SPEEDING OFFENCE PENALTIES

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:17): I move:

That this house commends the Minister for Police for changing speeding fines and the demerit points scheme to more adequately penalise reckless speedsters, and urges the government to continue the reform process.

My approach has always been that if a minister, a government or an MP does the right thing—what I think is correct—then I will say so. Likewise, if I do not think they are doing the right thing, I will put an alternative view.

Unfortunately the minister is not here at the moment; I think she might have the flu. I commend the Hon. Jennifer Rankine for her announcement with the Treasurer on Tuesday 29 May on changing the penalty for a speeding infringement less than 10km/h over the limit, reducing it from $260 to $150. Of course, you need to add to that the victims of crime levy, so, in effect, it is a $210 penalty.

Whilst commending the minister for what she has done, I am urging the government to go further and look at a whole range of measures to deal with road traffic behaviour, and that encompasses not simply changing the fine schedule. If you compare us with the other states, even adjusting for this latest change, at the lower end of the infringements we have significantly higher penalties than the other states. A fortnight ago, New South Wales increased their basic levels, but they are still, with the exception of the most serious offence, more significant fines than we have here in South Australia.

What I think can and should happen is a range of measures. Victoria Police has the discretion, upon review, to withdraw an infringement notice and issue an official warning in its place because Victoria Police recognises that often people who commit a speeding or traffic offence at the lower level are not hardened criminals or repeat offenders and that often an official warning is sufficient to remind them of their obligations and to deter them from speeding.

I have argued for a long time in this place that in South Australia we should have an independent review panel to look at initially contested expiations. The government has not accepted that; the Liberal opposition, I believe, has a policy that it will do that if it is elected to government.

The Victorian scheme is not a blanket withdrawal of the infringement notice. They have eligibility criteria: you have to be caught doing less than 10 km/h; you must hold a current driver's licence, including a probationary or current learner's permit; you must have not been issued with a speeding or other traffic fine or official warning within the previous two years; you must accept that you were offending; and you must also have a good driving record. They take into account the circumstances of the infringement, and the time of the offence, weather conditions, traffic density, type of road, and land abutting are amongst the circumstances that are considered.

There is no official warning given for red light offences, mobile phone offences, seatbelt or any serious road safety offence. So, it is quite limited in its application, and it is designed, I guess, to give a second chance, if you like, to people who inadvertently have gone over the limit by less than 10 km/h. In essence, it would apply essentially to an expiation issued by an officer using a portable speed recording device.

I think we should follow that practice in South Australia. I think it needs to be regularised. The police will say that their traffic officers have discretion, and that is true, but the trouble is that the discretion varies from one officer to another. How do I know that? I have a close relative who was pulled over and the officer said, 'What is your occupation?'—fortunately, it was not an MP—and she said that she was a nurse, and he said, 'On your way.' Other people have told me of similar experiences. The problem with the open-ended discretion is that it can vary enormously. If you are going to have a system to waive minor infringements, it needs to be regularised so that it is not abused and misused.

The Victorians do some other things. They deduct 2 km/h or 3 km/h from the speed reading displayed by the prescribed speed measuring device, and it varies depending on the calibration tolerance required by legislation for the device. Their policy direction (their general order) is that 2 km/h is deducted from a speed reading before expiating the motorist for the speed reading, minus the 2 km/h tolerance. The Victorian law does not require a deduction to be made; it requires only that the speed detection device is accurate within a certain tolerance (for example, plus or minus 2 km/h). In South Australia we do not have that. New South Wales, I believe, also have that tolerance factor built in.

I believe we should because the manufacturers of some of the equipment clearly state that their equipment is not guaranteed to be 100 per cent accurate and, therefore, they recommend a tolerance of plus or minus 2 km/h, as in the case of most of these lasers. I think a motorist should be given the benefit of that there and then by the reporting officer. I think that is fair and reasonable.

There are some other changes that need to be made in terms of tolerances. I do not think the allowance for speedometers is quite as it should be. The Australian Design Rules (ADR) only required new vehicles manufactured prior to 1 July 2006 to have speedometers which indicated speed to an accuracy of plus or minus 10 per cent of the vehicle's true speed for all speeds in excess of 40 km/h. From July 1988 to 2006, the tolerance for exceeding the posted speed limit was 10 per cent, which was in line with the permitted accuracy of plus or minus 10 per cent, which was in accordance with the allowance for the speedometers of vehicles made in that time.

Under the current ADR—that is, Rule 18/03—for new vehicles sold after 1 July 2006, a newly manufactured vehicle sold after 1 July 2007, the speedometers must not indicate a speed less than the vehicle's true speed or a speed greater than the vehicle's true speed by an amount more than 10 per cent plus 4 km/h. We know that—and Les Felix, who is one of the reputed experts on this in Adelaide, has pointed this out—the accuracy of a speedometer will vary according to the year of manufacture, the relevant design rule, vehicle load, weight distribution, tyre type, tyre pressure, tyre wear, temperature of the tyres, and there are a whole lot of other aspects.

