Special Debates — Petitions Committee, Report—Make mobility parking enforceable on all public-use property and increase fines

Members, we come now to the debate on the petition of Claire Dale to make mobility parking enforceable on all public-use property and increase fines. I call on the chairperson of the Petitions Committee to move that the House takes note of this report, but I would say that this is a tight debate, related entirely to the matters canvassed in the petition.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of the report of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Claire Dale: Make mobility parking enforceable on all public-use property and increase fines.

As the chairman of the very hard-working and omnipotent Petitions Committee, it gives me great pleasure to be here today to speak on this petition. Now, this is a petition that the work was done by, I understand, an equally hard-working and omnipotent committee in the last Parliament. Having done the work, the mahi, they recommended that we have this debate, such was the interest in the issues raised.

Now, the petition was presented to the House on 28 February 2022, requesting that the House of Representatives change the law to substantially increase fines nationally for misusing any mobility parking spaces, including on privately owned land that is used publicly, and urged the Government to run an education campaign to desist able-bodied people from misusing mobility parking spaces for public use.

Ms Claire Dale, the petitioner, is concerned about able-bodied people parking in mobility parking spaces. I have to say, I think many of us have probably been guilty of driving around looking for a park and tantalisingly seeing a mobility park, but 99 percent of us have the common decency and understanding of the issues faced by those of the disability community and don’t park in them. But there are always those in our community who think that, firstly, they can get away with it, or they think that the law doesn’t apply to them, or are just lazy and do park in those car parks—and that, for members of the disability community, is extremely frustrating.

The committee brought together, as the committee does, the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Transport, and Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People with the petitioner to discuss the issues. The extent of the problem: the disability survey of 2013 found 24 percent of New Zealanders identify as disabled, and 64 percent of disabled adults have a physical impairment.

Whaikaha is aware of instances where mobility parking spaces have been misused but the rules were not enforced. Surveys undertaken by CCS Disability Action indicate that although there had been a decrease in the number of vehicles parking in mobility parks without displaying a permit, few illegally parked cars are ticketed. The enforcement rate is particularly low for mobility parks located on private property. Of course, many of those mobility parks on private property are in supermarket and shopping centre car parks.

The legal framework around such things, the Building Act 2004, does not require a specific portion of car parks to be set aside as mobility parks; however, section 119 of that Act provides NZS 4121, designed for access and mobility. The standard requires at least one mobility park for one to 20 parks, two mobility parks for 21 to 50 parks, and one additional mobility park for each additional 50 parks. Under clause 6.4(1A) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule, it is an offence to stop, stand, or park a vehicle in any parking area reserved for disabled people unless the driver or a passenger is disabled and displays a disabled parking permit. Currently, the infringement fee is a mere $150.

Also, the petitioner brought to the committee’s attention the United Nations convention and also the New Zealand Disability Strategy, which also addressed the issue. The committee, having heard that evidence, then subsequently brought back the follow-up submissions from the Government agencies, after having asked them to head away and actually look at this issue together, rather than separately. They came back with a number of recommendations, and just this week, the committee has received a report from the Government on the progress of those recommendations.

Now, my time is coming to an end, but I’m confident my fellow speakers will go through the rest of the contents of this. So a very real issue that will affect us all eventually. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mobility parking is important to the New Zealanders who rely on it for access to everyday facilities and services, like grocery shopping and visiting the doctor. When mobility parking is misused, the lives of those New Zealanders are considerably disrupted. In a recent survey, lack of access to suitable car-parking was the most common reason respondents gave for not being able to take trips away from home for day-to-day activities.

We welcome the petition by Claire Dale to make mobility parking enforceable on public property and to increase penalties. And we thank the Petitions Committee and those who made submissions to the committee, and we welcome the committee’s final report on this topic. Inconsistent enforcement reduces the likelihood that people will actually follow the rules and may lead some people to believe that they can park in these spaces. We know this misuse of mobility parking spaces was reported repeatedly in the submissions that came to the Petitions Committee.

We also acknowledge many of the challenges and concerns that were raised by businesses and enforcement authorities in relation to the enforcement of mobility parking law. They raised that they have limited staff availability for enforcement and that they have concerns for the welfare of their staff from aggressive drivers. For the recommendations that were included in the final report from the Petitions Committee, the Government has now had an opportunity to review them and consider what actions we should take. We agree with many of the submissions that the use of new technology could be a vital tool to improve enforcement. Cameras are increasingly providing an affordable option for monitoring mobility parking spots while also being able to document the offences and keep staff safe.

