Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 April 2024.)

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (21:49): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. The bill was introduced back in April by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The bill contains two significant transport reforms and several minor technical amendments. Transport reform one is an amendment to the Highways Act 1926 to permit the Commissioner of Highways to consent to a roadside service centre accessing a controlled access road and enter into a written agreement with the relevant party that includes payments and arrangements in relation to the access. Transport reform two is an amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1961 to provide for a reduced speed limit of 25 km/h when passing a breakdown service vehicle that is stopped on the road and is displaying amber flashing lights.

I will be seeking some clarification during the committee process about the use of 25 km/h for that process, when in Victoria it is 40 km/h. I think there would be a lot of South Australian drivers who would be very interested to understand the science in achieving that nominal speed limit here 15 km/h lower than that of Victoria.

The first amendment stipulates that a roadside service centre is different to an ordinary petrol station. A roadside service centre includes additional facilities, including designated heavy vehicle parking areas, trailer marshalling and break-up facilities, public amenities such as showers, change rooms and play areas, and restaurants for fast food options. This amendment seeks to introduce that the commissioner can enter into a commercial agreement with a roadside service centre operator for the access and operation of the access road for the roadside service centre. Currently, the commissioner only has the ability to provide ongoing permits. In short, the amendment seeks that the roadside service centre operator pays a commercial fee to the commissioner in order to maintain and manage the access road. How I understand it is that the commissioner will maintain it for a fee from the operator.

The government proposes that this is to maximise the economic and community benefits from the government's investment in roads and infrastructure. However, the operator of the roadside service centre currently is liable for all taxes and levies set by the government for the use of the property as per any petrol station and all property along the highway. This is in addition to payment that the government is seeking to generate more revenue from roadside service centres.

The second part of the bill seeks to introduce an amendment to the Road Traffic Act to provide a new offence that requires motorists to drive at a reduced speed of 25 km/h when passing breakdown service vehicles that have stopped on the road and are displaying flashing amber lights. Breakdown service vehicles within the bill include vehicles used for the purpose of providing breakdown service and includes tow trucks, RAA vehicles and any other vehicle or vehicle of a class prescribed by the regulations. The amendment seeks to expand on the previous amendment that requires motorists to drive at a reduced speed of 25 km/h when passing an emergency service vehicle.

There is a difference of opinion as to why the bill will include the name of one roadside assistance operator, being the RAA, and not the generic term, which includes all operators. When clarification was sought through the ministerial briefing session, the department stipulated that, from a point of perception, RAA is the most notable and recognisable operator. Including their name on the bill will simplify the bill for motorists. All roadside assistance operators are included in the bill.

The RAA data shows between 2019 and 2023 there were 20 reportable incidents caused by cars driving past breakdowns without due care, including five instances where RAA patrol vans were hit by a car or motorcycle. This amendment seeks to reduce the number of motorist incidents caused by motorists driving past breakdowns without due care. The department says that there are currently no concerns from stakeholders. On immediate loss of licence, the bill makes several technical amendments to the provision which allows SA Police to issue a notice of immediate loss of licence at the roadside for offences of drug driving and reckless and dangerous driving.

It is interesting that in the Joint Committee on the Legalisation of Medicinal Cannabis we have heard quite a bit of evidence about the effects of drug driving and also the challenges of detecting whether those who are using medical cannabis, for example, are in fact impaired or not. That is an interesting area to watch. In relation to excessive speed, for offending drivers who receive an immediate loss of licence notice, there is a right of appeal to the court to lift their licence disqualification or suspension. This is to ensure consistency with a vehicle owner's right of appeal to do so that currently exists with the RTA.

Regarding inserting a specific power for the SA Police to withdraw an immediate loss of licence when a determination is made that a driver should not be charged with an excessive speed offence, this is to ensure consistency with the equivalent traffic offences under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 allowing SA Police to take into account time already served on the reissue of an immediate loss of licence.

