Bills

Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:05): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill 2015. I note that we will be supporting the bill, but I know that a number of my colleagues on this side are looking to make some comments with regard to this very interesting bill and one which, potentially, brings a lot of change to not just South Australia but the way we live and travel around the world.

There has been much media interest in this story throughout South Australia and, indeed, throughout the country. The bill will enable the minister to authorise trials of automotive technologies and issue exemptions from the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and any laws that regulate drivers and the use of motor vehicles on roads. Essentially, what the bill allows for is trials rather than on-road driving, but it is early days at this stage.

The government claims that it aims to place South Australia ahead of the technological curve and be the lead jurisdiction in real life trialling of driverless vehicle technology in Australia. While the bill may make South Australia the first jurisdiction in Australia to allow trialling of cars on our roads, it is not a new concept internationally. As I said earlier, it does not permit driverless cars to operate on South Australian roads, it simply allows trials which are individually approved by the minister.

It raises the question, I guess, as to what are driverless vehicles, sometimes known as autonomous vehicles. Vehicle automation can range from full autonomy, where no human intervention is required, to vehicles where human intervention may be required under certain conditions. Different countries and different companies are using different terms to describe these new technologies. In fact, in the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed a formal classification system, which is divided into levels. There are five levels, beginning with level 0 (only the Americans could do that).

At level 0, the driver completely controls the vehicle at all times, which is pretty much what we are used to at the moment. At level 1, individual vehicle controls are automated, such as electronic stability control or automatic braking. The shadow minister has already suggested that his Commodore, his modern state-of-the-art Commodore, incorporates some of these automations. At level 2, at least two controls can be automated in unison, such as adaptive cruise control in combination with lane keeping. I am not aware, but I suspect that cars are produced these days which already have automation operating in unison.

At level 3, the driver can fully cede control of all safety critical functions in certain conditions; in other words, hand the car over to the automation. The car senses when conditions require the driver to retake control. I guess a bell goes off, or something like that, a buzzer maybe, but certainly the car senses and gives that indication when the driver needs to retake control and provides a sufficiently comfortable transition time for the driver to do so. I guess in 2015 we would have to see it to believe it, but no doubt we are working towards that.

At level 4, which is the top level, the vehicle performs all safety critical functions for the entire trip, with the driver not expected to control the vehicle at any time. So you hop in, close the door and away you go and, when the car stops, you are delivered safely to your destination. As this vehicle would control all functions from start to stop, including all parking functions, it could include unoccupied cars which raises the possibility of vehicles being used for delivery of goods throughout the metropolitan area and beyond. There are alternative classification systems around the world but that is the one that is recognised in America at the moment.

It is important to distinguish systems by their degree of autonomy and by the functions that are autonomous—for example, keeping the vehicle in a lane at constant speed or automatically braking to avoid obstacles. Autonomy is scaled. Our shadow minister spoke at some length about this but the government actually has no plan for jobs growth in this announcement. In fact, they are suggesting that it is potentially worth some $9 billion to Australia in 10 to 15 years' time, but how precisely that is likely to unfold remains to be seen.

The legislation, as I understand it, is about potentially luring car manufacturers here to road test their vehicles at this point in time and the government is obviously hoping that, by having car makers testing here, they can generate and grow new tech industries here in South Australia. Of course, before our very eyes, we are seeing the demise—sadly, I think—of the car manufacturing industry here in Adelaide which has been a foundation of our manufacturing economy for almost 70 years. There is a company already based here in Adelaide, known as Cohda Wireless, and they are already very much at the cutting edge of this technology and are in fact world leaders.

It has been suggested about this driverless car technology under Google, Uber and other more recognised car makers that the real advancement in driverless cars was achieved some years ago, so it is not the first time this government has been late to the table, but it would seem they are on this as well. Some of this technology has been around since the 1980s, and I think the real challenge for legislators in this example and many others is having legislation keep up with the technology because our technology, not just in transport and automobiles but in a whole host of things including information, data and media, etc. is progressing so rapidly that our legislators and parliaments such as this struggle to keep up with that.

Fundamentally many cars are already quite driverless and other jurisdictions are well advanced in this space. The real benefit will come when vehicles can talk to each other and we do not even need traffic lights. In other words, drivers will no longer be required to make decisions about when to go, when to stop, when to avoid other cars. That decision is made by the vehicle itself thanks to technology, thanks to computers, and I assume global positioning satellite technologies as well.

That GPS technology is widely in use already. There are examples of that here in Australia today. There are driverless trucks in the Pilbara that are directed from offices in Perth. There are driverless trains hauling iron ore from the Pilbara to the coast. Our large airline passenger planes often are flown by computer. Once the pilot has taken off, it is put on auto-pilot and away it goes, so essentially they are flying themselves. Even in the industry that I come from—namely, agriculture—we have tractors, harvesters and spray equipment which is controlled, or at least steered, through GPS technology. The operator actually does very little at this point rather than just being in charge. Ultimately our cars will move beyond that point; our tractors, harvesters and trains may as well.

Internationally there has been a great deal of thought given to what laws will be necessary for the general operation of driverless vehicles. Their widespread operation will pose complex legal challenges, which I have already alluded to, and in particular will determine liability in the event of any accident. One would assume that there will be fewer accidents, in fact, because human error will not be a part of our roads and our cars.

There has been a little bit of mirth directed towards the minister, given his trial and unfortunate bumping into the blown-up kangaroo. I had some sympathy for you, minister, because you had to do it and you had to try it. I can guarantee, from personal experience, that I would far rather bump into a blown-up kangaroo than a real one at high speed—which, in fact, I have done, and probably a number of members in this house have done it, and it is not much fun at all.

Mr Tarzia: On Magill Road.

Mr TRELOAR: The member for Hartley has done it on Magill Road.

Mr Tarzia: No, almost.

Mr TRELOAR: Almost—it might have been a blown-up one. The fact that these automated cars are able to sense the environment around them will remove the risk of all those things, not just of hitting other cars but of hitting any obstacles along the way.

