Road Traffic (Roadworks) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 June 2016.)

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (12:06): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill. The opposition certainly welcomes improved governance of roadworks, which includes enforcing the appropriate use of speed limit signs and, to that end, the removal of signage when works have been completed or suspended. This will help reduce obstruction to traffic flows and alleviate some congestion on our roads. Road safety signs are a critical part of managing the safety of road workers and motorists. They make us aware of potential hazards and the need to adjust to changed conditions, and they help in protecting our road workers, just as our emergency services workers are protected when stopping at an incident, with 25 km/h speed limits applicable for passing motorists.

I certainly do not oppose reduced speed limits when passing road hazards, road workers or an emergency incident, but the problem is that reduced speed limits are enforced when there are no roadworks in progress or any other road hazards. It is frustrating, it is dangerous, and drivers are frustrated at being forced to slow down when it is unnecessary. I believe it fosters an element of complacency, with drivers less and less inclined to obey the signs when they do see them. I am very happy to see this bill progress and to see some changes in regard to signage.

I commend the member for Unley for his work in bringing this important matter to the house earlier this year. It has been a longstanding concern for him, but one that the government has failed to take any action on until the member for Unley compelled those opposite into action. Of course, they could have worked with the member for Unley to pass his legislation several months ago, but this would go against the government's own mantra. Rather than working with the opposition, they simply shut down debate and introduced their own bill.

Clearly, not only is the government lacking initiative and devoid of any new ideas but it is also incapable of putting aside political opportunism for the benefit of all South Australians. At least we are here now. Finally, those responsible for erecting reduced speed limit signs will also be responsible for ensuring that they are only in effect when necessary and ensuring that traffic keeps flowing after work has ceased, which is most important.

It is also encouraging to finally see positive steps towards improving the coordination between utilities and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. For too long we have seen the situation where drivers have been inconvenienced by expensive roadworks with traffic delays and congestion whilst roads are dug up, relaid and sealed, only for the new road to be dug up shortly afterwards by a different operator.

It begs the question: why has it taken so long for this government to act? Why has it taken so long for this government to move to end this waste? We know that this government is well into its fourth term, yet we are only now seeing some action in regard to this issue. In the minister's own words, he has acknowledged that it has been a longstanding problem, but it is only now that the government has taken steps to address the unnecessary disruption, the unnecessary congestion and, of course, the unnecessary duplication.

Within this bill, I think there is also a missed opportunity and the government's focus is too narrow. This government is so accustomed to quick fixes and bandaid solutions that it is unable to lift its gaze beyond the ground immediately in front of it. It has been distracted by failed land sales, a crumbling child protection system and the most expensive hospital in the world not to have a single patient in it, while its key personnel are busy safeguarding their own futures and appointing themselves to certain positions.

In the committee stage, the opposition will have an opportunity to seek some amendments in relation to the ability to make left-hand turns as part of this bill. The Australian Road Rules currently allow a left turn at a red traffic light but not a red traffic arrow if there is a 'left turn on red permitted after stopping' sign. This is rule 56(1)(a) of the Australian Road Rules, and there are other provisions of the Road Rules such as the give-way rule at 62(1)(b) which also caters for the situation in which they were framed. In effect, the law already allows for left turns if the appropriate signs are put up at an intersection where this option is seen as desirable, and that is included in the member for Unley's amendments.

South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Northern Territory, Western Australia, ACT and Tasmania's Road Rules all allow left turns on red after stopping where the sign is displayed. After trials at five intersections in 2013-14 with strong support from commuters and locals alike, the Brisbane City Council introduced left turn on red facilities across Brisbane. There are now 49 signed locations to this effect. Indeed, across most of the United States and Canada, turning right on red after stopping is allowed, keeping in mind that driving in North America is on the right-hand side of the road.

It is a policy motivated not only by a desire to relieve traffic congestion at clear intersections but also importantly to reduce drivers' fuel costs and reduce the carbon footprint. Yet, despite the obvious benefits, there are only six intersections in South Australia signposted to allow a left turn on red after stopping, and this is despite the obvious need to take action to improve traffic flows on our roadways. Motorists, commuters and the general community are all too aware of the increasing congestion and increasing travel times on our road network.

