MOTOR VEHICLES (LEARNER'S PERMITS AND PROVISIONAL LICENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 July 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:03): As the shadow minister for road safety and spokesperson for the opposition, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Motor Vehicles (Learner's Permits and Provisional Licences) Amendment Bill for consideration in the second reading. I would like to make the following contribution. May I say at the outset that I think the opposition has a proud record in supporting government initiatives that have the benefit—even possible benefit—of reducing death or injury to our young people, particularly those, of course, who are embarking on what should be an important and responsible development in their lives, namely, to be able to undertake the driving of a motor vehicle and providing them with the independence and graduation into adult life which comes with that.

It is an important skill. It is absolutely critical to the advancement of mobility for many people in South Australia, particularly those who are young and, in particular, also those who might live in areas in South Australia where there are no other alternative forms of transport, and country people are in that category. They rarely have access to public transport by way of buses or trains, or even taxi services, and rely on other members of the family or neighbours, colleagues in sport games and the like, to be able to be mobile, to be able to undertake work, go to school and undertake sporting, cultural or social activities in their communities.

It is in that environment that I indicate to the house that the opposition has given very careful consideration to the recommendations of the government and indicate that we are supportive of a number of initiatives that are encompassed in this bill but not others. It is a question of balancing the protection of our younger people particularly. In saying that, I do not mean to completely exclude those who might be taking up licence training in more mature years but, clearly, we are talking about mostly young people who, having attained the age of 16 years, start to develop their pathway towards independence and mobility by obtaining a licence.

It is in that environment that the opposition is keen to support any initiatives which will or even might possibly benefit those who are at risk of injury or death in this process but, on the other hand, balance the necessary capacity for people to be able to operate and not be unreasonably restricted in their access to that mobility. In short, the areas of opposition will be the government's proposal to increase the time that young people must remain on their P-plates, which is proposed to be from two to three years.

The second area is the proposal to introduce a curfew for P1 drivers from 12am to 5am, upon noting that, during the development and exploration of this legislation, the government has outlined a number of exemptions, namely for employment, training, formal volunteering and formal sports. They are two areas where we consider that the government has gone too far and which are not supported by the evidence in looking at the crash analysis, and that it does not achieve the right balance for those who have other commitments.

The initiatives that have come in this tranche of reform follow some legislation that was introduced several years ago, which the opposition was proud to support. I think it is fairly safe to say that the initiatives that have been introduced, which we have supported, have demonstrably had benefit, and we are very pleased to see that. It is in that environment as well that we raise some questions about the need to progress further into the areas we have identified that we oppose.

However, it is pretty clear that, over the last 10 years, there has been a concerted effort in a number of jurisdictions—state parliaments in particular—to work on initiatives, including legislative initiatives, to reduce fatalities amongst that 17 to 25 age group, and that has been excellent. It is still clear that the most at-risk period for people who may die or be seriously injured in a motor vehicle on our roads is in that three-month period immediately following the gaining of a licence. They are past the supervision period. They are past the initial training period. They are in the vehicle on their own, with no supervisor present.

I will not dwell on the factors of loss of confidence and lack of experience particularly, but I think it is fairly well understood that this is a very vulnerable period. I think it is fair to say that, in recognising this, it is not exclusive to young people, it is just that, clearly, for the reasons we have outlined, there is a large cohort that come into the system eager to have that advancement to independence and mobility and, of course, when they are age limited to be able to do that they come in in a rush.

But there are other people who learn to drive at a later age. Sometimes that is because they have not had the need or requirement to drive a vehicle in another country, then they have come to South Australia and there are certain obligations and qualifications to be able to progress to actually driving here in our jurisdiction. So, they may not have had any experience. Others may have lived in areas where they have had access to public transport and it is not needed and then they have come to Australia, or South Australia, and found that it is necessary, either because we do not have adequate public transport or—heaven forbid—have public transport but it does not run.

So, we need to recognise that there is another cohort of new drivers, new applicants for licensing, that need to be considered. It is fair to say that, young or old, if you are new at the job and it is a new initiative that is being undertaken, that is also a vulnerable period. Certainly, in my parents' generation, and probably other members' generation, it was quite common for women, once married, not to obtain their licence; their husbands might have had their licence. So, we have quite a cohort of people in the mature age women category in the community who have either no licence or have obtained their licence in later years. They also face the challenges of confidence, inexperience and the like, and they too can be vulnerable to a high risk time. In any event, I think it is fair to say that because there are so many in the younger group, between 17 and 25, we are keen to do all we can.

Other jurisdictions have also introduced measures specifically aimed at reducing the death toll among young Australians, and I will refer to those shortly. A number of those jurisdictions, I think it is fair to say, have kept pace or have been in advance of what we have done, but overall the state jurisdictions have learnt from each other's initiatives that have been successful and have tried to replicate that with the objective of protecting our children's lives.

I will refer to the initiatives announced by the government that have our support and then identify the problem areas. The first initiative of the government is to restrict all P1 drivers, allowing no more than one passenger between the ages of 16 and 20 for the duration of their P1 licence. There is an exemption system that sits aside to that, but in essence the passenger restrictions are to apply to new and existing P1 drivers aged under 25 years.

There will be a penalty for a breach of restriction and that will be three demerit points and an expiation fee. As noted, the passenger restriction exists during the P1 phase in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Those following this debate will probably be familiar with the fact that we have a learner's period, a P1 period and a P2 period, all of which have various obligations, but, just in case someone stumbles across this contribution, I will just put that on the record.

The exemptions that are proposed include: more that one peer passenger may be carried, if required, during the course of employment; secondly, police members driving on duty, and members of other emergency services, both paid and volunteer, while they are driving on duty; thirdly, immediate family members may be carried, regardless of their age; and finally, if the qualified supervising driver is present in the vehicle, the restriction does not apply. Again, for the record, there are certain periods during this training period that a qualified supervising driver (QSD) needs to be present.

It will be necessary for the driver to carry evidence while driving if they wish to avail themselves of any of the exemptions; for example, a letter from their employer which obviously confirms their need to be driving a motor vehicle—it may be with coworkers or the like, and that will be an inconvenience, we would see; but, obviously, if the initiative is going to be readily policed, we accept that that would be part of the process and we think it can potentially make a difference.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles will be able to make some additional exemptions for a class of persons via a Gazette notice, if there are unforeseen and exceptional circumstances. We think this is important, because the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has quite a few discretionary powers, actually—they are rarely exercised, I might say—but if we have good ministers, then they are alert to any necessary additions. Quite often that can be covered by regulation, but we do give the Registrar of Motor Vehicles a fairly wide set of powers.

I think one of them still remains, and that is that they have capacity to be able to suspend licences; I do not know that that has ever been used. I remember when we had a case which came to the attention of the parliament in respect of someone being able to continue to drive. They had had a disability in relation to their sight, and notwithstanding that there had been a rather horror history of death and injury as a result of this person's driving skill or lack thereof, there had not been any exercising by the then registrar of motor vehicles to actually suspend the licence.

This did puzzle me a bit, and I wondered why we actually give them these powers if they do not exercise them. In that instance, ultimately some time later, the courts became involved and there was some action taken. It beggars belief that we give a lot of attention to dealing with some matters, yet others seem to be largely unattended to.

I think it is fair to say, in the general and very long consultation on the development of all these initiatives, which started several years ago with the government's publication of a discussion paper which was issued back in 2011, culminating in a published position by the government as to the outcomes of the public consultation, that this initiative, through that process, both survived and attracted considerable support from the stakeholders that are relevant and very interested in these types of initiatives.

These stakeholders include the Royal Automobile Association, which is responsible to its many thousands of members who are motorists on our roads, and organisations such as the AMA, the Motor Transport Association, councils in respect of road safety, and the police department. It seems that a workable arrangement for the police is enforcement, together with the primary objectives set against relatively minimum inconvenience, all accommodated in this initiative. We wish this a happy progress through the parliament and we hope that it will be well received in the community.

