Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (16:36): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Private Parking Areas (Shopping Centre Parking Areas) Amendment Bill and indicate that I will be opposing the bill. In this place, there are always difficult decisions to be made, and I have found that having a set of principles to guide you when it comes to these difficult decisions certainly comes in handy. A couple of principles that I have on my wall (and I transferred them onto a canvas) indicate small government, light regulation and freedom of enterprise. There are obviously plenty of others, but they are the ones that I will be drawing on here.

I am always mindful also of governments and their ability to overreach, and I despise retrospective laws where people have invested time and money only to find that the playing field changes later due to government intervention.

Having looked at the issue, I can understand why the government, and more particularly local members, believe this legislation will address an issue at Tea Tree Plaza, but it also appears to me Scentre management will create a declining business model if they impose car parking fees that drive people to other outlets. What they are really trying to achieve is a better experience and more availability of parking for those who support the franchises and the centres in question.

The National Retail Association, which represents more than 10,000 shopfronts in South Australia, has written to express grave concerns about this piece of legislation before us. The association said:

The franchisees' 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, said:

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 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 of people 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.

Claims that retail staff will incur a fee of $35—which absolutely concerns me and something I would be aggressively against—are false, according to their written statement, and car parking for staff will be $3 per day. Of course, this is where I would weigh in because I do not think you should have to pay to park to attend work.

The LGA Board of Directors met on 22 July to endorse a formal position. In the first instance, they are of the opinion that the state government should seek to dissuade paid parking in large shopping centres, but they also went on to say that 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.

The LGA has a range of concerns about the way this bill has been drafted. No reason has been given for why the CEO of a council is a decision-maker. There is potential under this bill for the CEO to make a decision without reference to elected council members. This bill provides no detail on how the CEO should reach a decision about whether or not to allow managed parking; there is merely a reference to 'consult with 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.

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

The bill should require the approving authority to undertake due diligence to support an assessment of the proposal, such as examine the impact on local roads, amenity and economic impact. The bill should provide for conditions of approving, such as periods for free parking, provision for disabled car park spaces, and fees. The bill does not provide clarity as to whether a council could charge a fee for undertaking this process, which will obviously involve costs.

I believe that the Liberal Party also has amendments on file to the Health Care Act 2008 that will continue to provide hospital workers with ongoing access to free parking and free public transport provisions that were made available to them during the previous government's term. The previous Liberal government also provided staff reimbursement for non-site-related parking of up to $101 per month. My point is that if we are going to do it for one, we certainly need to do it for all.

To highlight the impact of hospital parking, and certainly declare a conflict of interest—in fact, there has been plenty of conflict with my daughter Joirdan, who is doing a gap year before going to university. She works at the Memorial Hospital in a clerical role just over the road here in Adelaide. She earns $20 an hour. She has to also pay $18 a day to park at the Memorial Hospital—in essence, working one hour per day just to park at the site of her work.

What is also interesting to me is that doctors, specialists and senior technicians park for free. So here you have the lowest paid, on $36,000 a year, paying $4,320 per year for parking, yet if you are on a salary of over $200,000—and some of those doctors are on way more than $200,000 a year—you pay nothing for your parking. So, if we are going to pass legislation, I think it definitely needs to be extended to our health workers. With those comments, I conclude my contribution.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (17:34): I just rise to indicate, as I indicated in my second reading speech, that I will not be supporting this bill. I think it is a bit of hypocrisy and a bit patchworky that one group perhaps is the focus of this bill, yet health workers and those in hospitals are not, despite their paid parking arrangements being different under a previous government. To me, it just seems unfair. Certainly, in terms of legislation I think we should be legislating for all, not specific groups. I just indicate that I will not be supporting the bill.