HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-10-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Use of Devices in Vehicles) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, I am hoping you can refresh my memory and whether we can come back to determining the locations of these cameras. Can you tell me the way that the process is reached? Obviously, they will be the high-risk or high-return areas. Can you give the committee a better understanding of just how those locations are determined?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am not sure whether I would be refreshing your memory in saying that we advised that the cameras will be in places of high return. That was not my advice previously. The intended camera locations are advised through multiple agencies. The advice will be received from SAPOL, from the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and also, importantly, from research undertaken by the Centre for Automotive Safety Research. The criteria being developed by those agencies are well developed and not inconsistent with the way that red-light cameras are currently positioned and mobilised across the state.

Mr WHETSTONE: I think that is code for highest return. Nevertheless, we move on.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr WHETSTONE: In terms of the technology around the cameras being able to detect the use of mobile phones, does it have the capacity to detect other distractions within the car?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No.

Mr WHETSTONE: So you can rule out that, if there is a distraction through other means in the car, there is no way that detection will be prosecuted?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I not only refer to my previous answer but also confirm that the existing policing enforcement of otherwise distracted driving will continue.

Mr WHETSTONE: I understand that, but if the technology can pick up a driver looking in the back seat tending to a child—

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs: It's very clear.

Mr WHETSTONE: I understand you said it is very clear, but what I am asking you is whether you can rule out the use of the camera to detect a driver tending to a child in the back seat of the car.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I could not be any clearer for the member, but I will try to be for his benefit. When I answered his question—does the camera technology have capacity?—I said no. I think the logical next step from that would be that, if a camera does not possess the capacity, then it would be logical, in response to the member's question, that I could rule it out because it simply is not capable.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of that, how does it work?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The camera technology will work and will penalise based upon a combination of artificial intelligence as well as human interface. The final mix and balance of that will be determined at the end of the procurement and at the time of implementation of these cameras. In a simple way, they are not dissimilar in the way that red-light cameras and the offence relating to red-light offences are currently administered; that is, you have camera technology that picks up the offence, that image.

In this case and this clause—if I can bring members back to this clause—it allows for not only a photograph but a series of photographs, an important amendment albeit administrative, to be analysed by a human. Should that human determine that the offence has been requisitely proven, then a fine will be issued. That fine will be issued against the registered owner of the vehicle, in the same way that a speeding offence or a red-light offence at the moment is issued against the registered owner of a vehicle.

Of course, it is up to the owner of that vehicle to undertake processes if they were not driving, but I am advised that there is not a significant deviation from existing administrative practices, including the existing utilisation of technology.

Mr TEAGUE: We are not at clause 3 yet, nor are we at clause 5, so we might come back to it in a minute. The minister has adverted to the importance of the new definition. Is the minister then able to give an indication of, if you like, the novelty of the technology versus the novelty of the new approach to be taken? Is there an essential novel technology that is enabling the application for this purpose, or is it now a combination of the application of long-established technology to new methods that is now enabling this to be done reliably?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The technology is novel insofar as this is a far-advanced product that is being procured than is currently on our roads detecting other offences. It is similar technology, if not maybe identical technology, depending upon the procurement, that is being rolled out in other jurisdictions that members referred to in their second reading speeches. Yes, the technology is novel, but only insofar as this is the new application here in South Australia.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: On the technology, minister, does it identify somebody who might be sitting in the right of the chair, actually being in the passenger seat, because the vehicle is a left-hand drive?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Does that mean that if someone is on the phone in the right-hand front seat that a fine will be issued in a left-hand drive vehicle?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am happy to clarify that somewhat obtuse reference the member has made. It does demonstrate the human interface with this. The technology will, as I am advised, pick up the use of a mobile phone of the individual in the seat referred to by the member, and then the human interface will then be required to determine whether an offence has been committed.

