Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $501,908,000

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $10,022,000

Membership:

Mr Wingard substituted for Mr Tarzia.

Minister:

Hon. A. Piccolo, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr G. Stevens, Deputy Commissioner, South Australia Police.

Ms J. Holmes, Executive Director, Road Safety, Registration and Licensing, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr A. Milazzo, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr M. Palm, Director, Investment Strategy, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr P. Gelston, Director, Road and Traffic Management, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Ms P. Norman, Manager, Safer People, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr I. Hartmann, Manager, Financial Management Services, South Australia Police.

The CHAIR: I announce that we are in the portfolio of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. I invite the minister to introduce his new line-up and then make his opening statement.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would like to introduce on my immediate right Julie Holmes, executive director, Road Safety, Registration and Licensing, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. On my immediate left is Andy Milazzo, deputy chief executive of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. On my far left is Mr Grant Stevens, deputy commissioner—acting commissioner at the moment because the commissioner is a bit sick, and he is in safe hands.

The CHAIR: Do you have an update of his condition?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I have not been briefed this afternoon. I was briefed this morning that he was getting better and expected back on deck soon.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: As soon as estimates are over.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It would be quite inappropriate to infer that, but I will make a note that the opposition implied that he was avoiding estimates.

The CHAIR: We will move on to your opening statement.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I advise that the state government is committed to road safety and reducing the tragedies associated with trauma. While it costs the community over $1 billion a year in road safety; however, the grief, suffering and loss of a loved one is beyond any measure. Last year, we recorded a lower number of fatalities than the previous five-year average, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Our commitment to road safety is documented in the Road Safety Action Plan 2013-2016, which was released in August 2013 and takes further steps towards reducing road trauma.

Governments, vehicle manufacturers, road users and the community in general all have a significant role to play if we are to achieve our target of less than 80 fatalities and 800 serious injuries by the year 2020. Towards Zero Together is the title of South Australia's road safety strategy 2020 and is about the collective vision for road safety in South Australia. No death or serious injury on our roads is acceptable.

Strategies, plans and targets are all very well and good, but what matters most is results. In 2013, we achieved our second lowest recorded road toll of 97, and serious injuries have continued their recent decline, to 790 in 2013. Obviously, we would like to achieve our targets earlier than 2020.

With the input of key stakeholders such as the RAA, local government and the Adelaide University's Centre for Automotive Safety Research, working together with SAPOL, MAC and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, good progress has been made and I am hoping to be able to further lead this change as the chair of the Road Safety Stakeholder Group.

As we move towards reducing the road toll we need to work more closely with the South Australian community to understand their preparedness to accept change and challenge social norms, in particular about the impacts of speed. Research clearly demonstrates that lower travel speeds reduces road trauma, yet speed continues to be a contributing factor in approximately a third of all fatal and serious injury crashes. Irrespective of the cause of the crash, the speed impact largely determines the severity of the injury.

Reduction in average travel speeds across the network is the most effective and swift way to reduce road trauma. It will produce significant and immediate road safety benefits and is very much a part of moving to a safe systems approach to road safety but, despite this, approximately 23 per cent of vehicles continue to exceed the posted speed limit. Realising the benefits of sustained improvement in speed management can only occur if the community and other stakeholders have a willingness to embrace a cultural change.

Last year the former minister for road safety asked the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure to undertake a review of all state and council high-speed rural roads signposted at 110 km/h. The review involved considering the merits of applying the default speed limit of 100 km/h on these roads and looked to assess each road against the Australian Standards and Austroads Guidelines and took into consideration such factors as road function, land use, crash history and the roadside environment.

While the technical aspects of the review are complete, work is continuing and I have embarked on the second phase. I intend to work with the community to understand the public perception of speed, how to address the commonly held view that speeding is acceptable, and to build understanding of the road safety benefits that can be derived by reducing travel speeds. Earlier this month I started that work when I addressed, as chair, the Road Safety Stakeholder Reference Group, and invited the 42 member organisations to be part of the conversation.

Further, I intend to meet with the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Geoff Brock, and elected members of the rural councils involved to hear their views firsthand and, importantly, to ensure that the research is well understood. This work is running parallel with the current review on the speed limits in the Adelaide Hills, and I look forward to the outcome of the consultation process that seeks to discover residents' concerns and views on appropriate speed limits in the Adelaide Hills. I understand that over 300 people have indicated their interest in attending a workshop.

It is clear that the government cannot walk away from making tough decisions. We know that enforcement can play a part in making a real change to driver and rider behaviour and reducing road safety risk. The rollout of point-to-point cameras will continue with the planned installation of safety cameras.

In September this year new laws will come into place to protect emergency service workers—and in part I have to thank the member for Stuart who, from memory, drove that process and at a reasonable speed—with the speed limit being reduced to 25 km/h when passing an emergency services vehicle that has stopped and is displaying a flashing blue or red light.

