Motor Vehicles (Disability Parking Permit Scheme) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 November 2024.)

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:47): The Motor Vehicles (Disability Parking Permit Scheme) Amendment Bill is an important update to South Australia's existing disability parking permit scheme. I know that the bill seeks to modernise the eligibility criteria, ensuring it reflects contemporary understandings of disability and its accessibility. It removes outdated barriers, aligns South Australia with other jurisdictions and enhances inclusion for those who face challenges in independent mobility.

I am proud to rise and support this bill because it has been a long time coming. I must say it has been the result of tireless advocacy, particularly of one woman—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are the lead speaker; is that correct?

Mr WHETSTONE: Correct—from my electorate of Chaffey, Tegan Cross. Tegan has been to every corner of every department looking for support for herself, as an example, when looking for the support that she felt she needed, particularly with three boys all diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. They are all tall, they are all strong and they are all difficult to handle in public, especially around road safety and awareness. I have seen this firsthand. Tegan came to me a couple of years ago with concerns that she was having trouble finding a suitable parking spot to be able to manage her boys, to be able to do her day-to-day routine of heading to the shops, heading to school; just the challenges of having three boys who were very difficult to manage in public.

What I did witness particularly was getting out of cars, or getting out of their vehicle, in a public space. As I said, I witnessed firsthand that she really did have her hands full, so we sat down and talked about it. There were a number of near misses. As I say, they could not go out in public without real supervision from both Tegan and her husband, Peter.

The Cross family have tried many times to apply for the disability parking permit and for an exemption. Not only did Tegan personally go to ministers' offices and departments but so did I. We came up without the support that we felt was necessary for her to continue to manage her sons in a satisfactory way. What we came up with was that we needed to have a disability parking permit with an exemption for her case.

Many letters went to the Minister for Human Services, the Minister for Transport and other ministers, even to the point of going to the Premier. Ultimately, the Cross boys did not meet the eligibility, as their disability did not directly impair their mobility. It was not so much a physical disability, but it was an internal disability.

The current legislation shows us that the law requires applicants to demonstrate a physical impairment that restricts mobility. This definition excludes people who face mobility challenges, those who cannot move safely and independently in public, and those with significant cognitive, behavioural or neurological impairments, and today we think that will change. It really is reward for a lot of effort.

I must say I have been very proud to work alongside Tegan and other stakeholders to draft the original legislation. I think it would have been at least two years ago that I met with the then Assistant Minister for Autism, the Hon. Emily Bourke, and we worked collaboratively with the Office for Autism. Now, with the new Minister for Autism, it is great to see that we are making steps forward.

Now that we have this legislation before the house, I think it will bring South Australia into line with the rest of the nation. The bill details that the new legislation removes the requirement for applicants' disability to be physical, the biggest hurdle for those who have a mobility issue that is not classified as physical despite the physical implications. It now opens up opportunities for those who have mobility issues caused by cognitive, behavioural and neurological impairment. It is especially important for disabilities such as autism but will expand opportunities for others in the community.

Provisions for temporary disabilities and impairments allow those with a temporary mobility issue likely lasting more than six months to apply. It already exists in legislation, but it makes the terms much clearer. Moving eligibility criteria to regulations gives more flexibility and easy adaptability for the future, but it also ensures the scheme remains aligned with accessibility needs.

It removes criteria surrounding public transport. Applicants will no longer have to demonstrate they are unable to use public transport. Many people with disabilities such as autism are capable of using transport. Often, public transport is not an accessible or realistic solution, especially in the regional areas, where we do not have the public transport services that the people of the city enjoy and use.

It expands eligibility to vision impairments, including both temporary and permanent legal blindness, in the regulations, and it aligns South Australia with Queensland and Western Australia. It is a huge step forward, but it will also be a learning curve. I am sure that the minister will put provisions in place as we transition from what was to what is today. Hopefully, it will be a smooth transition, but I guess in managing it the proof will be in the pudding.

Concerns have been raised over demand and the lack of disabled parks. Councils, businesses and government will have to work together to collect the data and assess the potential impacts of the increased demand. Hopefully, South Australia will be able to meet the demand to ensure that our most vulnerable people can be safe on our roads. Collecting that data, I think, will be an opportunity to collect the evidence if we do need to increase disabled parking spaces. Hopefully, people will use it responsibly, and it will be there for the benefit of people where it once was not.

Moving eligibility into regulations rather than keeping it in the act might reduce the understanding and accessibility, but it is important that the government commits to clear guidelines. So make them publicly available, easy access, and ensure transparency. I want to thank Tegan Cross and her family for the advocacy that she has provided. She was very emotional in early days, but she very quickly realised that she had to work with the authorities. She had to work with the assistant minister, and now the Minister for Autism is stepping up to the plate to make what was almost a dream a reality. Thank you to Tegan for her determination to continue to pursue this.

As I said, I witnessed it firsthand, and today this amended bill will be a great step forward, not only for Tegan Cross and her family but for the many people who have not been able to have that support mechanism to help them with parking, to help them with day-to-day life when they are impeded by some of life's challenges. The legislation is a good step in the right direction for South Australia, and hopefully it is a win for those living with a disability.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (15:56): I rise to support this bill because it underlines a basic fundamental call to allow more choice and flexibility for members within our disability community. I have had the privilege working with this fantastic community through past employment, working alongside Minister Rankine when she was disability minister. While this was over a decade ago, it changed my perspective on many things, and one of the key takeaway messages I heard was how much the community just wanted to be able to choose their own pathways in life, rather than having things so heavily prescribed to them.

