HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-12-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 December 2015.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:49): I rise to speak to the Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill 2015. The bill enables the minister to authorise trials of automotive technologies and issue exemptions from the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959—and this is obviously the act we are amending here today—and any laws that regulate a driver's use of motor vehicles on roads.

The government is seeking to place South Australia ahead of the technological curve and be a lead jurisdiction in real-life trialling of driverless vehicle technology in South Australia. Certainly, I note that, while this is the first jurisdiction in Australia to be trialling driverless cars on our roads, it is certainly not something new internationally. These trials have to be individually approved by the minister because this bill does not permit driverless cars to operate on these roads unless they are individually approved.

The figures that the government are putting out are saying that it is estimated that the driverless vehicle industry will be worth $9 billion in Australia in 10 to 15 years' time. It will be interesting to see how many jobs that will create in South Australia because we certainly need thousands of jobs to come to this state.

In briefings by the department, it was made clear that this bill is purely for the trial of autonomous vehicles and not for commercial legalisation, and that legislation was not required for the trials that were run on the Southern Expressway because it was closed. But what this legislation does is open more easily regulated avenues for future trials, although we have not seen any announced at this stage.

In regard to the automation of driverless vehicles and autonomous vehicles, it can range from full autonomy, where no human intervention is required, to vehicles where human intervention may be required under certain conditions. Different countries and different companies are using different terms to describe these new technologies. Systems are distinguished by their degree of autonomy and by the functions that are autonomous; for example, whether it is keeping the vehicle in a lane at constant speed or automatically braking to avoid obstacles, which I think there needs to be a bit more work on.

Autonomy has been scaled from 1 to 5 and a local Holden Commodore fits in category 3 so there are some operating items on Commodores which are certainly classed as part of the system. A Volvo, which was at the driverless conference, is a category 4 car and there has not been a category 5 driverless car shown here at this stage. This legislation is about potentially luring car manufacturers here to road-test their vehicles. The hope is that having car makers testing here, they can generate and grow tech industries.

Cohda Wireless is a company based in Adelaide and they are involved. South Australia is already very much at the cutting edge of this technology across the world. Certainly, driverless car technology has been put in place through Google, Uber and other car makers. A lot of advancement in driverless cars and the technology was achieved years ago, so therefore the real benefit for South Australia was if we had locked in three or four years ago on some of the ground floor research and development that could have been done in this state.

I acknowledge that some of the work that was done by commercial overseas companies was displayed at the Driverless Car Conference in early November and, essentially, we are road-testing overseas cars. I certainly believe that there are growth opportunities in the vehicle to vehicle, and also the vehicle to infrastructure, radar and connected technologies, but there has not been investment in this area by the government at this stage.

There are already certain functions of cars where they are quite driverless to a degree and there are other jurisdictions that are well advanced in this space, but the real benefit will come when vehicles can talk to each other and we do not need traffic lights, and I think we are a fair way off that.

There was a great deal of thought going on around the world in regard to what laws will be necessary for the general operation of driverless vehicles. Their widespread operation will pose complex legal challenges, in particular to determine liability in the event of any accident. I believe completely new legislation will have to be drawn up to allow driverless cars on our roads outside of this testing.

In regard to other jurisdictions, in the United Kingdom, the green light for testing driverless cars on public roads was given on 11 February this year, 2015. Already, in the United Kingdom, advanced driver assistance systems are breaking into the market, improving car safety and leading to lower insurance premiums. These announcements show the United Kingdom's strong intent to take the technology to the next level and investigate how vehicles that can take greater control could improve our driving experience and increase safety further.

In the United States, there has been an article by the Stanford Law School that states that current United States vehicle codes generally do not envisage, but do not necessarily prohibit, highly automated vehicles. However, to clarify the legal status and otherwise regulate such vehicles, several states have enacted or are considering specific laws. Four US states have successfully enacted laws addressing autonomous vehicles and their trial use on public roads.

There has certainly been consultation throughout various sectors here in South Australia. SARTA and other industry bodies have discussed the concept of autonomous vehicles at some length through the National Transport Commission to review laws to provide for driverless trucks. It is noted that the industry is not opposed to the notion; however, it is a long way off, and they see a series of problems that need to be overcome. A huge challenge would be how to keep a truck driver who is doing nothing but watching technology alert enough to spot a problem and react quickly.

Concerning autonomous cars, the trucking industry would like to ensure that the driverless cars are programmed in a way that does not replicate the problem that already exists on our roads with some motorists cutting in front of trucks just because they can fit, reducing breaking space and increasing the risk of accidents. It is certainly something that I see many mornings coming down the hill into Glen Osmond from the freeway.

People do not give enough room to trucks that wish to turn right to go up Portrush Road on the freight route around Adelaide. It could be loads of grain, stock, etc., or general freight. They stay in the left lane as long as they can, put their indicator on and want to get to the right, and people just do not give them room.

I had to do it years ago when driving trucks into Adelaide. They do not give you room. You pick the spot where you reckon you can fit the length of your truck, and you just have to swing it in the gap because they do not give you space. They soon learn that they are not going to win if they do not pull up, so they really should take notice, but that only happens when people are absolutely stuck for a spot to get into. SARTA certainly believes that it is essential that the protocols and standards involved will deal with this; however, some direct dialogue between the trucking industry and the vehicle industry would be required.

I note a comment from Cohda Wireless that driverless cars are a disruptive technology and, as such, it is difficult to predict exactly what that might mean for South Australia. We know that in this state there is both high-tech expertise and automotive expertise and, certainly, if we can create the right environment, then, as Paul Gray from Cohda has indicated, amazing things will happen.

Flinders University gave a presentation at the International Driverless Cars Conference in November, where they showcased their autonomous vehicles. One is an autonomous catamaran and the other is a small, archive box-sized autonomous robot vehicle called Husky. Flinders University would like to see future autonomous vehicle trials integrated into the Flinders campus as a series of buses connecting the campuses; however, that goal is a while off.

The Centre for Automotive Safety Research generally support this bill. As the area is evolving so rapidly, as technology unwinds around the world, it is important that fast action is taken to permit large global companies the opportunity to come to our state, to enhance the opportunities for further commitment and engagement with local companies. We certainly want to make sure that, once these big companies have the opportunity to come to South Australia, they do not pack up and go elsewhere but stay and develop those technologies here to their full fruition. Certainly, CASR believe there is some great capability in this state, and they hope it will capture some of the manufacturers' attention.