I have spoken many times over the past month about the much anticipated changes to the Graduated Licensing Scheme. The new laws come into effect on 28 July and will protect novice drivers in their first and most vulnerable year of unsupervised driving. P-plate drivers are eleven times more likely to be involved in a crash.

The state government continues to be committed to investing in road safety infrastructure and the remaining $47.7 million provided by the Motor Accident Commission will address known crash locations. This funding will help to improve safety for drivers, motorcyclists, bike riders and pedestrians in targeted areas, including the Victor Harbor Road, Augusta Highway, Stuart Highway and the Adelaide Hills. The state government will partner with local communities to make South Australian streets and roads safer as part of the $2 million commitment over four years in the 2014-15 state budget.

The new 'Resident's Win' program will be established to support local road safety projects in partnership with schools, councils and community organisations. This is providing communities with direct access to funding, allowing them to make decisions on what infrastructure is needed to improve road safety in their area.

The state budget also maintains more than $36.6 million over four years for the State Black Spot program. In addition, $8.6 million per annum indexed is allocated for the continuation of the rural road safety program. The program funds road safety improvements such as enhanced signage, minor junction upgrades and the removal, modification and shielding of roadside hazards.

The South Australian community is to be applauded for the results we have achieved but we are all in it together and each and every one of us has a role to play in improving road safety.

Working alongside the department and with the community is the Motor Accident Commission, which has played a pivotal role in raising awareness of key road safety issues. We continue to work to set high expectations on the behaviour of each and every road user, and we thank SAPOL for its vigilance in its work.

We also need to recognise that the vast bulk of fatalities and serious injuries happen to everyday people doing everyday things. We must therefore continue to also focus on putting systems in place to protect people if they make a mistake and, with the first day back at school today, I am hoping that both parents and drivers are being extra cautious as our young ones go back to school.

The CHAIR: Member for Mitchell.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you, Chair, and I must concur with what the minister said there as far as SAPOL, and the road safety staff I have dealt with DPTI have been outstanding, and they do a marvellous job in our community, and road safety is very important in that regard, I very much agree.

I would like to start by going to Budget Paper 6, page 82, and you mentioned the Motor Accident Commission and the road safety initiatives that are outlined on page 82. Given that $100 million was taken out of the Motor Accident Commission in the last budget and that it has been shared across the two budgets: $52.3 million was spent in the last financial year, I think it was, and $47.7 million has been allocated to projects that will go for potentially, according to that, the next two years.

With the proposed liquidation, or the sale of MAC, whichever way you want to view it, I am wondering where the money will come from in the forward estimates for road safety initiatives, and how the government will fund road safety initiatives to the high current standard, beyond 2015-16, the ones that were previously funded by MAC.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: From my recollection, the Treasurer has answered that question publicly, and I have nothing to add to the Treasurer's comments.

Mr WINGARD: He answered them in the media last week, is that what you are saying?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Mr WINGARD: So, it will be another levy on top of the new CTP payments?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No. The Motor Accident Commission reports to the Treasurer. The Treasurer has made comment on that very issue; as you aware, it is in the public domain. I have nothing to add.

Mr WINGARD: Are you confident that there will be the funds there to maintain the Motor Accident Commission's obligations and commitment to road safety and the funding for all of the road safety projects as we go forward?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The Treasurer has made public comment and given that assurance.

Mr WINGARD: Fantastic. With that, we have a number of community projects that the MAC and road safety are hinged to, and I can list them if you like. There is the schoolies project, which does glean a lot of funding from MAC; I think that it is $400,000 per year. That money that has come from MAC, will it continue to come and, once MAC has been sold, how will that funding be attributed for the road safety programs that are run across schoolies weekend?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am not sure how many different ways I can answer the same question, or how many different ways you can ask the same question. I am happy to spend the whole hour answering the same question. MAC is responsible to the Treasurer. The Treasurer has indicated publicly his view of the future of funding for road safety projects. I have no reason not to believe the Treasurer.

Mr WINGARD: As the responsible minister for road safety, where do you expect the funds to come from?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In accordance with what the Treasurer said publicly.

Mr WINGARD: So, we will go with the CTP increases. Do you have concerns about any of the programs that the MAC runs, that the funding will be there, or can you guarantee that all those fundings will continue to all those projects?

The CHAIR: This is pretty much what you did at the earlier session. He has answered the question for you, and it is really time to move on to another question. You have only a very short time in this area.

Mr WINGARD: I understand that. With the greatest respect, I am just trying to find out whether this minister will answer it.

The CHAIR: He has answered your question several times, to my knowledge, but if the minister is happy to keep reiterating the answer, I will leave it to him.