It is why over time we saw the rise of self-managed funding, which led to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and a move away from special schools in favour of sending children to their local school, with the intended aim of giving people more say in the lives that they lead. It is a kind of recipe to life that many of us take for granted, but when your pathway is stipulated more by the system than the head on your shoulders, your options are severely frustrated.

I think I have mentioned it in this place more than once, but one of the other key lessons in life I took from this period was that there was always more work that needed to be done. We have made some decent strides in helping more of our disability community make choices of their own, but I do not think anyone on this side would be comfortable in proclaiming that we have come close to completing this mission.

While there is a bit to talk about within this bill, the change that really captured my imagination when I saw the briefing notes was in regard to the stipulation that an applicant's ability to use public transport must be significantly impeded before a disability parking permit is granted is to be removed. When I go to work, visit the shops or go to see my friends, I have a number of choices on how I get there. Arguably, the two big choices are either to use public transport or to drive my own car.

In an age where we are trying to get as many South Australians to take the bus or a train on our now deprivatised network, why on earth would we be stipulating to people with disability that it is either one or the other? As with many of us, we often shy away from taking the bus or train because, quite simply, it is not that convenient. While I would love more people to appreciate the benefit of public transport, we have the right to choose, so why should this choice not be afforded to others?

There would be numerous examples of where someone with disability could take a bus, train or tram to conveniently get around but then be totally isolated because the network simply cannot cater for their needs. Further, I would not be the only one here who grew up in a place which is not serviced by the Adelaide Metro. Under the current regime, if I had disability or could not get a disability car-parking permit, then there is a big chance there would be places I could not visit because of this current provision.

We should also consider how these old rules compromise people due to the location of pick-up and drop-off points. Just because someone can catch public transport does not mean it is practical or conceivable for them to go the extra distance to the destination that they seek. Shops and businesses often have their disability car parks close to their main entrance, and yet bus stops most often pick up and drop off from the street. And, regrettably, in South Australia we have also had this historical obsession of doing everything we possibly can to build our railway stations as far as possible away from our town centres. So just because you are able to take public transport it does raise question of whether you possess the ability to move well beyond a bus stop to your intended destination.

I am sure there are many limited paradoxes like this written within our laws, and while it pleases me seeing one removed, I hope these actions by the minister serve as a beacon to identify and address more. I need to be careful not to overstate the benefits of this move as I do note that the regulations will still maintain the existing physical mobility impairment criteria whereby applicants who have a temporary or permanent physical impairment will still need to show that their speed of movement is severely restricted. Having said that, shifting this criteria to regulations rather than iron-clad legislation gives me hope there will be more flexibility and capacity for interpretation to be considered against some of the concerns I have just outlined.

I have had the honour of serving on the Legislative Review Committee and it has given me a firsthand appreciation of why the move from legislation to regulation will be advantageous. As the member for Chaffey outlined, in most cases, regulatory changes are faster and therefore more adaptive to problems they seek to solve and the people they seek to help. Having worked with numerous disability advocates, I am pretty sure they will be quick to point out any failings in regulation and I remain optimistic that solutions will be forthcoming at a much faster pace.

We are also using this opportunity to remove any legislative barriers through regulations, specifically allowing applicants who have a significant intellectual, cognitive, behavioural or neurological impairment that prevent them from being able to independently mobilise safely without the continual support of another person to apply for a permit. I have outlined why moving to a regulatory environment will be beneficial but I also point out that as things evolve, regulations can move with them while still maintaining the oversight of the minister, cabinet, the Legislative Review Committee and, ultimately, our parliament.

The Malinauskas government is also responding to many requests from parents with children with autism for access to a disability parking permit to help them safely access shopping and other facilities with their children. This is a massive step forward, and including significant cognitive, behavioural, and neurological impairments also gives rise to a more nimble and responsive regime towards the allocation of permits.

I also want to add that other state and territory governments have taken a similar revisionist approach to modernising their disability parking permit allocations. Experience has shown that jurisdictions like Victoria and the ACT have also expanded their criteria but, overall, the advice that I have read from the department is that they do not anticipate the increased allocation being overly significant. That said, disability car parking is governed through the National Construction Code and I am sure Minister Champion as well as his interstate counterparts are continually watching developments in this space.

There are a lot of other elements that this bill rightly addresses, but what impresses me most is the injection of choice in an area that may rightly or wrongly attract criticism for its inflexibility. Before I finish up, I want to pass on my thanks to everyone who worked hard behind the scenes on this bill, from those who helped in the consultative phase to the public servants that sewed everything together, and indeed our hardworking minister and his team, who are focused on improving every area that they are responsible for.

While as lawmakers we only see the tip of the iceberg, we are grateful for all the hard work it takes to bring quality legislation like this before us. To all the stakeholders involved, congratulations on these changes. There is still a bit more work to be done on the regulatory front, as I understand it, but you deserve recognition on broadening choice and permitting greater flexibility in an area of need.

It is also encouraging to see that the opposition is behind this bill. I must say, I found the story of Tegan Cross outlined by the member for Chaffey to be a very interesting one. The member did say this is a long time coming. I have only been in this chamber for coming up to three years now, and you do find stories like this out in electoral land. It is no surprise to me that a long-serving member has a story of this magnitude that he has worked very hard on. It also reaffirms the fact that appointing the then Assistant Minister for Autism is a formula that is proving to be very successful.

It is fantastic that the Malinauskas government has seen right to now elevate the Hon. Emily Bourke to a full member of cabinet, maintaining or even expanding on the role that she had. I congratulate her, and what I have missed in my speech is that I have not appropriately acknowledged her role as a very powerful advocate in helping to deliver this change. Congratulations to Emily on this particular front.

