MOTOR VEHICLES (MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 October 2009. Page 4167.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:45): I am pleased to make a contribution in relation to the Motor Vehicles (Miscellaneous No. 2) Bill and advise the house that I am the lead speaker in relation to this piece of legislation.

I will give some background to the bill. It looks to amend the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and make changes to the South Australian Graduated Licensing Scheme for what are regarded as novice drivers. The amendments will increase the required hours of supervised driving for learner drivers from 50 to 75 hours; and increase the minimum time on a learner's permit from six to 12 months for drivers aged under 25 years. Those two provisions are really an extension to the current scheme.

However, there are new initiatives that the bill looks to introduce, and they are: a restriction on driving high-powered cars for provisional drivers (both P1 and P2), again, under the age of 25 years; change the penalty for the failure to display two P-plates from disqualification to a fine and loss of demerit points; replace the current hardship appeal provision with the offer of a Safer Driving Agreement; and strengthen the current curfew conditions applying to drivers returning from a serious disqualification offence by restricting the carriage of passengers during the curfew period of midnight to 5am. In addition to those points, there are seven technical amendments with the aim of improving the operation of the current act.

The proposed changes to the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 are based on similar conditions already in place in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, and they have been in place since 11 July 2005 in New South Wales and 1 July 2007 in both Queensland and Victoria. Both Victoria and New South Wales require their learner drivers to complete 120 hours of supervised driving, although in Victoria a driver only has to complete this if they are aged under 21 years. Queensland learner drivers are required to complete 100 hours of supervised driving if they are under 25 years. This bill seeks to amend our act to require learner drivers to complete 75 hours of supervised driving. Obviously, that is less than in the other three states.

The bill also proposes a change to the minimum length of time a person must hold a learner's permit and, again, it will bring South Australia in line with Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. New South Wales and Queensland both require their learner drivers aged under 25 to spend a minimum of 12 months on their learner's permit. Victoria requires learner drivers aged under 21 to spend 12 months on their learner's permit, and it is six months for learner drivers aged between 21 and 25 and three months for those over 25.

When speaking about the new initiative that the government is looking to introduce in relation to restricting the use of what is regarded as high-powered vehicles for both P1 and P2 drivers under the age of 25, it is also important to make a comparison with other states that have similar legislation covering these issues. Restrictions on P-plate drivers driving what is known as high-powered cars are in place in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, and I understand that this government bill aligns our proposed system with those operating in other states, it being reasonably similar to that of Queensland.

For P-plate drivers aged under 25 in those states, the ban applies to vehicles with eight or more cylinders, super-charged or turbo-charged vehicles (except diesels), vehicles with an engine output of more than 200 kilowatts and vehicles with a rotary engine above 1,146 cubic centimetres. These states also ban vehicles with any modifications that increase engine performance. New South Wales and Victoria also imposed a ban on certain high-performance six-cylinder vehicles. In the state of Victoria, vehicle restrictions also include a restriction on the power to weight ratio and the engine capacity weight ratio of a vehicle. The vehicle is restricted if it has a power to weight ratio that exceeds 125 kilowatts per tonne or an engine capacity weight ratio that exceeds 3.5 litres per tonne.

This bill aims to ban P-plate drivers under the age of 25 from driving high-powered vehicles, although it is my understanding that those vehicles will not necessarily be outlined in the legislation. That is an issue that we can explore during the course of the debate. The minister in his contribution during the second reading stage may like to outline more specific detail in relation to that matter.

It is my understanding that the bill requires the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to determine the definition of a high-powered vehicle for the purposes of the act. The minister has said in the media that the list of restricted vehicles is still being worked on. That was a week or so ago, so the minister and the registrar may have done some more work since that date. However, it is generally based on those vehicles that it applies to in Queensland.

As I have pointed out, other aspects of the bill refer to issues in relation to penalties for the failure to display two P-plates on the vehicle that the P-plater is driving. Currently, the failure to display P-plates is a breach of licence conditions and results in licence disqualification. Obviously, that means that if a P-plater does not have both their P-plates on their vehicle it is instant licence disqualification. The bill looks to change this penalty from disqualification to a fine and a loss of demerit points. We think this is reasonable. I mean, a family may only have one vehicle and that vehicle will be used by all members of the family who are licensed in one form or another to drive that vehicle. It can be an innocent oversight that a provisional licence holder gets into that vehicle and, for one reason or another, forgets to put a P-plate on the front and the rear of the vehicle.

The current penalty of disqualification is seen in the community as being too severe. This bill will impose a penalty of $1,250, an expiation fee of $250 and two demerit points for this offence; that is, if no P-plates are displayed. If the vehicle has only one P-plate missing, the expiation fee will be $125 and no demerit points will be incurred. On this side of the house, we think that is a reasonable provision. As I said at the outset, this bill looks to achieve quite specific but quite different amendments to the current act.

