HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-09-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 July 2022.)

Ms SAVVAS (Newland) (11:43): I rise today to support the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill and I thank my friend the Minister for Planning for introducing it, not just for me but for the many residents in the north-eastern suburbs and surrounds who will benefit from its passage.

In September 1970, The Advertiser promoted Tea Tree Plaza, 'heralded as the great new Myer shopping centre'. It was described as Australia's most modern shopping centre, set in green rolling countryside against a backdrop of mountains. Today, there are a few more residents surrounding the plaza but the view is much the same.

The tagline at the bottom of the ad, though quite outdated in its content, read, 'It takes a lot to make a lady change her shopping habits, and Tea Tree Plaza is a lot of shopping centre.' Although I probably would not be using that language today, the sentiment is much the same: it does take a lot to make anyone change their shopping habits—and the introduction of paid parking at our plaza will do just that.

Mr Acting Speaker, if you will bear with me for a moment or two, I would like to tell you about my childhood in the north-eastern suburbs. Like many others in the north-east, I grew up at TTP. I remember going there on important days. I went there the day that my grandma died when I was six. My mum took me for chicken nuggets in the food court and then to Myer, where I purchased a green dress with white roses. I remember the first time I was allowed to go there on the bus. My best friend, Ashleigh, and I took the 506 bus from outside Kildare College to partake in a north-eastern right of passage: meeting St Paul's boys in the food court for a $1 frozen Coke.

I remember getting upset when I was 12 because my mum would not let me buy a denim dress at Urban Angel and I remember my first pair of high heels from the shoe shop across from Big W. I remember when the new entertainment precinct opened—I was there. I was there as a 17 year old looking for a job. I walked into 42nd Street Cafe next to the post office with my résumé and was interviewed on the spot.

I spent the next 3½ years or so making coffees, serving customers and building relationships with people in my community, many of whom I still know today. I met Darryl and Lyn from Hope Valley, retired musicians who would come into the plaza on a regular basis and plan their next gigs. I met George, who came alone on the bus. He was in a wheelchair and had no friends or family of his own; he made his family at our cafe.

I met Bernie from Modbury, who would walk up every day for an extra-hot flat white in a mug and who is now in care, being looked after by Allan from Ingle Farm, whom he met at the cafe. I met Carol, who came in with the mall walkers on a Tuesday morning. I met Owen and the ex-men, a group of ex-veterans who would meet at the cafe each week after going to the gym. The plaza was for them and for me our home.

I was there as a 19 year old taking the bus to uni and talking to The Advertiser at age 22 fighting for a new park-and-ride. I was there the night I became a local councillor, having dinner at The Bavarian, and I was there day in, day out as the candidate for Newland, fighting for residents like me who grew up at TTP.

That is the thing about our community: we all grew up there. Everyone has the equivalent story of buying a dress for their grandma's funeral, a story about a local connection to our centre. We grew up a little bit differently in the north-eastern suburbs. Most of us do not have beach houses or get to go on summer trips to Europe. We grow up learning things like how not to drive your car on the O-Bahn and how to get away with loitering in the TTP food court with your schoolbag on your back.

We all know someone who works there. We have all taken the bus from the interchange. We all remember when Hoyts was getting redone and we had to use the weird emergency exit door near Myer. We all used to play with the puppies at the pet shop downstairs and we were all sad when the Coffee Club outside Kmart closed down. We all remember being greeted by Peter and Mary Rogers at my old workplace, 42nd Street, and most of all none of us wants to pay for paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza.

I accept that I am new to state government and that there is much to learn. I accept that I do not know everything, but what I do know is my community and the place I grew up in. I have heard from the owners of the centre that there is a supposed appetite for managed parking in my community. I am here to tell you that I know my community—I live and breathe it—and that appetite does not exist.

As the candidate for Newland, I doorknocked thousands of doors. I hand-delivered a petition against paid parking at TTP to thousands of homes in Modbury, St Agnes, Hope Valley, Ridgehaven and Modbury North; some days, I even took it as far as Tea Tree Gully. Whether you live on Gorman Street in Modbury, right behind the plaza, or on Perseverance Road in the gully, the response is exactly the same.

In fact, of the thousands of doors I knocked on, only one person ever told me they supported the proposal—one! I remember the conversation very clearly. It was an anomaly, of course, so how could I not? I knocked on the door and introduced myself and the purpose of the petition. She responded by saying, 'I'm actually a member of the Liberal Party, so I support paid parking at TTP.'

At that point, the Liberals were saying they opposed paid parking at TTP, but their messaging must have been such that even their own did not understand it. She was, in fact, the only person who identified to me as a Liberal who told me that. Lots of others told me they probably would not vote for me, and I will never know if they did, but they all signed my petition anyway because they know firsthand the toll that paid parking will have on people like us—people who grew up there.

It is equally important to reflect on the words of the Liberal Party at the time. They were still in government and still supposedly fighting to represent the people of the north-eastern suburbs. On 5 February, five weeks out from the state election, the former member for Newland made a video outside the plaza. He said, 'I don't support paid parking at TTP. These charges are an unfair impost on customers and workers.' He then sent a text to as many numbers as he could, mine included, telling them exactly that and providing a link to the video.

The former member for Newland and I have always got along and we agree on most things. We agreed on that particular topic then and we do still: paid parking at TTP is an unfair impost on customers and workers. Of course, the Liberal Party no longer represent the electorate of Newland, or the TTP electorate as I affectionately call it, so I guess they felt that they could change their tune on things that matter to us in the north-eastern suburbs.