I know that we are only talking about trials at this stage, but I am a great believer in technology and I can see this technology fundamentally changing the way we transport ourselves, our families and our goods and the way we go to work and even the way we work. It will change public transport. I am being particularly selfish here. but as the member for Flinders I do about 50,000 kilometres a year around the electorate of Flinders. I am sure colleagues of mine do an equivalent number within their electorates on an annual basis. I have the luxury of being able to fly to Adelaide for parliament, but many of my colleagues do not, so they do that 50,000 kilometres plus some, I am sure.

At the moment, for those on this side at least, we all drive ourselves for those 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 or 80,000 kilometres a year. What a luxury it would be to hop into a car, sit in the passenger seat and be driven to our destination, not by somebody else but by an automated car. It could provide an opportunity for all sorts of things—to do some work along the way, to prepare our next speech for parliament or even to make some phone calls. However, even the phone calls are somewhat problematic because I do not have service over a lot of my roads in the electorate of Flinders, but that is a discussion for another day. It may even mean that our Speaker is able, for the first time, to get his own car.

Technological advances invariably result in fewer jobs, not more, and that is what technology does. I have used the example of agriculture. I know full well that our farmers in South Australia are growing more and more grain than they ever have in the past, yet they are doing it with fewer and fewer people, and that is as a result of technological advances and automation. I suspect that in the long term this will have the same result: it will result in fewer jobs in the transport industries rather than more.

There will be great changes associated with this, and I speculate that it will change the way the taxi industry operates. If you think Uber is a change, this will bring much more. I am speculating here, but it may even bring about the revival of country pubs. There is no doubt that the drink driving laws that were brought in some 20 years ago now saved lives, but they also had an impact on the way pubs operate, particularly country pubs and the way country people socialise. It will no doubt bring changes to all those things, and I look forward very much to the revival of country hotels.

I have a few minutes left and I want to digress for a moment and talk about something I have spoken about before, and it is a related matter, that is, the cost associated with gaining a driver's licence in this state. My wife and I have four children, and at 17 our youngest now very proudly possesses his P plates. As an L-plate driver, he had to acquire 70 hours of logbook driving before he could qualify to get a P plate, and the kids aim to do that within a 12-month period.

It is an extraordinary burden, I would suggest, on families, particularly on those who do not always have the capacity to provide the opportunity for their children to drive for 70 hours, or to take long drives in the country, or even to give them instruction, as both parents are often busy working, or it is a single parent family, or only one car is available or no car is available. All of a sudden these kids are required to get a licence—and they are required to get a driver's licence because in this day and age it is still so important to have a driver's licence for work, for education, for family life and for socialising, particularly so in the country.

The time component has been raised significantly in recent years, and we did that in this parliament. A monetary cost is also associated with driving lessons and, quite frankly (and I know this for a fact), it is beyond the capacity of some of our families living in this state, which in some ways pushes them to the fringe of socialising, work opportunities, education and family interaction.

In closing, I would like to say that the car, as I have described, is so essential to our modern way of life. That is not going to change any time soon. We are going to continue to be a nation of car lovers. Some of us, I am sure, will continue to drive for recreation rather than just for work because it is very enjoyable. As a former farmer, one my real pleasures was driving around the countryside looking out of the window and looking at what was going on in the fields as I drove past.

If we have an automated car, I will have even more opportunity to do that because I will not have to even check the road; I can continue to look in the fields from side to side, so I am looking forward to that. Cars will remain essential. I look forward to seeing how these trials unfold. I have no doubt that the technology will be upon us before we know it, and there has been speculation that driverless cars will be available on the open market within 10 years; it would not surprise me if it was even sooner than that.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:22): I too rise to make a small contribution to the Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill, which relates to driverless cars in South Australia. I have watched the driverless cars with great interest and, as the member for Flinders has said, I think they create huge opportunity. There are some challenges to it but, while we are looking at a glass half full, there is opportunity for this new technology to bring us maybe not quite to the Jetsons, but it will bring us close because the Jetsons do not have wheels—potentially, the driverless car is relying on a road, not on clear space.

The bill does not permit driverless cars to operate on South Australian roads outside the trials which are individually approved by the minister. The state government says that it is estimated that the driverless vehicles industry will be worth tens of billions of dollars in Australia in 10 to 15 years, but there has been no further detail on what that industry is based on and just how it is going to be worth tens of billions of dollars to create jobs and create a manufacturing industry in South Australia.

Sadly, all the trial cars are not Australian. Why is that? We have a government that is relying on overseas technology. Obviously, some of those partners with the cars are not Australian. I do not know whether there is any Australian technology in those cars as we speak, but at the moment the only technology that has come out of Australia for the trials is the blow-up kangaroo. It was good to see that we, as South Australians, hosted an International Driverless Cars Conference in November; and, as I noted watching the news, it was a Volvo and it included two days of testing on the Southern Expressway. Obviously, the Southern Expressway being closed—probably one of the better roads in South Australia—the question would need to be asked—

Members interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: No matter who built which way, the reason that it was built one way the first time was because—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Duluk: The State Bank; bankupted the state.

Mr WHETSTONE: Exactly right. I think that the member for Kaurna has already felt the wrath of trying to be a smart alec and the member for Schubert certainly put him back in his box.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down, member for Chaffey. I remind all members of the standing orders, which require all members to be heard in silence, and I will not hesitate to name people. It is ridiculous. We are having a serious debate and you are all yelling out. I cannot hear what is being said, and that is actually important. Member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you for your protection, Deputy Speaker. The transport minister, unfortunately, failed to dodge that inflatable kangaroo during the demonstration, but I am advised that the Southern Expressway test was successful at speeds of up to 70 km/h. I guess that, while the kangaroo was stationary in the middle of the road, I dread to think what could have happened if that was a moving kangaroo. It could have damaged panels, it could have created harm.

