Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2107.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:05): The opposition rises to support the bill. The bill covers a number of different areas. Some may say they are minor changes; there are some that are major changes. In summary, the bill increases the subsuming period for camera-detected offences of unregistered vehicles from when the first camera offence fine is issued and before the second one may be issued from seven to 14 days.

I think most members of parliament would have had people coming to see them, particularly since the stickers that reminded people when their registration was to be renewed were discontinued. They may be regular commuters going past a fixed-point camera site, they may not be aware that their car is unregistered and they then go through a camera that detects that they are unregistered. Just like the so-called efficiencies that Australia Post has undertaken in recent years, where we do not know how long it takes now to send a letter, the period has gone out from seven days to 14 days before you can be pinged again for driving an unregistered vehicle to give the driver more time to receive the expiration notice in the mail and realise that their vehicle is unregistered.

Certainly in my experience, people are devastated when they find out that their vehicle is unregistered. With the number of people who have come into the office with this problem in Unley, I think they are more embarrassed about the fact that they were driving an unregistered vehicle than they are about the penalty they have to pay. So this fixes that issue that we as local members have been dealing with for quite some time.

The bill also ensures driver's licence suspension periods do not count towards minimum period requirements for holding a driver's licence or learner's permit and also that interstate and potentially overseas licence suspensions are also acted on. Again, it is just tightening up that process. Police will be able to withdraw a period of licence disqualification issued in error rather than having to go back to the court. Again, this is one that I think many local members of parliament would deal with on a regular basis. Also, the courts will be able to backdate a period of licence disqualification to the commencement of any applicable period of an immediate licence loss.

For offences detected by a safety camera, section 79B of the Road Traffic Act will be amended to simplify the process for drivers to nominate another person as the driver of the vehicle by doing away with the requirement to make a nomination using a statutory declaration. Again this is a process that obviously will make that easier; however, it increases the penalties for anybody who uses that system to make a false claim or provide false information to $25,000 or four years' imprisonment.

It also tends to encourage corporate bodies, which in the past have been quite happy to pay the fine and not identify the driver to save on demerit points. It will also encourage those corporate bodies to nominate the offending drivers as opposed to paying the corporate fee because the penalty will now be five times the expiration amount rather than the current expiration amount plus $300 or $600. For some of those very large fines of $400-odd, the fine for not identifying the driver is closer to $2,000.

I think it will encourage a lot of people, who are responsible for that vehicle but were not driving at the time but know who was, to nominate the driver more often. The whole idea of penalties for traffic offences is about making our roads safer, making people accountable for their actions on the road and making sure they understand and obey speed limits, traffic lights and other safety measures that are put on the road to make our roads safer.

The Road Traffic Act will also be amended to allow for the towing of light vehicles left unattended on prescribed roads in breach of a clearway, a bus lane or a bike lane. This will be done by private contractors to a nearby convenient street, and the registered owner will be charged for the towing cost, which the government has said is approximately $180 plus the expiration notice. I understand that this is a practice that happens in other states. I witnessed it on a trip to Melbourne a few years ago.

We were having a cup of coffee in the CBD area, and I think at about 3 o'clock the clearway kicked in. At about five past three, it was noticed that there was still a vehicle parked in the clearway and the vehicle was dragged up onto a flat top. The total operation took about five minutes, and the clearway was then free for drivers to use. Obviously, Unley, for example, is an area where clearways are very important.

Unfortunately, until this amendment bill was brought to the parliament, the only option was for a fine to be placed on the windscreen of a vehicle by police, but it did not do anything to alleviate the bottleneck the parked vehicle in the clearway had caused. This will see a much better outcome and I think it will also force people to be more aware of where clearways are. I suspect that more attention will be paid to clearways as we continue to see more traffic in Adelaide in particular.

I have a concern with this section of the bill. I am not sure it will happen that often, but I think it may happen occasionally. People in my electorate will be particularly affected by this because a number of clearways run through my electorate, and there is a lot of strip shopping, and that tends to lead people to breach the clearway time. I know it would concern residents in my electorate of Unley if a vehicle were left in the street for a prolonged period of time and they had to wait for the owner to collect it. I am sure that it would also be a similar concern for members in the electorates of Dunstan and Bragg and the seat of Adelaide.

In some circumstances, for example a convertible vehicle which cannot be locked, there is a provision that the vehicle be taken to the security of a tow-truck yard, and signage will be changed to reflect the new arrangements with the necessary contact numbers. If the vehicle cannot be secured, in my understanding of this bill, the expectation is that the car will be taken elsewhere and the driver will be notified as to where they can collect it.

The last thing the bill addresses is changes for local governments. This has been initiated by the Adelaide city council for a new section of the Road Traffic Act which will enable councils to set their own expiation fees for certain parking offences, being able to fix fees lower or at the same rate accepted by the state government. In other words, they cannot increase them higher than the gazetted amount, but they can certainly set them lower.

We saw some media recently with the Adelaide city council issuing a statement that they were keen to look at reducing the amount that they must collect in traffic fines. I think they are seeing that as a way of making it more attractive to come into the city more often. If people make a mistake, the penalty is not quite as bitter, if you like, as the fees that are there now. With those comments, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:17): I thank the member for Unley. I apologise to him that I was not here for the full course of his comments.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sure I did. I appreciate his collaborative approach to this bill and his words of support about this. Although there are a range of measures within this bill, I think it is readily apparent the sorts of benefits which the community is likely to receive as a result of its passage, so I commend it to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.