The next provision relates to the replacement of the current hardship appeal provision for P-plate drivers who are disqualified because they contravene a condition of their licence or incur four or more demerit points. We are looking to replace that with the offer of what is regarded as a safer driver agreement. That agreement will not be available for drivers who receive a disqualification for a serious offence. The current appeal process through the courts will remain for what is regarded as a serious offence. The bill outlines what a serious disqualification offence means on page 13, paragraphs (a) to (e).

By choosing a safer driver agreement, a disqualified driver would avoid the six month disqualification but would regress to a previous licence stage, and obviously agree not to breach a condition of their licence or incur four or more demerit points for the term of the safer driver agreement. It is relatively clear that, when they enter into this agreement, they have to drop back to the previous licence that was held. I presume, if they are a P1 licence holder, they drop back to their learners, or if they are a P2, they drop back to P1.

You might wonder what the value is in dropping from a P1 to a learner's permit. Under the agreement, they are able to work through their learner's period and then go on to P1 much quicker than if they had to serve out their six month period of disqualification. That is my understanding of it, but if it needs to be corrected, I will be keen to hear from the minister.

The safer driving agreement is not all a bed of roses, because any breach of that agreement would result in a 12 month disqualification with no right of appeal. So, if you enter into this safer driver agreement, you regress back to your previous licence—if you are a P2 you go back to a P1—but any breach of that, it is finito, it is 12 months' disqualification, no right of appeal. There are some reasonably definite ramifications for breaching that agreement. The offer of this agreement will only be available once in a five year period, and I think that is a reasonable proposal.

Another important part of the legislation relates to the curfew arrangements that are in place. Currently, a novice driver who returns from a disqualification for a serious offence is automatically subject to a curfew for 12 months between the hours of midnight and 5am unless accompanied by a qualified supervising driver. There is a definition or description of a qualified supervising driver, and I understand that it is a person who holds a full driver's licence, who has held that for two years and who has not been disqualified for two years.

The current act states that a novice driver returning from disqualification for a serious offence is subject to this curfew unless they have a qualified supervising driver. The bill seeks to strengthen this condition by providing that, during this curfew period, the novice driver must not carry any passengers apart from the qualified supervising driver.

I understand that currently under the act, during this curfew from midnight to 5am, as long as you have a qualified supervising driver in the vehicle with you, you can have as many passengers as the vehicle is allowed to carry whether they are qualified and supervising or not. However, the bill provides that you are not allowed to carry any other passengers apart from the qualified supervising driver. So, as I stated, it seeks to strengthen this measure.

I will speak about the seven technical amendments. The first of these amendments will provide that, upon gaining a provisional licence, the driver's learner's permit will be cancelled regardless of the expiry date. This was previously only implied, not stipulated in the legislation.

The second point is that the legislative requirement for police to conduct an annual check of driver's licences has been removed. This recognises that the checking of driver's licences is a continuous police activity made possible by advances in technology, for example, mobile real-time computer terminals in every marked SAPOL vehicle.

If any member has actually seen inside a patrol car, they have a flat screen set-up in there and they are able to access a whole range of information. They can check car registrations to see if they are current and obviously check current driver's licences and a whole range of information that is important to police in carrying out their duties.

Our corresponding amendment to the Road Traffic Act provides for the checking of driver's licences to be combined with any random testing activity undertaken by SAPOL. Again, you could say that it is streamlining the legislation and streamlining the activities that the police undertake.

The third point relates to accumulated demerit points which will be reinstated in the event of a successful appeal against disqualification. Currently, every full licence holder has a limit of 12 demerit points within a three year period before they are subject to licence disqualification. Upon disqualification, all accumulated demerit points are erased. If an appeal is initiated against the disqualification and is successful, this amendment will ensure that only the demerit points relating to the offence in question are erased.

It is my understanding—and the briefing from the departmental officers provided me with this information—that, if your licence is disqualified for an offence where you accumulated three points and that leads to you exceeding the 12 point limit, then upon disqualification, those 12 are erased, so you are back to zero. However, the bill proposes that, if the appeal is upheld, then you only receive a deduction of those three points that you arguably accrued for the offence against which you are appealing. The departmental officers are nodding, so I obviously have interpreted that correctly.

The fourth point is that the legislation currently specifies that it is an offence to unlawfully alter or damage a licence or a learner's permit but it is often difficult to prove who actually caused the damage to the licence and/or permit. To assist the police enforcement of this, an additional offence has been created for being in possession of a licence or a permit that has been altered or damaged.

