HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-02-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Personal Mobility Devices) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 February 2023.)

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (10:35): I rise to speak in support of this bill. Despite the fact that scooters are controversial—there are those who love them and there are those who hate them—we do need consistency. The feedback I have had in my electorate of Unley about scooters is not so much the use of the scooters but about where they are left.

Of course, the only scooters that are legal in South Australia through these trials are e-scooters owned by a hire company and people use an app connected to a credit card or some other form of debit card in order to use that scooter and they pay per kilometre or per minute. I do not know; I have not actually used one. In my view, it is not a good look for someone who is heading towards their 60th birthday to be on a scooter, but you do see it.

The situation we have now, where you can only legally use an e-scooter if you are hiring one, leads to the irresponsible placement of those e-scooters when the geofence runs out or people feel that they have spent enough on their credit card getting to where they are going and they walk the rest of the way to get home and so they are left over driveways, left in car parks or they have fallen over. People might have prams or wheelchairs and cannot get around them and someone will have to move them for them. That is the biggest criticism that I have heard with the use of e-scooters.

Of course, if people were using their own scooters they would not be left around in the streets; they would, in fact, be in their homes or in their places of business, if they use them to get to and from work every day. If they use it for their leisure, they go out with their friends and meet at a meeting point and they come home, obviously they are going to look after their scooter and make sure it is not left somewhere where it is going to be knocked over or somebody can run it over. They are going to make sure it is left somewhere that is out of the way.

It does not make a lot of sense. I cannot see it being a safety reason why you cannot own a personal scooter because there is no difference between the riding of an e-scooter that is on hire or an e-scooter that is owned by somebody. We know there are other opportunities popping up in personal mobility devices. We see more and more electric wheelchairs, gophers and mobility carts for people who are more senior, which gets them out of the house. There are bikes now and opportunities for people who might be less fit or less able to put that physical effort into riding a bike to still use bikes with the aid of the electric bike, where only some pedalling is required.

I know this bill is focusing on e-scooters but we do need to start somewhere and I congratulate the shadow minister on bringing this bill to the house. I also note—well, I am feeling—that this bill has bipartisan support because I am aware that a government member has written to the JPSC asking for the consideration of chargers in the parliamentary car park for e-scooters and bikes. Obviously, that cannot be done unless they are legal because we cannot certainly as a parliament be aiding and abetting people who are breaking the law. Consequently, I am feeling confident that there is a bipartisan move to see this as being a sensible expansion of new technology for electric vehicles.

I support what the member for Hartley has brought to the parliament. I know from a trip to Los Angeles, where I was a number of years ago, there was prolific use of e-scooters—and they were obviously privately owned; people were looking after them—but that is a city where it is just so difficult to get around and there is so much distance between where you need to be, and so that has been used prolifically.

Of course, here in Adelaide, we are flat, we have plenty of parkland, in many instances we have wide footpaths and we are already seeing e-scooters available for hire through a pay per kilometre system. Why not recognise that they are part of the future and we are a city that is part of the future with our defence industries, our growing IT industries, our research and development being commercialised here. All of these projects and all of these initiatives that were started by the previous Marshall government are really now getting to put South Australia on the map.

Why not support those who want to be on the front foot and the back foot on their scooters, moving through the streets of Adelaide and, of course, minimising the use of the e-scooters which are left virtually anywhere? I would actually like to see those e-scooter companies forced to dedicate through a geofence or some other technology where those scooters can be left. If they are left in the middle of a the driveway, maybe they continue to bill the person until they are moved into an appropriate position.

That would be a very strong incentive for those e-scooters to be placed in an appropriate place on a footpath or another area that is not blocking people using a footpath or a bike path or driveway. For the life of me, I do not understand why that technology is not used. It certainly is available through using GPS, for example. In my view, it is an area that should be considered as part of any regulatory change or permanency of e-scooter hire after the trial is finished. I commend the member for Hartley and I support the bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (10:43): It is a rare occasion where I agree with nearly everything the member for Unley has just said. He is right: there are a number of inconsistencies that make the current situation untenable and if only it was as simple as just passing this private member's bill.

The government is considering its options in this space and there are a number of aspects that I think the opposition have raised which make very valid points. This is one of those rare occasions where you are going to see the government and the opposition supporting the intent of their private member's bill. Alas, we cannot support the bill because the government has to, of course, dot every 'i' and cross every 't' and hold this subject up to the light for scrutiny.

There needs to be a greater level of consultation with South Australia Police and, of course, our compulsory third-party insurance operation. Is a scooter a motorised vehicle or is it a bicycle? There are a number of aspects of this bill that raise a lot of questions, so I thank the member for Hartley for raising this matter. I acknowledge his interest in this matter.

I do point out that these electric scooters were an issue over the last four years and there was no legislation by the previous government to do what the shadow minister is attempting to do now. However, he was hamstrung as the Speaker for a while, but he was the Minister for Police, and he did have a large level of say. I understand he was a senior tactician in the previous government. I do not know why I laughed so loud when I said that. I understand that he could have had the influence to have this done, but of course time escaped him. However, I do commend his hard work here.

I am not opposing this for the sake of opposing it. I am asking the house for its forbearance. The government will return to the house with a government bill on this matter, but the restraints of the government are this: while I agree with almost everything the member for Unley has said, the problem we have is that the trials are still underway. We are still trying to ascertain what is the best fit for South Australia. I acknowledge that other jurisdictions have moved and have moved quickly, but those trials and their implementation have been longer in those other jurisdictions than they have been here.