As I said earlier, while there is more work to be done, I do not think that people need a pat on the back when it comes to disability because, while we might solve one issue, behind us there are many more that need to be addressed. I feel that her recognition and that of the minister, his team and his department ought to be singled out. I would say that this is a good piece of legislation and, with all that I have said and I am sure all that the minister will detail in the latest changes, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (16:07): I rise in wholehearted support of this bill. The bill will allow eligible neurodivergent South Australians to be able to apply for a disability parking permit. I believe this will be a game changer for parents with neurodivergent children. By having access to a disability parking permit, it will greatly assist them to be able to safely access parks, community centres, shopping and other facilities in our community.

Under these legislative changes, cognitive, behavioural and neurological conditions will be included in South Australia's disability parking permit scheme. This will allow autistic people, people with autism or the families of autistic children to apply for a permit if their condition prevents them from moving independently without the continuous support of another person. My local community might be interested to know that the disability parking permit scheme has not actually changed since 1998. This is despite there being an increased awareness and understanding of the social and community needs of people living with a disability.

I am delighted the Malinauskas government is updating this act to ensure that the disability parking permit scheme reflects modern practice and supports the needs of people living with a disability in South Australia and indeed my community. In particular, I want to highlight the work of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, the member for West Torrens, and our Minister for Autism, the Hon. Emily Bourke, in this space.

We led the world with the first Assistant Minister for Autism and, with the Hon. Emily Bourke's elevation to the cabinet, we achieve another first with the ascension of the autism portfolio to the ministry. In regard to this bill, Minister Bourke advocated to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for these changes after listening to the experience of autism advocate Tegan Cross, who I now understand is a constituent of the member for Chaffey, and I appreciate his advocacy.

Ms Cross, as we understand, has three neurodivergent sons and had previously tried to apply for a disability parking permit only to be rejected, which prompted her to approach her local member and Minister Bourke. When announcing these changes, Ms Cross told the ABC about her experience, particularly how public places in Adelaide can be very overwhelming for her sons so having access to a disability car park would make it more accessible for her sons to want to go out in public more often and it would provide that sense of comfort for her sons to know that the car is close by if they have to leave and if they did that they were able to leave quickly and quietly.

I want to thank the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Bourke and Ms Cross for their efforts in championing these changes, and the member for Chaffey, her local member, for his advocacy.

Specifically, the bill will amend the Motor Vehicles Act to update terms to be more inclusive. It will remove the requirement that an applicant's ability to use public transport must be significantly impeded in order to obtain a permit and allow the eligibility criteria for a permit to be prescribed in the regulations. This is really important because moving the criteria to the regulations will allow the scheme to be more responsive and adaptable to future social and community requirements regarding disability parking spaces.

Unpacking these changes further, currently the state's Motor Vehicles Act requires a person to meet fixed criteria, including having what the law describes as a 'physical impairment' that impacts mobility. Under this legislation, the bill changes the term 'disabled person' to 'person with disability' and changes 'disabled person's parking permit' to 'disability parking permit'. These new terms are more inclusive and reflect modern practice.

The bill changes also include removing the requirement in the act that an applicant's ability to use public transport must be significantly impeded by their impairment in order to obtain a permit. It removes any legislative barriers to the regulations specifically including applicants who are legally blind without needing them to satisfy further mobility criteria for a disability parking permit. It removes any legislative barriers to the regulations specifically including applicants for a disability parking permit who have significant intellectual, cognitive, behavioural or neurological impairments that prevent the person from being able to independently mobilise safely without the continuous support of another person.

These changes will address issues with the scheme, particularly for parents and carers of children with autism who require access to disability parking spaces for safety reasons. In this instance, an applicant for a disability parking permit will need a medical practitioner to assess that due to a significant cognitive, behavioural or neurological impairment the person is not able to independently mobilise safely without the continuous support of another person.

The regulations will retain the existing physical mobility impairment criteria. In other words, applicants who have a temporary or permanent physical impairment will still need to show that their speed of movement is severely restricted. No changes are being made to the wider arrangements for how disability parking permits operate.

As mentioned previously, the act has provided the opportunity to improve the eligibility criteria for people who are legally blind. Currently, a legally blind person being transported as a passenger in a vehicle is eligible to be issued a disability parking permit; however, a legally blind person needs to show that their mobility is severely restricted and that they are unable to use public transport under the current criteria in the act.

But not all people who suffer from a sight impairment will be significantly impeded in their ability to use public transport and it has been argued that legally blind persons, through the use of a guide dog or long cane, are still able to access public transport. This can result in unintended consequences and, as such, the intention is that the regulations will specifically reference blindness to clarify and simplify the eligibility criteria. Therefore, the intention is to make legal blindness a specific category in terms of eligibility in the regulations without the need for an applicant to establish a mobility impairment.

Once again, I thank all those who were involved in these reforms and I look forward to these changes being implemented as soon as possible on the passing of this bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (16:14): I also rise to speak on this very important bill. We are a government that is focused on building stronger, more inclusive communities. We led the world with the very first Assistant Minister for Autism, who is now Minister for Autism, and, knowing that one in four Australians has an autistic family member, we are working hard to help make South Australia the autism-inclusive state.

It has been a pleasure this term of government to be able to engage with members of my community who have hidden disabilities, to listen firsthand to their experiences and to see how we can do better in a multitude of spaces. It is where they have been able to raise ideas and thoughts on how we can make things better, safer and more accessible for all. These ideas have ranged from the early years all the way to the final years, with a vast range of subjects that have been touched on. One of those subjects, of course, has been parking permits. I am so pleased to share that not only have we listened to this feedback but we have also investigated the matter and, yes, we agree that things can change—we can go further.

