Road Traffic (Helmets for Motor Bike Riders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 February 2016.)

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (11:14): I rise today to speak on this bill and point out that this is some of the good work of this place, in that this bill was moved by the member for Unley to allow the ECE helmets (European standard helmets) to be used by motorbike riders in South Australia. These motorcycle helmets are used by Moto GP riders—the elite of the elite. Unfortunately, in South Australia motorcycle riders were not allowed the option of using these premier safety helmets because of a flaw in the law.

The story behind this goes back to late last year, when I raised the issue and it was picked up in the media that these helmets were not allowed to be used by motorcycle riders. Since then, the member for Unley has picked up the case and moved this bill before parliament. It was great to see that the government finally came around and decided that this was a good idea and that we would change the regulations to allow these helmets to be used; so I commend them for that. I am a little bit disappointed that it took as long as it did to happen.

There was a forum last year, in February 2015, where all the states came together, as far as I am aware, except for South Australia, to discuss these helmets. All of the other states moved in this direction, and it was not until the push we made late last year that South Australia and the government finally came around and jumped on board to make these helmets legal in South Australia. We were the last in the country to adopt these helmets and allow them to be legal. It is another example of where South Australia again is a slow-moving state, which is very disappointing for people using motorbikes who want these motorcycle helmets that are used by the elite of the elite.

Whilst there is a positive, in that South Australia has finally joined up and the government has finally listened to this cause, I suppose, it is disappointing that South Australia was last to join the ranks of the states allowed to use this helmet. Tim Kelly did a lot of work with the Ride to Review crew, and I commend him for the work he did to bring this to the public's attention. He should be very happy that we now have this law in place through the changes to the regulations. Again, it is great that we have it in South Australia. It is sad that we were so slow to move, but let's look forward and be positive, and let's hope that in the future people stay safe on our roads, especially those riding motorcycles.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:17): I rise to support the bill introduced by the member for Unley. Having a common-sense approach to legislation in South Australia is something that seems to be becoming more and more uncommon. We have railed in this place about conforming or mirror legislation, harmonising legislation across Australia, but this is an exceptional case where there is a real need to look at what has happened.

We do not want to go back to six railway gauges, we do not want to go back to different Australian road rules being abolished and having different road rules in every state. We need to have a common-sense approach, and having the right safety equipment is very important. We all see the number of serious accidents, injuries and deaths on our roads of motorcycle riders, and we need to make the riders as safe as possible. Giving them the choice of equipment, provided that equipment is up to standard, is very important.

On the subject of fitting helmets, I have had some concerns expressed to me about people with disabilities and older people who use gophers having to wear these motorcycle-type helmets or bike-type helmets. A lot of discussion needs to be had on this topic. If it improves, if there is evidence, or if there is an evidence-based policy on this issue, perhaps we should look at it, but at this stage I do not see any need to further restrict people, who already have restrictions on their lifestyle. Most people who use gophers do so in a very safe fashion. I think this issue is something we need to look at, but whether we go there needs more debate; however, this bill needs to be supported by this government.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:19): I also rise in support today. The Liberal Party has obviously done its job in forcing the government to act. We understand the South Australian government has been forced to act by the member for Unley's bill, by lobbying the government for much-needed action in this area. Finally, the government has decided to keep up with the rest of Australia, and it is only because of the good work, in bringing this bill to the parliament, of my colleague the member for Unley.

My colleagues have testified how this is a common-sense bill that needs to be put forward. We see time and again how much of a serious issue this is on our roads. Whilst the death toll has come down as a trend from decades ago, in recent times, the last couple of years, it has continued to rise. Any recommendation, any motion, that goes towards reducing the road toll and bringing this sort of thing into line with the rest of Australia—anything that reduces our toll on the roads—is a good thing, so I commend the motion to the house.

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