In the last 15 years, traffic along many of our roads has been reduced to a crawl during peak times, with the city and surrounds often left motionless by gridlock. Average speeds on some routes have decreased by 15 km/h under Labor's watch, thanks to inadequate transport planning, unreliable public transport provision, a massive road maintenance backlog and poorly managed roadwork control. Each one has made a contribution to longer travel times for motorists. Each one has added to the frustration experienced every day by all road users.

The number of registered cars is now equal to the state's total population. As more people respond to Labor's failure to provide viable transport alternatives, they opt to drive. Motorists waiting to turn left are regularly forced to stop and sit idle, waiting for a red light to change. Whether in peak traffic periods or at times of lower traffic volume, it is an unnecessary delay. It is frustrating for motorists and encumbers traffic flows.

The proposed amendments will help get our traffic moving again by allowing motorists to access the turn left on red option at appropriate intersections and when safe to do so as a practical and low-cost way of decreasing individual travel times, easing congestion and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments propose regular audits of intersections by DPTI to identify suitable and appropriate intersections to expand turn left on red signage. Each intersection would be assessed for safety against those Australian standards that are required, and intersections would be restricted to locations where the speed limit is 60 km/h or less.

Reducing road congestion, and keeping our traffic moving, is a significant challenge for our state and, of course, critical to our economy. We must make the most of our existing road networks and infrastructure and use them to our full potential. Allowing motorists to turn left on a red light after stopping is fundamental to this strategy. It is a simple step and one that is fully supported on this side of the house, and I do ask for the support of those opposite to allow common sense to prevail and show confidence that South Australian drivers are equal to those in other parts of Australia and overseas, and especially in Queensland. If they can safely navigate the turn left on red after stopping rule, I am sure we can as well. During the minister's second reading speech, he noted:

The bill also addresses the source of much public anger and criticism that drivers are subject to fines for exceeding the posted speed limit at roadworks when there have been no road workers present at the site. The reason for this is that the Road Traffic Act contains [a]…provision that deems all traffic control devices to be lawfully installed and therefore must be complied with. In addition, some drivers may not appreciate the lower speed limit is required due to a level of hazard associated with the roadworks. This…presumption will be amended so that the offence does not apply in certain times when, for example, workers are not within the vicinity of the roadworks, but the work area necessitates a slower speed due to certain conditions which create a hazard (such as loose gravel or steel plates).

There are some comments I would like to explore further in the committee stage, as they do at times seem a bit ambiguous: will a driver be able to escape penalty for exceeding the speed limit sign under certain conditions, when would it be considered okay for a motorist to exceed a speed limit, how would drivers know if it is okay to exceed the speed limit, what if workmen are present, but the driver does not seem to see them, and is this not potentially placing road workers at greater danger?

The application and enforcement of the bill are also cause for further consideration. Will the department face the same penalty as construction companies or contractors in terms of erecting and removing signs? Who will manage and enforce the removal of unnecessary roadwork signs? How will the bill require public authorities to comply with guidelines and better align South Australia with nationally agreed road practices?

Operation Moving Traffic is an important aspiration, and it is good to finally see the government taking some positive steps in this regard to address traffic congestion and traffic flow. It is, indeed, long overdue. We all agree with that. It is a shame that this falls so far short of what South Australians need. As the minister noted:

South Australia depends on its road and public transport networks to reliably and efficiently move people and goods where and when they are needed. How we manage congestion on our road network has a direct bearing on the mobility of our community, our economy and our competitiveness, as a great place both to live and to do business.

I could not agree with the minister any more in this regard. It is why we need to address major bottlenecks and it is why we need to invest in our infrastructure.