One of the ways we are achieving this is through the Motor Vehicles (Disability Parking Permit Scheme) Amendment Bill 2024. The disability parking permit bill makes amendments to part 3D of the act, to make enhancements to the framework for the issue of disability parking permits, including updating terms to be more inclusive. It will enable the eligibility criteria for meeting the definition of a person with a disability under part 3D of the act to be prescribed in the regulations. By detailing these matters in the regulations, we will enable future amendments to the criteria to be responsive and more easily changed over time.

The bill also removes the requirement that applicants must show that their ability to use public transport is significantly impeded by their impairment. I am particularly pleased to see this change. We are the only Australian jurisdiction to have this outdated requirement and, not only will the change promote consistency with other jurisdictions but it provides people living with a disability and their families with more dignity. In fact, making this happen is something that I have advocated for since meeting with Jack and his family back in 2020.

At just 22, Jack was being treated for a rare blood cancer, aplastic anaemia. This disease consumed his bone marrow within a week of diagnosis and, without enough white blood cells to fight infection, he was in and out of intensive care for over 107 days, 60 of which he was in a coma. This was all before he was able to receive a transplant. A side-effect of the long and difficult treatment was that Jack had a loss of mobility, so much so that he essentially had to start the journey of learning how to walk all over again and, due to the treatment, he relied on the use of a wheelchair to get around.

By not having the permit, Jack relied heavily on his partner, Hannah, to be able to lift him in and out of the car and assist him to an area where she was safely able to set up his wheelchair, which was often some distance away from his seat. It was both demoralising, dangerous and unsafe for both Jack and his partner, Hannah, and a very big concern not only for the two of them, but for their extended family as well who were already going through an incredibly tough time.

Of course, Jack had applied for a permit, but I understand that his application for a disability parking permit was rejected as his doctor indicated that he could use public transport. It was a matter that our now Premier personally wrote to the previous Liberal government about, raising Jack's situation, urging then Minister Wingard to use what powers he had to review the initial decision to reject his application and approve his application for a permit. It is why I am pleased that we are making this very change here today. Unfortunately, Jack has since passed away, but I know we have made a positive change for others who may share his experience.

This bill also deletes the reference to 'physical' in the definition of 'temporary physical impairment'. This will facilitate the expansion of the eligibility criteria for disability parking permits to include non-physical impairments, such as significant cognitive, behavioural or neurological impairments while at the same time encompassing physical impairments. This reflects feedback that I have received from families with hidden disabilities in my local community, like Charmain, whose husband is a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran with a service dog.

If you were to bump into their family at the local shops, you would not be able to tell that there was a member within that family who had a disability, even with their service dog by their side; in fact, so much so people often think that the family is training the service dog to be able to support others in the local community.

As Charmain has highlighted, it does not take away from the fact that we need to ensure that facilities such as shopping centres are accessible to all residents, especially those with young families and individuals with specific needs, like her husband. It is absolutely crucial. It is crucial to the individual's health and wellbeing, it is crucial to support their independent living and is important to help support everyday busy lives of families here in South Australia because I can promise you all they are not alone in this occurrence.

These changes will make a real difference to families in my local community who have experienced tragic circumstances like Jack or who may have hidden disabilities like Charmain's family. For that, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:20): I would like to make a small contribution to this bill. I think it is a very important bill. First of all, I would like to thank the people who have actually made this possible. I would like to acknowledge and thank the former Assistant Minister for Autism, the Hon. Emily Bourke in the other house, who is now the Minister for Autism. I would also like to thank the Minister for Transport in this place, his staff and the people in the department, because while this may not be one of the biggest reforms we bring in, it will change the lives of a lot of ordinary people in a big way. That is the important thing.

The member for Chaffey has outlined a case that was brought to his attention. I am sure there are cases like that right across the state. I certainly have had parents in the past talk to me about the difficulty they have had with children who are neurodivergent in trying to actually get them in and out of a car to a place, whether it is going to the doctor, shopping or schools. The school one is an example I would like to highlight to show how big an issue this is.

For parents who have children who are neurodivergent, getting them across the road or getting them from point A to point B when there is a lot of activity around, particularly around school time, attending school or leaving school, is quite a challenge. If you have two or three children who are neurodivergent, the challenge becomes impossible. Under the previous scheme, they were ineligible for a disability parking permit and often had to park either far away from an entrance to a school or they had to park sometimes in loading zones or some zone which was closer for their own child's safety.

I remember hearing a case about a grandparent who was a carer looking after their grandchildren. They were in a special class in one of my schools. They parked in a loading zone for the children's safety. They got booked by the council officers, and the council would not remit the penalty. They had to pay the penalty.

The current scheme, unfortunately, allows council officers to choose not to exercise the discretion in what I think is an appropriate way. This person could clearly demonstrate their grandchildren had a disability, etc., but no, these people applied the rules for the rules' sake. My view is you apply rules for the purpose they are intended. What is the objective behind the rule? You need to understand that. When you get told, 'We applied the penalty because it is against the rules,' no—what are the rules trying to achieve? Unfortunately, the current rules do enable council officers to do that, in my view, wrongly.

That was really highlighted to me, and that is not the only case. I have had a number of these cases in my electorate, and I am sure there are a lot of other families who have not come to me or their local MP and have just worn it, unfortunately. It is sad that people on the ground, who have to implement the rules, cannot show more judgement at times; but that is another story for another day.

These changes are also important in another way, apart from the practical changes in people's lives day to day. As I said, it is not a big reform, but it is a big change for those people who benefit from this. It is not a one-off thing: it is people who experience this issue every day. Every day they take their child to school, every day they take their child or a family member to a shop. Every day it is an issue for them. You can understand why they will ask, 'Why are these rules like that?'