Of course, if an individual is sitting in a passenger seat, I think the member would note that that is not an offence under either the Australian Road Rules or under the proposed offence here. That is the nature of the human interface. The technology will, as I am advised, pick up the use of that phone in the orthodox driver's seat here in South Australia, but the human interface will determine that that is not an offence.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: How many left-hand drive vehicles registered in South Australia might be affected by this new device?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I could not inform the member of that.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can you bring that information back to the house?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will consider that, and I will take the advice between the houses.

Mr MCBRIDE: Minister, could you tell me whether there is any technology on the roads today taking photos of people using phones already, and have there been any infringement notices from the use of phones?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, member for MacKillop.

Mr TEAGUE: Having had the very informative line of questioning just now from the member for Unley about left-hand drive cars, is it the case that the technology and its application are inherently focused on the right-hand front seat of any given vehicle? For example, you can overcome the left-hand drive point readily enough but, as a matter of curiosity, will the application of the technology extend to the use of a mobile phone by someone sitting in a passenger seat in circumstances, for example, of a learner driver where that might constitute an infringement? Or is it usefully, for the purposes of this question, to be understood as technology that is applied by zeroing in on the front right-hand seat?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that until the final procurement has occurred I cannot give you a strict technological answer to that. At the nearest possible juncture, I would be happy to advise the member of the rollout. As I advised previously for the member for Unley's question, it would be a redundancy and this is the human interface. That is, it is a human who is determining the offence, or if an offence has occurred, and the issuing of the fine thereafter.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just to clarify that, does that mean, minister, that somebody driving a left-hand drive who is on the phone will not be detected?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, that was not my answer.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: What is your advice? Will they be detected? If somebody is driving a left-hand drive and they are on the phone, will they be detected under this system?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that the positioning of the cameras and the installation as foreshadowed will be able to pick up the offence of an individual who is driving a left-hand vehicle who is illegally using a mobile device. That person will be detected and will be able to be issued a fine.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will that require the human interface or will that be done by the AI?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: As I advised before, the issuing of the offence is done by the human. The AI will assist in the photograph, or the series of images, that will lead to the human determining that an offence has been committed.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just so I can be clear, are you saying that every single photograph is sighted by a human, or are only those that are detected under the AI system as being an offence sighted by a human? If so, does the AI system detect a left-hand drive vehicle driver using a mobile device?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Again, I advise that every adjudication is by a human.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: My question was: what triggers the adjudication? What triggers it? You have not answered the question. The question is: what triggers the human adjudication?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: A photo.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So every single photo; is that what you are saying? It has a human—

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It's not a real-time camera. We do not have a human sitting there monitoring 24/7 imaging.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am not suggesting that for one minute. There is no need to be smart about it; this is a very genuine question. The question I am asking is: will the AI detect an offence of somebody driving a left-hand drive vehicle while on a mobile phone, and then that will go on for human adjudication, if it does?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: And I am asking: will it? Will the AI detect it?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Or does every single photograph require human intervention?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Not every single photograph will lead to an offence. The adjudication to issue a fine is done by a human. As for the member's particular interest in left-hand drive vehicles, I can advise, as I did previously—and I am not sure, Chair, that I can do this much more—the use of a mobile phone illegally whilst driving a left-hand drive vehicle will trigger the taking of a photograph or a series of photographs.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, would you please walk me through what the landscape will look like. Will the cameras be mounted on poles or will they be mounted on bridges? How will the environment look once these cameras are rolled out and what can the motorist expect to see on our roads?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can confirm that the final placement and mounting of these have not been finalised. As I advised, the procurement will take place, then the advice will be received and they will be positioned. In direct response to the member's question regarding a bridge or fixed locations, both of those are possibilities.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will there be the concept of giving people notification that they are entering a mobile phone detection camera zone, just like we see with point-to-point cameras and some red-light cameras? Will there be a notification or a forewarning?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: There is nothing in the legislation specifically referring to that. I am advised that that question has not been determined. It is likely that—as the member referred to as is the case now—it will be determined on a case-by-case basis as per the location. Not all fixed red-light cameras, as I am advised, are notified, and these are not point-to-point cameras either. There is only one location that will detect the offence as the vehicle passes by.

