SPEED CAMERAS

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Venning:

That this house establishes a select committee to examine the use and effectiveness of speed cameras and other speed measuring devices used by South Australia Police in South Australia.

(Continued from 4 May 2011.)

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (11:23): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out all words after 'house' and substitute the following words:

has confidence in and supports the efforts of the Commissioner of Police in ensuring the effectiveness of speed cameras and other speed measuring devices used by the South Australia Police.

In support of that amendment—and hopefully the house will support it as a motion—I would like to speak to it. The proposal before this house put by the member for Schubert is in my opinion fundamentally flawed. I have moved this amendment because the entire emphasis and focus of this motion, as it stood, is wrong.

Tackling this important issue of road safety from this skewed perspective ignores the primary concern for motorists, and that is safety. The member for Schubert and his fellow Liberals have, in my opinion, on this matter displayed a reckless indifference to the safety of law abiding road users. The contribution to the debate by the member for Schubert is, in effect, giving a green light to hoons and other lawbreakers and putting the safety of families at risk.

It blunts the thrust and importance of the road safety message. It oversimplifies the serious road safety message facing our community and tries to turn it into a taxation matter. I concede that speeding fines are a voluntary tax, and the government would be delighted not to collect it if it meant that motorists ceased speeding. Speed cameras save lives: that is indisputable.

Government policy is based on the advice of road safety experts, and yet some still cast doubt on SAPOL's speed detection regime and frequently complain that the placement of speed cameras is only about revenue raising. On informed, independent and professional advice from the Centre for Automotive Safety Research based at the University of Adelaide, I can advise the house that the member for Schubert bases his case on a carefully selected portion of information which ignores the body of research evidence linking increased speed to increased crash risk, misunderstands that even small changes in speeds can have enormous effects on the safety of motorists and other road users and takes the position that crashes have single causes, whereas all crashes result from a multitude of factors related to the road, the vehicle and driver behaviour and, in particular, speed.

The member for Schubert also needs to understand that, while lining up high crash rate areas with high enforcement areas is useful for specific deterrence, concentrating on high traffic volume areas and having many areas enforced is more effective for general deterrence; that even without optimum programming there is evidence that cameras work as presented in the recent Cochrane review; and that while road improvements and extra policing are desirable, they are much more costly for the number of people affected compared to speed cameras, so there is a place for both.

I remind the house that this government has ensured that there are more police on the beat than ever before and also initiated the biggest ever investment in our road infrastructure. The opposition is seeking to undermine SAPOL's speed enforcement strategies by attacking them as revenue raising. It is a political campaign that clouds the simple message that drivers need to slow down and drive safely. Ultimately, all speed fine revenue contributes towards road safety programs through the Community Road Safety Fund—a direct investment back into the road safety awareness campaign and money that, in my opinion, is well spent.

The Centre for Automotive Safety Research, which, as I said, is based at the University of Adelaide, shows that for every 5 km/h over the 60 km/h speed limit, the risk of causing an accident doubles. Every 5 km/h over the speed limit actually doubles the risk of accidents. The reduction of the speed limit from 60 to 50 km/h has saved lives and reduced casualty crashes on our roads. The evidence also demonstrates that a thorough speed detection regime using both fixed and covert speed cameras provides general deterrence for motorists to speed and reduces casualty crashes.

The opposition also ignores the findings of the comprehensive world-leading University of Queensland study, in the Cochrane Library and published in October 2010, which analyses the work of 35 other in-depth studies into the impact of speed cameras on speeding. The findings reaffirm the fact that speed cameras do reduce injuries and deaths on our roads. In South Australia, speed cameras are deployed in accordance with established SAPOL policy as part of the strategy to reduce speed-related fatal and serious injury crashes. Importantly, the strategy also aims for long-term changes in driver attitude to speeding.

Speed contributes significantly to the extent of trauma suffered by victims of road crashes and even small reductions of just 1 or 2 km/h can result in substantial reductions in deaths and injuries. A bad culture exists among some drivers that it is acceptable to drive a few kilometres over the speed limit but, as research has shown, this greatly increases the likelihood of causing an accident and also serious injury. That is why the government promotes the Stop Creeping campaign to reinforce the message that creeping over the speed limit is dangerous and dramatically increases the likelihood of causing a serious accident.

The member for Schubert suggests in his own media release that it is okay to travel at a speed of 60 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. This is sending the wrong message to drivers and, in particular, to young people. Like other members of parliament, I am sure, I have had and continue to have numerous complaints from constituents regarding speeding in residential streets, and that is why the 50 km/h zone exists. This is exactly why SAPOL has reduced the tolerance levels at which a fine is issued. Motorists are now more likely to be fined for lower-level speeding offences. This is entirely appropriate because creeping just five kilometres over the speed limit significantly increases the force at which a car hits another vehicle or pedestrian.

