HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-07-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (DRIVING OFFENCES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:57): I will continue my remarks from before lunch. I was talking about aggravated offences and I will note that on subsequent offences, in light of this Statutes Amendment (Driving Offences) Bill 2010, it would be a subsequent offence if a person had been convicted under these sections of the Road Traffic Act: 45A—excessive speed; 46—reckless and dangerous driving; 47—driving under influence of alcohol or drugs; or 47B—drink driving within the past five years. I note that there will be an amendment in the act to exclude, in the South Australian Motorsport Act 1984, motorsport events—which is only sensible.

I just want to briefly speak about street racing. Too many times, we have seen the tragedies unfold of people on our streets, for whatever reason. It is not just confined to city areas: it certainly happens in the country at times. Certainly, over the last 18 months or so, some terrible things have happened to innocent drivers, just going about their business.

A young footballer the other day, only about 18 years old, I believe, basically got t-boned and sadly, lost his life, through people street racing through the city. We also had graphic images of the aftermath of a street race a few months ago—I think it was on Magill Road—where cars were basically split in two. Apart from the tragedy of people dying because of that event, there was also the tragedy of broken lives, where people lost limbs and will never walk again.

It is such a waste of lives and opportunities, for everyone that comes out of this. There are no winners. Hopefully, the people that commit the offence are remorseful of what happened—that is if they are alive. They have to live with the fact, all their lives, that they have either killed or maimed someone through just being stupid, out there on the streets. There is also the tragedy of innocent people going about their business at night, which is when it generally happens, or during the day and, sadly, losing their lives and the high cost families pay in losing a loved one and the grief that must cause. Anything we can do to make sure that people are sensible on our roads and do not do ridiculous acts like this I think is for the better.

That is why I applaud initiatives that are happening out at the old Tailem Bend drag strip, which was a drag strip when it first opened over two decades ago. It was owned by Mitsubishi as a test track and was bought by the Coorong District Council recently. It is leased out to a Tailem Bend motorsport group, and that is a group made up of Motorcycling SA and the Sporting Car Club of South Australia. I will be going out there very shortly to have a tour of the venue and just have a look at all the plans they have for the future out there. I know that they have already hosted clubs from interstate that come down and pay a reasonable hire fee for this facility. I believe that time trials are conducted there.

As I said, it was a fully functioning drag strip in its time, and I know that they certainly have an emphasis on driver training. This needs to be done in a controlled manner, and that is what this venue is offering. I know that they will be keen to get as many groups in there as they can using the facility, and I am sure that other tracks will be made in there over time so that people can learn how to drive a vehicle in the appropriate manner whatever the conditions.

I also want to mention the AutoFest, which happens at Murray Bridge every year. A lot of people do not agree with it but a lot of people do. At the AutoFest down there by Sturt Reserve in Murray Bridge there are burnout competitions and this kind of thing, because there are young blokes who want to do this activity, but at least at the AutoFest it is done in a controlled manner under guidelines, and it does get a big crowd. I support these events. I support what is happening out at the Tailem Bend Motorsport Park because, as long as things are operated in a controlled manner, hopefully we give people the opportunity to do things in a controlled way so they are not out on the streets maiming or killing people, including themselves.

Just as an aside, when I was travelling through Victoria recently, I noticed that at Casterton just outside the town, there is a heap of tyres stacked up by the side of the highway there. I am not sure whether they have time trials or what they do, but it looks like they have an organised event that must be sanctioned by the local authorities. That is the type of thing we must have: something that is controlled. Let's face it: you are not going to stop people wanting to try out their vehicles and that sort of thing. It has to be done in a controlled manner, and they certainly need to be trained in various aspects of that.

At Tailem Bend, people can be trained so that, if they do get in a nasty situation with poor visibility or not having grip on the road, they work a way out so that they can safely exit the situation—and sometimes it might be a single vehicle—so they will not harm themselves. Recently, very sadly, there was another young girl killed just outside Murray Bridge. It is very sad, and too many of these accidents happen. The more we can do with driver education and the more we can do in training people essentially to stay alive, the better this state will be. Obviously, part of that is in this legislation, that is, to crack down on street racing, because what has been happening is totally ridiculous, not just in recent months but previously. So, certainly, from this side of the house we support the bill, but there will possibly be some amendments as we move on.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (16:05): I am really pleased to speak to this bill today. As the member for Kavel pointed out, I do have some experience in this area—not a great deal, but some experience. I am not going to relate a whole load of war stories today—we can save that for the bar. A lot of members have made the point that these kinds of activities have a huge impact on victims and their families. That is, of course, terrible, but I do want to add to the debate that it has an enormous impact on our police and emergency services workers as well. So, I am sure that they are as keen as we are to sort out these problems.

When I first went to the Fort Largs Police Academy there was a kind of unofficial or informal ranking of police officers' duties. I hasten to add that this is not official. This is not SAPOL policy, but among the cadets there is an informal ranking, where they will put detectives and drug and major crime investigators at the top and then the patrols and traffic police somewhere down the bottom. During my time as an operational police officer I quickly learned that it should, in fact, be the reverse, that some of the most useful work that the police do is done by the patrols, particularly by the traffic police. They—

Mr Goldsworthy: There should be more of them.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, perhaps. That's not a bad idea, perhaps.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: That's right—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: No. I won't. While our traffic police are sometimes maligned as revenue raisers by those who choose not to obey the law, they do perform one of the most valuable jobs in our police force—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: Including those, yes. I am pleased that this bill contains a specific defence in section 9, which amends section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, which we have looked at, for police officers and, I gather, by regulation, other emergency services workers who engage in urgent duty driving while they are lawfully doing their jobs.

For a long time the public and police officers themselves felt some confusion as to what their rights were in this area. I think this particular provision gives our traffic police and patrols the protection to get on with their job, a job which the community expects them to do. As the member for Taylor said, one of the most common things we hear when we doorknock and have street corner meetings is complaints about hoon driving and racing. The community expects us to do something about this, so that is why I welcome the bill.

A second aspect of the bill that I wish to highlight, as others have, is that it provides that anyone who promotes or assists in the promotion of street racing will also be guilty of an indictable offence. The people who organise illegal street racing are as indifferent to the safety of innocent road users as those who are behind the wheel.

The bill also provides that passengers in vehicles may also be subjected to the same laws. This addresses the perennial problem of police arriving at the scene of street racing or of an accident caused by street racing or hoon driving and being unable to accurately identify the driver of the offending vehicle. Drivers will no longer be able to hide behind the silence of their mates. Those mates will now be co-offenders until they can prove they did not assist or consent to the commission of the offence.

The other provisions of the bill have, of course, been well canvassed here. I fully support the inclusion of these traffic offences in the criminal code. I believe this is what the police would want and I believe it is what the community expects of us. They are serious criminal offences, they should be treated as such, and the police should be given the power to investigate them as such.

In closing, I also agree with the member for Taylor that another good aspect of the bill is to exempt legally organised motor racing events from these laws. Whilst dangerous driving is always raised with me as a local member, and I am sure with others, so too is the importance to many in some of our electorates, especially up north, of legal motor racing. Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill, and I urge you to do so as well.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (16:10): The bill is addressed to street racing to try to make it a criminal offence rather than a traffic offence. It tries to address what we on this side call hoon driving. When the member for Fisher and I tried to call the first bill a bill against hoon driving, the Hon. Robert Lawson—the attorney of blessed memory, just a glimpse as attorney-general—the Parliamentary Liberal Party tried and succeeded in removing the words 'hoon driving' from the title of the bill, owing to the reluctance of the Liberal Party to use plain English, to use the language of the people.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I note that the member for Bragg claims that the Hon. Robert Lawson had more impact as attorney-general than I did, which is extraordinary, because he never took an attorney-general's bill through the house. So, one wonders about the member for Bragg's judgment about impact. In today's Weekly Times Messenger—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raise the issue of relevance. We are getting a history lesson here from the member for Croydon, which obviously goes back over eight years if he refers to the Hon. Robert Lawson as the attorney-general. I do not think we need a history lesson. He needs to focus his mind and his comments on the actual legislation before the house. So, I ask you to rule on a point of relevance, please.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: While I can see where you are coming from, I do not uphold the point of order, because your point of order was nearly as long as the amount of time that the member for Croydon has been speaking, which is not very long. Perhaps to give him the benefit of the doubt, the member for Croydon is placing this in a contextual way, and he will come almost immediately to the substance of this debate.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: In today's Weekly Times Messenger editorial, the Editor-In-Chief, Matt Deighton, writes:

It was the most sickening of sounds. A loud burnout followed by the high-pitched squeal of tyres losing control, then the smash of metal on metal.

It was deafening, instantly waking me from a light slumber.

I heard an engine stall for a moment before revving again, reversing over what sounded like broken glass and speeding off.

Disoriented, I immediately ran to the children's rooms.

They were asleep. Oblivious.

I rushed outside.

Several neighbours had beaten me to it and were scouring the street with torches.

'Geez, did you hear that?' one said.

'I reckon it was a white Commodore, he sped off before I could get the rego,' said another. We walked around for a while but, amid the wind and drizzle, couldn't see much. 'Maybe he just hit the roundabout,' I reasoned.

The next morning was Saturday and I went out to pick up the papers.

My jaw dropped at the sight before me.

There was nothing left of my front fence and the pole holding up the front half of my carport was bent at right angles.

A pair of skid marks could be traced to the pile of wood, metal and concrete.

I cleared as much away as I could, then shifted my car, which had been scratched from left to right. When I returned, a single silver Holden emblem lay in the driveway.

When the police came a short time later, they said it was likely from the front of the latest model Commodore.

They were helpful and sympathetic, but there was nothing they could do.

'We'll have a look around and report it as a hit-and-run,' they told me. 'We'll let you know if we hear anything. '

I haven't and nor do I expect to.

A little while later, chatting with the neighbours, one said: 'D---heads hoon up and down this street every bloody night. We need to get onto the council.'

After a while I walked quietly around surveying the damage and then paced out the space between the impact site and my son's room.

Five metres.

It could have been so much worse.

This bill turns street racing into a criminal offence. It tries to capture passengers in a vehicle, and a charged passenger must establish non-consent to the conduct to have a defence. It makes circumstances of aggravation of the offence having a major defect, knowing of a major defect in the vehicle (and that would include modifying vehicles for street racing), also, street racing with passengers and street racing in circumstances of heightened risk.

The basic offence has maximum imprisonment of three years and a licence disqualification for one year or longer if the court thinks fit. An aggravated offence—and I have just listed the circumstances of aggravation—has five years gaol and three years licence disqualification, and subsequent basic offences will be treated like a first aggravated offence.

Until Labor came to office and until I became attorney-general, licence disqualifications for cause death or grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving were served during the period of imprisonment. So, a person sentenced to imprisonment and a licence disqualification served that licence disqualification while in prison and unable to drive, such was justice under the Hon. Trevor Griffin, the former attorney-general. The Liberal Party took no—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And the Hon. Robert Lawson, the attorney-general for three months, who, according to the member for Bragg, made such an impact, although he never introduced a bill as attorney-general.

Ms Chapman: Got on with the business.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think he got on with the business of losing the election of 2002 and never returned to ministerial office and, indeed, he has now left the parliament, and I do not know if he is practising. So, under Labor's—

Ms Chapman: Are you?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is interesting that the member for Bragg raises that, because we know that the members for Bragg and Heysen have, for eight years, laid great emphasis on my not practising law. Their view was that one of them would make a much better attorney-general than me, because each of them had practised, but now we have the situation where the Attorney-General is a practising barrister in Murray Chambers and, as I understand it, the shadow attorney-general, the Liberal spokesman on legal affairs, does not practise and may not have practised ever. What do they say now?

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Deafening silence.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Deafening silence. For the record: deafening silence. In the past couple of years, we saw a Magistrates Court decision, which was upheld on appeal to a single judge of the Supreme Court, finding a police officer guilty of driving offences when he was engaged in pursuit of a felon. That has led to a clarification of the law for police and, indeed, emergency workers engaged in vehicle pursuits. This bill provides that a defence is made out if the employee was acting in accordance with the directions of his employer and was acting reasonably in the circumstances.

Members may recall that the hoon driving legislation was first introduced to the chamber by the member for Fisher as a private member's bill. As was my policy as attorney-general, when I saw private members' bills that I thought were meritorious I was happy to pick them up, run with them and give them government time—something my Liberal predecessors would never do.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Something my Liberal predecessors would never do. Indeed, I recall that, with some of my private member's bills, the Hon. Trevor Griffin would introduce a duplicate bill as a government bill and then claim credit for it.

We got the hoon driving legislation through as a private member's bill in government time. It is worth recording that the whole bill was opposed by the Australian Greens, in this house through the agency of their then representative, the then member for Mitchell (Mr Kris Hanna), and subsequent versions were later opposed in the upper house by the Hon. Mark Parnell, whose spouse, I notice, is the Greens candidate for the Senate.

For those people in South Australia who suffer street racing, drag racing, excessive engine noise, the laying of rubber on the roads, donuts and burnouts—