It has not been finally determined, and it is well and truly going to be determined before the public education period is launched. That may be a question for later but, now that I have referred to it, the public education period of this will be well and truly before the final drop-dead date for the issuing of offences. There will be a time for the public to be well and truly educated that the cameras are up and running and that, should they make the conscious decision to use their mobile phone illegally while driving, they can expect to be caught and fined.

Mr WHETSTONE: Correct me if I am wrong, but every point-to-point camera has a notification sign that they are entering a zone of detection. I think the majority of red-light cameras also have a notification sign that they are entering into a zone, if you like, of detection. So will it be consistent messaging that the government will install those notifications or some form of notification when coming into a detection zone?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I cannot confirm the member's assertions because these are not point-to-point cameras. We would not expect consistency between that technology, the use of point to point, and the use of single-point mobile phone detection cameras. It is apples and oranges. As I have been quite open about, the final determination of whether there will be signage around the installation or warning of the installation of these cameras has yet to be determined, but I do warn the member against seeking consistency with point-to-point cameras because it is a very different technology and it is a very different rollout and use.

Mr WHETSTONE: It is not about the technology, it is not about the detection of mobile phones, it is about the goodwill of government to notify drivers that they are going into a detection zone, whether it is point to point, whether it is red light, or whatever the detection device may be. Just like we see with radar cameras on the side of the road, there is an advice that the area often has speed detection devices.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: There has not been notification for years for the rollout of roadside detection cameras—for years.

Mr WHETSTONE: You are joking?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No.

Mr WHETSTONE: You are the road minister and you are saying that has not been for years?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: They have not had roadside detection cameras. Roadside detection cameras?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, they are mounted in bands, so there is a generalised sign that says—

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: I didn't say everywhere. I said there is a generalised messaging. Come on, just relax a little bit will you?

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs: I am just trying to help you.

Mr WHETSTONE: No, you are not trying to help me. You are being obstructionist. There are warnings and advice and assistance to drivers with detection devices. I have asked you a very simple question. Just give me the answer.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The member for Chaffey refers to locations where there are warnings that there may be roadside detection use in this area. Again, that is not consistent with the permanent rollout of cameras. The 'safety camera ahead' signs that the member for Chaffey seems to be advocating for here are only for fixed, and that will be considered in due course when these cameras are finally procured and before they are installed.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will there be any advice on news bulletins and news services of a generalised determination that there will be active mobile phone detection cameras on our news bulletins of an evening, just like there are now for speed detection?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Somewhat different from the member for Chaffey's understanding, these will be fixed cameras and there will be no secrets about where these are. These are not going to be somewhat clandestinely installed, so the member for Chaffey's interest around the public news bulletins is around mobile cameras. These are fixed cameras. Fixed cameras do not move and therefore do not require a news bulletin every night to tell us where they are because they have not moved from the day before.

Mr TEAGUE: Again, for the benefit of the committee, these are entirely about fixed location rollouts, are they? They are fixed and, as I have perhaps foreshadowed in the second reading, therefore capacity is limited to detection when the vehicle being photographed or filmed is stationary?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Back to the member's question, I am advised that there is capacity in the technology to take a photograph should, for example, a vehicle be at the lights and the phone is being used illegally, as the member rightfully foreshadowed in his second reading speech. Yes, the rollout of these cameras will be entirely of a fixed nature. They will be in fixed locations.

Mrs Hurn: So only at stop lights?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, that's not what I have said. The question you asked, if I can clarify and I understand correctly, was can the technology detect stationary vehicles only. No, they can detect moving vehicles and stationary vehicles.

The CHAIR: I think I have allowed quite a few questions on this clause.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TEAGUE: This is the first of the two series of photograph definitions, clause 5 being the other one. Can the minister indicate the link, if any, between the necessity for this new definition and the way in which the new technology is applied, and is there any other reason for introducing this new definition that might be a broader application?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that, because the procurement has not been completed yet, this definition provides for a wide variety of technological applications for the capturing of an image. It can be a single photograph, it may be that the procurement in the technology that is finally utilised is a series of photographs or it may in fact be that it is a short video or a short moving image, as opposed to a photograph. So this definition, as advised by me and as advised further by parliamentary counsel, is to capture the appropriate use of technology as awarded through the procurement process.

