HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-06-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Shopping Centre Parking) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr BOYER (Wright) (11:03): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BOYER (Wright) (11:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak to the introduction of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Shopping Centre Parking) Amendment Bill 2021. I am proud to have the opportunity to introduce this bill, which, if it is successful in making its way through this place, I think will provide communities at least some modicum of control or power over deciding whether or not they want paid parking in their shopping centres.

There are a lot of factors that go into the opposition's decision to introduce this bill today and one of those is the rising cost of living. If we look at that compared to or alongside the decline in real wage growth, I think it is fair to say that South Australians are really feeling the pinch in a lot of different areas—and not just South Australians, of course.

This is compounded by the ongoing economic damage we have seen from the coronavirus. Despite the fact that we have had an excellent health response here in South Australia, our economic response or recovery has been sluggish and much slower than the economic recoveries we have seen in other states in Australia, including states like Victoria, that were affected much more acutely by the effects of the pandemic itself.

Of course we are also still burdened with the highest unemployment rate in the country and a very high level still of underemployment, which I think is something we are thankfully only just now beginning to really talk about as a society; in the past, we did not. We spoke a lot about unemployment, which is an easier concept for people to get their heads around, particularly in the context of this bill, as it will in some way go to help people who are employed in the retail sector, which is one of those sectors that is highly casualised.

Underemployment, where people may have a job or jobs of some sort but not be able to secure enough hours collectively across those jobs to support themselves and support their families, is something that really needs our attention. I think we need to do everything in our power to support people who work in those sectors that are highly casualised, such as the retail sector, such as the people who work at shopping centres.

It is in this economic climate that Labor understands that local communities do not deserve another fee to add to their weekly budget. Parking fees at shopping centres impact pretty much everyone, but they disproportionately impact the most vulnerable in our community—pensioners, people living with a disability and people living on low incomes. For them, an extra few dollars mean all the difference in terms of their weekly disposable income.

These are the insights I have gleaned from my few years in this place and the time I have spent as a candidate and as a member of state parliament doorknocking in the seat of Wright in the north-eastern suburbs and talking to residents, in particular many older residents and pensioners as well, about the things that are important to them. Some of the most instructive experiences I have had as a member of parliament or candidate have been on the doors, talking to pensioners and residents of Housing Trust properties.

A few occasions I remember very clearly, which certainly helped form my own views about what the role of state government needs to be and why bills like this one are important and can make a difference, are doorknocking in the peak of summer and the depth of winter and having the door opened by an older resident, most likely a pensioner or perhaps a lower income earner in a Housing Trust property, and seeing that the heater is switched off (or in summer that the air conditioner is switched off). Instead, they have just got up from the couch where they are covered in rugs, doonas, blankets and things like that because they quite simply feel that they cannot afford to run heating or cooling.

I do not seek to apportion political blame for this; it is a fact that has been around for a long time and it is not unique to South Australia. Those people talked to me very openly and candidly about how they manage their budgets, and it really is incredible just how much difference a few dollars can make to these people. One need only visit some of our major shopping centres on what is colloquially known as pension day and talk to some of the cafe owners about their busiest time of the week. Routinely, it is pension day, when older residents have just received their payment and decided that they then have a few dollars to spare to go and treat themselves to a coffee and a muffin, whether it is at somewhere like the Village in Golden Grove or Westfield at Tea Tree Plaza.

In terms of the experiences I have had as a member of parliament that have led me to work on the bill that we have before this place now, in talking one on one with people in the electorate I often find—and I am sure that other members in this place would agree with me—that it is very hard to engage with older people, more vulnerable people or people on low incomes unless you doorknock.

They are not people who will answer a phone, because they are sick of being called by someone offering to paint their roof for a certain cash price or someone offering a cheaper phone deal or someone who tells them that all their passwords have been exposed and they need to urgently change them. They do not answer the landline any more, and they may not have a mobile number or they may not own a mobile phone, so the only way to really engage with people this bill in many ways seeks to protect is to get out on the streets, pound the pavement and knock on doors.

I have made it a habit to try to do that every week, first because it is an important habit to keep up—like lots of things, if you break a habit, it is hard to get back into it—and also because I firmly believe that it is the only real way to stay in touch with the views of a broad cross-section of your community, keeping in mind that many people will just not engage. You will not see them at the local community group, you will not see them at the local sporting organisation and they do not answer the phone, so the only way to find out what is really important to them is to knock on their door and ask them.

When I do that, I speak to a lot of older north-east residents who for a long time have found it very hard to manage their household budgets. There are a whole range of things that they go without that certainly everyone in this place (including me) and many South Australians outside this place would regard as basics and necessities, which sometimes include things like air conditioning in summer and heating in winter so that they can afford to pay their bill.

These are the same people who will be disproportionately affected by plans from large shopping centre groups like Westfield to introduce paid parking. I think it is a sad truth about modern society, and one that we tend to gloss over or pretend is not there, that a lot of vulnerable or single older people spend an incredible amount of their day at shopping centres. I could list several of them; I know their names and I talk to them regularly. Apparently, the member for Elizabeth is one of those people who hangs out at the shopping centre all the time.