It is also important because it changes our thinking about people living with disability from a disability having to be seen, having to be visible, to acknowledging there are people living with invisible disabilities. One of the things that we are also supporting is the Sunflower Project, which tries to get the message out that not all people with disabilities have disabilities that can be seen. There are neurodivergent people and a whole range of other people whose disability is not obvious or is invisible. It does not mean that they do not experience some disadvantage and challenges with everyday life. This bill helps to remove some of those disadvantages and barriers for those lives.

The Metropolitan Fire Service has a program called the Sunflower Project, which is supported by the Office for Autism in our state. It was something that was championed by the former Assistant Minister for Autism, now the Minister for Autism, to make sure the message gets out that we should not make judgement so quickly about the rights of people with disabilities. That is very important. I am going to use a word which has now become a slightly dirty and derided word: this is about inclusion. Unfortunately, in the political world this has become a word you are not supposed to use, or it is used in a negative sense.

For me, inclusion means giving people a fair go. In Australian culture, if there is one thing we strongly believe in it is a fair go for everybody. In other words, it means we give people a fair go to an education, a fair go to work, a fair go to access the health system. We do believe in a fair go. The reason we have one of the best health systems in the world is that we believe that everybody should have a fair go to health irrespective of their wealth. Health should not be linked to a person's wealth: health should be linked to a person's need.

This bill gives a whole range of people and their families a fair go so when they are taking their child to school they have a fair go taking that child to school in a safe way, also making sure that it is as easy as possible to do so. It is a fair go when they go to the shopping centre, where there is a lot of activity, and it gives those people a fair go to take their children with them. As one of the previous speakers said, the assumption is that if they are children they can be easily managed. I have seen some children—and I am not a tall person, I accept that, but some of these children are big, and they are not easily physically managed.

Having in proximity parking that provides for disability is really important for that family. Often, for the people who do not have a child or family member living with disability, it is hard to grasp, but when you have to put up with this every day, it is a real challenge. It is really important that this new provision makes it. It has been a long time coming, but it is here. Like the member for Playford said, we should applaud this reform, but let's not forget there are probably other reforms we need to think about. There are others we need to do as well.

This reform is great. It will increase demand for parking for people living with disability. That is just reality because it will make more people eligible, quite rightly, and it will increase demand, so we need to monitor the impact of the scheme and whether we need to review those matters in terms of the number of parking spaces made available for people with disability.

It also means as a community we need to be responsible and not misuse them in the sense that if you do not have a parking permit to park in the area, do not use it, irrespective of the amount of time. All the excuses in the world do not count, so I think it is important to do that.

I have received feedback from some people who do have a parking permit to park in an area reserved for people with disabilities and that is that some people would like to see harsher penalties. We need to see how things go, how they settle down and whether that is appropriate. We need to see what is happening interstate and what is best practice. I have a person in my community who has been advocating for some years that if you park in a car park reserved for a person with disability and you do not have a permit, if you get caught the expiation should be demerit points, like with any other licence infringement.

I cannot put the case whether that is the right or wrong thing to do, but certainly we need to look at what happens from here onwards, and given that there will be an increase in demand do we need to make sure that we further disincentivise people from parking illegally.

With those introductory comments I would like now to perhaps address the issues of the bill itself and the regulations. I think it is important to acknowledge that this bill amends the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. Importantly, this scheme has not changed since 1998 and clearly things have changed in terms of our thinking about people who are living with a disability in that time.

The bill amends part 3D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amendments include terms and language more appropriate for today's usage. It removes the requirement that an applicant's ability to use public transport must be simply impeded. As the member for Chaffey quite rightly mentioned, in a lot of parts of our state there is no alternative to parking, there is no public transport or the public transport is overused, etc. There are a whole range of different reasons. Even the department itself acknowledges that if you are more than 500 metres from a bus stop or a train station, that often denies people the appropriate access to public transport.

Also importantly, and something which I will fully support, is that it allows the eligibility criteria for these parking permits to be prescribed in regulations. It enables us to then review things and work out if changes need to be made and can be made more quickly and it is much more responsive. I think we need to respond as community attitudes also change to a whole range of things.

Changing the language is important. It talks about our values as a society and, as I said, even though the word 'inclusion' unfortunately is now used in a pejorative way, I still think that for many the word 'inclusion' means giving people a fair go and language which reflects that should be supported.

At the moment people who are eligible for a parking permit have to demonstrate a physical disability, where speed of movement is severely restricted by the impairment. I will read here, 'whose ability to use public transport is significantly impeded by the impairment'. That will change. Those two things have been a significant barrier for a whole range of people with a disability from living meaningful lives, or without additional barriers to their lives and their families, importantly.

The regulations will retain the existing physical mobility impairment criteria. Applicants who have a temporary or permanent physical impairment will still need to show that their speed of movement is severely restricted. So while the criteria has only changed in one element, it does change who is actually eligible, and that is the big change: who is eligible for this new permit.

There are a number of things that are not changing, but it is removing any legislative barriers to the regulations, specifically including applicants for a disability parking permit who have a significant intellectual, cognitive, behavioural or neurological impairment that prevents the person from being able to 'independently mobilise safely without the continuous support of another person'. That is the technical language for saying if a parent or family member or carer has to actually assist that person to get from point A to point B then they have met the criteria.

Often, that is very clear for their safety as well, not only in terms of their being able to physically do it but for their safety. Often, I have parents tell me that their child would literally run away or run off as soon as they are out of the car, and because they are parked so far away from a whole range of things there is an increase in risk to their personal safety. So that is going to be addressed.