Mr TEAGUE: Is it correct to say that the introduction of this definition here for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and at clause 5 for the purpose of the Road Traffic Act is a matter of taking the opportunity to introduce a new definition that might have broader application? Is it in response to any aspect of the procurement process, either in advance or in the course of what has happened so far?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: To be very clear and clinical about the response, by virtue of this clause we are not seeking to broaden the application of potential offences that might be brought in in the future, nor is it in response to anything that I have been advised has been foreshadowed or signalled during the procurement process. It is simply a modern evolution of the use of this technology.

There are applications and uses of this technology in other jurisdictions that may take one photograph, may take a series of photographs or may take a short moving image. That is why we consider it not to be appropriate to limit the definition but to broaden it to the three types of images that may be capable of being recorded or captured by the technology that would ultimately be rolled out.

Mr WHETSTONE: Is the technology that will be rolled out in South Australia the same type of technology that is currently being used in New South Wales and Queensland and being trialled in Victoria and the ACT?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Member for Chaffey, I could not tell you that yet. The procurement has not been finalised and, as you would be aware, I am not involved in the procurement process. DIT are running that for us. There are no cloak and daggers here. It may be similar to New South Wales, or it may be similar to other Australian jurisdictions, but until such time as the procurement has been finalised and the contracts awarded, I could not give you a definitive answer.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr WHETSTONE: As far as appeals go, will there still be the appeal process, as there currently is with any speed or infringement detection? I guess it gives the benefit of the doubt to the driver if they do want to appeal a decision or use that photograph, video or series of photographs as evidence.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, there will be.

Mr WHETSTONE: With the photos or detection evidence that will be used, will all that evidence be retained over a lifetime? Will it be retained over a certain period? How long will that evidence be kept and stored for?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: My advice is it will be retained in a similar manner that is currently the case with existing offences captured by photographic evidence—red-light cameras and speeding cameras—so they are retained for a period of time sufficient to allow an individual to challenge or seek to be prosecuted, which is the effect of challenging that, after which time they are disposed of. The evidence of the offence, being the photograph, as I am advised, is retained sufficiently to allow all processes to be run in their fullest.

Mr WHETSTONE: Are you able to let the committee know just what is the process? Today, the evidence is gathered and the photograph is taken. What is the time frame before that evidence is dismissed or destroyed?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will take the specific date or times on notice and I will come back to the member between houses.

Mr MCBRIDE: Minister, can you inform the house about the confidence motorists will have between determining a phone that is being held in the hands of a driver and a phone that has been mounted in the car and being used, I would have thought, legally? Can you clearly define how that would be interpreted?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The detection cameras, the technology being utilised, will detect the offence of, as the member correctly said, using it in the hands or touching or otherwise. It is not an offence to be using the mobile phone within cradles for the purposes that I have referred to in my second reading speech and also as contained within the permit.

But the focus of this technology is the improper use or the illegal use of mobile phones whilst a series of requisite matters are reached, that is the driver of course, and even the case of a left-hand drive as has been well ventilated will be picked up as well. The use in the hands or touching, holding or otherwise, and the allowance of the improper use in a cradle, I will take some advice for the member on, but the focus as I am advised is the physical improper use of the device.

Mr MCBRIDE: Thank you for that answer, and I am just trying to use a mischievous mind here to protect those who are using the mobile phone legally. We know that a mobile phone can be mounted in a cradle, and I can imagine it could be on the centre console or it could be mounted close to a radio. They are the two ideas I have about where mobile phones are generally mounted in a motor vehicle today and maybe other vehicles.

But if I am then going to break the law and I do not have these mountings, and I think that maybe I could break or get past the law, I am going to use that phone in those areas and then you are going to have to have experts who are going to be determining that that phone was not being held in a cradle or a legal device. I am just going to ask you: do they have the technology and the eyes to determine this?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: To put the member's mischievous mind at ease, that is the human redundancy in this which is not only to ensure that individuals who are not committing an offence are not improperly fined but to ensure that those of whom photographs are taken, who are potentially in the mischievous mind of the member trying to do a workaround, are properly fined and held to account for their improper use.

Mr WHETSTONE: How will the technology work with mobile phones being used where there is another device on the seat—a tablet, if you like, a watch, those types of devices? How will the technology deal with the vagaries of using other devices than a phone?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I think as to the member's reflections on tablets, watches, etc. I would not necessarily, with the greatest respect, categorise them as a vagueness around the improper use of those. I think it would be quite a commonly held view and certainly I would be shocked if any member of the public thinks it is okay to be using a tablet device whilst driving. The technology is sufficiently capable of detecting offences as prescribed under the act. I would just hesitate to characterise that type of distracted driving as not being fully understood and well articulated in the public.

If I can, with indulgence, and with respect to the member who drives a lot on the roads, reflect that the public are just sick and tired of the improper use of devices by drivers. I have been really pleased with the public response to the announcement of the government's intention to proceed with these changes.

There are always strong opinions either way when it comes to penalising behaviour, but this has been a pleasant surprise for me as minister that we simply have not had the appetite of oppositional pushback because I think, as very well characterised by all members in this house, the public discourse, when it comes to the use of mobile phones, has shifted quite dramatically in the last period of time. Where once it may have been either tolerated or people may have been agnostic about it, I think it is fair to say now, unequivocally, people are just sick and tired of it.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr WHETSTONE: As to the interpretation, as it currently stands, any offence detected in a vehicle, say, for instance, numberplate recognition, a little bit like mobile phone recognition but with different technology, if there is an obstruction to the view of the driver using a mobile device, i.e., dirty windows or heavily tinted windows, are you able to walk us through how that would be overcome with that type of technology?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that the request for tender is sufficiently broad to enable technology to counter, to the best of technology's avail, dirty windows and legal tinting. I would put that to some degree it would not be dissimilar to the current method of policing and enforcing this law and that is human observation: police in their cars on the roadside or otherwise. It will not be every single situation, every single day, every single moment that the police officer in question will be able to see what is going on inside that vehicle, but to the best of technology's avail I am advised that those matters will be able to be dealt with.

Mr WHETSTONE: Are you suggesting I get my windows tinted?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Just wash the dirt off the front or keep it there—one or the other. Do not tint your front windscreen. That is an offence in itself.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr WHETSTONE: Would you please give the committee an understanding of how the rollout of the technology will be implemented? When will the startup date be? Obviously pending tenders, once the flag drops and this program is rolled out, are you able to walk us through the grace period, the education period, if you like, so that we have a clear understanding of how the program will be implemented?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Obviously subject to the will of this house and the other place, I am advised the rollout will occur and be installed sometime in quarter 3 of 2023.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, it will be implemented in 2023, but what I was asking for was the initial period, the education period—I guess you would call it the grace period—where you will give people that education-type program. In doing so, what sort of proactive measures will you be taking, if any, without sending a warning through the mail or through an email? Is there some form of public education program that you will roll out?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It is really important for me to state both for the house and also unequivocally for the public that, notwithstanding—as correctly put—a 'grace period' before the go date of this technology, the current enforcement strategies and enforcement of the illegal use of mobile devices will continue. I do not make any apologies for that. I do not see that the member is, either, but that strict enforcement will continue and it will continue throughout the rollout of this technology. The grace period is anticipated to be a period of three months. During that three-month period it is anticipated, as I am advised at this stage, that a warning letter will be issued to the individual detected using a phone illegally.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr WHETSTONE: In relation to the revenue raised, obviously if people's behaviour is true to form—and we know that we are trying to change people's behaviour—the revenue stream will come into the coffers. We understand the victims of crime will go to the Attorney's department but the revenue generated, the enforcement side of it or the fine, I guess you would call it, I am led to believe that will go to a road safety program. Is that the general gist, or are you able to just walk the committee through what that revenue will achieve?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: You are correct regarding the levy. That has a statutory requirement to be disbursed into the Victims of Crime fund. As for the inevitable, the sad inevitability of the proceeds of the issuing of fines against this offence, that will be disbursed into the Community Road Safety Fund. No doubt the member is aware that that fund not only provides for safer treatments on our roads but also funds the delivery of very important, critical road education programs, safety programs, all the way from school to adult and older drivers.