Not too many weeks later on 5 July, the Liberal Party announced that they would not support the potential legislative changes and in their press release, unsurprisingly, did not make a single mention of the residents of the north-eastern suburbs or the employees or small businesses at TTP. I do see that somewhat from the Liberals' perspective: they do not actually know what matters to people in our community and they do not even know who to ask. They do not as much as represent anyone in this place who may even shop at TTP.

There are some members opposite, perhaps the member for Morialta or perhaps the member for Hartley, who may argue against that. They may argue that they do provide statutory declarations for those who shop at TTP, but do they represent them? I am not sure. I do know what representation means to people in the north-eastern suburbs. It means not just showing up and asking, it means listening to the community and doing as you said you would do. It is knocking on thousands of doors, as we did, asking residents what they wanted and following through. It is standing at a cold interchange talking to commuters for hours on end about the impost of having yet another charge.

It is not being afraid to stand up against big business in support of the little guy, in support of the men and women who have worked at Myer for over 20 years, in support of the owners of the two little family-owned cafes that have closed in as many months and in support of the hundreds of residents who told me they would just shop somewhere else. Just like in September 1970, it does take a lot to change shopping habits, the shopping habits of those who have shopped and lived and brought their children up at our local centre, but I know for a fact that this will do it.

It is an unfair impost on staff at the centre, who are already often low-paid workers. These staff are predominantly women—primary caregivers working in retail and fast food to support their families. At a time when cost-of-living pressures are increasingly high, regular people cannot afford to do their shopping.

I worked at TTP, like so many others in my electorate, and as a teenager and young adult was on a relatively low wage. I know straight out that, earning only a few hundred dollars a week, I could not afford to be paying to park to go to work. It is an unfair impost on small business owners, who will feel the impact of people deciding to shop elsewhere, staff not wanting to pay to go to work and residents who will go elsewhere to places like the Village at Golden Grove, where they can park for free, or the St Agnes shops, which are already full to the brim with cars seven days a week.

We know that because we have asked them. Small businesses at TTP have told us that they do not support the supposed concept of managed parking at our centre. It is unfair on shoppers, those thousands of people in the north-eastern suburbs and surrounds who have grown up at TTP and, like me, know every inch of the centre. I know the appetite in my community; the Labor Party know the appetite. We are delivering on our commitment to the people of the north-eastern suburbs.

I commend the bill on behalf of the residents of the north-east because I have already consulted my community and I know the appetite in that community like the back of my hand.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (11:54): I rise to indicate I am the lead speaker on the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill. The Liberal Party have carefully considered this piece of legislation, including the needs of all stakeholders, and we have reached the conclusion that it is a sloppy piece of legislation. The government says that it wants to stop paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre. However, the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of Labor's position are extraordinary.

Firstly, there is the issue of Labor charging for removing free parking for hospital workers. The pandemic has not ceased with the election of a Labor government. For 2½ years, our hospital workers have been in the frontline of a battle against a constantly mutating virus that has caused a one-in-100-year global pandemic.

The rest of us have battled staying home, with or without being infected, and a variety of other restrictions. Hospital workers have endured long hours during these 2½ years, often working in stifling full PPE with hugely increasing workloads and an increased risk of infection to themselves. They are understandably exhausted. The least we can do is to continue to support them with free parking while this insidious virus is still active in our community.

The Liberal Party has an amendment on file to the Health Care Act 2008 that will continue to provide hospital workers with ongoing access to the free parking and free public transport provisions that were made available to them during the previous Liberal government term. The previous Liberal government also provided staff reimbursement for non-site-related parking of up to $101 per month. The United Workers Union has stated that the free parking and transport provisions could mean savings of up to $1,300 per month, which is significant for some of our lowest paid workers who, like all of us, are experiencing increasing cost-of-living pressures.

Labor has its own managed parking at the nearby Modbury Hospital, where the first two hours are free. When those fees increased in January 2020, then shadow minister Chris Picton complained about it on a Facebook post. He now has a chance to revert to the former fee regime. At other hospital sites, the government does not even use a managed parking system—it charges per hour. Anyone who visits the Flinders Medical Centre, the Royal Adelaide Hospital or the Women's and Children's Hospital will start paying for the first hour. The government also charges for the nearby park-and-ride at Tea Tree Plaza. It will have the same cost structure for the new deck currently under construction to expand the number of parking spaces at Tea Tree Plaza.

Let's also look at some of Labor's claims and what stakeholders have said. The Scentre Group, which owns and operates Westfield, say that the Labor Party and Peter Malinauskas's union mates at the SDA have been making false and misleading claims about the proposal. That is a pretty serious accusation; it is certainly one that demands that, when trying to introduce a piece of law into this parliament, the government needs to justify it. Scentre Group have put the following concerns in writing:

1. Claims by the Government that all customers will pay for parking at Tea Tree Plaza are false—the vast majority who visit the shopping centre will not pay for parking. A free period is provided comparable to Westfield West Lakes which has a managed car park system and 98% of customers do not pay when they visit.

As Minister Champion, who is a resident of North Adelaide, would well know from his own shopping experience, the North Adelaide Village has had a managed parking arrangement, complete with boom gates, in place for many years. I am sure he does not refuse to shop there because of that. Scentre Group continues:

2. Claims that retail staff will incur a fee of $35 per day ($9,000 per annum) are false. We have previously confirmed that the staff parking rate will be comparable to Westfield West Lakes where the current staff parking rate is $3 per day.

We call on the government and the SDA to provide evidence of these false and misleading claims.

Anyone who is familiar with trying to find a park at Tea Tree Plaza will know that it can be hard to find one close to the shops you wish to visit, especially on weekends. A survey of Tea Tree Plaza customers found that 57 per cent of customers find it hard to find a park when visiting the centre. The Scentre Group have again levelled a claim at the government for falsely misrepresenting this survey, that 57 per cent of customers opposed paid parking. Furthermore, data from Tea Tree Plaza show that of the 4,000 parks over one-third is taken up by people who are not customers. This can be a disincentive to potential shoppers, who will go to other sites to get what they need.

