workers and cleaners to be used as a means to boost shopping centre profits, it would be absolutely immoral for this burden to also be placed on those who must access essential government services. If for no other reason than that, I urge members to support this bill.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Planning) (17:00): Let me thank members for their contributions to this very important bill: the members for Newland, King, Wright, Florey, Torrens, Gibson, Elizabeth and Light before that. I got some good homework from the member for Light about other matters related to the paid parking act as well. Let me also thank the opposition—the members for Flinders, Heysen, Schubert and Mount Gambier—for their contributions.

It was an interesting debate that went to the various parties' philosophy of government, and that is an important debate for this parliament to have. This debate is really about the march of the boom gates in our shopping centres. As other members did, the member for Heysen pointed out that this act was put in place in 1986, and from 1986 right through to the first of the boom gates there were never any issues. It is the introduction of boom gates, it is the introduction of paid parking by shopping centre owners, it is their actions—utilising this act for a purpose it was not meant to be utilised for—that have triggered this debate.

In opposition, Labor was committed to stopping boom gates in shopping centres—in Tea Tree Plaza most particularly, but across the state—because we know that, bit by bit, the introduction of paid parking arrangements with boom gates, with no community debate, has been what has triggered this bill, what has triggered the election commitment. We are fulfilling our commitment, our electoral mandate.

It was debated up and down the suburbs around Tea Tree Plaza—Modbury, Tea Tree Gully and the like—and well ventilated in the community. The centre owners themselves had plenty of public debate out there in the community to know that this was not a popular proposition with their customers and not a popular proposition with the workers who work there.

That is the proposition: it has been the march of these boom gates. Quite simply, Labor is opposed to the boom gates and the Liberal Party, the opposition, is in favour of boom gates at shopping centres in this state. It is a simple bill, a simple choice.

The opposition roamed around a whole range of other things. They did not talk about retail workers very much, they did not talk about consumers very much, they did not talk about the contents of this bill very much. They talked about a whole lot of other things, but not about this very simple proposition. It is a very simple bill because it stops boom gates and the introduction of paid parking in our suburban shopping centres.

Let's not forget, as the member for Elizabeth pointed out, that these shopping centres are large shopping centres, they are the hubs of the community and they have made themselves the predominant marketplace at the expense of many high streets around our community. They have changed the nature of shopping, and that is just part of the process since they have opened. Since Arndale and Marion first opened, they have changed the nature of retail in our state. But paid parking was never part of that proposition; it was never part of that proposition.

Now we have the situation where young workers, young female workers, and shoppers will all be shoved around by these artificial arrangements imposed upon the community by the shopping centre owners without public consent. That is the proposition of the opposition. The government: we have an electoral mandate and we intend to fulfil it. I think that is a pretty clear proposition. We have heard a lot about it.

Of course we are concerned about the safety of workers and we are concerned about the charges that will be imposed upon workers. We know that where parking for workers is available or proposed, it is limited—it tends to go very quickly—and then workers are pushed into side streets or pushed into arrangements where they might get a fine or they are pushed into arrangements where they might pay a fair amount of their take-home pay.

There has been no indication from the centre owners, no going out there to workers or the community and saying, 'We have heard what you have had to say. We will soften our prospect.' They have marched on with the advance of boom gates and a paid parking regime. So we think that needs to be dealt with.

This bill is a simple bill; it is a clear bill. It empowers local government and empowers local communities, and what could be more fair than that? What could be more democratic than that? The community in which paid parking is proposed should be debated by the local council which looks on all the other parking arrangements in those councils. It is not any other level of government but by resolution of the council—which the member for Flinders conveniently ignores, democratic resolution of the council—instructing the CE to vote up or down a paid parking regime. So it is a pretty simple proposition where the power is given to local government to do that.

We heard a lot from the opposition about various things. They talked a lot about hospitals but they neglected to accurately portray the situation. They put up the parking fees in hospitals. They put them up just before the pandemic; that was the action of the government. Then, when they made it free, they tied it to the emergency declaration. Those arrangements are just facts and they should be debated elsewhere, not as part of this bill. It does not belong as part of this bill.

I think the opposition is philosophically opposed to this bill and moving amendments not to improve the bill or to improve public debate or anything like that but simply to frustrate the bill's passage. So it is quite clear: Labor is against boom gates at your shopping centre, in Tea Tree Plaza, in Marion, in places like that. We want to empower local government, and the local community most importantly, to be able to say that they do not want it. We think that is a fair and reasonable thing to do. The opposition wants to impose those boom gates, those paid parking arrangements. The choice is clear, and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (17:08): I have a contingent notice of motion on the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill on its being read a second time. I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House on the bill that it have power to consider amendments relating to the Health Care Act 2008.