There are lonely people in our community who have no-one in their lives and the way they fill their days and get at least a fraction of the personal contact we all need and crave is to drive to the local shopping centre in the morning and stay there until it closes. It is one of those things that you perhaps do not see if you are a private citizen who goes to the shops and does the shopping in a hurry and then leaves, but if you are a member of parliament who might be there to meet with constituents or who might have a stall for a large part of the day to talk to residents, all of a sudden you see this hidden part of our society that in many respects we try to pretend is not there—people who essentially live at the shopping centre.

That is their community, the only people they know are there and it is the only place they have to go. It was those people who were firmly in my mind when I was working on this bill and deciding that we needed to take action to prevent this or at least provide local councils and communities with some kind of ability and influence over the decision-making process that would allow paid parking to be introduced.

I would like to make a few remarks specifically in terms of the proposal that is currently live from Westfield at the Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre in the north-eastern suburbs, which, as many people in this place would know, has been the source of intense scrutiny for some months now.

The Scentre Group, which operates under the name of Westfield, which of course is a name that we are all far more familiar with, has applied to install ticketless, paid parking infrastructure at the plaza. This will allow for parking fees to be introduced at the shopping centre, although the exact fee structure has not yet been publicly disclosed by Westfield.

I point out that I think there is a genuine sense of frustration in the north-eastern community now about Westfield's delay in at least being transparent with the public about what form the paid parking might take—for instance, what would the fee structure be; will there be a period of free parking, as has been the case in some other Westfield shopping centres where paid parking has been introduced; will there be a section of the car park that is reserved for staff; and, if so, how big will that car park be? Will the parking be completely free, what hours will it operate and what kinds of measures will be put in place to ensure staff safety?

We know, as I said at the beginning of these remarks, that the retail sector is disproportionately casualised and that the hours might be very irregular. Staff might be called in for a shift for late-night shopping. There is also, I believe, an over-representation of women in retail jobs, which raises concerns around personal safety in travelling back and forth from one's car to the worksite. These are all questions that the public needs answers for, in terms of actually being able to make any kind of decision about whether or not this is something that is right for them.

I note that the initial media release issued by Westfield in regard to this proposal had words to the effect of—and I am not quoting directly but paraphrasing—'The introduction of paid parking at our Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre will ensure a better car parking experience for all users.' I know that we here in political land are probably often guilty of issuing statements that are incredibly vague and without any kind of substance, but the Westfield statement really takes the cake.

It is gobsmacking to think that there is someone somewhere in the Westfield Group, who is probably being paid a pretty healthy salary and whose job it is to write these things, whose response to the outrage—and I do not think 'outrage' is too strong a word—about the proposal to introduce paid parking was, 'Don't worry. This will ensure a better car parking experience for all of you.'

Having shopped at Tea Tree Plaza on many occasions, I can tell you that it is true that it is an experience—but not the kind of experience I think the Westfield Group or Scentre Group are talking about. It is certainly not an experience that people would like to have. Mr Speaker, could I take this opportunity to seek leave to extend my time by 15 minutes?

The SPEAKER: Leave is sought pursuant to the sessional order.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Premier! I note that leave is sought pursuant to the sessional order. Before I inquire as to whether leave is granted, I note, for the benefit of members in respect of this matter and generally, that members may also avail themselves of the procedure in standing order 240.

Leave granted.

Mr BOYER: I might just address the point of why I am introducing this bill and not the member for Enfield, who sits next to me. The member for Enfield has been the architect of this bill and knows it in intimate detail, and that is why she is sitting next to me. I am very pleased that she provided me, as a member for parliament in the north-eastern suburbs who has been campaigning on this issue for a number of months now, with the opportunity to be involved. I take this opportunity to thank the member for Enfield for her collaborative and team-orientated approach. I am very pleased to be the one who is introducing this bill to the house today.

I will just touch now on that campaign that Labor has been working on with the SDA, which represents a large number of workers at TTP, a large number of retail workers, who will be disproportionately affected by the introduction of paid parking at the site. I thank them for their efforts. They have at last count, from memory, in the vicinity of 10,000 signatures on their petition and 4,000 signatures on Labor's petition.

When you consider that this is a localised area in the sense that we are talking about one shopping centre here that resides in the north-eastern suburbs, and therefore does not affect the whole metropolitan area by any means but only a relatively small section, I have to say it is incredible that collectively we have managed to get 14,000 signatures on the petition calling for Westfield to cease their plans to introduce this paid parking. I think that shows the level of anger and the lack of support there is in the north-eastern community for these changes.

I note some of the comments we have had from local residents in the north-east who have spoken out publicly about these changes, including Allyson from Wynn Vale who said the move is appalling and that it was a money grab, and Nikki, also from Wynn Vale, who said that 'it is a bit rich to be slugging residents in little old Tea Tree Gully'. It is a reflection from people like Allyson and Nikki of how the broader north-eastern community feels about this.

