HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-08-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Procedure

Standing and Sessional Orders Suspension

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (11:11): I move, without notice:

That standing and sessional orders be so far suspended as to enable Private Members Business, Bills, Order of the Day No. 15, Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Shopping Centre Parking) Amendment Bill, set down for Wednesday 25 August, to take precedence forthwith over Government Business.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader has moved that standing and sessional orders be suspended. I will count the house. There being an absolute majority present, I accept the motion. Is it seconded?

Honourable members: Yes, sir.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is absolutely critical and urgent that this parliament forthwith debate and address this bill, simply because unfortunately time is against this parliament and the people of the north-eastern suburbs in seeking to stop the introduction of paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre.

It is unfortunate that, some months ago, Westfield—or Centro Group—Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre's owners, announced their intention to install boom gates and paid parking arrangements at that institution of the north-eastern suburbs. They have made it perfectly clear that it is their intention to start to impose very substantial costs on the residents of the north-eastern suburbs and workers at the Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre for merely attending that particular location. They have made it clear that is their intention, so it is absolutely critical that this parliament urgently passes this legislation to stop the introduction of paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza Shopping Centre. I understand the urgency is a function of the impost that this would place upon those users of the shopping centre.

The nature of shopping centres has changed. They are now more than just a place to transact and buy goods. They are a place where people get access to critical health services and critical government services. Shopping centres are a place where people congregate to engage with each other socially and healthily, not just through conversation over a coffee but maybe in attendance at a restaurant or a movie.

They are a place where people express their very basic and essential human desire to be able to interact with each other. Now more than ever this is important. But they are also a place where people get access to the essentials of life, none other than food, bread and milk, or the basic goods families need to be able to get by.

When a large company of the nature of the owners of Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre decide to take advantage of their social licence to unfairly introduce a cost on people who are only accessing the services that they seek to provide, that is wrong. That is an act of greed in a way that this parliament should not tolerate.

The residents of the north-eastern suburbs do not want paid parking introduced at Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre. On this side of the house, we have heard their call. We understand that expecting workers who would potentially face a cost of $10, $15, or $20 a day to simply show up and do their job is wrong. These are not the highest paid workers in our society. They cannot afford such an impost that may result in over $50, $60 or $70 a week just for them to do their job.

For them, we should stop paid parking. For all the residents in the north-eastern suburbs—who go to TTP day in, day out, to be able to engage with each other, get basic goods, get access to essential services—we have heard the call that they do not want to see paid parking introduced at the shopping centre.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader, I have given you some latitude, but I just remind you that we are debating the motion to suspend sessional orders, rather than the bill itself.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. The urgency of passing this bill goes directly to the heart of the fact that Westfield are acting as we speak. It is their plan to install the boom gates forthwith, so we need to intervene as a parliament in a united way—the member for Newland and the member for King acting with me as the leader of the Labor Party to come together to stop these boom gates.

If this house resolves today to suspend standing orders and pass this bill, there will be no paid parking at TTP shopping centre if Tea Tree Gully does as it says it will do and stop the introduction of paid parking. The only thing that stands between the introduction of paid parking or not is whether the government, the Liberal Party, will support the suspension of standing orders and pass the bill. We owe it to these people. They voted for the member for Newland and they voted for the member for King expecting them to stand up for them in this parliament against excessive corporate greed.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: the leader has ignored your direction and is straying a long way from the substance of this debate, which is about whether or not an urgency exists, and is moving towards personal attacks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order, in the sense that the leader was digressing from the current debate, and that is a motion to suspend standing orders, so I will bring the leader back to that. It is your motion, leader.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We will not be silenced in trying to progress this bill as quickly as we possibly can because, if the parliament chooses not to suspend standing orders, if the parliament chooses to delay the progress of this bill, then that will give Westfield the ability to introduce paid parking.

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: Like they did down at West Lakes when you were in government.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If the Premier, who is interjecting—I am not too sure why—and members of the Liberal government determine that Westfield should be able to proceed with paid parking, then they can vote against this resolution.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, leader!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: But on this side of the house—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader, can you take a seat for a moment, please. There are interjections occurring from both sides of the chamber. I am particularly looking at the member for Lee and the member for Chaffey.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: It was actually the Premier, sir. It was the Premier that kicked it off.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, well, I——