I will now outline these recommendations and the Government’s response to them. The first recommendation was to significantly increase and index to inflation the fine for illegal parking in mobility parking spaces. The Government agrees that the cost of mobility parking fines is insufficient, with the fees not having been updated since 2008, and this is part of a broader issue with outdated fees that we’re seeking to address. The Minister of Transport has directed the Ministry of Transport to undertake a full review of parking fees, and this will include consideration of a mechanism for regularly reviewing the fees so that we don’t get that outdated situation again.

The second recommendation was to review current mobility parking requirements and research future needs to ensure that an appropriate number of mobility parks are available. It is important that there are sufficient mobility parks to meet current and future demands. Mobility parking requirements are reviewed periodically by local government, and this is often based on the NZ Standard “Design for access and mobility”, which is developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. This standard provides good guidance to those reviewing mobility parking requirements, and the Government doesn’t see the need for a fundamental review of approach at this time.

The third recommendation is to consider support for road controlling authorities to develop technology for enforcing mobility parking. The Government agrees with the committee that technology is a key tool for greater and safer enforcement, and we are exploring general options for new enforcement technologies, particularly automation of infringement offences. Specifically for this issue, we are encouraged to read one example in the Petitions Committee’s report from Queenstown Lakes District Council. The council uses cameras to monitor mobility parks, bus stops, and taxi stands, and the cameras are on at all times. Given the concerns about coverage and staff safety, we encourage local councils to explore and develop these. There will be further work needing to be done with Local Government New Zealand to support road controlling authorities to increase uptake of enforcement technologies.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I didn’t have the privilege of sitting on the Petitions Committee that heard this last term, but, as some people might know, I was a public transport and urban planner before entering politics, and one of my specialties was in parking management. It turns out that better parking management is one of the key ways that we can get better outcomes in our towns and cities. Of course, ensuring that there is sufficient provision of mobility parking and that there is sufficient enforcement of mobility parking is essential to ensure that everybody has access and is able to move around our towns and cities.

I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendations of the Petitions Committee that considered the petition of Claire Dale. The main point is, of course, to make mobility parking enforceable on all public-use property, and increase fines, and recommends that we do more to ensure that we’re policing the use of mobility parking and that mobility parking is provided.

I think it’s really important, because, previously, like many other English-speaking countries, we’ve had planning rules that required developers to over-provide large off-street car parks, which had a huge cost and reduced the amount of land in our towns and cities that was available for the things that people want to be there, like homes and businesses and green spaces and schools and all of the other reasons that people come together and live in towns and cities. Getting rid of those harmful regulations—which was supported by National, of course; the National Policy Statement on Urban Development got rid of minimum parking requirements—was a key opportunity to ensure that we were providing the right amount of parking and not tying up, you know, huge amounts of our urban land in car parks that were underutilised.

However, in getting rid of those minimum parking requirements, it is essential that we have provisions in place to ensure that we are providing for mobility parking in a different way. So providing mobility parks simply as a percentage of the car parks that are provided doesn’t work if we’re not providing car parks for anyone but mobility car parks. So it is important to have a minimum amount of mobility car-parking, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be site by site. What’s important is that the mobility parking is provided around a given area and that it’s accessible, that it’s available, and that we have good design between the mobility parks, the footpaths, and the crossings that make it easier for those who are have mobility impairments to cross the road, to get from the car park to wherever they might be going in the nearby vicinity, because there’s not always going to be a car park directly in front of the building that you want to access or the open public space or whatever it is that you’re trying to access.

So while I completely agree and support the recommendations of the Petitions Committee, and I hope that the Government will take it seriously and will support looking into that, I do think that we need to go a bit beyond that to ensure that there’s proper access. Sometimes it’s said, “Well, we don’t want to get rid of car-parking in our urban areas, because there might be people who need mobility parking.”, but, oftentimes, the way the car-parking is provided is fragmented, it can be very far away from a destination. That is also of interest and note, because it doesn’t provide good access—some people with mobility issues can’t actually drive. So making wider, more accessible footpaths, raised pedestrian crossings—all of those things actually make it much easier for those with mobility issues, who may be in wheelchairs or who may have other mobility issues, to get around our towns and cities.

The enforcement of parking—I particularly like the recommendations in here, because the enforcement of parking rules is really important. Of course, nobody likes getting a parking infringement—it doesn’t feel good. But, then, the whole point of the infringement is to incentivise people to follow the rules. So it is really important that we have good, well-signposted rules, and that we have fair and equitable enforcement of those rules.