The Motor Trade Association of South Australia has reviewed the bill and has some recommendations and concerns. They believe that stakeholders must be consulted prior to the passage of legislation that goes beyond this legislation because this only deals with the trial stage, but they are also concerned that required insurance may not cover all foreseeable risk situations. Furthermore, proper driver capability is required to override technological errors where they may occur.

The MTA believes that, before the minister makes an exemption to another law for the purpose of a trial, the relevant stakeholders should all be consulted. The MTA is also concerned that the maximum penalty for breaching the laws is only $2,500. From some of the correspondence I have received recently from one or two constituents, I note that you can get a fine not far from that for some fairly simple offences committed on our roads. The MTA believes that this penalty seems low when the risks associated with a break in the technology may lead to serious consequences.

Carnegie Mellon University has expressed that they are interested in working in this space. They are quite advanced in the United States and would like to convey their work into South Australia in order to springboard their advancement. They are seeking a $US25 million commitment—$1 million to build an autonomous car at the university, with the rest spread out over five years to carry out research into connectivity and driverless technology which would allow cars to speak to intersections and other vehicles. The university's plan is to produce PhD and master's students for the industry. Carnegie Mellon sees this as a long-term investment in South Australia for industry growth and more local jobs.

The RAA put out a media release in July 2015. They are well and truly interested in the technology and the potential it has to remove human error and save lives. They believe that, as the issues around the new autonomous technology become better understood, we will start to see some more stringent legislative changes. They also recognise that there is a lot of money internationally in emerging driverless technology, and they believe that this legislation is an important step in enabling investment in South Australia.

The member for Flinders brought up the issue of the global positioning system technology that is used on farms. Sometimes it is used to set up a base station and can be operated within a kilometre or two of a base station. A lot of it is obviously linked directly to satellite, and I believe it is vital to get that connectivity absolutely right.

In the agriculture sector, as long as it is all working, the connectivity is so good that you can have an 18 metre front—and the fronts can be up to 60 feet now, which is about 18 metres in the new language; they still talk feet because a lot of these machines are made in the United States—and you can have a computer from the harvester talking to the tractor towing the chaser bin basically instructing it where to drive, so it is hands-free for the chaser bin operator to get the grain out of the harvester.

That is pretty flash technology. From my experience, when I was doing it, there is not much room between the edge of the comb, and you can soon have some chaos if you do not keep your eye out: you can end up running over the front of the harvester. There is a lot of opportunity here and it just shows how far we have come in this state.

At the turn of the 20th century, nearly all our transport needs were satisfied either by horses or horses and carts, and that has transferred over time. Right through World War I and World War II, there was still a reasonable amount of horse traffic on the roads but, as cars and trucks came on board, it was like a new world. You could make this comparison: this may be the brave new world people were facing over a hundred years ago as the technology advanced right around the world. It is amazing when you think about it. We have come a long way from the first cars, where people were not sure how to control them so they had a man with a red flag walking in front—they obviously did not go too fast—to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Obviously over time that went away, but in later times we see speed limits no matter where you are in this state or in the country. On the open road speed limits are usually 100 or 110 km/h, and the more roads around the state that we can keep at least at 110 km/h, so that they are safe, is what we need to do. I know the road safety minister has had a bit of a campaign in regard to this, but what people need to understand is that just because the money is not being spent to keep these roads up to scratch and the maintenance being done, that cannot be used as an excuse to cut back roads to 100 km/h. Technology in cars these days is so far ahead of cars that were driven in the fifties through to the seventies—in the main we are not driving clunkers anymore and we have pretty good vehicles—that we need to keep up road funding in regard to maintaining safe traffic and safe passage for all.

I think there is going to be a lot of work to be done and a lot of technology to be put in place with the myriad issues that can happen on the road in regard to a full driverless vehicle. I have a bull bar, or a roo bar, fitted to my work car for a reason. This car was only a few weeks old and bang, there it goes, coming home from Karoonda from a night meeting. They jump straight out in front of you—and I know the Minister for Transport is well aware of kangaroos that do not get out of the way. It is a real issue and, sadly, I have done it several times. These things, kangaroos, just come out of nowhere at the last minute, and you just look at that steel eye for what seems like a few seconds but is a very short space of time, and you think, 'Oh well, let's see how much of a mess this makes of the car.' At least with that roo bar, or bull bar, you can drive home.

I guess everyone was a little amused when the minister had his road trial with the inflatable kangaroo and, for some reason, it did not happen the way it was meant to. It is the sort of moment the media love, but the minister seemed to hold his cool as the car took out the inflatable kangaroo; he just smiled and looked at the driver as if to say, 'What was all that about?' I did send him a text later that day saying, 'I could do with that car down the Coorong,' because it might get rid of a few other pests that are floating around. I think the Premier was a bit concerned about going in the car the next day, so I guess he put the Minister for Transport out there as the bunny. He took the rap, but I think he took it with good humour.

However, this just shows that we need good technology. If it is going to make a mistake right at the moment when you do not need it to make a mistake, it just shows that there is a lot of work to do. It shows that there is great work that has been done in this field, but there is so much more work that needs to be done, especially with cars that will be on long, lonely roads that not only have to put up with the vagaries of traffic—whether that be cars or trucks—but also where there is suddenly stock out on a road or where there are animals like kangaroos and wombats and the like.

I think it is a great idea, but I think we have a long way to go. In my mind, I compare it to when cars first started coming onto our roads well over 100 years ago. Certainly, in 50 years' time we will probably be sitting back and saying, 'Well, that was easy, wasn't it?' We have a lot of work to do yet, but I certainly support the bill.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (16:09): From the outset I would like to thank the opposition for its support of this bill. This is an important reform, albeit a partial reform, to some of our transport laws to enable this technology to be trialled out on our roads.

I am pleased to hear from many of the comments from members opposite that they acknowledge that South Australia is leading the nation in trying to push this technology further forward more rapidly for the benefit of the community. When the Governor mentioned in his speech that we would be looking to reform transport legislation to, amongst other things, provide the opportunity for vehicles with this technology to be able to use the roads in South Australia, it was greeted with derision, with mirth, with accusations that this was 'a Labor trick', that this is something which is as fanciful as the cartoon, which I think harks back to the 1960s, The Jetsons.

