Statutes Amendment (Personal Mobility Devices) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 September 2024.)

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (16:47): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill and note that I have a couple of amendments, or an amendment that will trigger two amendments, as per what the member for Unley moved in the other place that was unsuccessful. While I welcome the fact that the government and the opposition are essentially on a unity ticket with this—we are looking to legalise personal mobility devices, to send them out into the wild—in response to concerns raised about public liability insurance we feel the amendments I will be bringing are necessary to protect the public.

I will go into detail in the committee stage, but suffice to say that applying the nominal defendant scheme to the use of personal mobility devices is about responding to the community's concerns about liability and compensation in cases of hit-and-runs and the inevitable accidents that will occur on our streets and our footpaths. It is a safety net that we believe is necessary and which groups like the RAA have pointed out as a concern for them with this bill.

In his second reading explanation, the minister acknowledged that general insurers do not yet have suitable products and that it is hoped that data will become available in the future to help price the insurance cover affordably for these personal mobility devices (PMDs). Until that time, however, the opposition is concerned that people injured as a result of e-scooters will fall through the cracks.

In response to the minister's reasoning that it ultimately comes down to personal responsibility and comparing the current situation to that of bicycles, it is worth highlighting the fact that these personal mobility devices are going to be potentially many times heavier and in some cases faster than a pushbike is.

We also want to address the fact that the statistics on claims against the nominal defendant scheme are very low and that ideally this would be just a temporary measure until the private sector brings suitable products online in terms of insurance.

To be fair, the minister on one hand has admitted that there is merit and good intention behind these amendments and, given the advice received by the opposition that it may be some years before sufficient actuarial data is gathered for insurance purposes, we reiterate that a nominal defendant scheme is a safety net of last resort and it is worth pursuing.

I also note that the minister suggested his department would seek costings on the implications of this amendment and impacts on insurance premiums for third-party insurance and I would be interested to know if that information will be forthcoming.

In his second reading, the minister confirmed that regulations setting out the details of the new legislation will be drafted and consulted on prior to possibly commencing in early 2025 and I welcome the government moving speedily on this because, as I observed earlier, we are essentially in agreement with this bill, notwithstanding the concerns about public liability that have been raised. The minister specifically mentioned that device dimensions, speed and mass will be considered and consulted on. Given that, I wish to briefly put on the record some of the proposals put to the opposition and to the minister for consideration in drafting those regulations.

Electric Skateboarders, EUC and Onewheel South Australia, also known as SAESK8, has flagged an issue that arose from the YourSAy survey results regarding weight limits. They want to ensure that a low weight limit of 25 kilograms is not introduced as it would restrict the lawful operation of many of the safest devices on the market. I understand there are self-levelling devices on the market that can range from 12 to 55 kilograms and of course for the more heavyset individuals—I might include myself in that in some cases—using PMDs, they will require a device with a powerful enough battery at the higher end of this scale.

SAESK8 warns that setting a low-weight threshold would discriminate against heavy users of these e-devices and encourage us to follow the lead of some other jurisdictions, such as Queensland and the ACT. Indeed, many of their suggestions are drawn from those interstate jurisdictions and, given that the minister is in receipt of the same correspondence I am, I will not mention every single one of them but instead encourage the minister's favourable consideration for their proposals.

Another worthy aspect of further consideration that I am passionate about is how we encourage greater public transport patronage by allowing these devices on our PT network. From my briefing with the department, I know that they are looking at how this could be done. Legitimate safety concerns regarding PMD batteries do need to be considered. I am sure that these will be worked through, and I know that in some evidence with regard to those batteries it usually is when they are on charge that we have issues with them causing fires or exploding, but I certainly hope that the department does consider how we might be able to utilise PMDs and storage of them on our public transport.

I am told that many of the SAESK8 members are supportive of this move and passionately believe that they should be permitted on public transport because, ultimately, they are considered a last-mile form of transportation and have a limited battery that can sometimes leave PMD users stranded. I have also heard from some parents that it would be really useful for their kids to be able to get to and from public transport heading to school with their PMDs and then be able to get home in a quick fashion, so they are not sitting there or having to walk long distances and of course there are the dangers associated with kids being out too long.

With those remarks in support of the bill, I look forward to further debate in the committee stage where I hope honourable colleagues will see the wisdom of incorporating the nominal defendant scheme as a safety net for the inevitable and unfortunate circumstances where accidents occur.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:53): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Personal Mobility Devices) Bill 2024; however, I also express my concerns about the safety and responsible use of e-scooters. In principle, I support the use of e-scooters. They are a convenient alternative for those who choose to avoid using public transport and motor vehicles for their intents and purposes. They provide a quick and flexible way to navigate urban areas and shorter distances without the hassle of traffic congestion or waiting on a fixed bus schedule and they allow the user to travel at their own expense, determining their own route and timeframe. It is a practical solution to a modern-day problem.

My only concern regarding the use of personal mobility devices is that there are preventative measures in place ensuring they are used safely and responsibly. Should this bill come to pass, there would be no obligation for the owner of the e-scooter to register a personal mobility device consistent with registering a motor vehicle.

E-scooters present themselves as an insurance liability and should an accident resulting in injury or death occur using a personal mobility device other road users or pedestrians will not be able to claim compulsory third-party insurance due to the actions of the user of a personal mobility device. With those comments, I put on the record that I will be supporting the Liberal amendments to this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:54): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Personal Mobility Devices) Bill 2024. As we have heard, the bill provides the legislative framework to allow privately owned personal mobility scooters to share our roads and footpaths. We know that they offer a range of benefits, including improved accessibility and convenience, if you are so inclined, particularly for those who rely on them for short-distance travel.