The National Retail Association, which represents more than 10,000 shopfronts in South Australia alone, has also written to express grave concerns about this piece of legislation before us. Their members are predominantly independent family businesses or franchises. These are the small businesses that populate shopping centres where people buy meals, clothing, homewares, gifts and get their nails done. The association had this to say about the small businesses it represents:

Their livelihoods very much depend on availability of nearby car parking spaces, and turnover of vehicular traffic in these car parks.

Dominique Lamb, who is the CEO of the National Retail Association, further said in her letter to the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. David Speirs:

On behalf of these members, I can confidently say that removing paid parking is not the positive outcome that the Government may believe it to be. The regulation and payment of parking ensures spaces are not taken up by commuters and workers from nearby areas. Without it, we know that shopping centre car parks face significant demand from non-users of the centre. If this occurs, it makes it more difficult for customers to shop with our members, and results in a proportion of those potential customers choosing to shop elsewhere—either at a different location or online.

The conditions that owners of private parking areas can impose include time limits, and the penalties for breaching these conditions are contained in part 3, sections 7 and 8, of the Private Parking Areas Act 1986.

Managed parking is common in South Australian shopping centres. Many centres or individual parking spaces have signage warning people not to park for certain periods or they may face a fine. In some instances, they use numberplate recognition technology and private firms to monitor excess time in parks. Part 4, section 9, of the act, explicitly provides for agreements to be made between the 'council for the area' to enforce the time limits. Of note is section 9(2)(c), which provides:

(c) any fine, penalty or expiation fee recovered in respect of offences relating to the private parking area shall be paid to the council.

This brings me to the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association of South Australia and their councils.

The LGA Board of Directors met on 22 July to endorse a formal position. In the first instance, they are

…of the opinion that should the State Government seek to dissuade paid parking in large shopping centres, it should not involve decision-making on the part of local government. For consistency of approach, a State Government Department such as Consumer and Business Services should be responsible for making the decision—

in other words, the government is trying to pass the buck on this sloppy proposal to local government and they do not want a bar of it. The mere existence of section 9 of the act, which enables local government to be the collection agency for fines, fees and penalties set by the owners of private parking areas, sets up councils to have a conflict of interest.

The LGA SA has a range of concerns about the way Labor's bill has been drafted. No reason has been given for why the CEO of a council is the decision-maker. There is potential under Labor's bill for the CEO to make a decision without reference to the elected council members. The Liberal Party supports the LGA SA's position and we have therefore filed a set of amendments to this effect. These amendments shift the decision-making authority from Labor's position, which is that it should be the chief executive officer of the local council, to the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. If the chamber does not support this amendment, the Liberal Party has also filed a number of amendments as a fallback to provide some comfort to local government on the many other concerns:

1. Labor's bill provides no detail about how the CEO should reach a decision about whether or not to allow managed parking. There is merely a reference to 'consult with the community'. In the absence of a framework or guidelines, the LGA is concerned about how this exposes councils to challenges from private parking area owners.

2. In relation to consultation, the bill does not currently provide for clear understanding of what is meant by 'community of the council', noting that the retail catchment area of a large regional shopping centre sometimes can extend well beyond the local government area it is located within.

3. The bill should require the approving authority to undertake due diligence to support an assessment of the proposal, such as examine the impacts on local roads, amenity and economic impacts.

4. The bill should provide for conditions of approving, such as periods for free parking, provision for disabled car park spaces and fees.

5 The bill does not provide clarity as to whether a council could charge a fee for undertaking a process that clearly involves some costs to do.

The Premier has claimed that he wants to be seen as pro business. However, this bill is another example of Peter Malinauskas's knee jerk reactions kicking investors in the teeth. While it is beyond the scope of this debate to talk about the Bowden debacle, we know investors are looking closely at whether they will be investing in South Australia.

CIP Asset Management, who are the owners of the The Grove Shopping Centre at Golden Grove, which is just under Labor's threshold definition of 34,000 square metres for a 'major retail shopping centre', have articulated their fear that if:

The bill, if passed, would create an immediate substantial risk on any future investment and expansion of The Grove.

We can see why the Premier has done this. He is looking after his mates in the shoppies union, but other unions have been hung out to dry. They can use the enterprise bargaining process to work through their parking and other issues, but Premier Malinauskas is looking after his own.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (12:06): For over 50 years, TTP has been the go-to shopping precinct in the north-east and over that time it has had a few facelifts: we have lost the witches hat but gained some amazing local grown businesses. What has remained constant is that it has always been accessible for the community. Even as a country girl growing up, trips to Adelaide for me meant a day shopping at TTP, and I must say I was quite fond of sussing out the merch at JJ's as a teenager. The plaza is iconic and it has something for everyone, including necessities, such as the post office, pharmacies, the optometrist and grocers.

Just over 18 months ago, we learnt about a change to the plaza that shocked our community. We learnt that steps were being taken to introduce paid parking—and what poor timing. Our community and our state were already going through an incredibly tough time. Cost-of-living pressures were rising and businesses were getting knocked about by the pandemic, which of course has a detrimental impact on those who work there. As adequately put by Daniel:

As a retailer at Tea Tree Plaza, it's been hard enough, during this pandemic to pay rent and wages, let alone bringing in another obstacle to stop people coming to the shopping centre. It's a ridiculous proposal for this demographic in these troubling times. Ultimately, it will cost jobs.