With tongue in cheek I say that but that is what trials are about. I was quite alarmed to think that light was made of that. It was a stationary target and that car with huge advancement, huge technology bolted to it, still managed to hit the kangaroo. Maybe it was the minister's driving, maybe it was just the way that the minister handles a car, I don't know. However, in saying that—

Mr Wingard: He wasn't driving; he was just sitting.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, well, it was just the curse he put on that steering wheel. I note that it was reported that taxpayers spent about $30,000 in sponsoring the driverless conference. The driverless car trials in South Australia have created interest there is no doubt, but this is all just about publicity at the moment. I think that we are a long way from being very much more than serious.

Some might say that it was a distraction from the bigger issues, and I think that the biggest issue in South Australia is jobs. I would say it is spin that it is going to create a $9 billion industry, that it is going to create many, many jobs. We have to look at the practicality of just exactly how these driverless cars are going to work.

If you look at the number of taxis in South Australia, you look at the number of delivery vans and you look at the number of vehicles providing employment for people, and if you look at it in reality, those driverless cars will not employ a taxi driver. You will not have to sit next to someone who needs to use an underarm deodorant. You will not have to worry about any of that. You can fit an extra person in a taxi. There will not be anyone employed but you will be able to fit an extra person in there and you will go from point A to point B with a car that is driverless.

As we have said, we need new jobs and the prospect of driverless cars from 2030 and beyond really raises questions about our economy. Maybe we can look at manufacturing components of a driverless car. We have proven that we cannot manufacture cars in South Australia and in Australia competitively, so no doubt the cars will be built overseas.

As South Australians we have to be smart and we must have the capacity to put the technology in the cars, but, again, at the end of the day to be real, how many jobs is this industry going to create? A robotic vehicle that is designed to travel between destinations without a human operator must qualify as a fully autonomous vehicle and must be able to navigate without human intervention to a predetermined destination on roads that have not been adapted.

That raises the next issue. Yes, driverless cars do need a certain standard of road, they do need beacons and they do need a lot of precautionary measures on the side of the road. They do need some form of magnetic strip to keep them on the right side of the road when they hit potholes—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Oh, that's right, the condition of roads. Minister, how are driverless cars going to cope in the regions of South Australia?

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Magnetic strips.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: No, magnetic strips. Minister, you have all the answers. What are you going to do about the backlog of maintenance on roads in South Australia?

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WHETSTONE: What are we going to do about it when a driverless car hits a pothole and spears off the road? That happens now. What are you going to do about fixing up our roads? Yes, that will create jobs, but it has to be the will of the government to fix up the roads in the country, not just build new roads and fix up roads in the city. So far it is a one-sided argument. I like the technology, but it is about what the technology has to operate on, and that is the condition of our roads.

Obviously I see it all the time, living in the regions, in the electorate of Chaffey. It is hard to see how they are going to tackle the conventional roads that we currently drive on. I think that, yes, these vehicles could potentially provide a much safer passage for long distance travel, particularly on highways, freeways and superways, but there is still a long list of questions that need to be asked and answered before we can progress from trials, as I said, on a small section of smooth roads that the Liberals built opposed to a rough section of roads that the current government has just built.

Members interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: No, no; I say that in jest. The Southern Expressway is a fine stretch of infrastructure, and I think both governments can take credit for it. It just took a little longer to get it built than most people would have liked. A number of companies are developing and testing driverless cars at the moment, including many European vehicles: Audi, BMW, Ford, Mercedes, Renault, even Google—and I think that the Google car has been the most interesting to watch—General Motors, Volkswagen and Volvo. The government claims that it aims to place South Australia ahead of the technological curve and be the lead jurisdiction in real-life trialling of driverless vehicle technology in Australia.

The Premier has stated that the technology promises to include safety and lower emissions. Yes, I agree; that is possible. I think to take the human error out of driving can help lower emissions and it can help safety, but I am not saying that it is the ultimate answer. Driverless vehicles are currently being trialled in the UK, and Volvo expects its vehicles, which have been tested in Sweden, will be available for customers by 2017. If we are saying that by 2017 customers will be able to use a driverless vehicle that has a lot of technology that the member for Mitchell's Australian-built car already has, we have a lot of testing and trialling to do before they can be successful on South Australian roads.

Four US states and Washington DC have changed legislation to allow driverless vehicles on their roads. Volvo has predicted that cars could be ready for public use on Australian roads by 2020. So, minister, you have a lot of roads to fix up and a lot of safety barriers to put up before those vehicles are going to cut the mustard, particularly on regional roads.

The state government has dismissed fears that the technology would cost the jobs of drivers, but I do not believe that the concerns of the Public Service and the transport industry can be dismissed that easily. At the moment, it is just a feelgood operation, a feelgood test, and it is being tested in a very safe environment, but let us get out into the real world so that we can test cars in real time and be serious about whether driverless cars can cope with South Australian country roads.

We all know about autobahns, freeways and superways. Yes, I am sure that those roads can be set up to take driverless cars, but South Australian roads, and in particular Australian regional roads, are some of the toughest, hardest and undermaintained roads in the world, yet we have this spin about how driverless cars are going to be one of the saviours. It is a bit like the time zone change proposal really.

The Premier has said that every step of the technological innovation carries with it change and that means the loss of some jobs but the creation of jobs in other areas. I think we have acknowledged that over and over again, particularly with my contribution. If the legislation is passed, it will facilitate public road testing, which we are told is unlike in many other countries, as I have already stated, which offer only selected roads or geographical areas. I am just wondering what insurance companies will think, particularly when these cars will be dealing with some of our unmaintained roads. It will be an interesting area.

When the legislation is developed, it will need to provide safeguards, including requiring companies to submit detailed trial plans to the government and having sufficient insurance. Reports of trials will also be tabled in parliament and penalties will still apply if tests breach road laws beyond the scope of the trial. How will driverless vehicles adapt to regional areas and regional roads? Why are we focusing on a potential pipedream when there is a huge backlog of road maintenance? As I have said to the minister, yes, we can have all the shiny spin and all the TV and media there, but when we have to deal with the real-life situation that is where the tests will start and that is when the rot will stop.

A Senate inquiry held in Adelaide last month heard that driverless cars are still a long-term vision and unlikely to be seen on Australia's roads within the next five years; however, the inquiry did find overall that driverless vehicles will inevitably become the norm on Australia's roads. I hope they are. I really do because, if we have the norm on Australia's roads, we will have better roads, we will have safer roads and we will have safer cars.

