PRIVATE PARKING AREAS (PENALTIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2007. Page 1395.)

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (11:21): The opposition supports the bill to amend the Private Parking Areas Act by providing that the maximum fine for parking offences under this act be brought into line with those under the Australian road rules. The matter of private parking areas and the operation of the Private Parking Areas Act is a matter of some concern. All members would be aware of widely and frequently reported cases where what one might term 'shady operators' use the powers granted under the Private Parking Areas Act to exact penalties from persons who are insufficiently aware of the consequence of parking in private parking areas as defined.

Although the act provides that a notice is required to be placed in a private parking area indicating that it is a private parking area and the consequences for parking there improperly, those notice provisions require re-examination, because too many people are presently being fined for parking in places where the notices are not as prominently displayed as they could be. The notices might look fine when the car park is empty, but when it is full at night, etc., people can be and frequently are confused if you believe what they are saying.

We do not believe that this particular bill is the occasion on which to examine all of the provisions of the Private Parking Areas Act and to look at some of the activities usually ascribed to a well-known person about town, Mr Damian Lester, but we do believe that, at an appropriate time, those practices should be more closely examined. However, we have no objection at all—and, indeed, support—this bill, which will provide for the same penalties under the Private Parking Areas Act as will be allowed under the Australian Road Rules.

As the minister's second reading explanation outlines, the principal area of concern here relates to parking in a disabled person's parking space without the necessary permit. The minister mentioned that in 2005 the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure undertook a review of the Disabled Persons Parking Permit Scheme relating to the level of compliance and enforcement provisions of the scheme.

The minister said that one of the recommendations was to increase the expiation fee for parking in a disabled person's parking space without a valid permit. In consequence of that, the expiation fee under the road traffic regulations was increased and, under that act, it is currently increased to $227. However, the fee payable under the Private Parking Areas Regulations is only $78.

It is reported in the introductory speech that a number of recommendations were made in 2005 in that review. I ask the minister to indicate whether that review was ever published or tabled in the parliament; and, secondly, what were the other recommendations (the speech indicates that this was merely one of them in relation to disabled persons' parking spaces), and were the other recommendations adopted? Does the government have any evidence of the level of noncompliance with the disabled persons' parking regime, and has that been published?

The minister also mentioned that the government has approved amending the road traffic road rules ancillary miscellaneous provisions to increase the maximum penalty for parking and stopping offences under the Australian Road Rules from $500 to $1,250. Noting that approval, when is it intended that the government will amend those regulations, and what is the justification for increasing this penalty by over 100 per cent? Is it revenue raising, or is the level of noncompliance such that a more significant maximum penalty should be provided for?

As the minister noted, the vast majority of parking and stopping offences are expiated and, given that the expiation fee will be $227, what is really the justification for increasing the maximum penalty if one does not expiate the offence to $1,250? If the minister is able to answer those questions in the response (and I know we want to get this bill through today), I would welcome that; otherwise, a response in writing would be appreciated.

The Hon. A.L. EVANS (11:28): I rise to indicate Family First's support for this bill. The bill simply lifts the penalties under the act, with a principal focus on harmonising the penalties for illegal parking in a disabled parking space between public and private areas. The difference, as it currently stands, is a maximum penalty of $200 in private areas compared with $1,250; and an expiation free of $78 compared with $227.

This bill lifts the private bans to the public levels. I was shocked to read that the last increase in penalties was in 1987. My colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood has pointed out that there is surely merit in these sort of penalties going up with CPI, rather than addressing them in a piecemeal fashion, and I agree.

I become annoyed when I see people parking in disabled spaces when, from what you observe, those people parking in those spaces are not disabled. Being disabled is hard enough as it is, let alone their having to park in a normal parking space in order to get to the shops, surgeries, or wherever else they might be going. These disabled spaces are sometimes nice and wide and in a safe place, which makes access to their vehicle easier, and I really have no sympathy for uncaring people who park in a disabled space without excuse. So, Family First supports the increasing of the penalties as indicated in this bill.

I appreciate what the minister said in the other place about whether a casual onlooker can tell whether or not someone is disabled, and I use that as a brief segue into what I believe is an important and related issue. I applaud the initiatives of supermarket car park owners to have baby parking spaces for parents—often mothers—who have to get babies or toddlers and their associated prams or strollers out of their cars. There can never be any doubt whether a baby coming out of a baby seat is a baby or not—though my younger constituents tell me that The Chaser tried to get away with it once.

Having baby parking spaces is an excellent Family First initiative that should be encouraged throughout the state. Perhaps, as we look at private parking areas, the minister will take note of my comments about baby parking spaces and, when she advises them about the increase in penalties, she could look at persuading the operators of private parking areas at the same time to follow the good lead of others regarding baby parking spaces. I might add that I do not think that we would go as far as making it illegal to park in those spaces, but perhaps it would be good just to have private car parks mark those spaces as a priority for parents with babies. With those comments, I support the bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (11:31): The Greens are pleased to support this bill, because we believe it is desirable that the penalties and the expiations be consistent between private parking areas and parking areas in public places that are governed by other rules. I think most of us appreciate that we need to give preferential treatment to people who have mobility issues, which makes it more difficult for them to travel longer distances. So, most of us support having disabled car parking places that are closer to the entrances of buildings.

I will reflect briefly on the earlier contribution of the Hon. Andrew Evans, when he noted that we often look askance at someone we see parking in a disabled car parking space who does not look to be disabled. I think it is important that we focus on the permit rather than on the person, because disability takes a number of forms, and we also have to consider the important role of carers in transporting people who have disabilities.

For example, I have a very elderly and frail relative who travels with me, and the disabled permit might be in the window of my car. I might park in a disabled spot and leap, able-bodied, out of the car, yet I will be going inside to collect a frail, elderly person who really could not walk to the far-flung reaches of that car parking space. So, I think it is important that we focus on the permit and not the person. The Greens support this legislation, because we believe that the same standards should apply, regardless of which law regulates the car park in question.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (11:33): I thank all honourable members for their support for this very sensible piece of legislation. This bill proposes to make penalties and fees for parking offences under the Private Parking Areas Act 1986 consistent with a similar offence under the Road Traffic Act 1961. In particular, this will ensure that the expiation fee for parking in a disabled person's space without a valid permit will now be $227, which will help to ensure that only those who are entitled to use a disabled person's parking space use it.

I have noted the questions asked by the Hon. Robert Lawson, and I will attempt to answer at least some of them during the committee stage. If I am not able to do so, I certainly give my commitment to ensure that a response will be provided in writing as soon as possible. I duly note the comments of the Hon. Andrew Evans around baby parking spaces. I appreciate the Hon. Mark Parnell's sobering reminder that, indeed, when it comes to disability parking issues, one needs to focus on the permit and not the person. Again, I thank members for their support for this piece of legislation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: With respect to the questions asked by the Hon. Robert Lawson about the justification for the increase from $500 to $1,250, I am informed that, on the advice of parliamentary counsel, it is necessary to have a maximum penalty for any offence well above that of the expiation. With respect to the other questions, I give a commitment to provide the answers in writing as soon as we possibly can.

Remaining clauses (2 to 6) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.