ROAD TRAFFIC (RED LIGHT OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 September 2011.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:53): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Road Traffic (Red Light Offences) Amendment Bill 2011. The opposition will be supporting the amendments to the road traffic and motor vehicles acts. This is the second bill I have spoken on this year to do with the safety of level crossings.

The Labor government and the opposition does not often see eye to eye on the use of speed cameras; however, in this instance we believe that placing red light cameras at busy level crossings may be effective in deterring drivers who would otherwise attempt to speed through the crossing just before a train passes. I remind the house of what I said throughout the debate on the rail safety bill in April, namely, 'railway...crossings are the single biggest source of death and injury associated with railway operations'. There are approximately 100 crashes between a road vehicle and a train in Australia each year and in South Australia that averages about 10 per year.

To revisit some further statistics mentioned by my colleagues in the House of Assembly, there have been 24 fatalities in South Australia in the last 10 years and, in particular, the Womma crossing at Elizabeth had, over a two-week period, 21,000 vehicles exceeding the speed limit over the crossing. Whether they were trying to speed up to get away from the local member, Mike Rann, I am not sure. Over 12,000 entered the lights as they began flashing and 237 of those were speeding. Nineteen of those entered as the boom gates were lowering.

With that particular statistic I am reminded of my aunt who was a couple of years older than my mother and, if she was still alive, she would be in her early 90s. She and my uncle and cousins lived in Melbourne. At the time, boom gates were installed rather than gates that swing across to shut off the road as the train goes through. She was told that, as soon as the ding dong bells go, she should stop because the boom gate is going to come down. She used to drive a little Mini, and she jammed on the brakes and ended up being stuck between the boom gate and the train. She was not game to move and she sat there as the train whizzed past about a foot from the front of her little Mini. I think she was taking it to an extreme to stop as soon as she heard the bells go off.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: She took note of that?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: She did take note of that, and it never happened again. She could not back up because the boom gate was behind her and she could not go forward because a train was coming. It is very clear from those statistics that a large proportion of motorists are prepared to demonstrate extremely risky behaviour for the sake of saving a few minutes waiting as a train passes. In doing so, they are not only putting their lives at risk but also the lives of their passengers and, of course, sometimes hundreds of people who may be on a train that is passing the intersection.

The state government announced a while back it would install speed cameras at six metropolitan train level crossings: Leader Street in Goodwood; Woodville Road, Woodville; Kilkenny Road, Kilkenny; Cormack Road and Magazine Road, Wingfield; Womma Road at Elizabeth North; and Commercial Road at Salisbury North. The Road Traffic Act currently defines 'traffic arrows' and 'traffic lights' but does not define 'twin red lights', which you will find at these level crossings. Therefore, these amendments are to bring level crossings into line with other intersections. It will therefore be provided that people who speed through level crossings will pay a fine on each of the two offences—red light and speeding—and demerit points will apply to both.

This is a technical bill but an important one. It is one of the few instances in which the Labor government has moved to place speed cameras in places of proven high risk rather than at the bottom of hills such as the new Bakewell Bridge underpass or even out here on the golden mile past Adelaide Oval. I am often blinded when sitting there by how many times the lights flash. The poor unsuspecting South Australian motorists are just topping up the government coffers yet again.

I really do think that this state should follow the lead of the New South Wales government and have an audit of all speed cameras to see whether they do actually deliver a road safety outcome or whether it is just more and more revenue into the government coffers. The opposition would always support a positive road safety outcome but it should not always be at the expense of the poor unsuspecting motorist. I iterate again that the opposition is on the same page about road safety and especially the value of them at level crossings. The statistics speak for themselves: level crossings are extremely dangerous and some drivers certainly have a propensity to use them riskily.

Also, I am reminded of a very tragic accident that happened probably 30 years ago now. A farmer in Wolseley was driving parallel to the railway line. There was no level crossing and no signals. He was unsuspecting and pulled across in front of the Bluebird and it hit his tractor and, sadly, he lost his life. Certainly, it is a good step in the right direction to have some metropolitan level crossings policed in this way, but I think there are a number of country ones where people still take unnecessary risks. I suspect in this case this gentleman was listening to his radio and not paying attention and running parallel to the train. The train came from behind him, he did not see it and just turned in front of it and the rest, sadly, is history.