The expert panel told the inquiry that self-driving cars, buses and trucks will save lives, improve congestion and reduce freight costs, as more than 90 per cent of crashes and consequent deaths and injuries on our roads can be attributed to human error. The South Australian Road Transport Association has raised some concerns and believes that more than 240 legislative changes would have to be made before the vehicles could be made available for the public and that the vehicles could also become unreliable when travelling through wireless blackspots. Maybe the Treasurer can give us an update on what is going to happen, as he did today with the bushfires.

Executive director, Steve Shearer, said, 'I don't think I have yet met a politician who would be prepared to sign off on authorising a driverless vehicle.' I think time will tell. Minister, maybe you will be the first, sir. Time will tell. The US has done plenty of work in the area of driverless vehicles. An article in The New York Times reports, 'Google, a leader in efforts to create driverless cars, has run into an odd safety conundrum.' Humans are the conundrum. Last month, as one of Google's self-driving cars approached a crosswalk, it did what it was supposed to do when it slowed for a pedestrian crossing. Its driver safety light came on and it applied the brakes. The pedestrian was fine, but the car refused to move.

So, there are many ways that this technology needs to be refined and needs to be adapted to Australian roads. As I have said, the member for Flinders did talk about trucks, tractors, trains, heavy equipment, planes, boats and ships. They all drive themselves. They do have some form of human intervention, but when we look at all those vehicles, none of them are on South Australian regional roads.

Obviously, it could help aged drivers. Pensioners will not have to go and get their driving test. They can just get into a driverless car and go where they need to go. The social element, particularly with drink driving, could be a thing of the past. Obviously, the problem of people who drive long distances and suffer from fatigue could be a thing of the past as well because we might have drive-and-sleep rides. You never can tell: that could be a part of the future.

I think every person in this place is happy to watch, with caution, to see how the driverless cars will perform and interact with our roads, but I think that, particularly in South Australia, the government has a long way to go to get our roads up to scratch and maintained, with all the technology around the car. It is not just the car that needs to have all the technological advances; it is about what else needs to be put around that car, whether it is safety barriers, magnetic strips up the centre of the road or whatever it is. All the roads have to be adapted and a lot of changes need to be made. I think the balance will unfold as time goes by. I watch with caution and look forward to technology helping our driverless car industry.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:41): I was not originally planning to speak in this debate but, having listened to a number of the speakers during the second reading debate, I felt compelled to make a contribution about this bill. When we speak in this house, we need to think about not just how it will be regarded today but how our words will be regarded in history. Our good friends in Hansard write down every single word we say, record it and publish it for centuries to come for people to reflect upon. One area in which people clearly look foolish when you look back at decades or centuries past is where—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left!

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You might have been out once, but you are warned again, member for Hartley.

Mr PICTON: —is where people talk about technology, and predictions about technology inevitably turn out to be wrong. We have gone from a world where computers could only fit in a room to one where now computers fit in your watch. We have gone from—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey, I remind you that you are on your second warning, and you will leave us. He does not care, I suppose—but your electorate will care, member for Chaffey. I ask all members to observe the standing orders. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We have gone from a world where you had blacksmiths in every neighbourhood to auto mechanics and, in the future, clearly, cars are going to be more and more dominated by computers. Yet, we have not seen some of the predictions that we have had for the future, like flying cars or the hover boards I was dutifully promised by 2015 by Back to the Future Part II.

It is a very brave politician who gets up and predicts exactly what is going to happen in the future in 20, 30 or 40 years' time. I think that needs to be borne in mind when we hear some of the joking about what I think is a very serious bill and a very serious policy proposal by the minister. We have heard it described as a distraction, as being just about publicity and as just a feel-good operation, whereas in actual fact I think this is a very significant move and something in which South Australia is clearly a leader. We should be a leader in technological advances in this field and in others.

Those of us in the house who drive regularly—of course, not all of us; the Speaker, notably, does not—are used to actually driving the vehicle. We are used to being in control of the steering wheel, the brakes and all the other things such as lights and indicators on the vehicle. The idea that one day in the future the vehicle will be able to drive itself upon instructions from us seems, to be honest, a little bit scary to some people and it seems a little bit like it is going to be too hard to actually work. I think, in the future, people might look back on this debate and say that they could not believe there was a time where cars could not drive themselves. I think that we need to bear in mind how people who laugh at this proposition today will be regarded in the future.

I think in South Australia we need to be ahead of the curve. Particularly, as the state's lawmakers, we should aim to be ahead of the curve on technology, instead of what we usually do as lawmakers in this state, in this country and around the world, which is drag woefully behind the state of technology.

In this regard, I congratulate the transport minister on taking a lead and bringing this bill to the house for South Australia to be one of the great leaders in the whole world in terms of driverless car technology. I think that we inevitably will not know what the outcome of this technology is going to be at this point in time, so the idea that we should give speeches hypothesising on what types of technologies will be needed—I note that members have referred to magnetic strips, which I think is a new addition to the technological advances, but maybe there is some future for magnetic strips—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley is warned for the first time for the second time today. Your electorate would be ashamed. Nobody else needs to speak except the member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: I think that it is very brave indeed to make those sorts of predictions. What we should be doing is supporting the development of technology. We should be setting the parameters in law about how that technology should play out and should be developed, and there is no way that anybody is going to be able to make a particular promise of what amount of industry is going to happen in South Australia or how many particular jobs are going to happen in this industry.

I think we can safely say that if we are a leader in this area then there are going to be more jobs than if we are a follower in this area. We already have some industry in this area. Cohda Wireless are a significant company in South Australia which are developing technology in driverless cars, and we should be backing them, not waiting for other states and other countries to take the lead while we pick up the technology later.