This instruction to the house, that it have power to consider the amendments to the Health Care Act 2008, is a very important one. Despite the protestations of the government that this has nothing to do with paid parking, it has a very clear relationship between arrangements with Tea Tree Plaza, for instance, and arrangements just down the road at Modbury Hospital, where the government is now charging people for parking.

This motion before the house is to consider an amendment that deals with extending free parking to hospital workers. This amendment would enable a new clause 90A to be inserted into the schedule of the Health Care Act 2008 to ensure that hospital workers can continue to park for free at our state's hospitals—as it was provided to them under the previous Liberal government during the first two years of the COVID-19 global pandemic—and for the continuation of free public transport for hospital workers; the second part relates to subsection (2) providing for that continuation.

One of the challenges that we have at the moment is that we have a health situation which continues on. Life certainly has not got easier for hospital workers since the election. Ramping, as we have heard already in this place, started well before 2018, and now that Labor is back in office it has only got worse. We know this pressure has a direct impact on the wellbeing of our hospital workers.

The United Workers Union (UWU) has stated that free parking and transport provisions could mean savings of up $1,300 per month, which is significant for some of our lower paid workers who, like all of us, are experiencing increasing cost-of-living pressures. Everyone acknowledges that these workers have been our frontline heroes, working long hours, enduring the challenges and uncertainty of being in the eye of the storm of the virus and putting the needs of patients ahead of our own.

We in the Liberal Party acknowledge that our hospital workers deserve to be supported, and that is why we are trying to amend this bill so that hospital workers are included in the proposal to provide free parking—any other position is hypocritical. We hear the government calling for free parking within Tea Tree Plaza, yet down the road they are going to be charging hardworking, frontline workers for parking at Modbury Hospital.

There is a clear correlation between these two areas, and I hope that the government will vote in favour of this process for us to make legislative change to support our hospital workers—looking after those who are looking after us.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 14

Noes 24

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TELFER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Telfer–1]—

Page 2, lines 18 to 20 [clause 3(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We will be opposing the honourable member's amendments for the reason that they just serve to complicate the bill. The opposition has explained a number of times their philosophical objection to the bill, and we know that these are just simply designed to complicate the arrangements, in particular, that are being made with the council. We think that the bill is elegantly designed because it is simple. As the Chair said before, the more complexity in these arrangements—the more legal challenge and the more prescription in them—the more you tie the hands of the council. We think it is elegant to have a simple resolution, as the bill is currently consistent, and we will be opposing the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr TEAGUE: In relation to new subsection (4), the inserted definition of a major retail shopping centre, can the minister shed any light on how the government zeroed in on 34,000 square metres?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I certainly can, for the honourable member's benefit. We thought it was wise to look at the size of the two major shopping centres that really kicked off these large shopping centre complexes, which were Arndale and Marion, and that is how we arrived at that figure. I think Arndale was before Marion, but I am happy to be corrected about that. That was the basis on which we arrived at the 34,000 square metres figure because they were the first of what is now an established pattern of major shopping centres with major facilities in them with large car parking areas that have traditionally been free.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps this is the opportunity to have the record in a conveniently located place: how many of them are there and if the minister might care to identify them by name, if that is practicable?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am happy to. I will give him the centre name, the location and the total centre square metre figure: Arndale Central, which is in Kilkenny, is 34,386; Munno Para Shopping City at Smithfield is 41,551 square metres; Westfield West Lakes is 61,011 square metres; Gepps Cross Home HQ in Gepps Cross is 62,006 square metres; Elizabeth City Centre is 68,571 square metres; Colonnades Noarlunga Centre is 77,443 square metres; Westfield Tea Tree Plaza in Modbury is 90,620 square metres; and Westfield Marion at Oaklands Park is 114,522 square metres, as I am advised.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps, to bookend that group of questions, if Arndale Kilkenny is at or about that threshold of 34,000, is there a number and, if so, how many of those that fall under that threshold have been the subject of any consideration?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There are some that are just underneath it. The Mile End Homemaker Centre in Mile End is 33,441 and then Golden Grove village centre at Golden Grove is 30,594, and on you go. Clearly, you have to draw the line somewhere. The decision made was to draw it at the first of what was, if you like, a modern shopping centre. You have to understand that those shopping centres set the model and the pathway for these suburban shopping centres, and I think that was the best place to draw a line, and you have to draw somewhere.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr TELFER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Telfer–2]—