The other area where the opposition gives support to this proposal is the removal of the regression to a previous licence stage. The importance here is that L-platers and P-drivers who return to driving after serving a disqualification will no longer regress to the previous licence stage. It is fair to say that, meritorious as a number of those penalties were, the application of this has produced some unacceptable outcomes, and so we support the government in removing this as a consequence to this category of parties serving their disqualification.

Essentially, novice drivers will return to the licensing stage that they held at the time of the offence. The offence committed at an L will return to an L (minimum of three months), an offence committed at P1 will return to the beginning of the P1, and the offence committed at P2 will return to the beginning of the P2. As a result of removing the regression, L and P drivers will not need to repass the test associated with the previous stage. I think the government is responding to an issue that needed addressing, and we on this side of the house appreciate that.

I think it is fair to say that in the course of reviewing this, no evidence came to light or was put to us at briefings that the regression and the retesting requirements would actually lead to any safer novice drivers. The regression, as I think I have indicated, added to the complexity of the graduated licensing scheme, making it difficult for young drivers and their families to understand. Of course, there is also the cost to retest under those requirements. That will be saved for those drivers, now that that has been removed.

I do not want to underestimate the importance of safety. There is no demonstrable benefit here, and so we need to fix up this anomaly and minimise the confusion that happens when this is used as a penalty. The cost is not insignificant either. The whole process, in fact, for anyone to advance through the graduated licensing scheme—undertake the relevant tests, make all the applications—is quite expensive.

I think it is worth noting that a member of my own staff, a trainee, recently received notice that her provisional conditions were going to come to an end in a few days. She got notice then that she could, of course, apply for renewal of a driver's licence. She is going to be fully fledged as a driver, having undertaken her mandatory period of progress and all the testing and so on. Young Steph had achieved congratulations.

Then, of course, she got notice of what it would cost. Members might be interested to know that it now costs $407 to get a licence with your photograph on it to be able to drive for 10 years. Of course, governments will always say that you can apply annually for less than $100—$56 for one year, $95 for two years, and then it is a progressive increase from there. However, every year you renew that you have to pay a fee of $17 just to administer the process of paying the government money for you to have the right to be able to drive.

It is interesting that in the United Kingdom—and I think this is still the case—once you have passed the test and once you have actually successfully applied for your licence to drive, you get your licence and you get it for life. There are certain obligatory tests that need to be undertaken as you mature in years, with the presumption that if you become more frail and aged you are vulnerable to more risk in your driving. In fact, we have them in South Australia obviously to protect other drivers and those who might cause injury to themselves as a result of some disability by age or otherwise.

Yet in South Australia we have this system where there is an obligation to continue to go back to the government and keep asking them, with a payment, for permission to be able to drive lawfully. It seems a rather curious system to me but perhaps if we are in government we will be able to look at some initiatives.

What is important is that in the lifetime of the government, while I have been here, some 11 years—and I think it is only about 176 days until the next election (I can hardly wait)—is that we appreciate that the very big cohort of people who are going through this licensing system are young people. They are 17 to 25 year olds, they are very unlikely to have access to significant funds to be able to afford to pay for their 10 years' right to drive and, if they are forced because of their impecunious state or do not have a mum or dad or someone to pay up for them, that they are going to have to pay annually and get whacked with these administration fees.

It is disappointing for them. They go through all these hoops and then they get whacked financially. Good luck to Steph in her driving. I also mention that she came out with me, and I thank the minister for this because we had an opportunity to visit one of the agencies that provides for the tests which I will refer to in a moment, the hazard perception test (HPT). We went out to one of your magnificent facilities, minister, and Steph from my office undertook the hazard perception test. She told me she had done it before and apparently you can go online and practise and do all sorts of things. I might give it to the shadow cabinet to see whether they succeed in getting through it. She passed it with flying colours. We are very proud of her.

It is an important initiative and, while I come to that, even to do that costs $36, so there are lots of little costs along the way that our young people have to endure. At present a hazard perception test needs to be undertaken by anyone who wishes to graduate from a P1 licence to a P2 licence. The third of the proposed amendments, which we think the government has got right and which we will support, is that they must pass that HPT to progress from the learner's permit to P1. This brings this forward. It provides an earlier and additional opportunity for the hazard perception skills to be assessed prior to solo driving or driving without the supervisor.

The other aspect which we found a very good initiative is that drivers will no longer need to visit the customer service centre to upgrade from a P1 to P2. This has been considered in other jurisdictions already. In Victoria and Western Australia they have this system, and some of the other jurisdictions are a little later, but the reduction for personal obligation to attend we think is important because they can do it at the time they are there for the purpose of going from L to P1.

For members who are not familiar with the HPT procedure, the applicant goes into the facility and goes online. It is an electronic facility; it is like a game. I think most of the people in this parliament probably have not actually ever had to do one; if they have not, have a look at them. I think they are quite instructive because all of us have to keep up with road rules.

Most members would have had constituents say to them, 'I think the problem with young drivers is that they get into a situation that causes some danger—they are skidding on the road, a vehicle comes into the carriageway unannounced, perhaps coming in illegally or without reasonable notice—and they are really put to the test. You are on your mettle, and you have to be able to think quickly, react safely and ensure that they preserve themselves and not injure others.'

That is an aspect that commonly comes to me, as I am sure it does to other members who are looking at the contribution they can make to keeping young people safer. It is a good thing to go and have a look at, and it is a good initiative of the government to bring forward so that we protect and give every chance to our young people.

The next matter is the initiative to extend the provisional licence period from two years to three years. This would effectively mean that instead of being able to go onto your full licence, under our current graduated scheme, as early as 19 years of age, the applicant would be 20. So, if you apply for your learner's permit when you are aged 16 years—remembering that the rules currently do not let you go to P1 until you are 17—whether you are 16 years and nine months or 16 years and do the whole year on your L plates, you cannot actually graduate to P1 until you are 17.

That will be the direct implication here: all new provisional drivers, upon commencement of the legislation, will spend three years on their provisional licence. The existing provisional drivers, at the very least, will not be caught up in this; they will continue under the current system and slowly they will work through the system. It is fair to say that in some other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT, they have made provision for this.

It seems therefore that the government has some support, by comparison with other jurisdictions, to progress this initiative. The opposition feels, however, that again, we need to consider that whilst there is a considerable cohort of 17 to 25 year olds who get caught up in this process, and have to develop their skills and get over several hurdles to be able to drive, who live in metropolitan Adelaide, a very significant number live in peri-urban and rural parts of South Australia—some quite remote areas.

We encourage our young people to stay on at school; whether they are going to school in their local town and need to be able to drive to that school, or they are going to a place of employment or training, and they need that access. Quite often, it is not in their local town and they need to go to another major regional area, if not come to the city, to advance their academic or training qualifications or ultimately gain employment.

So, to provide this restriction for another year does raise some questions of serious inconvenience and extra burden for those who live in regional areas. The opposition simply takes the view that this is not addressing a period of risk, remembering that it is the period after the period of supervision that is the most vulnerable time for young people, not when they are coming off their P-plates.

Another aspect is that I do not think that the government truly appreciates the inconsistency between asking people at 18 or 19 years of age to be responsible, to have legal entitlements and responsibilities, such as voting, the right to marry or even, in certain circumstances, taking up arms to defend our country, or becoming a police cadet and undertaking the management of firearms—we ask our young people to do many things at 18 or 19 years of age—and saying to them at 19, 'You should stay on a P-plate because we are putting you in that category where we need to impose conditions on you until you are 20.' I see that as quite inconsistent and unnecessary, given that there is no demonstrable benefit.

To some degree, some of these issues also apply to the perhaps most controversial initiative of the government—that is, to introduce a curfew, restricting P1 drivers for the duration of their P1 period from driving between midnight and 5am. As I flagged earlier, and the minister has noted in his contribution, an exemption system sits with this that has been expanded after consultation, and we are appreciative of that. I think to that extent, the government has listened.