Again, to expand on this, I understand that the police would ask for somebody's licence or learner's permit and see that it had obviously been altered in some way. However, it was difficult to actually charge the licence holder with an offence in relation to the alteration of that licence or learner's permit. The responsibility is placed on the licence holder if it has been damaged or altered in an intentional manner, not just through general wear and tear. You can get your licence for 10 years, so you can have the same piece of plastic in your wallet or handbag or whatever method you use to carry or store it. So, it is my understanding that it would not necessarily be an offence if there is some damage through wear and tear. However, I would be keen for the minister to clarify that.

An amendment is made to increase the period within which a prosecution can be commenced for the offence of providing false and misleading information from two years to five years, with the authorisation of the Attorney-General. Fraudulent licences can be used for a wide range of purposes, including by persons who wish to continue to drive when their legitimate licence has been cancelled or suspended. As driver's licences can be issued for up to 10 years, it is considered necessary to extend the prosecution period for this offence. Again, we think that is reasonable.

It is currently an offence to drive a vehicle with an expired registration label. If a person has paid for the vehicle registration but does not receive the new label before the old period of registration expires and continues to display the expired registration label, they can be fined. The bill seeks to provide a defence to this offence, which will specify that the owner has 30 days to affix the new label.

My understanding of the current legislation is that, if the registration is expired and you have removed the old expired label, you do have a period of time in which you are able to affix the new label; however, under the current act it is an offence if you continue to display the old label. So, I think that is a bit of an anomaly, that if you have the old label on, you can get fined, but if you do not have the old label on, so long as you can prove that the vehicle is registered, you do not get a fine. This is a common sense amendment that enables a period of 30 days for the owner to affix the new label.

Lastly, the seventh amendment provides that provisional and probationary driver's licence holders and learner's permit holders who allow their licence or permit to expire and are then disqualified face the same consequences as a driver who remains properly licensed and then is disqualified. Again, that is fairly self-explanatory.

That is the outline of the proposals in the bill. I will spend a small amount of time on the consultation that the state Liberals made concerning this bill. I take this opportunity to thank the minister's staff, the departmental officers who provided me with a briefing. I certainly appreciated that, because there were some questions that I had relating to the bill that they were able to clarify at that time.

We went to a number of key stakeholder groups, obviously directly involved with road safety issues, measures, policy and the like. In my relatively short period of time as the shadow minister for road safety, I have met with some of the people at the Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR), and we had a connection with the Motor Trade Association, the RAA, and other key industry groups. The majority supported the extension of the provisions concerning learner's permits from 50 to 75 hours, including extending night driving from 10 to 15 hours, and also the extension of the permit from six months to 12 months.

However, there were some mixed views in the information that we received concerning the implementation of the high powered vehicle restriction on P1 and P2 drivers. Some research has been undertaken, but it is not necessarily conclusive, that points to the fact that restricting the power of a vehicle to this certain section of licensed drivers does not have any real effect. That is part of the research.

In my next breath, however, I will say that, since New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have had these measures in place, there has not been any research undertaken as to the effectiveness of those measures in those states. So, it is difficult to draw the conclusion that they are not working when the research has not been undertaken. It would be one thing if the research had been undertaken and delivered an outcome, but it is my understanding that there has not been any research. The minister can provide that information.

My argument, and the argument I put to my party room relating to this—and I can tell you that we had some reasonable discussion about this—is that we are only talking about two years of these people's lives while they hold a licence to drive a motor vehicle. It is only two years out of a person's driving life—potentially 50 or 60 years or however long these people may live and hold a driver's licence. On balance, on this side of the house, we do not believe that two years is a severe imposition for drivers under 25. If people get their P-plates over the age of 25, they can drive whatever they want; they can drive the most high-powered vehicle that is produced on the planet. However, it is an imposition, for sure.

I understand that there are some exemptions that can be applied for and granted if that is the only type of vehicle that family owns or the only vehicle that person's employer owns in that qualified period of P1 and P2 under 25. It is my understanding that there are some exemptions available that can be applied for and granted by the registrar. It is not necessarily a total imposition.

The issue I raise is that, if a family has two vehicles, one of which is classed as a high-powered vehicle and the other not, and that vehicle not classed as a high-powered vehicle is for some reason involved in an accident or needs mechanical repairs and is off the road for a period of time, is the P-plate holder able then to make application to the registrar to drive that vehicle? I think if they are not, that is not fair. That is a serious implication. We need some clarification on that.

The other aspect that I also raised is that we are not comfortable with the registrar having the total say of making the decision on what constitutes a high-powered vehicle. We think the parliament should be able to respond in a formal manner. I know it is not intended to be in legislation but we would like that to be at least outlined in regulation. I do not think that is a tremendously onerous request. After all, this is something new to the state. This is a new provision within the act; we have never had this before. I think we have to proceed with some caution and some—

Ms Portolesi: Caution?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, with some caution. I have been speaking for a while.

The Hon. M.F. O'Brien: The walking thesaurus.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, that is what I mean.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: With some caution and reservation.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That is right. The member for Mount Gambier has actually been of assistance. It is a rare occasion! Some caution and reservation—they mean the same thing. As I said earlier, on balance, it is for two years of these people's lives. The Centre for Automotive Safety and Research (CASR) in its research reveals that when young drivers, aged 16½ or 17, come from their learner's licence on to their P-plates, the incidence of crashes is high compared to the other age groups. After the first three months, then six months, then 12 months, it declines significantly and then it basically flattens out over a four or five-year period after drivers come off of their learner's licence.

I attended a seminar conducted by CASR at the university where one of the academics, a gentleman by the name of Mr Craig Kloeden, presented that information. It was informative. As a consequence, the state Liberal Party obtained that research, and that is what I used partly as the basis for the argument for the adoption.

The other aspect I want to talk about is that with restricting these young drivers to two years of their driving life and not allowing them to drive what are regarded as high-powered vehicles, if it saves them or other members of the community (passengers in their vehicle, pedestrians or other members of the community) from serious injury or death, then I think it is worth pursuing. I think that is the crux of the argument: to allow the potential for the saving of lives and serious injury. We know that 10 times more serious injuries are caused through motor car accidents than there are fatalities. Research that I have done suggests that there are about 1,000 serious injuries a year (it might be more). Those serious injuries obviously require hospitalisation, rehabilitation, and, in some cases, the person never returns to their former state of health. They are either quadriplegic, paraplegic or have other serious life-long health related issues.

Based on those points, we are prepared to support the bill. However, we do want some more clarification on what a high powered vehicle is, and we want that included in regulations. I am asking the minister to explore those issues here, and, if we are not satisfied with the responses, we will consider some amendments between the houses. I communicated that to the minister before we engaged in this debate; we had a conversation about these issues yesterday and again this morning.

I regard the minister as a good person. He is an honourable man, and I think he will address our concerns appropriately and satisfactorily. I do not make that same observation of other members of his party, but I do regard the minister as a person with integrity and—

Mr Pederick: That's enough!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, what I am saying is that if he makes a commitment he stands by his word. That is my assessment. So, don't let us down, minister! Alright? We've got some faith in you. If you let us down, then it is finito; all bets are off. With those comments, I will draw my contribution to a conclusion and indicate that we support the bill with a proviso that we may well look at some amendments between the houses.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (17:25): This bill strengthens South Australia's graduated vehicle licensing scheme for inexperienced drivers, and it will hopefully help to save some lives.

I have been reassured that vehicle restrictions will not affect young people who are driving trucks in our regional areas. With the first good harvest expected for many years, every driver will be needed, and I would not like to see any problems caused by the new act. Can the minister also confirm that there will be no problems that will inadvertently affect current truck drivers in their employment?

Driver safety education programs in all South Australian secondary schools are also needed to highlight the dangers of speed, the effect of alcohol and other drugs on drivers' capability, and any other relevant topics relating to driver and passenger safety. I have been pleased to note that many of the secondary schools on Eyre Peninsula have already undertaken driver training in an effort to reduce accidents.

This positive and proactive position to reduce fatalities amongst drivers under 25 must be taken seriously, particularly in our regional areas, where accidents are many and transport options are so few. I commend the sponsorship of Iluka Resources, which funded a presentation by the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, the Far West Road Safety Group, the District Council of Ceduna, SA Police and Kalari Pty Ltd to educate children about road trains. Iluka's community relations officer, Karen Cosgrove, said:

...integrating road train safety into general road safety education programs by raising awareness and promoting the safety aspects associated with road trains travelling along the Eyre highway and through Ceduna is important for the safety of school children.

Schoolchildren had an opportunity to see a road train up close and learn first-hand from the driver how to be safe pedestrians around heavy vehicles. They were also able to take a drive in the Kalari driver simulator and discuss safety with different community representatives. Young adults aged 17 to 24 years of age make up only 11 per cent of the total population but account for 28 per cent of all road fatalities and 27 per cent of serious injuries.

Apart from the suffering of victims and their loved ones, the financial cost of fatalities and injuries to the South Australian community is more than $900 million per year. It would seem, therefore, that the cost of driver education in schools would be more than offset by a reduction in accidents that result in death and injury, many of which happen in regional areas where there are no taxis or bus services.

Even quite experienced drivers can be traumatised by unexpected happenings on the road. A person who has never experienced a tyre blowing out when driving can have virtually no appreciation of the sudden and severe pull that is put on the steering wheel, and which, because of its swiftness, cannot be corrected in time to avoid going onto the wrong side of the road or off the road and, possibly, into an obstacle such as a tree.