I also understand that no changes have been made to the wider arrangements, which I think in this case is okay. The penalties will stay the same as they are at the moment, as I understand it, but hopefully they might be reviewed if people do not use them responsibly. The visual impairment requirement I understand is not changing. Again, they are people who have actually been eligible already.

As I said, we need to now monitor the increase in the use of car parking. We need to look at that. As has been previously mentioned, the framework for the number of car parks available is actually in a national code, and that is something that the Minister for Planning will need to monitor, to see whether that needs to change. Hopefully, we will not have to do that. Hopefully, we can actually use the existing parking areas responsibly, to make sure that that works. If that does change, we will need to then look at whether we need to do that.

Just one final point: based on what has happened in the other jurisdictions where they have changed the rules to reflect what we are proposing here, like Victoria and the ACT, parking demand has not increased, so we are hopeful that the existing stock of car parks available for people with disability will suffice.

The changes will commence on proclamation, and this will certainly occur after the regulations have been made. I assume that some thought has been given to the regulations already, so they will not be a long time in coming. One would hope that they are made very quickly. I understand that once the changes have been made the department plans to capture data and report on the types of disabilities or conditions for which DPPs are being issued.

Again, by having it in the regulations if this scheme needs to be fine-tuned there will be a quicker capacity for the government to make the regulations in the Executive Council and to fine-tune those. In conclusion, I would just like to say that this reform is a worthwhile one, and certainly it will bring relief and fairness to a number of families in our state.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (16:38): This bill has been a long time in the making. First and foremost, I want to thank the opposition for the indication of their support. That is magnanimous of them, and I am grateful for it. It is always much easier to pass legislation when there is bipartisan support. Interestingly, that is becoming contentious in the public, where, depending on their perspective someone might say, 'You all agree with each other. There is no difference between the two major political parties,' and another time people ask that political parties work together and come up with a consensus. It seems to me here that the government and the opposition are on the same page, and it is a good outcome.

The other person I would like to thank for this is Minister Bourke. Minister Bourke, I think, will be the first to admit that this bill was not her idea: it is the idea of a community that she engaged deeply with. One of the toughest things about being in parliament, and in government, is the thousands of voices that are thrown at you professionally by organisations wanting to have their points of view heard. In fact, while I was just sitting here, there was an interest group sending me messages about another piece of legislation that is in the parliament.

What Minister Bourke and the member for Chaffey have done is go out and speak to the people who usually have no voice—and they have been heard. That is the job of parliamentarians. It is almost like using a tuner to try to find out the voices that cannot be heard over the loud chatter around the usual self-interest.

This bill makes a number of changes, and I want to go through them systematically. We will be going into committee, and I can answer direct questions of the opposition and any other member in the house, but I thought what I would do is just talk generally about some of the changes that are being made. First and foremost, the department has quite helpfully made me a series of information that I think is important.

The bill does a number of things to disability parking permits. Firstly, it amends part 3D—Disabled persons' parking permits—of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959, and it updates terminology to be more inclusive. That might not seem like something that is very important, but what we have attempted to do is to meet the criteria of the change in the definition of a person with a disability to mean a person who meets disability criteria prescribed by the motor vehicles regulations. My understanding of that is to allow us to remove a requirement of an applicant's ability to use public transport, which is the formal criteria.

Without being critical of any government in particular, because no doubt we have had this similar request when we were previously in government, and of the Marshall government, looking at the responses that I would get from people who were asking for disability parking permits, there was a generic response from the agency on the basis of the legislation that, 'You can catch public transport. You don't need a disability parking permit.' That was unique, I understand, for South Australia, so we are fixing that.

The term 'disabled person' is being changed to a 'person with a disability', and 'disabled persons' parking permit' to 'disability parking permit'. The reason we have done that is again for inclusivity, to reflect modern practices, and it is based on a language guide published by People with Disability Australia, a peak disability rights advocacy organisation. I think that is good, and it is also done in conjunction with the Office for Autism and the Department of Human Services.

Importantly, who is eligible? An applicant for a permit needs to have a disability that falls under the eligibility criteria set out in the Motor Vehicles Act. Currently, the act defines a disabled person as:

…a person with a temporary or permanent physical impairment—

(a) whose speed of movement is severely restricted by the impairment; and

(b) whose ability to use public transport is significantly impeded by the impairment.

This means that the requirements are that the applicants have a temporary or permanent physical impairment, show their speed of movement is severely restricted by the impairment, and show their ability to use public transport is significantly impeded by that impairment.

Organisations are also eligible to apply for the disability parking permits if they provide services, including a transportation service, to at least four people who meet the above criteria. So the changes are removing the requirement in the act for an applicant's ability to use public transport and that you need to be significantly impaired to obtain a DPP.

The regulations will retain the existing physical mobility impairment criteria, and applicants who have a temporary or permanent physical impairment will still need to show that their speed of movement is restricted. But we are removing any legislative barriers to the regulations specifically including applicants who are legally blind without them then having to satisfy mobile criteria for a DPP. Importantly, that is for people driving people who are legally blind who are able to get the permit.

The bill will remove any legislative barriers to the regulations specifically including applicants for a DPP who have a significant intellectual, cognitive, behavioural or neurological impairment that prevent the person from being able to independently mobilise safely without continuous support from another person. The final criteria will be set by regulations. These changes will address the scheme, particularly for parents and carers of children with autism who require access to these parking spaces for safety reasons.

The last point I want to touch on is: why remove the requirement for the use of public transport to be an impediment? No other jurisdiction does this; we are the only one left that does it. Instead, other jurisdictions have a mobility requirement. These changes will align us with the rest of the nation; however, we still continue to have a mobility requirement as part of the regulations. I can go deeper into that, if the opposition would like when we go into committee.