Since that time, I am very pleased that those same members who were making those remarks publicly and also within the chamber have had a change of heart. They have realised that this is something very real, this is something that has been pursued for several years overseas, this is something which, in varying degrees, and we should be upfront that there are varying degrees of this technology, as members opposite have commented this is something which is being deployed on roads globally as we speak and that the full iteration, if we can put it like that, of this technology, the fully automated vehicle where the entire driving task is removed from the occupant of the vehicle, is likely to be sooner rather than later.

The member for Mitchell made the comment that some experts he referred to have said that it might be as far out as 2030, and that may well be true for some car manufacturers. There are other perhaps more technology focused companies which anticipate bringing this technology onto our roads much more quickly. I was fortunate enough to be invited by Google to be present at their Mountain View campus and receive a demonstration of their fully automated demonstration vehicle. The project leader, in the presentation to us and the other jurisdictions from around the world that were there, gave the example of his son, who he said was, at that time, 12 years old and eligible to apply for and potentially receive a licence to drive at the age of 16. It was his and his project team's aim to make it so that his son would never need to obtain a driver's licence, which is an incredibly aggressive time frame.

Shortly afterwards, not in response to that comment but coincidentally to that comment, Elon Musk, head of the Tesla Corporation, announced that he was looking to bring fully autonomous cars onto the roads within three years, rather than four years. Whether that occurs remains to be seen. I think that what many of the comments made by members opposite, and also, indeed, members on this side of the chamber, recognise is that there is a fair bit of water to pass under the bridge before that occurs. Perhaps to be more specific about it, before that occurs successfully there are likely to be the technological challenges of this technology being able to be deployed reliably and successfully into the future.

There are other more challenging conundrums to be negotiated, that is, how the rest of the community manage the interaction and integration of these technologies on our roads. I think this was a matter which the member for Davenport paid some particular attention to, the issue of: how will the rest of us on the roads react to this? Will it be a seamless integration or will there be challenges? I agree with his assessment, there will be challenges.

What could be referred to as one of the foremost global experts, who was brought out for the government's driverless car conference last month, made the comment to me that in the main, not completely but in the main, it may take a good 10 to 15 years to see fully autonomous vehicles successfully deployed and proliferated throughout our transport networks globally.

He encounters those same issues, that is, there are likely to be incidents, perhaps some false steps, amongst some people who are looking at trialling different aspects of this technology, and that will challenge communities within different jurisdictions where those incidents occur, and that is to be anticipated. That is certainly the experience that has been encountered as other types of automotive technology have been brought to bear over the past 110 or so years.

I remember speaking with the technical director of Volvo's global program when he was here for the test on the closed Southern Expressway and he said that Volvo as a corporation remembers the community concerns about first having radios in cars and whether they would be so distracting that people should be forced to pull over to the side of the road if they wanted to listen to a radio broadcast in their vehicles. He also made the comment—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I guess it depends what you are listening to, doesn't it? He also made the comment that there were fears when the windscreen wiper was first introduced. I am casting my mind back to an article that I saw some time ago. I think it was an American engineer from one of the major motor companies, perhaps in the 1940s or 1950s, who first developed the technology of the windscreen wiper, and there were concerns globally about whether this would have a hypnotic effect on the driver while they were trying to attend to the driving task with it switched on.

Nonetheless, the necessity to try to promote and promulgate this technology amongst our communities is upon us, and the reasons are clear. We have heard in the debates from members on both sides the anticipated benefits for road safety. Estimates put the number of collisions and so-called accidents that occur on our roads at up to 90 per cent being caused by some form of driver error. Surely, there are likely to be substantial road safety benefits in removing some or all parts of the driving task from the driver through this technology.

There is, of course, the other opportunity which has been identified (I forget by which member) about increased productivity for the occupants of the vehicle which may be travelling under autonomous systems. They may have the ability to engage in tasks other than the driving tasks.

There is the opportunity for fuel efficiency of these cars which are better able to interact with other likewise technologically capable cars and, as some members have mentioned, what we call intelligent transport systems—connected cars, connected infrastructure, vehicle-to-vehicle technology, vehicle-to-infrastructure technology or, I think, as the member for Mitchell rightly referred to it, V to X technology, which is being developed quite extensively around the world.

One of the things I must say which drives my interest in this area is the potential for reductions, or at least ameliorations in the longer term, of congestion on our roads. Adelaide is a relatively modest sized capital city compared to some of our Eastern States capital city counterparts. We know and are very proud that Adelaide has all the benefits of a larger city, including culture, lifestyle and institutions, but it is not yet beset by some of the problems that also come with having a large city. High populations lead to high demand for what can, at times, be scarce amounts of infrastructure. We see in Melbourne and Sydney the need to invest very substantial amounts of money, both public and private, into the duplication, if not the expansion, of existing road networks in order to try to accommodate what seems to be ever-increasing amounts of road infrastructure.

What these connected vehicles can do, putting to one side the autonomous capabilities of future vehicles, is to better utilise the infrastructure that we currently have. Words like 'platooning' have been used in the chamber in discussing this bill, and that is an obvious example of how these vehicles can occupy collectively less road space per capita of vehicle than what we currently do as we, perhaps, 'manually' drive the vehicles ourselves.

These cars with sophisticated sensing technology, as well as automated braking and acceleration technology, can run much closer together to one another. Estimates globally have been put somewhere between the range of running twice the number of vehicles to up to five times the number of vehicles on given amounts of road space. For a city like Adelaide, where, to be honest, the only experiences that we have had in the last 15 years of having to spend vast amounts of public resources on expanding our road infrastructure has been dealing with what has been a priority for governments of all persuasions over the last 50 years, and that is expanding our north-south road corridor.

Perhaps there is an exception to that and that is the work which was done between—and the deputy leader will be swift to correct me if I get this wrong—the Olsen state government and the Keating federal government on the Heysen Tunnels and South Eastern Freeway works in the late 1990s. Having said that, of course, as we all know, the ultimate aim for the north-south corridor is that the freight coming down the South Eastern Freeway will marry up to that north-south corridor via an improved Cross Road.