Mr WINGARD: Can I go with one last and final question then, and that is, as the minister responsible for road safety, are you confident that all of these projects that are currently underway, and the $12 million that MAC spent on road safety, will continue?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As Minister for Road Safety, my responsibility is to ensure that funds which are made available to me are spent in the most effective way to improve the road safety on our roads, full stop. It does not matter if the funding went up by $200 million, that is my responsibility.

Mr WINGARD: Or down.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I did not say that; you are saying that. That might be a future Liberal government's projection. As far as I am concerned, the Treasurer has indicated the relationship between the MAC and road safety funding and also the issue regarding the MAC; he has made that public and I have nothing to add. I will make sure that whatever moneys I am given will be spent in a way that saves lives. We have a plan to save lives—I am not sure your side has.

Mr WINGARD: I think that is very unfair and unjust and now you are just casting aspersions. I just want to confirm this. You said there is the possibility of it going up by a couple of million?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I said whatever the amount is (and I would love to get a few extra millions here and there; which minister would not?), whatever money is given to me, my responsibility is to spend it in a way to maximise road safety. That is my responsibility. What money I get is a government decision, year by year.

Mr WINGARD: I move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 75: road safety, school pedestrian crossing safety program. I need your help on this one. Having gone back through the budget papers I see that $191,000 will be spent on the program for this budget period, whereas $315,000 was spent in 2013-14, $460,000 was spent in 2012-13, and $280,000 was spent in 2011-12. On my maths, that is a total spend of $1.246 million. In the last budget the Premier—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What was your actual question?

The CHAIR: He is bamboozled by the figures.

Mr WINGARD: I can get you to go through the background or I can explain it for you, because there is fair bit of background that goes on and we will keep asking questions all the way through. The point is that this was the program that at the last budget the Treasurer/Premier (being one and the same person) said that was going to be reconfigured and the money again was going to come out of the MAC to run this program. I notice that there is still $191,000 allocated to this program this year, so I am just wanting to know whether this program is coming to an end or if the government is still honouring its original commitment to the road safety school pedestrian program.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I want to make sure we are on the same page: page 75, school pedestrian crossing safety program—the four figures are $191,000, $315,000, $315,000 and $460,000?

Mr WINGARD: Yes.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised there was a four-year program. Because the projected total amount of money was not spent in the first year it has carried forward into a fifth year, and that is why we have got the $191,000, but it is part of the original four-year program.

Mr WINGARD: So there is $191,000 left in the budget to keep spending?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Mr WINGARD: That is fantastic. Going to the Towards Zero Together website and looking at the safety camera locations, under school pedestrian crossing safety cameras there are 11 operational. So, the $1.25 million has got the 11 up and running, from what I can ascertain, and there are still nine proposed. Looking at the funding for the proposed nine, how will they be funded? Will that just be the $191,000?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Unfortunately, the safety camera figure is actually of a number of programs, so this figure is actually part of the overall program and has different streams of money coming into it. The other moneys are coming from, for example, mid-block safety cameras, which is another part of that—there is just under $1 million there. We can get the figure which actually reconciles that amount. I have just been advised that what is on the website is funded.

Mr WINGARD: It is funded?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Over a range of programs.

Mr WINGARD: So the proposed ones have been paid for as well?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, they have not been paid for. They are funded. They are only paid for when they are installed.

Mr WINGARD: Yes, from the money that is in the budget?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The money is available for it to be spent on them.

Mr WINGARD: Right, and you will let me know where that is coming from. That is fantastic.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, we will reconcile that figure for you.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you, that is greatly appreciated. I just know with the changeover there it seems to have gone into a different pot, so I appreciate that. Will the government be doing more of these programs? The number that is there—as in the completed and proposed—will there be more of these programs going forward?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Beyond the existing program, there are not any bids before the government to fund at the moment, so that would have to be a new program.

Mr WINGARD: So it would have to be a new program if there were to be any more? So that is it: the school pedestrian crossing safety program will finish with these ones, so if you have not got in—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There is the existing program, and there is no bid at the moment to expand that.

Mr WINGARD: So no chance for anyone else, okay. With that, how did schools apply, or what were the criteria for selecting the locations that got the school pedestrian crossing safety program funding?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The primary criterion, but not the sole criterion, is the number of crashes and severity of injuries at every site. Other factors which are also taken into account are the amount of heavy vehicles used on that particular road and also the nature of the environment and location of other measures in place.

So, there is a whole range of factors but, as indicated, one of the key things is the number of crashes and severity of injury at the site. We also take feedback from school communities, including local MPs who lobby. A number of MPs from your side have lobbied me for cameras, and we take those into account because of their local information, and we also undertake our own road safety audits.

Mr WINGARD: On that point, then, because I have to lobby you a little bit later, there is no room for anyone to gain a position now? All positions are filled, it is all said and done and there is no more funding budgeted—is that correct?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: With our existing program which is in the budget, yes but, having said that, road safety is one of those things where you take it on a case-by-case.