Any campaign to undermine SAPOL's speed detection regime is irresponsible and undercuts the need to encourage a safer driving culture. The Liberal Party's attack on SAPOL's efforts to make our roads safer is quite disgraceful. This clumsy attempt to grab a cheap headline at the expense of the safety of our families on our roads is a reflection of the policy vacuum that exists within the opposition on this matter.

An irresponsible opposition and an uncritical media is a dangerous mix. It is unfortunate that, in response to the member for Schubert's media statement, some of the media have swerved all over the place and may have done irreparable damage to the road safety message that keeps all of us safe on the roads.

It is rather timely that on the front page of one of my local newspapers today that the horrors of road accidents is a major feature. In an article in the local Messenger newspaper, Elizabeth Police Superintendent, David O'Donovan, emphasised speeding as the number one cause of the recent road carnage, while reflecting on the tragic loss of six lives in his district since 1 January this year. He said, 'There is a ripple effect of pain and suffering through the community,' which is something that we all should pay heed to. I congratulate the Messenger Press for its efforts to promote the value of speed cameras for road safety. The Messenger newspaper campaign to improve road safety has my full support.

Speed cameras form an integral part of any effective road safety strategy. By no means are they the complete solution, but reducing speeds on our roads is the best way to eliminate unnecessary road trauma and to keep our families safe on our roads. For these reasons—

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I actually wrote it myself. I am quite capable, thanks very much, member for Fisher, and I also did the research because science is actually better than politics. For these reasons I seek the house's support for my amendment.

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert; if he speaks, he closes the debate.

Mr VENNING: Madam Speaker, I seek clarification that I can speak to the amendment rather than then forcing a vote on the original motion, because the member has amended it.

Mr Pederick: That is the advice he got.

Mr VENNING: That is the advice I got. Is that correct?

The SPEAKER: As your right of reply, you can, but you will still close the debate.

Mr VENNING: I will not, given that advice.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:33): This side of the house supports the member for Schubert and flatly refuses to agree to the amendment by the member for Light. His amendment is essentially a whole new motion from the motion of the member for Schubert, which states:

That this house establishes a select committee to examine the effectiveness of speed cameras and other speed measuring devices used by the South Australia Police.

Then we go to the member for Light's amendment that the new motion read, as follows:

That this house has confidence in and supports the efforts of the Commissioner of Police in ensuring the effectiveness of speed cameras and other speed measuring devices used by the South Australia Police.

In my mind, that is a completely new motion. If the member for Light wants to bring a motion to the house, I welcome his introducing it in the appropriate manner.

In no way known do we on this side of the house support hoon driving or reckless driving. Members on this side of the house would do a total of well over the hundreds of thousands, I would suggest, into the millions of kilometres per year in a network right across the state. The members for Flinders and Goyder would both do, I would assume, at least 60,000 to 70,000 kilometres a year on our state's roads. I know that I do close to around 70,000 kilometres a year on the state's roads. We are well aware of issues with the roads and safety, issues involved with people not obeying speed signs, and issues involved with the condition of roads right across the state. We certainly support the men and women of our police force who work right across the state, but what the member for Schubert has asked for is a select committee just to look at the effectiveness of speed cameras.

We are told that they save lives. They may well do, but let me paint a picture which I gave in a speech recently in this house. Recently, tragically—and my commiserations to all the families involved—there were three more deaths on the Dukes Highway from two accidents in very close succession. It was close to the Easter period and it was interesting that, all of a sudden, speed cameras were put in places like Coomandook, Yumali and up around Ki Ki, but it only happened for a brief period.

In no way do I support people speeding but, if people want these things to be effective, perhaps speed cameras should be out there more often instead of after tragic events and then, all of a sudden, being off the map for long periods. It could be months before speed cameras come back onto a road. If this government was serious about road safety issues, it would be looking at the issues we have in my electorate and in the member for MacKillop's electorate, making the Dukes Highway a dual lane each way so that we can do some real things in saving people's lives—people who drift across in front of semitrailers with horrific results.

I know many of my friends who are in the CFS and the local ambulance service have seen the carnage—not just the crushed cars, but the crushed people—when they have to help retrieve bodies and the remains of people from these terrible accidents. It is a shocking thing to have to witness. It is also very tragic for the truck drivers who get caught up in these accidents through no fault of their own, apart from happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There was an interesting video the other day on Adelaidenow of a truck on the Dukes Highway that obviously had a camera—he must have had it running all the time on his dash—showing a near miss on the Dukes Highway where someone was trying to overtake and a car was coming the other way. They ended up out in the dirt. They got a bit sideways but, thankfully, it did not fall over. From the video, it did not look like anyone suffered any significant injury.