In an article in the RAA magazine SA Motor, the Minister for Road Safety said that many drivers involved in fatalities have a previous serious driving conviction. He said:

To make significant inroads into SA's casualty and fatality rate we're going to have to address that group, which is why we are now classifying them as 'criminal drivers'.

These are the ones who most need driver education, but it needs to be proactively undertaken before they incur driving convictions and not as a reaction afterwards, when lives may have already been lost.

However, mandatory sentencing can be unjust. It allows no recognition of circumstances or the effect of the sentencing. For example, for a country person to lose their licence, particularly a farmer, or those who do not live in a town, it has a much harsher effect because there is no alternative transport as there is for people who live in the city where public transport is available. Conditional exemptions are required to ensure fairness in some circumstances, and I am pleased to see that they are included in this bill.

An example of where the implications of mandatory sentencing have a severe impact has recently come to my attention. A country driver from a remote area, when visiting other areas of the state, regularly drove an elderly frail friend as a passenger. Unfortunately, the driver was involved in an accident and her dear friend was killed. The driver is a strong community advocate and volunteer. At the court hearing the magistrate referred to the driver's personal character and, given the circumstances, awarded the minimum mandatory sentence and declined to set a fine or court costs.

The driver has to live with the loss of a friend, but the long-term ramifications of dealing with a loss of licence while living in a remote area without transport choices and the knowledge that driving with an at-risk passenger could create further risk has had an enormous, long-term effect. This driver highlighted the implications for carers who regularly drive an elderly, frail, sick or at-risk person. Any minor accident could put these passengers more at risk of death or serious injury than other able-bodied passengers due to their being more physically vulnerable. In turn, this has grave consequences for the driver. Because they could incur a mandatory sentence if an accident occurred, it makes them review their carer-driver role for self-preservation. The negative effect of this will be that frail, aged or at-risk people will not be able to enjoy mobility by having a driver take them places they want or need to go.

The number of unlicensed drivers picked up for traffic violations is considerable, and no amount of so-called punishment will change that—even if the offender is gaoled for a considerable time. Upon release from gaol the offender is likely to begin driving again immediately, with or without licence. Unlicensed drivers do not carry a notice on their forehead or have an unusual shade of hair so they can be identified from a distance.

Unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles need some other method by which they can be recognised. Today's science can provide answers. For instance, it has been suggested interstate that unregistered vehicles have a reflective mark that can be picked up from a distance, thus identifying the vehicle as being unregistered. A person who has committed a number of serious driving offences could be microchipped. Again, the microchip could be picked up at a distance.

Larger penalties, such as heavier fines, gaol sentences, confiscation and possible crushing of vehicles, and cancellation of a driver's licence do not of themselves change the behaviour of the core people who ignore the law. More innovation and lateral thinking is required. A number of propositions—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mrs PENFOLD: I would rather save the lives!

A number of propositions that could positively reduce the number of people in this category have been suggested. Despite opposition, a privately owned and operated track where drivers can let off steam (as discussed with me recently by the mayor of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield) sounds like a great idea. It is an option which would provide drivers with an opportunity to gain practical experience in how to react and deal with unexpected situations. I strongly support this circuit for Port Adelaide, so that risk driving can be undertaken in a controlled environment and professional training is provided, rescue services are quickly available if something goes wrong, and the lives of other road users are not endangered.

People who have driven only on sealed roads have no understanding of the effect of hitting a slippery patch on a dirt road—and dirt roads will be with us for decades. Some experience of them can only help drivers to drive more safely.

Another aspect of driver training is education in the mechanics and care of a vehicle. The Lower Eyre Peninsula Road Safety Committee has undertaken such training at schools, including Port Lincoln High School, Cummins Area School, Tumby Bay Area School and St Josephs School, taking along a lemon to teach students what to look for in order to ensure a vehicle they are buying is roadworthy and safe.

The year 10 and 11 students were asked to say what was wrong with the car and a police officer attended to point out deficiencies. Often young drivers acquiring their first car buy cheap vehicles because that is all they can afford. It is practical common sense for them to be able to look for traps which could mean the vehicle could become unroadworthy—if it is not already so.

Finally, I would like to see the promotion across the state of the successful Bag a Swag project, which is aimed at young people and which is supported by police on Eyre Peninsula. The slogan for the project is 'Crash at a party, not on the road,' with the aim being that young people take a sleeping bag with them rather than drive home immediately with a blood alcohol reading possibly over the limit. These bags could be hired out by entertainment venues for last minute cheap accommodation when driving home is not an option and alternative transport is not available.

While stronger laws and penalties are a component of our justice system—and hopefully a deterrent—they are only one aspect of ensuring people are safer on our roads. I ask the minister to investigate what else can be done to lower the number of deaths and injuries on our roads.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:35): I support the bill. I note that amendments in this bill will increase the required driving hours of supervised driving for learner drivers from 50 to 75 hours; that the minimum time on a learner's permit will go from six months to 12 months for drivers under 25 years; that there will be a restriction on driving high-powered cars for provisional drivers, both P1 and P2 under 25 years; and that there will be a change to the penalty ranging from disqualification to a fine and loss of demerit points for failure to comply with displaying two P-plates.

Amendments within the bill also replace the current hardship appeal provision with the offer of a safer driver agreement. The bill strengthens the current curfew conditions applying to drivers returning from a serious disqualification by restricting the carriage of passengers during the curfew period of midnight to 5am. There are some technical amendments which aim to improve the operation of the act.

It is interesting how far we have come in relation to people obtaining a licence in this state. My father still drives at 89, even though he lives in low category residential aged care in Murray Bridge. When he got his licence all he had to do was write in to whatever department it was at that time and they posted out a licence. The old joke, 'Where did you get your licence? Did you get it out of a cornflakes packet?' could not be closer to the truth, I guess. We have come a long way, and there are lots of reasons for that. My father would have attained his licence in the mid-1930s when there were not too many vehicles around. I know he, as a young lad, was involved with a horse and dray at an early stage, but they graduated to a Model T Ford car on the farm at Angle Vale, which they turned into a ute. I wish they still had it. I see the member for Schubert with a look of excitement on his face at my mentioning that.

Mr Venning: I have a Model T.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. Model Ts were cut back to have a little tray on the back. I think the family had a little trailer and used to take a few prime lambs (they would have been fat lambs back then) into Gepps Cross. Obviously, things have changed dramatically since then. I look back to when I acquired my learner's permit in the 1970s. All you had to do was—

Mr Venning: A GTHO.

Mr PEDERICK: No, not a GTHO but, talking about driving high-performance vehicles, my family had a 308 cubic inch HQ wagon, and that was a very good motor. I should never have let that car go out of the family's hands but, be that as it may. That thing did go, and that is what I did some of my driver training in on my learner's permit.

Mrs Geraghty: I am just asking the relevance of it.

Mr PEDERICK: It is all about getting your driver's licence. I am going over the history and why the rules have changed. It is very relevant. Members on the other side will be able to make a contribution if they so wish at a later time, and I will be interested to see whether they are willing to make a contribution.

Being raised in the country was very fortuitous. We went out and checked the rabbit traps when we were nine or 10 years old. We had an automatic ute that we could drive out in, and that was very handy.

Mr Venning: That was legal, too, rabbit traps.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, you cannot have rabbit traps now, either. Things have changed a lot. So we learned our driving skills from an early age. I know my two young boys like steering the car down to the bus stop, so at ages five and eight they are getting an early training in driving. In fact, Mackenzie, my oldest son, has his own motor bike at age eight, a little TDR 90 Yamaha. It was very interesting when I went to do my driving test with the local policeman at Coonalpyn—

Mr Goldsworthy: Was it Hausie?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I think it might have been John Hausler. You just had to do a drive around the block, essentially, and, as long as you managed to steer the car onto the road and get it around and back on the Dukes Highway and back to the police station, away you went. That is no reflection on John Hausler, who was a very good local policeman. I think the member for Kavel probably came across him when he was working down there in another life.

Mr Goldsworthy: All good, though.

Mr PEDERICK: All good, I must admit. In the country, and I think it still happens these days, you could get your truck licence at 17 years instead of having to wait until 18 years. I went down in our old International truck with the bulk bin on, loaded up. I think it was the same police officer, and away we went around the block. He asked me to double declutch up through the gears. I had been practising how to double declutch down through the gears but not up. So, I had a few problems and crunched the gears a bit and, by the time I got around to the local service station, I thought I had blown the test. Anyway, we got back on the road and back to the police station and he said, 'You would be better with a bit of load on in the truck,' and I said, 'It is half full of oats.' He said, 'You are laughing, then, you have got it under control.' Since then I have progressed.

In the early 1990s I went for my heavy articulated driver's licence and there was a compulsory operation you had to do that is probably still in place today. You had to back around a corner. It is a bit hard to describe, but you are down on your left hand and swinging around blind and you have to get the semitrailer within a metre of the kerb. Anyway, I failed the first test, so that was the end of that. Anyway, I did some instruction with some driver training in Murray Bridge, then I did the test. One of the O'Hara blokes brought up from Meningie was the tester, and I did it the first time. He said, 'Would you like to do that again, Adrian?' and I said, 'No, I have done it once, I know I have passed.' I did not want to take any chances.

Mr Goldsworthy: Who was that? Mick?

