HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Road Traffic (Work Areas and Work Sites) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (10:48): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (10:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to present this bill to the parliament in the hope that I will solve what is inarguably a good problem to have. Mr Speaker, as you may well be aware, such is the extraordinary proliferation of roadworks around the Narungga electorate that we have developed a problem of unnecessary inconvenience being imposed upon motorists through the overabundance of roadwork signs.

Motorists have repeatedly called my office in great frustration at the number of speed restriction roadwork signs out on the roads despite the fact that there is no apparent reason for them to be there. Constituents have been calling my office saying to me that if the road is safe enough and if there is no-one working there who might be put in danger, those signs should be removed as quickly and as expeditiously as possible to minimise inconvenience and delay. On the behalf of the good people of Narungga, I rise today to put forward this amendment bill, which I hope might well solve their problem.

I did mention the extraordinary roadwork program that is currently underway in Narungga, and it is worth repeating. I did some quick sums in the office the other day, and between the three levels of government there has been in excess of $200 million worth of roadwork funding allocated to our electorate since the change of government in 2018. It really is quite extraordinary the number of roads that have been fixed or are in the process of being fixed when you drive up and down the peninsula on your way from point A to point B.

Of course, there are always more roads that we would like to see built, and reasonable minds can differ about the order of priority that has been developed. What is inarguable, as I have already said, is that Narungga is currently experiencing significant road infrastructure investment. This is mainly due to the fact that there was so little done in the previous decade before that, and we are making up for lost time with the significant investment that is currently underway.

I want to also be clear at the outset that no-one in the Narungga electorate is complaining about the fact that there are significant roadworks underway. Nor do those constituents expect that those roadworks will occur without road closures or speed restrictions to keep safe people working on those important projects. However, we do submit that there should be due consideration given to minimising the inconvenience that motorists around the electorate are experiencing and that perhaps that is not being considered as powerfully as it should.

The great thing is that it is virtually impossible to drive anywhere in our electorate without having to travel on either a brand-new road or a road that is currently being upgraded. I know it is well appreciated by the people on the YP. That said, there are a few roads of particular interest that I would like to draw the house's attention to, the first being the road between Minlaton and Arthurton.

The road right down the middle, as we call it in the community, has been in a terrible state for quite some years and has been in desperate need of redevelopment. It was incredibly narrow in some parts and terribly undulating in others. It is really pleasing to see that there is now significant investment in fixing up the majority of that stretch of road.

As we speak, there are roadworks being done on some sections. There was some done on a different section a couple of years ago, and there is one more section we are awaiting funding for. We are hopeful that in the next tranche of funding we are successful in seeing that part done as well. This stretch alone will have a dramatic impact on the harvest movements going forward, greatly improve tourist visitor experience and, importantly, make it safer for locals travelling up and down the peninsula.

One example of the frustration that my constituents have been facing with this overabundance of roadwork signs can be found between Arthurton and Maitland, a stretch of road that the local people are thrilled to see improved. The initial stage of that roadwork program was to rip up all the bitumen, leaving a dirt road exposed underneath, which meant that the roadwork signs had to be placed out, according to those who make these decisions, with a limit of 40 km/h imposed upon motorists.

If you are driving along that road at 40 km/h and you choose to turn left or right down a dirt road, you will be empowered to go significantly quicker because you are driving up and down that dirt road, for some reason, if it is limited to 40. There were no workers present along the vast majority of that stretch of road. As I have already said, dirt roads on either side were left at their normal speed limit. It left us wondering why we were limited to such a slow, inconvenient 40 km/h between Arthurton and Maitland.

Another example has been the ongoing works at Port Wakefield, both south of Port Wakefield itself and along Highway 1 through the town. I would like to stress that I am not talking about actual overpass works happening north of the town but more so the work being done on Highway 1 to the south of Port Wakefield and the signs that have stayed out there for months and months. That resheeting program has been most welcome.

I remember doorknocking in the lead-up to the last election. Highway 1 came up time and time again. We have quite short memories, but Highway 1 was degrading into a potholed, undulating surface in desperate need of investment. It is really pleasing to see that that is happening. Just about all the way from Lower Light to Port Wakefield has seen sections receive much-needed investment. It has become an absolute pleasure to drive along the most part of it. Unfortunately, along with that came literally months and months of speed restrictions remaining in place. Despite all the work having finished in sections and the lines having been marked and the road workers having left, we were still limited to going 60 km/h and then 80 km/h.

We have been told in this place in question time and in response to letters I have written that that work was to allow the road to bind, that it needed a certain number of kilometres driven over it and a certain number of hours sitting out in the sun for it to bind to a point that would allow for safe driving at the full posted speed limit.

I would submit that it is not a sheet of ice; it is a road. It is a nice, straight, flat road, and we should be able to drive at the posted speed limit way quicker than we were allowed to. They were left far too long, in my view. As I have said, the bureaucrats have told us that we need to wait for them to bind and it takes a certain number of kilometres and hours before that grip test can be conducted and passed, allowing for the road to be returned to the posted speed limit.

I have had a huge number of phone calls from constituents expressing great frustration at those speed limits that were left out for months and months. We would submit, on behalf of the electorate of Narungga, that they should have been picked up a lot earlier. Those are just two of the examples of roadworks that are unnecessarily inconveniencing road users. More than that, it is impacting freight transport efficiencies and other things.

I am pleased that there has already been action taken by the government on this topic, which shows that they, too, recognise the frustration caused by such needless delays. In 2016, the then shadow minister for infrastructure and transport introduced a bill very similar to this, recognising the problem. While it was not as comprehensive as the bill I have put forward before us today, it, too, was aimed at removing speed limit signage when work was not currently underway or had ceased entirely. Sadly, that bill was withdrawn before it could progress through the house, but it shows the government's view on the topic.

Most recently, in April this year the new road traffic regulations introduced fines for companies that left unnecessary signage out. These regulations bring in fines of up to $1,250 if incorrect speed limit signage remains in place when work is not underway and there are no relevant safety concerns. This was a wonderful move from the government, but unfortunately we still see these signs left out on our roads when they do not need to be there. Having driven to Adelaide this week for the sitting week, I can confirm that those signs remain in place, frustrating motorists.

The bill that I am introducing today goes a step further than those previous efforts, whilst also improving the structure of the Road Traffic Act generally. It makes it significantly easier to navigate. This bill creates a specific offence for speed limit signs being left out at work sites unnecessarily. The bill clearly identifies that a person responsible for a worksite where any speed limit sign is not removed or covered at the end of each working day is subject to a maximum penalty of $20,000 for a first offence or $50,000 for a subsequent offence.

Of course, the bill excludes any situation with lingering safety concerns. It also tidies up existing legislation, replacing the current overly convoluted section 20 of the act that deals with speed limits, road closures and permits and simplifying requirements and drawing up some with clearer lines of responsibility, which is all a good thing.

The final point I would make is that unfortunately we also know that leaving speed limit signs out undermines public confidence. People are often more likely to disobey those signs if they cannot see any reason that they are there. That in itself creates a dangerous situation, where some motorists are following the speed limit, going slow, while others are flying along. Different speeds can cause crashes. The bill avoids any such situation happening. The signs will only be required to be there in obvious situations, and people will respect their authority more. It avoids any such situation happening, thus arguably increasing safety, not lessening it.

Proposed amendments reduce hassle for motorists, expedite journeys for tourists who are venturing out into our great state and prevent major delays within the freight transport industry. For those reasons, I ask the house to support this bill to keep South Australia moving. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr Harvey.

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