Those are some of the benefits, and, of course, I have not touched on the other benefit, which I think to all socially minded members of parliament should be at the forefront of their minds, and that is the capacity to improve mobility options for members of our community. Perhaps those people for health reasons, perhaps those people for reasons of advancing years, or perhaps for reasons that they have a disability, those people who are prevented currently from engaging within the driving task have a new window of opportunity into the future with vehicles that can remove the responsibility from them of undertaking the driving task.

It gives them the opportunity to move around their communities with greater freedom, to conduct those tasks which they would very much like to do on their own, whether it is to visit family or friends, to go shopping or to pursue other leisure or recreational activities. These are the sorts of opportunities that can be given back to those members of the community who are currently disenfranchised from being able to engage in that driving task.

I should say that I have been somewhat encouraged but at the same time bemused particularly by some of the earlier speakers from the opposition about their focus on jobs. Can I say from the outset that it is a welcome focus because it is not something that, certainly in my relatively tender experience in this chamber, I have come to expect from the opposition—

Ms Chapman: Oh, come on, how can that possibly be correct?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —equating transport opportunities and jobs. The deputy leader interjects. 'Oh, come on. How can that possibly be correct,' the deputy leader says.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, deputy leader! Minister, just sit down. The deputy leader is reminded that she is on her second warning, and I would hate to deprive the house of her contribution on this matter. Just as every other member is entitled to be heard in silence, I will look after her as well when she comes to speak.

Ms Chapman: Listen to what he says.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I don't have to listen to what he said; I don't want you interjecting.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are continuing to defy me when I asked you not to interject. I will have to bring the Speaker back and he will not be happy.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I thank the deputy leader for the interjection. I am happy to furnish her with an example. It was perhaps one that I gave during question time, Deputy Speaker, that of the Torrens to Torrens project, something which at the last state election the deputy leader herself, along with the leader, committed to cancelling.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order from the member for Bragg. This will not be frivolous, I hope.

Ms CHAPMAN: Repetition. The minister just admitted that he has already referred to this in the question time—a Dorothy Dixer.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure he will not do it again.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: They committed to cancelling the project and the 480 jobs which came with the project.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, before you go on, I do not want to keep stopping every two seconds for you, deputy leader. We have a choice here, I suppose: we either go the whole hog and I bring the Speaker back and you leave or you try not to interject. So are you going to try not to interject?

Ms CHAPMAN: I have a point of clarification. I thought we were in the contribution in response from the minister. He is participating in the debate. He has just indicated that he is about to repeat an example from today in question time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We asked him not to do that again, but you then continued. Do you want me to go on or do you want me to continue with debate and try to get some work done?

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I bring to your attention that the minister is defying your ruling in the sense that he is continuing to repeat the example?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that is one-all then, and I do not want another interruption. The minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. To clarify, for the benefit of the deputy leader—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe just continue.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —I did not refer to that during question time, the fact that you promised to cancel that project and the 480 jobs that went with it.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will say that—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —I have repeated what I just said 30 seconds ago, and I understand you are sensitive about that. I would be sensitive about it, too, if I were in the position of—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we just finish the second reading?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —trying to cancel 500 jobs at this point of the economic cycle.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are in it, too.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would be sensitive, too, but that is okay. I am happy to move on, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be good.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Clearly—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —there is quite a glass jaw from those members opposite.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. Sit down, I am on my feet. Listen, we have the opportunity to get through this bill this afternoon. It would be good, I am sure you all agree, for people to see that we are actually producing some work in this chamber. It would be good if we could wrap this up, and I am asking all members to cooperate and to listen to each other in silence. Irrespective of what is being said, we all have the desire to hear what everyone is saying in silence.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am moving it through it as rapidly as I can, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I only have a few pages of notes. I have finished the first one and I am on to the second; I only have this to go.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Super.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I realise the fair degree of latitude that members opposite had in their contributions. I am not straying from the purposes of the bill. I am merely seeking to address those same comments that they made, so I will continue in doing so. As I was saying, I was welcoming their newfound interest in jobs when it comes to the transport sector. As the member for Mitchell said, 'Where are the jobs?' and then somewhat incongruously gave the example of a South Australian company, Cohda Wireless, which is building its success on the fact that they are selling their products into the global supply chain—

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are not in your spot, member for Mitchell. Member for Mitchell, you are on your second warning. Open your mouth again and you are off.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: He somewhat incongruously then gave the example of Cohda Wireless, a South Australian company that has been successful selling its wares into the global automotive supply chain, focused specifically on connected vehicle technology. The best example that Cohda Wireless has at this point in time, of course, is their contractual relationship with General Motors in Detroit to provide the connected vehicle communications systems that will be part and parcel of the 2017 Cadillac, which will be sold onto the American market.

Given the decline of the automotive industries in Australia, through a lack of government support by that party represented by those opposite, maybe that sort of vehicle will be present here on Australian roads in a different configuration. Maybe that platform will be replicated here and maybe Cohda Wireless will not just be selling their wares into car platforms for delivery in other car markets around the world. Maybe they will be delivering that technology for sale in a vehicle onto the Australian market.

I also realise that the deputy leader has already demonstrated heightened sensitivity when it comes to jobs in transport. This has the potential to strike a significant nerve, given the so-called leader's emergency jobs plan—which, yes, I am sure many people opposite would be shaking their heads at—which I think was to establish a replicated productivity commission in South Australia, establish a replicated infrastructure body in South Australia, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis calculation on the sealing of the Strzelecki Track and to establish a $6 million consultancy into a water project.

The emergency jobs plan is two committees, a calculation and a consultancy. That should really hoick up our socks when it comes to jobs in the transport and infrastructure sector. What a valid contribution from the leader. Hopefully, that is one of few that we will have to put up with very soon.