Ms Chapman: How would you know? You don't even drive.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, the member for Bragg says how would I know because I don't even drive. Well, I witness it as a cyclist. I am not surrounded by a tonne of steel, I am more vulnerable to this misconduct than the member for Bragg has ever been, and I am exposed also as a pedestrian. I do a great deal of walking, especially now that I am no longer a minister.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bragg, you keep interjecting. Member for Croydon, you keep responding to the interjections. I know that you miss each other.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: We see each other at the gym.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, isn't that lovely. For now I think the member for Croydon should concentrate on what he has to say and perhaps you could talk about the gym afterwards.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Bragg never cooed to me across the chamber, 'Five foot two, eyes of blue, attorney,' as the Leader of the Opposition did.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you will find the expression there is: too much information. Please carry on member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Perhaps when I was attorney-general, not when the current cad Attorney-General was—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us just carry on with your prepared contribution.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Clause 5 of this bill broadens the definition of 'similar relevant conduct' so that more offenders against this bill will be subject to the subsequent offence increased penalties. Having said that, the whole hoon driving legislation is an initiative of the member for Fisher and the Australian Labor Party. It is a pity that Liberal Party amendments prevented it being called by its name, namely, anti-hoon driving legislation.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It may be old but, nevertheless, true despite the braying of the member for Kavel. It took a certain boldness of the government to introduce pre-conviction penalties for hoon driving and, had we not done so, very few, if any, of the 8,000 that have been impounded or wheel clamped since this measure first came in would have been impounded or wheel clamped.

Mr Goldsworthy: How many?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: We have gone further and made provision for crushing, but, of course, we are in the hands of an independent judiciary. For the information of the member for Kavel who interjects, 'How many?' his reproach is not really a reproach of me but, rather, a reproach of the independent Police Commissioner.

Mr Goldsworthy: You're a goose!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Kavel has just referred to me as a 'goose' and I ask him to withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did notice that and I thought we might skate over that. As you know, member for Kavel, we do not refer to people as animals, so would you like to withdraw your accusation that the member for Croydon is a goose?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I don't know whether you could define a goose as an animal, but if that is the case, I withdraw that reference to the member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a bird. It is like silly as a coot or a fowl, isn't it really?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am sure the member for Kavel had his customary big lunch hour, but I can assure him a goose is a bird and therefore an animal. The government is pleased with its anti-hoon driving legislation of which this is the latest chapter. If we had not introduced pre conviction penalties, we would not have changed behaviour. It was the intention of the government to change the behaviour of hoon drivers by introducing pre conviction penalties and we do not resile from it, despite the criticism of those members of parliament—in the case of the former member for Mitchell, Mr Hanna, former members of parliament—who complain about our pre conviction penalties and are therefore, in my opinion, soft on crime.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (16:27): I rise to speak in support of this bill. I think it is worthwhile for the general community's safety and to improve general road safety. When it comes to road safety, a number of factors need to be taken into account. Obviously, one factor is environmental; in other words, things such as the road conditions, weather, etc. A whole range of environmental factors influence the condition of roads. In question time, the Minister for Road Safety also spoke about the things which contribute to improve road safety, including the Black Spot program which he outlined today.

The second factor concerns the attributes of the motor vehicle itself. If you talk to road safety experts, our cars, even though they are faster, are much safer these days, and that is one of the things that has led to fewer deaths and injuries on our roads. The attributes of the vehicle are very important. The third factor is the driver's ability or skill base. In other words, it is generally understood that, obviously, the more skill and ability the driver has, the less chance of a serious road accident occurring.

The last factor, which is what this bill is about, is driver behaviour, and part of that driver behaviour is their attitude and motivation which gives rise to the way they drive. That is independent of things such as environmental factors, the car's attributes and the driver's own ability. This bill seeks to influence driver behaviour. What is it we can do to influence driver behaviour to reduce the road toll and also to ensure we make the road as safe as possible for the others who use it?

This morning, the member for Finniss in his contribution in this place questioned the veracity of this bill, as a number of members have. He suggested—

Mr Goldsworthy: We are supporting it.

Mr PICCOLO: I did not say he was not supporting it. I also recall what your exact words were, member for Kavel. You said, 'We support the intention of this bill.' You did not say, 'We support this bill.' You said, 'We support the intention.' As usual, the Liberal Party is equivocal when it comes to road safety. It always likes to sit on the fence. I will provide some evidence in a minute, and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. The member for Finniss questioned the veracity of this bill. He suggested that the bill will not influence driver behaviour and suggested that the behaviour (as he put it) is testosterone driven when it comes to street racing.

He also mentioned that education is the answer to these issues, and I would have to accept that I partly agree with him. On that case, education has always been an important part of influencing behaviour. However, we have extensive education programs in schools already about driver behaviour. For example, SAPOL visits most schools and has a program. The MFS has a program about driver behaviour, and they show people things, etc. I have seen it done at schools. The schools themselves have a number of driver safety programs and there is also, hopefully and just as importantly, in-home education about driver behaviour, although I am not sure what some young people actually learn in the home.

That is the first point, that there is extensive amount of driver education occurring already, yet we still have these road deaths. Secondly, despite what the member for Finniss suggested this morning—that this behaviour is not genetic—it is a learned behaviour; we learn to behave this way. Education plays a role in changing learned behaviour, in the positive sense, but we also need sanctions or something to deter people from doing the wrong thing as well.