I think that this bill will not be the last time that we talk about driverless technology in South Australia. I predict that there will be other bills in the future as we identify more of the legal issues that have to be grappled with for this very new and emerging technology. There is a whole range of road rules that would need to be altered if this technology were to go beyond a trial stage, and I welcome that. I welcome the debates in the future. I think, though, that us being the leader in this technology sets us up for good industry development and a good future for people in South Australia.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (16:47): I will do my best to follow up on that—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I won't stop anyone speaking over the top of you.

Mr TARZIA: —enlightened contribution by the member for Kaurna. I also rise to support the minister, despite his interjections—

Ms Digance interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was joking.

Mr TARZIA: I rise to support the Minister for Transport in the Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill 2015. A trial can sometimes be a good thing, because sometimes the Department of Transport gets it wrong—maybe not through any fault of its own, but they do get it wrong. A trial will enable these corrections to occur so that we as a society are better off for going through these trials and hopefully end up in a better spot than when we began.

I will give you an example. During the week, DPTI staff installed some speeding detectors in my electorate of Hartley. However, I am led to believe these were not fitted properly and in the right area, and they led to my constituents being kept awake through the night. A complaint was made to DPTI, and to their credit, they corrected this issue. Now, the residents in my electorate who were affected by these devices can sleep at night.

I am very grateful for DPTI in the trial, error and the correction that they have made. This is a microcosm to the trials, perhaps, that we are looking at supporting here. The government want to say that they are innovative and that this has not happened in other parts of the world, but it has happened in other parts of the world. They are trials. There will be errors made. There will be things that they get wrong, but overall, I think if they can learn from the experiences undertaken in these trials we will be in a better spot.

I rise to make some brief comments on the bill specifically. I will always welcome any initiative that progresses the interests of South Australia. We need to be doing much better in the R&D space, and much better in the innovation space. The key to increasing the wealth of our state is through investing in areas where we do value-add, there are no two ways about it. In this case, we have a bill that seeks to promote technological advancement in an area untried by other jurisdictions in Australia. It is an instance where South Australia, at least at the moment, compared to some of our peers, does seem to take the lead.

Although the legalisation of driverless cars through trial is a good news story and it has made popular news headlines, what is truly important is, as I said, the tangible benefit that this technology will bring and will have on South Australia's economy. We are still at the trial stage. There will be errors made. We need to get these right. As my colleagues have alluded to, there are many problems that do exist with the technology at the moment, so we still have a long way to go. South Australia's advancement within a niche industry and South Australia's job creation opportunities depend on areas of increased research and development and innovation.

The initiative has definitely been heralded by the government as a job creation policy. As I said earlier, I would certainly welcome any initiative which progresses South Australia's interests and creates jobs. However, we are yet to see where these jobs will be created, so I remain cautious on that front. What jobs will they create? What jobs will they destroy? These are valid questions that need to be asked because if you did get this technology to a stage where drivers are not required, what jobs will the technology then replace? What drivers will then be replaced? These are credible questions that need to be asked.

The majority of job creation and technological advancement in this area actually occurred, I would have said, three to four years ago when the initial research and development was being executed overseas by companies such as Google and Uber. Now the government seeks to implement the bill that is before the house in an attempt to encourage car manufacturers to test their driverless car technologies in South Australia. As I have said, while I welcome any investment or stimulus in South Australia, I would hate to think that the real and significant opportunity for job creation, when the technology was in its infancy, and technological advancement that the initiative offers passed some years ago when the technology was being developed and implemented overseas.

What scares me about this technology, and there have been comments made about the outside nature of the business, is about how a lot of the IP will not stay in South Australia. This is a real risk. Have a look at companies (say, in America) like Boeing, for example. When someone sets up shop here and their IP is in a state and their back of house is in a state, that company, on more occasions than not, will stay in that country and the jobs will stay in that country.

I cannot guarantee that that is going to be the case here because, as mentioned by my colleague (the member for Mitchell) earlier, what I think the most likely scenario that may occur, following trials, is that companies may then leave and profits may go from South Australia. They will take their IP, they will take their expenditure, their revenues, they will take their profits and they will take their jobs back overseas. If the initiative is to be a real job creator for South Australia then what we have to do is we have to entice these companies to move their operations to South Australia, to move their IP to South Australia, to move their data to South Australia and to move their back of house to South Australia. Short of this I cannot really see how this technology is going to be the silver bullet that South Australia needs. It might add value—I am sure it will add value—but it is not going to be the silver bullet that South Australia needs.

I urge the Minister for Transport to ensure that we do things to ensure that these companies invest in South Australia for the longer term, not the short term, that we create jobs and that the profits stay in the hands of South Australians and South Australian jobs. I would appreciate any indication from the state government about where it expects these additional jobs, how they will be generated, how many jobs will be created from this initiative and the sustainability of this potentially new South Australian industry as a jobs generator.

Judge us on our record, they say. Well, that is not the most credible record at the moment. We have all heard of the recent promises made by the government of 100,000 jobs, 5,000 jobs in mining, and the list goes on. I am not shying away from the fact that these are incredibly challenging economic times but what we want to see from this government is a tangible well-constructed framework with some answers, not some pie in the sky target. We are beyond that in South Australia. South Australians cannot afford that any longer. I would appreciate some answers in regard to these issues.

Another issue I want to highlight is the caution with which we should approach this technology from a safety standpoint, and I have an article here entitled '4 driverless cars get into accidents in California'. I will read an excerpt as follows:

LOS ANGELES Four of the nearly 50 self-driving cars now rolling around California have gotten into accidents since September, when the state began issuing permits for companies to test them on public roads.

Four out of 50 is 8 per cent. We cannot afford 8 per cent of these cars to be having accidents on our roads. I know that the kangaroo was an inflatable kangaroo, but I speak on behalf of all the other kangaroos in our electorate. I get the odd one, especially in the eastern part of my electorate, as well as koalas. In all seriousness, I do not want to see humans being victims but also animals and these are serious issues.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: The member for Chaffey has travelled north of Gepps Cross several times, unlike some people in the government.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TARZIA: Let's face it. Some of these roads are in decay for whatever reason. They are decayed, they are in poor condition. The technology is not where it needs to be at this point in time. I want to believe, I want to be a true believer, but until these issues are rectified, I cannot have full confidence in this technology. Obviously we are still developing this technology; therefore, we must closely monitor the rollout of the technology.