All we are asking for on this side of the house is that there be a proper investigation, that a select committee be set up to see what devices are used across the world to make sure that the calibration of devices used here in South Australia is accurate. A few years ago, my father got a notice that he was booked by a speed camera. This is how accurate this speed camera was. He checked where his car was that day; it was home in the shed at Coomandook. I have mentioned that in this place before. So, if speed cameras are so accurate, why was my father's car supposedly photographed in the north of Adelaide somewhere, I think, when it was 150 kilometres away? I do not think that is accurate at all. So, issues like that need to be addressed.

There are issues of inadequate signage on roads. We have people turning off 80 km/h roads into another road and, all of a sudden, it is 50 km/h. People who have lived there for many years think it is 60 and they inadvertently break the speed limit. Yes, they should obey the speed limit, but a lot of those incidents are carried out inadvertently.

No-one on this side of the house (in the Liberal Party) is arguing against the managing of speed limits or the use of speed cameras. What we are saying is that there needs to be an investigation into their accuracy and whether the devices are being used for the maximum effectiveness.

In Victoria, they have established an ombudsman to work with this issue. In New South Wales, where police decided to have a nil tolerance—so, if you were one kilometre over, you would get a booking—the government has intervened to overturn that internal policy of the police department.

So, we need to get real in this place. We do not support speeding drivers. People on this side of the house, right throughout the state, throughout our city electorates, throughout our regional electorates, travel all over this state, many millions of kilometres per year in total, and we certainly understand the need for people to obey the law.

The other thing with speed cameras is that there used to be a sign after you had driven through a speed camera to indicate that you had just been photographed. That does not happen any more. At least then you would know, 'Oh, hang on, I have been caught for speeding', but the first time people realise it, is when they get the notice in the mail.

Once again, all we are asking for, and all the member for Schubert has asked for, is to have the appropriate select committee established so that the investigation can be carried out, and so that the law can be managed in the appropriate way for the citizens of this state.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:41): I wish to make a brief contribution also. I do understand some of the comments from the member for Light. I can appreciate that. I am also grateful for the fact that he has done a lot of investigation that led to the comments that he has put forward. I actually see that his amendment has a very different purpose from what the member for Schubert proposed. I took positiveness from what the member for Schubert put up. I took it as not being a criticism of the police commissioner or, indeed, the operations of police, but as an opportunity for the parliament to carry out a select committee investigation to determine whether there is a better way of doing things. Can we actually improve it?

There is a lot of emotion and terrible tragedies are attached to every accident that occurs on a roadway. Sadly, many of those are as a result of speeding. In 2010, I think, some 112 people tragically lost their lives on our state's roads. All of us in this chamber want to do anything that we can to ensure that that total comes down to zero, if humanly possible. That is never going to be a realistic opportunity but it has to be our vision and our target. Indeed, if the member for Schubert's motion allows this parliament to be better informed, and by association allows the people of South Australia to be better informed about the effectiveness of speed cameras and other speed measuring devices, which can in turn act as a deterrent against speeding, then that should be supported.

I am one of the many people in this chamber who does a lot of driving per year. My wife tells me off because whenever anyone passes me, I say, through her to that person driving the other car, 'Is there a different law in place on this road than what I know it to be?' because I do try and stick to the speed limit. So, when somebody goes past, I know they are breaking the law—clearly they are breaking the law—and those people deserve to have the full weight of the law thrown at them.

So, that is why I say to the member for Light that I see his suggestion of the amendment as having a very different purpose. I extend no criticism to Mr Hyde and his efforts as Commissioner of Police or, indeed, to the operational aspects of police and where they put the speed cameras and how effective they are. There are other members in this place who have personal experiences that bring this into question. I respect that too, but from my perspective it is not about that.

I took the member for Schubert's motion entirely to be an opportunity to improve the driving habits of South Australians by educating us, by giving the parliament an opportunity to determine the effectiveness—if there is an opportunity to improve—and by us going out to our electorates and through the opportunity that the parliament presents in the wider media, to send that message out to young people, old people, every person who has a driving licence, that speeding is an important issue, and that you have to keep to the legal limit to ensure that you reduce the chances of having an accident.

Everyone in this chamber would have a friend or family member who has been a victim in some way of an accident, be it through an injury, be it a quickly recoverable one, a long-term injury or, sadly, a death. I have had friends who have been in wheelchairs ever since having a car accident, which seemed innocent enough at the time but then the consequences were terrible. Equally so, I have seen people walk out of car accidents and when you look at the car it truly amazes you, with the condition that the vehicle is left in, how people survived that.

Speed is a factor in some of these accidents and there is no doubt about that. If we in this chamber could have the opportunity to improve the situation then that is what the member for Schubert is asking for. I took the member for Light's motion to be somewhat of a contradictory one, and if he had moved it in isolation, I probably would have stuck my hand up and voted for it.

