ROAD TRAFFIC (EMERGENCY VEHICLES) AMENDMENT BILL

Referred to Select Committee

Adjourned debate on motion of Ms Thompson:

That the report of the Select Committee on the Road Traffic (Emergency Vehicles) Amendment Bill be noted.

(Continued from 14 June 2012.)

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (10:55): I am pleased to be able to speak to the report of this select committee. It was established to look at how we could implement what I believe to be the commitment of the two major parties in this house—that is, the two parties—to protect emergency services workers. I am not sure of the position of the Independents, but I am sure we will soon find out. I am sure they also share the desire to protect emergency services workers when they are protecting us.

Emergency services workers, in general, wanted the speed past their worksites to be reduced from 40 km/h to 25 km/h. This is consistent with the speed passing road workers actually on the road and working. Emergency services workers and volunteers both point out that, when they are at a site attending to a community emergency, they are in an even more difficult plight than road workers in that they are often so focused on saving life, limb and property that their own life and limb, and the property of the emergency services agency, is not what they are first focused on—even though they have much training these days that reminds them that their life is as important as anyone else's.

The member for Stuart introduced a bill last year to reduce the speed from 40 km/h to 25 km/h; however, the Minister for Road Safety suggested that we might need to have a little bit of discussion about how this could be implemented and whether it was, indeed, desirable. Advice received from agencies was that there were some complications involved with this.

Accordingly, a select committee was established, consisting of the members for Stuart, Kavel, Light, Taylor and me, who became the chair. We advertised the terms of reference widely, and held one session where we invited the various parties—volunteer associations, unions and emergency services agencies—to come before us and tell us their concerns, their reasons for wanting to reduce the speed from 40 km/h to 25 km/h, and their concerns about the way this could be implemented.

The committee was immediately convinced by the written evidence about the value of reducing the speed from 40 km/h to 25 km/h. The evidence produced was quite clear that someone struck by a car at 25 km/h is far less likely to be injured than someone struck by a car at 40 km/h. As a community, we do not want our emergency services workers to be injured in any way; certainly not by passing traffic. So the committee recommended that the maximum legal speed from motorists passing emergency services vehicles using flashing lights be reduced from 40 km/h to 25 km/h.

However, in listening to the evidence from the various bodies it was clear that there were some difficulties regarding the current law, which provides for past a red and blue flashing light or a vehicle displaying a red and blue flashing light. In particular, in the situation of a bushfire, emergency services vehicles are likely to be spread quite some distance along a road and people would be operating between those vehicles and outside the range of those vehicles. We therefore considered the next important thing to do was to protect the workers around the vehicles not only when they were at the vehicles, because it almost seemed as though the legislation was protecting the vehicles rather than protecting the workers, and clearly we want to protect the workers, so we looked at a way of extending that protection.

We discussed issues like signs that might be carried to say 25 km/h, but we found that that did not suit all emergency vehicles, so it was agreed that the simplest way was to use red and blue flashing lights, whether it be by placing two vehicles at the end of a scene—we thought the legislation should cover the area between the vehicles, not only the vehicles themselves—or putting red and blue lights on the roadway. These were simple things to be carried on board as, particularly in ambulances, the space is very carefully used with all their equipment and they did not want to be carrying a lot of extra signs etc., but a little red and blue or blue flashing light could be easily dealt with.

Our next recommendation was for the determination of an emergency services speed zone. Some concerns were raised about the likelihood of somebody losing their licence by failing to reduce their speed all the way down to 25 km/h. Concern was raised that if somebody was in a 110 km/h zone, and they came around a corner and did not have enough time to slow down reasonably to 25 km/h, they could face quite a considerable penalty, not only financial but particularly the more severe penalty, in my view, of losing your licence for an unfortunate reason.

So, we considered whether there should be some way of dealing with that and suggested for consideration that there might be a defence that reasonable efforts were made to scale back, that normal speed enforcement not apply but that instead the enforcement should relate to whether the driving was reckless or such as to endanger life or wellbeing. We were aware that there were provisions in the Road Traffic Act already allowing for careless driving, and reckless and dangerous driving, so we considered that there could be an aggravated offence of driving in a manner that was careless or reckless or dangerous in the case of emergency services workers.

