Bills

Road Traffic (Bicycles on Footpaths) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 May 2016.)

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:25): Regrettably, it looks like we may run out of our allotted hour before we can conclude the business on this bill, which will deny us the opportunity, as I said in my earlier remarks, to conclude this sorry saga of how the opposition has treated the issue of the new cycling laws. This is phase 2, the second of the dying breaths of the opposition when it has come to dealing with this important issue. This bill, from the member for Unley, I think has been objectionable to even more stakeholders than the previous one. This is the contention that there needs to be a mandated blanket maximum speed limit for cycling on footpaths.

Given we had such a regrettably short period of time for the previous bill when we were going through some of the history of how these laws came into being and how there had been six different positions from the opposition on whether to support these laws or not, there were some more events that I did not get to canvass, which I will do now. One of them, importantly, was how the Local Government Association and local government have reacted to the ability for all adult cyclists now to avail themselves of cycling on the footpath.

In response to some concerns that some councillors had in a select number of councils, the Local Government Association offered to convene a round table for this issue to be discussed in some detail. It was a round table which was attended by a significant number of people. It was convened by an immediate past president of the Local Government Association. It was attended by the Lord Mayor. It was attended by political representatives. Some of them, I think the member for Unley will realise, were a bit embarrassed about the outcome of the meeting, but we will come to those comments in a minute.

Government agencies were represented there: SAPOL and the transport department. The RAA was there, Bike SA was there, National Seniors Australia was there and also some representatives from the people who convened the citizens' jury in order to provide some context. They discussed how the laws had been operating since their introduction. You will recall that these laws were introduced in October 2015, and this round table, if my memory serves me correctly, was convened in May of this year, so a good six months since the introduction of these new cycling laws.

You will recall that in my previous comments I mentioned that one council, the council of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters, which takes in, among other areas, the electorate of Dunstan, for example, had conducted its own inquiry into how the new cycling laws were performing and how both motorists and cyclists were behaving under the environment of these new laws. Summarising that report, the council found that the laws were operating effectively. It had been the experience of most motorists and cyclists that the minimum passing distances were proving effective and also that the behaviour of cyclists with regard to cycling on footpaths had been responsible.

Cyclists were not doing the wrong thing, particularly in busy areas—busy parts of The Parade, for example—and riding through cafe dining precincts and so forth. They were availing themselves of the footpath where they felt it was necessary to do so for their safety or other related reasons. It was a similar discussion, I am advised, at the LGA round table to countenance these laws.

Ms Chapman: Do you want to seek leave?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to come back and do this next week.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it alright if I call the shots? Hang on, just a moment. Is it alright if I ask that question?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are indicating to him to do that. Just as you asked, we were indicating it was time to do that. So, minister, you are seeking leave to continue your remarks?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Leaved granted; debate adjourned.