While I can understand wanting to increase the fine—and, in some cases, that is important to make sure it’s a sufficient deterrent—it is important that we look at the way that we apply fines for traffic infringements and for parking infringements, so that it’s not penalising those who have less money and who are on lower incomes. There are other countries in the world that have infringements as a percentage of someone’s income, and I think that’s something New Zealand should be looking to, to ensure that those who are very wealthy don’t just choose to pay the infringement, and those who are poor are really crippled by making a mistake. We need to ensure there’s support for people with the disparity in incomes that we have. With that, I’m very happy to finish my contribution to this debate.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand today and speak to the petition of Claire Dale. I’d first like to start off by thanking Claire Dale for bringing this to the Petitions Committee, because, often, these kinds of petitions can create real change and create the conversation that we need to have to create further legislation. For the disability community, the main thing you hear of the barriers to living their best life is accessibility. So it’s really important to acknowledge that and the hard work that it takes to bring a petition, as well.

So Claire Dale was concerned that able-bodied people were parking in mobility parking spaces and taking away the opportunities for people with disabilities to access basic needs, like grocery shopping, seeing a doctor, or even being able to go to a movie. Sometimes just being closer to those front doors is quite important. Sometimes it can be embarrassing for somebody who cannot make that distance. I know of someone personally who has a disability, and if they can’t park close enough, they just won’t bother. They shouldn’t have to make that decision: “Do I or don’t I bother to go in and get my groceries? Do I or don’t I bother trying to get to the doctor today, because somebody may take up that space?”

The other concern is that when it is not enforced, people can get quite aggressive towards somebody who just wants to use a space that they’re entitled to use. In the notes, I see that there were problems around enforcement, there were problems around people becoming abusive and threatening when asked to move out of the disabled parks. This just is not OK. Actually, one of the recommendations is around a campaign to the public, to let them know what their actions are actually causing for the disabled community. There shouldn’t be a fear of saying, “I have a disability and I need this park.” There shouldn’t be a fear of being abused when you are trying to use something that you’re entitled to.

So I really think we should consider a public education campaign to improve the understanding around someone accessing basic needs. That’s what this is about. This is making sure that we enable the disabled community to live their best lives. I’m actually quite proud to stand here and speak to this, because, whilst in Opposition, I heard a lot from the disability community, and accessibility is their biggest issue; it is a barrier to doing basic, everyday life things that they need, and we need to take that into account.

Sometimes we take for granted how easy it is to just park in a disability space and say, “I’m just popping in for a moment.” That was mentioned quite a bit as well. It’s like, “I’m just ducking in for two seconds.” But that two seconds could take away somebody’s ability to live their best life. If we look at it like that and we educate people to know that they’re actually affecting somebody living their best life, I’m sure that that will help.

I appreciate the recommendations that have been put forward by the Petitions Committee and I really look forward to the future discussions that this petition has enabled to happen. I hope that it actually directs future legislation and makes people understand how important this small issue is, because sometimes the smallest changes make the biggest difference in somebody’s life, and sometimes we need to stop thinking so complicated and realise that these simple, little changes will make a major difference in somebody’s life—in your grandmother’s life—especially with the ageing population right now, which was a concern that was brought forward to the Petitions Committee. We have an ageing population who need to be able to access these car parks.

Some of the solutions may be as simple as: “If there’s not enough car parks, how about we open up the parent and pram car parks to be able to be disability car parks too? Share them alongside the disabled community.” There are solutions and I am really appreciative of the fact that this has been brought forward for us to discuss so that we can make a real difference in the disability community’s lives. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I want to join with the other members who’ve spoken in congratulating Claire Dale on the petition, and I also want to congratulate the members of the committee that considered this. What is good to see is the House working collegially on this issue, which is actually really important to many members of our community.

I think this is really, really important because it’s about helping facilitate the ability to—as we’ve just heard—live people’s best lives to some of the people who are most struggling with doing that: people who are suffering from disabilities. Mobility parking is a really, really important part of disabled people being able to access the facilities and the services that are needed to be a full participant in our community and to live our best lives.