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: I would have expected better, sir, but—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't answer back, member for Lee! What I heard was the member for Lee and the member for Chaffey. Regardless of who it was, the interjections will cease and the chatter across the chamber will cease.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If the Liberal government determine that they are happy for paid parking to proceed, which is the current plan from the owners of the shopping centre, they can vote against this resolution.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Again, I ask you to bring the leader back to substance of the debate. What we are debating is whether this house sees an urgency to debate this now, not what the leader is talking about.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take your point. I am not going to uphold it at this point. Leader, what have you got left? Four minutes to conclude your remarks.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I will seek to make my point again, hopefully without interruption. If the Liberal government determine that despite Westfield, the owners of the shopping centre, already having the application in—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: For the leader to say 'if the Liberal government determines X, Y, Z' has nothing to do with whether this needs to be debated right now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader is putting a motion, speaking to his motion, and I am prepared to give him some latitude, having explained to him that he is speaking to the suspension of standing orders. And you are bearing that in mind, leader?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Of course. I will seek to make the point once again and, hopefully, third time lucky. The owners of the TT Plaza shopping centre have already expressed their immediate desire to introduce paid parking at the shopping centre. The parliament has the ability to stop that through the progress of this bill. So if any member of this parliament is of the view that paid parking should be introduced at the shopping centre, then vote against my motion. If, however, you have the view—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order, leader.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you again, Deputy Speaker. For the leader to talk about a vote for or against paid parking is completely out of the realm of whether or not this is urgent enough to debate right now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I do not agree, minister, and I do not uphold the point of order. The leader is down to three minutes. He will conclude his remarks. I am sure there will be a speaker from the government who will make the government's position clear, and then we will vote.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is clear that those opposite do not want to be held to account on this issue. If, however, you hold the view—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: If, however, you hold the view that paid parking should not proceed at Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre, then you have no choice but to support this resolution, so debate will be brought on and the bill will be brought on forthwith and we can collectively stop it. I fear that if this motion is not supported and we do not get to debate the legislation, then the owners of the shopping centre will be able to proceed with the installation of paid parking without this parliament having a say.

I think every resident in the north-eastern suburbs expects this parliament as a whole to do everything we can to act to stop this introduction of paid parking. Anybody who votes against this resolution today will only be doing so if they believe paid parking should go ahead at Tea Tree Plaza. I do not believe that should be the case. I desperately hope that those members of the Liberal government, particularly the member for Newland and the member for King, do not believe it should go ahead, but if they do they can vote accordingly.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:24): The Leader of the Opposition would have people believe that, if they make a decision on whether debating this issue now is urgent enough to set aside standing orders, that decision automatically implies all the types of things he has tried to apply to members of this chamber. We are talking about whether it is relevant to deal with this at the moment, to put aside the system that we have in place of dealing with private members' bills in the order they are introduced.

I would suggest that the argument from the Leader of the Opposition is actually incredibly disrespectful to his own colleagues because he would like to delay discussion about disposal of PFAS. He would like to delay coercive control issues. He would like to delay throwing objects at vehicles. He would like to delay a whole range of other things.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: I think the member may be confused and may be inadvertently misleading the parliament. The Leader of the Opposition is attempting to suspend standing orders to debate his motion now, not during private members' business. Perhaps the Manager of Government Business might read the standing orders to understand what we are actually doing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What was the point of order, member for West Torrens?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That he did not know what he was doing, 303, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not going to uphold that, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Standing order 303. On the basis of that, I will not take the Leader of Opposition Business's advice to brush up. Those opposite would have us make this issue a higher priority than any of these other issues. Those opposite could bring forward any of these issues if they thought they were more pressing than the other things that we have on the Notice Paper. This is not—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is not urgent business. To claim that it is urgent business is incredibly disrespectful to the house. To claim that how people make a judgement and how they choose to vote on the suspension of the standing orders and the urgency or otherwise of this issue is an implication about how they would see the broader issue is completely inaccurate. On this side of the house, we do not believe that this is a matter of urgency that means we need to change the rules that work so well for us.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (11:27): It is very simple. We on this side of the house have heard the genuine concern that exists amongst residents in the north-eastern suburbs about the impost on them that paid parking will result in. These are people earning very modest incomes who are now facing the prospect of a very substantial hit to their hip pocket for nothing more than doing their job. They do not want the paid parking to go ahead. This motion allows us to stop it from going ahead.

Secondly, we have heard the calls of people who use the shopping centre. These are good people living in suburban Adelaide simply trying to live their lives in a civil and healthy way. The shopping centre is central to that, whether it be buying groceries, buying basic goods for themselves and their families, or interacting in a really healthy and social environment. They want to be able to do that without a massive hit to their hip pocket as a result of what can only be described as corporate greed.

There are already time limits in place for those people parking at the shopping centre that they are not allowed to exceed or they are subject to a fine. The introduction of paid parking by the shopping centre owner is only about greed and only about excess profit at the expense of those people who can afford it the least. We understand it is urgent. We are willing to stand up and make that move in the parliament and I really hope we can do this in a bipartisan way across the chamber.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 21

Noes 21

Majority 0

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G.
Brown, M.E. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Gee, J.P. Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A.
Malinauskas, P. (teller) Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J.
Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J. (teller)
Cregan, D. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W.
Harvey, R.M. Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Tarzia, V.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There being 21 ayes and 21 noes, the vote is tied. As the Acting Speaker I have the casting vote, and I vote with the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, due to the lack of an absolute majority, the previous motion does not pass.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT