Motions

Speed Detection

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (11:02): I move:

That this house establish a select committee to inquire into and report upon—

(a) the operation of speed cameras and speed detection devices in South Australia;

(b) the relationship between the location of speed cameras and the incidence of road accidents;

(c) the impact of constantly changing speed limits and the effectiveness of speed limit signage;

(d) the effectiveness and appropriateness of current penalties for speeding offences, including a review of fines imposed;

(e) the operation of the Community Road Safety Fund; and

(f) any related matters.

Let me start by dealing with the perception that we cannot hide from in this place. It was stated in The Advertiser late last year, after a survey they did, that 80 per cent of people who responded to the survey believed speed cameras were revenue raising for the government. We can debate the percentage—80 per cent, 70 per cent, 90 per cent, 50 per cent, whatever it might be—but the perception is out there in the public that speed cameras are revenue-raising operatives for the government.

Experts will tell you that speed cameras help reduce road fatalities. I do not know anyone who would deny that we should do everything reasonably possible to bring down the road toll, especially after last year, when we had a very poor year, with fatalities again rising above the 100 mark to 108. That number is just not good enough. Police say a number of factors influence where mobile speed cameras were located, including crash data, traffic volumes and reports of dangerous driving. I hope this committee can help motorists understand the contribution that speed cameras make to road safety.

Noting point No. 1 in the recommendations for this committee, 'the operation of speed cameras and speed detection devices in South Australia', I refer to an article in the News Limited Press in November 2014, which talked about speed cameras on the South Eastern Freeway. The article stated that speed cameras are generating three times as much revenue as expected, and that they are providing the government with a 'multimillion-dollar windfall'. Cameras at the Crafers Interchange and Mount Osmond Overpass have generated $5.84 million in speeding fines in their first seven months of operation. At that rate, the fixed cameras would return $10 million for the year—well above the expected $3 million. More than 13,000 people were caught in a six-month period leading up to June last year. Even the RAA felt that was a higher than expected revenue and they thought it maybe because of the variation of speed limits and the ability to vary speed limits on signs depending on the conditions.

The RAA also suggested that more signs making speed limits clear to drivers could be helpful to reduce the number of speeding incidents on the South Eastern Freeway. That is just one example where people get very confused about speed limits. You can see from the numbers that the resulting fines that have ensued would appear to be quite disproportionate to the operations going on. If they are effective and they are all legitimate people speeding and not adhering to the speed signs, there is a concern that the message is not getting through and people are not changing their behaviour. So, that is one area that could very much be looked at.

It is probably remiss of me also not to mention the late Dr Bob Such, the former member for Fisher, and the good work he did inquiring into speed cameras and the positioning of speed cameras. I am sure he probably put forward a similar motion to this across the journey. Dr Such was very passionate about making sure speed cameras were not placed where they were just used as a revenue raiser. I am sure he would sit in that 80 to 90 per cent of people who believe speed cameras are for revenue raising. Dr Such had countless motions on this topic, and some may suggest he ran a crusade on the issue of speed cameras; he had some very good points that could be considered in a select committee on the issue.

Dr Such was a strong advocate for better signage of speed limits to ensure drivers were suitably notified of the speed limit to give them the best chance of driving at the posted figure. Dr Such spent a lot of energy ensuring speed cameras were not set up to trick people who missed an obscured sign as the speed limit changed from 80 km/h to 60 km/h. He was also a stickler for the accuracy of speed cameras and a big advocate for the road safety commissioner as they have in Victoria, someone who independently reviews complaints and monitors the accuracy and efficiency of speed cameras.

I go to point two which talks about 'the relationship between the location of speed cameras and the incidence of road accidents'. Again, I refer to a report that was issued in The Advertiser in December last year which pointed out Adelaide's mobile speed camera hot spots: the top 10 sites and the revenue they were returning. Bearing in mind we have a couple of different methods and mechanisms to record speed, we have mobile cameras and fixed cameras, we now have point-to-point speed cameras as well, and this evolution is growing day by day. In fact, in November last year it was revealed that new infrared mobile speed cameras were on the market as well for use by authorities—new technology to detect speeding drivers at night as they approached the camera instead of passing it. They can also take photos of car numberplates without using a flash. This new infrared technology has been fitted to all mobile speed cameras at a cost of $57,000.