In no walk of life does education alone lead to the sort of behaviour changes we want. A classic example is smoking. The overwhelming evidence about smoking is quite clear. Extensive education programs have worked to some extent, but there are people who still continue to smoke despite that. Education alone does not work in actually achieving a public policy outcome; it needs to be supported by other things.

Also, what the experts say is that, like a lot of other things, you actually need a whole suite of measures to combat our road toll. I think the current Thinker in Residence, Professor Wegman, said that no one measure will actually reduce the road toll. It is a whole range of things. This bill is one measure to improve those things.

What this bill says, which I support, is that if you behave in this way and then, as a result of that behaviour, other people suffer, then there are consequences for this inappropriate behaviour. What it seeks to do—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: The member for Bragg interjects, but what it seeks to do is to communicate to the community its concern and its anger about behaviour that drives up the cost of the carnage on our roads. This bill says to the community that this is very important, and we are concerned about it. This loss of life, which is felt by many members of families and friends: why should it occur when it is completely avoidable? Why should it occur? That is the reason why it is important to have the sanctions which have been recommended in this bill. This street racing behaviour is senseless in the sense that it is completely avoidable and unnecessary and, as a result, there should be huge sanctions against it because of the repercussions for others when things go wrong.

The bill quite rightly, in my view, tackles not only the behaviour of the driver but also those who contribute to that behaviour, in other words, those in the vehicle at the time when they are street racing. We all know that peer pressure plays an important role or makes a contribution towards people's behaviour. We need to understand that that behaviour is just as culpable as the person who drives. Quite rightly, the behaviour of those people in the car who egg on the driver to do the wrong thing should also be caught and not escape penalty.

As I mentioned earlier, the Liberal Party's record on road safety, as evidenced by some of the speeches we have heard today and on previous occasions, is, at best, equivocal, inconsistent and, a lot of times, opportunistic. Now I will give you some examples. I can recall reading in one of the local papers the member for Schubert taking the local police to task for them clamping down on those people who illegally modify their vehicle. I can remember him saying that this is just a revenue raising measure when police go out there and pinch those people who illegally modify their vehicle.

Now, if you talk to the police, those who illegally modify their vehicle are hugely over-represented in car crashes. So, there is a correlation between those people who decide to illegally modify their vehicle and the behaviour that comes from that.

So what did the member for Schubert say? Rather than attack those people who actually illegally modify their vehicles and are likely to behave in a way which is a danger to themselves and others, he attacked the police. Now, I cannot understand the logic in that. Why would you actually attack those who are trying to make our roads safer?

That is why I said that the Liberal Party policy in relation to road safety is opportunistic. He thought he could actually try to somehow blacken the government by saying it is a revenue raising measure when, in fact, it is a road safety measure. If you talk to any police officer, they say that a young person, who has modified their car illegally, is likely to behave on the road in a way which is not consistent with road safety.

That is why the police have come down heavily on these drivers who illegally modify their vehicles. The police will tell you that they would rather issue an on-the-spot fine to a driver than actually have to attend a car crash scene. As I said before, people who illegally modify their vehicles are highly over-represented in car crashes.

The comments of the member for Schubert rather surprised me. I would have expected different and better from an MP who has been in this place for 20 years and who has seen firsthand (and read reports about) what has happened on our roads. He goes on in the local papers about this issue and blames the government. At the first opportunity he has to actually take a stand, what does he do? He blames not the people who are trying to make the roads safer but the people who are not.

This bill seeks to communicate to the community that we as a community will not tolerate loss of life on our roads which results from wholly avoidable crashes. I fully accept that accidents will occur from time to time—things which are not foreseeable. We will never get a zero road toll because you cannot foresee all the sorts of things which happen on our roads.

However, you can foresee what will happen when people are street racing. There is a really high risk of somebody dying on the road when there is street racing. With this bill we are now going to make it a very clear priority to say that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

In closing, I would say that all loss of life on our roads leads to a great deal of suffering by family and friends. The community is quite rightly outraged when loss of life is wholly avoidable. I support this bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:38): I rise to make a contribution to the Statute Amendment (Driving Offences) Bill 2010. Firstly, this is a bill which, as outlined by previous speakers, introduces a new offence of street racing. This is notwithstanding that the criminal law currently provides quite severe penalties for anyone who acts in a manner, in a motor vehicle, on a public road, that causes the death of another person, serious injury to another person or property damage.

Combined with that is the civil law which provides for compensation and other relief—sometimes criminal injuries compensation—for people who are affected as a result of the irresponsible and illegal behaviour of persons acting in such a manner. Obviously, they are offences where there are certain thresholds of intent of the driver or the reckless behaviour that attracts these penalties and convictions. It is quite clear that the current law has not eradicated street racing, but I just want to place on the record that I have seen in the recent decade almost the demonising of young people in particular and young men in particular in respect of street racing.