It is common not only in the Road Traffic Act but also in criminal codes overall for aggravated offences to apply when particularly vulnerable people are involved. This usually involves children or aged people or people with disabilities, but in this case we considered that emergency services workers could be considered as a class of people who warranted particular protection in the case of careless, reckless or dangerous driving and, therefore, proposed that there be an aggravated offence.

The aggravated offence would give a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment, and we found that some people thought this rather a large penalty and difficult to cope with. We pointed out that it is already a two-year penalty and that the normal formula when there is an aggravated offence was to increase the existing penalty by 50 per cent. However, I certainly understand from the reaction I have had that some in the community find this difficult to deal with and that it is really important when we are looking at the protection of emergency services workers that we engage community cooperation in this process.

In some ways, I think our most important recommendation was that there be an education campaign around the protection of emergency services workers. We strongly recommend to the government that it finds funds from some place. We know that funds are not easy to find at the moment, but we hope that there will be an education campaign about the need for drivers to respect and protect those people who are protecting us and not to drive recklessly at speed, gawk etc., so as to impede the work of emergency services workers and, more importantly, affect their safety.

When we had various emergency services organisations as witnesses, we discussed with them the possibility of them joining in an advertising campaign to protect workers. We had the suggestion that firefighters come out regularly as one of the most trusted occupations in our community, so using firefighters themselves to ask for public cooperation in protecting their lives might be a useful strategy.

However, we discussed the possibility that every time a notice goes out from one of those organisations, when they are advertising public meetings, such as the CFS does—every year the CFS holds meetings to inform people both in the country and in the fringe metropolitan areas about how to protect themselves, how to prepare their properties—that those advertisements also include a provision asking for the protection of emergency services workers and a reminder that the speed past an emergency services site is now 25 km/h, which it will be if the amendments moved by the member for Stuart are accepted in this house.

I would sincerely like to thank the staff who supported us, including parliamentary counsel, who found some of our suggestions rather unusual and had to work hard to come up with a formula, and all those gave evidence and made submissions. They are the Centre for Automotive Safety Research, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, United Firefighters Union of South Australia, SA State Emergency Service Volunteers Association, SA Country Fire Service Volunteers Association, Ambulance Employees Association, SA Police, SA Country Fire Service, SA State Emergency Service, SA Metropolitan Fire Service and SA Ambulance Service.

In summary, I think it can be said that all parties saw the protection of emergency services workers as a high priority. There was concern about the way the existing legislation is able to be enforced, so we thought to explore other ways in which it might be enforced. There was general support for an emergency services work sign being established—general, not initially unanimous—and there was then concern expressed about how the proposed provisions might be enforced. It seems that this is quite a challenge, so the committee also recommended that the implementation be reviewed in three years to see if we have been able to improve the protection given to our emergency services workers. I commend the report to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:08): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Select Committee on the Road Traffic (Emergency Vehicles) Amendment Bill. Let me just say at the outset that I appreciate the fact that the government and the minister moved to establish this select committee to look into a private member's bill that I have put forward. I believe that there is very genuine bipartisan—and, I believe, from the Independents as well—support for this move in principle. This is a very important issue. I thank the members of the committee, the member for Light, the member for Taylor, the member for Kavel, and the Chair of the committee, the member for Reynell, for the way in which they have gone about this work in a very genuine fashion.

I will not go into great detail because, having just listened to the comments of the committee's Chair, the member for Reynell, I think they are 100 per cent accurate and 100 per cent thorough, and I endorse them. I thank her for her outlining of that. I will comment very quickly on something which she picked up on. The last recommendation of the select committee's report refers to recommending an advertising and awareness campaign. Like her, I think that is probably one of the most important recommendations. One reason that is so important—and it dovetails right into the core of this bill, which is trying to reduce the speed limit from 40 km/h down to 25 km/h—is that that education campaign can be so much more effective and so much cheaper if all the relevant speed limits are 25 km/h. We already have 25 km/h as the speed limit applicable for school buses, many road work situations and—

The Hon. R.B. Such: Schools.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —school zones—thank you, member for Fisher. Now we are trying very hard to make this the speed limit to protect emergency services workers on roads at emergency service scenes. Clearly that education campaign can be much more effective if we are pushing the same message, the same number and the same speed limit in all situations.

