Motions

Cycling Regulations

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:01): I move:

That the regulations under the Road Traffic Act 1961 concerning Road Rules—Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions, made on 8 October 2015 and laid on the table of this council on 13 October 2015, be disallowed.

Members will note that, because there are three sets of inter-related regulations, it has been necessary to prepare three separate motions. For the sake of convenience and at the risk of repeating myself, however, I will speak to all three motions now but still move each one separately.

At the outset, let me be clear that these motions are by no means intended as any sort of anti-cyclist measure. It is extremely important to dispel any such suggestion at the outset. Whether you are a cyclist or not, I think we all accept that our roads and footpaths are there to be shared by motor vehicles, bicycle users and pedestrians alike in the safest manner possible.

That said, there is no question that the debate over the new rules relating to cyclists has certainly stirred up quite a bit of concern in the community, and I am sure I am not the only member to have received emails, calls and letters from constituents about this issue. Some people are supportive of the measures. Some are not. Some are supportive of some of the measures but not others. There seems to be real confusion over the new rules and it seems that some of the changes have not been thought out well enough.

Councils have also expressed very differing views about the changes, as well as concerns over their new responsibilities. The changes have also sparked debate over the need for cyclists to be registered in order to be more readily identifiable by road users. I note this is an issue that the minister ruled out during a recent briefing for members. It is a pity, then, that the government has chosen to deal with these changes through regulation rather than presenting a bill to this parliament for scrutiny. These are not minor changes—they are significant—and the fact of the matter is that they could have wide-reaching ramifications for all road users.

Because the government has chosen to deal with this matter by regulation, a move we often see adopted when it does not want new measures appropriately scrutinised, we cannot consider each individual regulation separately. Whether we have had notice of these regulations is, with respect, irrelevant. The fact of the matter is we are unable to debate them based on their merits. Instead, we have effectively been left with no option other than to disallow the entire raft of new regulations, which we all know is far from a satisfactory outcome.

I am not saying that I disagree with all of the new measures put forward by the Citizens' Jury but I do think that in this instance there is the very real possibility that the cure could be worse than the disease in regard to some of the changes. I am wholly supportive of making the roads safer for cyclists. However, there is no question that there is a lot of confusion over these new regulations.

One of the primary concerns certainly appears to be that, in order to avoid receiving a $375 fine, people may make decisions that they usually would not, which could lead to an increase in accidents. My position, which I think is shared certainly by the opposition, is that this issue needs to be the subject of much more extensive community consultation. There also needs to be much more consultation with councils, who will be responsible for the implementation of many of the measures that are being proposed. At the very least there needs to be a greater lead-in time and some further fine tuning, particularly with respect to some of the changes that are being proposed.

As I said at the outset, this is not about getting cyclists offside or ignoring their right to travel on our roads safely. It is about ensuring that we consult as broadly as possible with all members of the community and consider the needs of all road users, and footpath users for that matter. I certainly hope the government is willing to listen to the concerns that have been raised about communities and by councils, and address them in a more satisfactory manner.

In closing, I note that the Hon. David Ridgway has also given notice of the opposition's intention to move the identical three motions, for very similar reasons I am sure. I hope that the motions can be considered favourably by other honourable members. I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.