I have done a lot of doorknocking, encouraging people to sign the petition of course, and also just talking to people generally in the area about what issues they are concerned about. The things that have been coming up in my area are ambulance ramping, which is number one and comes up everywhere, but I have been genuinely surprised by how many people have raised of their own volition, without being prompted in any way by me, that they are disappointed and against the paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza.

These are the kinds of local issues that people care about because they affect their daily lives. If you are one of those people who lives in the suburbs around the plaza, if that is the place that you go to not necessarily to have a meal or watch a movie or shop for the basics or necessities but to do your daily shop, you are angry about this because it affects your daily life and it affects your hip pocket. It is a sign of just how many people are unhappy with this proposal that 14,000 people to date, in what is a relatively short period of time, have signed that petition.

SDA delegates have asked staff and customers at the centre to sign and share the petition. That has been very successful as well because, although I am sure that the majority of those 14,000 signatures are local residents' who shop at the centre, there would no doubt be a number of people on that petition who work there. I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions now to speak with them personally about what it would mean to them.

Some of these people are young—not even 20, perhaps, or early 20s—and some of them are older people who might be just looking for a few hours a week to supplement their income. They have spoken to me about their concerns. If paid parking at Westfield goes ahead and if the model that is introduced looks something like the model that has been introduced elsewhere—like West Lakes, I think—they have concerns about what parking will be quarantined or provided for staff.

I would like to elaborate on that point a little more. What we are told about the introduction of paid parking at West Lakes is that, yes, there was an area put aside for staff. It is a small area. The car park is generally full by 8am. At that point, if you are one of the many staff members who does not work an 8am to 4pm shift or regular hours but you might have a shift that changes each week or you might be on later in the day, by the time you arrive at the shopping centre and try to find your free or subsidised car park, there is nothing available.

Currently, I believe those staff have no choice but to park in the regular car parking space where shoppers would park and pay full parking rates. This raises a number of issues and one, of course, is safety. The staff car park is designed to be close to the centre because people are parking there regularly, and you try to do what you can for your employees to make sure they are safe getting to and from work. That is one issue, as to whether or not a staff car park arrangement like the one that currently exists at West Lakes would mean that retail staff would need to walk long distances to their car when they finish or start their shift.

The second issue is cost. No-one likes to pay for car parking, I understand that. But when you are retail worker on a pretty low income and when you might be one of those underemployed members of the South Australian workforce who does have a job but who does not have enough hours to support them, if you are then asked to come along for your afternoon shift and you are unable to find a vacant spot in the free staff car park section and you have to pay the full rate of the car park, it really raises a question about whether or not it becomes viable for you to do your shifts anymore.

Potentially, we are talking about paying close to a couple of hours' worth of your shift towards the luxury of parking at your workplace. These are issues that staff at Westfield are currently concerned about. As I said earlier in my remarks, there has been no clarity or further information provided by the Westfield Group about exactly what that model will look like. That is something that we are certainly concerned about. We would not like to see a situation where staff are forced to park a long way away from their workplace and forced late at night or very early in the morning to walk to and from their car, or to see a situation where people decide that it is almost not worth taking a small shift at work if they have to go along and pay some pretty hefty car parking fees.

In the name of being balanced and not representing just one side of the picture, I would like to provide at least some acknowledgement for some of the upgrade work that has taken place at Tea Tree Plaza in the last few years. Most recently, there has been a very big upgrade to the dining and cinema area, and I think that has been really welcomed and embraced by local residents in the north-eastern suburbs. Certainly, I have used that on several occasions. Hoyts has been completely refurbished. There is now a boulevard area that has new restaurants and cafes and children's play areas. I think that has been well used by local residents, and they have been pleased that Westfield made that investment in their local shopping centre.

That said, that development came at the cost of existing car parks, and quite a number of existing car parks. What was already on occasions a pretty diabolically difficult place to park—particularly around Easter and Christmas, public holidays or occasions like Mother's Day—has become even more so. That is because the plaza has made the decision to upgrade the centre, which is a good thing. But the consensus from local people is that this proposal to introduce paid parking at the centre is in some way an attempt by the Westfield Group to essentially push the cost of replacing the car parks that were taken up by its own refurbishment onto people who shop at the centre, and they do not feel that is right. I would agree with them; I think that is not right.

It worries me that in all the months that have passed between this proposal first being made public and today when introducing this bill, all we have from Westfield is that pretty strange comment about making sure that there is an improved car parking experience for all people who use the centre. There has been no explanation from Tea Tree Plaza about why exactly the revenue that will no doubt be raised from paid parking is necessary and exactly what it will be put towards.

If we are to take on face value that comment that it will mean an improved car parking experience for all shoppers, I think we can probably assume that the idea is indeed to bill users of the shopping centre to add car parks or, really, to replace car parks that have been removed as part of the upgrade from the centre. I do not think local shoppers, local residents of the north-east, should have to foot the bill for Westfield's upgrade.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge some of the advocacy that we have had from Tea Tree Gully council.

Debate adjourned.

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