It would be counterproductive for me to say this, albeit I will: I would be very pleased as minister to see a very low revenue input into the Community Road Safety Fund. It is my hope, and I am sure the hope of all in this chamber, that the rollout of these cameras and detection cameras will actually lead to a change of behaviour. We cannot sit on the sidelines and not do all we can to try to change behaviour. Choices on our roads do matter, and the choice to drive distracted using mobile phones in any way we look at it costs lives and has a profound impact on people who either are victims or cause road trauma.

Mr WHETSTONE: Regarding the enforcement branch, I am presuming there will be a budget line there for the administration side of this detection service to be rolled out. Are you able to give the committee any information on how SAPOL and/or the enforcement branch will need to be given a budget line to administer this new technology?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that support for the rollout of this program across the forward estimates is six FTE. That is funded by the revenue projections across the forward estimates, so that disbursement into the Community Road Safety Fund does include the provision of those six FTEs to support the rollout, the mechanics and administration of this program.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will those six FTEs come out of existing funds or out of the new budget of $19.7 million?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That is a new cost initiative across the forward estimates.

Mr TEAGUE: This is a question about why and whether or not the insertion of section 175B is necessary and why the words of the proposed section are not tautologous. The minister might be happy to jump in at any time on this. As I unpack the operation of the clause, we have an evidentiary provision that in subsection (1) applies to what is a new concept, a device use offence, which is defined to be 'a prescribed offence within the meaning of section 79B'.

As we know, the prescribed offences that are the subject of 79B—with the exception of offences against sections 45A and 45C(1), which relate to speed and the use of gearing respectively—are all relating to offences that are specified or determined by regulation and pursuant to various acts so that the mechanism for determining what the offence is is itself to be determined by regulation. I am working through the definition at present, so there is that aspect.

As I read it, it is relating to 'the use of a device'—and if we pause there, one might possibly be led on to think that that device might be defined by regulation, but I do not think the definition is contemplating that—'in or on a vehicle that is prescribed by the regulations as a device use offence'. As I read it, the device use offence is a prescribed offence that relates to the use of a device that is prescribed by regulations as a device use offence for the purposes of this section.

The regulations are not defining the device. The regulations are specifying what the device use offence is, and it is one of two or three examples in the proposed new section. Why can that not simply be incorporated in the prescribed offences in line with the structure in section 79B?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his question and considered analysis of this. It is identical to my inquiry as well in respect of the drafting. As I am advised, this was deliberate advice by our counsel, being the department's advice, as well as parliamentary counsel. As it is a new technology and a new offence, advice received by government was to proceed with the seeking of the regulation-making capacity in the way the bill is drafted and brought to the house, as opposed to the alternative proposition mooted by the member.

Counsel advised that we should be proceeding on this basis, and it was, in my view, sound and not problematic compared with the alternate as proposed by the member.

Mr TEAGUE: Let me put that on the record. Section 79B(2) deals with the same test, or essentially the same test. I wonder why it could not have been used as the operative provision. We will get to the nature of the photographic detection device definition in a second, but for the record, perhaps, and while the minister is looking it up, section 79B(2) provides:

If a vehicle appears from evidence obtained through the operation of a photographic detection device to have been involved in the commission of a prescribed offence—

so far so familiar—

the owner of the vehicle is guilty of an offence against this section unless it is proved—

etc., etc. So wrapped up in subsection (2) already is the use of what is already defined as a photographic detection device, and also wrapped up in that is the prescribed offence. It therefore seems to me to be sufficient on the face of it without more to wrap into the definition of that prescribed offence—what we are talking about here and perhaps getting to in a minute—but wrap into the definition of a photographic detection device the new technology that we are incorporating here. I am wondering why we are doing it again.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Largely, the advice I referred to having received in my previous answer is current and has currency with respect to your further inquiry. It is a preference in the drafting of this to not, through regulation, seek the new evidentiary provision. There are interim provisions which can include the presumption but which have to be rebutted by the defendant. However, the power to make evidentiary provisions under this section does not derogate from any other power under the act.