Analysis of the road quality of Belair Road, Unley Road, Goodwood Road, Glen Osmond Road, Cross Road and Greenhill Road, obtained under FOI, indicates endemic lack of maintenance. Unley Road is rated as having the poorest road quality, with 60 per cent of the south-bound lane rated as mediocre or very poor. That analysis was conducted back in 2013. For those who use the road daily—as many people in my electorate do—they know that road has deteriorated even further since that time, with no substantial work having been undertaken to improve the road quality since 2013.

Poor road quality of our major arterial roads is not just inconvenient; it is a major safety issue as well. This month, the Mitcham council agreed to write to DPTI noting the unacceptable traffic congestion during peak hours on Belair Road, Blythewood Road, and Taylors Road. They will be asking the department to review measures, which include improving public transport options to reduce congestion.

Oaklands crossing has been a serious problem for motorists in our community for decades, yet of course we know the state Labor government still does not have a plan to fix this crossing; no plans to invest in infrastructure needed to help those South Australians who live, work and play in the region; and no plans to invest in the promised park-and-ride facilities, despite an election promise to commit $7.5 million towards a number of sites around Adelaide.

Park-and-ride facilities are vital to attracting more people to use our train and bus services. Increased usage of our public transport system would help reduce demand on the road system and decrease road congestion across much of our road network. People will not catch a bus or take a train if they cannot find a park at a station. Year on year the state government has failed to invest in public transport infrastructure, investment that would make public transport more attractive, more accessible and actually improve patronage.

In my electorate, there has been little to no investment in existing infrastructure, investment that would help address increasing congestion and improve the road system for people commuting to work, for industry and for the movement of fast and reliable on-road public transport to and from middle and outer Adelaide. Traffic volumes along Main Road, Blackwood, and at the Blackwood roundabout are expected only to get worse as the population grows.

The state Labor government has failed to adequately invest in maintenance programs and ensure our infrastructure needs keep pace with demographic change. The minister may claim that the state government has delivered record infrastructure spend with projects such as Torrens to Torrens, Darlington, Port River Expressway, Northern Connector and the O-Bahn project, but the reality is that we can thank the federal government for the majority of this funding, having provided $1.7 billion towards the $2.5 billion north-south road corridor upgrade. At least we are seeing some progress through this bill, albeit at the behest of the member for Unley.

The appropriate use of speed limit signs, including the removal of signage when works have been completed or suspended, will help improve traffic flows and reduce driver frustration. Enforcing the removal of signage sends a clear message, ensuring that the signs are not left up through either laziness or forgetfulness, and it will improve the safety of workers on road sites. If signs are up for a reason, the motorist will be inclined to take them seriously.

Mr GEE (Napier) (12:21): The member for Davenport neglected to talk about the spectacular disaster that was the Southern Expressway and, yes, it was this side of the house that fixed that up. I did not rise today to talk about all of the other disasters that we inherited from that group on the other side of the chamber.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Napier is entitled to be heard in silence.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Heysen and member for Hammond, you are both called to order because the Speaker told me I was to keep a tight rein on you all this morning.

Mr GEE: I rise to support the Road Traffic (Roadworks) Amendment Bill 2016 to ensure that there can be safe and efficient roadworks, while limiting the impact on our community. This bill will keep Adelaide moving as it addresses the inappropriate and incorrect usage of roadworks speed limits. I think one of the things that is most frustrating to motorists is driving through a roadworks zone at night, or on the weekend, where no work is occurring, and it is safe to drive at a higher speed limit.

I know from the road safety works that are currently occurring on Main North Road at Smithfield, and will occur in the future at the intersection of Dalkeith Road and Main North Road, that motorists, including those of heavy vehicles, would be frustrated at driving at 25 km/h when workers are not on site. Following the passing of this bill that will be illegal. The minister talked about Port Road, West Terrace and our record infrastructure spend, highlighting major roads that have or could be affected by this bill, but inconvenience also occurs on suburban roads, such as during the upgrades on Craigmore Road at Blakeview, the new One Tree Hill roundabout, and the future works on Yorktown Road. I believe this will be a very welcome law change that will benefit motorists across South Australia.

