HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 September 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:22): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill 2013 and confirm that I will be the lead and probably only speaker on this matter. I read with interest that this is a bill to provide amendments to the Road Traffic Act to cover pedelecs. This was an entirely new word to me and I thought I would Google it and look at the Oxford Dictionary. It didn't exist in the Oxford Dictionary, members might be disheartened to hear. Given my knowledge of what a pedelec is, my oration on this subject will be very brief, for which I am sure the minister will be mercifully relieved.

My understanding is that currently in South Australia, power-assisted bicycles with a power output of up 200 watts are treated as bicycles and therefore do not require registration, insurance, or the person operating the bicycle to hold a driver's licence. Pedelecs are a motor-assisted bicycle where the motor is only accessible when the pedals are manually operated and cuts out when the speed reaches 25 km/h. They have a power output of up to 250 watts which takes them above the aforementioned threshold. However, as they do not comply with Australian design rules, they cannot be legally registered and therefore cannot be used.

This is a bill to amend the Road Traffic Act to include power-assisted bicycles. Under the definition of bicycles this will remove the requirement for a pedelec to be registered and the user to have a driver's licence. What a relief. Given that I think I have more 60-year old blokes in my electorate who run around in lycra pants on bicycles, I am sure that it would adversely affect many of my constituents. Therefore I am rather pleased that this bill has been brought to our attention and that it will be promptly remedied.

I think it raises a question of what we might do with other faster and faster mobility vehicles on the road as well. I think that that is an area which needs to be looked at in due course. I am not at all advocating for people who use these vehicles to have to wear helmets or be licensed or be registered and so on—that would be onerous—but I think it is fair to say that these pieces of equipment have gone from being a replacement for people's legs for walking, to actually a vehicle for use.

Although provided they are under a certain speed limit they can still travel on the footpath as if they were in electric wheelchairs and the like, the speed of these vehicles is quite significant, and I think it is fair to say that there is an increasing use, and there is certainly an industry built around them. More and more we are seeing conflict between people who are on these vehicles and other motor vehicles and/or pedestrians.

That is disappointing in itself but I think that, with an ageing population and frailty becoming more common, the use of these vehicles is becoming more common, and it is something that we need to look at in due course. Anyway, no doubt I will be able to consider that matter in other legislation or the reviews of this matter in due course. The other aspect of this bill is amendments to tidy up inconsistencies or areas that have perhaps been overlooked when the principal legislation was passed on matters arising under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Many of these relate to probationary licence points, and I am at a bit of a loss as to why they were not covered in the graduated licensing scheme reforms that we dealt with several weeks ago, but it is quite possible that these are areas that have been identified over a period of time. They have accumulated in a file, and then when somebody comes in with a miscellaneous bill such as this to tidy them all up, they get caught, but a number of these relate to probationary licences.

In summary, the reforms include, firstly, to increase the time spent on a probationary licence, namely, to double it where a person has been disqualified for a serious drink driving offence and has then regained their licence but is exempted from the mandatory alcohol interlock system, for example, on medical grounds. We agree with this.

It is similar, for example, if someone faces an offence in which they might have a fine and/or community service and a magistrate in those circumstances might say, 'Look, the offender is unemployed and so placing a huge fine on them is going to be oppressive' and, therefore, they will make some other provision, say, by community service.

Similarly, this is an amendment which allows for a double period probationary licence if you cannot undertake the alcohol intellect system. For example, someone might have asthma and, therefore, may be exempt from having that, so they have to be penalised in some way, and we agree with that.

Secondly, it provides power to the registrar to disqualify a probationary licence holder when they accrue two or more demerit points. We are told that currently for a probationary licence holder to be disqualified for a breach of licence, the police must register an offence, such as speeding, and then a second offence, such as the breach of a licence condition, for the probationary licence holder to be disqualified. This is sometimes overlooked and results in not all probationary licence holders who accrue demerit points being disqualified. Clearly that needed to be tidied up.

Thirdly, it removes the ability for a person who holds a probationary drivers licence to enter a Safer Driver Agreement instead of disqualification if the offence was committed while on a learner's permit but they have since moved to a probationary licence before being notified of the offence. Again, it is a satisfactory tidy up. Fourthly, it removes the option of a probationary licence holder who has allowed their time to apply for an SDA—that is, a Safer Driver Agreement—to lapse from appealing their disqualification in the Magistrates Court.

Incidentally, I see that there is also some provision in the bill for the publication of a magistrate's reasons on an appeal, and that tidies that matter up. Fifthly it introduces an explicit approval mechanism for photographic detection devices, that is, speed cameras, to bring them in line with traffic control devices that must be approved by a minister.

I have taken that to be, for example, that in the way that a minister approves red light cameras which are currently placed for going through a red light or something of that nature, then similarly for speed cameras their placement needs to be approved by a minister. I was surprised that did not exist already, but if it does not then we do not object to it being covered.

The final amendment is to provide power to the Registrar to conduct investigations and refuse registration of a vehicle where the Registrar believes part of the vehicle may be stolen. Currently, the Registrar must believe that the vehicle itself is stolen. I am assuming, in the absence of any explanation, that this is to cover a vehicle where, for example, it is believed that the tyres have been stolen or some other piece of the vehicle has been stolen, because if it is not the whole of the vehicle then they are not covered. Again, it sends a rather strange anomaly, but it is being tidied up by this bill. With those comments, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill, and we do not require to go into committee.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (16:30): I appreciate the comments from the member for Bragg. I will be brief. Pedelecs are what one would describe as a phenomenon in the extent of their uptake in Europe. The figure for 2012 was the purchase of 1.2 million pedelecs. They are a device which is now becoming commonplace on European streets, and it is my view that, with the passage of this legislation and the move to align our wattage restriction to that of the Europeans, we will see a significant uptake in South Australia, and in particular in Adelaide, of these pedelecs.

They are a bike that is not embraced by the lycra-wearing set; these are bikes that are basically ridden by people to and from work. The attraction is that you can get to work without having to put on sporting gear. They reduce the amount of energy, exercise and stress involved, and the amount of perspiration expended in getting from point A to point B. For that reason, they have been widely accepted by the Europeans as an alternate means of transport to the motor vehicle.

The Europeans are now linking the pedelec culture with the public sector networks that they have throughout Europe, and are putting in place recharging stations that have solar panels on the roof. The idea is that you ride to the railway station or tram station, dock your cycle for the day securely in one of these docking stations, and the battery recharges during the day by way of solar energy generation.

This is a European phenomenon that I think will grip the South Australian imagination over the next decade, and I am of the view that within 10 years we will see thousands, if not tens of thousands, of these bikes being ridden by South Australians, particularly within the CBD. What we will also see is a change in our attitudes to cycling, and ultimately the provision of far more extensive cycling infrastructure than is currently the case.

South Australia now brings itself into alignment with all of the other Australian states with the 250-watt requirement, up from 200. As I said, this now aligns us with the EU standard, which means that pedelecs can come in, particularly from Europe but also from China and elsewhere, and be ridden on our roads.

The other section of the bill deals with driver licensing and miscellaneous changes, and I believe that the member for Bragg dealt with that in a highly adequate manner and have no intention of ranging over her comments because I was very much impressed with her understanding and appreciation of all the provisions. I think she has done the bill justice in relation to the driver licensing and miscellaneous changes contained within the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (16:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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