I advise the house that I have tabled amendments and I will move them at a later date. I also thank all the people who provided information, whether written or submissions in person. At the request of the member for Reynell, I add one that she meant to include in her remarks but did not have the information to hand: Mr Norman Hoy and the Royal Automobile Association. Thank you to all those people and to the staff, Ms Lauren Tester and Mr Paul Collett, who helped us.

My last remark is to say that this is an issue that has been very important to the emergency services in general for many years. It is a pleasure that all of us in this house can be working as quickly as possible to finally get this law changed so that they can have the protection that they deserve.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:12): I commend once again the member for Stuart for bringing this matter to the house and the select committee that has had a look in detail at this proposal. It is a given that workers in any environment should be able to work safely and without the threat of being harmed or killed, and that certainly should apply when people are on a road or near a road.

I have a couple of observations. I think it is critical that, if people are required to slow down—I imagine that there will be flashing lights—in all these situations, there is adequate and appropriate signage. What we see happening with some of the current road work signs brings the system into question. I had someone contact my office yesterday who pointed out that there are some road work signs on Happy Valley Drive and Manning Road that have been there since March of this year, and no work has been undertaken. That brings the system into question.

I think it is very important, whether it is for emergency workers, road workers or whatever, that the signage is appropriate and clearly visible but also, when the emergency or roadworks have ended, that those signs be removed. On more than one occasion—not just from yesterday—signs have been left up for months and it is not the right thing to be happening. I think the government, through the Department of Transport and the Minister for Road Safety, needs to have a close look at that.

I think there are some concerns about aspects of the law as it relates to road workers and the current protection. According to my legal advisers, the question of roadworks and people speeding through them has not been tested in court here, so we have not had any ruling by a judge on the adequacy and appropriateness of those laws. I have had some interaction with parliamentary counsel. It is not their job to run the parliament but they are pretty smart people, and they tell me there is some concern about whether or not the current protection for road workers is appropriate and adequate. I think it is an issue the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Road Safety need to have a look at.

I will just add quickly that I am interested in and would like to hear a response on whether this should apply to, for example, Royal Automobile Association people attending. From memory, I think about 10 years ago one of the roadside assistance people was killed on Anzac Highway.

I pose the same issue in relation to council workers who are called out for an emergency or Department of Transport or any other emergency-type people. I understand this provision, as currently presented, will not protect them in any way. I would just ask that consideration be given to those particular categories because, if you think about it, an RAA staff member attending a broken-down vehicle is likely to be in a highly vulnerable and dangerous situation by virtue of the fact they are dealing with a broken-down vehicle on the road. I just raise those issues, but I am very supportive of what the member for Stuart has introduced. I commend the select committee on their thorough analysis of this issue.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:16): First of all, I would like to commend the committee and say that this is a great example of how committees work so well in this parliament. Those committees act in a bipartisan way and come up with ideas that will make it a better place for the people of our state, so well done to that committee.

As a member of the CFS for many years, I have attended many roadside accidents and fires. Most people use their common sense but, unfortunately, there are some idiots who will just drive straight past you at 100 km/h, and it is quite frightening when you are dealing with road accident victims or bushfires. So, I certainly support those speed limits being brought into place and thank the committee for what they have done.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (11:17): I would like to thank the members for their comments and just note that I have now found my notes. I would like to record my thanks to the committee staff for their excellent support for the difficult work the committee did. It was very cooperative, but finding a way of making this system work better than the previous system did was not easy.

I thank Paul Collett and Lauren Tester from the parliamentary staff and Aimee Travers from parliamentary counsel for the work they did in helping us explore options. I am pleased to hear that it seems that everybody in the house will be supporting the receipt of this report, and then we will go on to the more difficult part of considering how to implement it.

Motion carried.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have two sets of amendments filed. It will be the second set that I will move at a later date. I appreciate the discussions I have had with the minister and the fact that, in principle, she supports the amendments, but I respect the fact that she needs to liaise with her colleagues, and that has not been possible for her to do before today.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.