Mr PEDERICK: I cannot remember, whichever one was working there. No, it was not Mick O'Hara. It was someone else.

So, things have changed, and rightly so. We have come a long way from the days when you could basically just apply for a licence and have it delivered. In my day you only had to have a learner's permit, then we graduated to having to get a P-plate, and now we have gone to P1 and P2 and different restrictions on supervised hours. It is a consequence of the change in the power of vehicles and the number of vehicles on the road, and also the modernisation of life as we have moved ahead. I think, in the main, these are good ideas.

I note that the bill talks about restrictions on P-plate drivers driving high powered cars also being in place in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria; and for P-plate drivers aged under 25 years in these states the ban applies to vehicles with eight or more cylinders, supercharged or turbocharged vehicles, or vehicles with an engine output of more than 200 kilowatts. It is interesting, because I know what happened when motorbike licences (and I think rightly so) were changed so that people with motorbikes could not just go out and buy a 1,000cc or a 1,100cc motorbike and tear off down the road, and that was the first and last trip they ever did.

However, what would happen with the 250cc restriction on a motorbike was that when someone gained their licence they would just spec them up and make them go a lot faster. You only have to look at what the WRX Subaru can do. A relation of mine had to sell his because he was going to lose his licence; there was the temptation to drive fast.

I think we need to take a careful look at which vehicles are excluded. I have an old V8 ute at home, which I think is only 185 kilowatts, and it tickles along all right. However, there are certainly now four-cylinder cars which can be tuned up or which can generate better than 200 kilowatts. I am wondering whether there is a list of the sorts of vehicles that will be banned. Because of obvious engineering advances, cars are better made and more efficient, with turbochargers and intercoolers, and so on. You only have to look at the twin turbo 200 series diesel Land Cruisers these days. I am not sure what power they put out, but they can churn along.

I now want to talk about the statistics from SAPOL, which indicate that young drivers aged between 17 and 24 make up only 11 per cent of the total population but account for 28 per cent of all the road fatalities and 27 per cent of serious injuries. It is noted that the University of Western Australia has stated that its research indicates that a substantial amount of supervised driving is required to reduce the crash risk of novice drivers. I think that is certainly a good idea.

However, the problem is that we still get idiots out on the roads. Far too often we see on the news that people have been dragging each other or someone in a car has gone down the road and run into another vehicle that was just sitting at the lights and an innocent life was taken. It is the same with the young fools getting out on the roads, whether they be country or city roads. They think they are bullet-proof, but then we see the results: people have killed themselves or someone else or someone has lost a limb or has been put in a wheelchair—and that is for life. Not enough people think about the consequences. We see reports where someone has driven people home from the city and they are travelling down city roads at over 120 km/h. It is absolute madness, especially if they have been out drinking. However, either way, driving at that speed in the city is just sheer madness.

I note that the RAA is seeking more detail from the government with respect to the restriction criteria that I spoke about before.

Mr Goldsworthy: We have a bit more information.

Mr PEDERICK: I am informed that we have a bit more information coming from there. I note that the member for Kavel said that not a lot of conclusive work has been done on which restrictions have worked with respect to people not being able to drive high-powered vehicles.

We on this side of the house support the bill. It is a busy world out there, and people need to undertake the appropriate training and do the right thing.

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I note that the member for Light interjected. The town of Gawler in his electorate is very busy in this day and age. I have had a bit to do with that area; my grandparents came from up that way. It has changed from quite a steady country town to a real metropolis. In some ways it is a little bit sad. It has one of the best main streets in South Australia, but there is so much more traffic on the road, as is the case on all other roads. Anything to keep everyone alive, but especially our young people, is a great thing. We were all young once, and we know it is hard to tell young people how to do the right thing. As a father of a couple of young lads, I believe that the more we can do to keep young people alive and not hurt themselves, all the better. I commend the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:50): I wish to very briefly make a few points. I will just pick out a couple of issues to show the minister that we agree with this measure. There are two or three items with respect to which I had to dissent from my party's position (not that it will make any difference). The first point is increasing the required supervised driving hours for learner drivers from 50 to 75 hours. I agree with that but, like other states, I believe that it should be for younger drivers. I do not know why we did not adopt this. In Queensland, you have to be under 25 years of age. If someone is over 25 years of age that rule does not apply, and other states have something similar. It is a big impost for members of the family to do the supervising: 75 hours is a lot of driving. Let us be honest: this is generally pretty well rorted; the piece of paper is signed. It is a trust thing about whether the driving has been done.

Mr Piccolo: So, you are suggesting that all those crowds of people have rorted?

Mr VENNING: I will bet you that the hour's driving will become two hours, or whatever. Anyway, irrespective of that, the idea is good, but I believe that people over the age of 25 should have a different rule. I also agree with increasing the minimum time for a learner's permit from six to 12 months for drivers under the age of 25 years, but does this mean that the L-drivers are still driving at 80 km/h?