Along with infrared, point-to-point, mobile and fixed camera technology, there are quite a number of ways that people can get caught speeding and that alludes again to the suggestion of having a select committee which I think the government should put in place so we can really have a look at all these different methods of detecting people and let us find out the location of these speed cameras and the incidence of road accidents. We can correlate them together and work out whether we are putting these speed cameras in places to reduce road traffic incidents, fatalities and crashes, or whether we are just putting them in places that are just there to increase the government's coffers and raise revenue.

I mentioned the top 10 mobile camera sites and it was revealed, as I said, in a newspaper article late last year that the number one location was South Terrace with $629,000 in revenue being generated. People might ask, 'How many crashes, how many fatal crashes have there been on South Terrace?' Fortunately, the number of crashes is very low, and the number of fatal crashes is zero, as far as I could tell, in recent times. But $629,000 in revenue has been raised. This is the debate that needs to be had and things need to be talked through. Is the lack of incidents because we have had the speed cameras there, or would there have been no incidents were there no speed cameras and have we just been raising revenue? That is the debate we need to have.

In Jeffcott Street in North Adelaide, 452,000 was raised there; in South Terrace, Pooraka, $422,000; in Mitchell Park, Bradley Grove, $418,000; and, the list goes. These cameras return upwards of $350,000 to $400,000 for the top five or six cameras in the mobile camera operations. The top 10 sites in fact returned $4 million of the total fine revenue last financial year. They are big money earners, there is no doubt about that, but we need to have this committee to look at how they are impacting or reducing incidents and accidents on our road and, ultimately, fatalities on the road as well.

We talk about fixed cameras as well as mobile cameras. The number there is far greater: in fact, Montague Road, Ingle Farm, recorded 10,061 fines totalling $3.370 million. I mentioned the South Eastern Freeway, and it has been in the press a lot. The top two of the fixed cameras are on the South Eastern Freeway, which is no surprise. At Leawood Gardens, 8,227 fines have been issued and $3.6 million in fines have been handed out there, with 6,171 fines, at $2.9 million, at Crafers, and the list goes on. The top nine net over $1 million in revenue and over 3,000 fines for the top 10 fixed speed camera locations around South Australia.

This really is what this is about and why we need to have this select committee. The perception out there is that speed cameras are all about bringing in revenue to the government and that they are not about safety. We need to look at this; we need to take an independent view so that we can determine where speed cameras need to be to keep people safe and also educate people.

I hark back to where I started in this speech, to Advertiser reports that up to 80 per cent of people believe that speed cameras are just for revenue raising. The experts will say that they are not. I am not disputing the experts here, but we need to get the facts and put them on the table for the public of South Australia. We need to change that perception and/or make our roads safer, and in doing that we can change that perception. If people understand that speed cameras are there to keep us safe, that is what the objective of this committee will be.

We talk about fines as well, and we can see whether or not the fines need to be looked at. For example, at the last budget a fine for anyone travelling between 10 to 20 km/h over the speed limit went up from $340 to $349, plus the victims of crime levy, which is $60, so it is getting quite hefty. We need to look at it and say, 'Is the financial imposition on someone committing this crime in going over the speed limits having an impact and is it reducing our road fatalities and our number of incidents on the road?' That is the question.

I will run through the other fines. If you are doing less than 10 km/h over the speed limit in a motor vehicle, you will be fined $159. I mentioned that at between 10 and 20 km/h over the limit you will be fined $349, between 20 and 30 km/h it is $709, between 40 and 45 km/h it is $846, and 45 km/h over the posted speed limits will get you an expiation fee of $952. The figures are much higher if you are driving a road train. The demerit points also I notice were increased a little while ago: they run two, three, five, seven and nine through those five categories I mentioned. So, demerit points are also a big issue here.

As we go through the other list of recommendations for this select committee, we see that the impact of constantly changing speed limits and the effectiveness of speed limit signage are key factors which we need to address and which people are very confused about. To the department's credit, they have been doing some work in this area, and I was quite glad to be involved in the Adelaide Hills Council area speed limit review in November last year.

