MOTOR VEHICLES (LEARNER'S PERMITS AND PROVISIONAL LICENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 31 October 2013.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have received some responses to questions asked by the Hon. John Darley. In relation to the question about whether there are any statistics available on the limitations previously imposed on young drivers, for instance, with regard to high-powered motor vehicles and, if so, what do those stats demonstrate, I am advised that currently there is insufficient crash data available to evaluate to 2010 GLS changes, such as high-powered vehicles.

In general, a minimum of five years of data is required for an evaluation. This requirement is the same in other jurisdictions. For instance, Victoria released an evaluation in 2012 on its GLS changes, which were introduced in 2008, recognising that a full evaluation will require another three years of data. However, the Victorian interim evaluation reported that there had been a significant decrease in the number of casualty crashes involving P1 drivers carrying two or more peer passengers since the introduction of their peer passenger restriction in 2008. An evaluation of the 2010 GLS changes will be undertaken by DPTI in consultation with the Centre for Automotive Safety Research at the University of Adelaide.

I think the second question was, for example, 18-year-old Tim could be driving with his 19-year-old brother, his girlfriend, their 21-year-old sister and their 19-year-old stepbrother, and this would be considered okay. I am advised that, yes, a P1 driver would be allowed to drive with any number of immediate family members regardless of their age, in addition to one peer age passenger aged between 16 and 20.

Research shows that carrying two to three peer age passengers under the age of 21, who are not family members, increases the risk of a young driver crashing by four to five times compared to driving alone. South Australian crash data shows that 74 per cent of fatal and serious crashes involved a P1 driver who had passengers aged between 16 and 20. Carrying peer passengers can distract a newly licensed driver and make it harder for them to concentrate. Having more than one peer age passenger can also encourage a young driver to take greater risks. Older passengers and siblings do not seem to have a negative effect on a provisional driver's behaviour.

A US study that collected information on 16,233 child passengers in 17 states found that younger siblings of teen drivers had a 40 per cent lower chance of injury than non-siblings in crash reports. While there is an increased crash risk for young drivers carrying peer-aged siblings compared to adult drivers, this risk is lower than for young drivers carrying non-siblings. (Senserrick TM, Kallan M & Winston FK. Child passenger injury risk in sibling versus non-sibling teen driver crashes: A US study. Injury Prevention. 2007; 13:207-210). The reason for excluding immediate family members is to assist families; for instance, a P1 driver who takes their siblings to and from school will be able to continue to do so.

On the third question, similarly, 18-year-old Tina could be driving with her 26-year-old boyfriend, as well as her two 18-year-old friends, both of whom are drunk but, because her boyfriend is not over the prescribed alcohol limit, this would also be considered to be acceptable. I am advised that under the proposed passenger restrictions, this scenario would be allowed if the 26-year-old was acting as a qualified supervising driver (QSD). They would need to have held a full licence for the preceding two-year period, be seated next to the driver, be under the .05 BAC limit and be taking reasonable steps to provide supervision. A QSD does not need to be aged 25. Currently, the earliest minimum age a driver could be a QSD is 21.

On the fourth question, furthermore, 18-year-old Lisa is accompanied by Greg and she elects to be prosecuted because she thought Greg was over 25. She has the burden of establishing that she, as the driver, knew that Greg was not of the required age. Alternatively, is this even a valid defence to the charge? I am advised that based on the information that has been provided, an offence would not have been committed. Under the proposed passenger restrictions, a P1 driver aged under 25 years will be allowed to carry one passenger aged 16 to 20. However, if there were peer age passengers in the vehicle, as with the previous scenario, this would be allowed if a QSD was sitting next to the driver. There is no requirement for a QSD to be aged over 25. I hope these satisfy the member's questions.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, you have an amendment, [Brokenshire-1] 1?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise the committee that the original amendments in [Brokenshire-1], which I tabled, are being withdrawn and are being replaced with [Brokenshire-2], which has been tabled for some time, since 29 October.

The CHAIR: That is at clause 21?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: At clause 21, yes.

The CHAIR: We are not at clause 21 yet.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just advise the committee because I am also paired at 4.30 and the Hon. Mr Hood will be talking to my amendment. The original amendments in [Brokenshire-1], which I tabled on 26 September, are being withdrawn in entirety.

The CHAIR: All of them?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: All of them, and they are being replaced with [Brokenshire-2], which was tabled on 29 October. All [Brokenshire-1] amendments are being withdrawn, sir.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, you have an amendment at clause 7, [Ridgway-1] 1?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 3, lines 29 to 33 and page 4, lines 1 to 38—Delete clause 7 and substitute:

7—Amendment of section 75A—Learner's permit

Section 75A(10)(c)(ii)(B)—delete '81A(3)(c)' and substitute '81A(4)(c)'

This is the first of a number of amendments. There are two issues in the bill that we seek to change. We oppose the increase of the P-plate period from two to three years and the 12 midnight to 5am curfew. The first amendment deletes the provisions in the bill that propose the new 12 midnight to 5am curfew.

The reason the opposition is moving this amendment is that we think this is an unreasonable burden to place on young people, especially those who are working part-time, shift workers and those who are doing some sports training. Also regional and country people are impacted when they have to get up early in the morning for sport, training or work. There are a whole range of reasons, we think, that this curfew is unreasonable. I know that exemptions can be granted and you can have a document to say that you have an exemption, but if you are not in the vehicle you normally drive, we think it will be cumbersome and awkward to administer. We do not think there is any evidence to suggest that this particular curfew will save lives; in fact, we think it will be just another impost on young people.

I know it is late in the parliamentary sitting year and I do not want to labour the point for too long, but I urge members to consider this amendment. We have had a briefing from the Motor Accident Commission and the shadow minister. The shadow minister in the other place still wishes me to proceed with these amendments. The discussion with the Motor Accident Commission was not substantial enough for the shadow minister in the other place to advise me to change our position, so clearly there is not enough evidence to suggest that there will be such a positive road safety outcome to justify this extra burden on young people especially.

With those words, I request that members consider supporting this amendment. Of course, this will be, I guess, a test amendment on the curfew. At some other later point I will also have a test amendment on the increase of the P-plate period from two to three years. I urge members to consider my comments, particularly in relation to the burden on young people. It is just another cumbersome, if you like, regulatory approach to what we do not believe is a serious problem.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments to remove the night driving restriction for P1 drivers and young inexperienced learner motorcyclists. The government has proposed the night driving restrictions because P1 drivers are over-represented in fatal crashes for every hour between 9pm through to 6am compared with full licence holders. They are the irrefutable facts. This same situation is found in other parts of Australia and internationally and it is the reason why many other places, including Western Australia, New Zealand and, at the last count, 48 states in the US, have night driving restrictions for newly licensed drivers.

There will be exemptions in place, so the reasons the Hon. David Ridgway outlines in terms of the imposts it would impose on country people, students, etc., is a nonsense. The Hon. David Ridgway knows only too well that exemption provisions have been put in place, and it is a very simple system of exemption. You do not even have to apply for an exemption. There is no up-front paperwork or red tape. It does not require application. It is a system of exclusion. So, he knows full well that if a person is driving for the following reasons: to and from work during the performance of employment, to and from education or training, to and from formal volunteer work and to and from formal sports training and matches, they are allowed to drive at night and they would provide grounds for the person to have permission to drive.

As I said, it is a very simple system, application is not even required. So, by not supporting this measure in the bill the opposition is willing to blatantly discount the savings in young people's lives and ongoing injuries across South Australia that could easily be prevented if night-time restrictions are put in place—they are prepared to discount the lives of young people in South Australia.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I must say this has been a difficult one for Family First, one that we have had a great deal of discussion about. We have had a good deal of contact with constituents and I think there are very valid arguments on both sides of this debate. However, in the end, we have decided not to support the amendment. The reason for that is that, when it comes to these things, we are going to err on the side of caution, maybe too cautious in some people's view, but I think this is the sort of legislation which we support somewhat cautiously. The truth is, it is a very heavy-handed approach, but a very serious problem. Sometimes heavy-handed approaches are the right approaches to deal with difficult issues. As I said, it has been a difficult one for us, but we will not be supporting the amendment on this occasion.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I similarly will not be supporting the amendment for the reasons given by the minister that exemptions are readily available.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 8 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, you have an amendment to clause 11?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My second amendment, according to my sheet, is consequential, so I will not be moving that amendment.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, you have amendment No. 3 at clause 11?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes. I move:

Amendment No 3 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 7, line 2 [clause 11, inserted section 81A(2)(c)]—Delete '20 years' and substitute '19 years'

This amendment deals with the issue of increasing from two years to three years the time that a young driver is on a P-plate. It comes back to that impost on young people. We think that two years is adequate. We have looked at it. We think that certainly for regional people, country people, and for all young people it is adequate. We now have the curfew in place; we have been unsuccessful in reducing that. We have that measure in place and the minister claims that that gives a very significant positive road safety outcome. We think extending it from two years to three years is excessive.

I am a parent of two children who have just been through that process. Thankfully they have their licences, although my daughter did go through a red light accidentally on her P-plates and had to go back to the start. Members would be aware at the Mitcham shopping centre, if you look at the red light over there, it went green, but the one that was right here was red and there was a police car next to it. She was somewhat disappointed that she had done that.

Incidentally I was shadow minister for police at the time and she told the police officer that she was worried that I might lose my job because she had broken the law. I did put the fear of God into my children while I was shadow minister for police and they actually did behave very well. She got her demerit points and had to start again. We believe that that extension from two years to three years is an excessive amount of time and I urge members to consider the amendment and support what we are trying to achieve.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment, which seeks to prevent the minimum provisional licence period from being extended from two to three years. I think I just did a double negative. We do not support the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment, anyway. Extending the provisional licence period from two to three years will extend the duration of protective conditions such as the zero blood alcohol limit and speed and vehicle power restrictions. Extending these conditions will help keep novice drivers out of high risk situations without impinging on their mobility.

Extending the provisional period from two to three years will not mean that young P-drivers are subject to the night and passenger restrictions for three years. These restrictions only apply to a P1 driver for one year. The extension of the provisional period to three years will mean one year on P1 and two years on P2. The minimum provisional licence period is three years in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT and four years in Victoria. All of these jurisdictions have a much better road safety record for young people than does South Australia.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am advised that we have already communicated our position to the opposition and the government and that is that we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, you have amendment No. 4 at clause 11.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will indicate now that all of my amendments were around those two issues of the P-plate increase from two years to three years and the 12am to 5am curfew and so I will not be progressing any further amendments.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, you are not moving [Ridgway-1] amendments Nos. 4 to 9, I think you indicated, but we still have [Ridgway-2] 1 at clause 13.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: But, likewise, I think my understanding of that, Mr Chair, is that it was only going to be applicable if I had been able to achieve amendment No. 4, so again, I will not be moving that amendment either.

Clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: On behalf of my colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, I move:

Amendment No 1 [Broke–2]—

Page 13, lines 20 to 33 [clause 21, inserted Schedule 2, clause 4]—Delete inserted clause 4 and substitute:

4—Driving to participate in activities

(1) For the purposes of sections 75A(21) and 81A(17), driving a motor vehicle by the shortest practicable route between—

(a) a place at which the driver resides (whether temporarily or permanently); and

(b) a place at which the driver engages in recognised activity participation,

for the purposes of the recognised activity participation is driving the vehicle in prescribed circumstances.

(2) In this clause—

recognised activity means—

(a) a sporting, artistic, charitable, religious or scientific activity; or

(b) an activity of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition;

recognised activity participation means participation in a recognised activity that is provided or organised by an organisation, association or club (other than participation of a kind declared by the regulations to be excluded from this definition).

My colleague is paired from 4.30 this afternoon, hence my moving it on his behalf. This essentially just expands the exemptions that already exist. The minister outlined a number of exemptions previously with respect to people who fall under this category who will be able to drive during the curfew hours, if they are doing so for the specific purposes she outlined. This seeks to further extend those categories to include sporting events, artistic events, charitable events, religious or scientific activities and activity of a kind prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this act.

You can imagine a situation. I will pick on the religious one, as it is probably the easiest one. People might be at a youth group event or something that finishes after midnight, and they will need to get home, so this expands the exemptions.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to support this amendment. We are aware that night-time driving restriction can have an effect on the mobility of young drivers; however, it is about trying to balance this mobility with the safety of young drivers. The exemption grounds that are already in the bill will enable drivers to get to work, volunteer work, education and training, sports, etc., so that they will not be disadvantaged.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire has indicated that young people may also have legitimate reasons to attend scientific, artistic, charitable or religious activities between midnight and 5am. The government will support this amendment to enable P1 drivers to travel to religious, charitable, artistic and scientific activities between midnight and 5am. As with the other exemption grounds, drivers will need to carry evidence, such as a letter from their church.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will also be supporting the amendment. My colleagues behind me who are good members of the Catholic Church tell me they often go to midnight mass and that their children would like that opportunity as well, so thank you.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.