The point I am making is that, in having traffic rules, allowance has to be made for the fact that motorists may be abiding by the speedometer in their car and that can vary in its reading according to when that vehicle was manufactured.

One of the things that has improved a little bit here but needs to go a lot further is regarding speed limit warning signs. Victoria have a much more comprehensive speed warning system via roadside signs. New South Wales certainly does, and New South Wales has painted road signs as well. I think we should be going down that path. The argument—and I have spoken to the people in the Road Traffic Authority in New South Wales—that it is dangerous for cyclists or motorcyclists is unsubstantiated; it is nonsense.

In Victoria and New South Wales, what they do more than we do is indicate, for example, that there is a lower speed limit ahead. I think that is fair and reasonable. If someone is travelling at 80 km/h, there would be warning signs saying '60 km/h ahead' or '40 km/h ahead' or whatever it is. In New South Wales they do the same thing. We do not in South Australia have anywhere near that sort of coverage in terms of advance warning signs. Surely the purpose of the signs is to get people to obey the limit, to slow down, not to trap them for the purposes of making money.

In South Australia—and I urge the minister to put attention to this matter—we need more comprehensive and better signposting of limits. When I wrote recently the answer that came back from the bureaucracy was that they would wait for police to indicate whether there should be a change in the sign or more signs. That is not the job of the police force. SAPOL's job is not to be traffic engineers: their job is to enforce the law. It is unreasonable and inappropriate to expect them to be recommending that there be another traffic sign here or somewhere else. They may do it but it is not their principal responsibility or obligation.

Likewise, with fixed speed cameras, there should be warning signs. We have some. We have a new one on Chandlers Hill Road at Happy Valley. There is a sign for one direction only; it should be for both directions because I understand the camera will catch people in both directions; likewise for mobile speed camera detection. The PSA had an issue about the safety of the operators and I acknowledge that, but I think there could be a sign that says 'Mobile speed cameras are active in this area'.

You do not have to put it next to or close to the vehicle, but I think it is a very good educational tool to have a sign in the area where the cars are operating for that day (or that week or whatever) that indicates that speed cameras are active in this area. Once again, it comes down to reminding people of their obligations and trying to make sure they obey the law, rather than trying to catch them out and trap them.

I think, too, there should be more focus on the positives. The Victorian formal warning system is not quite a positive—it is a sort of halfway house—but a lot of people who do the right thing say they never get any recognition for it. I think our system should highlight and recognise people who do the right thing on the road, and there are various ways that could be done, but a lot of people feel as though the system now is just negative and hostile to motorists.

The minister's change in increasing the demerit points is good, because the people who are serial offenders will lose their licence and hopefully be off the road. I think that is the way to go, because the current fines for traffic infringements are very heavy in South Australia—as I said, much higher than in most other states. For people like pensioners, it wipes out their whole weekly income and I do not think that is necessary. You can sting people but you do not have to sting them to the extent of $400 or $500 fines, often for not life-threatening types of situations.

All in all, I think the minister has shown promise as being a minister who has very good portfolios together—Minister for Police and Minister for Road Safety. I think it is a fantastic combination where the minister can really set the pace in road safety reform and developing a system which is fair and transparent and which deals with the deliberate reckless speedsters.

You will never stop idiots totally on the road. I read in the local Messenger paper that someone was doing, I think, 190 down on one of the southern roads last weekend. Those sorts of people, apart from needing a brain transplant, should be hit hard, but, when a grandmother goes over the limit by, say, 7 km/h, hitting her with a fine of hundreds and hundreds of dollars, and the victims of crime levy, I think is excessive. You do not need to hit people that hard to make the point that what they did was inappropriate.

So, the minister has made a good start. I commend her for what she announced back in May and look forward to some other reforms. I know we have a road safety advisory committee, but I think it needs to be more rigorous and vigorous in looking at options that could make our system more effective, more transparent and fairer for all road users and still have a clear focus on road safety and saving lives. I commend this motion to the house. As I say, I put it forward in a positive way—encouraging reform, not just negative criticism.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (12:33): I want to thank the member for Fisher for his comments. I am very pleased to be able to stand up and support a motion of the member for Fisher. It makes a nice change.

The Hon. R.B. Such: That's a first.

Mr ODENWALDER: It's refreshing; I will shake your hand later on. I am really happy to support this on behalf of the government as well. I do want to add my voice to the member for Fisher's in congratulating the minister on her leadership on this issue, and I also agree with him that combining the portfolios of police and road safety is an excellent initiative. I also want to thank the previous road safety minister (minister Kenyon) for getting the ball rolling on this.