This is a great initiative, where the Adelaide Hills Council came together with the RAA, the Motor Accident Commission and the Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR) and collectively reviewed the speed limits in the Adelaide Hills—funnily enough, for this very reason. So, we have done it in the Adelaide Hills and, as we are pointing out in relation to this select committee, we want to look at the impact of constantly changing speed limits and the effectiveness of speed limit signage right across the city of Adelaide and South Australia. It has been done here in the Hills and the feedback was quite interesting. This is why, again, I think a select committee looking into these factors would be very beneficial.

A collective review of the speed limits in the Adelaide Hills was conducted, with community engagement, firstly, on 9 July at Uraidla footy club, at Stirling council on 22 July, the Village Well at Aldgate on 24 July, the Woodside Institute on 5 August and the Gumeracha Town Hall on 7 August. That is the one that I went to. It was impressive, and the department was very impressed with the feedback and, dare I say, surprised by the quality of input from local residents. There was lots of discussion, the butcher's paper came out and across the board the opinion was divided on speed limits.

However, they did say they wanted no more than three speed zones, and that was the commonly held view. They all looked for improved signage—that was very high on the list of wants from these groups. More advanced warnings of signage and the use of painted signage on the roadway, like they do interstate, were also brought up. Greater use of electronic sign boards and greater enforcement of speed limits were also raised, along with an increased police presence. More community education on road safety in the Adelaide Hills and improved maintenance and better infrastructure were also mentioned. Consistency of speed limits was the key.

Results from the seminars found that 50 per cent of participants felt that 50 km/h and 60 km/h speed limits were not applied consistently; 70 per cent of participants felt that the 80 km/h speed limits were not applied consistently. That is a big issue, and that is what I think this select committee can have a look at. It is an issue up in the Hills, and I think it is an issue right across South Australia. These are the points that have people confused, and we know there has been a big change in time.

I hark back, and I point out, too, that there are a number of different speed camera methodologies, if you like: we have the mobile ones, the fixed ones, point to point, and now we have the infra-red ones as well. That is a really key point. I could go on because this really is a vexed issue in the community. As I said, 80 per cent of people, from The Advertiser report, feel that this is something that should be looked at.

Finally, as we go through the list of things we could look at, another impact that could be considered (and I think this is very important) is that reports have shown the negative impact of speed cameras and fines on the police force in the community when they are imposing these fines. While the police are supposed to be respected and appreciated by members of the community, and they do a fine job in helping solve crimes, instead they are blemished by this perception that they are the ones who are imposing the fines on people for speeding. I think this is a real issue that we could look at as well because the police need to be held in high regard.

Time expired.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:17): I thank the member for Mitchell for bringing this issue to the house. Can I say that 'the member for Schubert' is an honourable title and something that the previous member (Ivan Venning) and I share and, on this issue, as with many other issues (including the establishment of a new health facility in the Barossa), the members for Schubert are at one. Indeed, almost four years ago to the day, on 9 March 2011, my predecessor moved:

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

Can I say that the reason he moved that motion, and the reason we are discussing this notice of motion today, is very much brought home to the people of Schubert because we are very much in the eye of law enforcement when it comes to speed cameras. It is a huge issue in my electorate because of the huge attention the Barossa gets when it comes to this issue. Can I say of the former member for Schubert's motion that, unfortunately, it was defeated in this form, thanks to some what we will call word manipulation by the Labor government at the time, and it is unfortunate that the issue could not have been given the weight and the time it deserved.

Can I say of the beautiful Barossa Valley that we are lucky enough to have in our local service area one of the lowest crime rates in the state. For example, we had only 238 total offences against property and persons in January, and we compare that with, say, the Murray Mallee LSA, which had 429. It has often been put to me by local police that the Barossa LSA has the lowest crime rates across South Australia. However, maybe there is a consequential link that, because there are low rates of crime, we are often and very frequently visited by speed detection devices. Since the start of the year, the cameras have visited the Barossa on 10 days in various locations. So, here we are talking about coming towards the end of February and already on 10 days we have had speed cameras in the Barossa.

