Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 December 2015.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:06): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill. Of course, this is about the government's new passion for driverless cars. The government claims that it aims to place South Australia ahead of the curve and be the lead jurisdiction in the real-life trialling of driverless vehicle technology in Australia. It is sort of consistent: we mostly have a driverless government, so driverless cars fit pretty nicely with this government.

It is interesting that we have failed to be competitive on a world stage when it comes to regular cars, but nonetheless the government believes that this is an opportunity for jobs in our great state and that this can be part of a package to keep jobs in South Australia, although we have seen no plan identified around driverless cars to keep jobs in South Australia.

When you actually look at it, of the 1,000 or more taxi drivers we have in South Australia, driverless cars will put all of them out of work. If you take it to its fullest extent—and we saw the subcontracting transport operators go past today very upset with things that the federal Labor government had done in the dying days of their government in relation to subcontractors and payment of drivers which, of course, makes most subcontractors unable to compete—you could eventually expect to have driverless trucks as well. So, there is another whole stack of people who would be put out of work.

I am not sure the Premier's passion for driverless cars is going to be a job-creation industry, but nonetheless the opposition is always happy to look at new technology and embrace new technology. Obviously, we have on many farms GPS-guided tractors and vehicles, and the operator only has to miss the odd tree and turn around and go back the opposite way when they reach the other end of the paddock.

While there is some intervention from a human being, again, it has brought tremendous efficiencies to agriculture with big, wide machineries. Whether you are overlapping with cultivation, seeding, or spraying chemicals such as herbicides, fungicides or insecticides, on a big farming operation that little bit of overlap can be quite expensive. If your chemical bill is $100,000 a year, with a 5 or 10 per cent overlap, that could amount to $10,000. So there are clear examples where technology can make you much more efficient and productive in going about your business.

We have this passion from the government about driverless cars. We saw minister Mullighan run over a blow-up kangaroo in the first trial, so clearly that was not particularly successful. Maybe that was done as a bit of a stunt to get some media coverage. This bill does not permit driverless cars to operate on South Australian roads outside of the trials individually approved by the minister, so it will be a very strictly controlled process. There are some South Australian and Australian companies and organisations involved in these trials; however, the details of how much investment and how many jobs this initiative will bring to South Australia is unclear. We have a government that has, as I said, a passion and interest in this particular technology, but we are not sure how many actual jobs are coming to South Australia as a result of it.

I am sure there will be a whole range of issues that come from trying to adopt this technology. I am sure there will be some safety initiatives when you incorporate the technology with existing cars with drivers. We even notice it now in the latest cars that we purchase that start to brake automatically when you get too close to the car in front of you, that indicate when vehicles are too close in the blind spots and those that park themselves. Clearly, there is a lot of technology that makes us safer without actually being completely driverless.

I would be concerned if I were a taxi driver, an Uber driver, a courier driver or a delivery person. Clearly, you could be put out of business by having a driverless taxi you could ring that could come to your door. Of course, you would be able to put five people in it because there would be no taxi driver so it would actually be 20 per cent more efficient, but, sadly, the poor old taxi driver is out of a job, so there are some issues with this technology. On one hand, people are saying, 'This is great, it's exciting, it's new, it's innovative, we need to embrace new technology, we need to be the smart economy.' But we might find that being this smart actually costs South Australians jobs.

Of course, we have to talk about the fact that this bill does not change legislation for driverless cars to operate outside of strict test conditions and in consumer markets. Internationally, a great deal of thought has been given as to what laws are necessary for the general operation of these driverless vehicles. Their widespread operation will pose complex legal challenges, especially to determine the liability in the event of any accident, and I think that is where the next step is. You can obviously have a driverless car that can run down the Southern Expressway on a designated route where there are no other vehicles interacting with it, but what about when you have people interacting with it?

We had examples today where the police minister was questioned about his speeding record. How does a driverless car deal with the Treasurer in his younger days when he got the nickname Turbo Tom? Clearly, you would expect driverless cars are not going to be speeding and behaving recklessly. There is a whole range of people on our roads who do not obey the road rules, so that interaction between the driverless cars and cars driven by drivers does pose a particularly interesting legal issue as to who is at fault and who is to blame when it comes to the liability for any accidents.

Maybe the next step for the Premier is to have 20 of these things on the grid at the Clipsal so we can have a driverless car race, or 20 of them built by each manufacturer—and there are several in the world, as there is Volvo, and General Motors have one, Ford has one and there are a couple of others—so that maybe we could have a race around the Clipsal track to see which one can handle themselves the best in race conditions. A lot of our technology in gearboxes, automatic transmissions, tyre technology and aerodynamics has all come from race cars, so maybe there is an opportunity for some of this technology to be advanced further by having these vehicles running around in the Clipsal.

As I said at the outset, the opposition has always been happy to embrace new technology and we are certainly not going to stand in the way of this. We think it is worth exploring, but we really do question whether it will be the economic saviour for the state that the Premier claims is to be. With those few words, we support the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:14): I rise to indicate Family First's support for the second reading of this bill. I think the Hon. Mr Ridgway raises a number of pertinent points. I too wonder about where the jobs come from with driverless cars, for example. What is next? Perhaps it could be pilotless planes, driverless trains, etc., etc. One wonders where this finishes. Whilst I think there are efficiencies potentially—clearly, there are efficiencies—the real jobs opportunity in something like this rests in governments or jurisdictions getting on board early in terms of manufacturing these things or somehow setting up the software that governs them. That is where the jobs lie in large numbers, I suspect, and no doubt the government is aware of that.

On the other end of that, as the Hon. Mr Ridgway rightly points out, there will be job losses as a result of this sort of technology. We need to act as a state and as a parliament in order to make sure we have the legislative framework in place to move early. My feeling about this particular bill is that is exactly what the government is trying to do, and for that reason we support it. This bill enables the minister to authorise trials of automotive technologies and allows the minister to issue exemptions from relevant provisions within the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 or any laws that regulate drivers or the use of motor vehicles on our roads.

The autonomous vehicle technology is widely considered to be the main innovative focus of the car industry for the foreseeable future. Virtually all major car manufacturers are investing significant amounts of money to advance autonomous vehicle technology but, not surprisingly, technology giant Google is leading the way with its Google Self-Driving Car Project. Next year, Google is expected to be the first to reveal an integrated autonomous software system, with major car manufacturers expected to released fully autonomous vehicles by 2020—not far away: just four years away.

Globally, it is estimated that the autonomous vehicle industry will be worth some $90 billion by 2030. I think the early adopters will be the greatest beneficiaries. Indeed, many countries are anticipating the new wave of autonomous vehicles by removing regulatory barriers to allow for on-road testing in a bid to tap into the billions invested into the industry. Just in March this year, the UK government announced its budget, which included plans to legislate to enable road testing of autonomous vehicles as we are doing here or have done in the past in this parliament. The UK government also committed to the construction of a connected corridor roadway which would allow autonomous vehicles to communicate with one another and the road itself.

In addition, the United States, earlier this year, announced its intention to invest some $4 billion over the next decade into autonomous vehicle infrastructure. The US proposes to accelerate the acceptance of driverless vehicles on its roads in a bid to reduce traffic congestion and road fatalities. Experts say that over 90 per cent of motor vehicle accidents are caused by human error, hence the role for driverless vehicles, and there is evidence that suggests self-driving cars will reduce the frequency and severity of these accidents. A potential flow-on effect of this, not counting the many lives saved, obviously, is a reduction in the cost of insurance and the saving of millions for the state in areas such as health care and other infrastructure works associated with it.

Trials of autonomous vehicles can offer many benefits to the state, and there is no doubt that driverless technology will be a key focus of the automotive industry for the next few decades. Domestically, the government has predicted this technology will be worth $9 billion to our state within 10 to 15 years. Let us hope that is right, sir. There is a clear opportunity for South Australia to capitalise on the developments in autonomous vehicle technology. Welcoming this technology does appear to be mutually beneficial for those involved. However, it is worth considering what immediate benefit trials of automotive technologies can have for our state.

First of all, the question most South Australians want to know the answer to is: how does driverless technology directly benefit our state in terms of creating real jobs for real South Australians right now? At the moment, it is unclear exactly what these jobs would look like. Would they be in the manufacturing of the devices, the infrastructure construction, testing of them, supporting it through administration or other as yet unknown areas? With job losses in manufacturing, energy and resources and an unemployment rate that sits at the highest in the nation, securing employment and employment growth in this state is clearly our main priority. Certainly, our state is not lacking in skilled personnel in the automotive or manufacturing industries. Our unemployed population, rather than workers brought in from overseas, should be first in line for these jobs.

Furthermore, will trials of this technology bolster our current automotive and research and technology industry that already exists? Evidently, there are locations which have been working on this technology for decades so, whilst we might be the first state to trial fully automated cars in Australia, we are in fact behind other countries in terms of the manufacture and research and development of these products. The government needs to clarify its intentions regarding driverless vehicle technologies and whether it intends to invest in the R&D, focus on the road testing or an investment in all aspects of this technology. Put simply: what exactly is the plan?

To conclude my second reading contribution, Family First is supportive of this bill and what it seeks to achieve, although there are matters that need to be carefully considered. This bill is certainly a step in the right direction. I take the opportunity to commend the government for taking the necessary steps to ensure our state is at the forefront of these technological developments. History has shown that early adopters do best in these areas.

South Australia was the first jurisdiction in the Southern Hemisphere to allow driverless cars on its roads. In the current economic climate we need to encourage innovation and ideas that would boost our economy and employment levels, and this proposal certainly seems to tick those boxes. We support the second reading and look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:20): On behalf of Dignity for Disability, and on top of the comments that have already been made, I am happy to support this bill to let South Australia have trials of driverless cars. Even though we usually think of driverless cars at the moment as being something new, I understand that this technology has been researched for some 30 years so far, but it has only recently reached the point where people are becoming interested in it and understanding it more and more in many different countries across the world.

I understand that this bill is a very small interim step to make sure that we can legally allow tests of driverless cars on roads in South Australia, and I think it is important to support this idea because I think the change in technology could have lots of benefits for everyone in our community, even especially for people with disabilities. These benefits may also apply not only to users of driverless cars but to all taxpayers, to all users of roads and to the environment.

I understand that some people are quite nervous about the idea of driverless cars as they think that a machine could make mistakes, and of course it could, but so can humans. I have been told, as I think the Hon. Mr Hood said, that at least 90 per cent of current car accidents are caused by human mistakes, and various statistics in different parts of the world have arrived at different conclusions about this. Nevertheless, anyone who has received or witnessed the tragic news of a death or injury on South Australian roads will, I am sure, conclude that human error does play a part. Human error, such as not paying attention, speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, does play a big part in how frequently we see accidents on South Australian roads.

Technology like driverless cars appears to have the potential to reduce the likelihood of road accidents because driverless cars are not subject to those human failings that I have listed, and many more I am sure. Of course, no option is perfect, and there will probably always be mistakes, whether it is a human or a machine making the decisions.

A research report done in 2015 by the University of Michigan showed that self-driving cars may have a higher rate of crashes than some conventional vehicles during the transition period, when both types of vehicles are sharing the road, so if cars with and without humans driving them are sharing the road. The research stated:

One main concern during this transition period is that drivers of conventional vehicles [that is, vehicles with a human driving them] would have certain expectations about the likely actions of other vehicles.

In other words, some human drivers might need to adapt to how cautiously and correctly cars without drivers would be driven. So, we would still very much need to be wary of how we use and share the roads with each other.

Having a trial of driverless cars in South Australia will give us the opportunity to work out these problems and more with driverless cars, improve the technology and ultimately decide whether or not we should continue with this in the future. This trial will be a great opportunity to embrace new technology and new ideas and, because we have so many people currently unemployed in South Australia, and leaving jobs with older more traditional technologies behind, it is really important that we look at how we can come up with new ideas to provide new and exciting job opportunities in the future.

There are more good things that could come from developing and using driverless cars more often, and these include better fuel efficiency and reduced emissions due to more efficient driving, so less impact on the environment. The practice of platooning enables trucks and cars in automated mode (without a driver) to follow close behind a truck or a car with a driver which they are electronically connected to. The vehicles in the platoon gain an aerodynamic effect and thus save fuel and also lower their environmental emissions, as far as I am told. It is all a bit too scientific for my brain, but I understand that there is a benefit there.

Finally, automated vehicles may of course allow improved, more readily available mobility for people who, like myself, are currently unable to drive because of a disability or other medical condition, or another reason. I understand that the development of vehicles and legal systems that allow the completely driverless operation of cars may be 15 to 20 years away, but I am still very excited by that possibility.

Before I started speaking to you, Mr President, the Hon. Mr Wade and I were having a chat and he said that he was worried I might become a bit of a pest if I had a driverless car more readily available to me. I was quick to remind him not to worry as this will mean that I am able to visit him more often. I tell you, Mr President, he was numb with excitement; the look on his face at the idea of me knocking on his door more frequently—he was numb with excitement. I am sure we are both very much looking forward to that.

The use of driverless cars also has the potential to reduce traffic hazards for people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids and this, again, could be a positive. As has been mentioned, there are a number of impacts that will need to be considered. Like other speakers, I would like to know how this would impact employment in South Australia, where those extra jobs might come from and what they might look like, and how many new jobs this new technology might create.

I do not know whether the minister can provide any information on that now. If he can that would be appreciated but it may well be that we need to wait to have a trial to figure out exactly what the impact on employment may be and, of course, the impact on things like the taxi industry, as mentioned by previous speakers, would need to be considered.

As I said, I think this is a very exciting opportunity to figure out these problems and improve the technology so that we can reap the benefits. The way that technology is improving, it is not too hard to imagine an urban world transformed by driverless vehicles, including car-share schemes where the vehicles are utilised around the clock. Like other speakers, I commend the government's initiative and proudly throw Dignity for Disability's support behind the wheel. Let's get this right and reap the benefits for everyone in our state.

Despite a small hiccup on the parade ground, which I am sure we all remember, South Australia is clearly ready to drive into the future. I commend the second reading of this bill to the chamber and look forward to the exciting opportunities that this could provide for our state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.