Much of the details, such as who can use these devices, speed limits, weight restrictions and other operational rules, are going to be the subject of further consultation and outlined in the regulations, so that is a bit of a wait and see space. As I have said, this is really the framework, so I will not rehash the specifics of that bill today. Instead, I will highlight a couple of key points of concern for me.

First, the issue that has been raised by other honourable members, namely that of insurance. As we know, unlike motor vehicles and motorbikes, these personal mobility scooters do not require registration and will not be covered by the CTP insurance scheme. I am not entirely satisfied with that position, but I also do not know that it has been appropriately addressed in the bill, so I will be seeking some further clarity during the committee stage debate regarding risk and liability. As it stands, the bill leaves those matters to civil actions between the parties involved in an incident, and it does create potential implications for users and pedestrians alike.

I have engaged in discussions now with the RAA in particular and acknowledge also that the market for scooter insurance is still developing. It is not even a space that they can move into right now because it is still in its infancy if you like. I do note though that Queensland has introduced a product, and it is possible we might see similar offerings emerge in South Australia at some point in the future.

Secondly, I want to draw attention to the ongoing issue surrounding 50cc motorbikes, often referred to as mopeds. That also remains a grey area. It does not tie directly in with this, but I like to lump them all in the same basket. We had really good outcomes in terms of driver education training when it comes to motorbikes.

Now we have the mobility scooters being dealt with, and I am hopeful the government remains true to its word that soon we will deal with the issue of those mopeds on the roads as well because there are questions around what happens when a vehicle does not quite fit the definition of a motor vehicle, motorbike or scooter. I understand, of course, that this bill does not in any way capture those vehicles, but I still remain of the view and am hopeful that those discussions will prove fruitful in terms of clearer guidance to avoid any confusion down the line.

I would also like to raise a practical issue of commuters using scooters in conjunction with public transport, particularly trains, and that is another area where I have been engaged in discussions with the government and also with the RAA. We know that many people use these devices to cover the first and last mile of their commutes: scooting to the train station and then from the station to their final destination, whether that be work or university or whatever the case may be. I am certainly keen to see, if we are going to go down this path of allowing these personal mobility scooters, that they be able to be taken onto trains, particularly in relation to what we call the first and last mile.

The only other point that I would raise, and we have seen an instance I think it was interstate just recently—I am not sure which jurisdiction it was in—but I do note the responsibility of users when it comes to these personal mobility scooters. I think we saw an incident that certainly piqued my interest in terms of how we recharge them. There was a fire, I think it was in an apartment complex just recently, reported on in another jurisdiction.

There is a responsibility on users to make sure they are using the right equipment to actually recharge these scooters because they do pose, as has been seen, a risk to property and life if we do not use the appropriate, I suppose, ones that are issued with—I am not exactly sure how it works, but there is a potential hazard there in terms of fires. That was actually a pretty bad fire and I understand that there may have been charges laid as well against the individual in question because of the extent of the damage that was caused as a result.

So there is obviously some personal responsibility that comes along with using these in terms of ensuring the safety and the right equipment when it comes to firing them up, if you like—pardon the pun. In conclusion, while I support the bill, I think there are of course those important questions that need to be addressed. I do understand, as I have said, that this is a developing space so we may not be able to be in a position to deal with them now, but I look forward to perhaps getting some clarity from the minister responsible in terms of some of the issues that have been raised during the committee stage debate.

The PRESIDENT: I would like to call the Hon. Mr Pangallo who, by the way, is apparently celebrating a rather significant birthday today, so on behalf of the chamber, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, we wish you all the very best.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Singing is out of order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:01): Thank you, Mr President, and thank you to the fellow members. I rise to speak on the personal mobility devices bill. From the outset, I want to be clear that I am not opposed to e-scooters and other battery-powered transport devices. They do have a place. They are cheap and a greener form of transport, although you would like to think that the government could be more, or just as, enthusiastic about getting those likely to use these devices to jump onto public transport instead. However, this must be one of the most reckless and irresponsible pieces of legislation I have seen go through this place.

Bizarrely, I have heard members today raise real concerns, yet they will wave this through. This is just typical of the populist policies of the Malinauskas government, giving the green light to these powered motor vehicles to be allowed onto our roads and footpaths without the proper consideration of safety and damage protection to other road and footpath users and to the riders themselves. Foolishly, the opposition leader, the Hon. Vincent Tarzia, also fell for this populist trap and kept cajoling the transport minister to legalise them.

Neither Mr Koutsantonis nor Mr Tarzia have, to my knowledge, sought to do substantive research nor sought the advice from sections of the community who have an opposing view on safety and commonsense grounds. The minister, of course, points to the so-called overwhelming response to one of the government's YourSAy surveys in support of them.

Now, 2,000 responded and he claims on that basis that all South Australians are in favour of them. That is hardly scientifically based, nor would it represent the views of the majority. Why does the government not base all its legislative policy agenda on what a fraction of punters think on YourSAy?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Don't give them a hint. Even the RAA has thrown its support behind them without really considering the dangerous consequences most likely to unfold when allowing all manner of unregulated contraptions to hit the road and create even more congestion and hazards for its membership base, not to mention the public liability issues. This is poor and irresponsible public policy by a government and an opposition only interested in tapping into a pop culture, a young pop culture.

What I have been saying for the past five years of trials—and this must be the longest trial of anything anywhere in the world—is that safety and proper regulation must be the key priorities; that is, safety for pedestrians, other road users and those who hire and ride these powered motor vehicles that can reach speeds of up to 60 km/h, and regulation because these vehicles do not meet any Australian standard, unlike cars and motorbikes.

