Bills

Motor Vehicles (Demerit Points for Disability Parking Area Offence) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:56): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I introduce a bill to amend the Motor Vehicles Act of 1959, namely the Motor Vehicles (Demerit Points for Disability Parking Area Offence) Amendment Bill 2015 on behalf of Dignity for Disability. My contribution on this bill will probably be somewhat brief, and that is because the proposal that we are putting forward today is quite simple.

Since I was elected to this place in 2010, some five years ago now, one of the most frequent calls I receive to my office remains the issue of disability accessible car parking, in particular the lack of available disability car parking spaces, car parks that one can utilise with a valid disability parking permit. While the fine for parking in accessible spots currently attracts a $341 fine, this is not seen to be an adequate deterrent. People are still regularly flouting this rule and taking away the space from a person who legitimately needs access to it to go shopping, spend time with friends, go to work, attend appointments or go to the library, work or study locations.

Essentially, this is a very simple bill. It ensures that those found parking in a valid permit space without a permit will attract not only a fine but also a demerit point against their driver's licence. All the usual appeal processes against a fine and against demerit points will still apply; that is, if you forget to display your valid permit you could apply for relief from the fine and the demerit point. I understand that there has been some concern in the community about this, so I want to put on the record that the same appeals mechanisms will apply.

My office is regularly told about people parking in disability access permit parks without a permit. While there is some policing of this by local councils and other authorities, there is still not enough policing occurring. I recently appeared in a Channel 9 television investigation that showed just how widespread parking in disability spots in and across the Adelaide area is.

While policing of accessible car parks is essential, I am hopeful that this bill will also bring about cultural change, which is much needed. It is far too common still in 2015 to hear excuses for parking in a disability access car park without a permit like, 'I was only there for five minutes.' Well, even if it is only for five minutes, to break the law for five minutes is still wrong. I find it quite amusing when people give this response and say things like, 'I was there only there for five minutes and nobody else came along needing the park.'

The first question is: how could that driver possibly know that, since they were presumably in a shop or another venue and were not actually out there watching the park? Secondly, this excuse hinges on the false notion that respect is still being delivered adequately if the respect for one person comes after the respect of another; that is to say that you do not respect someone properly if you expect them to wait for their human rights and for that respect to be given to them.

As I said earlier, what if a car rolls up 30 seconds after you went into the shop, taking the accessible car park, waiting to use the only available parking spot that is suitable for unloading a wheelchair or other mobility aid or that is close to the entrance so that a person who cannot walk very far can get to the shop safely? The lack of available disability access car parks puts people in a place of great risk of injury. For example, if they are a wheelchair user, they could be lower to the ground and may be less visible to other drivers, particularly those in vans, four-wheel drives and trucks.

There is also the issue of where someone might mobilise slower than a person without a disability, which raises obvious safety concerns in a busy and sometimes not well-lit car park. While I acknowledge that I have received a small amount of opposition to this bill, with comments such as, 'Demerit point offences should only apply where a clear safety concern applies to the offence,' given the examples I have just given, I think that the safety element of disability access car parks is one that cannot be underestimated.

I would also like to talk about a recent campaign that came out of a Russian disability rights organisation called Dislife. This campaign was called 'More than a sign'. This campaign involved people using secret cameras to validate whether or not a car pulling in to an accessible car park had the permit displayed. If there was no permit displayed, the organisation would activate a hologram which depicted a man in a wheelchair yelling, 'Stop!' The car would then pull over, of course, thinking that there was a person in front of the car. The hologram message would then go on to talk about the fact that we often forget that people with disabilities and those using disability access car parks are more than a sign. The hologram message ended with, 'I face many challenges every day. Your only challenge is to respect my rights.' Really, I think that says it all.

I also think the other cultural change needed pertains to the potential change of the symbol that is used to signify disability access car parks. It is quite well acknowledged now, particularly in the disability community, that not all disabilities are visible; in fact, most of them are invisible. So perhaps there is a need to change the sign to recognise that this is the case, particularly because even years after campaigns such as 'Check the permit, not the person' there still seems to be an 'us and them' attitude to the use of disability access car parks where if a person does not look disabled it is assumed they are not, and are therefore not entitled to use a permit space even if they have a disability access parking permit displayed in their car.

While the support of this bill from the community has been huge and overwhelmingly positive, I acknowledge that I have also received other comments, such as suggestions that this would be overregulation; that is, governments or parliaments stepping in to take away from the rights of people in that community. I do not consider this measure to be an example of overregulation. I consider that overregulation would be something that impinges on people's civil liberties or on their ability to run a business in the way they would wish. This does neither of those things. This is already an offence, so already you should not have the liberty to park in an access park without a permit. This simply seeks to align the severity of that offence—that is, taking away someone's ability to easily and safely access their community—with the effect that it is having on the community.

When I talk about this on radio, online or on TV I have been overwhelmed by stories flowing into my office by email, phone or online; stories of people with disabilities or chronic illnesses or age-related disabilities being trapped in parking spots, missing appointments, or being in unsafe situations. One such story I heard of was where a woman who was a wheelchair user was unable to get back into her car because she had had to park in a non-accessible car park, and she therefore had to ask a stranger to reverse her car out of that space so that she could get in with her wheelchair.

Essentially, what we are talking about here is community members and taxpayers being deprived of the opportunity to access the community safely and easily. This certainly demonstrates that we need to change social attitudes in relation to this issue, and I hope this bill will be one part of a conversation that will lead to a raft of reforms needed in this realm. I hope the support of members of parliament will reflect the broad community support that exists for this bill, and I thank those members who have already indicated their support. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.