Mr Piccolo: You can.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, but it takes away the effectiveness of what the member for Schubert is trying to introduce, which I see only as an improvement opportunity. It is for that reason I cannot support you. I want to ensure that this parliament takes an active role in improving speed measuring devices and delivering a message to the community of South Australia—those probably over one million people who have a driver's licence—to make sure that they obey the speed limits, that they respect the fact that they are there for a purpose, that is, to protect them, and that we get this opportunity to improve. For that reason, I cannot support you, member for Light, but I do hope that, on the basis of your amendment being lost, you move your own motion in your own right.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:45): I am a little perplexed. I certainly support the motion that the member for Light has put up, but I do not support it as an amendment. I do not support the fact that it is an amendment. As far as I am concerned, it should be treated as a new motion but, in saying that, I certainly support what the member for Schubert is trying to achieve. We heard only a minute ago about some of the great things some of the committees in this parliament can do for our communities. I do believe that a proper investigation into what we do with speed measuring devices, etc., can only enhance the safety of the users of our roads; but I also support the statements made by the member for Light that there has been a lot of good work already done, and we should build on that. I am perplexed because I support both, but I do not support the amendment as it is, so I will be supporting the member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:47): I do thank my colleagues for their support on this. As the member for Mount Gambier said very clearly, I believe this amendment should have been ruled out of order because it is almost the total opposite to the intent of the original motion. I note the member's comments (and he is still sitting in the chamber) and the amendment he has moved, but, as I said, I contend quite clearly that the question could have been asked about whether it was in order. As the member for Mount Gambier just said, most of us would support the amendment but not at the expense of the motion. I contend that somebody could have called that to you, Madam Speaker.

I totally disagree with the amendment in that case because it does cut across what we are trying to achieve. Even though I do not necessarily agree, or disagree, with a lot of the various deductions in his speech, I do object to his comment that I said in a press release that it was okay to do 60 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. I contend that is being totally untruthful—absolutely—because I would never ever have said that: the word 'knowingly' would have been in there. You have taken a very selective quote. I would never have said that.

No-one is condoning speeding—nobody. The question is whether the speed cameras are doing what they are supposed to do: deter speeding and therefore save lives. That is what we are asking. With your speech, how do you know? You are putting up things you do not know. We on this side are only asking for an inquiry to ask the questions and get the answers—ask the questions, get the answers. You have made many statements. How do you know? You do not know.

Particularly today we see a lot of signage, and there are a lot of questions about the removal of speed camera in use signs. It was originally put there by then minister Brokenshire and on the condition that the sign should be in place when a speed camera was in action. That was a motion of the parliament, and it was removed not by the parliament but by the police commissioner, and I think that is wrong. I did take it up with him, but all the answer to me was, 'I had to do it for the protection of my officers.' Well, isn't that a message in itself? So, nobody is arguing.

I just want to thank my colleagues for their contributions and their support on this. It is not my intent with this motion to state as fact that speed cameras are not a useful safety device but, rather, to have an investigation into how effective they are in reducing the road toll. At the end of the day, this is what we should all be about—saving lives and improving road safety for all road users—not revenue raising.

As was referred to during the contributions of my colleagues, it is interesting to note that the Rann Labor government has indicated it wants to raise an extra $44.8 million from speeding fines over the next three years. This illustrates quite clearly that it has used speed cameras as a source of revenue and not just as a road safety device. The Minister for Police indicated that this figure was an estimate of revenue, not a target, but, surely, in order for the Labor government to cite this figure it must have had some details or plans to have led it and its financial staff to arrive at this estimate.

I just cannot understand some examples such as King William Road and Sir Edwin Smith Avenue in North Adelaide. I believe the figures over a 12-month period were that fines worth $1,512,000 were issued to 9,841 drivers. Does that intersection really pose such a high risk to motorists? How many accidents have we had there? How many fatalities have we had there? It is downhill and a major road and people are not aware that it is a 50 km/h zone. They just assume, incorrectly, that it is 60 km/h, and they are penalised when they get to the bottom of the hill.

The Minister for Road Safety was reported in the Messenger of 12 April as saying that camera locations were selected according to crash statistics, with factors such as road alignment and obstructions taken into consideration. He said that the transport department works with SAPOL in the selection process and considers crash types that result in more severe injury or present a higher risk of death as more heavily weighted in the analysis.

Why, then, was there a report in the Messenger in April following the FOI inquiries that, out of Adelaide's top 20 locations for speed and red light camera revenue at 1 November and 31 October 2010, only three of those sites were among the top 20 sites for road crashes? The government needs to check the other states. They have all reviewed their speed camera use. Why don't we? This is solid evidence that a review of speed cameras does need to take place.

The house divided on the amendment:

Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The house divided on the motion as amended:

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Motion as amended thus carried.