It’s interesting, when I look at the documentation we’ve got here in front of us and the considerations, to see that there is a juxtaposition sometimes between the objectives that we try to achieve and certainly those ones around saying, “Look, we want to have more people using public transport and cycling and those sort of things.” and then say, “Well, we’ll take all these parks out.” and suddenly you find—whoops-a-daisy—the disability community and the aged community are sort of pushing back and saying, “Hang on a moment, we need you to leave some car parks there because we cannot all use public transport, we cannot all get on a bike, and we need to get that balance right.” So that’s an important thing to consider.

But it is good to see the careful and thoughtful consideration that the committee has given to this, and now I think it behoves us to make some progress on this. The wheels sometimes grind slowly—this has come from 2022—and I think we should be trying to make sure that we get some progress now.

So I want to turn to the six recommendations that we’ve got in front of us there. The first one of them is to significantly increase and index to inflation the fine for illegal parking in mobility parking spaces. I was really encouraged to see that the Ministry of Transport had been doing some work on exactly this issue across all parking fines. I think that’s the key bit there: they’d stopped that work for other work, and it’s really good to hear that the Minister is now going to say, “Hey, look, I want you to get back on to doing that work, to get back on track to doing that work.” [National members cheer] I’m sorry, what did I say there?

But I think what we should take there is it’s actually important not to take the fine for parking in disability space in isolation. We’ve got to actually take the rest of those fines. So you’ve got the fines for overstaying a park, that’s one lot. But you’ve also got the fines there, and I looked up the numbers there for parking in a way which is unsafe for pedestrians and other vehicles—i.e., parking on a broken yellow line, for example. That is deemed to be unsafe. The fine for that is $60. So you can say, “Well, OK, we’re really inconveniencing and we’re annoying the disability community; we’re upsetting people.”—it’s $150; “We’re being unsafe.”—it’s $60. What’s the fine, for example?

Then you look at other infringements that there are. In the mobile area, it’s $150 if you go through a red light. Now, when somebody goes through a red light, you know, there’s an amber light that’s there first. They have every ability to stop, and yet going through, that is really unsafe behaviour. So I think the message I would say is, yes, we want to have a look at the mobility fine; yes, that may well need to rise; but, hey, let’s look at all these things and let’s make sure that we look at them together so they are coherent. Otherwise, you’re going to end up with an infringement regime across both parking and mobile offences, which is completely incoherent, and that would not be particularly helpful or in anybody’s best interests at all.

The other point that’s made there is about indexing in line for inflation. From my local government experience, one of the things I can say is that Parliament is really, really bad at setting fines and infringements and all those sorts of penalties, because what it does is it sets them—in this case, in 2008—and then puts them away and says, “Look, one day we’ll consider them again.” That is not very helpful. Indexing to inflation would be a much better approach right across the board for so many of those areas.

In the last minute I’ve got available, what I would like to say is that I think all the recommendations there are very sensible ones. I think some flexibility built into the way in which those are dealt with and have some guidelines rather than exact, definite requirements in public and private land, because every circumstance will be slightly different. But the one thing I did want to say: education—really, really important. But I did note that there’s a thought there about actually going and doing enforcement on private land. The Crown advice there is that’s a big, big step which may not go down too well. I was disturbed a little bit to then say that maybe local government should go and do that, which I think will be just as big a step and probably just as unwise.

So I commend this work and suggest that we do really need to get on with doing it and respond to the needs of our disability community.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori. E kaha tautoko ana mātou i tēnei petihana. E tuku mihi ana, e tuku ana i te reo owha ki a Claire Dale me āna mahi i roto i tēnei petihana.

Anā ka tīkina e au te kupu, ehake i te mea ka whakamahia e au i te kupu “whai kaha” nā runga anō i te mea ko ētehi o aku whanaunga kāore i te tino rata ki te kupu “whai kaha”. Ko te kupu “whai kaha” he āhua takahi i ō rātou mana nā runga anō i te mea kāore he tangata me whai i te kaha. I roto i te reo o Waikato, ko te “mana hauā” kē.

Anā ka tautoko mātou i ngā tāngata mana hauā e whai ana i tō rātou nei mana motuhake i roto i te tūnga waka. Engari ehara i te mea e tautokotia ana tēnā kaupapa anahe, engari kia whai mana motuhake ngā tāngata mana hauā huri noa o Aotearoa, otirā te ao whānui mō ngā take pēnei i te haere ki te wharepaku, ngā mea e haere atu rā ki roto i te whare, i roto i tēnei Whare hoki, o tēnei Whare Pāremata.