Mr SPEIRS: Point of order: the minister is not responsible for the opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I bet he is glad about that. Let's get back to where we were—on task.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Another point that was raised by members opposite was: what do autonomous vehicles and connected technology mean for other forms of competing transport? I think the example given was: what would this mean for public transport, what would this mean for trams? Would we still need to be laying tracks? Would we still need be growing our public transport networks? Would we still need to be investing in this sort of thing? Of course, public transport is not something particularly popular with the opposition, and I understand they would be looking for another excuse not to invest in public transport, but even the most base—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You are not in your place, member for Davenport, and you are on your second warning now.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: But even the most base appreciation—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are both goading me and you will both be getting it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Even the most base appreciation of the comparative benefits of different modes of transport in terms of moving numbers of people would show that—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That's right. There is one person on that side who catches a train. Well done!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There's one. And you—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. It is unparliamentary to interject. You are on your second warning, and I would not push it—and it is unparliamentary to respond. Unless we get on with the second reading speech, we will be here all day and have achieved nothing. Everyone is entitled to be heard in silence, standing order 142—and I will not hesitate to enforce it. There are several of you who may leave us for more than half an hour if you are not careful.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, public transport, will we still need it with autonomous vehicles? Well, of course, yes. One example that has generated a lot of attention recently is the O-Bahn. The O-Bahn on a working day moves somewhere in the order of 30,000 people. Imagine if we did not have the O-Bahn system, imagine if we did not have this mass transit route and that we were relying solely on autonomous vehicles again.

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mitchell!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Are you interjecting again? On your second warning—

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mitchell!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and you are interjecting again.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down! Lead speaker or not, you can leave us if you move your lips once more.

Ms Cook: Come on Corey, move them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's enough from everybody.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it's not funny. The house's time precious. If you all want to do this, it is up to you. It is not actually me you are defying; it is the house and the Chair. It is up to you if you want to be frivolous with our time; I do not want to know about it. Back on task.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, public transport: imagine if we did not have a corridor like the O-Bahn which could move large number of people on a very limited amount of geographic space. This is the same equation we think about when we are talking about buses occupying road space, when we are thinking about other separated public transport corridors, like the train system, or when we are thinking about separated public transport corridors occupying what would otherwise be road space, like trams.

Most people will readily point to the sorts of equations that are put about by those people who support public transport, that one bus occupies the road space of approximately—depending on its configuration, whether it is rigid or articulated—somewhere in the order of three to six cars. When you consider that a rigid bus conveys in the order of 40-odd people, or when you consider that an articulated bus conveys in the order of 60-odd people at least, you can understand the benefits of still having a well-frequented, vibrant public transport network where you are moving large numbers of people for comparatively small amounts of road space. Even if we did have—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Wright, your voice carries.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: I'm sorry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure you are not speaking to anyone except yourself at the moment.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; understood.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Even if we did have what is by some people's estimate to be the ultimate iteration of autonomous vehicles, where we had a large fleet of vehicles available for short-term hire to convey people from, colloquially speaking, point A to point B, we could readily imagine what it would mean for South Australian large transport corridors, like North East Road, if we did not have mass transit systems, public transport systems like the O-Bahn, and instead we had an additional 30,000 vehicles occupying or competing, I should perhaps more accurately say, for road space on that major road corridor, like North East Road.

While they will contribute to reducing, as I mentioned earlier, congestion problems, they are not the 'solve all' that some people think they may be. We will still need mass transit systems. Could you imagine in a more space-constrained, higher-population community—perhaps a Japanese one like Tokyo—how they would manage without their mass transit systems? So in responding to the opposition, I make that comment.

When I first started making that point about public transport, I think the deputy leader made the comment about Uber and taxis, or perhaps she was referring to some of the comments that some of her colleagues made about Uber. This is a particularly popular talking point for the opposition. They have made it very clear that, rather than go through the process that all other states are doing and, indeed, we are doing in South Australia, and we are having a fulsome and thorough look at our regulatory framework for personal passenger transport—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The deputy leader interjects and says that it was her idea.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Order! Are you up to page 3 yet?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You had better get a move on, please. I am having trouble remaining focused. Hurry up.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think the comment was a bit tedious for me—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are not responding to the interjection. If the deputy leader moves her lips, she can leave us for half an hour. I am happy to accommodate her.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think the member for Schubert, and perhaps more in passing, the member for Chaffey, made comment about taxis and Uber and whether autonomous vehicles will revolutionise these personal passenger transport services. Quite potentially they will and it would be, from a regulatory perspective, much simpler if we had those personal passenger transport services provided without a driver, because that would be one less element of the service being delivered within the community that the government would need to regulate, and that is the driver.

I should perhaps provide a bit of context to the house. Before Uber was even a gleam in the opposition's eye back in August last year, I had a very productive meeting with their Australian managing director—I think his title is—where he set out to me what his services were, perhaps anticipating the same sort of reception that he had received in other states around the country. My immediate response was, 'Well, I can't understand what the issue is with Uber BLACK. Even under what most people would regard as an out-of-date regulatory framework, all you are providing is an alternative booking office, and we are more than happy to accredit that and do so swiftly if you provide us with some small levels of paperwork.' It was done within the order of a couple of months.

'UberX,' I said, 'on the other hand, presents a greater dilemma to governments.' I explained the context of why governments regulate transport services in the way that we do, whether they are train, tram, bus or, indeed, taxi or chauffeur vehicle services. It is not just about making sure that there is a standard of vehicle and also a standard of driver, but it is also about making sure that we have certain safety and security elements built into that service so that we can provide some level of comfort as we do in other forms of transportation that, should something go awry in the provision of that service, the government and its law enforcement agency would have the ability to investigate and, if necessary, take action on either occupant of the vehicle. I think, in principle, that is well understood by most people involved in providing these services.

Nonetheless, Uber was very keen for the government to relax its regulations and allow them to operate posthaste in South Australia. Instead, what I did was to make them the same offer that the other states had been making, and that is to comprehensively review the way in which we regulate the taxi and chauffeur vehicle industries and retest what the community's expectations are of these services and, without putting too fine a point on it, what sort of safety and security elements, not just service standards, should be provided or should be regulated for in the provision of these services.

This is a process that New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and, until recently, the ACT has been going through, and I invited Uber to make the case. We released the terms of reference, and we appointed an expert panel of eminent people to conduct the review. No-one could possibly cast aspersions on the qualifications or the qualities of any of those people.

What response did we get from Uber? 'You didn't mention us specifically, so we are not going to participate.' How ridiculous! We set up this review, amongst other things, to give them the opportunity to make their case to the South Australian people and to the South Australian government, and they did not take it.

