Bills

Road Traffic (Helmets) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 2 November 2017.)

Clause 2.

Mr KNOLL: It seems that we have had some members of the government tread down the road—

The CHAIR: Hold on a second, member for Schubert. You are addressing clause 2?

Mr KNOLL: Yes.

The CHAIR: What is your question?

Mr KNOLL: I am the mover of the bill; I do not ask questions. But, to explain where we are for the information of the house—

The CHAIR: You are moving that clause 2 stand as printed.

Mr KNOLL: Yes. It seems that we have had some tread down the road to Damascus where, after six or seven months of obfuscation by the government, we are a good 15 to 20 seconds to midnight and the government has seen fit to move an amendment to this bill.

In essence, what that amendment does is take out the specific reference we had in relation to the fact that helmets can have either cameras or Bluetooth devices attached to them as long as the device is affixed by means of a frangible mounting and that that frangible mounting does not penetrate or fracture the outermost shell of the helmet. The wording we used was very much in line with what the ACT had in its legislation, and it has dealt with this issue for some years.

What the government is seeking to do through its amendments is to have that portion of the bill removed and, essentially, for that provision to move into the regulations. So instead of having this fixed in legislation, we are going to move what will and will not be allowed to be affixed to a helmet to the regulations. We know that the government is undertaking a COAG process to look at these issues and, although I find it extremely unlikely we will find time for its passage through the other house, its passage through this house means that through regulations we would be able to make the necessary changes so that people can wear these attachments to their helmets whilst driving on the road.

We are happy to support that amendment; it is just frustrating that we did not get here even in just the last sitting week so that we could get this passed through the Legislative Council. Nevertheless, progress is made by small steps and, as we are inching closer, we are happy to accept that movement.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr ODENWALDER: On behalf of the Minister for Road Safety, I move:

Amendment No 1 [RoadSafety–1]—

Page 3, lines 5 to 11 [clause 3, inserted section 162D(4)]—Delete inserted subsection (4) and substitute:

(4) However, the preceding subsections only apply in relation to a communication or recording device that is affixed to a helmet in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations.

Amendment No 2 [RoadSafety–1]—

Page 3, line 16 [clause 3, inserted section 162D(5), definition of approved motor bike helmet]—Delete 'regulation 51 of'

For the member for Schubert's information the government, the minister and I absolutely support the intent of this bill. Obviously there has been some consultation with the police and with DPTI, and we have subsequently moved these amendments.

As a government, we put the safety of road users at the top of the list; they are our primary concern. We know that both motorcycle riders and bicycle riders are vulnerable road users and that motorcycle riders are almost 30 times more likely to be killed in a crash than drivers of other vehicles. As a government we must ensure that we are doing all we can to ensure the safety of motorcycle and bicycle riders. As I said, the government does support the intent of this bill, brought by the member for Schubert, to allow motorcyclists and cyclists to use cameras on their helmets where safe to do so.

Of course there are potential benefits associated with wearing these cameras, such as encouraging road users to comply with road rules. There is also the potential for captured footage to assist should accidents occur. However, as I said, we have had strong advice that a camera or another device attached to a helmet does create the potential for the helmet to lose its protective qualities and increase the risk of neck and head injuries for the rider, although formal research in this area is limited.

Other states and territories are looking at this. I understand there is a national process that is doing the rounds. There will be some national guidelines coming out of that, which is another reason for these amendments. It is worth noting that riders are currently able to use a camera on their helmet if it conforms with the approved standards. Riders are also able to attach a camera to their bike or clothing.

The member for Schubert's bill, as it stands at the moment, does lack a little detail in how it proposes to define what 'safe, frangible mounting' means. No research has really been put forward to support the premise behind the bill that allowing frangible—that is, easily breakable—mounted attachments to helmets will be safe for riders. The strong advice from SAPOL is that, without further specification regarding this device, it could lead to unsafe practices and would prohibit any opportunity for SAPOL to enforce the rules around it anyway.

Further work does need to be done. Therefore, the government has moved amendments to this bill that would mean that a camera used on a helmet must be attached in accordance with any requirements set out in regulations, such as those specifying what constitutes a safe, frangible mounting.

I understand, and it is my hope, that the mover of the bill has agreed to these amendments in general. I understand that the minister has undertaken to consult with a range of stakeholder groups, both within the state and as part of that national framework I spoke of, and every effort will be made to provide clear guidance to riders about what constitutes a safely mounted camera.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (10:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In doing so, I merely comment on the fact that, whilst we have done some good work in the last few minutes, it seems that this will all be for nothing because, unless the upper house is forced to sit, we will be where we were 15 minutes ago and that is still without a workable piece of legislation having passed both houses of this parliament. That is sad, because I think we very easily could have done this. But, as I said, we must take the small progress that we can get. I expect that if and when we bring this bill back to the new parliament, obviously with us sitting on the other side of the chamber, the new Labor opposition will see fit to support this bill in the same fashion.

Bill read a third time and passed.