These are powered vehicles, not pushbikes. They are being sold and driven at speeds on roads even though their use is illegal. They are causing house fires because their lithium batteries are highly combustible and difficult to extinguish. Check out the figures I sought through freedom of information from the Metropolitan Fire Service about the dozens of house fires caused by bikes, scooters, vehicles and equipment powered by lithium batteries: the damage bill runs in excess of $100 million. It will not be long before lives are lost, and then what?

E-scooters have caused scores of injuries and fatalities interstate. SA Health does not keep specific data on presentations from traumas caused by e-scooters. While hospitals in other cities keep records of the number of presentations from traumas to riders and pedestrians caused by e-scooters and personal mobility devices, SA Health chooses not to for reasons known only to them. The hire operators themselves self-report, something I do not consider to be a reliable or credible source of evidence.

While they do issue infringement notices occasionally, SA Police are still wilfully blind in enforcing compliance after blatant breaches of the regulations: no helmets, age restrictions, riding illegally on roads. But of course, SA Police were consulted. Wrong! No, they were not.

When we posed this question in our briefing on the legislation, we were told they assumed SAPOL would utilise an already understaffed force to have officers using radar guns to police scooter speeds—radar guns. Are they going to chase these offenders through the streets and footpaths of Adelaide because they do not have any registration or identification? As I walked in and out of Parliament House this week I saw several riders still breaking the law. There were two people, an adult and a child, riding on one e-scooter on the road; one was not wearing a helmet.

They are strewn over footpaths and block access at traffic light crossings, impeding the visually impaired. Many cities around the world have banned them. In December, Unley council abandoned its two-year trial because of complaints they were littering their streets and causing hazards. Beam promised it would collect 80 per cent of its scooters every single night, regardless of whether they needed to be recharged. I want to see evidence of that.

The companies operating these motor vehicles for hire have complex, and in my view dodgy, liability compensation cover in case of death or injury caused to third parties by recklessness or carelessness of riders. Conditions of hire vary with each provider; they are broad and users tick off on them without scrolling through the fine print on their phone because they are in a rush to get mobile.

Let me give an example: you are walking down King William Street and you get hit from behind by a hired scooter and are badly hurt. If the rider either is not wearing a helmet or is under age, the company does not have to pay because they have exclusions if the rider is in breach of laws. How is that fair? It has happened. Alarming loopholes exist that can lead to massive medical and legal bills. Insurance? Registration for proof of ownership? None of how to protect users or third parties is in the legislation.

I have met with Mark Giancaspro, a law lecturer at Adelaide University, and David Brown from Adelaide University's Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law Scholarship Unit, who published a paper in 2022 on who is liable if you are injured or killed riding an e-scooter. The paper calls for a uniform regulatory framework and that means a national code balancing the risks and benefits of e-scooters and setting up liability for compensation in case of death or injury. If a rider is reckless and careless, they are responsible for injuries caused to others.

Here is where it gets tricky and dodgy: some e-scooter operators exclude liability except where it is caused by their negligence. Councils could be liable if an accident occurred due to a damaged pavement or road, but it would need to be proven that the council had breached its duty of care by not making repairs. The same applies for persons who might trip over a scooter that has been dumped on the footpath. I have spoken to constituents badly hurt from tripping over scooters strewn on city streets who were unable to get any form of compensation from either the operator or the council.

The visually impaired are frustrated, having to avoid being hit or sidestepping those parked alongside traffic lights at pedestrian crossings, preventing them from accessing the crossing buttons. As Giancaspro and Brown point out, it is much harder for third parties who are injured because only parties to a contract can incur rights and obligations under the contract, so if you are hit or trip over one, you have no contractual rights against the company.

Also, many riders are either unaware or do not read the fine print of contracts of hire via an app. These agreements are long and complex pieces of legal mumbo jumbo. Do riders really take any notice of them? Well, no, and the operators know this. This must be fixed. Third parties are being placed at risk without any hope of getting compensation. The government has an obligation and a responsibility to them.

There is no uniformity in their use by minors. Some refuse to allow them; others allow over 16 with parental consent, yet many adults would be unaware of clauses which avoid insurance entitlements if an unauthorised minor is injured or a rider was not wearing a helmet at the time. You also do not need to have a driver's licence, even though you might travel on a road with it.

It is not a pushbike: it is a powered motor vehicle under Australian Road Rules; yet, what is this government and feeble opposition doing? Not only are they waving through the opaque legal responsibilities of the hire operators but they are also opening the floodgates to private owners with no legal liability or protection in the event something goes horribly wrong. The priority must be a duty of care for every member of the community.

I note that the Hon. Ben Hood at least has come up with an amendment that allows a normal defender to claim like you could with car accident insurance, and I will certainly be supporting that.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:12): I also rise to speak in favour of the Statutes Amendment (Personal Mobility Devices) Bill 2024, and might I also congratulate the Hon. Frank Pangallo on his special birthday today. The Greens have been long supporters of e-scooters and e-skateboards as an important mode of transport in our state. We recognise in particular that we are in the middle of a climate emergency and one of the ways that we can reduce carbon emissions here in our state is reducing the number of cars on the road, and so we do see e-scooters as playing and important role in that regard.

We are pleased to see that the government has taken up the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public and Active Transport that private-owned e-scooters should be permitted by legislation. E-scooters are a clean, green transport alternative. They reduce congestion by getting cars off the road and they allow users flexibility to get to where they need to go in an efficient way. They are increasingly being relied upon in many cities around the world as a form of travel.

We have seen e-scooters for hire on the streets of Adelaide over many years. Indeed, when I was on Adelaide City Council, there was a proposal that came to the council for us to undertake a trial ahead of the 2018 Fringe Festival, and that trial ended up being extended over many years, so I do welcome the fact that we are going to see a consistent approach being taken.

One of the problems we have had in South Australia around e-scooters is an inconsistency within the law. Whilst we have had a number of local councils that have allowed people to hire e-scooter devices, individual use has been prohibited. Despite the fact that you can actually purchase an e-scooter from a store you can only use it on your own private property. This has created, I think, a lot of confusion for law-abiding South Australians who are seeking to do the right thing but make the assumption that if you can buy an e-scooter in South Australia then surely you should be able to use it on the streets of our state. So, finally, that has been cleaned up.

One thing that was really interesting for me, having the benefit of being on the public and active transport inquiry, was that we heard evidence that allowing individual ownership of e-scooters does actually promote safety outcomes, and that is because if you are hiring an e-scooter and you are participating in the kind of festival environment of a trial and it is not your own device then you might be more likely to engage in risky behaviour. But if you are actually using your own device, that you are more familiar with and you have purchased, you are more likely to take care of it and you are also more likely to know how it works and that reduces some of the risks associated with this.

It is important to note that the issues that honourable members have raised regarding pedestrian safety I think are very important and did need further consideration from the government. Indeed, one of the issues that we heard quite a bit of evidence around was this issue of insurance. I want to refer members to some of the recommendations from the public and active transport inquiry. I will read some of the recommendations out for the benefit of government members who I know have not read all of the inquiry recommendations.

An honourable member: Some of us have.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Some have, I wish the transport minister had because we might have addressed some of the issues that have come to us with this bill. Recommendation 8 is particularly important and relevant, I think. It states:

The Committee recommends that the matter of compulsory third party insurance for private and commercial e-scooters be referred to the Attorney-General for review and advice.

The Hon. F. Pangallo interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: An interesting question: the Hon. Mr Frank Pangallo asked whether this happened. I will be asking that question of the government in the committee stage. They have had two years to undertake that work so I am assuming that has happened. It states further:

The Committee recommends that the state government resolves:

(a) the classification ambiguity regarding commercial and private use of e-scooters, specifically whether they can be regarded as a motorised vehicle or as a bicycle; and

(b) outstanding matters regarding high insurance excess amounts, easily voided insurance policies, and the power of e-scooter providers in deciding the outcome of insurance claims.

One of the committee's findings was that:

There is potential for increased use of e-scooters in metropolitan Adelaide, but liability and accountability are highly complex matters that go beyond what the Committee can achieve…and Legislation and policy surrounding the use of small personal e-mobility vehicles (not just e-scooters) should be a matter of ongoing review by state government in collaboration with stakeholders.

I do not know what the outcome was of those recommendations. Indeed, I reached out to the minister, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, when this report was handed down in February of last year. I reached out again requesting the opportunity to meet with him so that I could draw his attention to some of these recommendations but, sadly, the opportunity never arose and so I am not sure whether or not these issues have actually been addressed by the government.

Some of the other issues that came to light worth highlighting for the benefit of this debate are:

The Committee recommends that state government, in collaboration with local government and other stakeholders:

(a) legislates to enable the use of privately owned e-scooters and other personal mobility devices in public spaces, in line with other jurisdictions

Tick; that is good. It goes on:

(b) considers adopting definitions of e-scooters and e-personal mobility devices consistent with National Model Law;

(c) considers ways that e-scooters and e-personal mobility devices can be safely moved into bike lanes on roads without compromising the safety of cyclists or device users;

(d) reviews speed limits of e-scooters and other e-personal mobility devices on footpaths to better protect the safety of pedestrians; and

(e) gathers data on the use of private and commercial e-scooters and other e-personal mobility devices, including compliance and injuries to pedestrians and riders.

I welcome the fact that the government has moved on some of these matters, but there are some issues here that they do not appear to have addressed and that I intend to raise during the committee stage. I do make clear that I am supportive of the bill. I welcome this reform in terms of cleaning up some of the ambiguity we have in South Australia, but I am concerned that the issues around liability have not been addressed. I wonder whether or not the government has undertaken the level of consultation that was envisaged by the parliamentary inquiry when we made those recommendations.

Given that, and in the absence of any approach being made by the government to the contrary, I will support the amendments from the Hon. Ben Hood because I think we do need to have some sort of model in place to address some of the insurance implications. I look forward to some of the discussion that unfolds during the committee stage, and I will have a few questions to ask of the government around how some of the issues have been addressed.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:20): I stand to support the bill. It amends the definition of a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 to exclude electric personal transporters, known as EPTs, as defined in the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014, that may be driven on or over a road in accordance with an approval by the minister under section 161A of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

The purpose of the bill is to make sure they cannot be deemed an uninsured motor vehicle and provide some protection to the nominal defendant from claims involving personal mobile devices, known as PMDs, that were privately owned or hired out by commercial fleet operators. If passed, from the date of introduction of this bill an EPT is excluded from the definition of a motor vehicle. The bill provides a broad framework for the safe use of privately owned PMDs (currently defined as EPTs) on roads, footpaths and shared paths.

The bill also moves the definition of 'bicycle' from the Road Traffic Act 1961 itself into regulations to allow for changes to the definition over time as new types of bicycles come onto the market. The key points of the bill are that it characterises a PMD as a new type of vehicle for the purposes of both the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and the Road Traffic Act 1961. It includes a power that will allow the device's dimensions, its maximum mass and speed, network access, the minimum age of the rider and the rules they must follow to be specified in regulations.