What did we have in return? We had an opposition come out and say, 'Don't worry about process, don't worry about level playing fields, let's just cut them a special deal, give them 12 months, let them run free of regulation, and we will just see how it goes.' If that is the approach to transport regulation by those opposite, we should live in fear for the quality of services that would be provided should they ever accede to the Treasury benches, can I say.

I also find it stunning that they take that approach to regulation in light of what perhaps might be a personal interest of a couple of members opposite. I can remember when the member for Unley first came into this parliament. I can remember the series of interviews that he did with Leon Byner, when he was saying, 'This is outrageous. We have this new company coming into our state called IKEA. Do you realise what this is going to do to the local industry? We should be looking after this industry. We should be protecting it. Don't you realise what is at stake here? A lot of families are invested in this,' particularly his. 'This needs protection from the government.' That is one example.

Maybe another example would be if we said to people who wanted to get into food manufacturing, 'Don't worry about food safety, don't worry about regulations, don't worry about hygiene, you just have a crack for 12 months, and we will keep regulating those people who are already producing manufactured food products, who are already stocking South Australian goods on South Australian supermarket shelves.' Imagine if we had one set of very specific, highly regulated rules for them and then allowed someone else to come in and not have to abide by any of that regulation. Could you imagine the outcry from those food manufacturers? It would be loud and it would be from the rafters.

Ms Digance interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Elder!

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Schubert, who can have his second warning for not being in his place and ignoring 142. Mr Speaker is back; things could look up. He is horrified with what he has been hearing on the loudspeakers.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It's alright, I am coming to the member for Schubert, Deputy Speaker; don't worry about that.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: While we turn our focus to the comments that came from the member for Schubert and, again, his pleas to immediately introduce, without the same level of regulation, a service into South Australia, I will put on record one thing which I think is highly regrettable. I will not make reference to the person who made this comment, but it is the same kind of narrow-minded, culturally offensive comment that comes up when some people loosely comment about our taxi industry, and that is make comment about the personal hygiene of those people who participate in the taxi industry. I went along to the Taxi Council AGM last week. I was an invited guest. I noticed that members of the opposition are no longer invited to those events, but that is to be expected, given their—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —given their views are not in support of this.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Davenport is reminded—two warnings already.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As somebody who has experienced taxi services in South Australia for the best part of 30 years, what I was readily reminded of was that there are many people who are involved in the provision of taxi services, who are heavily invested in the taxi industry, who come from culturally diverse backgrounds, including people of Greek ethnicity, of Italian heritage and of other cultures and other nationalities from the Subcontinent.

Perhaps I am a little bit biased about this. I have married into a culturally diverse family and, when I hear members on the floor of this chamber make those sorts of casual offensive borderline racist remarks, it absolutely makes my blood boil and seethe. I would hope that the member who made those comments—and they know who they are—would think a little bit more carefully and a little bit more closely about how they casually cast aspersions over people who provide services within that industry from now on.

I might move on to the contribution that my close friend the member for Hartley made. He confirmed, much as the member for Hammond did, that it was pleasing to see that South Australia was taking a leadership role nationally in trying to advance the attention not just of this state but of states around Australia on to the fact that this technology is here. It needs to be better accommodated than it is under our currently outdated transport laws.

I notice that that comment—that we are taking a leadership role—directly contradicts the comments of other members, particularly those from Flinders, Chaffey and Mitchell, who said that we were dragging our heels on this, that we had been languishing and that other people have been taking a lead. Certainly, that is true globally; I brook no argument with that. This has certainly received an enormous amount of attention in the United States, where much of this technology has developed.

Members opposite, including most recently the member for Hammond, gave the example of Carnegie Mellon University. Their Pittsburgh campus is the crucible where this technology has been developed. You can go to the campuses of Google, Tesla, Uber and other research and technology organisations around that Mountain View precinct in California and they proudly say—and, indeed, Carnegie Mellon proudly says—that their senior researchers are poached from their Pittsburgh campus.

They are the ones who have been leading the development of this technology, and I am very pleased that the Adelaide Carnegie Mellon campus is in discussions with the government about what further efforts we can make here in South Australia. That is something we spoke about during the Driverless Car Conference and at a couple of side functions at that conference, and I am looking forward to those talks coming to fruition.

While we are talking about what the international experience has been, what was clear to me was that very generally there have been two ways that governments have tried to regulate for these technologies to be out on the roads. There was what we can perhaps describe as the early Californian experience, which was to be incredibly specific about exactly what could and could not occur in testing this technology out on the roads.

Perhaps the best example of that is the requirement in California that, when this technology is tested, there must be an operable steering wheel, there must be an operable pedal box and there must be someone sitting in the car who is able to retake control from whatever systems are otherwise operating and navigating that car throughout the process of that test.

What does that mean? Google's fully autonomous test mule, which will take over if it is successfully developed and made commercially available to the market and which will conduct all the driving tasks on behalf of the vehicle's occupant, requires no steering wheel, requires no pedal box and requires no gear selector. It does not require any of those driver controls.

Yet, in order to test on Californian roads—and, until very recently, that is where they have done the majority of their testing—they have had to retrofit these systems into the car in the full knowledge that, if they do make that car successfully commercially available, that will not be a part of the sold product. That is a pretty unwelcome and inadvertent by-product of how California has gone about regulating this technology as it is being tested out on its roads.

Take that example and contrast it with what the United Kingdom has done. They have taken what can be generally described as the exemption approach, something that members will say appears to be very much in concert with how we are approaching this here in South Australia, giving transport agencies and those responsible for them the ability to exempt organisations from certain road laws to enable them to trial new technologies and have a flexible framework for the conduct of those trials. So when different, new developments come to fruition and are able to be trialled, let alone be trialled on public roads, there is flexibility within the legislative framework, and the regulations which may fall from that, to countenance that, rather than say, 'We're sorry, but we require a steering well, a pedal box, a gear selector,' and so forth.

I think it is a happy coincidence that despite those restrictions the state of California puts onto companies like Google—I think the member for Davenport referred to this earlier—there have been many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of miles successfully tested on Californian roads. He mentioned a figure of 15 collision incidents—that was not the figure I had; I think it was 12, but they are pretty close to one another—claiming that it was not the Google vehicle responsible for initiating that collision or incident. Indeed, in the presentation they gave to the South Australian government and the other jurisdictions during the demonstration we were present for, there was some great footage shown to demonstrate, again, what the member for Davenport referred to—I think it was the member for Davenport—and that is the extensive capabilities of the sensing technology within these vehicles.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It was the member for Schubert; that is one interjection we can accept, Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I am sure it is one you are allowed to take notice of then, isn't it? Are we on to page 3?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We are getting to page 3, Deputy Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Audible laughter has been ruled on by former speaker Bishop, and you know what happened after she noticed audible laughter, don't you?

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You are going to go for a walk if you are not careful.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Despite having several more pages I guess I am testing the forbearance of the Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If there is a page 4 it is not going to be recognised.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There were several questions that were put to me in the course of the contribution of the member for Schubert, in particular. I am happy to address those now, and if there are further unaddressed ones perhaps we can attend to those in the committee stage. The member for Schubert makes mention of the figure, that has often been quoted in the promotion of the future benefits of this industry globally, of $90 billion; that is what the autonomous automotive sector is anticipated to be worth by 2030.

As member for Schubert said yesterday, with my now proudly infamous kangaroo incident, we all need to take our licks, but I should make it clear that I think there was a little bit of confusion by members opposite about the circumstances of that. It was not actually an inflatable kangaroo; it made, can I say, a far more satisfying thud than an inflatable kangaroo would have made—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have heard every kangaroo joke there is, so let us drop it and get back onto what we are talking about.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not need anybody's help.

Ms Digance interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No need to dob.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond's voice reverberates through the chamber so there is no mistake when he is talking. Member for Davenport, member for Schubert, you are both on second warnings so I am happy for you to leave whenever you want.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There were three trials being conducted on the Torrens Parade Ground. There was one being conducted by the Centre for Automotive Safety Research from the University of Adelaide, and that was the infamous trial. There was one by Bosch Australia, which I think was also mentioned in passing by the member for Mitchell. They were demonstrating a new technology developed here in Australia by the Australian arm of Bosch, which is an augmentation of the reversing camera systems that we have all become used to, those of us with new vehicles. That is, an automatic braking system, in concert with that rear view camera, which if it detects an object, a child, behind a car being reversed it will automatically brake and prevent a collision. That was successfully demonstrated.

We saw a demonstration of a Ford Territory with that system turned off—the member for Mitchell made reference to, even more unfortunately than an inflatable or non-inflatable kangaroo, a rubber child being bowled over by the rear bumper bar of that Ford Territory—and then we saw it working quite successfully. I think it is very pleasing what, perhaps similar to what Cohda Wireless has achieved in South Australia, Bosch Australia (headquartered in Melbourne) has been able to achieve and I look forward to the time when that system is deployed on vehicles which come onto the Australian, let alone the global markets. Then, there was the Tesla vehicle, and it was good of Tesla to be involved in the conference, make a vehicle available and give people an experience of what that is like, a truly exciting different take on the automotive experience.

Then, there was the Subaru automatic braking system. I have to say that, if you thought that did not go as planned, it could have been far worse because there was a nameless lead political journalist who was contemplating sitting in the driver's seat for that very test, and perhaps by the grace of God go they decided at the last minute that they would not. Fortunately, I decided that I would not either. I feel very sorry for that young man, who shall remain nameless, from the Centre for Automotive Safety Research, who was behind the wheel. Subaru has made all sorts of assertions about what he did or did not do properly. We know what happened and I have to say that much merriment has been made of it, including by me. I do not want people thinking that that is an indication of the limits of this technology into the future. But I digress.

The member for Schubert asked about the $90 billion figure. Of course, we have gotten used to his extensive internet experience during question time. I am surprised he has not been able to find it, but I am told that there was a research project undertaken by Laslau, See, Saenko, Zhang and Holman called, 'Set Autopilot for Profits: Capitalizing on the $87 Billion'—US—'Self-Driving Car Opportunity,' by a research outfit in Boston. That provides some clarity. Perhaps with the exchange rate as it is we should be saying $100 billion, but let us call it $90 billion. I can say that that figure incorporates car maker profits, connectivity and apps, maps, software, wireless hardware, computer hardware, wiring, optical cameras, lidar and radar. So, that is the composition of that figure.

The member for Schubert asked how many companies have been approached by the government for trials. I am not quite sure that that is, perhaps, the right inflection on it. I think the way in which we are contemplating it is: how many companies are expressing an interest in this? Perhaps the best example I can give upfront, and I want to make it clear to the parliament that I am not anticipating that Google is going to pick up their testing efforts from California or indeed from where they have now moved to a less restrictive regulatory regime in Texas, but when we went for that demonstration they held up the bill and said that this is a different approach from a jurisdiction about how to try to provide a more welcoming framework.

I am not expecting Google to come and test in South Australia but I think that is but a small window into understanding what it means to technology companies, as well as automotive companies, about having a less restrictive framework. I am advised that there has been some interest expressed pursuant to the bill being passed, so I do not think it is worth commenting that any of this interest is yet concrete, and I do not think we should be counting on people coming to South Australia in one fell swoop to begin testing.

Certainly, as I have indicated and the member for Hammond has indicated, we have research organisations like Carnegie Mellon and, of course, Cohda Wireless in South Australia, which is interested in having greater flexibility to test their technology. General Motors offered themselves to become a key sponsor of the conference, and the member for Mitchell, who attended the conference, might have seen their stand and I am sure he is familiar with the General Motors public/corporate affairs staff here in Australia. They are looking at not necessarily the type of four-door sedan vehicle that we all might be used to but other types of vehicle. Bosch we mentioned earlier in another context, and Volvo, of course. I am told Tesla has expressed an interest, perhaps more accurately, within the legislation itself. I do not want to start hares running about their moving again their testing efforts in other global jurisdictions here to South Australia.

Can I perhaps say, though, that what we are trying to do with this legislation is not recruit all of the companies that are conducting tests elsewhere around the globe and have them relocate to South Australia. If that happens it will be great, but that is not the principal aim. We acknowledge that Australia is, in the scheme of things, a relatively small automotive market. It is, however, a relatively modestly sized automotive market that has vehicles that are required to be configured in a way which comprises a minority of vehicles sold globally. What we would like to think is that, when these sorts of cars are available—which are already being sold onto our local market now with certain features, functions and capabilities deliberately disarmed because state legislation frameworks around the country do not provide for them—we are trying to say, 'If you are looking to bring these to market in Australia, you have at least one jurisdiction now that is willing and able to welcome these vehicles for testing purposes.'