Interestingly, and this is a point that I would like to make, a lot of these days tend to be a Friday, Saturday or Monday, which are peak times for tourists visiting the Barossa. Especially because of the nature of where the Barossa is in relation to Adelaide and the spread out nature of the wineries across my district, people tend to use cars, and it is unfortunate that we are targeting one of our tourism hotspots in this way, particularly to a group of people who would be less familiar with the area than the local residents.

It is also interesting that most of those cameras are located not on the long stretches of road, not on the crash hotspots in my electorate, and I am thinking of Gomersal Road, which has had a number of crashes since it has been upgraded. They tend, more often than not, to be in the 50 km/h stretches of road. I find this extremely difficult to align with revenue raising versus the preventative element of having speed cameras helping to change people's attitudes in relation to speeding.

In The Advertiser on 5 December 2014, Murray Street in Nuriootpa (which is a fantastic and beautiful town) was listed as the seventh most common site for a mobile speed camera. This is a town of about 6,000 or 7,000 people, yet it rates as the seventh-highest spot for having a speed camera in South Australia, between 13 January and 21 December last year, with a deployment on 51 days out of that period—51 days on the main street of Nuriootpa in a 50 km/h zone on a main street that does not necessarily see a lot of accidents.

Can I say, though, that this motion also deals with speed limits and whether or not those speed limits are appropriate. I have long been talking about the vexed issue of inconsistent speed limits in my electorate. One example that always comes to mind is the beautiful Gomersal Road, which was only developed about 10 years ago. It was one of the crowning achievements of Ivan Venning. It was rated at 90 km/h, whereas the Mount Pleasant to Angaston road is rated 100 km/h and it is not in as good a condition, but those roads are single lane into town roads that are of a very similar nature.

I also have a series of three roads that are in parallel with each other, being Bethany Road, Basedow Road and Krondorf Road. All three of those roads, even though they are parallel with each other and serve a similar function, have different speed limits. It is incongruous to believe that these things should not be the same. It really is a struggle for locals to understand, and very much a struggle for tourists to understand.

Can I say that, of the top 10 mobile camera sites as listed in The Advertiser on 5 December 2014, in that same year, in 2014, none of those top 10 camera sites had a road fatality. In fact, the only connection that we could find was that on Main North Road at Blair Athol there were 56 deployments last year and there was a fatality that occurred at the Main North Road-Grand Junction Road intersection, but that would not have been where the speed camera was. That is as tenuous a link as we can find between road crash fatalities and where mobile camera sites are set up.

Of the 2014 road fatalities—and working towards getting our road fatality rate down to zero is a cause that we should all be very much invested in—speed was only a contributing factor in 26 per cent, and that is lower than the five-year average of 33 per cent, so people are getting the message. But can I say that non-restraint use (i.e. not wearing a seatbelt) came in at 26 per cent and, again, that is below the five-year average of 34 per cent. You can see that the message is getting through.

But if we want to look at tackling road fatalities, here is an issue that I think we need to be focusing more attention on, and that is that drugs were a factor in 27 per cent of road fatalities, and this is higher than the five-year average of 21 per cent. That shows that we are not winning the war and not winning the fight in changing people's attitudes when it comes to taking drugs and driving. That is possibly where government should be spending more of its time and effort in helping to address that issue.

It is also interesting to note that the Community Road Safety Fund, in the Auditor-General's most recent report, identified that the state government received $81 million from speeding fines in 2013-14. When the Community Road Safety Fund was established in 2003-04, it raised $38.8 million. So we are talking about well over doubling. We are talking about a 110 per cent increase in the amount of money that the government collects from speed cameras. This inquiry would be very good at helping to drill down and understand where that increased revenue has come from. The cynics amongst us may say that it may be coming from the government targeting specific locations where we do not necessarily have increased precedence of fatalities but maybe an increased rate of being able to administer fines.