Page 3, line 23 [clause 4, inserted section 13(1)]—Delete 'the chief executive officer of'

There has been a lot of commentary, especially from the minister, around the suitability or otherwise of local government to be the one that is at the pointy end of this process when it comes to the management of private parking areas. All the consultation we have had with the LGA, and the vast majority of its member councils, is that they do not believe that having state government direction having to be enforced by local government is a good process to be going through. In fact, there have been communications to us in the opposition that there are concerns around a potential conflict of interest with the different options for the management of this.

The opposition in response to that, and in consultation with local government, has undertaken to try to make the responsibility for this process and the policing of it well and truly within the realm of the state government. This is the first of a number of amendments, which is really aimed at putting the responsibility for this legislation into the hands of the state government and in particular, if we are able to get the amendment forward, to get it potentially for the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, a process which we believe creates enough independence from decision-makers in state government, but also takes away that risk of a conflict of interest for local government.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We oppose this amendment, but of all the opposition's amendments perhaps this is the one that is done for genuine reasons rather than philosophical objection to the bill, if I might be so—

Mr Brown: High praise.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, I like to praise those opposite every now and again. I, too, have talked to local government. I understand chief executives who are well remunerated by their councils might wish to avoid any additional responsibility. They do difficult jobs in our community and they do have a lot of responsibility already, but that said, we think as a philosophical proposition that this is essentially a local issue and it should be dealt with by the level of government that is closest to the people, which is most likely to be able to take into account the local community's support of or opposition to paid parking propositions.

If the centre owners are so fair and reasonable, and such good corporate citizens, they should be able to convince local communities that their paid parking arrangements are fair and reasonable, and the council's decision would then accordingly be one way. We suspect, though, that community opposition will be very forthright, that the councils will consult with the community, will have a resolution of the council, and that the councils' chief executive officers' jobs will be relatively easy because they will have the local community behind them, and that the centre owners being such responsible citizens would be mindful of that reasonably sensible arrangement, a clear arrangement, which incorporates local communities.

This proposition says, 'No, we should take it out of local communities' hands and put it in the hands of the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services,' which does no other area of parking in this state. They regulate many other things, as they should, but we think that this proposition—taking it out of local government and giving it to the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services—is not the right amendment, even if you were to be listening to local government and attempting to assuage their opposition on this particular part of the bill. That said, we will be opposing it, and we think the original bill does the job properly.

Amendment negatived.

Mr TELFER: Mr Chair—

The CHAIR: Hold on a second. We need to work out whether there were any consequential amendments as a result. You can talk to the clause generally now, if you wish.

Mr TELFER: I am putting another amendment.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, you lost the first one so they're all done.

Mr TELFER: No, this is a subsequent one that is not contingent.

The CHAIR: I am advised that that was contingent on the other bit passing. I am just telling you what I am being advised, but just give me a second and we will clarify that. I am being told by parliamentary counsel that what I said was correct, and I think he has a few more stripes than you.

Mr TELFER: Definitely. I always lean on his advice.

The CHAIR: There are no other amendments you can move. You can speak to the clause generally if you wish, or not.

Mr TELFER: Thank you very much. In reality what I wanted to do was tidy this bill up a little bit, because I do have concerns with the process which local government is obligated to be managing. In direct consultation with the Local Government Association, they have been very proactive in putting forward constructive amendments, amendments that would be, I hope, considered in the Legislative Council, potentially, because they are ones which actually add to the quality and the depth of the private parking areas amendment bill. There is just not enough certainty for local government through this process.

The amendments have been there for consideration, and I do moot that they hopefully will be considered in the Legislative Council. As I have said, there has only been one council I have had communications with that are supportive of this bill in its current form. There are plenty that have concerns around it.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Planning) (17:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (17:34): I just rise to indicate, as I indicated in my second reading speech, that I will not be supporting this bill. I think it is a bit of hypocrisy and a bit patchworky that one group perhaps is the focus of this bill, yet health workers and those in hospitals are not, despite their paid parking arrangements being different under a previous government. To me, it just seems unfair. Certainly, in terms of legislation I think we should be legislating for all, not specific groups. I just indicate that I will not be supporting the bill.

The house divided on the third reading:

Ayes 22

Noes 13

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.