We have also announced that this is a forerunner to a broader review of all our transport legislation which we look forward to bringing to the parliament next year which will provide, in a similar way, greater flexibility as to how we regulate motor vehicles, how we regulate behaviour on the road, how we regulate management of the roads, and (of interest to the member for Schubert) how we regulate passenger transport services as well. That will provide, I am hoping, one example of what we hope to see more broadly nationally, and that is all jurisdictions reviewing their legislation in similar ways to enable these cars to be deployed throughout the private vehicle fleet.

That is something which was raised in the most recent Transport and Infrastructure Council meeting where ministers—not just me but other like-minded ministers—urged national policy bodies, like the National Transport Commission, to get on with the job of providing us with some regulatory frameworks which will enable this technology to be deployed across our roads.

The member for Schubert, I think, also asked whether there would be a limit per year with regard to the impact on other road users. The number of trials will depend on the nature of the proposal and what the anticipated impact is on other road users. As I perhaps indicated in my earlier comments about those expressing interest, we are certainly not at the point where discussions or negotiations have progressed to the extent that we are in that level of detail.

I am yet to receive a formal proposal, and I think that is a recognition of the fact that the bill has not passed. But, even after the bill has passed, it is going to take some lifting of people's collective gaze and a broader acknowledgement that the capacity exists in this state before we start seeing these companies approaching the government to undertake a trial. So, there is no answer that I can give the member for Schubert on what we envisage the number of trials to be, but, of course, in contemplating that trial we would take into account what the impact on the road network, and, of course, on users of the road network, is likely to be.

There has been a concern raised with me certainly by the member for Mitchell (I think in a briefing that he received on this bill), certainly by the Motor Trade Association and certainly yesterday by the member for Schubert, and it relates to this issue about insurance and public liability insurance. I think that is a very legitimate concern, because there needs to be from the outset—and the bill certainly provides for this—an assurance that, before any trial occurs, an appropriate insurance policy is undertaken.

The member for Schubert made reference to the fact about whether it needs to be a locally held insurance policy. I have to say that we have not specified in the bill that it does need to be locally held, perhaps for a couple of reasons. One reason is a recognition of, perhaps, a construct of the insurance market that most if not all Australian insurers are backed or bankrolled by overseas financial interests.

I think to put a finer point on it what we would be interested in is the application of a policy to Australian conditions and the ability for the community of South Australia, or the government on behalf of the community of South Australia, to claim against that policy, and that certainly will be front of mind for government. I cannot give an indication at this point in time about what the expectation of the government will be in terms of holding a domestic policy, but we want an assurance that it is domestically enforceable and that we have just not a clear line of sight to that enforceability but certainly that we have full confidence that the terms of that insurance can be enforced if necessary.

There is another issue relating to insurance about quantum. What level of insurance should be held? Why doesn't the bill or why hasn't the government specified a level of insurance? I think that even the member for Schubert foreshadowed in his remarks that the reason that there had not been a quantum foreshadowed is about flexibility.

I take that one step further and say that it is not just about flexibility: it is about making sure that the insurance reflects the risk. For example, while some of us may not have been paying as close attention to our car insurance policies in the last 18 months as we might have previously, I think that most of us would be aware that common car insurance policies hold levels of public liability insurance of the order of, perhaps, $10 million, $20 million or $30 million.

While I have prefaced my comments by saying that we will try to match the level of public liability insurance to the risk inherent in that, I think that if there seems to be a common conception that the level of risk from Joe Blows, like the member for Schubert and me, are needing to attract a level of public liability insurance of $10 million, $20 million or $30 million insurance with a policy, then that might give you some indication.

However, without specifying in the bill or giving a commitment about that level, what the parliament and the community will have is a gazetted notice of the terms of the trial, I think, a month in advance of that trial occurring and the conditions attached to that. So, there will be an early and fulsome disclosure about all the terms of the trial, including insurance. Perhaps if it is desired by the member for Mitchell, we can explore that a little further in committee.

Mr Wingard: Yes, I will.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that specifying a monetary figure could inadvertently push low-risk proponents out of the running to trial their technology as it may be too expensive. Then on the flip side, of course, Volvo announced in October 2015 that it will accept full liability whenever a Volvo autonomous vehicle is in autonomous mode. That is not for the purpose of trialling, I understand, I think that is a more general comment. As I said, I am advised that standard vehicle insurance covers range from $20 million (for example, AAMI or Allianz) to $30 million (QBE Insurance for third-party personal injury and property or vehicle damage). I think that gives the parliament some idea of where we will be headed with this, but we can explore it a little further in a moment.

I come back to the point that, before authorising any trial on South Australian roads, all the risks, issues and risk management plans will be considered on a case-by-case basis by DPTI, with consultation from other relevant agencies and stakeholders in order to determine the adequate insurance cover required. We will work with those stakeholder groups, like the Motor Accident Commission, South Australia Police and so on, to make sure that we have a minimum level of insurance that will enable us to best manage the risks inherent with that trial.

Before we go into committee, the last issue raised by the member for Schubert was: what regard do we have for size or weight limits, minimum or maximum, and what is determined to be automotive for the purposes of the trials? The member for Schubert queried whether buses, tanks, motorbikes and single-user vehicles are captured under this. Certainly, most research of autonomous technology has focused on cars, although there are limited examples of autonomous heavy vehicles and buses.

The bill is drafted to provide for any type of motor vehicle as defined by the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. This includes any vehicle with an engine and could ostensibly include buses, tanks, motorbikes, single-user vehicles and even trams. Exemptions include very low-powered vehicles or devices, such as e-wheelchairs and power-assisted bicycles. I think that covers off that matter.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It has been a pleasure to receive the opposition's support for this bill and to have the opportunity to respond in as much detail to them as they conjectured on the bill's clauses in their contributions. I very much look forward to having further discussions in the following stage of the bill's passage.

Bill read a second time.

Mr PICTON: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

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