The government's own Towards Zero Together target, the Road Safety Action Plan 2013-2016, notes that research in South Australia and nationally has shown that investing in road improvements can produce crash savings with a value at least 10 times the cost of infrastructure—at least 10 times the cost of infrastructure. We have had recent announcements on road funding where maybe we have not seen cost-benefit analysis done, but the government's own Towards Zero Together report says that we can get a 10 to one return on the cost of infrastructure in terms of producing savings by having fewer crashes.

If that is not an argument for dealing with the $400 million backlog in road maintenance, I do not know what is. It is coming from the government's own voice, so surely the government realises that investing in road maintenance has to be a high priority. Indeed, if we are collecting over twice the amount of revenue from speeding fines as we did when the Community Road Safety Fund was first established, surely this means that we should be able to increase extra money in road maintenance. Can I say that for the seat of Schubert that is a huge and absolute priority.

Just last week, analysis by the Australian Automobile Association revealed that a $3.25 billion funding boost is needed to improve the safety of South Australian roads and to limit traffic congestion, and that approximately 38 lives would have been saved last year if our state improved its road safety performance to the same level as New South Wales. If we invested in the same way as New South Wales does, we could have saved 38 lives. If that is not an argument for increased funding for road maintenance in dealing with the road maintenance block, I do not know what is.

In closing, Deputy Speaker, I very much appreciate and thank the member for Mitchell for bringing this to this place. It is a huge and important issue and a chance for the government to be able to allay the concerns that some of the cynics amongst us have in relation to speed cameras.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:27): It gives me great pleasure to support the member for Mitchell and shadow minister for road safety in his desire to have this select committee established by this house. I think this is a very responsible initiative that he has taken. This is not something that is about having a crack at the government, because let me say very clearly, I have no doubt about the government's very genuine desire to improve safety on our roads. That does not mean that a good suggestion from the opposition shadow minister should not be accepted by the government either. We have plenty of good ideas and here is a tremendous example of exactly that.

Let me also just say that I do not accept what is often publicly out there as a criticism, that the police are out there revenue raising. That is just not true. The police do not get the benefit of the funds that come from fines and penalties associated with speed cameras and other devices. There may well be an argument to say that it is a necessary part of the state government's income, in the same way as taxes on alcohol and cigarettes and things can be part of the federal government's income. That is something well worth considering, but I do not accept at all that the police are behind trying to revenue raise.

For the member for Mitchell to suggest that a select committee is set up to look into speed cameras and speed detection devices, current penalties, the operation of the Community Road Safety Fund and other related issues is very important. It is important to our state, but it is also very important to my electorate of Stuart. As a person who drives an enormous distance every year, previously well in excess of 100,000 kilometres a year almost exclusively in the country but now less than that and much of that now in the city area as well, as I come almost every week of the year back and forth between the electorate and Adelaide, this is something that is important to me and the people that I represent and something that I feel I have something to contribute to.

Police have said very clearly for years that fatalities on our roads are due to five key factors—not wearing seatbelts, inattention, drugs and alcohol, fatigue and speeding—so it is fair to look at speeding as part of the mix. As the member for Schubert has said, the actual percentage of speeding contributing directly to road fatalities is decreasing. So, something is going right there, there is no doubt about it, but that does not mean that we cannot finetune the approach, and that is exactly what the member for Mitchell is looking to do here.

I would add that speed limits are a very important part of this issue with regard to an incongruous set of speed limits on what seem to be very similar roads or, in some cases in my electorate and other parts of the state, higher limits on worse roads with worse incidence of accidents and fatalities and lower limits on better roads with a better safety record. That sort of thing needs to be addressed, and that is one of the issues that the member for Mitchell included in his address.

The government's approach over the last few years of having a blanket reduction of speed limits across a whole sector of geography across our state is entirely wrong, because those five things I mentioned before—inattention, drugs and alcohol, fatigue, not wearing seatbelts and speeding—do not constitute the same thing as speed limits. So, just reducing the speed limits is not actually addressing any one of those five things, because reducing a speed limit does not necessarily stop people from speeding; in fact, it might increase the incidence of speeding. These are very important issues.

I think that including point-to-point cameras is very important; that is a relatively new addition to the suite of equipment that the government and the police have to use. While I know that this disappoints a certain number of people in my electorate, I think that point-to-point cameras are very good and that they do have a positive role to play because they take away the possibility of people driving in excess of the speed limit by accident by a very small amount for a very short period of time and being pinged seemingly unfairly.

If you go over 20 kilometres or 120 kilometres and, on average, you have been speeding, clearly you have been driving inappropriately, as opposed to your getting up to 116 km/h in a 110 km/h zone and then you realised and you corrected and got yourself back on track, you could be unfairly pinged there; but if you had been doing that consistently for 100 kilometres in a row and you did not address and correct your very brief mistake, you deserve to be reminded by the police. I would like point-to-point cameras to be part of it, and certainly the terms of reference that the member for Mitchell has suggested would cover that.

Road maintenance is a very big issue. I have some figures here that are about 10 months old, but 10 months ago, according to the RAA, the backlog of state government road maintenance funding had soared from $160 million in 2001 to $269 million at that point in time and was estimated to be nearly $350 million by 2019. I know that upgrading our roads would make a big difference.

It is always the driver's responsibility: you do not blame the road, you do not blame the weather and you do not blame the car, unless for example you happen to be hit by lightning or unless your car is well serviced and your brakes still happen to fail. Ruling out those exceptional things, it is the driver's responsibility; however, better roads would make the ability of the driver to fulfil his or her responsibilities much easier, and they would be able to do so in a much safer way. It is not feasible for the government to try to excuse itself from its responsibility with regard to addressing the really unacceptable backlog in road maintenance.

As I hope all members of this house would know, we went to the last election offering to double the state's contribution to black spot road funding. I think that would have been an exceptionally positive thing to do with regard to contributing to road safety. Obviously we were not able to put that policy in place but I encourage members opposite, I encourage the government, to put that policy into effect, because it will certainly save lives, it will certainly reduce accidents. It will certainly let the government off the hook a little bit with some of the arguments that come along about the government focusing on the wrong areas, if the government were to say, 'Look, here are some black spots, here are known places where there have been serious accidents, and here is the government addressing that by increasing funding to improve the safety of those roads at those black spots.'

Again, I commend the shadow minister for road safety, the member for Mitchell, on this issue. This would be a very large body of work that the select committee would have to engage in if it were to look at this, but I think that the way the member has put forward his six points is very responsible, and I think it would be an extraordinary shame if the government did not address this issue and did not want to put a bipartisan, responsible group of members of parliament together to address exactly these things.

It is not about asking why the government does not care about road fatalities; of course, the government does. It is actually about saying, 'Why don't we get our heads together in a really responsible way and try to improve what, unfortunately, to date, has eluded all governments of all political persuasions: that is, that golden chalice goal of getting road fatalities down to zero.' I suspect that is not possible any time soon, but we could make a very big dent in that. Allowing this select committee to be established would be a very positive and honourable way of contributing towards that target.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:36): I also rise today to commend the member for Mitchell for moving this motion. He is a wonderful member who is in touch with his local community and, as he pointed out, there are a number of perceptions out there in relation to this issue.

In my first year in this place I have noticed a number of perceptions out there in relation to speed cameras. I have heard many things, and I probably get one or two issues a week come into my electoral office in relation to this. Some of the comments you get are things like, 'Speed cameras are all about raising revenue.' We work in an era and an industry where perception is reality, so it is important that we note these comments and work on these perceptions to make sure that the facts are out there.

I have also heard, out in the electorate, that perhaps speed cameras do not make a large difference to road safety. Again, as members of parliament we have a role to combat that perception and help people to understand why they are in place. There is also a perception that they are not accurate, and we are also told by members of the public that they might be in sneaky positions. We are also told that motorists do not have enough warning before coming upon the cameras. We are told that they are so unpopular and we are asked why, if they are so unpopular, the government keeps putting them in. Is it only to raise revenue or is it more than that? Other comments I get out in the electorate include things like, 'Why aren't the police pursuing real criminals instead of innocent motorists?' It goes on and on.

So there are a number of common perceptions out in the electorate. I think it is essential that we address these, and I commend the member for Mitchell for raising these very important issues in his motion. Whether we like it or not, there is a perception out there of revenue raising, and it is important that we direct our attention towards the relationship between the location of speed cameras and the incidence of road accidents. Surely these speed cameras should be in the best positions to ensure that the road toll comes down, that fatalities come down. This motion will allow the committee, once it is set up, to explore and analyse that issue.

We also know that there are zones in our suburbs, especially in a city electorate like mine, where speed limits constantly change. They constantly change from 60 to 50 to 40 km/h in some areas and the effectiveness of speed limit signage is probably not where it needs to be. That is extremely frustrating and it affects members of the public in our electorates. It is not necessarily white-collar crime crooks who are being nabbed: it is the mums and dads and the elderly citizens who are driving during the week, it is the people dropping their kids off at school. These are real-life people who are affected by these penalties.

We certainly owe it to ourselves to investigate the penalties that the member for Mitchell has established. He has even asked for a review of the fines imposed. Are the fines where they need to be? Do they reach the right balance between punishment and keeping the road toll down? These are all valid concerns that have been raised by the member for Mitchell, and I have no problem in assisting him and supporting his motion.

The member for Mitchell also spoke about the perception out there about police. A lot of the time police bear the brunt of law enforcement, and it is not a nice thing. If someone is doing 58 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, I am sure it is not a nice thing for a police officer to go over and hand them a fine of several hundred dollars. It is important that we educate the community better on this issue, as to why these things are happening and the impacts of speed and the facts on speed, which I would also like to briefly mention.

Obviously travel speeds affect not only the risk of crash involvement but also the severity of crashes, as well as injuries. We all know that speed is certainly a factor in serious crashes; no-one is disputing that. If everyone did the right thing and drove within the speed limit, I am sure that lives would be saved and serious injuries would be prevented. It goes without saying. However, we see that the road toll is higher this year than last year. No matter how many resources we pump into it, no matter how much education we bring to the public's attention, it is still a massive issue. Things such as stopping distance and the impact of speeding on crash risks are clear issues that are still not getting out there. So, any motion that helps the public to be educated on these issues is certainly a good thing.

Police data on all speed camera fines issued in 2013-14 show that the lowest speeding offence in a 40 km/h zone was 48 km/h; in a 50 km/h zone it was 58 km/h; in an 80 km/h zone it was 89 km/h; in a 100 km/h zone it was 110 km/h; and in a 110 km/h zone it was 120 km/h. This data should certainly be questioning why this is happening and if there is perhaps more merit in moving these speed cameras. One classic example is where trucks incur fines. They might have to go over the speed limit for a fraction of a second and it might happen to be where a camera is located and they get nabbed.

The essential part of this motion reiterates the fact that we need to try to reduce fatalities on our roads. We need to reduce the road toll. It is not about revenue raising. It is an easy pinch for the government and it is not necessarily an attractive issue for them, but it is not just about revenue raising. We need to be doing more than just revenue raising.

Of the top 10 speed camera sites—and I am proud to say that none of the sites are in Hartley, and I hope none are in your electorate, Deputy Speaker—Montacute Road, Ingle Farm is the number one site. There were 10,061 fines at a value of $3.3 million. It is extraordinary. The revenue that is being raised at some of these sites is extraordinary. There is no doubt that the balance is not there. The balance between revenue raised and the reduction in road fatalities is not there, and that is the balance that we need to strike. We need to get that right. We need to be better at it.

I commend the member for Mitchell for his motion. As I said, he is a member of parliament who is in touch with his electorate. This is a massive issue in the electorate, and I will certainly commend any motion to the house which aims to reduce the road toll, reduce fatalities on our roads, and gets that balance right in relation to speed camera fines.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:44): I support the motion before the house and thank the member for Mitchell for introducing the same. I agree with other speakers that he has taken this issue up locally and, in his new portfolio responsibility role for this side of the house, with vigour and effectiveness, and we thank him for progressing with this motion.

Driver behaviour, including speed, clearly is a significant factor to be taken into account in road deaths and road safety matters. The increase in fatalities last year, and the alarming number of 13 road deaths just in January of this year, indicates that if the government is not going to address some of these issues then the opposition will take up the mantle and encourage the parliament to view these matters. They are serious, and I do not doubt for one moment that members opposite are concerned about the increasing number of road deaths. I am sure they have considerable concern about that, but they have to act on it and, in the absence of acting on it, I commend the member for Mitchell for doing so.

There are three issues in the electorate of Bragg I want to place on the table and ask the committee in due course to consider; one is that from time to time there are fairly ad hoc reviews of speed limits, and the Adelaide Hills, which is by far the greatest geographical area of my electorate, is currently under review. The Adelaide Hills Council, for example, is working on a review. The local residents are used to steep, windy, narrow roads and often having to deal with an increased cyclist presence, particularly on weekends and sunny days, and we want to encourage that activity.

The question of being able to deal with access to all the roads and whether we should be providing some dedicated tracks there I think is critical. The combination of speed in trying to accommodate that and ensure that local people are not so heavily impeded by having unreasonably slow speed limits that impede their capacity to get on and deliver their children to school, attend to harvest and all the other things that they need to do, I realise is a balance.

Last week, for example, the member for Heysen and I attended the Uraidla Show, which is proudly in my electorate. It is the first of the royal shows in the South Australian calendar, and thousands of people came into the district and enjoyed that event. The British car club is no longer at Uraidla but now across at Stirling. These are major festivals of activity we are proud of and we want to encourage people to come to, so there has got to be that balance, but these are steep, windy, narrow roads and we really do need to consider that.

The biggest revenue raiser for my electorate is those who are coming in from the east and who hit the Parklands and it is suddenly 50 km/h. I walked through the Parklands this morning and saw two rats—they were not people; they were real rats—I saw a person from industry—

Ms Digance: Were they speeding?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, they were not; they rushed across in front. I ask you: how dangerous is it to drive on a roadway between two parcels of parkland at 50 km/h? This area, particularly from South Terrace to Greenhill Road, is an absolute goldmine for governments because they are changing the speed limit unnecessarily.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, the minister can comment about council. Adelaide City Council has raised this issue in Hutt Street, where they have gone into the 40 zone, the trial period and so on, but the 50 zone, which was imposed at the state level, is one which I know other members have written to previous government ministers about. I would ask them to take it up because of this question of placing speed cameras in areas of high turnover where there is an inadvertent circumstance and the answer of the government is, 'Oh, well, it's 50 unless it's signed otherwise.' Well, hello, that issue has to be looked at and I ask that it be considered.

Finally, if the member for Mitchell's committee is successful, which I hope it is, it should look at the major roads. Portrush Road is a federally funded upgrade road; it is a major highway for the purposes of taking up to 3,000 trucks a day, and multiple heavy vehicles. There are some long-term plans to take them on to the new north-south corridor, if we ever get that finished.

On our side of politics, we are keen for that to happen. It is a bit of a sad story that they sold all the land under the MATS plan and we had to start all over again, but one day that will happen, and we can then reduce the heavy-vehicle traffic going along Portrush Road, which is adjacent to many schools. Nowhere else in Australia do main arterial roads have such a high number of schools adjacent to them.

This issue has been raised before. I can remember raising it with the Hon. Trish White, who was minister for education and minister for transport. We still have not resolved this issue, and we still have the potential of collisions between heavy vehicles, cars, cyclists and pedestrians.

Mr Tarzia: They want to put a bike lane on it.

Ms CHAPMAN: And, of course, what does the government want to do? They want to put a bike lane down the middle of it. We have begged the government not to progress with that. It is a road safety consequence. It is a busy road. We accept that at present it is the only outlet road leading to the South Eastern Freeway for the trucking industry. We understand that they cannot get around Britannia roundabout, and now that they have put two roundabouts there, they still cannot get around it. The second roundabout is of course being dug up at the moment because we are about to have the Clipsal.

The reality is that we fit in when the government comes up with reasonable ideas; but, at the moment, they have come up with some ideas that are some absolute stinkers which do put safety and people at risk. We will not support them. We want to think sensibly about this. If they are really serious about road safety (which I think, in their hearts, each of them would be) then they need to walk into that cabinet room and make sure that they do it property. I commend the motion to the house and thank the member for Mitchell.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.