Criminal Law Consolidation (Driving at Extreme Speed) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 May 2021.)

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (12:29): I rise to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Driving at Extreme Speed) Amendment Bill, and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition.

This bill was born of comments made by the Commissioner of Police in February this year, particularly regarding a specific incident of a motorcyclist who had been detected travelling at more than 200 km/h. I think that most of us have seen the vision of the motorcyclist the police put out recently in response to this bill—a pretty harrowing video I think everyone who has seen it will agree.

I think that measures like this are long overdue. I think it is a good bill. It is a good response. It has been a bit slow in coming. It was mooted in February, but I am glad that the Attorney has introduced it, and I indicate that, pending any untoward mishaps during the committee stage in this place, we will be supporting it, certainly through this place and through the other place as well.

That is, indeed, because it is something that the commissioner has been calling for. Specific concern was that penalties were too low for people, unless, of course, they caused harm or death. So the simple act of driving dangerously with the potential to cause harm was not being properly dealt with by the law.

Under current laws, the most serious speeding offences are dealt with under the Road Traffic Act. These are driving at excessive speed, which is defined as more than 45 km/h over the posted limit. The same people could potentially be charged with reckless or dangerous driving, but this comes with a maximum penalty of only two years. This maximum penalty is the same as a simple common or basic assault, and, of course, when you compare that with the level of risk presented by a vehicle travelling at 200 km/h it simply does not make sense to have them being equal before the law.

At the time of his public comments, the Commissioner of Police likened driving at 200 km/h to firing a gun down Rundle Mall. In both situations the offender is placing unknown lives at risk, so again it is about the potential for risk, the potential for danger, the potential for death rather than death itself, which is dealt with in other provisions. Firing of a weapon will currently be charged under something like acts endangering life under section 29 of the CLCA, with a penalty of up to five years in prison, even if no-one was harmed.

In simple terms, this new bill proposes to insert new section 19ADA into the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which creates a new offence of driving at extreme speed. Under this bill there are two possible extreme speed offences. The first is travelling at more than 55 km/h over the posted limit on roads where the limit is 60 km/h or less. The second is travelling at more than 80 km/h over the posted limit on roads where the limit is 60 km/h.

There will be maximum penalties: three years for a basic offence and five years for an aggravated office, in addition to an immediate loss of licence. With regard to the immediate loss of licence, this was part of another recent bill, and at the time Labor did query why there were no provisions administratively to reverse the immediate loss of licence where there may have been unintended or administrative errors.

Despite the government not seeing this as an issue at the time, we do note that this bill amends the as yet uncommenced previous legislation to deal with this matter. I do welcome the government including as part of the bill the ability for the commissioner to withdraw these notices without going to court. As already exists, people who drive at extreme speed may be subject to a range of other penalties, including the impounding or crushing of vehicles.

The bill also includes potential exemptions for police and emergency services, of course. Labor, as you know, sir, has a long history of passing strong road safety laws and supporting police in deploying new technology to detect and prevent traffic offences. Our support for this bill is consistent with this approach.

It is important to remember that all deaths on our roads in some way or another are preventable, and sadly for younger age groups it is one of the leading causes of death. I am incredibly conscious that road safety is critical and that young people bear a heavy burden from death and injury on our roads. As someone who travels regularly in our regional areas, I do appreciate the heavy burden that falls on regional communities from death and injury on our roads, particularly on volunteers. As a former police officer, I know firsthand how injury and fatality on our roads weigh heavily on all first responders who attend these scenes. I do hope and trust that this bill will help reduce the burden on these members of our community by sending a very clear message.

As I said before, Labor has a very strong and proud history of supporting strong road safety measures. Reforms have included the graduated licensing scheme, which has now been extended to motorcycle riders; static and mobile driver testing for alcohol and drugs; the increased use of seatbelts and driver restraints; mandatory alcohol interlock programs; the introduction of the 50 km/h default speed limit in urban areas; increased and better targeted enforcement with higher penalties; a network of safety cameras at high-risk intersections; point-to-point speed cameras in regional areas to enforce average speed limits over long distances; blackspot programs to improve sites with poor crash histories; infrastructure safety programs, such as road shoulder sealing; increased numbers of four and five-star safety rated vehicles that provide better protection for occupants; and topically, of course, legislation to impound vehicles and crush the vehicles of hoon drivers.

In earlier terms of government, Labor reduced the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers from 0.08 to 0.05 and implemented a whole range of other safety measures. Labor looks forward to making our roads safer. Road safety has always been a passion of mine and I look forward to supporting this bill and asking some questions in the committee stage.