Daniel is not alone in his thinking. The reaction from the north-east upon hearing this news has been fast and furious. I have heard countless times that residents simply will not shop at TTP if paid parking is introduced—people like Julie, who believes people will just go online to shop, and Carmela, who acknowledged that 'stores pay rent prices through the roof' and that this will kill off their entire clientele.

It has been a massive blow, one that the north-east has not taken without a fight, a fight that my colleagues and I have stood with the community on for more than 18 months, right back to when Westfield first announced their intentions in February 2021. I have taken this matter very seriously and I have made myself available to discuss it with the community in any way possible so that I have a clear and concise understanding of why this matters so much to them so that we can work together towards a solution.

I have heard feedback at local community catch-ups, whilst on the doors, on the phones, at the interchange and everything in between. People from the north-east and surrounds have taken the time to share their thoughts on this matter, the same thoughts we are reflecting on this side of the chamber here today, because they know how much of an impact this decision will have on the community.

I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, they are frustrated that some in this place have failed to listen and understand their needs. You may recall that customers, business owners and their staff stood together and called on the previous Marshall Liberal government to do something to address this matter, but they failed to take meaningful direction. We recognise that was not good enough and that action had to be taken, and we did.

In opposition, those now on this side of the chamber introduced a bill to help stop the introduction of paid parking and called on the Marshall Liberal government to aid its passing. They did not. In fact, when the now Premier moved a motion to suspend standing orders to enable debate of a bill last August to help address the issue, the then government of the time, including many of those sitting across from me today, voted against the motion, denying a chance to debate this important matter, which also means this matter could have been resolved over 12 months ago.

Unfortunately, the previous government chose to ignore the concerns of constituents of the north-east, viewing them as not important enough to dedicate time to passing a bill that would protect them from paying Westfield's toll. Despite that, we have continued to fight, standing alongside over 10,000 South Australians who want to see this matter resolved. I am so proud that we stand in this place today to get it done.

We are doing this for the shoppers, who are already stressed over what can go in a trolley because of skyrocketing cost of living; for the business owners in Tea Tree Plaza, who are worried that this move by Westfield would lead to shoppers avoiding Tea Tree Plaza, hurting them when they are still struggling to recover from the pandemic; and, importantly, we are doing this for the workers at Tea Tree Plaza, who are worried about what this will mean for them, their employment and whether this will be just another bill that they have to pay.

They include workers like Will, who has joined the fight simply because he works there and believes it will take a lot out of his pay. He has even gone further to share with me that he believes the Scentre management should focus on more important things, such as lighting, which he reports is bad in some areas. We know that other Westfield shopping centres charge up to $35 a day to park, meaning workers at Tea Tree Plaza could be required to fork out over $175 extra a week just to pay to park safely at work.

We know from other experiences of workers of other Westfield shopping centres, such as West Lakes, that paid parking simply is not working from them. They include staff like Sara, who does not feel safe walking to work in the early hours of the morning, as she has to park on side streets and walk to work in the dark.

They also include people like Kimberly, a mother who faces time constraints to get to work after taking her children to school and simply does not have the time to walk across four busy lanes of traffic and an expansive car park to get to work on time. They include people like Caitlyn, who, when finishing later at night, sometimes has to pay up to $35 a day to park in the shopping centre car park because she does not have the time to move her car during her shift and does not feel safe walking back to her car in the dark.

The introduction of paid parking at TTP potentially means that staff would have similar experiences, having to walk further before and after work to get to their car or face fees to park at a safer distance to work. For those in this chamber who do not know the north-east well, parking further away is not a feasible option. Parking around the centre in this incredibly precinct is congested as it is.

We have a decision to make here in this place: whether to side with a multinational corporate that has its sights on taking money out of our community, completely overlooking the concerns being raised by workers, businesses and community members, or listening to and standing alongside the members of my community who wish to stop paid parking at TTP, to keep businesses open to keep people in jobs, to make sure they are safe when going to and from work and to protect local shoppers from another bill they will have to factor into their cash-strapped budgets.

Reaching this point today is a direct testament to the hard work and determination of the community and those who have stood with them, such as members on this side of the chamber and the SDA, all of whom I thank for their ongoing efforts and hard work. I would also like to thank the member for Taylor, the Minister for Planning, for his hard work on this matter. Thank you very much for taking the time to meet with the member for Newland and me shortly after forming government to better understand how strongly our communities feel about this matter and for taking that feedback on board and working towards finding a way to resolve the matter.

I hope that everybody in this place, as well as those in the other place, give serious consideration to the needs of the north-east that have been reflected over the past 18 months. We have a real opportunity to stand up to a big multinational in the interests of local community. If we do not, the only people we hurt is the community itself. With that, I commend this bill to the house.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (12:14): I rise to support the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill. It is this government's intention to make paid parking not an option for shopping centres with certain square metreage, like Tea Tree Plaza.

As the planning minister, the member for Taylor has stated shopping centre operators have an obligation to provide free parking to customers and workers, and it is an expected service. It is just not feasible—as the opposition would have you believe—that the majority of people who use these car parks do not visit the centre to buy anything. This is simply not the case.

What we do know is that car parking fees are factored into every individual shopping lease, so the vendor is already getting paid for parking. Asking customers, workers, pensioners, visitors or anyone to pay again is really just double-dipping. One would think that, in times when staff turnover is so high, keeping trained personnel would be the highest priority rather than seeking to double dip income from your employee. Wouldn't the attitude rather be to keep your worker happy, not slug them for paid parking?

The planning minister listened to thousands of people in the north-eastern suburbs—and many from my electorate of Torrens—about introducing this legislation for fee car parking at TeaTree Plaza by way of a petition to the parliament. The minister, the member for Taylor, has listened to the community more broadly and is calling for a sensible solution. We believe that we have it in this legislation before us today.