Mr WINGARD: Can I move on to Budget Paper 4, volume 3 again, page 80, and looking at local government road safety initiatives. Again, this centres around funding and the Motor Accident Commission funding local government road safety initiatives. Will they be able to be funded into the future and how will they be funded in the future? Given that you are just working off a pool of funds now, how will local government road safety initiatives be funded beyond the next two years?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That $4 million was a once-off payment which came as part of the $100 million which the Motor Accident Commission gave to the government; we did not actually take it from them, as you indicated in your opening comments. Having said that, that was a once-off thing. Local government is also able to apply for federal and state blackspot programs; we have committed $36.6 million over the next four years, and the federal government also has its own program, so the councils are able to apply for those.

Mr WINGARD: So this is seen as a one-off bonus, if you like?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That amount came out of that $100 million; it was a one-off thing. Like I said, that is a one-off thing. That is the only information I have.

Mr WINGARD: Has that money already been allocated to all projects, or are people and local governments still able to apply?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The answer is, no, they cannot apply for it because the criteria for that amount of money will be advertised in September sometime, and local governments can apply for it.

Mr WINGARD: So they are not all full?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, they are not. None of it has been committed yet; the whole amount will be available for local government to apply for.

Mr WINGARD: Still on Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 75, Investments, under the Shoulder Sealing program only $1.64 million was allocated to the program in the 2014 budget, whereas $15.967 million was spent in 2013-14 and $7.2 million in 2012-13. Was it just a one-off reduction to drop it down that low? Again, it was nearly $16 million the year before and it is now $1.6 million; that is a significant reduction.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What I can say is that 2013-14 received a one-off injection of funding. If you look at the budget papers last year, 2012-13 had $7.2 million. The original 2013-14 budget had $5.4 million. We anticipate spending around $15.9 million because in addition to the regional budget an additional amount of money was brought forward for accelerated civil works of $4.3 million, approved by cabinet in late 2013. In 2013, there was an additional $6.15 million provided by the Motor Accident Commission’s Road Safety Fund, which enabled a whole range of works to be done.

The original program included: the Barrier Highway, near Hallett; Wallaroo to Port Wakefield road; and Barrier Highway, near Yunta. Budgeted new works as a result of the additional money included Eden Valley Road, Tea Tree Gully to Mannum road, Spalding to Burra road, Mount Compass to Goolwa, and the Wallaroo to Alford road. In addition, the additional $4.3 million brought forward enabled some work to be done on the Spalding to Burra road and the Barrier Highway, and the Motor Accident Commission injection of $6.15 million enabled works on Port Pirie to Port Broughton, the Stuart Highway between Marla and the Northern Territory, and also audio tactile line marking on a 765-kilometre section of the Stuart Highway. So, it was money well spent in regional South Australia.

Mr WINGARD: So, you would be suggesting that the $7.2 million from 2012-13 is more an average spend, and that $15.9 million was a one-off injection?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We have brought some money forward, so that explains the 2014-15 figure going down because, if you add $4.3 million to 2014-15, where we accelerated (which means we brought forward), you get $5.96 million, which is roughly the figure, on average.

The CHAIR: Do you have a final question, member for Mitchell?

Mr WINGARD: Yes, I will move on to my next question, if I may. Again, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 75, Investments. We are looking at rural point-to-point safety cameras. Expenditure on safety cameras did not meet the anticipated budget last year, so we have gone over on some and come under on others. I see that additional money has been factored into this year's budget for the point-to-point safety cameras. Can you tell us why the installation of these cameras was delayed and has been rolled forward to this year's budget?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: My view would be that we only install these when we get it all right. There is a whole range of factors. I am quite happy to make sure these are put in at the right place at the right time. I would hate to be accused of putting them out there just for revenue raising, so I am making sure they work correctly.

Mr WINGARD: Have you budgeted for a revenue return from the point-to-point cameras?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You do put a figure in, but what we do anticipate—

Mr WINGARD: So you do budget a figure?

The CHAIR: The member for Mitchell!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We make an estimate based on what our intelligence tells us for that road. The revenue is not part of this portfolio, but I will answer the question. What we anticipate is a reduction of 60 per cent after the first year because it will change people's behaviour.

Mr WINGARD: A reduction in—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Revenue of 60 per cent, yes, so it is certainly not a—

Mr WINGARD: My next question is—

The CHAIR: No, there will be no further questions, because we need to wrap up this line, have our break and move on; that is why you only had such a short time. We were very worried about your earlier line of questioning. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments adjourned until tomorrow. In accordance with the agreed timetable, I advise that the committee stands suspended until 4pm.

Sitting suspended from 15:46 to 16:01.