The government also recognises that there is more to do in making our roads safer. As outlined as part of the state budget, the Weatherill government will be changing speeding offence penalties to make our roads safer. From 1 September, the expiation fee for speeding less than 10 km/h will fall from $260 to $150 but demerit points will double from one to two. Expiation fees and demerits for higher level offences will increase, targeting offenders who display a blatant disregard for the law. Excessive speeding of more than 45 kilometres an hour will see the expiation fee increase from $671 to $900 with demerit points increasing from six to nine points.

We believe that increasing demerit points will encourage more drivers to stick within the speed limit because of the risk of losing your licence from accumulation of demerits. So, the message should be clear. Speed has long been recognised as being a major factor in the cause and severity of road casualties. Speeding, even by a few kilometres over the speed limit, is unacceptable.

Speeding penalty reform is just one of the initiatives of 'Toward Zero Together, South Australia's Road Safety Strategy'. We believe no death is inevitable or acceptable, and this is our map to achieving less than 80 fatalities and 800 serious injuries a year on our roads by 2020. The effects of road trauma cost our community over $1.2 billion each year. Had we stayed at the road toll of around 150 fatalities, as when we came to office, this would now be around $1.6 billion per year.

In South Australia speeding was identified as a contributing factor in an estimated 36 per cent of fatal crashes between 2009 and 2011. I am sure we all agree that that is unacceptable. The number of speeding offenders has reduced in recent years, with a declining road toll. Unfortunately, almost a quarter of motorists still exceed the speed limit. Infringement data from SAPOL shows that 38 per cent of expiation notices issued in 2011 were for speeding by less than 10 km/h over, while about 79 per cent were for speeding by less than 15 km/h over the limit.

We know there is a lot more to do; that is why work is currently underway on reforms to the graduated licensing scheme. From 2007-11 young drivers aged between 16 and 19 had a rate of 14 deaths or serious injuries for every 10,000 licences held. This is more than twice the rate for drivers aged 25 and above, who had a rate of six fatalities or serious injuries per 10,000 licences held.

Young drivers aged between 16 and 19 years, in rural South Australia particularly, were also 2½ times more likely to die or be injured in a crash than were young metropolitan drivers. Research shows that crashes are most likely to happen during the first six to 12 months of holding a provisional licence, when the driver is least experienced and driving unsupervised. These stats are alarming, and we know more can be done to make a difference.

Consultation on a range of proposals has concluded, and a legislative package will be brought to the parliament later this year. Savings can also be made with reforms to motorcycle licensing. On average, motorcycles in South Australia account for approximately 3 per cent of all registered vehicles but are involved in approximately 14 per cent of all road fatalities. Last year alone there were 21 motorcycle-related deaths out of a road toll of 103 people. The risk of a motorcyclist being killed in a crash is almost 30 times higher than for a car driver.

Consultation will start soon on a range of proposals to bring down this number. I want to reiterate that the government's position is that no death is acceptable or inevitable. That is why we will continue to make significant reforms in this area. Collectively as a parliament, rather than just a government, I call on all members to work together with the shared goal of achieving this, and I thank the member for Fisher for his motion highlighting the government's efforts in reinforcing the need to drive safety on our roads.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (12:38): I show my support for this motion as a government member and as a local member, as the decisions that relate to it are very important to my community. The decisions to alter speeding penalties were first met with widespread support by my constituents when I was out in the community. These changes were announced as part of the 2012-13 budget and will come into effect on 1 September this year. As a result a new bracket of speeding by less than 10 km/h will be created, and the fines in the lowest bracket will decrease by over $100 from $260 to $150, with demerit points rising from one to two points.

With the exception of travelling by 45 km/h or more over the speed limit, penalties will increase by 10 km/h increments as speeds over the limit increase. Higher fines and greater losses will be in place to reflect the rising risk. The penalty for exceeding the speed limit by 45 km/h or more will increase from $671 to $900, and demerit points will increase from six to nine. Immediate loss of licence continues to apply.

By introducing 10 km/h speed increments, these new penalties better reflect the relationship between increasing speed and crash risk. Steep increases for demerit point losses are deliberate, and the government makes no apologies for doing everything in its power to get dangerous drivers off the roads sooner.

It is important to note that the crash risk doubles with each 5 km/h increase over the speed limit on a 60 km/h road and each 10 km/h increase in speed limit over a 110 km/h road. I am horrified to learn—and see it in my electorate often—that, if somebody is travelling over 50 km/h over the speed limit in a 60 km/h zone, they would be 512 times more likely to be involved in a crash. There are many instances of unsealed roads which contribute to this in my area that councils control.

The simple reality of driving over the speed limit is increasing the chance to be involved in a crash. This means there will be less time to react to avoid a crash and it also means it will take longer to stop the vehicle, which increases the severity of the crash and the injuries to the occupants. I am advised these changes are likely to be revenue neutral. Having said that, the amount of money collected does depend on driver behaviour and driver responsibility. With statistics showing the number of first-issue speeding tickets falling every year since 2007, the government is optimistic that the message is getting through.