In August, the Premier called for us to immediately come to a conclusion on this legislation, as time was against the people of the north-eastern suburbs in seeking to stop the introduction of paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza. The then Liberal government voted against it, and so here we are today still fighting against the introduction of paid parking.

Some months ago, Westfield—or the Scentre Group, the owners of the Tea Tree Plaza Shopping Centre—announced its intention to install boom gates and paid parking. It is imperative today that this parliament stop that, and it is this legislation that will do it.

We are a government committed to reducing the cost of living, so let us not underestimate the impost of paid parking to the customer base of the north-eastern suburbs who not only use the centre for shopping purposes but also use it as a place to access critical health services and government agencies. Hundreds of my residents signed the petition against paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza. Many came in and told me that they would no longer shop there if paid parking was introduced.

We know that COVID has greatly affected our sense of community, and now that restrictions have eased somewhat shopping centres have become a haven for people to engage with one another again in a way that provides them with social contact in a healthy way. They buy a coffee, they meet friends, they visit their favourite restaurants and cafes and they go to see a movie or stroll about the shops. This is a basic human need to congregate, and now more than ever this is an essential part of life that needs to be upheld.

As the Premier stated in August when introducing this bill, when a large company of the nature of the owners of the 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; and we have just heard from the member for King about the impact of paid parking on workers she has spoken to.

It is for them that we say no to paid parking and for all the residents in the north-eastern suburbs who go to Tea Tree Plaza, whether it is for shopping, socialising or accessing health services or all of the above. We have heard you; we have listened.

On behalf of Torrens residents and residents of our north-eastern suburbs, who have been shopping there for generations without having to fork out money for the opportunity to do so, including those businesses who have shared their concerns about the impact it may have on their businesses during a time when customers have been hesitant to frequent our large shopping centres, I commend the bill to the house.

Mrs HURN (Schubert) (12:19): I rise to speak on the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill. The opposition's lead speaker, the member for Flinders, has done a remarkable job in outlining the opposition's position on this bill, and I would like to add to it.

The inconsistencies and hypocrisies associated with the Labor Party's approach are quite simply breathtaking. Peter Malinauskas has his priorities all wrong—and we have seen it from day one since this government was thrown into power—by focusing on free car parking for shoppers whilst hanging the health workers out to dry.

The amendments this opposition has put forward ensure that our hospital workers can continue to get the free hospital car parking that they had, that they deserved, throughout the duration of the pandemic. For 2½ years, this was provided by the former Liberal government, not to mention the free public transport they got as well.

The pandemic, believe it or not, has not ended with the election of a Labor government, although those opposite seem to believe it has. For 2½ years, our hospital workers worked around the clock to keep us safe in the battle against a virus that resulted in a pandemic we have not seen for generations. Our workers endured long hours, long shifts, working day in and day out in hot and heavy PPE, with the most extraordinary workloads we have ever seen, throughout this pandemic—not just here in South Australia but right across the nation.

That is not to mention, of course, the increased risk they exposed themselves to by simply rocking up to work. They are exhausted, and we believe it is cruel to pull the rug out from these frontline workers at a time when they need support the most. Those opposite cannot even look at this side of the chamber while we are putting this motion forward; they cannot even look at us because they know they are hanging the health workers out to dry and benefiting their union mates. That is shameful; it is nothing short of shameful.

The government says, 'It doesn't matter because all the money goes back into the health system. It doesn't matter,' but it does matter. It matters not because of where the money goes but because of who pays it. While New South Wales is handing out $3,000 thank-you payments to their frontline workers, while the Victorian Labor government is handing out HECS payments for its frontline workers, what are we doing here in South Australia? Those opposite make our frontline health workers pay.

Those opposite talk about the workers, and they talk about the shoppers and everyone who is going to all these big, fancy shopping centres, but they have failed to talk about one cohort of workers that actually supported them, who trusted them to go in to bat for them. They have let them all down, and that is shameful. The member for Newland sits there smiling; you know you have hung these workers out to dry, and that will come home to roost.

With cost-of-living pressures hitting hard, it is incredibly important to care for those who have done such a remarkable job in caring for us. Surely this is a simple measure that eases hip-pocket pain for our hardworking hospital staff. It is a very simple measure and removing it is nothing short of a kick in the guts, and they are doing so in such a sneaky way, thinking no-one would even notice: 'No-one will notice. When we get rid of the emergency declaration, no-one will notice that we have done that.' Well, we noticed and the workers who went on strike noticed, and everyone who votes against this amendment will notice. So I do urge those opposite to take a stand on this, to do the right thing and back this amendment because it is the right thing to do.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Before I call the member for Florey, I remind members that other members should be referred to by either their title or their electorate and not by their name.

Mr BROWN (Florey) (12:25): I probably cannot muster quite the passion in favour of corporate Australia as the previous speaker, but I will do my best to represent the people of Florey—after all, they are the ones I am elected here to represent.

I rise to support the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill 2022. While this may be a short bill, it is a most important and impactful one, amending as it does the Private Parking Areas Act 1986 to prevent paid parking at shopping centres with a gross lettable area of 34,000 square metres or more.

The introduction of this bill fulfills an election commitment made by the then opposition to introduce a bill into parliament to prevent paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre, but it also assists consumers, shopping centre workers and retail workers across all of South Australia. It has been a pleasure to be part of a government that has been diligently implementing the commitments I made to my local community during the election and this legislation is just another part of that. I urge members of this house to acknowledge the commitment made and duly supported by the local communities of King, Newland, Wright, Torrens and, most importantly, Florey, and support this bill.

