Cycling Citizens' Jury

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (14:28): My question is directed to the Premier. Premier, can you describe to the house the approach Sharing the Road Safelycitizen jurors took before recommending changes to the cycling laws?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:28): It is important that this matter be canvassed today because it has been a matter of some popular remark. The work undertaken by the citizens' jury that considered how motorists and cyclists interact on our roads was founded on evidence—a novel concept for those opposite—expert testimony, and the jurors' own commitment to reach out to the broader South Australian public on the issue. In arriving at the recommendations, which included changes to the laws to provide for safer overtaking of cyclists and to enable safe riding on footpaths, the jurors:

considered advice from 10 expert witnesses from outside of government, including trauma surgeon Associate Professor Bill Griggs, the RAA, BikeSA, the LGA, SA Police, the South Australian Road Transport Association, and the Motor Accident Commission.

assessed policy approaches being taken in more than 12 jurisdictions in Australia and internationally;

considered 38 public submissions; and

engaged with the broader public and monitored public debate including their deliberations through the government YourSAy website and Twitter chat where the jury responded to questions from the public—a discussion which trended on Twitter at that time—which I understand is a good thing.

Before making their recommendations, the jurors considered the wide range of factors that affect motorist and cyclist interactions such as speed, traffic flow, cycling infrastructure and the current road rules. The major factor in the jury's deliberations was the horrific injuries suffered in vehicle and bike collisions.

In making its recommendations, the jury accepted the practicality that cycling infrastructure would take time to create (notwithstanding the very substantial investments that this government has made in them), and they believed that the injuries being suffered warranted more urgent action—namely, the law changes for overtaking and riding on footpaths.

This was not a decision taken lightly. Evidence and testimony jurors considered made multiple references to the use of footpaths as a safe alternative and to the importance of leaving adequate overtaking room. Their recommendations also factored in the need for cyclists to travel at low speeds on footpaths and to have an enhanced consideration of pedestrians. No doubt they would have taken into account that now, with our decision, there are a majority of South Australian jurisdictions that permit riding on footpaths.

In the process that took place over three months from September to November 2014 when the jury report was handed down, those jurors put aside knee-jerk reactions, they did their due diligence and they arrived at a considered position they believed was in the best interests of South Australians. It is remarkable, then, that those opposite have discounted the good work that was undertaken by those jurors. We have the disparaging remarks that were—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is debate.

The SPEAKER: It may be debate. I am interested in the disparaging remarks, though.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the opposition, not of the citizens' jury, sir.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, this is disparaging remarks made by the opposition of the citizens' jury, which are to this effect: 'Their effort is nothing more than a group of people with some butcher's paper.' These are citizens—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir. Now that you have heard the remarks in question, surely it is clear that it is debate.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What those jurors did was offer themselves to come forward as a group of citizens on behalf of the broader community. They were drawn randomly from the community. They wanted to make a contribution to an important and vexed public policy issue where we had become stuck between cyclists and motorists, and many of them have actually explained to me that they see it as an opportunity to make politics work. It is so sad that the Liberal Party are back in the lazy, knee-jerk responses of the past.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How can you allow this debate to just go on?

The SPEAKER: One reason is because it is necessary to call the deputy leader to order and warn her the first time because she is constantly interjecting. The other is to warn the member for Morialta for the first time and for the second time. It is best if members come to points of order with clean hands. Is the Premier finished? Deputy leader.