Anā ka kaha tautokotia e mātou o Te Pāti Māori i roto i tō mātou nei manifesto, our policy, e kaha tautoko ana i ngā tāngata mana hauā, anā ki te whai i tō rātou tino rangatiratanga. Kāore anō au kia whai pēhitanga ki te kore au e haere ki te wharepaku, kore au e haere ki tētehi tūnga waka. Kāore au e mōhio ki tēnā momo pēhitanga, anā ka tino pā mamae au ki tēnei momo āhuatanga.

Kua kaha pēhia nei, kua kaha tāmitia tō tātou nei ao hurihuri ki a rātou, te mana hauā. Nō reira ehara nōku ki te pahupahu mō ēnei momo kōrero. Kua tino tau i roto i a mātou te tautoko i tēnei o ngā petihana, engari kia kaha tautokotia e mātou i roto i ngā wharepaku, i roto i te Whare, i roto i ngā momo āhuatanga katoa e pēhi nei i ngā tāngata mana hauā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us of the House. I stand to voice the statements on behalf of the Māori Party. We strongly support this petition. We thank and send the voice of welcome to Claire Dale and her efforts in this petition.

Now, I will take the word, I will not deem to use the word “whai kaha” due to the fact that several of my own relations aren’t enamoured of the word “whai kaha”. The word “whai kaha” is something of a violation of their mana because they aren’t people who need to acquire strength. In the regional variation of Waikato, it is instead “mana hauā”.

And thus we support the disabled people that are attempting to maintain their self-determination within car parks. But it is not that this topic alone is supported, but instead that disabled people across New Zealand, indeed the wider world, retain their independence for issues such as going to the ablution facilities, those that are entering into buildings, and into this very House also, this House of Parliament.

And so this is strongly supported by us, by the Māori Party, within our manifesto, our policy, we strongly support disabled people to pursue their independence. I have yet to experience such suppression should I not go to the toilet facilities, or not approach parking facilities. I do not know that type of suppression, and such circumstances pain me greatly.

They, the disabled people, have been greatly suppressed, highly oppressed by our ever-changing world. So it is not for me to prattle on about these statements. Our support for this petition is resolute within us, nevertheless it will be strongly supported by us in the ablution facilities, in the House, and in all situations that disabled people are being oppressed.]

Nō reira, thank you, Mr Speaker. That is my contribution to the House today.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tuatahi tēnā koe kei te mema nō te Pāti Nāhinara. Te mutunga kē mai o te tangi o te reo i tēnei Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I acknowledge the member from the National Party. Your voice sings incredibly in this House.]

Saturday night, I was out with Community Patrols of New Zealand in Onehunga. In my electorate of Maungakiekie, we’re privileged to have three excellent branches there from Mount Wellington to Ellerslie to Onehunga, and I was in the latter one when we came across, just a half an hour into a patrol, the sight of a vehicle carelessly and flagrantly parked across a mobility parking space. The young man that came out, when we got his attention down there on the Onehunga waterfront, was very pleasant, but he was completely unapologetic. There was absolutely no fear of his consequences there. I must also note my colleague from Whanganui apparently was out the same night—Carl Bates, who’s now more popularly known as “Captain Everywhere”.

When I saw the unapologetic nature of this young man, I was cross. In fact, my thoughts immediately went to Raul Alejandro, the deputy director of Venezuelan parks. And to paraphrase his response in this context, it would have been “This is outrageous. Where are the armed men who come in to take the mis-parkers away? Where are they? This kind of behaviour is never tolerated in Boraqua. You park like that, they put you in jail right away, no trial, no nothing.” But here in New Zealand, I thought, “What could be done?”

I was at a loss, but only for a short period of time, because when I arrived in on Tuesday and saw the speaking list for this week, I saw the special debate set down, my heart leapt. I have the privilege of sitting on the Petitions Committee, and I have come to love that committee in my short stay in Parliament, because it provides open access to our democratic process across the country. During my time there, I’ve seen dozens of great ideas, but perhaps none as strong as this. So can I start by adding my thanks to Claire Dale for your relentless advocacy on this front.

I eagerly read the reports, the responses, the counter-responses. I particularly appreciated the passion and clarity of you, Claire. I felt like you were advocating for my mother and my mother-in-law, who are both regular users and dependants of those mobility parking spaces. In fact, right now my mother-in-law will be driving down Thorndon Quay, looking for a park to attend my father-in-law’s 84th birthday, and as soon as we get out of this, that’s where I’ll be heading to.