Another key part of this bill is to ensure more coordination between utilities and DPTI when major road upgrades are planned, so that a road is not resurfaced and then, within months, further roadworks are occurring on services under that road surface. I am sure every member in this chamber can identify roads where this has occurred. It is frustrating and totally unnecessary. This bill will require utilities to consider the impact of work on traffic flows, congestion and public transport routes and require them to better plan roadworks to avoid peak times.

The bill also increases penalties for failure to comply with the bill and overly disrupting the community. I am pleased to see this bill has come forward, following attempts by the opposition to score a few political points without any thought or policy judgement.

An honourable member: Who wrote this for you?

Mr GEE: So true. I encourage all members to support the bill and hope to see it implemented very soon as further works occur in my electorate and across the state as this government invests in the future, while the opposition struggles to make any real policy in this area at all. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:24): I rise to debate the Road Traffic (Roadworks) Amendment Bill 2016, and I come in after that blistering attack. The amendment bill seeks to prevent inappropriate and incorrect usage of roadworks speed limits and other traffic control measures which cause congestion on our roads. It comes on from a private member's bill, the Road Traffic (Work Area Speed Limit Signs) Amendment Bill, introduced into the house by the member for Unley in March this year. This government bill has covered off on roadworks and signage, and it covers areas of the legislation that could have been tidied up a long time ago.

There has been some debate in this house this morning about the congestion and disruption to traffic caused by roadworks and the increasing problems in Adelaide. We need to remember that the state is far bigger than Adelaide and that, when we have these major disruptions for up to a year at a time on some of our major highways, it is a real disruption for the effectiveness and the efficiency of getting our material transported to where it needs to go. This bill is primarily working to minimise the impacts of roadworks on commuters and to prevent inappropriate and incorrect usage of roadworks and other control measures that cause congestion.

As I indicated, we need to not only address the economic impacts and the lost productivity of this disruption and congestion but also ensure that people who work on our roads remain safe. We need compliance and we need the standards worked through to prevent situations where drivers may be subject to fines for exceeding posted speed limits at works where there are no workers present at the site and there is no safety need for those road signs to be there. There needs to be a permit regime whereby the Commissioner of Highways may issue a permit to a business or entity requiring to use speed signs for roadworks that may cause congestion where noncompliance would potentially void the permit.

The bill will introduce better coordination between utilities and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure when planning major upgrades, including timing and avoiding duplication. Penalty levels are updated so that breaching conditions or incorrect use will result in penalties from a maximum of $20,000 for the first offence to a subsequent $50,000. I note that the Civil Contractors Federation has voiced some issues around the level of the fines, but I think a lot of that is being dealt with in regard to when they will be applied.

The bill will also authorise officers to remove speed limit signs used inappropriately—for example, when workers are not engaged at the work area—and give rights of appeal to the District Court for any party aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner of Highways. It will exempt the RAA and emergency services and others who, temporarily, as part of their role, obviously need to control traffic speed when stopped to render assistance.

When you are going down the freeway, the Dukes Highway or the Mallee Highway, and you see blue and red flashing lights—whether it is an ambulance or a police car that has pulled someone up—and you need to get back to 25 km/h, that is a fair change from when you are sitting on 110 km/h. I understand the safety aspect, but a lot of people, especially on our highways, pull up in one heck of a hurry and the anchors are thrown out. I have been present when some people have not realised what the speed is and they are wondering why you are backing off. They then see the flashing lights and realise that you do have to get back to that speed.

Public authorities will also be subject to the permit regime, except where the roadworks are a matter of urgency. As I said, there were some concerns with the Civil Contractors Federation. They certainly support reasonable measures to ease traffic congestion and improve road safety, but they are concerned that some elements of the bill are over-regulatory and unnecessarily complex. In saying that, there certainly is some need for compliance, but there is also a need for roadworks to be completed in a timely fashion.

In regard to some of the major roadworks in my electorate—and I met with staff from the department about four weeks ago, and I thank the minister for allowing them to meet with me—there are some significant issues around the constant disruption to traffic on both the Mallee Highway and the Dukes Highway around the motorsport park development near Tailem Bend. It is a significant issue on each road. On the Mallee Highway, there is only a small area where you have to slow down to 80 km/h because roadworks are being conducted, and I believe this has been in place for up to 12 months. It has been ongoing for many months.

