Road Traffic (Roadworks) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 28 March 2017.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I did ask some questions when we last dealt with this bill, so I think the minister might like to give me those answers and then we can move on with the amendment.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I thank the Hon. David Wickham Ridgway for the opportunity to come back to him and provide him with a few answers. Regarding the first question of will the cost of the permit be $10 to $20, the bill provides that an application for a roadworks permit can attract an administrative fee to be set in the regulations. Whilst the regulations to support the operation of this bill have not yet been drafted, it is anticipated that a nominal set fee of the order of $20 will be applicable to a roadworks permit in order to offset the administrative costs associated with processing a permit application. This amount includes staffing and ongoing IT system costs.

The bill also provides for the permit to be accompanied by a fee calculated in accordance with the regulations. Whilst this fee is yet to be determined, its purpose is to provide for the cost of the congestion that impacts on the community as a whole as a result of a speed limit being reduced or lane closed in relation to a roadworks site and where options may exist. DPTI has access to a formula to calculate the costs of congestion to the community based on time of day, location and type of road, whether major arterial roads or prescribed roads, etc., are being used and the number of vehicles travelling on that road.

The fee in the regulations will be calculated in accordance with the formula as a base. It is not the government's intention to start applying a congestion fee to each permit application. The bill is not about revenue raising. As indicated, the intention is to educate for cultural change across the industry and the community that will see roadworks being undertaken at off-peak times where any speed reduction or lane closure will have a lesser impact to all road users.

Regarding the question of whether a person will be subject to four times the penalties of $20,000 or $50,000 where four signs have been placed incorrectly at a worksite, the short answer is no. The bill applies a maximum court-imposed penalty level at $20,000 for the first offence and $50,000 for a subsequent offence for the offence of not having complied with conditions of an approval or permit relating to signs placed on a road in respect of a work area or worksite. That is pretty clear.

For example, should a permit holder, for example a traffic management company or contractor, etc., on the inspection of a worksite by an authorised officer be found to have placed signage in deliberate contravention of conditions on a permit, then the authorised officer may either issue a warning or enforce the offence. It is important to note that the government's intention with this bill is not to be heavy-handed and revenue raising, but rather educate and produce a cultural change amongst traffic management companies and contractors for better management of roadworks sites, including adequate risk assessments and quality traffic management plans so as to ensure better driver compliance with signage and therefore improved safety for all road workers.

In this regard it is intended that the first offence will be expiable by a fee to be set by regulations. The maximum court-imposed penalties set in the bill may only be applied following successful prosecution of the offence. It is intended that the permit holder will only be prosecuted in extenuating circumstances where the nature of their offending in relation to placement of signage potentially has put someone's life at risk, or there has been blatant disregard of requirements. This will be dependent on the facts of the case.

It is not intended that someone be prosecuted for four separate offences involving incorrect placement of signage at the same worksite subject to the same permit conditions. This bill seeks to improve the quality of roadworks signage and to provide good information to drivers. The offence of breach of conditions of permit relating to signage will be treated as one offence, and the offender, if found guilty by the court, will be subject to the one penalty for that offence.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I had another quick question before we move to the amendment. I am interested to know what process the government followed for consultation with industry in relation to this bill. I am advised that the Civil Contractors Federation (CCF), was not consulted on the bill and was only made aware of it because of my colleague in other place, the shadow minister for transport, Mr David Pisoni. I am interested to know what consultation was undertaken by the government prior to introducing this bill, or before concluding the debate today.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I have been advised that the RAA, the Traffic Management Association of South Australia and the Civil Contractors Federation were consulted.

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

Amendment No 1 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 2, line 4—Delete '(Roadworks)' and substitute '(Traffic Control Devices)'

This amendment relates to the turn left on a red light where signposted. As members would know, this is currently rule No. 56(1A) of the Australian Road Rules that allows a left turn on a red traffic light but not on a red arrow if there is a 'left turn on red permitted after stopping' sign. Section 62(1)(b) is a give-way rule which also caters for the situation in which they were framed. In effect, the law already allows for left turns if the appropriate signs are put at an intersection where this option is seen as desirable.

In South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Northern Territory, Western Australia, the ACT and Tasmania, the rules allow left turns on red after stopping where a sign is displayed. After trials at five intersections in 2013-14, with strong support from the local community and commuters, the Brisbane City Council introduced left turn on red facilities across Brisbane. There are now 49 signed locations to this effect.

I have recently been to North America where, of course, they turn right, not left, obviously, because they drive on the other side of the road. I was fortunate that I could take time to observe the traffic flow when I spent a few hours in a vehicle with somebody travelling around a couple of the bigger cities. It was interesting to watch how the traffic flowed and did not stop things. People could turn right, as I said, rather than left on the red. It made sense to me. I thought what a wonderful opportunity we have in South Australia to perhaps introduce this. Of course, it would reduce traffic congestion and fuel costs.

The government of the day is desperate to have Adelaide become a carbon neutral city, and not having motor vehicles stopped, burning up fuel and puffing out carbon dioxide, but actually turning left when it can be done safely with appropriate signage will help the government achieve its goal. There are two amendments, but the second one is consequential. I have moved the first one and I will take the other one as being consequential on whatever the wisdom of the Legislative Council is.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The government opposes the Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendment. The turn left on red permitted after stopping rule allowed with a sign first came into effect in SA with the adoption of the Australian Road Rules (no. 1) on 1 December 1999. No such rule previously existed in South Australia. The rule was primarily introduced for New South Wales where the use of the sign was, and continues to be, widespread. Signs are not used in Victoria, Western Australia or Tasmania.

In South Australia, only 11 sites were trialled in the metro area that were deemed suitable. Due to poor observance of the rule, primarily related to drivers not stopping before executing the left turn, the signs were removed at five of these sites. The six current locations are: T.S. 188 South Road, Barwell Avenue and Everard Avenue, over on the west approach in Kurralta Park; on Grand Junction Road in Wingfield; Montacute Road and Forest Avenue in Newton/Rostrevor; Park Terrace, Brown Avenue and Mary Street in Salisbury; Newton Road and Playford Road in Newton; and Brighton Road, Sturt Road and Old Beach Road in Brighton—west approach cyclists only.

The location of the five sites that were removed were on Marion Road and Sixth Avenue, Ascot Park; O.G. Road and Fourth Avenue, Klemzig; Beach Road and Morton Road at Christies Downs/Noarlunga; Brighton Road, Maxwell Terrace and Jetty Road at Glenelg; and Port Road, Bonython Park and Phillips Street, Thebarton. No consideration has been given to the installation of these signs at other locations due to safety issues.

Traffic signals provide clear direction and control to all drivers on all approaches and reduce conflict by separating, in time, the use of the intersection by different traffic streams. The left turn on red sign compromises the benefits of this time separation and reduces the opportunity for pedestrians to cross without conflict with vehicles. There is an expectation from drivers facing the green light that traffic on the side road will be controlled by a red light and not enter the intersection, and that the through traffic has priority and can travel safely through the intersection without the need to modify their speed and watch for entering traffic.

For drivers to obtain sufficient sight distance to perform the left turn, they need to enter and block pedestrian crossings or bicycle storage areas, creating potential hazards for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. Left-turning drivers' attention is diverted away from vulnerable road users to seek gaps in the approaching traffic from the right. This particularly endangers pedestrians crossing to the left of the driver. The signs promote red light running and reduce the risk of the broader impact of reducing red light compliance.

There are safer options for managing left turn delays at intersections, such as slip lanes or improvements to traffic systems, and phasing, such as left turn arrows, and they should not be used on any site with a safety camera, a cycle lane, on a main road, near a school or where there are significant pedestrian volumes.

Five-yearly reviews between 60 to 100 locations on roads under the care and control of the Commissioner of Highways, which are potential sites for the installation of left turn on red permitted after stopping signs, do not represent a cost-effective allocation of resources given the limitations on the use of this type of traffic control device, the limited road safety benefits and contra influences. Modern signalling technology is able to more effectively regulate and respond to changes in traffic flows and unscheduled disruptions and incidents.

The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure advises that the review will take eight to 12 months to be completed by one experienced FTE position and traffic surveys and other forms of data collection would also be required.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing these amendments. I have had discussions with DPTI, who have advised that there are currently six of these signs in operation around the state, down from the 11 sites originally established. They advised me that five of the sites were removed because of safety concerns; however, they continue to monitor traffic flows and crash statistics to see if there is a better way to manage congestion whilst maintaining safety.

I understand that anyone, including members of the opposition, is able to contact the Traffic Management Centre and report matters such as bad traffic flow and/or make suggestions to address the problem. The centre then investigates as to whether there is a problem and, if so, whether the suggested remedy is appropriate or if there is another remedy that would be more appropriate. I believe these alternatives are a far better use of resources and would encourage the opposition to work with the government to identify any sites which may be suitable for turn left on red signage.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have a few additional observations, first of all, in relation to the minister's response that, if I understood him correctly, it would take one person probably eight to 12 months full-time equivalent to do the necessary research work. I would have thought that was a gross underestimate of the time required. How many traffic lights are there in Adelaide and in country towns where at least one of the streets is 60 km/h?

The obligation of the reviewer, if you like, under this proposed amendment, is to suggest two things: they have to suggest whether it would be safe and whether it would improve traffic flow. That, to me, says that you have someone in a director's chair, sitting at the intersection for some period of hours, probably at different times of the day—maybe the morning peak, maybe the afternoon peak, maybe during the day—and they are doing that for hundreds, if not thousands, of intersections in South Australia. I do not know how many traffic lights there are in South Australia. I would have thought it was in the many hundreds, it is possibly in the thousands, and that says to me that one person is not going to do that job in a year. There are only 365 days in a year and there are weekends, so I think it is an underestimate.

The Greens' position on this—and I will not prolong people with it—is that left turn on red is one of those things that those of us who have experienced them in a car have thought, 'That was a good idea. There was no-one else around. There was a red traffic light. I got to go around the corner and it worked well for me.'

But I think in this place we need to put ourselves in the shoes of others and I think the minister hit the nail on the head. If you are a pedestrian, maybe a vision-impaired pedestrian, and you are to the motorist's left and the motorist's main concern is looking to the right, having stopped at the red light and looked to the right to see if there is a gap in the traffic so they can turn left, and you are a vulnerable pedestrian or cyclist to the left of the motorist, there is every chance that you might not be seen or at least it increases the danger, rather than decreases it.

Whilst we do not rule out that there should never be any left turns on red lights ever in South Australia, I do not think that the mechanism is to spend massive amounts of public money reviewing every intersection in this state. I would have thought that if the opposition has particular intersections in mind that they think are candidates, then there is no reason not to put those before the government to see whether they might not be appropriate intersections. There may be intersections where there is no pedestrian activity whatsoever. There may be cases where it is appropriate.

However, this bill does not actually allow left turn on red in situations where it is currently not allowed, because it is already allowed. It is already in the road rules. If the government chooses to do it, the government can do it. The only thing this amendment does is it requires the minister to do an audit every five years and to do a report. It may well be that there might be one or two examples that come out of that audit and report where it seems that left turn on red might be a good idea, but it will be a tiny fraction, I would expect, of the things that they audit.

So, I would prefer the government to perhaps establish that there is some appetite in the community for left turn on red and maybe to have a look at any particular intersections that are put forward. However, at this stage we are not going to be supporting the opposition's amendment, which requires this to be done at pretty well every intersection every five years. It strikes us as not being a good use of public money.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It appears that this amendment will be defeated, although the Hon. Kelly Vincent has not declared her hand yet. I indicate that Family First will be supporting the amendment. I simply cannot get past the fact that if it works well enough in other jurisdictions, why it cannot work here. I, too, have had the experience of being in a vehicle in another state and turning left on a red light and, as the Hon. Mr Parnell just outlined, it gives you a warm glow; that is, it seems to be a useful way to stop wasting everyone's time.

Obviously, all of us want things done safely and appropriately, so those caveats need to be adhered to, but again, I go back to my central point that they seem to be able to manage it in other jurisdictions. With that simple view, I think we should be able to as well.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I will respond to a couple of points that the Hon. Mr Parnell made. I can inform the chamber that I have been advised that there are approximately 894 sets of traffic lights throughout South Australia. That breaks down to approximately 837 in metro Adelaide and 50 in rural South Australia. The allocation of resources would undoubtedly be substantial, but the figure that I gave is the one that we have received on best advice.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 11

Majority 1

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Police–1]—

Page 10, after line 24—After inserted section 22 insert:

23—Regulations fixing expiation fees

Despite section 176(1a)(j), the regulations may fix expiation fees not exceeding $5,000 for alleged offences against this Division.

This amendment simply limits the penalty to $5,000.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: To assist the minister I will perhaps explain the amendment in a little more detail. In doing so I want to put on the record and give some credit to my most recent junior trainee, a young woman by the name of Alice Mussared, who, at the end of her year in my office, was determined to be given the important job of analysing a bill and having a look at what was in it. In that process she discovered something that I do not think anyone in the lower house had discovered, or any of the other parties had discovered, and that was that the penalties in this bill, the penalty clauses, also included a change to the maximum expiation fee.

That might not seem such a big deal until we realise that the maximum expiation fee, which currently sits at $1,250, was being changed to $5,000, not just for the purpose of this bill but for the entire road traffic regime. In other words, the maximum on-the-spot fine under this bill for going through red lights, for not wearing seat belts and for all those other offences, the maximum that the government could set by way of expiation in the regulations was going from $1,250 up to $5,000. As consequence, I moved an amendment to basically delete that provision from the bill.

The government has quite quickly come back and said, 'Yes, you are right. We didn't intend to bring the maximum expiation to $5,000 for every road traffic offence, we just wanted to do it for the offences under this bill'—in other words, the traffic companies that are leaving their speed restrictions signs out for too long. I think what the government is proposing is sensible. It is entirely consistent with what the Greens proposed. So, this amendment basically limits those maximum expiations of $5,000 to offences effectively under this bill rather than under the act, if that assists the minister.

What I am still not sure about, and I will ask this question, not with a particular view of embarrassing the minister, but I am keen to know: was it a mistake or was it the intention of the government to increase the expiation across the board?

The CHAIR: Any further comments?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It is a question: minister, when the bill was originally drafted, was it intended to sneak in an increase in the maximum expiation fee for all traffic offences to $5,000 or was it a mistake in the bill and was it only ever intended for those maximum expiations to apply to offences under the bill?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I have been advised that it was a drafting error.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that we will be supporting the government's amendment. Certainly, we would not want to see maximum fines increased to $5,000 across the whole Road Traffic Act, that is for sure, so we certainly support it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 10, lines 31 and 32 [clause 9(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

I note that this amendment is identical to the amendment that the government has moved but mine was filed first. It is consequential to what we have just been talking about and so I would urge all members to support it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition supports the Greens' amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: As does Family First.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The government opposes this amendment. Clause 9(2) sets out the maximum expiation fee that can be set by the regulations under the Road Traffic Act for any offence under the Road Traffic Act, not limited to just the roadworks bill.

The CHAIR: The only thing is, minister, you have an amendment in yourself which is exactly the same.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, but it is ours.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (16:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.