As we restore parts of our economy in post-COVID restriction conditions, facilitating more people to both work in our retail sector and resume physical bricks-and-mortar shopping will be a key driver for our economy. Currently, the Private Parking Areas Act 1986 provides for the regulation of parking areas—for example, time limits or restricted car parking spaces—as well as a mechanism by which alleged breaches of controls may be prosecuted. Given this system of regulation already exists, the government considers that amending this act is therefore likely to be the most effective mechanism for the prohibition of paid parking in major shopping centres.

As introduced, this bill provides that the owner of a regulated shopping centre parking area must not, without the approval of the chief executive officer of the council for the area in which the regulated shopping centre park area is situated, charge a person a fee for the parking of a vehicle in the regulated shopping centre parking area. Before the chief executive of the council grants such an approval, the council must consult with the local community and subsequently pass a resolution recommending that the approval be granted. A 'regulated shopping centre parking area' is defined as:

…an area provided on land by the owner for the parking of vehicles used by persons frequenting a major retail shopping centre;

The definition of a 'major retail shopping centre' is:

…a retail shopping centre where the total lettable areas of all the retail shops (whether leased or available for lease) in the retail shopping area is 34 000 m2 or more, but does not include a retail shopping centre within the Adelaide CBD;

The government has decided that the most appropriate benchmark for the minimum size of a major retail shopping centre from which the prohibition of paid parking will apply is 34,000 square metres. This benchmark will capture the majority of major shopping centres that are zoned in the urban activity centre.

It is important to note that this bill does not apply to major retail shopping centres located within the Adelaide CBD. This decision has been made to prevent businesses that provide car parking as their core business from being impacted by the new regulatory scheme. Paid parking in the CBD is deemed necessary to support the variety of functions and services that our city needs, including entertainment, recreational businesses and shopping.

This bill gives life to a commitment made at the election and duly endorsed by the people of South Australia. I urge all members to support the bill and I thank the Minister for Planning for listening to my community and bringing it forward to this house.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills) (12:28): I rise to support this bill and to make a few observations as the member for Wright and to endorse the comments made already by my colleagues on this side of the chamber and my neighbours in the north-east—the members for Newland, King, Torrens and Florey. They have made some very pertinent comments indeed.

I would start by referring to some of the comments made by the member for Newland in particular, who, having grown up in the area, has obviously had a very long association with the plaza in a number of different capacities: as a local resident, as someone who has worked there, as a candidate and now as a local member of parliament. I am always loath to use what is a fairly clichéd line, that 'you really need to be a local person to understand what is happening here', because that is not always right. It is a bit of an easy line to use and not always correct, but in this case I think there is actually genuine merit to the argument as evidenced by the comments of the member for Newland.

If you are to have a proper kind of working understanding of the importance of a large retail shopping centre like Tea Tree Plaza to the greater north-east area, you probably do need to spend a bit of time in the area and at the shops. I have certainly done that in a private capacity, shopping or dining or seeing a movie or being with the kids and trying to keep them out of Timezone or whatever it is called now—which is where I spend a lot of my time.

I was talking with one of the staff from my electorate office about this bill, and she observed that we make calls to primarily elderly residents during heatwaves, which I know that many members of this place would do, and it is a very important service that we offer as members of parliament, because we know how vulnerable those people are. On a number of occasions, when speaking to those elderly residents and asking after their welfare, it always struck me that they would comment that they were planning on spending that particular hot day either at the Golden Grove village or in many cases Tea Tree Plaza because it was cool, they could socialise with other people, there was access to shops and all those kinds of things and, of course, parking was free, so they could do it cheaply.

I would not go so far as to suggest that a company like Westfield in some way has some kind of social responsibility. It would be nice to think that is the case and that our big businesses and corporations are good corporate citizens who take these things into account—and I think in lots of cases they probably do—but I am not making an argument that that is something we should generally expect from companies like Westfield. But I will make the point that they do financially benefit from having residents who might spend a lot of their day at the shopping centre.

Members who are familiar with the plaza and Golden Grove village, now known as The Grove, would probably be able to name quite a number of local residents who spend pretty much all day, every day at the shopping centre. It is their way of being able to socialise and connect with other people in the area when they have no other way of doing it. Of course, they do spend their money there as well. They may not be spending thousands of dollars at high-end shops, but they are there buying breakfast, lunch, coffees and things like that.

There is a benefit to centres like Tea Tree Plaza being low-cost destinations and not charging people for car parking, which then disproportionately affects low income earners. The speakers before me have touched very eloquently upon the effect that paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza would have on the workforce at Westfield, keeping in mind that we are talking about hospitality workers, retail workers, security staff, and cleaning staff, who clean at shopping centres like Tea Tree Plaza and who are some of the lowest paid workers in our society. They do a very hard and often unpleasant job.

I know there has been an argument from those opposite, and one that has been put forward by Westfield itself, that there will be a period of free parking provided and that that might enable some customers to have a few hours for free. They have also spoken about there potentially being a reserved spot for staff as well to park at either low cost or no cost.

If we are to talk about how this has actually played out at other sites, including Westfield sites, where paid parking has been introduced, I know the work that the SDA did and that local members of parliament did in getting close to 15,000 signatures on a petition against this—which I have to say is an incredible number of signatures in a very localised area. All the feedback from those who had been through a similar change at other Westfield sites was that, yes, there was a space set aside for staff to park. That space filled up very early and very quickly; once it was full, staff were paying full tote odds for the rest of the day.

That is hard enough at any business or place of work that has more regular and consistent hours of work that might be nine to five where you can time these things, but of course that is not the case for somewhere like Westfield TTP, where you have a lot of shiftworkers. It is no good if you have the car parking space set aside for workers filling up by, let's say, eight or 8.30 in the morning, which is, incidentally, usually the time, at least pre COVID, that the O-Bahn high-rise car park would be full, if you are starting your shift in the afternoon or later at night.