I can only give some comfort, if it is taken by the member, that the advice being received is that this is the prudent way to proceed, as opposed to an alternative, which would be seeking to utilise existing regulation-making capacity.

Mr TEAGUE: That is on the record. It seems to me that it is possibly repetitive and tautologous, but there we are. The next particular point, just to advert to on the record here, is this proposed definition of prescribed photographic detection device. That is novel, and it is one of those definitions that is included for the purposes of this section only. I note that there is a definition of photographic detection device already in use that is set out in section 5 of the act. That is also a matter of determination by regulation and is. It might be the same answer, but how come that is necessary to do?

Let's put it into some practical context. We have seen the rapid development of technology, and we have a whole lot of photographic detection devices as defined in operation, the use of which is assisting in the evidentiary process of proving of offences—speed, red light, and so on. What this is proposing to do is set up a specific category of prescribed photographic detection devices that are only relevant to this provision for this purpose, that is, for the use of proving up the device use offence, which I have already indicated appears to be somewhat repetitive and circular.

What about the likelihood of convergence as we roll on with technology? We are going to have to keep revisiting this section for certain devices and the rest of the act for the rest of the rollout of cameras. Is there any substantive purpose for doing so?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: As advised, the definition as contained within the principal act is limited to red-light cameras or cameras relating to the detection of red-light offences and speed offences. This definition of prescribed photographic detection device is specific to the novel application of this technology insofar as the use of mobile phone detection cameras is concerned.

If there is a matter in the future that causes the government of the day to revisit it for the new rollout of any further offences or applications, that is a matter for the government of the day. As far as we currently stand, the way we have proceeded is that we will have the two definitions: one being for the red-light and speed camera cohort and the other being for this novel technology.

Mr TEAGUE: This picks up something, perhaps, the member for Chaffey raised earlier. In unpacking the device use offence as it is described, there is reference there to the use of a device. The way that it is written, one might see that it is either the device or the vehicle that might be prescribed by regulations, but read as a whole it appears clear enough that it is the device use offence that is going to be prescribed by regulations.

Picking up on the member for Chaffey's concern about the use of iPads, do we see any guidance there as to the more particular range of devices that are caught, given that there has been this approach to carve this out from the more general definitions elsewhere in respect of the particular photographic detection devices used and the introduction of the new device use offence? Are we going to see that set out more particularly?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised, and this will be foreshadowing the regulations, that it is Australian Road Rule 300, which is the nature of the offence here. That will be contained within the regulations, and that will be to the extent of which offences will be prescribed. That will be Australian Road Rule 300, which is the offence relating to mobile phones.

Mr TEAGUE: Given the more particular approach that then has been taken to the carving out of this particular offence and these particular devices—I hesitate to use the word 'camera' because we are prescribing photographic detection devices that might be film or whatever it might be, but we are carving them out nonetheless—is there not some utility perhaps in including a note that refers to the relevant road rule or otherwise refers the definition somehow in circumstances where the rest has been carved out?

I perhaps flag that my initial preference would be to leave it out altogether and let it work its way into the body of the act but, given that this course has been adopted, would there not be some utility in setting out for the reader the means of determining what those devices are?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that the preferred option or preferred approach as has been determined by the government is preferred because it allows for flexibility for future changes to the Australian Road Rules. Insofar as ARR 300 is concerned, it does not lock us in. Australian Road Rules, of course, have their own momentum, and this will allow for that future flexibility.

Mr TEAGUE: Let's not be in any doubt that it is not looking to freeze that in time. The reference might be simply to the definition as it applies from time to time, so that might evolve over time. I suppose the difficulty is that the definition, as it is currently set out, goes to great lengths to provide for its own internal means of defining the special offence for which this evidence is going to be accepted.

