TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:56): I move:

That this house calls for a thorough review of, and reforms to, the way traffic management and enforcement policies and practices are undertaken by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, South Australia Police and the courts.

This has become a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine. I say at the outset that it is not an attack on the police, the Department of Transport or the court system. I think the Department of Transport overall is a good department, I think SAPOL is probably the best police force, certainly in Australia, and the courts generally do a pretty good job despite a lot of criticism. I am trying to encourage some positive reforms to the traffic system and the enforcement thereof, and there are a lot of points that can be made.

I would like to encourage the RAA to do more, as the group representing hundreds of thousands of motorists in South Australia, and to be more rigorous and vigorous in supporting some reforms. I will go through some of the points that need to be considered in any reform package. We still do not have any independent review of expiation notices in this state. I believe the Liberal opposition is committed to such a proposal, to have a commissioner, or something like that, to look at contested expiations as part of their lead-up to the next election.

I remind members that in Victoria and New South Wales, where that was part of the election promise of the incoming governments, it certainly helped them get elected because the public believes that a review is necessary and that it should include having an independent person to look at contested expiations. In Victoria, they have a Road Safety Camera Commissioner, Gordon Lewis. It is interesting that he has the power to look at the way cameras and so on are used, and I think that is what we need here. That is one aspect.

I think we need a lot better signage on our roads. I recently asked the Minister for Road Safety to put up some speed limit signs on the freeway past Bridgewater. The department has declined, saying it is not necessary. Well, if they are not necessary why do we have, at a relatively short distance apart, reminders for people to keep left? They know they are on a high-speed highway; that is the law. So, there is a contradiction in their own logic. I think it is important to remind people of the limit. Now we have the 50-k default system which I was a keen supporter of back in 2003 but, like a lot of things, the way it has been implemented has not been as it should have been, and a lot of roads which have become 50-k should never have become 50-k.

The former minister for road safety, minister O'Brien, said that he would review the speed limits on some of these roads but it has never happened. We can remind ourselves of the roads—and these are just some of them—which are inappropriately designated 50 km/h: Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue in the Parklands, which is identical in many respects to the extension of Unley Road, and yet Unley Road is 60 km/h whereas Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue is 50 km/h. What you get is this frequent inconsistency in the designation of roads and it causes people to break the law when that should not be the designated speed limit.

I think that throughout South Australia, and it would not take long, we should have a look at all the speed limits to make sure they are appropriate and relevant. The 50-k was meant to apply to genuinely residential streets where you might have a kid on a bike or parents backing out of the driveway. That is what it is meant to apply to, not to some of the roads which have been designated 50 km/h. I indicate how this can lead people into error. A lady who has recently come down from Darwin was looking in her navcam in her car before she turned into Duthy Street at Unley to see what the limit was. The navcam showed that as an arterial road and she naturally then assumed that it would be the same as the arterial road she was on which was Cross Road, but of course it is not and she copped a fine. Duthy is 50 km/h not 60 km/h. This was even though the navcam was telling her that it was the same sort of arterial road as Cross Road.

There are a lot of other aspects that need to be looked at. I have commented before in this house the Minister for Road Safety for altering the penalties applying to people who are just over the speed limit (less than 10). At the time the minister said the fine would be $150 but you need to add on the victims of crime levy which is $60, so it is actually $210. I would query why motorists should bear the burden of the victims of crime levy. I am not against the victims of crime levy but a victims of crime levy should reflect the fact that the government of the day has not protected its citizens as it has an obligation to do and therefore the citizens are entitled to some compensation. However, I do not believe it is fair or reasonable that the motorists are the ones who automatically get hit with the victims of crime levy.

In terms of that fine regime that was introduced on 1 September, the penalties are still very high, and I will give another example. These are real world examples. A lady from my electorate was wanting to go to the Royal Adelaide Show and she turned into Greenhill Road, not realising that there was a community event speed limit applying—she was not a hoon, she was looking to park her car—and she copped a fine of $730. I believe that is draconian given that it is obvious and it should have been obvious to the motorcycle police officer that this lady was not a deliberate speedster. She did not see the sign and that has happened to people who work in this parliament. They have come into a zone from a side street and they have incurred a whopping fine because there is nothing to tell them that prior to entering that main road there is a special speed limit.

I think overall the penalties are still severe and the highest in Australia in many cases for breaches of the speed limit, and I think they need further review. I think the emphasis should be on demerit points rather than on revenue. In terms of red-light cameras, this is an interesting one because in Victoria recently the government has found that it may well be up for reimbursing millions of dollars because some of their red-light cameras have been found to be operating inappropriately in terms of the amount of time they allow for people when the light is amber.

As I keep reminding people, it is illegal to enter on amber unless you have no choice for safety reasons to do that. A lot of people still do not understand that amber is not an indication that you put your foot down and go for it. In Victoria, the now commissioner for cameras, who I referred to earlier, is having a look at this issue because they have found that many people have been fined unfairly because the cameras were not operating in accordance with proper standards in terms of the time sequence of those fixed cameras.

In South Australia, a lot of our red-light cameras are now 30 years old. They are at the end of their working life and they should be replaced or substantially modified, because I know of several where there have been queries from retired police, indicating to me that they believe those cameras are malfunctioning. In fact, in writing to the minister, she confirmed that one of them was. I then wrote and said, 'How many people got unfairly pinged?' I have not had an answer, and I made that request over six months ago. They need to be looked at in terms of making sure they are functioning properly. I am very much in support of red-light cameras. I think they have saved a lot of lives and saved a lot of accidents but they must operate according to proper standards and give people, what should be, a reasonable time to exit the intersection.

Regarding the issue of the 50 km/h, we often hear people say 'Well, we have to follow the Australian standard.' That is only generally true. Other states do what they think is appropriate. New South Wales and the ACT indicate when someone is entering, or when you are about to enter a 50 km/h zone, and I still think that that should happen here. Once you are in the zone, you do not need any more signs of speed limits, but when you are entering it, as they do in New South Wales and the ACT, they tell you that you are entering a 50 km/h zone.

Likewise, many of the other states are better at forewarning people when they are coming into a country town—50 ahead, 60 ahead, whatever it is. I have been lobbying the minister vigorously on this. It is happening more and more but it should be mandatory for the Department of Transport to indicate prior to a country town that there is 50 ahead, 60 ahead, or whatever it is. If you want to see what the Victorians do, travel to Mildura and you will see the warnings they give before you come to Lake Cullulleraine on a road which is otherwise 110. They give about four or five sets of warnings, so anyone who goes through that town at 110 would have to be either totally blind or an idiot.

We still do not have in South Australia any legally enforceable standards for handheld lasers. I have campaigned for a long time for that. I think that they should be there. We still do not have lasers with photographic capability—and the former police commissioner, Mal Hyde, for whom I have great respect, indicated that it comes down to the integrity of the police officer. That is not good enough. Most police are decent, honest operators but there is always the possibility that you will get someone who bends the rules.

There should be no doubt, as is the case in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, if someone is alleged to have been speeding using a laser, then they should be shown the photograph and there should be a photograph as objective evidence, not only relying on the police officer saying, 'Well, I got you, but the image has gone off the screen.' That is not good enough. Another area that needs attention is reform of work zones. Workers' safety is very important and we still have idiots who disregard the signs, but I think that aspect of the law needs to be reformed, changed and clarified so that there is no ambiguity about the speed required where there is work in place.

There also needs to be enforcement of the erection and removal of those signs, and the completion of the work zone. How many times have members travelled in an area and you find that you are entering a work zone, only to realise that you are still travelling to Oodnadatta and there has been no end to that work zone. There is no penalty for the contractors or the officials to leave those signs up at the start or for not having an end-of-work sign. That is an area that needs some attention.

Likewise, in terms of road rules, I noticed in yesterday's The West Australian newspaper that the government's Office of Road Safety has created online videos to show people how to use roundabouts properly and how to merge properly. That is the sort of thing that should be happening here. When registration renewals are sent out, people should be reminded of some of the key road rules. I noticed they also published in The West Australian how people should make U-turns and so on, and they highlighted the need to protect cyclists, who figure a lot in the casualties. I think the Motor Accident Commission could do a lot more in terms of maybe funding reflective armbands and singlets for cyclists.

They are just a few of the things. There are a lot of other points that I could raise, but we need some reform and some changes. I am trying to be positive to make the system better.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.