On occasion, immediate loss of licence must be withdrawn by SA Police and reissued to the same person to correct minor errors, such as an incorrect date of birth recorded; however, there is no ability for SA Police to take into account time already served on that person's previous immediate loss of licence. The bill ensures that the police officer is able to issue an immediate loss of licence to a vehicle owner who they reasonably believe has committed a camera-detected excessive speed offence against the RTA in circumstances where a vehicle owner has not been given an expiation notice for that offence but will likely be prosecuted in court for the offence instead.

Regarding additional technical amendments to clarify matters associated with the issuing of an immediate loss of licence for an excessive speed offence, this amendment of immediate loss of licence is an increase in road safety measures and aims to reduce the number of repeat offenders in South Australia. The Liberal Party supports the bill as it stands, but we are interested in moving into committee to make some inquiries about some elements of the bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (21:58): I thank the member for his question, and I thank members for their forbearance at such a late hour. We do have officials here to answer questions of the opposition. I will try to do that as quickly as possible. For their benefit—they have been waiting for so long—I think it is appropriate we do that tonight. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The speed limit while passing breakdown service vehicles here is 25 km/h. The government is saying that they are matching the speed limit for emergency vehicles on the side of the road. For the Transport Accident Commission in Victoria, the speed on their website for the same purpose is 40 km/h, so I am just wondering if you can explain why there is a difference in South Australia.

I have also noticed, with the bit of extra driving I have been doing in recent times in New South Wales in Canberra, the speed limit at roadworks on the side of the road is 40 km/h as opposed to 25 km/h. Why is it that it is 25 km/h for emergency vehicles for this new amendment and for the roadworks on the side of the road? Is there a science that has delivered that different speed limit here in South Australia?

It is not the only thing that South Australia is unique on. We are the only jurisdiction I am aware of in which you cannot have a timber floor in your bathroom. You can have a beautiful big room in a nice Victorian terrace in Fitzroy in Victoria and decide you are going to put a claw bath and a basin at the end of the bedroom with a wall. You have to rip the floorboards up and put concrete down if you are doing that in South Australia, but not in Victoria or New South Wales or anywhere else in Australia as far as I know. This seems to be another quirk, so I am very interested to know why we have 25 km/h in South Australia and 40 km/h that we know for sure in Victoria.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will answer the most important question first, which is as a fellow Pisan, what is wrong with concrete? I mean, come on. I do not know why we have that anomaly here in South Australia. We also have these beautiful houses in Torrensville and Cowandilla and Mile End that have beautiful wooden bathrooms, but we often rip them out and have to put concrete in. I agree; I am happy to work with the member for Unley on that as well. The advice I have is it is about consistency. We have 25 km/h for police. There are two scales for roadworks: one is 40 km/h and one is 25 km/h. There is a lower-level complexity and a higher-level complexity. We have gone for the protection of roadside workers at 25 km/h. We basically want to say to people, 'If you see flashing lights, it is 25 km/h.'

Now, I accept there are anomalies in that; there are always anomalies in the law. But I think generally we are getting the message through that it is 25 km/h if you see flashing lights. I want to thank the member for his support on this, because he was the shadow minister for transport and infrastructure between 2014 and 2018.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: 2016.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Between 2016 and 2018, and can I say on the record that he was the most effective opposition spokesperson on those portfolio matters I have ever seen in my 27 years in this parliament—a very, very effective shadow minister. What we are attempting to do here is consistency. I accept there are anomalies, there are anomalies in all parts of the law, but what we are attempting to do here is try to make sure we are as consistent as possible while we accept there is an anomaly.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I understand that you are aiming for consistency here, but it would be just as consistent for that speed to be 40 km/h for emergency vehicles and roadside assistance vehicles. Why do we have 25 km/h? Also, it is 40 km/h when lights are flashing at schools in Victoria, not 25 km/h. Is there some research, is there a scientific-based reason or a statistical-based reason as to why here in South Australia we are 25 km/h for exactly the same purpose?

Let's stick with what is in the bill. We are talking about roadside assistance and consistency with emergency vehicles, which is 40 km/h in Victoria and 25 km/h here.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is consistency. The evidence we have is that speed does kill. For a vehicle collision at 40 km/h versus a vehicle collision at 25 km/h, force equals mass times acceleration. It is a pretty simple equation. That equation means the acceleration is an important part of that force. If the speed levels are lower, the force impact is lower, and we are going for minimal impact. We want consistency, and we have that for school buses and we have that for all emergency services. If you see flashing lights on the side of the road we want you going at 25 km/h, but I accept there are anomalies. The member makes an important point that there are anomalies here, and it would be good to have consistency across jurisdictions, but in South Australia we are aiming for 25 km/h.

Mr BASHAM: My questions are very much about the operation of amber lights in regional areas in particular. As a dairy farmer, I often used amber lights crossing cows across the road, spraying on the sides of roads and those sorts of things, but there are also many other activities where amber lights are used in regional areas that are certainly not covered by what is outlined in this bill. I am just trying to get some clarity about what might be covered in this bill. Is someone who is using amber lights, whether they be a farmer or a mechanic from the local service station, going to be covered by the legislation if they are there repairing a vehicle, even though they are not a member of the RAA and even though they might be a private operator repairing their own vehicle?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The short answer is, yes, absolutely. If there are amber lights on, the law is that you must do 25 km/h. If there is a farmer doing repairs or a mechanic doing repairs and they have amber lights on a tractor on the side of the road, the law says it must be 25 km/h. We want to protect farmers as well, we want to protect people who are working on the side of the road, because it is dangerous. So, yes, the answer is they are protected. New section 82A is the appropriate section.

Mr BASHAM: Adding to that as well, is the use of hazard lights as flashing lights covered as amber lights or not in that circumstance? Also going a bit further, where a tow truck is operating those lights in an area where they are not actually working, just because they pulled over to the side of the road because they wanted to have a smoke or something, is there any penalty to stop them using their amber lights in a way that they should not?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We have not put penalties in here; we are expecting some good faith here. If there are people pulling over on the side of the road and turning their amber lights on flashing, trying to slow traffic down and tricking people into getting speeding fines, obviously that is not in the spirit of the law, but I do not expect that to occur. So, yes, we can find anomalies in all these pieces of legislation, but what we are attempting to do is to try to protect roadside workers who are doing their job.

If there is an RAA worker who has pulled over on the side of the road to have a cigarette and they turn on their amber lights, obviously that is inappropriate use of their amber lights, and I do not believe that they would do that. If they did do that, and they were caught, do we have a penalty in this bill for it? No, we do not, and I have to say I would not want to be that prescriptive either because that leads down another path as well about a whole series of criteria about when you turn your amber lights on. So my analysis here is we are looking for a quarrel where none exists.

The truth is, if a farmer turns on their amber lights because someone is doing work on their tractor on the side of the road, you should slow down to 25 km/h. If an RAA vehicle is coming to change your tyre on the side of the road and the amber lights are on, slow down to 25 km/h. If an RAA driver pulls over on the side of the road to have a cigarette and turns on their amber lights, we will slow down to 25 km/h because the amber lights are on, but if we see it being abused, we will act. But I just cannot imagine a situation where that would occur.

Mr BASHAM: Adding to that, the reason I asked that question was that, after the introduction of this, I actually saw a tow truck driver parked opposite a McDonald's having a cigarette in a no-parking zone with his flashing lights on. That is why I went down that path, because there are operators out there who do the wrong things at times.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They should not.

Mr BASHAM: They should not. Wrapping up some of the other things that currently operate in rural areas, we have farmers, traffic controllers, oversized loads, oversized load escorts, local government vehicles and state government vehicles all using amber flashing lights when they are doing their work.

My question is: has there been any consideration of introducing some other coloured light for these circumstances where we are requiring the change so that we are not getting confused with other operators, whether adding a red light to the amber lights or something just to give a combination? The other thing I am also concerned about in regional areas, particularly remote regional areas, is road trains, etc., being able to slow down to 25 km/h if they come around a bend and see a vehicle with its amber flashing lights on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is always a problem; 100 km/h or 90 km/h down to 25 km/h is always going to be an issue. I accept that, but what are we attempting to do here? We are attempting to protect people. The flashing lights flash at a faster rate than the others. We want to quarantine this to assistance on the side of the road rather than escort vehicles. I think what we are actually creating here is an awareness that if you see flashing lights on the side of the road you should slow down, which is a good thing.

The member can come up with all series of anomalies in regional areas where we are going to need to have police with commonsense solutions, and generally I think police are very good at that in regional settings. If there is a bend where there is no visibility, and you turn around that bend and there are flashing lights, obviously you will have an argument that you could not possibly have seen the lights. There are always arguments and defences here. You can construct as many anomalies as you like, but the truth is what we are attempting to do is give a very blunt message that if you see flashing lights, slow down.

What are the chances of there being a speed camera alongside flashing amber lights for a breakdown from a burst tyre? Very, very rare. What we are actually raising here is awareness. We are making it the law and we want it enforced, but it will not be set up in the same way we would enforce other things. If the police have flashing lights on the side of the road and someone speeds past, the police can respond, act and issue an infringement notice. An RAA driver or a tow truck driver cannot. So I do not see the idea of there being a penalty in place for people who may accidentally speed past this. What we are attempting to do is say to everyone that it is the law of South Australia that if you see flashing amber lights and somebody offering assistance on the side of the road, the speed limit is 25 km/h. In my experience, it is observed more often in the good conscience rather than the breach.

There will be breaches, and we can come up with solutions later on if it gets out of hand, but this is about protecting our workforce to make sure that they are looked after, including farmers, including tow truck drivers and including RAA drivers who are just trying to help someone who is stranded. I accept that you are supporting the bill, but I also accept that you can punch holes in this and find examples where there could be anomalies, and I would respond to that by saying that those anomalies probably will not be punished because that is not what we are attempting to do here.

Mr BASHAM: Chair, with your indulgence—I know I have had my three—just one final issue. My big concern, particularly as someone who has been operating lights for different purposes, particularly crossing cows across the road, is often drivers will slow down but, once they realise what it is, they will then start accelerating. My concern is that the users who are not covered by this may now have drivers that are accelerating past them rather than slowing down.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I completely agree. A lot of the big problems we had with this reform to start with is SAPOL's objection to the idea that an independent civilian can alter the speed limit by pressing a button on their vehicle, without any legislative framework. SAPOL turn on their red and blue lights because they are enforcing the law, and that triggers a whole series of things in statute, but they are sworn officers. Paramedics have a role, fire have a role, all rolled out in statute. RAA are not sworn or public servants, tow truck drivers are not employed by the Crown, yet they can alter the speed limit on the King's roads.

So, yes, you will find these anomalies, but I think the message that we are getting through with this legislation is that if you see flashing lights, it is 25 km/h. In my experience, other than the occasional breaches, South Australians will accept that. I think it is a good reform. Yes, there are anomalies, but the truth is that if you are changing a tyre on the Princes Highway or you are changing a tyre on the Dukes Highway or the Augusta Highway and cars are going past at 102 km/h, it is dangerous. We want those people to go home to their families, and I know you do too. I am not questioning that.

Yes, we can poke holes in all of this, but I think ultimately this is a good reform. It will benefit people, it will benefit the people you are talking about, because in terms of the distinctions that you and I are talking about here I can guarantee you the average South Australian is not going to read through this legislation and understand what their obligations are. What they are going to hear is that the message is: if you see amber lights flashing, you slow down to 25 km/h. That will benefit the people you are talking about as well.

The CHAIR: You need to move your amendment now, minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [InfraTransport–1]—

Page 11, lines 20 and 21 [clause 19, inserted section 82A(2), definition of breakdown services vehicle, (b)]—Delete paragraph (b)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (20), schedule and long title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (22:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 22:18 the house adjourned until Thursday 29 August 2024 at 11:00.