We have this small 'd' reference to device, and I appreciate that it is used elsewhere, and there is arguably an inconsistency for that purpose while taking the trouble to carve out the rest. I wonder whether it might be useful to either include a note or include a further definition indicating that a device for the purposes of this section is a device as defined from time to time in the relevant road rule.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: There is not much further to add to my previous answers in respect of your questions, observations and comments regarding the application and drafting of this section, other than to say that, on advice, this is the preferred approach of the government.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have one more question on technology. I know I am taking a step back, but will it be facial recognition technology?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, it will not.

Mr WHETSTONE: Currently, an infringement for using a mobile phone while driving or operating a motor vehicle is $544 and $90 for victims of crime. Will the structure around infringements reflect what currently is on a speed detection camera, that there will be an infringement notice given? If people declare a corporate responsibility for a business vehicle, if you like, will that fine be reflected, similar to speeding?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Can I just clarify the member for Chaffey's question. Are you asking whether there is a corporate multiplier attached to this offence, or will there be a corporate multiplier attached to this offence?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, currently as it stands, using a mobile phone while operating a vehicle is a fine given by an officer to someone in a vehicle and is a face-to-face infringement. If it is a camera, does that mean it will be then used as a detection, like a speeding fine, and then will it be rolled into the opportunity for a business vehicle, if you like, to be able to claim or call on a corporate fee to pay that off without demerit points? The way it currently stands, there are three demerit points, and if there is a corporate fee there is a large fine with no demerit points.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will clarify this further with the member between houses, but I am advised at this stage that there is not a corporate multiplier. Further to the member's question around facial recognition, of course the camera does not or will not seek to identify a person by identity that is committing the offence.

The issuing of that expiation will be against the registered owner of the vehicle, and that is consistent with all other offences detected by a camera. The ability of an individual to lead evidence that that individual was not the person committing the offence will be consistent with the current capacity available to individuals to do that. We are not seeking to deviate from that at all.

Mr WHETSTONE: For clarification, an offence is committed, detected by the new technology and the fine will be issued to the vehicle or the registered owner of that vehicle, and then it will be the responsibility of that owner to determine who pays the fine and who wears the three demerit points.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That is correct. It will be issued against the registered owner of the vehicle and, as I said, that is entirely consistent with a lot of other methodology currently applied, and it will be—

Mr Whetstone: You said Whetstone vehicle three times. I'm a bit worried.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The Whetstone vehicle?

Mr Whetstone: Didn’t you say the Whetstone vehicle?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, you're hearing things. The Whetstone vehicle, wouldn't that be a sight for sore eyes!

The methodology applied will be consistent with existing offences and it will be up to the registered owner of the vehicle to nominate the driver if it is not in fact that registered owner who was committing the offence through the tinted windscreen.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank members for their consideration of this bill at the committee stage. Can I take the opportunity to thank advisers Nada Petrovic and Superintendent Bob Gray for their advice through committee.

I do note that the evidence before us is quite stark about why we as a government and on behalf of the community need to act to stamp out the use of mobile phones whilst driving. In the last four years, there have been 26,000 expiations issued for the illegal use of a mobile device whilst driving. It is too high by any measure. In that same time, there have been 247 deaths on our roads, 51 per cent of all fatalities, that can be attributed to distracted driving.

It is a stark reminder that choices matter on our roads and the choice to use devices whilst driving, to be distracted, has the very real potential to cost your life and also has the potential to cost the life of someone you may know or love. A further 1,330, or 34 per cent of all serious injuries on our roads in that time are also attributable to distracted driving, and in this year alone 15 deaths on our roads have been attributed to distracted driving.

I hope that this is a step in the right direction. I hope that this is a step in the direction of dissuading the community from doing the wrong thing on our roads. I do note that a number of members have contributed with passion to this debate. I think that we stand in a bipartisan way with a strong statement that mobile phone use and distracted driving have no place on our roads. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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