Let us understand one thing which I would have thought would be pretty obvious to all of us: ever since cars have been used as a form of transport—and we are talking decades and generations of people—there have been reckless drivers, there has been engaging in street racing, there has been behaviour which has caused the death of others and there has been conduct which has resulted in injury and personal loss and damage to persons and property. That is a reality and I, for one, am sick of picking up the paper and reading some 'holier than thou' submission or statement by a minister of this government as though no other generation has participated in this behaviour. I just want to place on the record that quite frankly—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Well, I haven't.

Ms CHAPMAN: I'm not talking about you. The reality is that when you go back to the generations before—

Mrs Geraghty: It is a very different sort of car now.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, you think about it. This would make James Dean turn in his grave.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Bedford): Just talk to me.

Ms CHAPMAN: I'm talking to you. It is going only a short way back to previous generations—and you may not even remember this—but Rebel Without a Cause is a movie that I can remember watching as a child, and you probably just remember that, although you might not be quite old enough. But we are talking late 1950s and street racing and people being at risk of injury and death by boys racing.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: We had chariot racing, I hear, from the member for Stuart, so even before motor vehicles.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this contribution.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. The reality is that the motor vehicle is a dangerous object. It is a lethal weapon in the hands of people who do stupid things. I just think it is important that we pause for a moment and appreciate that this current generation of young people, particularly young men, who are really the basis on which we are seeing this further piece of legislation, are not the only ones guilty of this behaviour.

I just think it is important that we recognise that there are a lot of other young people out there on the streets, early in their careers as drivers, driving responsibly and sensibly and that, whilst this has been a practice in existence over the years since the use of the motor vehicle for transport purposes, we ought to understand that this is demonising young people each time we come back here with some kind of hoon driving, and now street racing, legislation, and we need to understand the real world.

As with a lot of this legislation that is presented to us as some sort of antidote to reckless and irresponsible behaviour, which is somehow or other going to save lives or property or avoid personal damage, the opposition will not stand in the way of the passage of this bill in respect of this offence. Personally, as I have said many times to this house, I am not convinced on the information, presented on this occasion by the Minister for Road Safety, that this will work, that this will stop what happened on Magill Road, which we all know about, that creating yet another offence, with yet another penalty and ramping that up, is going to resolve the problem.

If people are concerned about this issue it would behove them to have a word with people like Dr Bill Griggs at the Royal Adelaide Hospital who had to deal twice, he told us, with the same boy with serious injuries as a result of street racing and hoon driving. In relation to the Magill accident, he had to intervene and give medical treatment to save the boy who lost his legs in that tragic accident. He is the person, with his colleagues in this field, who has to speak to the parents of not only the person who is scraped off the road and is still alive but also, often, the relatives of those who do not survive who have to be informed. Obviously, we know that is a very unpleasant aspect of the work that these good people do.

He has said in public addresses, which I think behove us to listen to and understand, that when he speaks to these young men in the examples that he has given he finds that invariably there is a period of irresponsible or reckless behaviour which is almost momentary and that it is not something which has been plotted or deliberated upon or something that we need to somehow or another match with the wilful and deliberate intent of other crimes. These are the results of stupid behaviour in these instances. To now try to create another offence with serious penalties which we reserve for rape and manslaughter, I think, is really an insult to these young people and to the professional people who have to scrape these people off the road and deal with them.

I say yet again that this is another piece of legislation of which we will not stand in the way and which purports to show government's good intent to try to resolve these sad situations. We still remain ever hopeful that legislation such as this might work, but I have sat in here for eight years with repeated pieces of legislation ramping up penalties to try to prohibit stupid behaviour, and this is not one that has demonstrably worked. We will remain hopeful, but I raise my concerns in that regard.

Other speakers have made it quite clear that many aspects have to be considered as to how we might minimise the opportunities for a young person in particular to make stupid decisions such as this, how we keep them otherwise engaged, and how we might educate them in other activities. It is not just about the dangers of driving stupidly and having races such as this, but about getting them involved in other activities.

There are often multiple answers to these questions. Coming in here, ramping up occasions where cars can be crushed or confiscated or ramping up penalties for reckless and stupid behaviour has not worked so far. I think we need to get a little bit more serious about how we are going to resolve the death of young people.