I have to say that it particularly annoys me to see L-drivers driving at 80. I believe that is bad training, because they are being supervised. I think L-drivers should be able to drive, say, up to 100 km/h when the open speed limit is 110, because otherwise it causes congestion and frustration. People toot at them and semitrailers try to get past them. I believe that this is an impost. I do not agree with changing the learner's permit from six to 12 months for those over 25. Again, I believe, it should be for under 25 year olds.

I totally agree with the introduction of a restriction on driving high-powered cars for provisional drivers under the age of 25 years. This is one I have always supported. We had a seminar in Gawler one night, which, I understand, the member for Light attended. Let us be honest—and I reflect back to when the member for Stuart and I were young—yes, you are attracted to fast cars, noisy cars. I have told the house before how I had an EH Holden—I wish I had it now. We put on the two-inch system, and when dad was not home, up and down the main street—rah, rah, rah. You know, big deal. There was not the power in these cars.

Today, it is not just V8s but some of these high-powered four cylinders—and the WRX is only one. I particularly refer to the spate of accidents that we have had in the Barossa where we have seen six young people killed. I think, in four instances, they were four high-powered cars. I think only one of them was a V8. These were the imported V8 Toyota Soarers, the imported Nissan Silvias. These are two-door, high-powered cars, and I believe they would only just pass the Australian standards.

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Light is interjecting out of his place.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Light is interjecting out of his place.

Mr VENNING: I really do believe that, if you put a young lad in a car like a WRX, with peer group pressure and being what young fellows are like, a bit of testosterone, and chuck in a little bit of alcohol, you have a dangerous mix. People think, wow, a WRX. And guess what? They see the kids watching, so they put their foot down and away it goes. I think that, quite clearly, we do need to send out a message. I bought my children's cars. Admittedly, I bought my first two sons Monaros. I wish they still had them.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: They were HQ Monaros; they were not powerful machines—big slow cars.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Bright yellow, but only because I was not allowed to when I was young. I was deprived the privilege of owning cars like that. One thing about it, though, my son thought it was smart, but when you have your son driving around a country town in a bright yellow Monaro everyone recognises it, and I heard about everything he did wrong. Suddenly, he realised it was not such a smart idea. So, there was method in my madness. However, I bought my daughter a six cylinder Holden Kingswood. She thought that was most unsexy, but that is what she got and she drove it around for two years. And touch wood, I got my kids through without any major accidents. There were a few—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Yes, they were Holden HQs. Thankfully we got them through. The challenge for most parents today is to get them through. Now those parents in the Barossa were not so lucky—and the member for Light was there hearing those stories. I do not think the family will mind my saying this, but the lad who did the eulogy for one of the lads, six days later, he too became a victim. That is very hard to contemplate. I know the minister, too, had a fair bit to say about that on the radio at that time.

We are sending the wrong message to these young ones, putting them in cars like this. We have had a rule for motorbikes for years; that is, we do not allow people under a certain age to drive anything larger than a 250cc motorcycle. Good rule: it works. I know we can get 250cc motorbikes that go like the wind, but at least you do not have the huge 1,000cc bikes which I think are highly dangerous. I certainly support that. I generally support the idea, but I am a bit concerned that, although we are not living in a nanny state, we do have to send a message to our young ones, because, let us be honest, the biggest thing is this mentality they have that it will not happen to them. When I first got elected—and that was a long time ago—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: Not long ago at all!

Mr VENNING: No, you're right. It is just like yesterday. When I first got elected, one of the first schools I visited was the Port Broughton Area School (as it was then). They had an education program for years 10 and 11, I think. A motor car was donated by Rosewarnes, the local Holden dealer. It was not new: it was an older car. They all had lessons in this car. They taught them at school. They would drive around and around the school paddock in this Holden car. I thought it was great. Then they had an education process about what happens. Then the police came in and showed them the shock movies—you know what they use—showing all the carnage on the roads. Why do not we do that again?

I know it is being talked about being offered in the Barossa schools. I think it is already offered at Birdwood High School. They do have a program. It was highlighted that night in Gawler and they are going to pick it up for the schools in the Barossa. Why is this not part of school curricula? Why is it not at least a choice for children? I know most parents would insist their kids do it. I know we have heard about defensive driving lessons. They are not the answer. All they do is cause these people to race around like hoons because they have been trained to drive like hoons. Apart from that, I support the legislation.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (17:59): This matter is something which I have taken a particular interest in, and I suppose, out of all the members in this place, I have probably driven further than any of them. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At 18:01 the house adjourned until Thursday 29 October 2009 at 10:30.