These reforms I think address a number of issues. I heard the member for Light talk briefly about additional parking spaces. Rather than make the requirement now in conjunction with this legislation, the government would like some time to settle this in and see exactly how this operates before you rush in and automatically increase the number of spaces that are required for disability parking permits.

I heard what you are saying. I received correspondence from the disability sector about this. I think, to be fair, pre these changes there were calls for more disability parking spaces anyway. I acknowledge that there is a problem, I acknowledge that there is a demand, but we are talking about imposing on the private sector. I just ask for a little bit of patience to see how these are bedded in.

The other thing that the member for Light raised was the potential for issuing demerit point penalties for people who park inappropriately in disabled car parking spaces. This is difficult. I am happy to look at it. Personally, I am not quite sure it is a good idea. Not that I advocate for this to occur but expiation notices and demerit points can be a very unsubtle way of enforcing this given that sometimes people self-assess when they are carrying people in and out using disability parking spaces. I am not condoning people using these spaces without the appropriate permits, but generally I think it is still socially unacceptable for people to park in these spaces unless they have the appropriate permit.

Issuing expiation notices and demerit points could be something the government could consider, but that is not something I have contemplated or am contemplating yet, but I am happy to take submissions from members who might wish to advocate for it or argue against it. I do not want to make a position. Expiation fines are increased annually so I am not sure that demerit points would be the appropriate penalty given that the fine is quite significant. I do not have the actual level of the fine but I am sure we can get that when we go into committee and I can let that be known to the house.

I just want to thank the opposition for their support and their graciousness in supporting this. I also want to thank the member for Chaffey for bringing to light the personal stories from his constituents. This is what this house does not hear enough of. This is the people's house. I have a lot of respect for our members in the upper house but they are not at the coalface as we are. We see our constituents daily, we live among them, and we get these human interactions and these human stories a lot more. I think this place benefits greatly when we hear those personal stories about how government regulations and legislation, or lack of them, impact on ordinary people.

I commend the member for Adelaide, the member for Chaffey and Minister Bourke for doing this and making these changes. I thank the cabinet for their support and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr WHETSTONE: This is really a general section. I would like to get some clarification about the consultation on the legislation with some of the business groups. Some of those parking providers, shopping centres, the LGA, the RAA, the MTA: were any of those business organisations consulted during the legislative process?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a good question. No, we did not consult with those bodies that the shadow minister talks of. We consulted with the Office for Autism and Human Services. This reform was based on public feedback from Service SA areas, ministerials and letters from parliamentarians into government.

If we had made changes to increase the number of car parking spaces to be made available for disability parking permits then, yes, I would have extended the consultation to the private sector. But, given that we are not increasing the number of spaces required legislatively to be made available in car parking, we did not decide to do that consultation. I do not do that lightly, but the level of correspondence, applications and inquiries we were given was becoming overwhelming and it was clear that we were an outlier across the country, so that is why we made the change.

Mr WHETSTONE: I am advised that the minister is in receipt of some correspondence and feedback from disability organisation Purple Orange. They raised five or six suggestions. Are you able to respond to any of their feedback with the concerns that they raised?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have is that organisation was asking for semantic changes to the language we used. There is a whole series of different terminology that they wanted us to use. It is very difficult when there are a number of bodies that represent people with disabilities, so we settled on one uniform piece of language, which was published by People with Disability Australia. They are a peak body, disability rights advocacy organisation. While that might not assuage some groups, it is very difficult to come up with terminology that will be acceptable to everyone, so we chose what we thought was the peak body and we settled on that.

In terms of the outcome of the actual application of the changes, I am not sure that there was a difference in what they were asking, but what they were asking for were terminology changes rather than actual application changes.

Mr WHETSTONE: We have talked about car parking spaces, but does the government collect data about the supply and demand of disability car parking spaces?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Historically, we have not. We are proposing to begin collecting data through TRUMPS through the application process to try to get a better understanding of location and use and then using the TRUMPS data to try to better understand the data that we receive and its application in the issuing of disability parking permits. But to date we have not been collecting that data.

Mr WHETSTONE: If there is data collected, will there be the opportunity for the holders of disability car park permits to be able to feed that information to you, with concerns of spaces, not enough spaces, adequate positioning of handicap car park spaces and the like?

Obviously, this is a change to what is the norm. We will potentially see more demand on special needs car parking. I do not want to confuse the question, but have you considered using a special needs car park pass rather than a handicap car park pass because the whole crux of this legislation has been around the determination of who qualifies for a handicap car park space? Previously, autistic people did not qualify and they now will under this legislation, so will the language change around what is called a handicap car park permit or will there be consideration for a special needs car park permit?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are changing the name to disability parking permit, and the regulations will allow me to change the criteria through consultation to create and capture more people to be eligible, which is what we are attempting to do. I am not sure how to say this without offending anyone: I am not as much interested in terminology as I am in the outcome. The terminology, while important, is not as important as the outcome.

The department have the government's instructions. We think the criteria has been too tight; we think the eligibility is too narrow. We are behind national frameworks and national standards. We have asked the department to go away and bring us in line and to also give us more data on what we need going forward, simultaneously feeding in all the ministerials and correspondence we get from numerous members of parliament on both sides about this issue. So I hope that answers your question. Terminology is tricky but, again, I am more interested in the outcome.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just a bit of commentary: the disability organisations have said to me that they are very fragile with the terminology used, whether it is a handicap, whether it is special needs. They are, as I say, fragile about some of the language used about people who are either disabled or have a physical disability, and so that is the reason I ask the question. Temporary impairment is defined in this proposed new section as being:

…an impairment that, in the opinion of the Registrar, is likely to endure…6 months but is not likely to be permanent.