As I mentioned earlier, although South Australia may be the first state in Australia to legalise the trialling of driverless cars on our roads, it is not new internationally and, therefore, just like the staff at DPTI learnt their lessons when my residents could not sleep during the night because of their trial, we also need to learn from the mistakes of our peers overseas who have gone through this and have engaged with billions and billions of dollars of investment and made mistakes to get this right.

Obviously we know what we are talking about when we talk about autonomous and driverless vehicles. Comments have been made about other jurisdictions—the United Kingdom, the US, for example—as well as consultation with relevant stakeholders. Many South Australian Road Transport Association comments were referred to, as well as those of Cohda Wireless, Flinders University and the Centre for Automotive Safety Research.

I am willing to give this technology a go. As I said at the outset to the minister, I support this technology, I want to believe, but we need to make sure that we get these issues right before this kind of technology is to be employed in a much greater manner on our roads for the safety of the people of South Australia. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (16:59): I also rise today to speak in support of the Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill 2015, but only briefly. I put on the record that this bill relates purely to the trials of autonomous vehicles and not to any commercial legalisation.

South Australia was once known as a state of pioneers and pioneering innovations. We were founded by free settlers and we have always been willing to experiment with new ideas. South Australia has in the past, and should once again in the future, be the laboratory of democracy. Former US Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis once said, 'A state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' To that list I would add technological experiments as well. An example of technological experiments which benefited the state was during the 20^th century when South Australia was home to weapons and rocket testing at Woomera, which is where the origins of our defence state reputation began.

From this early investment, there were many flow-on projects, such as the submarine and defence shipbuilding industries. As a consequence, thousands of defence jobs have been created in this state over many decades. By being an early mover under the Playford Liberal and Country League government, South Australia's position as a leader in defence technologies was definitely cemented.

Driverless cars are part of the modern age and are here to stay. We must adapt our laws to new technologies to make sure that they do not hamper new developments. I believe driverless transport will revolutionise passenger transport and the road freight industries in the years to come. On the motoring front, South Australia is home to many pioneering firsts. The first driver's licence in Australia was issued in Adelaide in 1906. That goes to show how long the government has been interfering in people's lives. Of course, Adelaide is the home of Holden for a little bit longer, the first of all Australian motor vehicles being built in this country.

In 2015, some 109 years since the first driver's licence for a car was issued, another first is coming, and of course that is to approve driverless cars. I commend the minister for that. Would it not be great if, in time, South Australia still had a motor vehicle industry on the back of these new technologies? It is unfortunate that the government still does not have, to my mind, a concrete plan for workers in the northern suburbs who are going to miss out as a result of car manufacturing ceasing in this state. Hopefully, in time, investment and development in driverless cars will lead to a new car industry in South Australia. However, as the member for Hartley alluded to in his speech, we need more than just legislation that allows driverless cars; we need investment, IP and R&D into this area.

I wholeheartedly support the introduction of a trial of driverless vehicles. There is no doubt that most fatalities on our roads are caused by driver fatigue or error, whether that be drink or drug driving, inattention or fatigue. Driverless cars do have the capacity to bring our road toll to zero in time. They also have the capacity to free up labour in the transportation field and to be utilised in new and emerging industries.

As a concept, driverless vehicles have certainly been well received by the industry in South Australia: SARTA and Steve Shearer of that organisation have been supporting it; Cohda Wireless definitely see a potential here for South Australia, which is wonderful; Flinders University is right behind it and are certainly pioneers in this area at the moment; Carnegie Mellon is another academic facility that is right behind it; and the RAA is also very supportive.

While there are many benefits of driverless cars, I think there will be early teething problems, which is to be expected. That is what we saw when the minister's car hit the stationary kangaroo, but I am sure in time those types of issues will be resolved. While the benefits of driverless cars will be here in due course, we must remember that, as parliamentarians, as the member for Kaurna related, we do have a duty. For me, my paramount duty as a legislator is to ensure job creation for South Australia. Jobs are the most important thing and I would love to see some more evidence as to how driverless automation will lead to further growth in South Australia.

As I spend my time in this house, so much of the time that we use in debate is used to talk about things such as changing the time zones, and all these other types of distractions. They are not always focusing on jobs, so I would encourage this government to spend as much of its time putting its energies into job creation, not job diversions and, as always, let's talk about the real issues that count for South Australia.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:04): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill. I know that it is a bill close to many members' hearts as it focuses on two things that are tremendously important either in the reality or in the potential. The one in the reality of course is in the way that it governs our transportation and the manner in which we conduct our daily business, and something that is so important to our daily lives, and the potential opportunity in the distant future—or the middle distance even—for driverless cars to be a reality makes this worthy.

In the potential, of course, there is the more immediate problem of job creation and the potential opportunity that there may be jobs in this field that the South Australian community can benefit from, particularly high-tech jobs, particularly jobs that will provide for people who have looked for opportunities for career development in South Australia to commence. I know this is something in particular that is of great interest to the member for Schubert, and I am looking forward to his contribution, and I am certain that this is an area that he is going to be very focused on.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the bill. It has been something I have been looking forward to all day for this very reason because these are important matters. I note that some of the Labor speakers who have taken the opportunity to contribute to the debate have done so with a level of pride that frankly is unbecoming. The minister, certainly, has had some interest in the area, and I think even he might have to admit in his more sober moments that the hubris he has been displaying on Twitter has probably been a bit over the top, but I think that he is worthy of commendation nevertheless for the manner in which the legislation has been set forward.

We hope that this will be something that will provide tremendous opportunities for South Australians in the future, but we hope in doing so that it is not something that is just going to create jobs in the long distance. I felt for the minister, I must say, when he hit that kangaroo in his driverless car. I do not blame the minister because of course he was not driving the car at the time, but when set up for a photo opportunity, they say 'Don't work with children and animals' and we apparently need to add 'Don't work with children or inflatable animals' to that as well.