With those few words, I indicate the opposition will support the installation of cameras at these spots and support the legislation to allow their use, and we commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:00): I rise briefly to also indicate Family First's general support of this bill. However, there are a few issues I would like to outline. In general, we will always be supportive of any moves to reduce our road toll and to penalise dangerous driving. I can scarcely think of anything more dangerous than speeding through a level crossing while a train is approaching.

As the minister advised, the Road Traffic Act 1961 currently provides that, where a vehicle is detected by a photographic detection device committing both a red-light offence and a speeding offence arising from the same incident at a place where there are traffic lights or traffic arrows, such as at an intersection, the penalty for both offences apply. Similarly, the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 provides that the demerit points for both offences apply in this case. Drivers therefore routinely receive six demerit points and a whopping fine for driving at 15 km/h or more through a red light.

I would argue that some people who speed up to get through an orange light but miss that light and end up speeding through a red light are heavily penalised by this rule. Some would argue that the penalty is too high. Nevertheless, Family First does not necessarily oppose that provision; it is indeed dangerous behaviour. However, the double penalty for the two offences arising from the same incident when committed at an intersection with traffic lights does not apply to a level crossing with twin red lights, the flashing lights.

This bill amends the definition of 'red light offence' in the Road Traffic Act to include the twin red lights, being the horizontal or diagonal alternatively flashing red warning lights seen at level crossings that we all know. Therefore, people speeding through a rail intersection will also be liable for the double penalty under this bill. In general, Family First is supportive of the concept, but there are some questions we would like answered.

One of the main differences between traffic lights and rail crossings is that we have orange traffic lights (that is, there is a warning light, or a period of caution, if you like), but there is no warning on rail crossings that their lights are about to start flashing. There needs to be some time given to drivers to enable them to stop, otherwise many drivers will be accidentally and unintentionally caught in these circumstances.

I ask the minister: what tolerance are we giving to drivers in that regard? Clearly, we would need to give drivers a second or so (or something of that order) of grace of the lights flashing before they are fined. You could have a situation, for example, where someone was just a few minutes short of entering the intersection when the lights start flashing, and because they cannot possibly stop their car in that time, they enter and then can be slugged with a very substantial fine and, potentially, six demerit points. It is a very substantial penalty for something that cannot be avoided.

I indicate that we will listen carefully to the government's response to this particular question in the summing up before we make our final conclusion. However, as I said at the outset, in general, we support the concept of the bill. People should not be driving with unnecessary speed, or without due care, through an intersection, particularly where trains are involved, obviously. However, it is really important that people who have no other option but to continue through that intersection are not in any way fined or receive demerit points or anything of that nature.

I also flag that my colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has a number of amendments to this bill that he will table. I understand that the amendments are being drafted as we speak, or the drafting of them may already be concluded, and he will be tabling those amendments very soon.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:03): First of all, with regard to the question regarding the instantaneous red lights on a crossing, yes, that would be a concern for me also. However, there will be a delay for that camera that is equivalent to the orange light, and that is an appropriate measure taken to protect the unaware public.

With regard to the amendments, we are looking to putting this bill through committee. This is a priority bill. We should have already debated this bill but, as I understand it, because the Hon. Ms Kelly Vincent was not well, we allowed No. 8 to be debated first. This bill would have been well and truly finished now had we not agreed to that request. It is inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings that we suddenly get an amendment—and it is still being typed. So, we seek the house's—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Why don't you report progress?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: No, I don't want to. I want to get the bill through.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable minister is in charge of the bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes. As I have said, the reality is this bill would have been passed now—it would have been passed 10 minutes ago—if it were not for the fact that, because the Hon. Ms Vincent was not well, we allowed for this not to come up, and we allowed No. 8 (Sentencing) to come on, so we would be seeking just to go ahead with this through the committee without those amendments.

I thank the honourable members who have spoken to this bill for their contributions. The Hon. Ms Bressington asked for clarification of arrangements for the dispersal of revenue from fixed cameras, and I will answer that right now. Revenue from the anti-speed devices goes into the Community Road Safety Fund, and the Victims of Crime Fund.

Safety camera revenue and expiation fees are collected by the South Australian police and paid into a consolidated account in the Department of Treasury and Finance. The Community Road Safety fund is funded by a yearly appropriation from the Department of Treasury and Finance utilising this revenue.

The Road Traffic (Red Light Offences) Amendment Bill 2011 is a simple bill that contains a small amendment to section 79B of the Road Traffic Act 1961 relating to level crossing offences. Crashes at level crossings can have catastrophic impacts on car drivers and passengers, who often lose their lives or are seriously injured, and can cause trauma to train drivers, passengers and the local community.

Currently, the Road Traffic Act 1961 provides that, where a vehicle is detected by a photographic detection device committing both a red light offence and a speeding offence arising from the same incident at an intersection or marked pedestrian crossing, the penalties for both offences apply. Similarly, the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 provides that the demerit points for both offences apply.

Driving through a level crossing while the warning lights are flashing has serious road safety implications. Also, drivers often speed up when they see the level crossing warning lights flashing and drive through the crossing above the applicable speed limit. However, the double penalty for the two offences arising from the incident, when committed at an intersection or marked pedestrian crossing, does not apply to level crossings.

The bill rectifies this anomaly by amending the definitions of 'red light offence' and 'speeding offence' in the Road Traffic Act to include 'twin red lights'—these are the horizontal or diagonal alternately flashing red warning lights seen at level crossings. This will have the effect of applying the existing double penalty of speeding through a red light at an intersection or marked pedestrian crossing to speeding through a level crossing where the warning lights are flashing. The changed definition will flow onto the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and ensure the demerit points for both offences apply.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: With respect to clause 1, I would like to advise the committee that I am close to parliamentary counsel bringing in some amendments to this bill. I believe those amendments are very relevant to this debate, and could add quite a lot of benefit to the government with respect to road safety around red light camera locations.

The reason for my amendments only being finalised right at this point is because information that came to me in the last week or so has indicated that there are some serious concerns with respect to the location of red-light cameras and other associated road safety factors which I believe colleagues may be interested in looking at debating.

I have a real concern about safety issues at red-light cameras. Years ago, I met a lovely young lady who was severely injured as a result of someone running a red light, and information given to me in writing by DTEI indicates to me that many colleagues would like to see how the criteria are set for red-light cameras.

Whilst the minister has indicated that he would like to see the bill go through this place today, I ask colleagues to consider looking at these amendments. They will be available so that we can put this on the Notice Paper as priority one in the next sitting week. I also raise the fact that, when crossbench and opposition members try to bring in private members' bills, even when we get private members' bills passed in this chamber, they are deliberately blocked in the other place because the government has the numbers. We have an opportunity, when the government brings in a bill, whether or not it likes it, under the democratic processes for any member to be able to bring in an amendment. I believe that is healthy democracy.

I also remind my colleagues that it was not very long ago—in fact, only a couple of sitting weeks ago—that we had amendments being dropped in our lap for big, detailed bills by the government during committee, and it has happened on many occasions. Also we have had situations where the government has brought in bills and expected us to pass them within 24 hours—in fact on the same day on one occasion, I recall. I simply ask that we go to a reasonable extent today, if that is the wish of the minister, but that we do not complete the committee stage until I give my colleagues the chance to consider three amendments in particular with respect to this issue that could be of benefit to road safety.

The CHAIR: This bill has been on the Notice Paper for three weeks, which gives members ample time. I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire asked today that the council might consider sitting at 11am. If you started sitting at 11am you would have less time to prepare your amendments, so that would be terribly inconvenient for you, I understand.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister discussed the road safety fund into which revenue goes in his summing up remarks. Given that we try not to stifle debate—and the opposition is happy to support reporting progress if that is what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire wants to do—we can make this a priority.

The CHAIR: The minister is in charge.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You may say that the minister is in charge, but I wish to ask questions about the amount of revenue that has gone into the road safety fund over the life of this government. It has had nearly nine years, but one of the early promises by Premier Rann was extra speed cameras, but every cent would go into road safety initiatives. I would like to see an annual balance of that fund and where it has been expended. Tell the parliament the road safety initiatives on which that money has been spent, because, at times, the community feels that it is just revenue raising.

I am giving the minister an opportunity to demonstrate to the community that the money collected in those fines goes back to proper road safety initiatives. I doubt whether the minister has that information at his fingertips. If the Hon. Mr Brokenshire happens to move to report progress, we would be inclined to support it, which would allow the minister time to bring back that important information.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: By way of personal explanation, a few minutes ago I retired from the chamber temporarily to take some Panadol and have a rest as I am recovering from a flu and I am still experiencing a bit of a fever. I was surprised to find that, by the time I had come out from the bathroom from doing exactly that, the Hon. Mr Wortley was speaking words—I cannot recall them exactly—which I felt put me at blame for delaying the committee in debating this matter.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I may well stand corrected if the Hon. Mr Wortley can prove me wrong, but I fail to see how my absence has delayed the proceedings of the council, and I find it quite offensive that he has seen fit to do this, particularly without checking whether I was still within the building. Obviously I was still performing my duties, as I did hear him—

An honourable member: Unlike he does, most of the time.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: —say those words. Could the Hon. Mr Wortley clarify exactly what was meant? I do not wish to delay the council any further, but I do think this is a matter that is worth pursuing.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wortley did not indicate that you delayed the council; what the Hon. Mr Wortley said to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was that this bill would have been discussed earlier, and that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire attempting to table some amendments had delayed the bill. The Hon. Mr Wortley did not indicate that it was because of anything that you had done, Hon. Ms Vincent; he was indicating that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was delaying the bill, not you.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: And how was my illness relevant to this?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wortley has no need to apologise to anyone. He made a statement and he certainly did not implicate you in any position of delaying the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: That may well be the case. My question is: how is my illness in any way relevant to this?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Hear, hear. Why was it discussed at all? Why did he have to raise it?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade indicated to us that the Hon. Ms Vincent did not feel well—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade raised it with us. I think—

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Mr President, if the Hon. Mr Wortley was blaming the Hon. Mr Brokenshire for delaying the proceedings of the council, I fail to see how my illness was relevant.

The CHAIR: I think if the government had persisted in going ahead and not calling you prior, because you were not feeling well, then you could have had some objection to its inconsiderate behaviour, but—

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I do have objection to the fact that I wasn't called, and that my illness was seen as being relevant to delaying the proceedings of this council when no-one had checked to see whether I was still present.

The CHAIR: I must say that the Hon. Ms Vincent is behaving a little bit preciously.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The priority list has No. 10 on it, which is this bill here at the moment. When we finished with No. 12 the Clerk actually went straight to item No. 8. We sat there and debated it. I asked the question: why aren't we debating this bill now? I was told that the Hon. Ms Vincent was not feeling well and wanted to speak. I accepted that. If the bill had gone ahead it would have been through and there would be no talk about amendments, because the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was down fixing up amendments at that time.

So I do think that some people get too precious. The reality is that I had no problem with the fact that No. 8 was debated; I thought it was fair enough. I waited for my turn, and now I am stuck with this issue about amendments at the eleventh hour.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Is the minister in agreement that at some stage during this committee he will report progress so that I have the right to table these three amendments for members' consideration?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: No, I am not. I will, in regard to the questions asked by the Hon. Mr Ridgway, notify the Minister for Road Safety, the Hon. Mr Kenyon in another place, and try to get that information for him. Other than that I believe there is a process we go through, and this has been on the paper for three weeks. We tried to do that and were slapped around the head pretty quickly, so what we are saying is let's be consistent and just move on with this bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My advice is that this bill was actually tabled in this house at 9.54pm on 14 September 2011, which is about four sitting days ago. Based on what the minister has said, and based on the fact that I believe that these amendments are at least worthy of consideration with respect to road safety—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

Majority of 7 for the ayes.

Progress thus reported; committee to sit again.