The Dukes Highway is worse, where on multiple occasions you have to slow down to 80 km/h, go back to 110 km/h for a few hundred metres, go back to 80 km/h, and so on about four or five times. It causes massive congestion. It is disregarded when truck drivers realise that there is no compliance happening. The radio buzzes and there is discussion about whether speed cameras, or the 'flash for cash' as they are known, are in attendance, and people disregard the speed limits. I know why the 80 km/h speed limits are still in place, even though not a lot of work has happened in the previous few months.

The excuse has been that it has been raining. Well, it has not been raining to any great extent for a little while now, for quite a few weeks. The issue is that the road has a partly damaged surface. I can understand why the 80 km/h signs are in place where there is an excavated shoulder—fair enough. But I did stress to the department staff that we need to get on with it, because at the time the hay season was in motion, and underway now is what I believe to be the biggest harvest in South Australia. It certainly has the potential to be the biggest harvest.

There are many trucks on the road as Tailem Bend is an inland strategic port, a strategic site. Viterra does a pretty reasonable job of receiving grain there, especially now they are manning their so-called unmanned weighbridge at the exit to the site, but that is another point. The issue for the Mallee farmers is that there will be many hundreds of movements per day of trucks because there is no access to the Mallee railway line anymore. In its last years of operation, it was getting down to where it could only operate in the cool weather, and then it was down to 25 km/h.

Trains would be loaded at Pinnaroo or Lameroo during the day, and then the trains would operate at night because of the poor maintenance of the track. Sadly, from both the Loxton line and the Pinnaroo line, we do not have any rail transport. That will put many hundreds of extra trucks on the road over time, thousands during harvest, and create another complication. It is complicated more by these roadworks that have been ever present on the Mallee Highway near the intersection with the Dukes Highway.

As I indicated, the issue along the Dukes Highway has been ongoing for many months and people get over it. I believe this is the fourth busiest highway in the country and it is certainly the connector between Adelaide and Melbourne. The overnight runners or the trucks can do that trip in nine or 10 hours quite easily. Even though there is a very good rail line between Adelaide and Melbourne, it makes that inefficient with the off-load and on-load time lines at each end, so you are far better off to put it on a B-double or a single semitrailer and send it direct from the freight terminus to your customer at the other end.

My issue is not just that these roadworks are happening currently next to the motorsport park but that they have happened there previously. When the overtaking lane was built there, it was excavated, laid out and we were left with a rubble strip on the new lane for many, many months. It is not good road making. It could have been compacted. I am prepared to cop it because I am not a road engineer, but I think it is outrageous that these roads are left in a half-made state for so long.

I must commend the minister's staff, one of whom emailed me and suggested that there was going to be some work down there, and there has been. There has been some re-sheeting, but the final bitumen or hot mix has not been put on, the lines painted and everything done so that we can get everything back to 110 km/h. It does cause a lot of frustration, and people wonder what is going on.

I do not need pointed out to me that the access point on the north-western end near the Mallee Highway, where there has been a small intersection point made there for travellers coming from Adelaide to enter the motorsport park, is not extremely obvious. It has road signs now in the way so that people know it is there, but there is a concrete kerb in the middle of the road and it is going to need some good signage when it comes into use, hopefully in the not too distant future.

It is a frustration and, as I said, not just at this time. A four-lane overtaking lane was put in between Cooke Plains and Coomandook, and there was the same effect, where a rubble side was left out and not worked on for months and, when they finally laid the bitumen, they still managed to leave a lump in at one spot. When I overtake trucks on my way home towards Coomandook, I notice that the trucks know where the lump is and try to move out around it so that they are not shaking their load.

We need to get on with the roadworks. Both federal and state money was put in to this project at the motorsport park at Tailem Bend. From what I understand, the Peregrine group has made some changes to some of its plans and I believe some of that is waiting for some development approval on where some of the infrastructure is going to go. However, in the main, I think a lot of that has been settled now.

The roadworks need to be done because of the increase in traffic. Especially when you have a big harvest like this one, with extended opening times, one farmer might be able to send a semitrailer up that road six or eight times a day. If farmers do that multiple times, with hundreds delivering into Tailem Bend from as far south as Tintinara or even Keith, there are a lot more truck movements and a lot more movements on the road, and people do get frustrated.

I acknowledge that it has been a bit of a cash injection for the government when the speed cameras have been placed down there, but I understand people's frustration when the signs are constantly in place and people do not see any progress with a project. Get the work completed so that we can get the road up to speed and so that people know where these speed limits are into the future. At times, it seems like we are in a constant phase of roadworks, especially on these main highways in our state.

I certainly commend the bill. I commend the intent, but it is not going to address all the issues we have, because obviously roadworks have to comply with standards, and if the road is not built to the standard, they cannot just change the speed back to 110 km/h. I believe that is addressed through the amendments in the bill, but it does create that issue where people are frustrated by ongoing roadworks that seem to go on forever. I will be interested in the committee debate and to see the progress of this bill through the house.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:40): I am very pleased to see this bill in the house. I think the main benefit of this bill, from my point of view, will be the coordination of roadworks. Obviously, the bill will do its bit in making sure that happens. The important thing will be the implementation, of course, and making sure that there is adequate forward planning amongst all the departments, agencies and government-owned corporations, such as SA Water and what have you, to ensure that there is a lot of forward planning around roadworks and public works and to make sure they are able to do that in the most efficient way possible.

This bill should see a broader saving across government in terms of a reduction in public works and the general price of public works across government, which is always to be commended. I think the reduction in inconvenience to commuters, of course, is to be celebrated and certainly encouraged, but also the cost to the economy. In the minister's second reading speech, he mentioned an example of how one hour's closure can cost in the area of $100,000, just from delays experienced by people caught in that traffic. It looks to me to be a somewhat conservative estimation based on $20 per hour per vehicle, and that has not really been adjusted.

The cost figures used in that have not been adjusted since that methodology was introduced in the early 2000s, if I recall correctly from the minister's speech. It is fair to say that it is quite possibly more, and that estimate of 6,000 cars, I think it was, caught up for an hour could cost upwards of $100,000. This gives some justification for what may, at first glance, seem to be fairly heavy penalties in the fines and everything else, but when the effect on the broader economy is taken into account, that is certainly put in context.

I very much support the safety of the workers being paramount. In the event that speed signs around the roadworks area are to be removed, workers' safety or driver safety is to be the primary consideration before convenience, and that is as it should be, but where the safety requirement can be met and then convenience can be catered for, that is certainly a good thing.

As the member for Hammond said, it can be very frustrating, when travelling on a highway particularly, to have to slow down and speed up and slow down and speed up when there is no obvious safety requirement to be slowing down and certainly no presence of workers and no deterioration in the road surface or anything else like that. Being able to maintain a consistent speed is good for not only your fuel economy but also your trip time and it is certainly a lot less frustrating. Insofar as this bill assists with a reduction in those occurrences, that is obviously a good thing.

The final issue I will briefly talk about is the encroachment of building works onto a lane, particularly in the CBD. You might find that a lane would be closed or intruded upon by perhaps a boundary fence that gets extended out. When that intrudes onto a traffic lane, it takes a three-lane road down to two, and that may be the case for a very large part of the duration of that construction.

You might have a multistorey building going in and a lane is closed for no apparent reason. There may well be good reasons for it, and I am assuming it can be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but something that the city council may choose to consider, and I urge them to do so, is lane rentals. Where a developer thinks they need to shut down a lane and inconvenience motorists, particularly in the CBD, the city council should have the right to charge them for that lane and to make them rent that lane, and thus perhaps encourage people to consider more fully the need for that lane closure and alternative ways of undertaking the development that would not inconvenience motorists by blocking off a lane for an extended period of time.

I think that is within the power of the city council to do, and it is something they should give serious consideration to. Obviously, the city has its peak periods when there are very heavy traffic loads. We have seen the effect of the cost of delay (I think it is an hour) on the broader economy from just the minister's example in his second reading speech and, given that you can replicate that in any given number of locations right across the state including the CBD, it is something that should be given very serious consideration.

I urge members to support the bill. I thank the minister for bringing it into the house because it is a very practical bill that will give rise to serious benefits for not only individual road users but right across the economy.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:46): I rise to make a few remarks in relation to this bill and highlight a couple of local examples around the beautiful electorate of Schubert. Firstly, I would like to detail that, through good local government money but also through Black Spot road funding and supplementary road funding, we have had some good outcomes for the people of Schubert in recent times.

The Samuel, Seppeltsfield and Stelzer roads roundabout in the Light Regional Council was a great win, especially on the back of the sealing of Stelzer Road. Again, as people move through that intersection currently, it is good that the local works being undertaken are quite accommodating to residents and people needing to drive past. I was detoured down to Stonewall Road the other day, but I could see that the roadworks and the blockages that were in place were very much a response to things that were happening and the works being undertaken at that time.

We are also seeing an upgrade at the moment to the corner of Vine Vale and Light Pass roads. This is perhaps the most notorious intersection in the Barossa and one where I saw an accident happen where a non-local driver with his family went through the stop sign and had what could have been a much more major collision with a car coming up Vine Vale Road. It could have turned to real disaster but did not.

That intersection is being widened and upgraded and that is fantastic. Again, the local crews who are working on that are extremely mindful of the fact that residents still need to go around. The restrictions there are extremely sensible, and I have not driven past at a time when the signage was up but the workers were not there working. They seem very respectful and cognisant of people needing to get about their daily lives and that is absolutely fantastic.

The third one was around the Stockwell and Angaston roads upgrade where we had a significant win. We got the give way sign which was recently installed moved back to a stop sign after a long-running campaign by myself and the Barossa local paper, The Leader, and that intersection has also been upgraded. Again, it was done in the right spirit of how roadworks and traffic restrictions should be done.

I want to commend the council for their role in that. It seems to me that when the beautiful roses at the entrance to Tanunda are being pruned, for instance, that it is done in a way that minimises traffic restrictions. The main street of Tanunda is being resealed at the moment after a lengthy wait, and the people of the Barossa are extremely excited about it. Again, those roadworks have been negotiated so that they are conducted only from 6pm until 6am, allowing the local traders to be able to continue to trade. The main street of Tanunda, Murray Street, is perhaps the busiest road, or second busiest behind Murray Street in Nuriootpa, in the Barossa. For that whole stretch to be resealed whilst still giving people access for the vast majority of the time, I think it is a great credit to the council in the way that it was organised, and those traffic restrictions were done properly.

I have one example a local resident brought to me of perhaps a suboptimal example of road restrictions: the Sturt Highway. Barriers and restrictions were put up turning a 110 km/h zone into an 80 km/h zone around an area where some of the barrier operating in the median of the road was blocked off. No work was undertaken for months, yet there was a traffic restriction in that area. I know it was frustrating to me, as somebody who has to drive that road at least four or five times a week.

A number of residents have talked to me about the fact that there were traffic restrictions for months when no work was being undertaken, and I know that was frustrating for everybody involved. Luckily enough, it has now been fixed, but it is an example of where road restrictions have not been used properly, to the detriment of local residents. I think we can all appreciate that workers need to be safe when they are doing the work. I do not think anybody in here would speak against that. By that same token, when motorists drive past traffic restrictions where no work is being undertaken, I think that can be quite frustrating and unproductive.

All the examples I have just talked about are along freight route corridors within the Barossa, which makes it even more important for the significant amount of freight that moves through the Barossa area. I commend this bill to the house and I look forward to seeing improvements in the way these things are conducted.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:52): I thank the members who have made a contribution on this bill. As those members have said to the house, this is an important bill. This is another way in which we can improve the efficiency of the road transport network. All those efforts in those different areas, in my view, are not only necessary but are to be applauded.

I want to make reference to some of the comments that have been made today by members on this bill, particularly the contribution from the member for Davenport who, in the absence of the member for Unley, is leading the opposition's contribution. I thank him for support of this bill. The member for Davenport lamented that we were unable to accommodate or adopt the member for Unley's previous bill, which was before this place earlier this year. He claimed, somewhat erroneously, that we could have dealt with this matter fulsomely at that point in time had we only countenanced supporting the member for Unley's bill. Of course, that is not the case.

It was, as was described both in a press release I issued and also in news reports, a manifestly inadequate bill which was put forward by the member for Unley. It only contemplated penalising the inappropriate use of one particular traffic control measure: the 25 km/h speed sign which may have been implemented inappropriately on the road corridor. Of some concern, was the fact that that did not countenance all the other frustrations that motorists experience from roadworks which can delay their progress along the road network, such as other speed limits—and that is particularly important to consider in the context of the member for Hammond's contribution that we should always be mindful of how we treat regional roads; it is not just about roads in the metropolitan area.

Traffic control devices, particularly speed limit signs, in use in regional areas may be reducing a speed limit—as the member for Hammond said, if there are excavated shoulders, for example, or other hazards caused by roadworks—where there is a reduction in the speed limit from 110 km/h or 100 km/h down to, say, 80, 60 or even 40. None of those were considered by the member for Unley's bill, which he put up earlier this year, nor did he countenance detours, road or lane closures or temporary traffic lights. It also did not address traffic control signs used during events that contribute to delays if they are not removed appropriately and poorly scheduled roadworks that either clash with other significant uses of the road corridor or can cause significant disruption and interruption to motorists if those roadworks are delayed beyond their scheduled completion date.

All these matters, on the other hand, are dealt with in this bill, and it is important that we have a comprehensive reform of how roadworks are managed on our roads. I do applaud the member for Unley in one respect. Unlike many of his predecessors from the other side, he actually appears to be taking some interest in the transport portfolio. We have heard members opposite, in their contributions on both this bill and also other transport-related matters, lament the action, or lack thereof, by the government on matters regarding the efficiency of the transport network, whether that is congestion or improvements of the roads.

If they took a mere 15 seconds to peruse the transport areas of the 2006, 2010 and 2014 Liberal Party election manifestos—because that is all it would take—they would realise how little attention was paid to each of these. In fact, I can quote them verbatim. That was 2006. That was 2010. That was 2014. That is a verbatim recollection of the contribution they made on these important matters, so it is no surprise that when somebody, for the first time, has a crack at this, it is done in a cursory—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order. Member for Davenport.

Mr DULUK: If the minister could table that document, that would be appreciated.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Here it is, Deputy Speaker. Thank you, member for Davenport, for enforcing that that be on the record. That is much appreciated. Of course, the member for Davenport also says that an amendment is foreshadowed at the committee stage from, ostensibly, the member for Unley, about allowing left-hand turns at red lights. This has received some public and media attention. The government's position is that we do not support the measure. We do not support that measure for a couple of reasons. One is that allowing that in the form described by the member for Unley increases the risk of collisions between both motor vehicles and also other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, for example.

An alternative treatment, which has been rolled out at major intersections around metropolitan Adelaide, is the introduction of the 'left turn any time with care', where there is effectively a slip lane on the left-hand side of the intersection, which creates a deliberate conflict between other road users, like pedestrians and cyclists, where they have to cross the path of a motorist who wants to turn left. That specifically draws the attention of both road user groups to that conflict and it also requires the motorist who is seeking to turn left to give way to the other road users.

That is a more appropriate treatment. If the opposition were going to suggest that they wanted to see more and more of that at other intersections, I could countenance that and I could support that. Obviously, as they have recognised through their suggestion, if we can allow more cars to make a turning movement at an intersection and free up road space, that would contribute to lessening congestion on our roads. However, in its current guise, we do not support the contingent notice of motion that I understand has been placed on the Notice Paper by the member for Unley. I also notice that there was some reflection from the member for Davenport. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.