Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (15:52): I rise as the lead speaker for the opposition and indicate that we are generally supportive of the reforms and technical amendments contained within this transport portfolio bill. The opposition are very much supportive of the efforts to improve road and driver safety and believe that there is a shared commitment across all parties to achieve this. We do, however, have some questions, which will be asked at committee stage, and which I will touch on here.

Briefly, transport reform 1 amends the Highways Act 1926 to permit the Commissioner of Highways to enter into commercial agreements with roadside service centres for access road management.

Transport reform 2 introduces a 25-kilometre speed limit when passing breakdown vehicles with flashing amber lights. It includes vehicles providing breakdown services, such as the RAA and tow trucks rendering assistance. While the opposition is supportive of measures that improve road safety for these assistance providers, there are some differing opinions about the 25-kilometre speed limit and whether this might be too drastic a reduction on some of our high-speed country roads and multi-lane highways.

While I understand from the department that no objections were raised about this, I am certainly aware that some regional constituents have those concerns. Perhaps for my benefit and for my regional constituents who have raised this, the minister may confirm how this would apply in the following scenario.

Say I am on the far right of a four-lane section of the Southern Expressway and an RAA tow truck is on the left shoulder with its amber lights on. To add further complexity, let's say this happens on a crest or a corner, reducing visibility. Would I, being in the far right lane some 20 to 25 metres from the tow truck, be required to slow down from 100 km/h to 25 km/h in a short space of time, and for which there is little to no danger for those on the roadside? Does this situation not potentially create a more dangerous scenario as I break heavily for a situation that many other users sharing with me a 15-metre buffer may be considering endangering some lives?

I also note that in the minister's second reading he stated that SAPOL did have some concerns with the amber flashing lights, given that everyday citizens would be able to, essentially, manage traffic by just turning on their lights. I believe that the minister did refer to some written advice. If the minister does have that written advice handy, he may be able to read that for the record.

I raise these questions on behalf of the community. I look forward to learning more about what feedback was received during the government's consultation process, particularly for those in the regions and key advocacy bodies. To reiterate, we do broadly support these measures.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:56): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill. This amendment bill comes with the intent to do more to improve road safety. The main reform this bill presents is how it sets out to amend the Road Traffic Act to require motorists to drive at 25 km/h when they pass stationary breakdown service vehicles displaying flashing amber lights.

It is important to clarify that breakdown service vehicles include tow trucks, RAA vehicles and any other vehicle or class of vehicle to be prescribed by regulations. Fundamentally, this bill supports anyone putting their life at risk by stepping onto our roads to work with and help stranded motorists.

Some 20 years ago, members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) began campaigning for this change after a roadside worker was nearly killed by a driver who hit a roadside assistance vehicle in 2003. The reforms in this bill are not so different from what we currently have in place for emergency service vehicles. Continued campaigning for changes from the CFS Volunteers Association and from other key stakeholders led to both the Labor and Liberal parties pledging to drop the speed limit to 25 km/h when motorists pass stationary emergency service vehicles when their blue and red lights are flashing. Members may recall that at the time the speed limit was 40 kilometres per hour.

As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis MP, in the other place, has said, this legislation is an extension of the existing rules in place to protect frontline volunteers and emergency services workers as they respond to roadside incidents. We must not ignore the danger roadside workers have been exposed to, so this change is certainly a good thing.

It is noted that SAPOL opposed the existing speed reduction to 25 km/h that currently applies to emergency service vehicles displaying flashing lights, including SAPOL's own vehicles displaying flashing lights. Consequently, SAPOL does not support extending this legislation to cover breakdown service vehicles on the basis there is potential for rear-end crashes.

However, the minister has also outlined that in the past four years there have been 20 reportable safety incidents against roadside workers caused by cars driving past breakdowns without due care. This included five incidents in which vans were hit by a car or motorcycle and seven other instances involving traffic cones being knocked over or dragged down the road. With RAA workers attending more than 950 call-outs a day, along with stranded motorists waiting on the side of the road, there is a high risk factor. As motorists we can never be too careful.