Is the basis for choosing six months as the minimum threshold to manage demand for disability car parks?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The short answer is yes. Should we give disability parking to someone with a broken leg? There are people who are short-term impaired so, again, this is the difficult part. There are limited spaces.

I remember when the former Speaker fell off a ladder and nearly broke his neck. Depending on the impairment in place, should that person be entitled to a disability parking permit given the limited number of spaces compared to someone who has an impairment that could last six, eight or nine months? So, yes, it is an arbitrary number. What we are trying to catch are people who are temporarily impaired who might not need it long term to make sure there are adequate spaces for people who are using these spaces longer term.

Mr WHETSTONE: I would like to go to clause 5(3).

The CHAIR: Actually, clause 5 is clause 5. Normally, the rules are applied where you are entitled to three questions for each clause. I have now allowed you seven questions but I am happy to give you another question.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you. One final question on this clause: minister, we talked about monitoring the use of data for disability parking once this bill becomes law—you are giving consideration—but are you able to tell us the cost of providing a disability parking space? The minister was on ABC radio saying that the broadened criteria for disabled parking would provide an economic opportunity for businesses to make more bays accessible. Can you expand on that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think Minister Bourke made those comments rather than me?

Mr WHETSTONE: That is right. Minister Bourke made the comments on ABC radio.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not know what the context is when she talked about economic growth. I am assuming it is the more accessible your car parking is, the more clients you are likely to get. If you have these disability parking permits, if it is an easier car park to get into and go shop, they will take their custom there. I think that is what she is talking about.

In terms of the review about the numbers, the Building Code is reviewed by the commonwealth government, I think, every five years. That review is next year. So the commonwealth government, after the federal election, will announce the outcomes of that review and they will make a decision through the Building Code whether or not there need to be more or less. I am assuming there will need to be more. But that again will have wideranging ramifications for car parking. It is important that it is done with a bit of consideration, which is why this legislation does not contemplate additional car parking.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Who is responsible for managing noncompliance? In other words, who has the authority to place a ticket on a car that is not displaying the appropriate badge or pass or permit on say a council-owned road or a government institution car park or a car park that is publicly owned and that of a parking space in a private car park where already we know that the only option available in private car parks for overstaying, for example, is a civil action of which very few are successful? Anyone who challenges civil actions by shopping centre car parks in particular who charge are normally successful on that basis. Are you able to advise for public roads who can issue a fine and for private car parking spaces who is responsible for issuing fines to people who inappropriately use disability car parking?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Councils are responsible for public roads and public car parks. They will issue their expiations. We do not have parking inspectors in state government. For private car parking in multistorey car parking, those private owners would have their own compliance officers; they do their own enforcement. There has been, I understand, an agreement between state government and private operators to allow—if my memory serves me correctly, there is an ability for private car parks to have their compliance enforced. That is an agreement that was made by previous governments.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is that a civil case? Would they have to pursue that through the civil courts?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand, yes, it is a civil case.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: With your intention that you are going to start to monitor the use of disability car parking, have you considered perhaps disability car parking being allocated for specific times of the day? I know that a Sunday lunch, for example, at a pub may very well require additional disability car parking. We know that usually there would be a higher percentage of older people who would have these passes than younger people and in a family environment for a Sunday lunch, for example, you would expect that there might be more people who would come to that car park which may increase the demand for disability parking.

However, when that pub, at 6 o'clock, starts the nightclub, it may very well be that the data you are collecting suggests that half the number of disability car parks would be available, in which case there would be more room for women, for example, to park closer to the venue and not have these car parks empty. Is that something that you might consider—having time changes or times for disability parking between 11 and three, and then it becomes a normal car park outside those hours—in your review as to whether there is a requirement for more disability car parking due to the changes in this bill?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not going to lie: it is a good suggestion. The Private Parking Areas Act is not assigned to me, so I cannot speak on behalf of another minister. I think councils could easily do this if they chose to, if it were fitting within the Australian Road Rules for them to allow a time—nine until three—for disability car parking only on the streets. I am sure it would be fine. I think it is a good idea, but I have not put my mind towards that aspect yet.

If I can give the member an outline of what my thinking is right now, my thinking is, as I said earlier, to catch up to speed with the rest of the country on eligibility, have a larger cohort available, and see how that works over a period of time. If we need to make changes in the form of the Building Code or potentially make our own changes, if the government makes a policy decision, I make a recommendation to the minister whom the Private Parking Areas Act is assigned to about this.

I think the idea of a council in and around service clubs, cafes, churches or community halls to, say, have a larger number of disability parking permits for a specific period of time is an excellent idea. It is something that I might write to the LGA on straight after this bill passes. I think it is a good suggestion from the member.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, clause 10(2) refers to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the regulations. For the benefit of disability organisations, who would typically prefer as much detail as possible to be included in the act itself, could you outline the sort of detail that would be written into regulations and whether you expect them to be updated with any frequency?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As I said in the second reading speech, the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria will be basically about removing the requirement about an applicant's ability to use public transport and retaining the existing physical mobility impairment criteria so applicants who have temporary or permanent physical impairments will still need to show that the speed of their movement is severely restricted. The other regulation is about people who are legally blind, without them needing to satisfy the mobility criteria. The last part is, of course, including the criteria for a DPP for people who have significant intellectual, cognitive, behavioural or neurological impairments that prevent the person being able to independently mobilise safely without continuous support from another person.

I am not going to write these regulations: the department and parliamentary counsel are. The government sets the broad criteria that we want to be accepted, and they will go away and do that. This is the way we have done regulations. I just also point out that Minister Bourke and myself would be more than happy to meet with these groups at your recommendation to discuss these even further if we need to.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.