If extra funds are collected, these would be spent on road safety projects through the Community Road Safety Fund. With the exception of the $60 victims of crime levy, this is the case for all funds collected from speeding detection devices—something the community does not always appreciate and understand. The fund has been in place since July 2003 and has returned over $602 million to lifesaving projects such as infrastructure upgrades and education programs. With road trauma costing our community over $1.2 billion a year, the revenue collected over these 10 years amounts to about half of what would be needed to cover the community's total cost over a 12-month period.

Speed detection devices save lives. This was reinforced by a study released last month by South Australia's very own Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR). The work evaluated 21 fixed safety camera sites which have red-light and/or speed cameras. In just over a year, the number of drivers exceeding the speed limit by 10 km/h or more fell from a little under 1,600 a week to within around 500.

I am aware that there are some in our community who believe speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the government; this could not be further from the truth. Last year, South Australia achieved its second-lowest road toll on record with 103 fatalities. For the first time ever, serious injuries became less than 1,000, with 931 people experiencing this tragedy.

There is still more work to do and this is just one measure that is being taken to make sure we change driver behaviour, saving lives as a result. Whilst financial penalties for the lowest levels of speeding have dropped, the emphasis is more on demerit points, and the potential loss of licence has been shown to be a powerful tool in changing dangerous driving behaviour. I thank the house for its time.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide) (12:42): I also rise to support the member for Fisher's motion, which places an emphasis on continuing our commitment to improving road safety. In this context, I feel it is also appropriate to highlight the achievements already made.

Since coming to government, a total of $3.9 billion has been spent between the state and commonwealth governments on road construction, maintenance and safety programs. Part of this investment was made from more than $110 million in arterial road improvements across South Australia in the past five years. This includes the installation of safety barriers and shoulder sealings with various safety programs.

In addition to the investment in new infrastructure, approximately $371 million has been spent on road maintenance over the same period in rural South Australia using a combination of state and federal government funding. This has also included a roadside rest area strategy for South Australia which, through a combination of state and commonwealth funding since 2007-08, has seen a total of 34 new rest areas and 31 rest area upgrades. A further five new rest areas and six upgrades are scheduled for completion by June 2012. These works have been on a number of different rural highways, including Adelaide to Port Augusta, and the Sturt, Dukes, Flinders, Lincoln, Barrier, Mallee and Riddoch highways.

Before Labor came to government, there were only 67 overtaking lanes in South Australia. Since then, a further 83 have been built, and this takes the total investment in overtaking lanes to around $100 million. While infrastructure improvements are important, they form just part of the government's road safety mix. South Australia's road safety strategy was developed to deliver a plan to achieve the government's target of reducing serious casualties by at least 30 per cent by 2020. This was done in consultation with groups such as the RAA and SAPOL and aligns itself with the National Road Safety Strategy. It includes work on safer roads and vehicles and looks at ways in which driver behaviour can be made safer, such as lowering speed limits and changes to licensing standards.

A 30 per cent reduction in fatalities will see our road toll at 80 deaths a year. Last year they stood at 103 casualties and 931 serious injuries. Whilst each and every one of these is a tragedy, this was the second lowest on record and the first time in our history that serious injuries were below a thousand. In 2002 the road toll was 154 along with 1,538 serious injuries. Since this time a number of reforms have been made. This includes the reduction of the default urban speed limit to 50 km/h in 2003 and a broader application of the default 110 km/h rural speed limit.

We have also committed annual funding to the now world-recognised Centre for Automotive Safety Research in partnership with the University of Adelaide and with $1.3 million each year until 2017. The Motor Accident Commission also has a number of campaigns seeking to improve attitudes and behaviours that cause avoidable crashes. The state government is represented on national boards and committees that focus on the development and creation of Australian Design Rules which are standards for vehicle safety, antitheft and emissions and which are administered by the commonwealth.

All road vehicles—newly manufactured or second-hand—which have either been purchased locally or imported must comply with the relevant standards at the time of the manufacture and/or supply to the Australian market. In addition, the Australasian New Car Assessment Program is supported by the commonwealth, the New Zealand government and all Australian states. This is through a financial contribution and/or the use of state-based consumer awareness campaigns like South Australia's Stars on Cars program in new vehicle dealerships, or through a national online promotion of the campaign.

In recognising that a lot has been achieved, our commitment to road safety means that there is no room for complacency. Whilst the government supports the member for Fisher's motion, we are mindful of the many families who are suffering grief associated with their own personal tragedies caused by the carnage on our roads. We know that road safety is everyone's responsibility and, as a responsible government, we will continue to play our role.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr McFetridge.