The staff we are talking about here are, as I said before, low paid, whereas for people like us, who are paid so incredibly well to do these jobs, a few extra dollars here and there, in terms of having a free park or a low-cost park compared with paying the full rate, does not affect us. But I can tell you that if you are on the kind of income that a young retail worker or hospitality worker or cleaner or security guard is on, those few dollars every day, which is the difference between getting your cheap spot or your free spot or paying full tote odds, is the difference between being able to put food on your family's table or being able to afford a few of those extra things that you might like.

I accept it is difficult for us in these roles to try to put ourselves into the shoes of people like that and truly understand the effect of far-ranging decisions like this, but that is what has been done by the people on this side of the house and by the SDA and other unions, who have got out there during the peak of summer, over 18 months trodden the footpaths, walked through the shopping centre itself and taken the time to speak to staff and customers and properly understand what effect the introduction of paid parking at Westfield Tea Tree Plaza will actually have on them, and that is very much the angle from which I approach this.

I do not want this to be all negative in terms of Westfield because my own personal observation of the redevelopment that has taken place there in the last few years is that it is an excellent redevelopment. The new boulevard of restaurants and the new upgraded cinema have been welcomed by the local community, but of course they were put where car parks used to be, and it is not the first time that that has happened. The member for Newland will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Aldi was built on a site that was car parking space before that. It has happened on a number of occasions now.

Of course we like to see important local destinations such as hospitality, dining and retail, upgraded in our area, but I do not think it is right that Westfield has chosen to take away those car parks to build the new development and is then essentially going to use its customers of that shopping centre as a method of cost recovery to pay to try to replace those car parks elsewhere—because that is what is actually happening here. That is the actual truth of what is happening.

If anyone in this chamber is in doubt about why this issue blew up like it did, about why as many as 15,000 people signed that petition, it might be because, when Westfield were first approached about the suggestion that they might be adding paid parking at the location and were asked for comment, this is what was said: 'Westfield is looking forward to improving the car parking experience at Tea Tree Plaza.' To the best of my knowledge, we are yet to get any more information out of Westfield about why this is needed and what is going to happen.

So, on one hand, they are expecting local residents and customers to gratefully welcome the news that paid parking and boom gates might be introduced at Tea Tree Plaza and then, when they might ask the obvious question about why they are needed, they are expected to swallow this line that there is going to be an improved car parking experience at the shopping centre—a shopping centre, I might say, that for many years has had somewhat of a reputation for being a place that is difficult to get a park.

I wholeheartedly support this motion. I think it would perhaps be welcomed if some people who actually represent residents who use the plaza from the other side of the chamber were to make some contributions today. That would be excellent—apart from the excellent contribution by the member for Flinders, of course. The member for Newland was right: her predecessor in the role did do a video not long before the state election in which he commented quite frankly and plainly that he did not support it and that he thought it was wrong. That, I think, was an example of someone who, despite the fact that he is no longer here, did live in his community. He understood in no small part the needs of his community and used the centre himself as a local resident as well, as does his successor in the role.

I think we should very much take the arguments from the other side of the chamber with a grain of salt, given that they are not espoused or made by people who have gone to the same efforts that people on this side of the chamber have to actually understand the needs of the local community, to talk to people who work in the shopping centre to understand their own financial and social circumstances, and then make a position around what kind of action we should be taking based on that local knowledge.

I commend the work of all those here who have taken the time to get out and speak with residents and to consult. I commend the work of both the SDA and other unions who have been involved in getting those 15,000 residents to sign a petition, which is no mean feat in what is a pretty localised part of metropolitan Adelaide. I look forward to hearing some other contributions and I hope this will get the support of this chamber.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:41): Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I rise having first taken the opportunity to listen carefully to those contributions that have preceded mine, particularly from the member for Newland, the member for King and the member for Wright, and I would include in that group, relevantly, the member for Florey as well—yourself, sir.

In making my contribution, I certainly wish to take into account the local knowledge that is acquired by those in the particular circumstances that they engage with their community. I do take exception, however, to the member for Wright's observation just now, to the extent that he means to convey that those members are somehow more entitled to express a view in this debate or to engage on the merits. What I would say to the member for Wright, and to any who hold that view, is that here we are in the state's parliament legislating, and we ought to do so in accord with principle that can be applied throughout the state.

While we appreciate that there appears to have been a particular focus on Tea Tree Plaza for the purposes of this debate, what we are doing—and, as the member for Flinders quite rightly characterised, in a sloppy way, in an inconsistent way and, I will come to it in a moment, in a particularly hypocritical way—is that we are seeking to overlay onto a piece of legislation a measure that is then said to have some effect to assist in a particular local area.

I will just say as a matter of principle that it is the worst way to legislate, to go about a process where there is a particular local concern that is raised—whether or not based on good information, whether or not based on a thoroughgoing debate—and there is then the imposition of amending legislation that really, with a particularly inapposite sledgehammer in this case, cracks what might be perceived to be the relevant nut. But it goes further, because it goes very much to the merits of what we are talking about.

The member for Newland talked about the interests of workers and included among them low-paid workers who work in tenanted retail shops and in other ways at Tea Tree Plaza. He also talked about the imposition of these measures as being somehow in their interests. I just say in the strongest possible terms that, where these measures are applied, there cannot be any degree to which they are applied with a view to defeating the purposes of either the owner to whom this legislation is directed, the tenants of the owner—the small businesses that occupy individual tenancies that the member for Newland, the member for King and others have talked about their pleasant memories of—and their workers, and those who make the place such a pleasant place to spend time.