However, I suggest, and I think the opposition takes the view, that the data simply does not support the introduction of this initiative. It is also important to note that although curfews, suspensions and disqualifications apply and are dotted throughout our disciplinary penalty processes when people break laws, in no other jurisdiction is there a disqualification for everybody who is in a P1 position—no other jurisdiction. It does raise the question given that other jurisdictions have been considering these matters and actually introducing curfews themselves, particularly when there have been disqualifications. For example, already in South Australia we have a disqualification in some circumstances where you cannot drive between 12 and 5am unless a QSD is present for a year. That is a penalty situation that we already have. It is an initiative that we supported.

In Western Australia they have a 12am to 5am curfew for the first six months only on a P-plate and they can apply for exemptions. During the briefings that I had—and I think it was evident through some other submissions—no apparent data has been produced to confirm whether or not that in itself has been successful or whether it has just become an absolute nightmare for local police or, in fact, as one would expect, young people are smart and perhaps driving between 12 and 5am and not displaying their position of being under the graduated licensing scheme and therefore avoiding detection by a passing police officer who might think, 'Oh, I'll pull that P-plater over because it's 1am and I will deal with it.'

Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania have no restrictions whatsoever, similarly with the ACT and the Northern Territory. Queensland—just for completeness—does have a penalty position for one year from 11pm to 5am for disqualified drivers under 25 but, again, there are some exemption provisions.

Western Australia has started a much more narrow initiative. Some others use it as a penalty, but the rest have clearly considered it and rejected it. Why would that be so? I think for exactly the same reasons that the opposition takes the view that the curfew initiative has simply gone too far. It is fair to say that thousands of other young people, in their electronic protest to this, have also sent a very clear message—why should we be significantly inconvenienced either to not be able to drive at all or to carry around a volume of documents to say that we are on our way home from the football club, some formal sport, are travelling for a CFS voluntary position early one morning or have employment obligations?

Firstly, why should that happen and, certainly, why should it happen for people who are law abiding and working their way through the graduated system in an orderly and compliant manner? It just seems beyond belief that we would be penalising all those thousands of other young people to not be able to drive in that time frame.

Just this week I was in Grenfell Street doing some media on another issue—as most members would appreciate it was something to do with the trains, which is a regular occurrence—when somebody came up to me and said, 'I am Miss So-and-so. I live in Tim Whetstone's electorate.' I said, 'That's great.' She said, 'I have taken up this issue about P-platers.' I said, 'Yes, Mr Whetstone has raised those matters with me. He is very concerned as well about what's going to happen.'

She said, 'Well, let me tell you, I've got a son who's going on his P-plate and he works at Hungry Jacks in one of the local towns up there. He comes home at 3am. He does the job during school holidays. Is he going to have to go and get a letter from his employer for the school holidays when he does it and then the next school holidays because it's not continuous employment, or, if he gets a job at the local hardware store, is he going to have to get another piece of paper and documentation?'

I thought this government was into getting rid of red tape, yet we are going to be overloading these children. I can imagine what the glove box is going to be like. It is going to be full of all these forms and letters to say that they play sport or that they are in the CFS or that they work at the local hardware store.

Mr Treloar: And they'll be in the other car.

Ms CHAPMAN: That's right, yes. The member for Flinders reminds me that they will be in the other car because, remember again, we are talking about the younger population who may be wanting to access another vehicle that may be in the household or on a property that needs to rely on different vehicles for different purposes, whether mum is taking kids to school or dad is taking them to a school function or is going to be using that vehicle to work in with transporting a tractor or a truck. There are 100 reasons why vehicles become inaccessible and are not available and, therefore, need to be changed.

We do not see this initiative as ticking any boxes that are going to make it either reasonable or convenient for the P-plater or their family. We see it as an unreasonable imposition on employers or sports clubs and the like. We see it as, probably, at the very least, an inconvenience to police officers in being able to monitor and detect this.

I qualify that by saying that I did ask a SAPOL representative whether they felt this would be an unreasonable imposition on their time: to have to pull over somebody who is a P-plater and who is still displaying that, who has not wised up to the fact that they could take it off the dashboard—or wherever they put them these days—and go through this process. I am paraphrasing this, but they said that that is a legislative obligation and is something that they would undertake and, if it is for a safety initiative, they would follow that.

It is interesting that when I asked SAPOL about whether they were prepared to do this, they said, 'Yes, no problem. It might be a bit inconvenient, but we'll do it.' But when I asked them about how we might be able to minimise the unreasonable burden on people who get picked up for being unregistered (having not actually received the notice) and asked them for support about whether they would find it too inconvenient to have put in the notice to be able to check and, if it was clear that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles had, for whatever reason, not sent a notice, that those people should be exempt from prosecution, they said, 'No, that's too hard; that's too inconvenient. We don't want to be troubled with that. We've got much more important things to do, arresting criminals and the like.' I just find it very curious that we have that inconsistency; nevertheless, they say that, on balance, it is something they would undertake because, of course, the legislation would require them to do it.

So, let us just have a look at it. The curfew will mean that the night-time driving restrictions will apply to new and existing P1 drivers under the age of 25 years. The penalty for breach of the restriction will be three demerit points and an expiation fee. The exemptions, as I indicated, have now been expanded. They will be:

driving to and from work or during the course of employment;

driving to and from education or training or during the course of education or training;

driving to and from formal volunteer work or during the course of volunteer work;

driving to and from formal sports training;

police members driving on duty and members of other emergency services, both paid and volunteer, driving on duty; and

of course, similar to the other, if a QSD is present in the vehicle, then a restriction does not apply.

Here again, as I have indicated, they will not only have to carry all the documentation in the glove box, as proof of sufficient circumstances of exemption applying, but guess what? They also have to be driving by the shortest practical route. What does that mean? I do not know whether the government has any understanding of what is actually out there outside of Adelaide. Sometimes, I just despair.

Clearly, people have to make a judgement about how this is going to apply and I certainly hope—and I would expect in almost every circumstance—that local police officers might actually exercise some common sense and understand the circumstances that a person might be in. Obviously, the easily-identified breach of this would be if someone decided that they would go to work but on the way to work they would stop off at a mate's place in a neighbouring town, have dinner, do a few things, go through somewhere else, pick up a friend and then go on to work—

Mr Treloar: Pick up the girlfriend.

Ms CHAPMAN: Pick up the girlfriend—that's right—and then go there. One can only assume that this is designed to stop people flouting it. In other words, if you are out there and you are able to drive, it seems that you are safe enough to be able to drive if you are going to and from your formal sport or to your work or the like but, somehow or other, you are not competent to be able to drive via some other place. It just beggars belief.

I think of someone who might obviously have a change of route of travel. If they are going off to a shearing shed at 6 o'clock in the morning, ready to start on the board at 7am, they might be picking up other employees and all of that would be part of their normal employment, but then the boss or the shearing contractor rings the night before and says, 'I need to get you to go and pick up someone else,' or 'Look, my daughter's coming home from school on some train, so can you stop and pick her up on the way?'

There can be lots of different reasons why there might be a deviation of route but the most obvious to the government ought to be—which will not necessarily be in the knowledge of the local arresting police officer—that the other roads that they could go down are not even in a fit state to be able to go down. I urge members who actually represent regional areas or who go to the country to have some understanding, when they consider this, of the state of our roads in South Australia. They are bad enough in Adelaide: wait until you get outside the metropolitan area.

And if there is a potholed road or an unsealed road that has become slippery with a greasy, clay surface, or if there is a dangerous point of entry because of stormwater or high rainfall in a creek crossing, these are all normal activities that would cause you to take a different direction, because the driver is thinking about the safe way to travel.

People out in the country, whether they are visiting from Adelaide or whether they are living out there, have a pretty good understanding of all of the circumstances—not just some flash flood. I am not talking about some emergency where obviously this would not be raised, I am just talking about daily trips of people who live in these areas particularly who have to make changes to their trips to be able to remain hazard-free and/or free of damage to their property—namely, their vehicles—from skidding off the road and wrapping themselves around a tree.