Having the specifications in the regulations enables flexibility into the future, ensuring that a quick and effective response to new devices and technologies is possible. Classifying a PMD as a vehicle means they will be treated like a bicycle. This has several advantages: it means they can be provided similar network access as for bicycles and the same road rules will apply, meaning that the conditions of use should be easily understood; and it will allow police officers to use their existing suite of powers to stop the rider, give directions and possibly charge them with riding under the influence.

Similar to bicycle riders, the offences of 'drive with prescribed concentration of alcohol' (under section 47B of the Road Traffic Act 1961) and 'drive with prescribed drug' (under section 47BA of the Road Traffic Act 1961) will not apply, as those offences are aimed at drivers of motor vehicles. Although police will not have the power to breath test or submit PMD riders to a drug test, the offence of riding under the influence (under section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1961) will apply to PMD riders if police observe and are satisfied the rider is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

PMDs will not be motor vehicles for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 or the Road Traffic Act 1961. There will be no requirement to register PMDs, nor a requirement for the rider to hold a licence or insurance. This is consistent with the approach taken by other jurisdictions.

As is currently the case for crashes involving bicycles, other road users will not be able to claim under compulsory third-party insurance for death or injury due to the actions of a rider of a PMD. This means the nominal defendant scheme is protected from unfunded liabilities, which is an appropriate outcome given the device riders will not contribute to any compensation fund. To allow otherwise would impact insurance premiums paid by ordinary motor vehicle owners. A PMD user involved in a crash will be treated the same as a bicycle rider. It will be a civil matter between the parties. It is hoped that in future general insurers will develop suitable products when sufficient data on the risk profile is available, allowing them to price insurance cover affordably.

I turn to the regulation-making power under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. There will remain a risk of unfunded liability for the compulsory third-party nominal defendant scheme and Lifetime Support Scheme arising from the bill for any unregulated or unregistrable devices, for instance those that will fall outside of what is allowed as a PMD. The regulation-making power will require vehicles to be explicitly defined as to be excluded from the section, for instance devices that are modified and future emerging technologies that have not been approved to operate on roads.

The bill characterises e-scooters as a new category of vehicle, called PMD, under the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and the Road Traffic Act 1961. The PMD will be excluded from the section 5 definition of a motor vehicle in the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and from the section 5 definition of a motor vehicle in the Road Traffic Act 1961, but they will be included in the section 5 definition of a vehicle under the Road Traffic Act 1961. The bill allows delegated legislation to specify the detail about the use of PMDs, such as dimensions, maximum mass, maximum speed, access, age and rules, including the definition of a PMD.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (17:26): I would like to place on the record my thanks to the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Robert Simms and the Hon. Russell Wortley for their contributions.

I would like to perhaps draw together and comment on a few of the things that were referred to. As the Hon. Connie Bonaros said, this is certainly a developing space and a lot of the information that members are seeking—some of that will no doubt become available as the regulations are drafted. Other matters, it is quite accurate to say, are still developing, because e-scooters and their regulation is relatively new in Australia.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo said the RAA was supporting this without considering safety issues and other issues. I apologise if I am paraphrasing and may not have the exact words right, but it was words to that effect. I think that is simply underestimating the value the RAA puts on safety issues. I think they are certainly well qualified to be able to provide input, which is, as I understand it, what they have done.

In terms of the Select Committee on Public and Active Transport, I want to thank, again, the select committee for the work they have done. This has enabled a lot of work within this bill to be able to utilise the work that was done through the select committee. I am advised that in developing options for a regulatory model the department has considered the findings of the select committee, and that has been done alongside analysis of the public consultation on personal mobility device use in South Australia as well as review of other jurisdictions' regulatory models.

I am advised that elements of the select committee's recommendations were picked up through the consultation themes that were put forward for public comment, particularly the aspects relating to private use, network access and treatment in terms of application of registration and insurance requirements. In short, the report was used to inform the content of the public consultation for PMDs.

Should this gain support at this next vote, I look forward to some of the specific questions being raised in the committee stage and being able to explore some of those further. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Further to some of the points I raised in my second reading speech, I wonder if the minister could address this issue around recommendation 8 of the public and active transport inquiry, which is the recommendation that asks that the Attorney-General consider the issue of compulsory third-party insurance for private and commercial e-scooters. In particular, it was recommended that the state government resolve the classification ambiguity and also issues around high insurance excess amounts. Did the Attorney-General look into this issue of third-party insurance for private and commercial e-scooters and what did he advise?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, as compulsory third-party insurance falls under the remit of the Treasurer, the work on this bill was done in conjunction with the CTP Regulator.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The committee received a lot of advice from legal academics around the potential legal ambiguity around dealing with the issues of insurance. Did the government get any legal advice around those issues to inform its consideration of this approach?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the work was done closely with the Compulsory Third-Party Regulator and the Lifetime Support Authority, given of course that the Lifetime Support Authority has considerable experience in this kind of space.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What was the advice of the Lifetime Support Authority with respect to this question?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the Lifetime Support Authority provided input, but that of course was also side by side with information sought from other jurisdictions and that the legal framework that is being proposed here is consistent with a number of other jurisdictions that have introduced e-scooters in their states or territories.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The minister has just said that there was input from the Lifetime Support Authority and indeed the CTP Regulator. If there was input by them, regardless of whether it is consistent or inconsistent with other jurisdictions, what was their input into the development of this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that their position was that personal mobility devices should not be covered under either the compulsory third party nor the lifetime support schemes.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I ask the minister if she is aware of the speeds that these personal mobility devices can reach on roads? Is she aware of how fast they can go?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it would depend on the particular device as to what speed they are capable of, but one of the purposes of this legislation is to allow speed limits that will be proposed to actually be enforced. That will be done in terms of the speed limit development based on research and consultation.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I refer the minister to recommendation 7 of the report of the Select Committee on Public and Active Transport. One of those recommendations was that the government reviews speed limits of e-scooters and other personal mobility devices on footpaths to ensure better protection of pedestrians. What action was taken in relation to that recommendation? Has that been taken on board in crafting this legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there have been discussions and consultation with other jurisdictions as well as the Centre for Automotive Safety Research, and we are looking at national best practice in terms of the way forward here in South Australia.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just so I am clear, did they actually review the speed limits, or you just simply looked at what happens in other states and said, 'That's it'? Did you look at changing them here in South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In considering what limits applied in the current trials, considering the work that has been done by the CASR, and considering what is the situation in other jurisdictions, I am not sure how else you would describe that than as a review.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Referring the minister again back to recommendation 7 of the report, another recommendation was that the government consider ways that e-scooters and other personal mobility devices may be safely moved into bike lanes on roads without compromising the safety of cyclists or device users. I understand that does happen in some other jurisdictions. What consideration was given to that recommendation in crafting this legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that under the new framework, e-scooters would be permitted in bicycle lanes, so that is one of the things that would be enabled through this legislation, according to my advice.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The government will be unable to control the speeds of these devices and the speeds at which they can travel and, as I have mentioned, it is up to 60 km/h. What speed are they allowed to go on footpaths, and what obligations do riders have to use or have on their device a warning alarm to notify other users? If you are walking on a footpath, you will not be able to hear these devices approaching because they are silent.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the specific limit will be set by regulation and that is obviously something that there will be consultation about. It is also expected that personal mobility devices will be required to have a bell or similar device as a warning measure.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: During the consultation process, why did the minister not consult with SAPOL?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the department did consult with SAPOL.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That is not what the police have told me and members of my office. What consultation did the department do with the Metropolitan Fire Service?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there was not direct consultation with the Metropolitan Fire Service. Notwithstanding that, of course, there was wideranging consultation and any interested party was able to be involved in that.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Devices of around 55 kilograms are coming onto the market, as I described in my second reading speech, which have more advanced safety features and can be better supported for heavy riders. The YourSAy consultation references some support for small increases to weight restrictions allowing up to 30 kilograms. Is the government open to permitting higher weight limits of 30 kilograms or higher, given the advanced safety features and power requirements of heavy riders?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the weights will be determined through regulation and that will be informed by roundtable discussion. The expectation and intent is that the organisation, SAESK8, which we understand has provided similar feedback to that referred to by the honourable member, will be part of that consultation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will that be retrospective? There are already hundreds of these devices that have been bought privately. How would you know what they weigh or what they are capable of doing once the legislation goes through? Will they still be legal on our roads?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that in terms of private ownership, any e-scooter or personal mobility device that was used following the passage of this legislation and implementation would need to comply with the characteristics that are outlined in the regulations once they have been developed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just for the clarity of the record, when it comes to the issue of speeds, which have not been landed on yet, can the minister confirm that for the purposes of this legislation personal mobility devices will be treated like a bicycle, for instance, under the Road Traffic Act—they will be subject to the speed limits, penalties for breaching speed limits, penalties for DUIs, penalties for drug offences and operating one of these when under the influence of drugs or alcohol? So, in effect, they are going to be treated like other motor vehicles, or indeed bicycles, when it comes to things including speed, drugs, drinking, and anything else—reckless driving or reckless operating.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that when it comes to drug driving or drink driving—or, as the case may be, riding—personal mobility devices will be treated in the same way as bicycles currently are. When it comes to speed, I am advised that currently bicycles are limited in terms of the speed as being the same as the general speed limit for motor vehicles. It is proposed that under this framework it will actually be more conservative for PMDs than the current framework for bicycles when it comes to speed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just on from that, then, can you confirm that, regardless of what speed these things can reach, there will be speed limits, and if you breach those speed limits you will be subject to the laws that apply in relation to the operation of other vehicles, if you like, on the road?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, that is absolutely correct.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure suggested during the committee stage in the other place that his department would no doubt be costing the implications for this amendment on insurance premiums for third-party insurance and would make them public. The amendments I am referring to are the amendment in my name and previously in the Hon. Vincent Tarzia's name. Does the minister now have those costings?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, following the passage in the House of Assembly of this bill, the department reached out to the CTP Regulator, who has outlined that there are significant and multiple variables, which makes modelling extremely difficult and, to paraphrase, it is therefore incredibly difficult to quantify what the potential costs would be at present.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Again, just to refer the government back to the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into public and active transport, one of the recommendations at part 7 was asking the government to gather data on the use of private and commercial e-scooters and other e-personal mobility devices, including compliance and injuries to pedestrians and riders. Is that something that the government has done to date, or will they undertake to do so as part of this new regime?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the intention is to put in place appropriate mechanisms for collection of data and being able to analyse that as time goes by. I am advised that in Queensland they put in place a monitoring system and then were able to make appropriate changes as that data became more fulsome and where it indicated a need to change.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I just want to clarify, again, for the record—and I referred to this in my second reading—that the government is, indeed, engaged in discussions, which I hope are constructive, in terms of the first and last mile and consideration of the ability to take personal mobility scooters or devices onto trains for those people who are choosing to do that, and what are the sorts of considerations that are actually being taken into account in respect of that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for her question and the opportunity to place that on the record. The bill does not deal specifically with public transport in terms of whether personal mobility devices can be taken on them. That would, in fact, be part of the Passenger Transport Regulations. The intent is to have, as part of the consultation going forward, discussions around that. Currently, the Passenger Transport Regulations have limitations, which would be dependent on the device specifications, particularly in regard to size. Of course, it is essential to get the right balance between the users of PMDs and other users of public transport; for example, those who utilise wheelchairs or other mobility devices.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am assuming that will also include the requisite certification requirements around the actual personal mobility devices in terms of their power. I do not know what the terminology is, but I think the minister knows—batteries.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that a number of specifications, such as those referred to, can be considered in terms of whether it is appropriate to include them in particular standards or requirements. All of that will occur in the development of the regulations during that period of consultation and discussion.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hood–1]—

Page 3, lines 3 to 8—Delete clause 3 and substitute:

3—Amendment of section 5—Interpretation

(1) Section 5(1)—after the definition of drug driving offence insert:

electric personal transporter means an electric personal transporter (within the meaning of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014) that may be driven on or over a road in accordance with an approval of the Minister under section 161A of the Road Traffic Act 1961;

(2) Section 5(1), definition of motor vehicle—after 'part of the vehicle' insert:

but does not include an electric personal transporter

Note—

Section 116 however treats electric personal transporters as if they were uninsured motor vehicles for the purposes of claims against the nominal defendant.

3A—Amendment of section 116—Claim against nominal defendant where vehicle uninsured

Section 116(1), definition of uninsured motor vehicle—after 'is in force' first occurring insert 'or an electric personal transporter'

This amendment deals with phase 1 of the changes and replaces clause 3 of the bill so as to treat electronic personal transporters as if they were uninsured motor vehicles for the purposes of the nominal defendant scheme in section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whilst still excluding them from the definition of 'motor vehicle' for the rest of the act.

The proposed changes in amendment No. 1 are to insert a definition of 'electric personal transporters' for the purposes of the amendment. The purpose of this definition is the same as being used by the government in their amendment to the definition of motor vehicle to exclude electric personal transporters from the definition of motor vehicle to the act, essentially the same as what the government is doing, as we do not want them to be included in the registration and licensing provisions of the act, but to include a note highlighting that while these are not generally treated the same as motor vehicles they will be treated the same as motor vehicles for the purposes of the nominal defendant scheme in section 116.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: With the indulgence of the chamber, I might address the overall concerns about the amendments being moved by the Hon. Ben Hood collectively, given that they are all interlinked.

The government opposes the amendments for the following reasons: while an injured party may be able to claim against the nominal defendant, if there is no requirement on the personal mobility device rider to hold compulsory third-party cover, or CTP cover, there is likely no recourse under the Lifetime Support Scheme, so in that respect the amendments would appear to lead to inconsistent outcomes.

The approach of not requiring compulsory third-party insurance cover is consistent with the treatment of bicycles in South Australia and with that in other Australian jurisdictions that have legalised the use of personal mobility devices. This means that the nominal defendant scheme is protected from unfunded liabilities, which is an appropriate outcome given that device riders will not contribute to any compensation fund. To allow otherwise would impact insurance premiums paid by ordinary motor vehicle owners.

A personal mobility device user involved in a crash with a pedestrian or with another PMD user will be treated the same as a bicycle rider. It will be a civil matter between the parties. It is anticipated that in the future general insurers will develop suitable products when sufficient data on the risk profile is available, allowing them to price insurance cover affordably.

Legalising private use of PMDs is anticipated to result in response from the market so that, when insurance products become available, riders can sign up to it, as is the case for bicycles, which gave rise to similar liability risks and issues. As per bicycles, for privately owned PMDs it will be in the rider's interest to hold insurance.

Commercial PMD operators can continue to be required to have insurance protection in place through conditions imposed in local government permits issued to allow them to operate PMDs for commercial purposes. PMD riders will be under a duty to stop and render assistance under section 43 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 that applies to drivers of other vehicles, with penalties applying to those who fail to comply. Can I just ask a question of the mover of the amendment?

The CHAIR: Please, minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the mover of the amendment proposing that there should be a registration scheme as part of this and, if so, how much would users of PMDs be charged for such registration?

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: No, that is not what we are proposing with these amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the honourable member proposing that motor vehicle owners should therefore have their premiums increased to cover CTP for these PMDs?

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: What we are proposing with these amendments is to safeguard against injury from these devices and the fact that the government see it fit that some magical place in the future will be able to provide insurance for these devices. It is to ensure that the public do have some level of surety to be able to claim against injury.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the honourable member happy that motor vehicle owners would have increases in premiums to cover the increase in compulsory third-party liabilities?

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Has the government done the costings, as I asked previously, with regard to what the impost would be on premiums?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I asked you a question. You have not answered it.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicate the Greens will support the amendments from the Hon. Mr Hood. I do note the concerns of the government. I had not had the opportunity to hear the government's views on the amendment. They were never put to me before today's discussion. Once these amendments pass the chamber, if there is an opportunity to work with the government and address concerns between the houses, the Greens are open to doing that.

Our concern consistently has been that, if we are undertaking a significant reform like this, we need to look at issues of insurance and liability, given that there is a distinction between these devices and bicycles. They often do weigh more than 50 kilos, so they pose a significant risk potentially, so it is something that needs to be considered. If there are significant implementation issues with what the Hon. Mr Hood has proposed, I am open to discussing that with the government, but for today we are certainly on board with inserting this into the bill so that we can get some movement on this issue.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am quite astounded at the fact that the Liberal opposition is standing in this place moving an uncosted amendment that will force up premiums for all other premium payers in this state and is completely blasé about it. And we have the Greens over here saying, 'Yes, we'll get on board with that. It doesn't matter that we don't know what the figures are. It doesn't matter what the cost is going to be to every other CTP payer in the state, we're going to force it through tonight.' I am just astounded, and this will come back to you—both of you. Come on, Black!

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to support the honourable member's amendment. What a phony point for the minister to make and also the Hon. Mr Hunter: 'Will you accept premiums being affected?' That is just so disingenuous.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I say to the honourable members: who will pay for somebody who is crippled or killed as a result of irresponsible activity or use by the riders of these devices? Who will pick up the costs for that?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Who will pick up the cost for that, I say to the minister? I support the honourable member's amendment—it just makes a lot of sense. We are not dealing with pushbikes here. I am not sure whether any of the members in this place who have just raised their objections have even ridden one. I have ridden one, and I managed to get a greater speed than it was supposed to be governed at, and that shows how difficult it is to control these vehicles.

They are very heavy and they can cause a lot of damage, even by hitting somebody at 20 km/h, yet we have an irresponsible government saying, 'Why should we have some insurance cover for people who get hurt innocently by these devices?' These are powered motor vehicles—we are not talking about pushbikes. They are powered motor vehicles that people will not even be able to hear if they are coming from behind.

So I commend the member for his move. This is what should have happened when these devices were allowed onto our streets. There is limited liability for some of those contracts that the hire companies have at the moment, and I have already pointed out in my speech that you could actually drive a prime mover through them. I have spoken to people who have been hurt by these devices and who have not been able to get any compensation at all. It has cost people their careers. One person was so badly injured they were not even able to go back to work and they could get no compensation for it.

I think it is irresponsible and disingenuous of this government to totally brush aside that people not be able to get some sort of compensation in the event of reckless behaviour by a rider on a road or a footpath. It is just outrageous.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I think it is important to note that we did actually ask in the committee stage questions about legal advice that had been obtained by the government and the work that had been done to look into some of these insurance issues, and we did not get really a satisfactory answer in terms of the work that has been undertaken.

Again, if the government wants to come back and engage with us, and try to address some of these issues, the Greens are absolutely open to that but, in the absence of these issues being taken seriously, I feel that it is appropriate to say let's actually move down the pathway that has been suggested by the Hon. Mr Hood. It is for the government then to do the costings and come back with an alternative.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It is a difficult one, and I note the intent of the amendments. While I have been listening to these discussions, I have been thinking about bicycles as well and the work that we have done on bicycles previously, which also do not fall within the schemes that we are discussing. I guess the bottom line is that if you are injured on one of these, then obviously your access will be to the Lifetime Support Scheme or NDIS. I am concerned about the fact that we do not have data on both sides in terms of what the cost will be and whether it will result in an increase to premiums for road users as well.

Given the fact that we are talking about these, I do note that the government has also, in terms of the regulation, taken into account limiting the weight and speed to make them as safe as possible. But the question I have been asking myself this whole time is: how is this any different to a bicycle on the road and their lack of ability to claim from the same scheme, given that they can, of course, travel at great speeds as well and the equity in that? It is a difficult one.

I am wondering, also, whether there is the opportunity to revisit this issue when the regulations are drafted in terms of the speed and weight limits, and there is actually data available on both sides of the equation in terms of the accident rates, if we can call them that, and whether indeed the government has actually contemplated whether then there would need to be thought given to bicycles as well being included in the scheme and what that would do, given that we are talking about mobility devices in the absence of bicycles.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the Hon. Connie Bonaros makes a good point, remembering that we also have electric bikes that are currently in a similar situation to what is being described in that if there is a crash involving a bicycle, whether it is an electronic bicycle, the issue is treated as a civil matter between the parties. I am further advised that the amendment as put forward by the Hon. Mr Ben Hood does not include the Lifetime Support Authority, according to my advice. Therefore, if he is intending to have a catch-all, his amendment does not achieve that outcome. That will be another reason that the government will be opposing the amendment.

But I do come back to the original question that I asked, and clearly there would be increased costs to the CTP scheme. If personal mobility device users were to be covered in the way that is proposed, that can only mean either the opposition proposing registration for PMDs and then potentially bicycles and e-bicycles too—perhaps that is where they are planning to go—or it involves an increase in costs of insurance premiums for all other motor vehicle owners. The government will be opposing these amendments.

The CHAIR: I am going to put the amendment in the name of the Hon. Ben Hood. The question I am going to put is that clause 3 stand as printed, so if you are going to support the Hon. Ben Hood you are going to vote no.

The committee divided on the question:

Ayes 8

Noes 10

Majority 2

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Question thus resolved in the negative.

The CHAIR: The question I put is that new clauses 3 and 3A as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. Ben Hood be so inserted.

Question agreed to.

Clause 4.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Hood–1]—

Page 3, lines 11 to 18—Delete clause 4 and substitute:

4—Amendment of section 5—Interpretation

(1) Section 5(1), definition of electric personal transporter—delete the definition

(2) Section 5(1), definition of motor vehicle—delete 'but does not include an electric personal transporter' and substitute:

but does not include a personal mobility device or a device or vehicle of a kind excluded from this definition by the regulations

(3) Section 5(1), definition of motor vehicle, note—delete 'electric personal transporters' and substitute:

personal mobility devices

(4) Section 5(1)—after the definition of P2 licence insert:

personal mobility device has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1961;

These amendments are consequential. They deal with phase 2 of the changes under the government's bill where the terminologies propose a change and we move from the current electric personal transporters to the new terminology of 'personal mobility device'. All these amendments do is deal with the terminology change while preserving the effect of the amendments in phase 1, for example that personal mobility devices be included in the nominal defendant scheme but not otherwise be counted as motor vehicles for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Hood–1]—

Page 3, after line 20—Insert (before the present contents which will now be redesignated as subclause (2)):

(1) Section 116(1), definition of uninsured motor vehicle—delete 'an electric personal transporter' and substitute 'a personal mobility device'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (6 to 9) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (18:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.