The fact remains that a car will do a lot more damage travelling at 50 km/h than it will when the speed is halved to 25 km/h. We should all remember that a speed reduction is not done to deliberately inconvenience people. Instead, it is done to ensure the safety of drivers, the public and people working on our roads. Slowing down for a few moments is much less of a distraction than a lifetime of guilt, knowing that you were once the catalyst for a fatality.

This Labor government wants to reduce risk and contribute towards making our roads safer. I thank the AMWU for their hard work in campaigning for this change. Also, thank you for the contribution made by the RAA and, in particular, its Senior Manager for Safety and Infrastructure, Mr Charles Mountain. I was told that one of the constant advocates when it comes to road safety is the contribution made by Mr Mountain. He has been invaluable to governments past and present.

Adelaide's very own Centre for Automotive Safety Research, based at the University of Adelaide, has also been invaluable throughout the years. I was advised that they do outstanding work in understanding the many factors contributing to road crashes. I have spoken in relation to section 19 of the bill.

As with other pieces of legislation brought about by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, this bill is another one that focuses on safety and aims to reduce risks of harm on our roads. There are other minor moving parts to this bill, mostly detailing slight technical amendments, all of which intend to make South Australia's roads safer. I commend this bill to the chamber and hope that it gets everyone's support.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:03): I rise briefly to address and support the government's Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill. Roads and road maintenance are an ever-increasing burden on taxpayers, including at the state level, and I acknowledge the commercial value for roadside service operators to gain exclusive use of these controlled access roads. If some government expenses are offset at the same time, I welcome that arrangement, provided the fees set are reasonable and do not generally outweigh the benefits of the arrangement to the operator.

In regard to reduced speeds past breakdown service vehicles, naturally safety must always be our number one priority when formulating road and traffic policies, and a 25 km/h limit when passing breakdown service vehicles displaying a flashing amber light is consistent with current restrictions for emergency workers. Again, I hope the expiation fee set for offending would be reasonable and not another government cash grab at the expense of responsible motorists travelling, for example, just 3 or 4 km/h over the limit.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:04): I would like to thank the contributors to the debate so far: the Hon. Mr Ben Hood, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Sarah Game. I think the reasons for this bill have been well outlined, and I commend it to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Can the minister or the department advise of any feedback received, following consultation, that is against the bill, namely feedback from regional organisations, MPs or constituents such as Grain Producers SA or Livestock SA? Can the minister advise whether SAPOL was specifically consulted with on this bill, and were roadside service operators and service stations consulted with?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there was no feedback from Grain Producers SA or Livestock SA and that there was no feedback from regional constituents—I think is what the honourable member asked. I am advised that the feedback from SAPOL did raise some concerns around the enforceability of the provisions in regard to 25 km/h, but the government's position is that having the 25 km/h past the relevant vehicles is an educative process. It is something that people would become aware of and that would improve safety, with safety being the major concern.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: In regard to the SAPOL advice, I note in the minister's second reading that there was some concern around everyday South Australians being able to essentially enforce a speed limit by turning on those amber lights at any time, whether they need them or not. Did the government share those concerns and what is their way around those concerns?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure if I understood the honourable member's question correctly. If he was asking, 'Could any member of the public erect some flashing lights and therefore that becomes a 25 km/h stretch of road?' the answer is no. It needs to be a recognised breakdown assistance vehicle. If that is not the tenet of what the honourable member was getting at, I am happy to receive clarification from him.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Just to provide some more clarity, if a farmer had an amber flashing light on his vehicle that would not require someone to slow down to 25 km/h?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In that circumstance, a farmer is not providing a breakdown service, so it would not be covered.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: If he was changing a tyre or assisting someone?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is possible that if they were assisting another person then they may be providing breakdown services, but I think we need to remember that what we are looking at is what are going to be the best provisions for providing safety. None of us want to see additional accidents, and this is the purpose of the bill, but in terms of the specific question it would depend on the facts of the case.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Again, for some more clarification: how would members of the public differentiate between an amber light of, say, a farmer or something like that and an actual breakdown service?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In the bill, 'breakdown services' is defined as follows to include:

…repairing a disabled vehicle, or providing other assistance to enable a disabled vehicle to be driven or to be removed from the road, or assisting a person to gain access to the person's vehicle;

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I just wish to gain some understanding from the minister or the department about what would differentiate a roadside service centre from a regular service station as this sort of seems to be left up to the regulations? It is currently drafted without the regulations and it seems to capture all service centres, so I just want to seek some assurances at the outset from the regulations that are likely to be prescribed here.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that a roadside service centre is different from an ordinary petrol station in that roadside service centres provide additional facilities to those which are usually found at a petrol station. These facilities could include, but are not limited to, designated heavy vehicle parking areas; trailer marshalling or break-up facilities; and public amenities, such as showers, change rooms, play areas, restaurants, fast food, retail, etc.