So I shall get to my point. And my point is this: the frustration that I felt on Saturday night and that’s been well-articulated here by many members already. A law that is not enforced is no law at all. We all know people who do the math and work out that parking fines in this country are so poultry that they may as well never pay them. They’re better to just take the risk that one in 20, one in 30 times they receive an infringement notice and they pay that.

The reality of it is that that has to change, and that’s why it’s going to change under this Government, because we’ve listened to the recommendations on Claire’s petition and we’ve said six clear yeses. Yes to recommendation 1, the Minister of Transport will direct the ministry to undertake a full review of parking fees and fines. Significant change is coming. Recommendation 2, yes. Recommendation 3, consider support for road controlling authorities to develop technology for enforcing mobility parking. We heard the Minister direct councils around the country already to look at the example of Queenstown. We’ve got them in Onehunga as well. Change is coming. Recommendation 4, work with private sector car park operators to develop a code of practice for enforcing mobility parking. Again, a resounding yes. As with recommendation 5, look at using technology from public parks and private car parks. Finally, recommendation 6, undertake a public education campaign to improve understanding of mobility parking and why compliance matters—yes. In fact, the Minister of Transport, in the Government’s review, has already instructed road control authorities to do exactly that.

I repeat: a law that is not enforced is no law at all. It’s a foundational belief and principle of this Government, and that’s why we say, “Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.” We have listened to your advocacy, Claire. We will make the changes. Justice is coming. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that the issue that we’re discussing during the special debate today is one that disproportionately impacts our disability communities, I just want to take a moment to also recognise and acknowledge the fact that today is, in fact, World Down Syndrome Day—the 2024 theme is to end the stereotypes, and that is incredibly relevant also to the issue that we are discussing here today.

Of course, also, this is a week that has seen a fair bit of debate in this House already around disability issues in Parliament. Unfortunately, most of it has been rather negative and in opposition to some of the sudden changes that were brought about on Monday, announced, and implemented that take away flexibility of funding for many within our disability communities. And that is relevant to this debate because one of the main issues that I heard about as the former Minister for Disability Issues was that of barriers.

This is a community that is incredibly resilient and incredibly strong just because they’ve had to be. They’ve had to advocate and fight for a number of barriers to be removed. The ones that we’re discussing in this special debate today, of course, are around mobility parking. And I do want to just take a moment to acknowledge Claire Dale and to thank her for bringing this petition to the notice of the House, and also to acknowledge the work of the former Petitions Committee in terms of the very thorough and thoughtful, I’d say, examination of this issue, and the various stakeholders they have spoken to about this as well.

The crux of the issue or the matter here today is that the petition was calling for legislation to substantially increase fines nationally for misusing any mobility parking spaces, including on privately owned land that is used publicly, and also to urge the Government to run an education campaign. I am heartened to hear quite emphatically from the member who just resumed his seat, Greg Fleming, that the Government will indeed move on all of those, because I was listening intently to the contribution by the current Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Penny Simmonds, that was, unfortunately, incredibly lacklustre, and I thought didn’t really commit to any of those recommendations, except probably increasing fines. There was no mention from her about the need for a public education campaign, which would remove some of the stereotypes that many within the disability community, unfortunately, are marginalised as a result of.

In fact, that was something that Whaikaha supported as well in terms of both stricter enforcement measures and also an education campaign that could help to reduce the misuse of mobility parks. And this is actually an issue that I do feel pretty strongly about. I remember just recently, probably at the end of last year, or early this year, taking a bit of a holiday in Raglan, sitting outside their bakery, eating a pie, as one does occasionally, and for the 20 or 25 minutes that I was sitting outside right in front of the mobility park, I saw about five people without a mobility permit parking in that park just to pop into the bakery. So I feel that it is something that is misused. There is, in the report back from the Petitions Committee, a point made by one of the stakeholders that it is reducing—there isn’t a huge amount of evidence, I think it was the supermarkets that mentioned there aren’t often complaints about it, but people don’t complain when they can’t actually park and get out and go about their business that they are there for. It’s hardly likely that they’re going to be complaining about it.

The other quick point that I wanted to make on that that I realised from the report of this committee is that one can actually report it to 105. It could be looked into if police have the ability at the point to do so, but there’s also an access app that people can use to report the misuse of mobility parks.

So, just in in closing, what I’ll say is that this is an issue that impacts the ability for disabled people and also our ageing population to have the dignity of being able to go about their daily business by being able to park somewhere easily and conduct said business. So this is something that should be taken seriously. I’m pleased to hear the Government’s going to act on pretty much all of those recommendations and I’ll be looking out to ensure that they do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to, firstly, thank the work of Claire Dale in putting this petition together and for the work of the previous Petitions Committee—and, of course, the work of the current Petitions Committee—as we stand here in the House today and speak on the action being taken on the recommendations out of this petition.