I just remind members, when they are considering this aspect, that those of us here in the city might be thinking up ideas which might be good and sound good but which, in the real world, are going to be difficult to apply. And heaven forbid that you should have to go and get an addendum to your letter to be able to deviate from the shortest possible route. You will be finished with the glove box and starting to fill up the boot by the time you finish complying with the obligations.

If that does not convince members of the idiocy of this proposal and the lack of understanding of how it will adversely impact our young people, let me put this. The evidence which has been under analysis, I suggest, does not demonstrate that there is any greater safety benefit from this initiative, and let me put this situation first.

The government says that, in considering whether there would possibly be a benefit in introducing a night-time curfew and, indeed, passenger restrictions (which, for reasons, have now been relaxed and the latter of which we are now supporting), there had been an analysis of 5,000 casualty crashes which examined the individual crashes of all P1 licence holders aged between 16 and 24 years between 2008 and 2012. All the casualty crashes that fell into one of the proposed restrictions were considered and the ages of the injured passengers were determined, where possible, as was the time of the crash.

The casualties that resulted from the crashes were then calculated and from that analysis the government, through the department, published this. The overall total number of injuries that had the potential to be prevented if the restrictions were in place in 2008 were: 22 fatalities (on average, four per year), 240 serious injuries (on average, 48 per year) and 1,397 minor injuries (on average, 279 per year).

They published evidence that as at 30 June 2013 there were 159,367 individual licensed permit holders aged between 16 and 24 years, and 75 per cent resided in metropolitan Adelaide and 25 per cent in rural areas. They then provided a breakdown of those in the various L permit, P1 licence, P2 licence and full licence categories. We are talking about tens of thousands of young people with a P1 licence. Out there, as at 30 June, there were 38,351 holding a P1 licence. These are the ones who do get caught and will have this curfew imposed on them.

It is little wonder we have had outrage from the young community. The reason I particularly say that is that they know, and we know, that the very large proportion of them are out there doing the right thing, day and night, and they are going to be penalised and treated the same as those who have breached the responsibility, the privilege, that they have been given in being able to advance to have their full licence.

The reality is that, notwithstanding that data (and members might note that the sample which they took for analysis concluded in 2012) and, as important as that work is (and I have no doubt that it is reliable to the extent of the information that has been given), in the publication of this information it omitted to tell South Australians what the reality is of the actual number of people who have died or been seriously injured, firstly, outside of 12 to 5am. In fact, when you analyse that data you find that the biggest area of risk is from about 6 o'clock at night to midnight. That is their big area of risk. Why are we not introducing a curfew to that? For obvious reasons: they will be working—I am waiting for it. Is the minister going to introduce it as an amendment? I do not know.

An honourable member: Don't give them too many ideas.

Ms CHAPMAN: Heavens, don't give them too many; that's right. The reality is that if this is genuinely an initiative to protect and save young people from serious injury or death, then, hello, we picked the wrong timeslot. That is the reality. The other thing that we have to understand is the question: what is the ill that we are curing here? What is the current data telling us? While the statistics provided by the department tell us that 16 to 19 year olds are disproportionately represented in fatality and casualty crashes and crashes involving cars with multiple passengers, the evidence does not exist to suggest that 12.00 to 5am is when the highest number of crashes occur.

So let us get real here about what the initiative does. It has missed the timeslot, and I think the government needs to be fully frank about what ill we are attempting to cure. I do not doubt for one moment the motivation of the minister or other members on all sides of this house, who will stand up and say, 'We have to do everything we can to save a young person's life. One life is important. One life from the road toll is too many.' I do not disagree with that—of course it is—but we have to understand that people are driving around in motor vehicles and it is a combination that creates risk.

If we are going to have initiatives to minimise that risk let us focus on what demonstrably works, what is likely to work or what will cure a particular ill that we are facing. The reality is that there has been progressive work by this government—including previous governments, but this government has also been a part of it—on initiatives that have worked, largely with the support of the opposition. Some of these initiatives were introduced just a few years ago and are now applying in 2012-13 which, of course, have not been captured in the data that has been analysed by the department and presented for publication. No; that pre-dates the benefits of all of the tranche of rules that we introduced, which are only just starting, in the time frame that the government analysed the data.

I find that all very curious, but unhelpful in the end, because we need to look at what the situation is. The situation is that the data tells us that important initiatives of this government, supported by this side of the house, have come into play and they are clearly working—and that is great. As I say, we will always support initiatives that work. However, the reality is that the number of fatalities of 16 to 19 year olds who have died in a motor vehicle accident or as a result of a motor vehicle accident between 12.00 and 5am in 2007 was eight—a shameful waste of life; in 2008 it was six; in 2009 it was five; in 2010 it was four; in 2011 it was one; last year it was one; and this year to date, none.

Good job by the government; well done. Well done to the department, which brought forward initiatives: the government introduced them and we supported them—it is working. What is the justification, with that data, for imposing a regime which will adversely affect, with no added benefit, young people and families who are law-abiding, and particularly those who do not have access to any other form of transport? It is disgraceful, really, that the government seems to be so completely ignorant of the basic data which shows that what it is doing is improving the safety of our young people and yet it seems to be quite dismissive of the inconvenience that it might cause to tens of thousands of people, particularly young people.

Of these young people, 25 per cent live in regional areas and a good number of others live in peri-urban areas. They are lucky, if they even have a train, if it is running at all or on time, and yet we are asked here in the parliament to support something that is blatantly unnecessary and will be ineffective. I despair at the zealous progressing of this by the government. I do not know whether it is to make the government look good by trying to deal with something that has been raised on talkback radio.

I do not doubt that there are always genuine attempts by the whole division of road safety, the department and the minister. Again, I do not question that the minister is trying to do whatever he can to make sure that our young people do not die on the roads, but fair crack of the whip: this is just going too far; this is not necessary. What the government could do is go out and say, 'We introduced reforms several years ago, and they are working,' and you will not get any criticism from me or from people on this side of the house; we were pleased to support them. But do not ask us to do something that is going to punish innocent people at a time of their life when they need to be encouraged, recognised, rewarded and supported when they are doing the right thing.

I ask the government, right at this eleventh hour, to recognise that this is not a smart move. This is not something that is going to help young South Australians; this will place an unnecessary burden on our young people. The thousands of them who have signed up on electronic petitions to say, 'We reject this' ought to be listened to. The reason it is so important that the government listen to them is not that they get a vote or that they are coming onstream.

The reason it is so important is that they are the ones who are the victims of road crashes and fatalities. They are the ones, on the face of it, who are being embraced in this legislation to provide protection, yet they are saying to us, 'This is unfair. You may be wanting to protect us, but you are putting an unfair burden on us. You are punishing us for something that we haven't done, and we want to be released from that.'

I conclude by thanking those in the department who did follow up with material, and I thank the minister for explicitly providing some responses to regulatory provisions and also for providing statistical information. If only he could convey that level of courtesy and prompt response to some of his colleagues in the ministry, one of whom frequently disregards that, I would be very appreciative. Nevertheless, I thank the minister for that and I thank those who provided the briefings to me and other members.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (12:08): I rise to speak on the Motor Vehicles (Learner's Permits and Provisional Licences) Amendment Bill. I concur with the lead speaker and Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we are very supportive of any initiatives that will save the lives of our young. Certainly, from the feedback I have had, many believe that education is definitely the key, and the resulting reduction in fatalities from 2007 to 2013 for 16 to 19 year olds show that the government's initiatives and education program are starting to work for that age group.