The legislation will pass with the opposition's support. I think it will create some opportunities. I hope it does, but to portray the situation as the government has, as if this is the world-beating demonstration of the fact that they have secured South Australia's future when at most it is what we hope will assist to create new jobs, is probably an over-reading of the situation. Therefore, we support the bill, I am pleased to support the bill, and I am optimistic about the bill's future. If the minister is looking through my own Twitter history, he will see that these statements are consistent with everything I have ever said about this matter. I hope that it will herald opportunities for South Australians but I counsel the government against hubris.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (17:09): I will be very brief, but I want to commend the minister for bringing this bill to the house. I think it is an excellent bill and that it is an excellent opportunity for us to get in front of or at least match what is going on, and it also gives us a lot of industry opportunities.

I think that there is a particular company which has been in the media a bit and which has been involved with the trials, and that is Cohda Wireless. I met with representatives of Cohda Wireless when I was road safety minister and it was already well advanced into the development of collision avoidance and traffic management software and hardware.

We did some test driving which, I must say, had the potential to be very scary—people coming flying out of side streets in controlled circumstances. They had traffic control and everything else like that, I might add, but we were driving around suburban streets in Kent Town and we were testing out the equipment of Cohda Wireless, which was excellent. There is an opportunity for Cohda Wireless. It is in a really good position with respect to industry-standard equipment or to be heavily involved in the development of industry standards which, again, will be good for the company.

Not only do we get to actually see these vehicles moving around but we get to think very early about the practicalities of having these vehicles on our roads and to understand better than anyone else at the end of the trials how they interact with normal traffic and everything else. It allows us in the future to become better legislators, or at least to provide better legislation for the state down the track, and it also helps us to provide some industry opportunities, and obviously everyone would agree that that is a good thing for business in South Australia.

I am very pleased to see this coming in. I am pleased with the opportunities and the public convenience and even the freeing up of capital in many ways to become available to household budgets. People could choose, instead of buying cars, to use cars that someone else owns and just dial them in and out and pay on a per use basis, or even just to take advantage of a lift home when they need it.

The big bonus I want to point out is the industry participation opportunities down the track, and I particularly congratulate Cohda Wireless on the work that it has done over a number of years since I first met them, and I congratulate the minister on bringing this bill forward.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (17:12): I rise to speak to this bill and in doing so acknowledge the hard work that my staff have been putting in to researching this issue over the past little while. It is something that we as one of the younger offices—and by that I mean an office staffed by younger members—take a keen interest in. From the outset, though, I always like to call out the government when it is being a rank hypocrite and I think that this is certainly one such case.

We have a government that has been positive when it comes to reducing regulation to help create a new class of licence to create small bars in Adelaide. As those of us who may or may not have been at the AHA lunch, which may or may not have been the majority of the room, the majority of members of parliament, we heard that this has not necessarily helped to create new jobs. Indeed, the AHA was making the case that it is not a bigger pie to go around. There has not been an increase in demand, but there certainly has been an increase in supply. Nevertheless, the government has shown its willingness to fight for the bars of a small variety and to help reduce regulation in that area, and for that I commend it.

What I would also like to see is maybe a bit of a reduction in regulation for the bars that are a little bit bigger than that and maybe the hotels that are a little bit bigger than that in order that another sector can see the benefits of deregulation—deregulation being a watchword that we on this side of the house are very much in favour of. But the hypocrisy I would like to talk about is the difference between the government being so positive when it comes to pushing through driverless cars versus its consternation, its recalcitrance, when it comes to regulating Uber and other apps that change the way in which our ride sharing industry works.

Indeed, we have seen the ACT take the lead when it comes to this. The Australian Capital Territory is moving faster than us when it comes to regulating ride sharing. There has certainly been a push back from the government and protection of some within the government of the taxi industry. What I find quite interesting about the debate we having about the bill is that Uber, certainly in their submissions, will to some degree compete with the taxi industry.

However, it opens up a whole new industry when it comes to ride sharing and potentially increases the opportunity for people to share rides, the opportunity for part-time work, the opportunity for people to be on the roads less and reduce congestion by using other people's vehicles, and paying for that privilege, as opposed to using their own. The reluctance on behalf of the government I think is because they are looking to protect the jobs that exist. I can understand it. I do not think it works, and I do not think it is right, but I can understand that proposition.

If Uber is going to affect the taxi industry by creating increased competition and potentially reducing the viability of parts of the taxi industry, driverless cars will wipe out the taxi industry. The point of these vehicles is to replace taxi drivers. We have a situation where in the short term we have an app that may compete with the existing taxi industry, but in the long term we have an industry that will wipe out the taxi industry.

One is okay, maybe because it is far off into the distance, maybe far beyond the life of this government—and certainly from the side of the house I hope that it is—but Uber, because it is on our doorstep right now, does not get the same treatment. I think that hypocrisy needs to be called out because if this government is true to opening up to the new economy, as they say, they would get on and regulate ride sharing so that we can build these new industries as opposed to just trying to hold on to the status quo.

I am quite excited by the prospect of not having to drive my own car. As somebody who drives about 40,000 kilometres a year, the idea that I can sit in my vehicle and use that time to do all sorts of other things is quite exciting. There are a number of things I would like to discuss that come out as part of this. Certainly, I think that driverless cars would be good for congestion in a way that I think Uber would help to reduce levels of congestion in the city.

If we can reach peak autonomy, in terms of how much technology can take over from manual driving, we could see the end of traffic jams and peak hours. Those things might become things of the past, with the ability to platoon cars travelling in the same direction. Without relying on the infallibility of humans, potentially the cars could self-regulate their speed for maximum efficiency and speed and also ride closer together. I think that these would be good things; in fact, I am fairly sure that it happened in Minority Report when Tom Cruise was trying to escape—he gets in the car that goes on the track. He is not driving, but he has to manually override to get the car—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is unparliamentary to interject—

Mr KNOLL: Well—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —and to respond to interjections. Back to your speech.

Mr KNOLL: I would like to put a number of questions today as part of this speech, but one of the questions is: will there be a car manufacturing industry in South Australia as a result of these technological advances? Certainly—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

Mr KNOLL: —all the commentary on this topic has not necessarily been around that.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my right!