I am also concerned that, whilst this has historically been the kind of behaviour with us and which will continue to be with us as long as a person in this situation has access to a potentially lethal weapon such as a car, it behoves us to spend a little more time on the death of young people by their own hand, considering the suicide rate in this country. I mention it because on a daily basis we hear about the road toll and the government's initiatives to try to reduce the carnage and poor statistics rampant among young people, yet there has been utter silence in respect of suicide, which, I want to add, is actually more—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: —we will come to this in just a moment—is actually many more—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —every year, and, in fact, in some years it is double the road toll. I think it is interesting that the government, in its haste to get headlines about what they are going to do in response to the death, disability or injury incurred, is absolutely silent about the commitment it has to young people who take their own life. It has been demonstrated—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —by the Australian of the Year, an eminent psychiatrist in this country, who recently resigned from a federal committee on mental health. He said that it was about time governments understood the significance of this issue—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, please! Continue.

Ms CHAPMAN: —and gave credit to a very important issue. His resignation—having been made Australian of the Year—from a very important advisory committee (in this case, to a federal health minister) ought to demonstrate to the people in this house how serious this situation is. The government can crawl all over the carnage of road deaths but, until it deals with these other issues, its real commitment to the care of young people in this state should be taken with the shallow intent that the government has shown.

There is a second issue in this bill which I think needs some explanation from the government. It seems to have evaporated from any consideration in the second reading explanation, and that is the provision in clause 9 of the statutory defence to be provided to a person described as an emergency worker who, under the proposed defence, is to be defined as a police officer or an emergency worker as defined by the regulations.

Our understanding from our briefing on this—because we are not enlightened by the second reading—is that this is to cover ambulance workers and so on, who, like police officers, are out on the road and, from time to time, with approval under their terms of employment, have to engage in what could otherwise be described as, at least, careless driving—possibly in the reckless category—and could offend the new offence of street racing. Therefore, it is the government's intention clearly by this bill that they would have an automatic defence.

I think we need to provide protection for police officers and ambulance workers, and so on, where there is an objective test as to what is reasonable in the circumstances, consistent with the terms of employment, the protocol and guidelines that apply to those emergency workers. However, to introduce a defence of careless driving, which is contingent upon the actual driver—the actual emergency worker's own subjective assessment about whether it is reasonable—I find incomprehensible.

I cannot understand why proposed subclause (1)(4a)(c) actually contains a test that asserts that it is a matter for assessment by the person involved. This is not an objective test. This is something that is so far removed from the normal rules in respect of a criminal offence and a defence situation that I think we need some explanation. If the government has not consulted with the Law Society and the criminal committee, then we need to have some explanation as to why it has not.

There is nothing in the second reading explanation of the minister as to why it is necessary to put this in. My understanding from our own representative on this matter—the member for Kavel's briefing—is that there had been an instance in which a police officer had been prosecuted and, in some way, this was a proposal that had come from the police association to try to remedy and basically quarantine police officers from having to face this type of judicial assessment in respect of circumstances in which they were acting in a manner which, at the very least, is careless driving. I am not sure how one can describe a defence to a charge of an offence against this section, which is, very directly, street racing, that it can then be described as careless driving. That is in the draft that has come before us, however. Nevertheless, I make the point that we need some explanation as to why this is necessary in the first place.

I raise that for this reason: obviously, people understand that in certain circumstances ambulance drivers and police officers need to drive beyond the speed limit and on the wrong side of the road, for example, but surely we must always accept that that is in the most severe and extreme circumstances, and is a matter which still needs to be supervised. The rest of the time there should not be any reckless abandonment of that basic requirement and they should have to comply with the rules like anyone else. So, I say: why is this necessary? It is because the Police Association does not want any of its members to have to face the scrutiny of anyone else.

The member for Kavel has, I think, comprehensively covered the opposition's concern about what we might do about this and what responses may come in from other parties in the time of this matter being dealt with in this house and when it is dealt with in another place some months hence. There may be some logical explanation. There may be some good reason, but at this stage I am sad to say that we are in the dark because the minister has seen fit, for whatever reason, not to mention the basis upon which this is justified.

With those few words, I indicate that we will not—and I certainly will not—stop the passage of this bill, but I look forward to seeing some responses from the real world and having an opportunity to consider whether it is necessary to provide any amendment or to sever aspects of this bill which would continue to have our support.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:57): I will be supporting the Statutes Amendment (Driving Offences) Bill because hoon driving, street racing and the reckless indifference to human life demonstrated by too many people on our roads is of great concern to me, as it is to so many of my constituents. As members would be aware, the seat of Morialta sits in the foothills of Adelaide and it is terrain which often sees an extraordinary amount of dangerous driving, people taking their own lives into their own hands as well as anyone else who might have the misfortune of sharing that road space with them.

