HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-05-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Motor Vehicles (Motor Bike Licensing) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise, with no great pleasure really, to introduce the Motor Vehicles (Motor Bike Licensing) Amendment Bill 2019. I say that because this bill contains measures that have been well flagged for over 14 months now. Something like this bill should have been introduced last year, or at least debated last year, and it should have been debated publicly. We should be in here voting on a government bill that contains at least most of these measures. We in the opposition are acting on motorbike safety because the government has not.

I will go over a little of the history for you. Following quite a long period of shall we say improvements in the road toll—any road death, as is well flagged, is never a good thing—through better design, through better design of motor vehicles and through the work of the Motor Accident Commission and road safety experts, in 2017 there was, as we all know, a spike in motorcycle road trauma and motorcycle deaths in particular.

In response to this spike in road trauma, the then minister, the member for Kaurna, convened the Motorcycle Reference Group, which brought together road safety experts and motorcycle groups like the Motorcycle Riders Association, the RAA, the Ulysses Club, the Centre for Automotive Safety Research at Adelaide University and even health professionals, such as trauma specialists, who are the type of health professionals who give a perspective from the health sector about the trauma that can occur in motorcycle crashes.

The preliminary consultation was thorough. The sector involved was well consulted and well engaged and it resulted in a report that has now been well aired in the media, entitled 'Recommendations for a graduated licensing system for motorcyclists in South Australia', by M.R.J. Baldock from the University of Adelaide. This report made a whole series of recommendations for reforms, of which many but not all—and I will go over why that is the case—are reflected in this bill today.

The consultation went over the election period, as you can imagine. I think the closing date for the consultation period was officially June 2018. Since that report was released, until very recently there has been absolute silence from the minister and silence from the government. There has been increasing frustration from motorcycle rider groups and road safety experts not only at the inaction on licensing reform, which is what this bill intends to tackle, but also on the inaction of the government in terms of bringing together the reference group, which seeks to apply a holistic approach to motorcycle road safety.

It is worth noting at this point that many of the deaths we have seen on our roads on motorcycles this year have not been young people or new licensees; they have been people who have been riding for a considerable amount of time. That underlines the need for a holistic approach to motorcycle road safety and a constant dialogue between road safety experts, motorcycle rider groups and the government in terms of making the roads safer for motorcyclists.

This bill attacks licensing. It is a start and it is what the experts tell us is necessary in order to create a generation and cohorts in the future who ride safer and protect themselves against road trauma. Earlier this year, in relation to another spike—indeed, from the first week of this year, there was a spike in motorcycle road trauma and motorcycle deaths; I believe something approaching one-third of road deaths this year have been motorcycle riders—the motorcycle groups came to us frustrated with government inaction.

They came to see me, they went over this report with me and they told me some of the problems they had with the report. We threw around a few ideas about how it could be improved. We then went to see the leader, the member for Croydon. At that meeting, we decided then and there to act where the government would not act. We resolved to act on this report because the minister and the government simply have not acted.

I suspect, as is often the case with private members' bills I bring to this place, that this bill will not pass. I hope that it does and I hope, in fact, that if the minister has sensible measures he wants to introduce as well he can append them to this bill. Even if that is not the case, I would welcome a government bill that reflects the measures outlined in this report because it is about road safety. We want this done, motorcycle groups want this done and road safety experts want this done. It is a start; it is not a panacea, as has been flagged often in the media, but it is a start. As I said, it will create cohorts into the future with a better approach to road safety.

So far, all we have seen this year in response was a hurried announcement from the minister that he was looking at the proposal that motorbike riders should first hold a car licence. I am not sure who was advising him, but he claims it came out of this report. This report recommends no such thing; in fact, it says that this measure would be unnecessary should the other recommendations of the report be adopted. I am not sure where he is getting his advice from, but it seemed an odd thing to announce in response to the road deaths we have seen. It may seem to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion, but it is not one that the experts recommend.

What do the experts and the motorcycle groups recommend? I will go through what this bill essentially does. We already have in this state a graduated licensing scheme. We start from a learner's permit at the minimum age of 16 at the moment, we go through what they call an R-Date endorsement, then an R class endorsement and then go on to a full licence. This bill essentially extends the minimum tenure periods on those classifications of licence. This, indeed, was the central recommendation of the report from the University of Adelaide.

The central recommendation is to extend the tenures to increase the age first of all. It is worth noting that in Victoria the age at which you can get a motorcycle licence is now 18. The report recommended an increase in the age at which you could get a learner's permit. It did not specify the age; it merely pointed out the Victorian example. From discussions with particularly the Motorcycle Riders Association and the Ulysses Club, we believe that the age of 17 would be a good starting point, as a 17 year old is a slightly more mature rider than one at the current age of 16. With the current set-up, if you have a full licence already, you do not need to spend any particular time on that learner's permit before you graduate to an R-Date licence.

The bill would ensure that, whatever licence you currently hold, you need to spend at least 12 months on that learner's permit, and it adds some particular measures to the learner's permit on top of the advanced RiderSafe course and on top of what they call the LAMS restrictions. As I understand it, the LAMS motorcycles are the lower powered motorcycles. It adds measures like no pillion passengers, no towing, a night curfew and the wearing of high-visibility clothing.

It mandates a minimum 10-year period of 12 months for the learner's permit and then it combines what is currently the R-Date and the R class endorsement periods into one sort of provisional period (which I will call for shorthand a provisional period) of three years, which encompasses a whole lot of other safety restrictions as well, including the use of mobile phones. Again, there would be no pillion passengers and zero alcohol for the entire tenure of that period.

The end result is that a rider cannot graduate to a full licence—a current unrestricted motorcycle licence—until at least the age of 21. That is the minimum age, assuming you get your learner's permit on your 17th birthday. That is essentially what it does. It is not a complex bill in the sense that the measures are not complex, but they provide an environment in which novice motorcycle riders spend far longer learning to ride a motorcycle. It also incorporates a motorcycle hazard perception test before the learner's permit can be issued. This is important. It happens in other jurisdictions now and it prepares the rider for the real world on the road.

As I said, this is not a panacea for motorcycle road safety; this is merely a start. This creates cohorts in the future who are better prepared for riding motorcycles on our increasingly busy roads. What the motorcycle fraternity and road safety experts really want going forward from this is more regular engagement with the government such as happened under previous ministers, particularly under the member for Kaurna. They want a reconvention of the Motorcycle Reference Group so that they can have a holistic approach to motorcycle safety.

As I said at the beginning, this year's spike in motorcycle road trauma and motorcycle deaths has seen many people in older age groups suffering and dying on our roads, so we need an overarching holistic approach to motorcycle road safety. However, this is a start. I hope the government sees fit to support it. I am happy to entertain any sensible amendments and, as I said at the beginning, I am more than happy to entertain supporting a government bill that comes in here and reflects these measures. In the absence of a government bill, I urge members to support this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.

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