Mr KNOLL: I recently spent a couple of days in Melbourne in a private capacity, and I drove around a whole heap of places and parked my car, I would say, 20 times in one day. I was judged by the other person in my car on how well I parked a Holden Commodore sedan; sometimes my parking was okay and sometimes not. I had my rear-view camera, I had a car that beeps at you the whole time, but sometimes I fell a little bit short. The idea that I could get out of my car and let the car park itself is a very exciting prospect—a very exciting prospect.

There are some safety issues. I certainly understand from previous speeches that topic has been quite prevalent. Interestingly, we have been looking at the reports that Google produces every month about their driverless technology. Since October they have driven 2,040,822 kilometres in autonomous mode. They have 23 self-driving cars on the roads, and as of October 2015 they have been involved in 15 minor traffic accidents on public roads, but Google maintains that in all cases the vehicle itself was not at fault because the cars were either being driven manually or the driver of another vehicle was at fault. That is certainly an exciting statistic at this point and let's hope that it continues.

I have looked at Google's prototype cars and they are pretty impressive. They have sensors that can detect objects as far as two football fields away in all directions, including pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles or even fluttering plastic shopping bags and rogue birds. The software processes all the information to help the car safely navigate the road without getting tired or distracted, something that can happen sometimes with a 3½ year old in the back of the car.

These cars are now so advanced that they can recognise children dressed up for Halloween, as long as they are not dressed up as inflatable kangaroos. I know that everybody has used the joke and I do not want to beat up the poor minister, but certainly it is an image that will live forever. Some may even—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The surprising lack of control I am witnessing on my right and the flagrant disregard to standing orders is appalling. I call the house to order and beseech you all to listen to the remainder of the member for Schubert's contribution in silence.

Mr KNOLL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Can I say that the minister has gained a reputation for being fastidious and slightly perfectionist sometimes, but this may be his Scores moment in his ability to take a joke. We all take our licks in this place, minister. We all take our licks.

Interestingly, farmers in my electorate and all across South Australia are already taking advantage of types of this technology. I have witnessed and been in a tractor where the driver gets in in the morning, sets the GPS coordinates and then sits in the tractor and looks at his emails, looks at social media or reads entire books whilst the tractor harvests. Essentially, it just goes up and back in perfectly straight lines and I understand that, as long as you have mapped out your fields correctly, it will even dodge trees in the middle of paddocks and fields. It is quite exciting how that has been able to improve the productivity of our farmers by the fact that they can sit in there and, without having to drive the thing manually, they are able to run shifts in tractors and run them all day and all night long.

It will be interesting when farmers are no longer actually required to sit in the tractor as it does these things. They can sit at home and watch the tractors do their work and I think that is an amazing thought. Certainly for farmers, where harvest period is a hugely stressful, time-consuming part of their lives, the idea that they can just set the machinery up and let it do its work, I am sure, is something that is quite exciting for them.

There are a few questions that I have and maybe they can be rebutted in the minister's closing remarks. There is a figure of $90 billion that the minister gave in his second reading speech and in subsequent speeches about driverless cars. They have quoted this $90 billion figure and it has been referred to in the parliament in Canberra. It has been reported a number of times, but we are struggling to find out where that estimate comes from. Whose figure is it? What is it based on? What is the methodology that comes behind that $90 billion figure? If we are doing this because it is about advancing the new economy, then it would be beautiful to be able to understand what that new economy could look like for South Australia and whether or not this $90 billion figure has any science behind it.

We would like to know how many companies have been approached by the government for trials? What is out there waiting in the wings? Are we talking a dozen companies? Are we talking about 100? Would this legislation be opening the floodgates to ghost cars on the roads? What would the passing of this legislation look like practically in the short to medium term? Would there be a limit per year with regard to the impact on other road users? I ask this keeping in mind that too much limitation would probably drive those looking at trial size to other areas that do not have limitations.

I would also like to talk about public liability insurance. Would there be a condition that insurance had to be issued in Australia for these trials? Is there a possibility that inferior standard insurance could be sought overseas? I am also wanting to understand what constitutes a vehicle for the purpose of this. I note that part of the act says:

For the purposes of this Part, a particular technology will be taken to be automotive technology if the technology—

(a) is related to the design, construction or use of wholly or partly autonomous motor vehicles;

That statement is open to interpretation, and I would love to get a response from the minister. Also, are there questions, for instance, in terms of size or weight limit (minimum or maximum) for what is determined to be automotive? Are buses, tanks, motorbikes and single user vehicles captured under this?

One other thing I would love to point out is that, at this time of fiscal restraint—and I know we are talking about something that is well off into the future—this government has found ever-increasing ways to fine South Australian road users, and those fine costs keep going up and up. The advent of driverless cars would be detrimental to the South Australian budget in that way, and I wonder whether the government has considered that and the impact it is likely to have.

In closing, I would like to say that we are not alone in pursuing this technology. It is good that the government is getting on and doing this and, in this instance, getting out in front: but we are not alone. Indeed, only three weeks ago, members of the New South Wales parliament test drove a self-driving Tesla Model S car. When this amendment is passed, I would love to see a concerted push to attract those who are in the wings waiting for this opportunity to come. If we really are going to try to be first movers in this area, we need to be aggressive because it is not as though we are the first people who have had this idea. It is something that Google has been promoting, pushing and trialling in the States and something that other states within Australia have already cottoned onto.

The last thing I would like to say is that the government has been pushing this issue over the course of this year—it is something that was mentioned in the Governor's speech at the start of the year and here we are passing it at the end of the year—but government does not create jobs. The only thing that government can do is create the environment in which jobs are created. I think that is important to remember. I think all our efforts here, certainly with this bill, should be focused on creating that right environment. Certainly, where the government gets it right, we are on board and we help but, where government gets in the way (for instance, when it comes to regulating ride sharing), we will also be here to call them out on that. We like to be consistent. We on this side of the house like to stick to our Liberal principles and hold the government to account when they are, at times, hypocritical.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.