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (12:35): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. Too often, we see examples of hoon drivers playing with their own lives but also the lives of others on our roads. This bill sends a strong message to drivers who have no regard for public safety and choose to drive at extreme speeds on our roads that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

Extreme speed on our roads can be fatal and hoon drivers are putting not just themselves at risk. I cannot imagine the pain felt by the families and friends of people who have lost their lives or others who know people who have suffered loss on the road as a result of hoon driver behaviour. To think that people can be so reckless and put others at so much risk is quite frankly incomprehensible.

In 2020 alone, speed was a contributing factor in 38 per cent of all lives lost on South Australian roads. The five-year average between 2015-19 is 29 per cent. These are staggering figures and we simply cannot accept dangerous driving as being inevitable. We need to have strong laws in place that reflect community expectations and send a clear message to hoon drivers that their behaviour simply will not be tolerated.

The government has worked closely with SAPOL to develop this legislation, which categorises the dangerous act of extreme speeding as a criminal offence. The bill makes it an offence where the speed limit is 60 km/h or less to exceed the speed limit by 55 km/h or more, and where the speed limit is more than 60 km/h to exceed the speed limit by 80 km/h or more. The offence will attract serious penalties, including up to three years' imprisonment for a basic offence and a mandatory minimum licence disqualification of two years for a first offence or five years for subsequent offences, and up to five years' imprisonment for an aggravated offence and a mandatory minimum licence disqualification of five years.

Where a person is charged with this offence, police will be empowered to impose an immediate licence disqualification or suspension to ensure the person is barred from driving until finalisation of the charges. The person may appeal the police-issued licence disqualification or suspension on the basis that exceptional circumstances exist and the person does not pose a substantial risk to other members of the public.

The bill provides a higher penalty for offences committed in aggravated circumstances, including where serious harm or death was caused to another, the offence was committed in the course of attempting to escape police pursuit, the offender was driving a motor vehicle that was stolen or being driven without the consent of the owner, the offender was disqualified from driving and knew of the fact, the offender had a prescribed drug present in their oral fluid or a blood alcohol concentration of .08 grams or more in 100 millilitres of blood, and the offender was driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

These aggravating circumstances recognise how factors such as drugs and alcohol can increase the risk of serious harm and injury or loss of life when driving at extreme speeds. In addition, provisions will include forfeiture offences for the purposes of the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007.

As part of this government's crackdown on hoon drivers, we have also changed the fees that apply for the release of vehicles and we are requiring the fee to be paid in full as another measure to deter bad behaviour and improve road safety. This bill also allows SAPOL to instantly remove the alleged offenders from our roads. The bill recognises how dangerous driving at extreme speeds is by creating a standalone offence for this reckless act.

We know that speed is a prevalent factor in serious injuries and fatalities on our roads, which is why we have taken the step to criminalise this behaviour under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. This legislation brings the penalties for hoon driving in line with community expectations. As Minister for Police, I hear from members of the public frequently who are concerned about hoon drivers. To the people of South Australia: let me assure you that our government is listening.

This bill is a powerful measure to deal with this incredibly dangerous and reckless behaviour. It is another tool for SAPOL to deal with hoon drivers on our roads. Members may have seen the very powerful video released by SAPOL recently, just a couple of weeks ago, showing the devastating results of extreme speed. It is our emergency services volunteers and the men and women of SAPOL who unfortunately are left to pick up the pieces when there is a crash caused by extreme speed.

I would like to personally thank the police commissioner for his assistance in helping to bring this legislation to life, and I commend the Deputy Premier for her work on the bill. We are committed to providing our police with the tools and the resources they need to keep our community safe, and we will continue to investigate and implement new measures to support the work of SAPOL.

Since coming to government, the Marshall Liberal government has delivered over $170 million in extra funding to keep South Australia safe and strong. Of course, we have also delivered on yet another of our election commitments by implementing the Traffic Watch app component of the SAPOL app. This enables community members to report dangerous road use instantly to SAPOL, giving a greater chance for the offenders to be found.

Driving is a privilege that should be reserved only for those who do the right thing on the road. This bill delivers a clear message to dangerous road users that their behaviour has no place in our community, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (12:42): I rise ever so briefly to get just a few thoughts on the extreme speeds bill on the record and to articulate ever so briefly a couple of the concerns that I hold about this bill and the impact it might well have on regional people.

In a number of situations, I believe that country residents would be unfairly convicted of travelling at an extreme speed and subjected to the extreme penalties that this bill lays out. In my view, country residents are accustomed to speed limit signs being left out or blown over, even when the roadworks that they are supposed to be policing or applied to have long been completed. Motorists on country roads often frequent that route multiple times a day and recognise that these signs are left out unnecessarily.

It is not unusual, in my view, on a second or third trip past a sign or a site for someone to disregard that 25 or 40 km/h speed limit when it is completely safe for the usual speed limit to be maintained through that area. It is also common, in my view—and we had a big storm last night—to see signs blown over or impeded by fallen branches or something like that, which can obstruct speed limit signs from view and deny motorists the opportunity to adhere to the correct speed limit, thus rendering them subject to what this bill might provide.

Again, in another situation where regional motorists might well be unfairly implicated in the punishment that this bill provides, a police car might have pulled someone over with lights on just around a bend and, when a motorist comes around, they do not have time to physically slow down and decrease their speed to the 25 km/h in time to go past that police car. In these situations, just to name a few, country motorists would be unfairly convicted, in my view, of travelling at an extreme speed and be subjected to the extraordinary penalties that this bill provides for.

I also believe that the licence disqualification penalties under this bill also have a disproportionate effect on country people. For a basic offence, an offender under this bill receives a mandatory licence disqualification of two years and, for an aggravated offence, an offender's licence is disqualified for a minimum of five years.

In the country, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would well know, you cannot just walk to work or to the supermarket or to an appointment. While we are lucky on the Copper Coast and in the Copper Coast Council that we do have a few taxis, quite a few regional communities do not have access to taxis or public transport, so that makes it extraordinarily difficult for people to get to work or where they need to go, and for five years that punishment could be quite debilitating for those people.

I also take issue with this bill's unreasonable, in my view, imprisonment penalties. For a basic offence, an offender could be facing up to three years' imprisonment and, for an aggravated offence, up to five years' imprisonment. I understand that these penalties are in place to deter the extreme speed offences that this bill relates to but, in my view, when we are talking about road safety, it is often a race amongst politicians to do something when there is a concerted media effort and speeds or speed limits are always the issue that is put forward to counteract those campaigns.

I would put to this house that there are countless other examples of other offences that should also be deterred that would have just as significant an impact on road safety but still attract a much lower penalty. To name but one single example of that, based on my research today, a driver caught under the influence of drugs with a child on board is disqualified for driving for three months and fined up to $1,300. That is significantly less than this bill provides for in terms of a speeding offence.

There is no gaol time for these drug drivers and no two to five-year licence disqualification for those offenders, but they are deliberately putting the safety of a child at risk and driving while impaired. Based on that comparison and other comparisons like it, I think the penalties in this bill are unreasonable. Although I am not sure it will be required, I am not sure that I would support this bill if it were put to a vote.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:46): I acknowledge and express my appreciation to the Minister for Police for his contribution and assistance in the development of this legislation and for his support in bringing this to the parliament. He outlined and repeated the sentiments that a number of people have expressed, including the Commissioner of Police, who really started the conversation on this matter when, in the midst of discussions about death by dangerous driving law reforms, he stated that there was another area of concern he had and that related to hoon driving at extreme speed. That started the conversation for us to work out how this might best be addressed.

It is fair to say that, on the issue raised by a member of the opposition—incidentally, I acknowledge and thank him for his indication of support—on the question of the three-month delay in the introduction of this bill, there was considerable work done to ensure that a number of the issues noted by the member for Narungga have been addressed. I will outline those for the benefit of the member for Narungga because the sorts of issues he raised are important issues. They are very important for people who live in the country, in particular, and they have been considered in the development of this bill to ensure that we do not adversely impact those who may be innocently going about their own business and are inadvertently caught by this legislation.

There has to have been that work done and we have worked hand in glove with the police on this matter because they are the people who, quite frankly, are frequently first responders, cleaning up the tragic mess in these cases and having to employ sanctions in relation to prosecutions and the like.

That is not to underestimate the significance for other road users who might witness these occasions and/or assist in helping to save lives at the scene of these accidents. Quite frankly, when they are out in the country where the speeds are higher, these can be vicious, in the sense of shocking injuries and/or death of drivers or passengers or even innocent people who are pedestrians or cyclists or motorcyclists and so on who are other road users at the time.

The faster the speed, often the uglier the mess. Any members who have had the experience of attending road accidents, whether it has been as a police officer, as a witness or in our emergency services—ambulance services and the like—will know these are really gruesome occasions. Sadly, scenes involving decapitated people, children injured, children dead, pets yelping in pain, etc., are shocking situations and the ugly consequences of a high-speed road death or injury.

Let's just look at the concerns raised by the member for Narungga. He outlines generally that he feels that regional people could be more unfairly treated as a result of this type of regime of mandatory loss of licence and/or imprisonment, which can flow from a conviction in relation to these new offences. I will not go through the details of aggravation and the threshold to which they apply and whether they will attract a charge because that has been traversed in the bill.

Firstly, the member for Narungga raises the question of roadworks. These are the bane of most road users, I think, especially when, annoyingly, there are roadworks signs up, a request to slow speed, and when you drive through them there are no apparent works actually happening. They are probably the most annoying, especially if it happens more than once when you are going through that section and the road signs are all still there and there is still nobody doing any work.

I want to reassure the member of the obligations on the prosecution and the onus on the prosecution to establish that someone might be charged and found guilty of extreme speed within a roadworks speed zone. Not only must they prove that the offender is the person driving the car and is driving that speed—that is obvious—but the onus is on a prosecution to prove, firstly, that workers were present and engaged and, secondly, that the signs were clearly visible to a driver when approaching the roadworks. There are four elements, if I could describe them as such, of what has to be the onus on the prosecution to prove in relation to those circumstances.

If the example is used that the roadworks signs had blown over and they were not immediately visible, then that would be a matter that would be taken into account, firstly, as to whether there was any charge even laid, and to have a successful prosecution the onus is on the prosecution to actually establish that. I think that is important, especially when there may be a very late notice of the sign, there is nobody visible actually doing any work, and somebody may attempt even to slow down but does not do it enough and then is maybe caught. That prosecution would fail on that basis because there was no evidence to support that there were even people working and engaged on the site. These are the sorts of things again that we have had to work through to make sure that these sorts of circumstances the member for Narungga has raised are actually dealt with.

The second is in relation to someone driving in an emergency. I took this as a situation where there might be a vehicle with ambulance or police lights flashing, and of course there is a 25 km/h speed limit in relation to that. That is a situation where the prosecution has to prove that the emergency vehicle was present and that the same vehicle had red or blue flashing lights when the alleged offence occurred. There has been a carve-out to cover that, so that has dealt with the issue.

The third matter that has been raised—and I do not think the member raised this, but it is possible, and I will mention it anyway for completeness—is when the driver themselves might be racing along in an emergency; for example, in the country, a couple is sitting in their car, the wife is having a baby, they are in a hurry to get to the hospital, which may be half an hour or an hour or more away and, of course, there is some pressing emergency to deal with that.

I advise the house that there is already provision in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act under section 15E, which makes provision, for example, for a sudden or extraordinary emergency, including a medical emergency. That is codified in that section of the act. Again, these are matters that I bring to the attention of the house so that people do not feel that there may be some unfair treatment of people in those circumstances and, particularly, as the member for Narungga has raised, in country regions.

The member for Narungga also raised whether this was comparatively severe relative to other offences. There may be cases—we often find this—where the review of laws, which is worked out on a comparative basis, relative to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act standards, may be significantly more severe than other offences which sit, for example, in the Summary Offences Act. But I will have a look at the matter the member for Narungga has raised. I think that these are all things worth having a look at so that we constantly review these matters.

There was a recent article, I think it must have been in the last 24 hours, relating to parties who are driving children to school and they are alcohol or drug-affected. This is an issue that is raised from time to time, especially by police, and it is brought to the public's attention via the media. The police are concerned about this issue. Not only is it grossly irresponsible but it is unlawful, and we need to have a reminder from time to time to make sure that we do not put our children, or indeed any other drivers or users of the road, at risk in those circumstances.

I thank all members for their contribution. I will just make one other observation on loss of licence, which is to be mandated. There is no doubt that when we are dealing with death by dangerous driving offences, the concern raised by some of the victims' families was the offence that they took—and they were quite distressed—at seeing somebody who had caused the death of the person they loved and they were able to keep driving. This is something that was really quite offensive to them, so it was brought to this parliament to tidy up and ensure that the loss of licence on-the-spot process could happen, and in the course of that obviously there were discussions in relation to the review of this legislation as to how we might deal with that.

Equally, I think people would feel very aggrieved if they saw someone who had been charged with hoon driving or who was evading police in the circumstances that have been outlined here; they ought to be charged with extreme speed and they ought to suffer the immediate loss of licence. Again, quite a bit of work has had to be done to ensure that we get the balance there. In conclusion, I thank the opposition for their indication of support. I thank the member for Narungga and of course the minister for their contribution to the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.