That brings me to question why it is that that particular time period was chosen, given that, while statistically 16 to 19 year olds are disproportionately represented in fatalities and casualties from road crashes, there is no evidence to suggest that the 12am to 5am time period is when the highest number of crashes occur. As also mentioned by the previous speaker, in 2011 and 2012, there was one fatality between the hours 12am and 5am in each of those years, and for this year so far, there have been zero, which is, of course, ultimately the number we were looking for. However, to punish all of the P1-platers during that time period is quite unfair and unjustifiable given the statistics.

I wanted to speak briefly on the record. I put the question on Facebook and I had a large number of people responding, and there was a really good discussion to and fro between different young people, and those who were on their P-plates and how they were affected but, overwhelmingly, it was the curfew that they were most against, and they could not see the reason for that, and they felt that they would be seriously disadvantaged by the curfew being brought in. I wanted to put on the record some of their comments because they went to such effort to make me aware of how they felt.

Some of the comments—and these are from people who have given me feedback on Facebook—and ideas for reducing fatalities on our roads and improving safety on our roads are: to retest offenders yearly, so those who have lost their licence through bad driving to be tested yearly until they prove they are capable drivers; to teach courtesy and compromise; and to have compulsory advanced driver training. I must say I think that that is a really good idea and, even every 10 years when we renew our licence, I think it would be a good idea to remind people of where you can go to participate in advanced driver training. Even if there was some kind of incentive, a discount if you did it within three months, or that you could show your insurance company and get a reduction off your insurance premium, I really think it would be wise to encourage everybody to go through advanced driver training.

Someone from Rotary mentioned that they have a rider program which is a very good educational program that could be more widely used and promoted, so I guess that would be up to Rotary to get it into all of the schools. One suggested that perhaps parents or the driver should be making the decisions and choices, so taking some personal responsibility. One also mentioned that in England, as part of their learner's test, it includes knowledge about crash statistics and fatalities so that young people going for their licence are aware of how dangerous it really is statistically. One mentioned that if the government thinks the 12am to 5am time period is more dangerous then perhaps they should increase public transport at this time. Some believe that they should have training on a racetrack where they can emulate dangerous situations.

When I was a new driver, I remember skidding when I tried to turn right too quickly on a wet road. I had never experienced that before and the back end of my car spun out. Luckily there were no cars but had there been more traffic that could have been quite dangerous. That is not included in any of our driver training so it could be a good idea for young people to actually practise in wet conditions on a racetrack where you can control what you can hit. Some have suggested that all drivers should learn in a manual car. I know in Victoria when I was young, you either had an automatic licence or a manual licence. In South Australia you can do your whole driving test—well, you could when I went for my driving test—in an automatic car, yet you get the same licence.

Clearly it is a lot harder to drive a manual car. I have a manual car now, but even after being an experienced driver going from an automatic to a manual, I certainly had a few near-death experiences given that there are so many extra things—the clutch, the gears, mirrors, indicators, everything to do at the same time. If you are in a crisis situation, I think that all young people probably should have to have some lessons in a manual car; and also for safety, if there was an incident and they had to drive their parent or somebody who had passed out or had a heart attack or something. If you cannot drive any car it makes it very dangerous if you do attempt that.

Some suggested limiting the engine size to four-cylinder cars for new drivers. More education was certainly mentioned by many people. In general agreement, everyone thought that it was a good idea to bring forward the hazard perception test. One of the reasons that some of them had sat on their P1s longer was the cost of that test and also the inconvenience of having to go into Service SA again, when young people have busy lives and getting into the city—or if you live in a country area, there might not be a Service SA outlet very close to you. I think bringing that forward would be one less trip they have to make; hopefully then they do not have to pay the extra fee as well, because they are already paying a fee. They were the main issues.

I will also mention one issue that has come to my office that is not specific to this area but linked, and that is that of international students driving, many of whom go home to their home country every Christmas and can renew their international driving licence and come back. Some could be on an international driver's licence for three or four years—however many years they are in Australia as students—and at no time have they ever actually sat our driving test.

It was brought to my attention that some international students were actually abusing this privilege, knowing that they could not lose points and knowing that they could not lose their licence. I assume they would have an address where they could be fined, but they know that no matter how many driving offences they cannot actually lose their licence, which is quite dangerous.

I have also had reported to me by a worker at Inverbrackie that asylum seekers are also allowed to get international licences, even though they do not come with paperwork in most instances, and she was aware of some who were using their cousin's ID, because they looked similar, and their cousin had a licence. It has been brought to my attention that there are even people who have never even had a licence in their own country, but have been able to utilise ID of a cousin or someone who has a licence, in order to be able to drive on Australian roads.

That is an area that my office has been trying to get to the bottom of, but there does not seem to be a system for recording points or for encouraging people who are here for three, four years or more as students to actually apply for an Australian licence. At the moment they can just sit on an international licence and renew it every year, as I mentioned, so I see that as one of the danger areas the government should be addressing.

To summarise, it is a great idea to do anything that will improve the safety for all road users, particularly our young. The curfew was the area to which there was most resistance from the people to whom I have spoken and surveyed. As mentioned by the deputy leader, we are also opposed to the extension of the P-plates going from two to three years.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:17): This bill contains some very good measures. The scheme relating to restriction on driving time for young drivers in particular (most are young, but not always) I raised as an issue 10 or 15 years ago. It has been operative in New Zealand and parts of the United States for many years, and I believe it has merit. We know what happens when young people drive around: particularly young males, through peer pressure, will urge the driver to do things they would not normally do. There is merit in having some restriction about passenger numbers.

In terms of the night curfew, I think the research is a bit ambivalent, but I think it will help. However, I do not think the research is all that conclusive. The change from two to three years for the minimum time for a provisional licence—I do not think there is much evidence to back that up either. If these measures save one life, then they are certainly worthwhile. I lost a nephew back in 1990, a long time ago now, but the pain still lingers on. He was a passenger in the back seat of a car with a young lass from Murray Bridge—they were both killed when the driver lost control, hit a stobie pole side on and killed the two rear passengers.

Sometimes you have to be tough in order to protect people from themselves and, certainly, at times protect them from others. I think any changes in road laws should be based on clear research and science. I met recently with researchers from the road safety research centre at the University of Adelaide. I had a very long discussion with them about a whole range of issues. I think any measure that is brought in to change driving rules, and so on, should be based on sound science and research.

I was one of those who got my licence the day I turned 16. It was not called a P licence then; it was just a full licence. I drove for more than 40 years without an accident, without even a speeding fine until one police officer, who did not uphold standards of integrity, falsely accused me of speeding in 2008.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: He was; he was a liar. Gregory Luke Thompson—he lied about his location. Anyway, I just make the point that I did not go through the P1 and P2 process, and I did not have an accident and, touch wood, I still have not, and I never incurred a speeding fine until that false allegation by a dishonest copper. The point is, in days gone by, many of us learnt to drive before we sought a licence, and that would be true of a lot of people from a rural background. We had land at the back of Hawthorndene, where we used to drive around in old cars. We should have kept them because they would be worth a lot of money now. We used to learn to drive long before we sought a licence.

I think that raises the point that the emphasis should be on driver training and proper driver testing. Currently, the system tests to see whether you can park a car on a sunny afternoon in a suburban street. That does not prepare you for overtaking a road train or, as the member for Adelaide just pointed out, dealing with wet weather conditions. The current driver training and driver assessment system is inadequate, and I think it is also open to some degree of abuse. Young people shop around to find the instructor who will get them through in the shortest, least costly period of time; so I think that needs to be looked at.

There needs to be greater use of simulation techniques. I raised that about 15 years ago. I wrote to the then minister suggesting that use be made of simulation techniques, and the answer came back, 'Oh, we can't afford something like that; it costs $30 million.' They were talking about a crash simulator; I was talking about a driver training simulator. The technology has improved now, so that people can simulate road experiences quite easily and cheaply via the available technology, and it should be more widely available.