It is fair to say that disruption in this area of transport causes a lot of unintended consequences. If you look at the disruption in rideshare, what that has done to the taxi industry, it is not dissimilar to what is occurring here, but there are other public implications for the implementation of these scooters. So, while I agree with the sentiment, it is a bizarre situation where the only legal avenue to use these is if they are rented, rather than privately owned. I think we can remedy that relatively quickly, and we will. I know that the member for Hartley is keen to have a vote on this bill, so I am prepared to allow him to have a vote on this bill.

Mr Odenwalder: Today?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Today, if he wants to. I point out to the parliament and to the public that the government will not be supporting this bill, not because we do not support the measure of the member for Hartley but simply because we have not yet received the appropriate advice from the regulatory authorities that would oversee the implementation of this policy. This is a rare case of bipartisanship, the parliament at its best. I apologise to the member for Hartley; I know he wants this reform. I will think of him as we are introducing the bill and making this legislation, and I will think of him fondly as we make these sweeping changes.

I am not trying to cast him into irrelevance; what I am simply trying to do is make sure we get everything right, because the burden on me, as opposed to the shadow minister, is that I am the minister and I ultimately have responsibility for this. I want to make sure that I get it right and there are no unintended consequences.

So, to my young apprentice, I say congratulations on bringing this bill into the parliament. He is making me prouder and prouder every single day. He is my Padawan leader; he is someone whom I am exceptionally proud of in the work that he is doing. I have seen him rise through the ranks, and I am watching him with a keen eye. I will look back fondly at his training. I will look back fondly at the way I have helped him rise through the ranks, and hopefully, when he takes the ultimate destination path that his career is pushing him towards, he can look back fondly at the fatherly advice that I have given him, because I do care about him deeply.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: I'll be moving a motion that you're misleading the house, in a minute.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is not very nice. I know people get jealous of my affections. There are others competing for my affections, but the member for Hartley is someone I have a fond admiration for. I have met his parents as well and I promised them I would look after him in the parliament and indeed I have.

The SPEAKER: Order! This is straying towards personal reflection, generous though it may be.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I congratulate him on bringing this bill to the parliament. I concur with the member for Unley's remarks. I do ask for forbearance because it is not as simple as the opposition say it is and I think that in their heart of hearts they know this. I will be back to the house with a comprehensive bill that can be supported. I look forward to that bipartisan support. As soon as that bill is ready and the cabinet and the caucus have approved it, I will immediately brief the opposition on it and ask for a speedy passage through both houses of the parliament. So, for today, it is thank you but I am sorry.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (10:50): I thank members for their contributions, especially the member for Unley, and for the contribution of the minister of his feedback. His free advice is always certainly appreciated.

I might focus on the positives first. Firstly, I want to thank all those who have been consulted in relation to this bill and all those who were able to help develop this bill. It seems we all agree that there is a mischief here that we need to correct. We all think it is outrageous that these items are able to be hired by a few but people are not able to own them in their own right. Of course, we on this side of this chamber endorse personal responsibility—people taking ownership—and providing for a market where there is clearly one and making sure that of course no-one is left behind and that there are adequate safety measures around that market to make sure that people do not get injured. Other things like insurance have been fleshed out during that debate and it seems that in other jurisdictions that is able to be catered for.

In relation to police resources, I think the police will tell you that they have better things to do than to run around chasing people who are using these devices, sometimes illegally, at the moment and fining often young people for something in the order of near $2,000 at a time. I think we can all agree that our police resources would be much better allocated in many productive ways and the facts are that, until a bill does succeed in this right, you will continue to see these police resources allocated this way.

We know there is a clear market here in relation to these devices. Many of these we see day to day. The member for Unley alluded to an example of where potentially a member has even asked for chargers for these things. That tells you that the market is here, so the government needs to stop dragging its heels in relation to this. We understand that the government is a bit slower and we, being in opposition and a smaller opposition, are much more nimble and agile and we are trying to help. We are trying to work with the government of the day.

Other states have embraced this technology. We have tried to develop a bill that I think calls on the strengths of that legislation in other jurisdictions, but, all in all, whilst this is a bit sad, I think it is a positive to hear the minister say that a bill will be brought in the short term. We will make sure that we keep holding this government to account about this.

We want to see this bill sooner rather than later because the fact is that this trial has gone on for several years now and it is time for the trial to be put to rest and for us to open up just like every other jurisdiction because the facts are that people can enjoy these interstate and they can enjoy these overseas. We know they are extremely popular, especially for tourists. Take an example such as now when all the world's eyes are on Adelaide at the moment for various artistic festivals. People come here and they want to enjoy these types of scooters.

I thank all members for their contributions. I thank those who were consulted during this process. I thank parliamentary counsel for its rapid speed in developing this bill based on what we thought was a solid example interstate. I commend the bill to the house.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 16

Noes 24

Majority 8

AYES

Basham, D.K.B. (teller) Bell, T.S. Cowdrey, M.J.
Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. Hurn, A.M.
McBride, P.N. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Pratt, P.K. Speirs, D.J.
Tarzia, V.A. (teller) Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J.
Whetstone, T.J.

NOES

Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D.
Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P.
Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller)
Pearce, R.K. Piccolo, A. Savvas, O.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.J.

PAIRS

Batty, J.A. Malinauskas, P.B. Marshall, S.S.
Boyer, B.I.

Second reading thus negatived.

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