ROAD TRAFFIC (RED LIGHT OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 September 2011.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:49): I rise very briefly to indicate that I will be supporting the Road Traffic (Red Light Offences) Amendment Bill. The bill extends the existing provision of the Road Traffic Act 1963, specifically section 79B, to include level crossings (termed 'twin red lights') so that drivers caught both speeding and crossing against the lights can be fined for both offences. This is in line with what occurs at road intersections, and there is no question in my mind that those who speed through a level crossing whilst running a red light should definitely be fined for both offences.

While many will see supporting this bill as supporting red-light and speed cameras at level crossings, I think it is important to distinguish between the policy decision to install cameras at some six level crossings (as was announced earlier this year) and this bill which, as I said, simply seeks to bring level crossings in line with what occurs at road intersections.

That said, I do have some sympathy for the position of the Law Society, which concludes that the policy decision to install cameras at level crossings is 'just another revenue raiser'. They do so after analysing the statistics provided by the government showing the number of vehicle collisions at level crossings is falling—a fact to be welcomed—and that twin red lights (referred to in another place as ding-dings and wig-wags) remarkably reduced the number of motorists speeding across level crossings.

There is no doubting that many in the public see existing red-light cameras, particularly the snap-happy trio—the cameras near the Port Adelaide hospital, St Peter's Cathedral and Bakewell Bridge—as revenue raisers. When they each raise, I believe, nearly $1 million per year on the back of the highest fines in the nation, it is hard to escape that conclusion. Consequently, many will no doubt see the use of such cameras at level crossings as the government chasing extra revenue.

While there are many reasons to support cameras at level crossings, the cynic in me does believe that there is probably a money motivation here somewhere, but I would hope that, after spending $11 million to install those cameras, if any extra money is raised, it would be put back into making level crossings far safer.

On the issue of revenue, the Minister for Road Safety has often highlighted that revenue raised from speeding fines is—and I quote from an Adelaidenow article—'dedicated to enhance road safety throughout the state'. In an ABC 639 radio interview, the minister stated that revenue raised goes into a road safety fund, despite the popular perception that fines go straight to general revenue. I ask asking the minister in this place, prior to the committee stage, to clarify for me and my constituents what the arrangements are for the disbursement of revenue from fixed cameras.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:52): The Greens will be supporting this bill which seeks to replicate the laws that apply at road crossings to certain railway level crossings as well. The mechanism, as is now well known to members, is that where both red-light and speed cameras exist and a person infringes both sets of laws, then both sets of penalties apply. It makes sense at road crossings and it makes equal sense at level crossings.

I note the Law Society's submission, which has been sent to all members, and I will say that I do not think it is one of the Law Society's more considered submissions, as it has jumped on the bandwagon of saying that this is no more than a revenue raiser and denies that it is a road safety measure. In support of that position, the Law Society refers to the statistics, where they say:

...for the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2011 there were 85 road vehicle collisions at level crossings in South Australia. However, since July 2008, there have only been six.

That is not correct: there have been seven. In fact, whilst I was contemplating this bill at home, sitting at my computer, I received an email from a friend who said, 'Did you see the accident at the level crossing at Crystal Brook last night? That was my mother.' This is a friend of mine who is thinking a great deal about level crossings and the harm they cause. This is a 75-year-old woman who is in hospital at the moment. It was an accident at a level crossing at Crystal Brook, and it is unknown what happened. Was the driver blinded by the sun, or was it too dark and the train could not be seen? We know that level crossings are dangerous and that, when accidents do occur, trains are very unforgiving. If you are in a collision with a train, your prospects of escaping with your life or without serious injury are remote.

I understand that the government's intention is for speed and red-light cameras to be installed at suburban rail crossings, rather than country rail crossings, but I would urge the government to consider the whole of the road safety situation and to particularly look at safety at country level crossings. If these measures do, in fact, raise venue, which the Law Society suspects they are designed to do, I would join the call that other members have made, and that is that the revenue that is raised should go into making our road network and our train level crossings safer.

It may involve putting in flashing lights or booms where they do not currently exist. It may also involve either encouraging or compelling the rail freight industry, to the extent it is possible to do that within a state jurisdiction, to make the trains safer, which would include either lights or reflectors on the sides of freight trains so that you can see them because they are almost impossible to detect from side on when approached at night. I think there is a lot of room to move.

The bill before us is a simple bill and it says that, if you speed and go through the red light, you will be subjected to both penalties and you will be subjected to both lots of demerit points. On that basis, the Greens will be supporting this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.