We do not put pilots at the control of a jumbo jet until they have gone through a simulation course. We do not put train drivers, who drive long-distance freight trains, or drivers of earthmoving equipment suddenly in charge of a freight train or a large excavator, and certainly not if you want to become a pilot. Why we have not translated that approach to driver training escapes me. I have tried to lobby for it. We are getting some of it now but nowhere near what could be done. You can simulate all road situations without the cost of having an accident or the harm that is caused when you learn in the hard world.

I think there is clearly a problem in that police pick on P-platers. How do I know? I have three sons. They are all older now, but they were picked on. They especially love to pick on them if they know they are the son of an MP. We changed the vehicle for one and never had a problem after that. It stands out like the proverbial country toilet if you display a P-plate. I do not see why we cannot have a system where you have to abide by P-plate-type rules but not necessarily have a P-plate. We could extend this plate system—and I am saying this tongue-in-cheek—and have 'silly old git' on a plate, 'SOG', 'ex-drunk', 'grumpy old so and so' or something, to identify people.

What we do is identify young people, and at times they cop, I think, undue harassment and undue surveillance from police, when surveillance should be on every road user, not just those who happen to have a P-plate. I think at one stage Queensland did not require a P-plate. I am not sure whether they have changed that now, but they worked on the basis that you had to abide by P-plate rules, so if you get pulled over and you are not abiding by them then you get the book thrown at you.

I think there should be more emphasis on refresher courses and a requirement for serial offenders to undertake driver training again. I think the standard of driving is pretty woeful. Every day, there are tailgaters and people who cut in where the road goes from two lanes to one—they want to beat you and get in front of you. The standard of driving is really appalling. I would suggest that people who are serial offenders should be required to undertake a proper driver training refresher course.

I also think we should see the reintroduction of the police lecture and make people pay for the privilege of attending. I think that was a good initiative years ago and it does not have to cost the taxpayer or the police department anything. People should have to pay and be required to go along and hear a lecture on how to drive safely. It should also incorporate some basic information about the laws of physics: car hits tree, tree wins. People do not seem to understand basic physics, so you get people tailgating.

At roundabouts, as someone said, the indicator is to show where the car has come from rather than where it is going. I think roundabouts are more like Russian roulette, because in many cases they are not true roundabouts, they are just an obstacle in the road. A true roundabout is where people can change lanes, for example, as per the UK model. Irrespective of whether they are the right size or not, the fact is that people here do not seem to know what to do when they come to a roundabout. It is usually put your foot down and see if you can get through before someone else enters the roundabout.

In terms of policing, I support the installation of fixed cameras. I do not understand why every day we read that there is a mobile camera in the same old location: Main South Road, O'Halloran Hill. For goodness sake, put a fixed camera there and catch people. They work 24 hours a day and are more cost effective in the long run than having a person sitting in a car coming back to the same old spot.

Likewise, with young people, I think the emphasis should be on getting them into safer cars. Sadly, young people tend to drive the least safe vehicles, unless they happen to have a rich parent, so you see them getting around in cars which do not have the full range of airbags and safety equipment and which are not designed to crumple properly in an accident. I know some countries have had a scheme where they assist people financially to upgrade their car to a safer one, and that particularly applies to young people. Why the most accident-prone age group should be getting around in the least safe cars does not seem to me to be a rational approach by our community.

I have heard of parents saying, 'Look, we have bought a car where they can only have a limited number of passengers,' or it is a solid vehicle, because they are trying to deal with this issue that young people, generally, as drivers are more likely to have an accident than older drivers. I think the emphasis across the board should be that young people are encouraged and assisted maybe into getting a safer vehicle, so that if they do have an accident there is less likely to be harm to them and others.

I think some of the focus in this bill is tough but, as I said, sometimes you have to be tough. Nowadays we have become very used to saying yes, and we see it with parents—and I do not profess to be an expert—who want to be a friend of their children rather than a parent. You have to be both at times, but sometimes you have to be able to enforce proper standards of behaviour, and that includes teaching people how to behave on the road.

We seem to have a society that is filled with anger. I am not sure of all the reasons for that, but a lot of people are often in a hurry when driving and also they are often angry, and that anger comes out not just in the extremes of road rage but also in their general driving behaviour. I think we need to look at ways in which people can dissipate their anger, whether it be through physical activity or something else. People who are angry, or anxious, behind the wheel of a car is not a good recipe for safety, for them or for anyone else.

Overall, I think some of the measures in this bill are tough and particularly impact on young country people. There are exemptions, but obviously if you have too many exemptions the whole thing becomes farcical because it would be impossible to implement. I think restricting the number of people in a car, when you have young people involved, does have merit. I do not think the night-time restriction is a big deal at the moment, in terms of statistics, and I do not think that extending the provisional licence period from two years to three years is justified.

In my lifetime we have gone from no requirements regarding P1 and P2, but I realise the world has changed. Cars are a lot safer now than when I got my licence. I think we need a package of measures, including proper driver training and testing and a requirement to repeat that when people become serial offenders on the road. What we need is a package of measures rather than one or two little snapshots which may help. I think the whole issue of driving on the road needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive and research-based way.

The Hon. L.R. BREUER (Giles) (12:31): I rise to support the bill. I have listened to comments from the other side. Being a country member myself, my back certainly goes up when I hear some of the proposals. I was much horrified by the proposals and thought: 'You can't do that.' However, on thinking about it, I have changed my mind. I understand the issues for young country people particularly and I am also concerned about proposals to look at changing speed limits in country areas and to look at the rationale behind that.

I understand how parents would be feeling about some of these proposals, but the fact of the matter is that so many young people die on our roads, particularly our country roads. I know of one notorious section that I pass through at least once a week between Port Augusta and Port Pirie where there were three serious fatal crashes within a few months a few years ago. Every time I go past there I think of them and I think of those young people, because I knew a couple of them who died in those crashes.

There has been much said about country roads and country drivers. It will inconvenience those young country drivers, but the legislation does cover employment requirements, which would be a big problem for some young people in the country having to go home from work. Certainly, having been a parent in the country, there is no way I would have got up at midnight to go and pick up my kids from work: it is just not on. It also, I understand, covers sporting obligations, if they are out playing sport, and that is a big issue for country kids. It also covers family members, so you are not just going to take home the younger brother and the younger sister is left there waiting so you can come back and pick them up.

What do we have left? We have a lot of crashes and a lot of young people being killed on country roads and this is very often caused by joy-riding. You get a car full of young people, they are out to impress their mates, they are fuelled by grog or drugs and the testosterone is raging. It is often a good car; it is often mum and dad's car that they are in. So, they are out there, they are showing off and they kill themselves, or somebody within the car.

Unbelievably, I was young once, back in the sixties. I got my licence very young, as we all did. Virtually on the day you turned 16, or two weeks later, you got your licence because you had been driving around on the country roads for years, the back roads, you knew how to drive and you went and got your licence straight away. I used to fill the car up. I would put two bob's worth of petrol in, disconnect the speedo (I knew how to do that) and go for a ride and take my mates with me.

I am not sure whether this is just a Whyalla term, but I used to 'chuck a beachy' or 'chuck a mainy', which meant you drove down to the beach or you drove along the main street. We had fun, and we got away with it. I never managed to get myself in any situations where I was in trouble because I was fairly conservative in those days—of course, I am completely different now.

My understanding is that this legislation has been introduced after it has been carefully considered by the police officers, and they are the ones who have to go around and knock on doors when somebody is killed and tell the parents, 'I'm sorry; I've got something to talk to you about.' The trauma for them is incredible, as is the trauma it leaves on families. The member for Fisher mentioned that he lost a nephew a long time ago; it would still be a big issue in that family. So, families are devastated by the loss of young people.

I understand this has been very carefully considered by the road safety people, and they are the ones who have all the figures. I like to argue, 'Oh, you know, it's not always the country kids; why are we doing this sort of thing?' Road safety people do have those figures; they know what causes the deaths. It is not just the deaths, it is also the severe injuries that happen to young people, where they are left, for life, in wheelchairs or with other problems.

On Friday night, I attended a wonderful event in Whyalla held by the Phoenix Society. The Phoenix Society Incorporated has quite a big workshop in Whyalla, with people working there. I went along to a social function they had on Friday night, and I was particularly taken with a young man who was a wonderful dancer, a great dancer. He would have put John Travolta to shame, in John Travolta's young days, but I do not think he would probably have much problem now.

He was a wonderful young dancer, and I commented on him and was told that he never had any problems when he was young but that he had a car accident when he was 18 or 19 and sustained brain damage, and now his whole life has changed. He is working in Phoenix and is reasonably happy there, but one wonders what he could have done with his life if that car accident had not happened. So, it is not just about road deaths; we are talking about serious injuries which can also completely change the lives of people and their families, and they carry that burden forever.

I am very supportive of this legislation, despite the fact that I am a country person and a country mother. I have travelled on all those roads out there: north of Port Augusta, across to the Western Australian border, up to the Northern Territory border and across to the New South Wales. I have travelled regularly in the member for Stuart's electorate, and I have travelled thousands and thousands and thousands of kilometres on those roads.

I believe that in addition to what we are doing with this we really need to look seriously at our roads. I think our roads do need work done on them. We have done some incredible work over the last few years, and it is really interesting when you go out there now and see all the barrier fences that have been put along a lot of those country roads. The member for Stuart would also probably be familiar with this. There is now fencing in areas where the roads are really quite dangerous; it may not stop people from going over the top, but it has certainly put a barrier there, and it is also a real reminder.

We have also done a lot of work on clearing vegetation from the side of the roads so they are much clearer, but there are patches where you know there are cows on the road, you slow down, and you are very careful on those patches of road. The condition of some of our roads and some of our highways is really good, but others need extra work done on them. That is a long-term issue; whoever is in government has to really keep looking at that in those country regions and roads.

We have problems with trucks—a huge number of trucks now pass through. If I go home on a Thursday night from parliament, the number of trucks we pass is absolutely incredible; Thursday night seems to be the real truckie night. Another big issue is the grey nomads who are out there in their caravans travelling all over Australia—they drive you mental! It is not always speed that kills; in fact, I think that people going too slow have as big an impact on our roads as those who are going too fast. I see a lot more drivers who are going too slow than I see drivers who are really speeding.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: It's a relative thing, of course.

The Hon. L.R. BREUER: Well, that's it. The other issue I am sure my country colleagues would agree with me on is city drivers, who create a lot of problems out there. I will just quote what many of my constituents say—of course, I would never say it. The city wankers who are out there on the roads driving their cars on our outback roads cause a lot of problems. It is the road rage that results when you are stuck behind a truck or a caravan and there are six or seven cars there. I see people take really silly risks, especially if they are not local and they do not know where it is safe to pass and where it is not safe to pass. I have seen many a near miss when somebody has taken off, trying to pass four or five cars and a truck and getting themselves in all sorts of difficulties.

The other problem we as country drivers have is the distances involved, and that is why I am a little bit concerned about some of the proposals to lower the speed limits. We need to think very carefully about this because, for example, if you live in Port Lincoln and if our speed limits were to be lowered, you would add at least an hour on to your trip. Coober Pedy is the same. For Whyalla you would add half an hour or three quarters of an hour on to your trip. Then there is more driver fatigue. That is a real issue, I think. There are certainly lots of roads in South Australia where we could and should lower the speed limit, but I would ask those powers that be to certainly be very careful about the highways.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. L.R. BREUER: Yes; happiness is Adelaide Hills on your right. I would ask them to be very careful about considering those speed limits, because I think the driver fatigue issue and the distance come in there. An extra hour on your trip when you are already taking seven hours to get to Adelaide is a lot. The other day I went from Roxby Downs to Adelaide—hell, it is a long way to get to Adelaide from Roxby Downs, and there are people who are driving that every weekend.

The other issue, of course, is seatbelts—making sure that country people have seatbelts on. I cannot understand how anybody can get in a car and not automatically put their seatbelt on. I feel like there is something wrong if I do not have my seatbelt on; there is something missing, as if I have not got my watch on or I have lost my left leg. Seatbelts are a real issue. Young people will get in there, pack them all in, and they will not put their seatbelts on.

I think we have had some very good education programs in recent years on road safety. They are very much in your face. The signboards that are around the state are really good, and some of them are really effective. Particularly that campaign with anchors—

Ms Chapman: Wankers.

The Hon. L.R. BREUER: Yes—and doorknobs and all sorts of things. You sit and look at them. I took some time to work out the one that said, 'Three quarters of people wear their seatbelts, 95 per cent of deaths don't.' That took me a while. I could not work out that that was a seatbelt for a while. Anyway, they are in your face; you look at them, you see them and you think about it when you are out there driving. There is one in particular between Port August and Whyalla that says, 'Mum and Dad, slow down' or something. That always catches my eye as I go past as well.

We have had some really good education programs, and I think most people see them and understand what they are all about; but if you are young, it just goes over your head. They do not think about it. Young people think they are invincible. They think they are never going to be killed, nothing is ever going to happen to them, and off they go. I think this legislation will certainly help with that. I think it will restrict a lot of young people from getting out there, showing off and doing all those silly things that probably we did in our youth but got away with.

Now it is a different world. The cars are much more powerful and the roads are much better, and I think that has had an impact. It was pretty hard to speed between Whyalla and Port Augusta when it was a dirt road, but nowadays it is a pretty good road. I do not believe there are enough passing lanes on that road and people do take silly risks. As I say, making our country roads safer is something that all governments, federal and state, need to look at in the future. In this instance, while I think it will be a bit of an imposition on lots of young people, hopefully it will save lives and save them from getting those terrible injuries, and I would support it.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:43): I rise to support the general tenor of this legislation. We all support legislation that will assist safety on our roads; there is no doubt about that. I heard what my shadow minister had to say earlier in relation to that, and we all would say, 'Hear, hear'. Yes, we are concerned at the road toll and the disproportionate number of fatalities and serious injuries among people under 25. It is a huge problem; it always has been. We have all come through that as teenagers ourselves.

Yes, it is a problem and over my career I have tried to assist this in many ways, particularly in driver training in secondary schools. This was all the go back 15 years ago. In particular, we did one program in Port Broughton where the local dealer supplied a car—which was a reasonably new model Holden—and the kids in years 11 and 12 took driving instruction at school. It was very successful. I don't know why it was discontinued, probably because of the occupational health and safety problems or some other nonsense.

I was very lucky in life, along with one of my country colleagues here, to be driving a car when I was four. By the time I was 16 it was second nature. We were lucky on the farm to be able to do that. I used to drive the ute around the farm while my father used to feed the sheep out the back. I was four and I couldn't reach the pedals. He used to have to run along the side and switch it off. When I think back on it, that is what happened. We are lucky because we learn those skills on the property whereas our city cousins do not have the opportunity.

This is why I think the secondary school driver training is very important because it is all about education and this peer group pressure that these young ones have. I agree with the member for Fisher that our younger ones are often driving unsafe motor cars. My kids—and I had three—all wanted to drive groovy motor cars. No way. It was Holden Kingswoods—good Australian tanks. In other words, if you hit anything you had a good chance of walking away. Admittedly, they graduated to Monaros but they were still the Holden Kingswood size. I wish I still had them. To see these little pocket rockets that the kids seem to get around in today makes me shudder because they are very powerful and they are small and there is nothing between them and that Mack truck that they might just happen to hit. They should be driving in safer cars.

Safety is also about better roads and, as the member for Giles has just said, we drive on a lot of roads out there and some of them are just plain dangerous. Over the years I have seen that rather than fix these roads—and this really annoys me—we just drop the speed limits. That really gets up my nose because as you are driving on country roads—and I do that a lot at night—it is dangerous. I have to say that I speed, and do you know why? It keeps me awake. When I say I speed I mean about 10 kilometres above the speed limit. I do 110 km/h around Clare and it is a 100 km/h speed limit. But to sit on 100 when I have not seen a car in half an hour?

Take, for instance, going north of Kapunda, the road is dead straight and you will not see a car go past within half an hour. You sit there at 100 km/h and you get mesmerised because it is just dragging on and on. I do not know why they reduced that back from 110 km/h to 100 km/h because it always was 110 km/h. When you consider the amount of kilometres I do, it is about 60,000 a year, so in my career it is in excess of 1.2 million kilometres. I have only had two scrapes and one was my inattentive driving and the other one was not my fault at all. I have had a few speeding fines but I have to say in the past four years I have been a very good boy and haven't had one. I have learnt the lesson there. I think it is more to do with the vehicle I drive. I have been very pleased about that.

To make our roads safer, I cannot understand why we don't make more of our highways dual lane highways. I give the Labor government only one credit when they were in government when I first got here: they made the highway dual lane from Adelaide to Port Wakefield. Every time I drive on it I say at least they did something that really mattered. That should have been continued on at least to Port Pirie so that people can drive on these major highways at a reasonable speed safely. That also goes for the major highways that link our state to other states, particularly the Sturt Highway up through the Riverland which should be made into dual lanes from the Barossa right through to the eastern border, and of course the Dukes Highway is the same. They should be made into dual lanes; it is common sense. It is just another track. Usually the verge is wide enough to take the road anyway. It is better, rather than having all these passing lanes.

As the member for Giles said, if you want to see some crazy driving, just drive south of Clare on a weekend when there are tourists around and you will see all sorts of things. You see trucks on the road. There are no passing lanes there. People take some ridiculous risks, so I try to avoid that part of the road. People have about 100 metres of vision in front and they try to overtake three cars. You put your hands up, you put your hands out the window. We need more passing lanes, particularly between Clare and Tarlee. It is a disgrace, that road, and I am amazed that there are not more fatalities on it. This is a favourite subject of mine.

Inattentive driving is a big factor that is now being targeted. I know we have targeted speed, drink driving and now drugs, and I am very much pleased about that, but inattentive driving and, more than that, fatigue are both issues. I am guilty of driving with fatigue, because you have to get somewhere for the next day.

The member for Frome would be the same; it is two and a half hours from here to there and you have to be there in the morning, so you drive. Luckily, Port Wakefield is there and is open all hours of the night. You get out, and one of the reasons I am a bit rotund is because the only things that keep you awake are what is not good for you: chocolates and Coke. It does wake you up, but it goes on the waist line, but at least it is there to get out of the vehicle, get some fresh air and talk to somebody.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: What about a banana and a glass of water?

Mr VENNING: The ex-minister says 'a banana and a glass of water'. You are right, and I have tried that, but it does not seem to work. It doesn't. In relation to this bill, I am concerned that we are making it forever longer and harder for the young ones to get their licences, and certainly more expensive.

A young person came in the other day riding a bike and I said, 'Why haven't you got a licence?' She said, 'I can't afford it.' She has to spend so many hours with an instructor, and if you work out what this costs, it is about $1,000 by the time you work it all out, and she has not got the money. Mum and dad cannot afford it, so there is no licence. So, no wonder so many of our young people are driving unlicensed. Why? Because they just take the risk that they will not get caught. Well, we have to make it easier, not harder. I just marvel about that. No wonder our younger drivers are driving unlicensed.

Like the member for Fisher and the member for Giles, I got my licence at 16. I just got the questionnaire, read it, walked back to the police station, did my test there and then and I was driving within a week, because I had been driving for years anyway. As I said, that did not seem to matter. We had a pretty good record. Because I was driving from a young age, I had a pretty fair idea about how dangerous driving could be. We were reasonably mature and, I think, lucky that alcohol was not on the roads in those days—certainly no drugs and not much alcohol, either. I was a teetotaller in those days, so there was no problem there with me. I have changed that a bit, but considering the climate, I think we have done pretty well.

So, some of this is a bit over the fence. Even though we agree with the tenor of this bill, I am concerned about the increase in time on P-plates. As a country driver, most country lads are of great assistance to the country and their families by being able to drive that truck as soon as they are legally able to at harvest time. One of the first tasks that I did, because we had to go back and get an A class licence—that was a driving test back then. You had to actually drive the truck with a policeman alongside you, then you got an A class licence so you could drive the truck. I could do that at 16. Now, if you are going to increase the P-plates from two to three years, a young fellow is going to be at least 19 before he can legally drive that truck.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Or girl.

Mr VENNING: Or girl, sorry. Thank you to the member for Stuart. I would oppose that, because a lot of these lads and young ladies are capable of driving at 16, but, fair enough, if we leave it at the two years as it currently is, I am happy with the P-plates on, because I understand you cannot drive a truck with a P-plate on. Is that still the rule? I presume it is. That would concern me greatly. I have no problems supporting the restrictions for P1 drivers with the exceptions and I support the bringing forward of the hazard perception test to the L to P1 stage.

I do oppose the 12 o'clock to 5am curfew particularly. Here is me—how would I go? With country people, a lot of them are doing a lot of their driving after midnight, and it is a pretty heavy restriction, again, to put on country youth, to say that you have to be home by 12 o'clock. It is the old Cinderella trick, isn't it? It really is, and I think it is a bit draconian to try to pass laws like this.

So I am concerned that when you make these laws, you have to consider young people in the country because in many cases, they do not have an option. They cannot just get in a cab or get on a bus that is not there. Again, we must realise that a lot of these people are featured rather heavily in our statistics and it is amazing to consider that a lot of the statistics are within two or three kilometres of home—that is another amazing statistic that we have.

The road toll is there—and some people call it a statistical aberration—but it is amazing that this year the road toll is up again, considering all of the rules that we have made for this year. It is creeping up again irrespective of the very strong police RBT and drugs testing and irrespective of speed cameras all over the place, which drives me a little bit nuts at times. You will always see a police car on the Gomersal Road because it is 90 ks. They have a habit of sitting down the bottom of the big dipper and if you are on your cruise control, it will run on. So I do think—and a lot of the police would agree—that they are out there revenue raising. I think that is rather sad and it gives the police a bad name. Irrespective of that, I do support this bill with those two amendments.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:56): I rise today to speak to the Motor Vehicles (Learner's Permits and Provisional Licences) Amendment Bill 2013. The minister is trying to provide for several categories in this bill. One is an increase in the time that young people must remain on their P-plates after being on their learner's. This means that, instead of being on their Ps for two years, it goes to three years.

I note the comments made by members on this side of the house. When discussing this bill with my colleagues I essentially said that because you can get your learner's as soon as you turn 16 and spend up to a year on that and then have two years on P-plates, if you can't drive after three years, you probably cannot drive after four years. So you have to wonder why are we imposing that restriction especially in the light of what some of our members have indicated here.

The member for Schubert has expressed how he was driving from age four; I certainly cannot remember exactly when I started driving, but I know I was checking rabbit traps, the old steel-jawed ones, so you couldn't go checking them anymore.

An honourable member: It's illegal.

Mr PEDERICK: That is illegal.

The Hon. L.R. Breuer: All the fun's gone out of life!

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, exactly. You used to go out when you were about nine or 10 and I think the biggest damage I did was chasing a fox with the automatic one-ton ute and forgot to look out for the fence. But you do learn how to drive, especially in the country if you have a bit of land.

I was doing a bit of work several months ago putting a trough in on the farm and watching my sons—one is 12 (it might have been just before he was 12) and the other one is nine—and the 12 year old was driving the car with a trailer with some equipment on it, because I was driving the tractor. It is fantastic that they can do that to assist you with jobs. Plenty of country children are doing that at a very early age and gaining those skills which is a great credit to them and it helps them in later life as they venture on to getting their learner's and then on to P-plates.

So as far as extending the time, I think it is just wrong. As I indicated, if you cannot drive after three years on the road then getting a full licence, you probably should just pack up and forget about it instead of having that extra year and going to four years. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.