Statutes Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (17:18): I was referring to consequential changes to the regulations to provide for the expiation fee increases that relate to speeding substantially in excess of relevant speed limits, which I will specify in a moment. It is important to bear in mind that, with regard to driving-related offences that are the subject of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, it ought to be appreciated in this context that it is a circumstance of aggravation that a driver is driving at more than 45 km/h over the speed limit, one of a variety of circumstances of aggravation of that offence.

It is understood not just in the context of research, reports and inquiry, but it finds voice in terms of that particular offence as an accepted circumstance of aggravation, that to drive in excess of 45 km/h above a relevant speed limit is a circumstance of aggravation in relation to the offence of careless driving. Others in that category include similarly serious matters, such as driving above the prescribed blood alcohol level—.08 in this case—or driving so as to avoid police. It is in a group of aggravating circumstances that are very serious misconduct indeed in relation to a careless driving offence.

The increases that are the subject of these regulations reflect that level of seriousness in relation to excessive speeding. The regulations will provide for an increase in respect of speeding over 45 km/h in excess of the relevant speed limit, from $622 to $1,658. An increase will also apply for speeding in excess of a speed limit in the range of 30 km/h to 44 km/h, increasing from $552 to $1,472.

In the context of the circumstance of aggravation to the offence of careless driving and in the context of the research, some of which I have made specific reference to, it ought to be very clear indeed that speeding, and speeding considerably in excess of relevant speed limits, is a matter that must be addressed and addressed with the utmost seriousness and, in this case, addressed by way of enforcement. It is clear that in terms of a deterrent, a significant increase to the pecuniary penalty that applies in relation to such driving may be seen as a significant deterrent to such driving.

The intent is that the implementation of the regulations will be expedited so as to avoid delay in their implementation, and so it is anticipated that the regulations will be implemented immediately and all relevant steps be taken so as to achieve that outcome. The question of driving safely, driving in accord with speed limits and being conscious of relevant applicable speed controls is one that I am particularly focused on as the member for Heysen, having the South Eastern Freeway running through the northern part of my electorate.

This freeway sees in excess of 50,000 motorists traverse it each day, including a substantial number of heavy vehicles (in the order of 4,000) also travelling it. It is one of the state's major roads. I am also fortunate that, in the more than 1,000 square kilometres of Heysen, driving and living among the community in the regional parts of Heysen, people use regional roads daily with a variety of speed limits reflecting the condition and circumstances of those roads relevantly.

In my view, it is imperative that we do all we can to invest in our state's major road infrastructure, including the freeway. I am delighted that yesterday we announced the investment of more than $14 million in a key safety improvement that will see the construction of an additional lane, a third lane, on both sides of the South Eastern Freeway between Crafers and Stirling to increase safety through that choke point.

Similarly, I am proud that the Marshall Liberal government has from day one, throughout the campaign and now in its first two budgets, committed to serious, long-term sustained investment in road safety for our regions in infrastructure investment. It could not be more important. It has been neglected over the last 16 years of Labor government in this state, and I am very proud to see that commitment be made. Importantly, road safety involves responsibility and accountability by road users, including with respect to compliance with speed limits.

It also importantly involves a proper, responsible, thorough-going investment by government in decent, safe roads, whether they be major arterial statewide roads or important regional roads. I am always a keen advocate not just for arbitrary speed limits but speed limits that accord with the capacity of the road to keep people safe on the road. Speed limits should always reflect the capacity of the road. I commend safe driving by all those who are resident within my electorate driving in accord with the condition of the road and the applicable speed limit. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (17:27): I thank the members who have made a contribution on this bill. My recollection is that they comprise the member for Lee and the member for Heysen. I thought that they were both interesting speeches. I have nothing but applause and praise for the points put forward by the member for Heysen; I thought they were some very wise words.

The member for Lee made a broader ranging speech. It began whimsically and was amusing in part. I think he made reflections on historical allegations of fact in relation to activities at school that I am not sure would bear the detailed scrutiny of a privileges committee. Fortunately for the member for Lee, the passage of time has diminished the detail of my memory to such a point that I could not possibly go into too much disagreement with him that I would want to put on the record.

I thank him for the trip down memory lane. I thought that his comments relating to budget measures bills were germane to the topic. I think that the context can be important in these speeches. In commenting on some of the matters that have been traversed in the media this week, I think that the member for Lee obviously took a political approach, as an opposition shadow minister is wont to do. I just make the point that, as in so much of the rest of his speech, he was in many ways inaccurate.

The member for Lee then went on to the substance of the bill and talked about the Mining Act and the Road Traffic Act. I think the hyperventilation in relation to the alleged damage that this bill is going to do to the mining industry was overblown.

I think that the contribution mining makes to this state is significant, and this government is utterly committed to ensuring that we benefit even more greatly from the riches underneath the soil. The mining industry is an important part of our state's economy.

The measures in this bill do improve cost recovery for work undertaken by the Department for Energy and Mining in the assessment of environmental protections, rehabilitation approvals and mine operation plans, and they remove discounts on mining lease rental payments to the state, which are currently provided to freehold landowners who are also tenement holders. The revised fee arrangements under the Mining Act are intended to start from 1 January 2020.