Future roadside service centres may not be fully constructed for, for example, another five years or so, therefore specific additional criteria that could be inserted now may not remain fit for purpose in, for example, five years' time. Therefore, there is the opportunity to provide further guidance during the regulation process.

Clause passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: In the minister's second reading, he said that the revenue generated will assist in offsetting the state's cost of maintaining and operating freeways and motorways. Currently, roadside service centres are subject to a range of taxes and levies set by the government, so there is some concern that this could be utilised for revenue raising. Can the minister confirm that this revenue remains in the highways commission and does not go into general revenue?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised it is hypothecated into the Highways Fund.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Can the minister or the department advise what will be the magnitude of the provisions of payment required from roadside service centres to the commissioner for access to control roads? Is it on a cost-recovery basis?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that roadside service centres will be charged according to agreement negotiated with the Commissioner of Highways. I am advised that currently that kind of provision does not exist. This will enable that agreement to be negotiated and to occur.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: What sort of specified works is the Commissioner of Highways likely to require?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that could include access lanes, slipways, deceleration lanes, acceleration lanes and so on. It could also include roundabouts.

Clause passed.

Clauses 12 and 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: In the minister's second reading, you noted that minor anomalies were identified by the Crown Solicitor's Office regarding the Registrar's powers to direct an applicant for a driver's licence to undergo an assessment for their fitness to drive. Could the minister please briefly outline what these anomalies are and the amendments needed to overcome them?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the Registrar currently does not have power to differentiate between different classes of licence. For example, if someone were to hold a motorbike licence and a truck licence, at the moment the Registrar could potentially direct only for an assessment for one of those. That is obviously not ideal as we want to be able to have the opportunity to assess the appropriateness of a person based on all the licences that they hold, if either of them, in the example I have given.

Clause passed.

Clauses 15 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Looking at the speed limit while passing breakdown service vehicles, to go back to the questions that I asked in the general clause about the public being able to differentiate as they drive along the road of amber lights, will users of the road naturally have to slow down upon sighting amber lights before working out if it is a service vehicle or not?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The appropriate safety approach when one sees amber lights in the distance is to slow down, so essentially you are on notice to exercise caution. Upon getting closer, if it becomes clear that it is a breakdown vehicle, then the 25 km/h would apply. If it is not a breakdown vehicle, obviously amber flashing lights means that there is some kind of potential hazard and caution would still be advised

Clause passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: With regard to the changes for standard camera testing, can the minister or department explain the changes occurring to the standards for camera testing? Going from approximately 13 tests per year to just one is a significant adjustment. Can you maybe remind me of the purpose for recently introducing the physical testing requirement and how those concerns have now dissipated? What kinds of advancements in technology have been found or are now installed which mean physical drive-throughs are no longer required?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there is not a change to the Australian standard; that remains in place. In terms of reducing the testing frequency of fixed-housing cameras from every 27 days to once per year, the benefits from testing fixed cameras annually will improve efficiency and allow SAPOL's traffic camera section members to be deployed to mobile speed camera duties. Annual testing will also allow the government to expand the fixed camera network without impacting on SAPOL's ability to abide by the current testing requirements. For the mobile cameras, I am advised that the process now involves tuning forks, so that is a change.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Could you just outline how tuning forks work?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised it is quite a complex testing system, which is already in place for the radar cameras.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: On the overview of the results of the physical camera testing regime, were any cameras found to be faulty or not up to Australian standards, or were there no issues found?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, in regard to the direct question, none that the government is aware of. It is also pointed out that the fixed-housing camera will fail if it detects any internal faults. That fault will set off a system alarm, and the camera will not capture any images. To date, SAPOL has not experienced a camera producing images created on false speed detection.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.