It’s pretty unfortunate and interesting to hear the focus of Labour this week on disability issues when, in July 2023, the then Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, said that the Government had stopped work into the parking offence review because they had other issues that had taken priority. I stand here today thinking about people like my grandfather, who’s a regular user of mobility parks; and my dad, who had a major stroke 12 years ago, struggles to walk, and uses mobility parks on a regular basis; and all mobility park users. And I am excited that the Government has made a commitment to take action. The Minister of Transport will direct the Ministry of Transport to undertake a full review of parking fees and fines. This Government is a Government that will get stuff done.

The Government’s response also notes that the cost of parking fines is insufficient. We’ve heard that—that they’re insufficient—so I thought I’d just take a look at what insufficiency meant in 2024. And so I took the time period 2017 to 2024—I thought that was an interesting period to look at in terms of what the value of these parking fines has, essentially, gone down by—and, in that period, which happens to be the period of the last Labour Government, a $150 fine would have had to go up to $187.94 due to outrageously high inflation to have the same value. So I’m excited by the fact that this Government has made a commitment to ensure there is a good full review of parking offence costs.

It’s also great to see recommendation 3, which says the Government is also exploring general options for new enforcement technologies. Not only does this look to ensure the safety of the parking officers and workers who go around our cities—middle-income New Zealanders that voted overwhelmingly for a Government that would get stuff done, and ensure they had tax relief as well—but we are looking after their safety at the same time as thinking about the idea of localism, and rather than prescribing what these enforcement technologies could be, allowing local councils and private parking spaces to adopt these technologies to ensure that there is a more immediate and reactive approach—or immediate and active, I suppose, approach—to ensure that people who park in these spaces get held accountable for not taking personal responsibility.

It is great to see the action being taken by this Government, and I have to thank, as I say, the Petitions Committee for their work in bringing this before the House and highlighting again for us—once again for us—that inflation kills the value of the dollar, and we need to change these parking offence rates in order to keep up with that sort of hectic inflation we’ve had in the last six years. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I too want to congratulate and thank Claire Dale, who happens to be a constituent of mine in the Western Bay of Plenty, part of the very beautiful Coromandel electorate, and I’ve had the opportunity to spend time with Claire talking about her petition.

I want to just acknowledge the petition process, because here we are, in the Parliament of New Zealand, discussing and debating an issue that a citizen decided was important enough to raise to gather together signatures to present a petition to the Petitions Committee, and here we are, ending up debating seriously that issue. Now, to me, that speaks of participatory democracy in action, and I think that’s an important part of what we do here as legislators. And it’s, I hope, something that will encourage others to equally petition the Parliament on issues that they think are important to them, their neighbours, their communities, and their families.

I want to—sorry, Mr Speaker, other participants in this debate have covered off some of the detail of Claire’s petition, but I particularly just want to remind the House of what was, I think, in essence, the simplicity of her petition. The intent of her petition was simply this: to increase the fine and standardise the final penalty for using a mobility parking space, no matter whether on public or private property.

Now, it’s this distinction on what happens between private and public property that is actually quite a stumbling block when it comes to mobility parking. Because if you are a private property owner—let’s say that you are a big box retailer, Mitre 10 or Bunnings or Countdown or one of those sorts of organisations—the parking facilities that occur on those sites are privately owned. Yet there is no standardisation of how those private property owners should actually apply any rules at all, other than maybe, perhaps, marking out, as is required by the consenting territorial authority, a number of mobility parking spaces when the supermarket or the hardware store is built. But, after that, there’s actually no compulsion, then, or ability for the landowner, the retailer, to actually consistently and appropriately then apply any kind of rules or regulation around that private property stuff.

So most of the debate today has been in relation to mobility parking that occurs in public places—parking provided by councils or that sort of thing. So this issue of consistency, I know, is important to Claire, who is watching this debate this afternoon. I know that she would want me and others to make that point. It’s as much about the fine and the actual appropriateness of the fine and the sort of discipline of having a mobility space, but it’s about the consistency between public parking mobility spaces and those that occur on private property as well, that are often administered by big box retailers nationwide.

So, on that note, I want to thank again Claire; I want to thank members, on her behalf, for participating in this debate; and to wish Claire well and to let her know that the Government response has been, I think, quite fulsome and will be taken seriously. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I’m glad that we all seem to be sitting around, holding hands, and singing “Kumbaya”. I apologise if I’m deeply cynical about what the members opposite have said they are committing to, because this is a week where we’ve seen the disabled community traumatised by the lack of championing of their cause by their Minister.

When I heard her speak today, I did not get the commitment to the recommendations as set out in the petition by Claire Dale that she has said and that the other members have said were there. What I heard, in fact, was that, in recommendation number 1, it says “significantly increase, and index to inflation, [fines] for illegal parking in mobility parking spaces”. We did not hear a commitment to that; we heard a commitment for a review by the Ministry of Transport—that is quite a different proposition.

On the second point, we heard about reviewing current mobility parking requirements and researching future needs. I heard the Minister say that she was satisfied that the status quo was suffice and that there was no need to do that. I then heard Greg Fleming say, “No, there is an unequivocal commitment to that.” I’m really heartened to hear that. I would like to see the actual wording of the recommendation on that, and I do hope that the Government members will table the list of recommendations as they have just committed to.

On the third one, we have heard things around car park operators. I’m really pleased that the previous speaker, the Hon Scott Simpson, discussed the importance of private parking. But I didn’t hear the Minister herself also talk about the education campaign, because what we are seeking here is a culture change. So she highlighted using cameras and using new technologies; I didn’t hear about the more significant work to educate people and to change behaviours. This is really indicative of, in my view, the lacklustre—as my colleague said: the lacklustre—contribution of this Minister to champion the cause of the disability community. If she is indeed going to make all of these six recommendations happen, which I really hope she does, then let’s hear that loudly and clearly, because we did not hear that from her; we heard that far more clearly from the member over there—Greg Fleming—who very proudly said that those commitments would be made. So I apologise if I am confused.

The need for this to be taken seriously is really important. It’s not enough for us to sit here and discuss it and say that there will be reviews or there will be future actions. Action needs to happen quickly—I would like to hear time frames from the Government as to when they are going to make these commitments. I know that when my mother was very ill, in her final stages of her terminal cancer journey, she relied very heavily on the mobility packing ticket that she had that enabled her to be able to get out of the house. She was very lucky in Taranaki that people there did seem to respect it.

Certainly I know people in my own electorate of Taieri, where we have high levels of disability, do have a culture of understanding. Now, I’ll probably get emails correcting me about that tomorrow, but, by and large, I do see disability parking spaces respected and honoured, because we have a culture in my electorate where there’s high levels of visibility of disabled people. Many of us have disabled people in our neighbourhoods, so we understand the importance of enabling our communities to be able to get out and have the best quality of life. But I know in the big cities that is not necessarily the case, and we have heard that today from various members around this House.

But I just want to say, again, it’s great that these recommendations appear to have been adopted. What I’ve heard from members opposite is not the wording of the petition. That is what makes me cynical, because I have heard them say that they will go to review, they will go to the transport Minister, they will go to other places. I have heard the Minister herself say in her own words that she thought the current settings for planning were adequate and, therefore, there was no need to do anything about that.

So I would really like the last speaker in the debate, from that side, to be able to clarify all this for us so that we can hear unequivocally these commitments, and to put some time frames around them, please, because the disabled community has been, sadly, let down this week. They will be feeling as cynical as I am about this. They need reassurance. So, in honouring Claire Dale, please provide some time-down commitments where they can start to trust again that this House is serving them.

I’m lucky last. Firstly, thank you to Claire Dale for her initiative and taking the time to bring this petition to the House and to the Petitions Committee—thank you for taking it through up to this point.

I echo the words of the chair of the Petitions Committee, honourable Greg O’Connor, when he said at the start of this debate that we would all be using mobility spaces at some point, some probably earlier than others in this House, clearly. So I’m pleased that this is happening now.

In this joy of being able to discuss this petition, I am saddened, actually, that we are here having to discuss how best to get people who do not deserve, or are not eligible, to park in mobility spaces from parking in mobility spaces. We are having to enforce this requirement—it’s a sad day. But the facts are there: the spaces are few, they are very attractive, and we want to park where we want to park and we want to be up close. But the fact is that the cost of infringement is also very low, making it all the more tempting. But the object of this petition is clearly to ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to park where they are supposed to park. Unfortunately, we have to regulate this. I commend this petition to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Report noted.

Members, that concludes business as set down by the Business Committee. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 March 2024.

The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.