The dramatic suggestions of the member for Lee in relation to these matters were overblown, and I encourage all members to support these sensible measures as part of this bill. The debate then got quite focused on matters relating to the Road Traffic Act.

The member for Lee made some fairly significant comments, which I think started out as a traditional opposition member's speech criticising the government, alleging that the government is responsible for all these dreadful things.

He then reached a crescendo that was probably, I would submit, a bridge too far when he said in his speech that people are dying as a result of the winding back of road safety messaging, or words to that effect. He criticised the government for winding up the MAC, which I thought was a fairly remarkable approach from somebody who was a minister in the government that effectively sold off the MAC. The shadow minister said that it left South Australia without a focus on road safety. I think that those comments were ill advised.

The fact is the government is experiencing the obvious secondary effects of the former government's decision to privatise the MAC. The critical point to make is that there has been no reduction in funding for road safety functions such as advertising campaigns. The MAC was in place until 30 June this year. The police and the transport department as well obviously have a significant role to play. The police have an incredibly important role in road safety.

Of course, when we are talking about independence from government, the police, who contribute so much of this work, have a unique place in amongst government departments with a level of autonomy in their action, a level of independence in their action, that is quite different from the relationship between other government departments and the ministers whom they are responsible to.

I encourage opposition members to reflect on the important work done by the police in this area. I thank them for their work. I thank the police commissioner for his work. In that vein, I will move on to some of the other comments that the member for Lee made in relation to this matter. I forget the exact words he used, but he suggested that the measures to increase fines for speeding offences above 30 km/h an hour and especially above 45 km/h, and indeed the increase in the corporate fee, were superficial.

I will summarise, and I apologise to him if he believes that I have unfairly characterised the way that he described them. He suggested that, on face value, they were attractive measures but did not bear deeper thought as road safety measures. He suggested that it was just the Treasurer, the Hon. Mr Lucas, who suggested that these were road safety measures. I make the point that, to my recollection, the police commissioner, Grant Stevens, also suggested that these were important road safety measures.

I think that the benefits to South Australia are not, as characterised by the member for Lee, only to be found in budget enhancements as a result of these changes but are also significant in relation to road safety. I do not think I detected in the member for Lee's speech opposition to the substantial increases in fines for people who speed between 30 and 44 km/h above the speed limit, which is an increase of $552 to $1,472, or from 45 km/h and over, which is an increase of $622 to $1,658. I stand to be corrected when I check Hansard.

Let us just take as read that we understand that speeding at and above 30 km/h over the speed limit is not something we want our community to do. It is, in fact, a bad thing, and increasing the penalty and punishment will increase the disincentive for people to do so, which is a good thing. We can come back to it if the opposition choose to disagree.

As far as I could tell, the member for Lee was mostly arguing against the increase of the corporate fee. He described it as something that is accumulated by companies or fleet managers who are unable to identify the name of the driver, and suggested it was not a serious road safety measure. The member for Lee also said the government had faltered in focusing only on fines when the real gains are to be made in looking at demerit points.

I would put to the member for Lee and other members of the house that the increase in the corporate fee is not just a revenue measure; it is extremely likely to drive better road behaviour, not just from the perspective of improving the way businesses organise their fleets but also improving the behaviour of drivers on our roads who think that, if they are caught speeding in a company car, they might potentially be in luck and not lose demerit points because the corporate rate might be applied.

I am not saying that I know a person who has ever been in that situation. It is possible that other members of parliament do know somebody who has thought that they might be able to get away without losing demerit points because they have a reasonable expectation, possible expectation or hope that they will get off because the corporate fee will be paid by the company that employs them, or by whomever owns the car they are driving. Therefore, they will not have to face up to any demerit points in addition to the fine itself.

It has certainly been suggested to me that there would be people out there who do behave in that manner. If we can stop them from driving on our road, with the expectation that they can drive poorly and above the speed limit and not personally be pinged for it—not be held liable to the full extent of the law in relation to demerit points and a fine—and that this extra corporate fee might be paid, then I am confident that it will save lives and improve driver behaviour.

It is also reasonable to expect that fleet managers would have sound administrative processes in place so that they know who is driving their vehicles at any given time. Increasing the corporate fee will provide a strong incentive to fleet managers and businesses to ensure those processes are in place prior to allowing employees to drive their cars. It will assist in identifying the driver if an offence is committed in a company vehicle.

We are talking about some fairly serious offences that can be committed. Driving at high speed is a serious matter and we have to ensure that people do not do so. Again, if we can improve driver behaviour by ensuring that drivers know they will be held accountable to their company, and that it is extremely likely they will be held accountable to law enforcement in South Australia, it will drive better behaviour quite apart from any budget enhancements that may be in practice.

I think the member for Lee had some good parts to his speech, and there were some parts to his speech that were not as good. I encourage him to include more of the good parts in his next speech—I enjoyed those—and reflect on the parts I have identified as worthy of reflection.

I think this is a good bill and I commend the Treasurer for bringing it forward. I think this will assist the house and the people in South Australia in the tasks that we are seeking to do, including improving safety outcomes on South Australian roads. I therefore commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 17:41 the house adjourned until Wednesday 31 July 2019 at 10:30.