Bills

Statutes Amendment (Personal Mobility Devices) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2024.)

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (12:40): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill. It is a bill that has come to this place after some debate in this chamber, on talkback radio and in the community. It was introduced in June 2024 by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The bill will amend the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and the Road Traffic Act 1961 to provide a framework for allowing privately owned personal mobility devices to be used on roads and footpaths.

The bill also removes the definition of bicycle from the Road Traffic Act itself to put it into regulations to allow for changes to the definition over time as new types of bicycles come to the market. It is very rare now that you will see Uber delivered on a bicycle that is not powered by or has some electrical assistance.

In February 2023, the member for Hartley, who at the time was the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, introduced a bill into the parliament allowing privately owned personal mobility devices to be used on roads and footpaths. The bill was ultimately defeated by the government during private members' time. However, it did spark enthusiasm by the Minister for Transport, so that is why we are here today debating the government's bill, which of course we support.

It was in January this year that the government flagged that they intended to introduce their own bill by the middle of 2024, and here we are going through the process of completing the bill today. The government has noted that its decision followed a community consultation process. The government claims it had 87 per cent positive feedback to allow privately owned personal mobility devices to be used on roads and footpaths.

The RAA raised concerns of the need to address public liability insurance. In the RAA's submission during the period of consultation they recommended that, in the absence of a permanent form of insurance cover, the state government should cover anyone injured in an e-scooter incident using a scheme like the Lifetime Support Authority.

The opposition has had concerns raised through the community, mainly from our older citizens, but also from people who walk and people who operate restaurants and cafes with outdoor dining on streets, or other busy streets such as King William Road at Hyde Park or The Parade in Norwood. Both those roads have very active pedestrian use, with outdoor dining and goods placed on the footpath. It adds to the ambience and the attraction to shopping in strip shopping.

It is not always easy to remember or to notice the vibrancy that strip shopping brings to suburbs. It really hits you when you go to cities like Sydney and Melbourne where there is street after street of strip shopping. There are shops everywhere and lots of people in the streets. Our strip shopping is very limited in comparison: King William Road, Unley Road, The Parade, Jetty Road and O'Connell Street, with smaller pockets of strip shopping.

We have seen the gentrification of some elements in the seat of Elder, for example. I remember when I first started using Winston Avenue from my home in Hyde Park to my furniture factory in St Marys, I would travel down Winston Avenue and notice how many of those shops, that have been there for half a century, were empty or being used for storage or by businesses that did not really have a street customer base. Now it is very vibrant—there are cafes, there are shops that sell home items, there are always people sitting out the front—so having an electric scooter running between two tables at a cafe simply would not be a suitable situation.

The government has covered that in the bill, and councils have the ability to use their by-laws to prevent footpaths in certain areas being ridden on by electric scooters or mobility devices, with signs like 'No skateboarding', if it is unsafe or has an impact on the trade of businesses. I understand that could even be a city-wide ban. The City of Unley, for example, could decide that, rather than have an ad hoc decision, it could have its own decision to not allow them on footpaths in the City of Unley, in which case they would use the roads and the bike lanes that are there. That is common practice in many other parts of the world.

I remember when I was in Los Angeles just a few years ago being amazed at just how many e-scooters were being used there—of course, no helmets and extremely fast speeds. The United States of America is a different place from Australia, but we saw them being used, as the government is intending with this bill, as a form of transport, an environmentally friendly, cheap form that can get you from A to B without exerting very much physical energy yourself, and even contribute to perhaps a reduction in the congestion on roads in the inner suburbs. In particular I could see that that would be a popular alternative.

The member for Hartley has raised questions of insurance in the process, if an incident between a pedestrian and a privately owned mobility device, such as an e-scooter, occurs. This was in the briefing that he raised these questions and the department made it clear during that briefing that, for the purpose of an incident as described, the e-scooter would not be deemed a motor vehicle and the similar process for SAPOL and injury reporting would be as if a cyclist was involved in an incident with a motor vehicle or a pedestrian. We are concerned that the difference with a cyclist is the fact that these devices are much heavier, the impact is larger and the damage could be much more severe.

I think it is probably fair to say that a cyclist—particularly one who might be travelling at some speed, someone who might be cycling for fitness on their way to their executive job in the city, for example—if they did have an accident, would be more likely, statistically, to stop and exchange details and make sure the person was okay.

But we have seen with the hire scooters that that does not necessarily happen at the same rate with a scooter user, and often the scooter user will just continue going, and there is no way that there is any action available for that person who may end up with a hospital bill or may end up with days or weeks off work, for example. We believe there is a solution, and I have tabled amendments on behalf of the shadow minister, the Hon. Ben Hood from the other place, to attempt to deal with that—the introduction of these devices to be used in the nominal defendant case.

The way the nominal defendant works—I know in the minister's second reading speech he made reference to the nominal defendant—is that that is funded by people paying their motor registration and their insurance. It is only used on very rare occasions. My understanding of how it works is that when you register your vehicle there is an insurance component, and you have the choice of which insurance company to use for the third-party personal injury insurance. That extends beyond three months of the registration period, and if you continue to drive an unregistered vehicle after that three-month period the insurance has run out.

However, there is the stop, the safety net, if you like, of the nominal defender, where the person who is suffering personal injury from the result of that driver driving an unregistered vehicle—who is the victim, if you like, of that accident—is not disadvantaged by the fact that that person has been irresponsible and was driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle. It is a safety net that is there that we believe should be extended to devices such as these.

The minister is right in his speech when he says that we will see it pull bikes into a new category now because they are changing. There may be a time when this may be needed to be extended to bikes. The minister in his second reading speech also said that he believes there will be a market solution for the insurance, which there is not at the moment. Perhaps, if the government does not forever accept the amendment that has been brought forward by the Liberal Party today, they may decide that it could be there and then encourage, if you like, private sector insurance to be able to provide an insurance process. I would be interested to know what happens in other places in the world.

I have not done the research on separate insurance for mobility devices for insurance against causing personal injury to a third person. I am sure, with the technology that is available to us, and I think from examples around the world that we could learn from, that there will be some mechanism that would actually enable that insurance to not only be available but also to be monitored. I will discuss that a little bit further during the committee process when we get to that stage.

In his second reading speech the minister also talks about how it will no longer be necessary for the hire bikes operators to seek those permits to operate, although I think a council could still say that they could not. But it will be a very much easier process.

But I think this is a classic example. This will not be a problem with the personal devices, because people will look after personal devices. When they get off them they will either lock them somewhere out of the way so they cannot be stolen or put them to one side. They will not leave them in the middle of someone's driveway or on a median strip. They will not be left lying down blocking someone with a pram or in a wheelchair from using that part of the footpath.

I do not understand why, with the way we already use geoblocking to restrict distance and where scooters can travel, the scooters cannot have a related mechanism on them or why it is not required by councils that give them the permit, and I know the City of Unley decided not to extend the hire permit in the city of Unley because of the issues I have just raised about the irresponsibility of many of the users who when they finish with the bikes just leave them wherever they like.

There are things the scooter companies could do as an incentive to place the scooter upright and away from an intersection, street corner or driveway simply by using their geotracking and by just keeping on charging the user until they put the scooter in a responsible place. Very soon, I think you will find the acceptance of the hire scooters would be much higher and the opposition to them and the complaints about them would be almost non-existent, because people would be forced through the use of that monitoring mechanism, if you like, and incentive to save money if they do the right thing, to put the scooter where it will not be in the way of the general public, in the way of people using prams and wheelchairs in the middle of an outdoor dining area. You will also see a much higher acceptance among the general public of the use of those hire scooters.

Of course, helmets will be required, and I think a lot more people would feel much more comfortable about putting their own helmet on than using a helmet that has been on another dozen heads that same day. It is not something that is very attractive to me. God knows what it would do to my hair. With having your own helmet I think we will see much more compliance with people wearing helmets. It is also an opportunity, I suppose, for a bit more expression. People could customise their helmet and, depending on your taste, that might make it less desirable to steal as well, depending on what messages are on it.

I make those remarks in support of the bill, foreshadowing an amendment that will trigger two additional amendments if it is successful. If the opposition's amendment is not successful then the consequential amendments that would be required will not be moved by the opposition when we move into committee.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are there any other speakers? Does the member for Davenport wish to seek leave to continue remarks?

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (12:59): I do, thank you.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended 12:59 to 14:15.