Measures that might be applied to regulate the private parking space such as it is, that may be conceived of and put in train by the owner of that place, are not going to be done with a view to punishing themselves, their tenants, the workers who are there or their customers—they just self-evidently are not. If they were to be so directed, then it would be akin to making an argument that all these people were out to defeat their own business interests. There can be no sense in which measures of this kind, applied as they are proposed to be applied by an owner of property, could be otherwise than in the interests of all the relevant stakeholders of the relevant area.

It is the height of hypocrisy to come along with those arguments—those that are promoted most expressly by the member for Newland—in circumstances where, to use the member for Wright's analogy, you have the member for Wright's elderly folks who are perhaps taking refuge at TTP and enjoying the amenity of Tea Tree Plaza for social, health and other purposes, perhaps on a day when the weather is trying.

God help those elderly folks if they happen to need to find their way to one of the government's hospitals because they are unwell, having spent those hours at TTP. Woe betide them, because there they will find that all of a sudden they are having to pay to park in the government's car park at the hospital. So I hope that they are okay, such that they are not finding themselves in need of the hospital because there they will experience firsthand, and possibly on the same day, the hypocrisy of what we have had put before us.

Having framed the circumstances in which the owner of a property may or may not elect to apply parking fees to their premises, we have here imposed upon the 1986 act, which actually provided for the regulated access to private parking spaces by owners, and permitted them to charge fees to those who would use them and provided for council to regulate that and to take the fees if such an agreement were in place pursuant to that legislation.

They impose upon these owners all of a sudden in an arbitrary way—let's pick a number of 34,000 square metres, create a definition of a regulated parking area all of a sudden—and say, 'Well, now in the most egregious retroactive and retrospective ways, notwithstanding the tens of millions of dollars that you might have invested over decades, we are all of a sudden going to come along and tell you what you can do after the event.'

At the same time and as it happens—it is coincidental that some of these things arise at the same time; I do not accuse the government of preordaining it this way, but it highlights the hypocrisy—you have the government coming along and saying, 'Right, time's up, workers. Time's up, frontline health workers. Your time is up and you now will be paying the government for the privilege of coming and using our car parks, whether you are working, visiting loved ones or, indeed, in need of health care yourself. If you're in that category, time is up for you. If you need to go to one of our hospital car parks, we're going to retain the right to charge you for the privilege of using those but, as it happens, we are coming into this state parliament with a sledgehammer to crack a nut in a particular local area that happens to be owned by a private sector entity, which wants to just get on with their business, as they have been doing for decades.'

As the member for Newland and the member for King pointed out in terms of their happy memories of growing up and experiencing some of those last 50 years or so in the history of Tea Tree Plaza, those are investments that are made for the many decades ahead. For those who would invest those very significant amounts with a view to providing an attractive, welcoming, workable and accessible place within which the local community can meet, do their shopping, enjoy the space and in turn provide for a diverse experience, they will now be punished.

They are now going to be told, 'Watch out, because years or decades down the track, when a state Labor government comes along you are at risk of having an impost applied to you retrospectively just as we feel may be appropriate and timely and, if necessary, we will shoehorn it into the very act that provides for the regulation of these private parking places.'

It will not be lost on the people of South Australia, it will not be lost on those who would invest in this state and it will not be lost on the users of shopping centre car parks and other areas that are caught by this ham-fisted new definition. What this does is tell an owner of private land, after the event, that all of a sudden you are to be treated as a scapegoat for the purposes of what has been the subject of a local campaign.

It is wrong in principle, and it is highlighted by the extraordinary hypocrisy of the particular context in which it occurs as it affects, on the other side of the line, hospital workers and others who use government-owned car parking spaces and the Premier ought to think carefully on this. It very much goes to the heart of any case that this Labor government may yet seek to maintain that it is somehow pro business, pro investment, pro a rational approach to such things in this state. It strikes very much at the heart of those on the other side who would seek to adopt such rhetoric because the record, if it did not already speak loudly for itself, through this piece of legislation would speak very loudly to end once and for all any such notion.

I know that there will be those on the other side of the house for whom I speak in making this contribution. As I said at the outset, I listened carefully to those who spoke with a local perspective in relation to this bill, as I ought to. I know that I will speak on behalf of not only those on this side of the chamber but also those on the other side of the chamber who know that this is wrong in principle, who know that this is a ham-fisted—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order!

Mr TEAGUE: What is clear is that in the course of inspiring—I would not categorise it as a cacophony—one can see the sensitivity in this regard. The new government, led by the Premier, that has come to power this year, has gone out of its way to provide what it would like to see as credible reassurances to those who might otherwise be concerned about clichés about what Labor governments are all about and has said, 'Don't worry. We are pro business, we are pro investment, we are pro rational behaviour and we are committed to growing the state just as much and just as successfully as the former Marshall Liberal government did in this area.'

What this proves is that it is just not true. What this proves is that this Labor government, when in power, will come along—and even to this place—with a legislative sledgehammer and say, 'If that's what it takes to appease those more equal than others among the unions who pay our way, and if that's what it takes to promote a populist view in a local area, then to hell with principle, and we will put aside in a moment any notions that we are somehow for the businesses and investors of the state.'

When put to the proof, what will win out under this government is clearly demonstrated to be the interests of those unions, who are more equal than others, and those aspects of populist campaigning contrary to principle that may be sustained. It does not bear principled consideration. This kind of legislating will not serve the long-term interests of the state. I go another step further and say that it will not serve the long-term interests of the good folk of Newland, King, Florey, Torrens and Wright—and I omitted the member for Torrens in my remarks earlier, and I listened very carefully also to the member for Torrens—because it is wrong in principle and it should be rejected out of hand.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. A. Piccolo.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 13:59.

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