Along Norton Summit Road, leading up to Norton Summit, along Montacute Road, up to Montacute and Cherryville, as well as The Parade, Gorge Road, some back streets and, as we have tragically learnt in recent times, Magill Road, residents of the area driving about their daily business and going home of an evening have been in fear of their lives because of the behaviour of some people on those streets. It is, of course, the duty of this parliament to consider the best way possible to deal with that sort of behaviour and to ensure that road safety standards are upheld and that that sort of behaviour is ceased as much as possible.

This government seems to approach just about any problem with a similar sort of response, I have noticed in the years before I entered this place and I have noticed this week. Its first and too often only response is to increase the penalties without considering the causes of the problem it is trying to remedy and other potentially better ways to address these problems. I am happy to support the bill, as I have said, but I do not think that this bill will remedy the problem in the way that the government seeks to suggest that it will in its headline grabbing attempts.

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: The member for Light asks what I would suggest, and I will certainly come to that. I just wish that the government, with all of the resources of government that come with it, had given more consideration to the way that it would deal with the matter. We are in opposition. All we can do is make suggestions. It is up to the government to deliver on its responsibilities. If we see in the years to come a fantastic improvement in the road toll, then I will give it full credit for that. If we do not, then it will just show that its headline grabbing antics have had not the effect that we were promised.

I believe there is also a deficiency in the drafting of the bill in the application of the primary offence applying to everyone who happens to be in a car. Again, it goes to the point that it is easy to have parliamentary counsel draft legislation in an attempt to remedy a problem but, in this instance, I would suggest that the current Criminal Law Consolidation Act already provides remedy for those who are aiding and abetting an offence, for those who might be in a car encouraging street racing behaviour. If passengers in a car are at fault, then they are already liable to prosecution under current law. I think there is a superfluousness in this bill that I imagine will be considered in the upper house, and we will wait to see what the stakeholders have to say.

I foresee this as another example of the government putting things into a bill that will have unintended consequences on people who, potentially, are not at fault. It will potentially put the onus of proof on passengers in a car who are not at fault in these offences. People may be asleep, for goodness sake, and it will put the onus on them to prove they are not guilty of an offence when the existing aiding and abetting provisions in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act would be sufficient. However, we support the bill in the hope it will contribute something towards the cessation of those who might have a reckless indifference towards human life and cause all sorts of problems.

What concerns me more, as a result of talking to people from my friendship group, people I went to school and university with who have now joined the police force, and also police officers operating out of the police station in my electorate, is that it is all very well to increase the penalties for offences and create aggravated offences, but it only makes a difference if you catch people and charge them. My first consideration in dealing with the road safety issues for people in my electorate would be to make sure there is more police presence on the roads. We may have a slight percentage increase in terms of the overall number of police officers, but I ask the question of the government: what are they doing?

From my understanding, as a result of talking to police officers who are friends of mine, there seems to be an awful lot of paperwork being filled out and an awful lot of time spent putting things into three different computer systems so they can fulfil the requirements in that instance. It is appropriate that reports be accurately entered by police—and I am talking about the things that police officers are spending time doing—but the fact that the government is not investing in the appropriate technological infrastructure that our police force could use is a great disappointment, and I hope it will be remedied in the next budget.

I would like to see more regular patrols in the area of Morialta. Currently, if people call police because someone is driving at 120 km/h down Norton Summit Road, then they are eventually sent through to Mount Barker. It takes 45 minutes to get to Norton Summit, so there is nothing the police can do in that instance. Responsiveness and availability of police officers to deal with this issue is fundamental to catching the perpetrators of these crimes, otherwise the increased penalties will never be applied.

Also important when dealing with road safety issues is the quality of our roads. I raise this in the context of the number of road deaths that have occurred over a number of years along Gorge Road in my electorate—a road on which the government saw fit to spend $1 million a couple of years ago after there was a fatality on that road. They fixed up only about a quarter of the road, and the main strip—the bit they call the mad mile—through Athelstone, Paradise and Newton, as far as Lower North East Road in Campbelltown in the member of Hartley's electorate, has not been touched by government in a substantive way since it was laid and moved from Hamilton Terrace.

It is fundamental to road safety that people have good roads. Again, I urge the government to consider the position I put to the Minister for Transport in correspondence about three months ago (and I have yet to receive a response) and consider the promise and commitment made by the opposition during the state election to spend about $7.5 million (that is what we had it costed at) to fix up Gorge Road so that it is safe and people going about their daily business in a safe way are not in fear of injury, loss of life or damage to their vehicle because of conditions on the road.

I urge the government again to keep considering that road safety needs good roads, it needs effective policing and it needs a wholehearted and comprehensive approach, not just increased penalties. However, I am happy to support the increased penalties in the hope that they, too, will make a difference.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT