HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-08-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Statutes Amendment (Personal Mobility Devices) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (15:52): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Personal Mobility Devices) Bill 2024. This bill amends the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and the Road Traffic Act 1961 and it paves the way for legalised use of e-scooters and other personal mobility devices on South Australia's road and footpath network. The need for reform here is apparent. The existing legislation can be confusing and too often South Australians are falling foul of the law without their knowing.

I commend South Australia Police and its officers for their education-centric approach to policing this matter, but it is now time that we made their job easier. It is also time we allow South Australians to adopt what are clean and efficient modes of personal transport in a market that is presenting us with more and more options than ever before.

Electric bikes are commonplace on our roads and they have been for some time. Of course, there are reasonable limits imposed on engine size and maximum speeds and it is the government's intention that similar restrictions apply to e-scooters, e-skateboards and the like. The bill provides that a personal mobility device's dimensions, its maximum mass and speed, network access, the minimum age of its rider and the rules they must follow are specified in the regulations. This will allow the government to quickly and effectively respond to new devices and technologies as they emerge. The relevant regulations will be drafted on passage of this bill and the new legislation could commence as soon as next year.

This is news that I know many in my community of Davenport will welcome, but there are two young men in particular whose patience and advocacy I would like to acknowledge today. I met with Liam and Rowan at my electorate office in 2023: two Happy Valley boys who own motorised unicycles. Liam and Rowan are as responsible as they are enthusiastic and, like so many other young South Australians who have invested in personal mobility devices, they were bitterly disappointed to learn that while you can easily purchase these devices here in our state, the law would not let them hit the streets on their new unicycles.

The boys wrote to me about why our government should allow e-scooters and other mobility devices, and also made a few suggestions for regulations to keep people safe. They said in their letter that it is a good and affordable mode of transport. They said it is environmentally friendly, which is something we absolutely should be focused on right now. They also said it is a fun family activity, and their mother who accompanied them on their visit to my office surely assured me of that.

They also suggested a few regulations to keep people safe. They suggested a 25 km/h speed limit on roads but slower on footpaths, mandatory helmets, and strict rules for giving way to pedestrians. All of these are great points that I am sure will be considered during the drafting of the regulations. So to Liam and Rowan: I am glad you kept up the fight. These new laws will be here before you know it.

I know there are also some parents in my community—and potentially a particular parent in my office as well who is really looking forward to her 16-year-old boy being able to take himself to footy training in the afternoons and get around their local community on his e-device that will soon become legal. What I am told by these parents who have kids on P-plates is that one year between 16 and 17 can be excruciatingly long when you are looking to reach that milestone in parenting where you can cut back on some of that soccer mum-style cruising around your community.

When we classify personal mobility devices as vehicles, it means that e-scooter regulations will largely align with those applied to bicycles. There are a few advantages to this. The first of these advantages is network access and the application of road rules, which should remove any confusion for personal mobility device users as far as their obligations as road users are concerned. This will also help South Australia Police monitor behaviours and keep our community safe, just as they have done since hire scooters first hit the streets in Adelaide in 2019.

On that point, I want to reassure the community that the commencement of this bill does not spell the end of scooter hire services in our city; in fact, it may see them expand to new suburbs and regions. As the former Mayor at the City of Onkaparinga, our coastal regions are crying out for access to these services. We have not seen it yet down as far south as the City of Onkaparinga, but there are a huge number of residents who live down there at Port Noarlunga and areas further south from there who are really keen to get out on those huge, big, beautiful, wide esplanades and check out our coast using a different method. I know that a lot of council areas are really looking forward to the introduction of this bill.

At present, scooter hire businesses require the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport's approval before they can set up shop in South Australia. This will not be the case moving forward, and I look forward to seeing where these services pop up next.

I would like to acknowledge the almost 2,000 South Australians who participated in the YourSAy survey, a significant majority of whom supported the ongoing use of e-scooters—and, by extension, other personal mobility devices—on public roads and paths. For the record, that majority was 87 per cent of respondents. That is a huge amount of support going forward, and that confidence helps us to pursue this bill and these regulations.

This overwhelming support for change is further evidence of the community's appetite for low-cost, low-emission, future-focused transport options not just in the city but right across our state. Under council-driven trials, we have seen more than one million e-scooter trips recorded in South Australia between 2020 and the end of 2023, and it is safe to assume that that figure has grown by some margin in the months since. Both actions and words are telling us that it is time for change and, as a government that listens, we are progressing that change right now. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (15:59): I thank you first and foremost, Mr Acting Speaker, for your generous time as Acting Speaker and I thank the Opposition Whip. I thank members for their contributions, and I also thank my department for their contribution in preparing this legislation. This legislation is a long time coming. I would like to point out a few things that I want to make clear to the house.

Regarding the for hire mobility devices, this legislation does not legislate over the top of the right of a local council to approve or not approve the issuing of the ability for these things to apply for hire in their communities. It is their footpaths. Councils are free to ban or accept these as they see fit. What I and the parliament are attempting to do is to create a regulatory framework to allow the personal ownership and use of these mobility devices. I think that is a very important distinction to make.

One of the concerns I have heard from people is that these things create a hazard on the roads when they are left on the side of the road. I agree. I think they detract from the beauty and amenity of our suburban streets, but I also think that personal ownership of these devices is warranted, they are a good alternative to driving and they are a good way of getting around. What we are attempting to do is to create a safe regulatory framework for these devices to operate. I too have seen the way some of the users use the for hire scooters, especially the way they are being used late at night, but I think the regulatory framework gets the mix right.

But if Adelaide City Council wants to ban these things for hire they can. This legislation does not stop that. What this legislation does do is say, 'If you personally own one and you want to ride it, these are the rules of engagement.' The for hire devices will be done by relevant local councils. They will be the ones that are the approving authorities. I think it is important to know that council by-laws will still apply here.

In terms of the nominal defendant, I want to make this point to the opposition as well in consideration of their amendment. Without anticipating debate, I thought I would answer a few of the things I heard in the second reading contributions. It would be an unfair unfunded liability on the people of South Australia to have people nominated as the nominal defendant here because that money would need to come from somewhere, and it will come out of people's taxes. So I think it is an unfair burden on the taxpayer.

I think there will be offerings that come up here that people can use and take advantage of, but there is also the very important matter of personal responsibility. If you injure someone riding one of these things, if you have acted recklessly, you could be personally liable. I think it is important that we recognise that without putting a burden on the taxpayer.

Regarding the idea of basically a registration for this, we are treating these devices the same way we treat bicycles, and I think that is an appropriate framework. That is not to say that in the future, if we do see the need to do something different about the way these devices interact in our community, we can always come back here. But right now the government's main objective is to make the ownership and use of these devices legal for individuals so people can go out and purchase them and use them, and then lay over a framework where we believe they can be used safely on our roads and our footpaths. That is the framework. I thank members for their contributions. I understand we will be going into committee, and I thank the house for its speedy passage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pisoni–1]—

Page 3, lines 3 to 8—Delete clause 3 and substitute:

3—Amendment of section 5—Interpretation

(1) Section 5(1)—after the definition of drug driving offence insert:

electric personal transporter means an electric personal transporter (within the meaning of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014) that may be driven on or over a road in accordance with an approval of the Minister under section 161A of the Road Traffic Act 1961;

(2) Section 5(1), definition of motor vehicle—after 'part of the vehicle' insert:

but does not include an electric personal transporter

Note—

Section 116 however treats electric personal transporters as if they were uninsured motor vehicles for the purposes of claims against the nominal defendant

3A—Amendment of section 116—Claim against nominal defendant where vehicle uninsured

Section 116(1), definition of uninsured motor vehicle—after 'is in force' first occurring insert:

or an electric personal transporter

It is very clear that the government and the opposition are at one here, because a version of this bill was first presented by the member for Hartley, now the Leader of the Opposition here in South Australia, and I have no doubt that it was that initiative that has got us to where we are today.

Today it is a government bill, and the point of difference we have is on dealing with a situation where an irresponsible user or owner of a scooter or an electric personal transporter device is, basically, involved in a hit and run. They hit someone on a footpath or they hit someone who might be legally crossing on the green lights at pedestrian lights—or at the new wombat or zebra crossings that are popping up.

These new crossings are not very commonplace in South Australia; we have had zebra crossings in the rest of Australia for many years but they are quite a new thing here. Many South Australians are not yet used to them and do not quite know how they work, so I think it is more risky using a zebra crossing in South Australia compared to using one in Victoria, New South Wales or Canberra, for example—certainly where I have had experience using them.

We are concerned, because people have raised it with me. They are normally more senior members of our community: 'What happens if someone does not stop and exchange details and I end up in hospital for a week and I have expenses I have to meet? Yes, there is a civil approach I can take, however I don't even know who that person was, they didn't even stop. There is no registration number. Where is my recompense? Where is the justice?'

I do not believe anyone would think that is a fair situation. It is not the same as someone bumping into someone, even someone on a bike. These are heavy, powered vehicles and the impact is much bigger. The minister spoke about the difference in impact between 25 km/h and 40 km/h yesterday in another debate. Those who have seen the hire scooters in use would realise which are quite light in comparison to those I have seen for sale in places like JB HiFi for example; they are big vehicles.

This amendment proposes to extend, if you like, the nominal defendant—and I did touch on how that works in my second reading contribution. It deals with them without being called a vehicle, so there is no need for registration. Clause 3(2) is the bit I was referring to that exempts it from motor registration. The note is the key part of the amendment that I am putting forward.

I know the statistics are very low about claims on the nominal defendant. I have confidence that this may only be required as a temporary measure because one of the reasons I sit on this side of the house is that I have a lot of faith in the private enterprise system and the open market. Once that has been established with the introduction of this, I know that there will be insurance products available.

How the government ensures that those insurance options are taken up, whether it is a requirement of purchase that insurance must be purchased as well, I do not know. I think we are a long way from that yet. But even if the government sees this as an interim measure, certainly my senior—or experienced, I should say; I am at the age where I use the word 'experienced' to describe people over a certain age—members of the community would feel as though they have some reassurance that they will not be left holding their own medical expenses if they are a victim of an irresponsible user.

I am not saying that we are going to see a lot of that, but insurance is all about the unexpected. Thank God that those sorts of things do not happen very often, because insurance premiums would be even more expensive than what they are now if more and more people were claiming on them because there was a higher proportion of people who were causing incidents through irresponsible behaviour that saw insurance claims being needed.

I think this is a small ask on behalf of those who have raised this concern. The minister has certainly not spoken positively in favour of this amendment. I can see him shaking his head; I do not think he is going to be supportive. If that is the case, I can indicate that there is an opportunity for this bill, when it goes to the other chamber, where there may be some other mechanism that we would certainly be very keen to support that would provide a similar option for those who may be victims of hit-and-runs by these electric vehicles.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will just point out a couple of things to the member. He mentioned earlier that the government and the opposition were on a unity ticket, as it were, because the member for Hartley had a bill that did much of this. That bill did not prescribe people being the nominal defendant in that legislation; in fact, there was no regard for insurance. If we had done as the opposition had asked and passed that bill, there would be no insurance. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but is it an admission that the Leader of the Opposition erred in his private member's bill, or have you changed your mind?

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Is that a question?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a rhetorical question. The truth is that the opposition now, I fear, have looked at the Leader of the Opposition's bill and said, 'This is flawed. This bill is flawed.' I would not make that criticism of the Leader of the Opposition. He is young and enthusiastic, he wants to change the world, but now I see—what was the word you used?—more experienced members of the shadow cabinet, in the outer orbit, saying, 'Maybe a moment of pause. Perhaps we need to have someone as the nominal defendant.' Now we are introducing amendments to a government bill that were not contemplated in the Leader of the Opposition's bill that he introduced into this parliament.

Far be it for me to make a lot of noise about this. Far be it for me to try to show the inconsistencies between the two positions, between—what was the term—the more experienced members of the opposition and the enthusiastic members of the opposition, but I would say this: if you hit someone and cause injury on one of these devices, section 43 of the Road Traffic Act applies. It is a criminal offence.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: If you get caught.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is no different from a car.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: No, they have registration numbers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Hang on a second, if there is no-one there and you hit a pedestrian in your car and you leave, it is an offence. It is no different from this. It is an offence. It is an offence not to stop and render assistance.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: And I read about people who get caught time and time again for hit and runs because of registration numbers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have more faith in South Australians than some members. I think people will stop and render assistance. Let's take this argument to its logical extension: bicycles, electric bicycles. Is the party of low regulation and free enterprise really saying to me now that we need to regulate over the top of people and impose on the taxpayer that everyone who is on our roads, on our footpaths, no matter what device they are using, has a form of insurance?

I understand that there are some people out there, traditionally, you might call left-wing busybodies, but I did not think I would hear it from the party of so-called economic liberty and rights of the individual.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: We are not proposing them anywhere else. Read the amendment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have. To be fair to the member, the amendment has good intentions—very good intentions. I understand exactly who he is attempting to protect. I think it makes a lot of sense. However, the unfunded liability it places on the taxpayer is unfair and the unfunded liability it would place on the general government sector to fund that unfunded liability is unfair and that would be funded through taxation. No-one wants to see higher taxes.

I think we have to trust the good common sense of our people that they will obey the laws, they will obey section 43 of the Road Traffic Act and stop and give assistance, as is required of them under statute, and we can get on with this reform. I do accept what the member is saying. This is something that I contemplated long and hard on through the formulation of this bill because, in forming this bill, one of the key considerations I was saying publicly was, 'These devices are quite large' and as I said yesterday, 'force equals mass times acceleration'. It is a pretty simple formula. And the faster these things go, if they hit people on footpaths, there is damage, as with bicycles, skateboards and rollerblades.

In the end, in our society we have deemed that these vehicles do not need to have registration or insurance, so I accept what the member is saying; however, I do not think we are at that stage yet, but who knows? Maybe later. I also point out it was not in the Leader of the Opposition's original bill that he tabled in this parliament and said was opposition policy.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I will take that as a question. I have been long enough in this place to know that on many occasions bills are revised and amended after they are presented into this place and it often gets a better outcome. The reason we are here right now, with a government bill that is very similar to a bill that was brought to this place by the member for Hartley, is because it was brought to this place by the member for Hartley.

The fact that the member for Hartley was then able to come back and suggest additional improvements to a bill that allowed access to privately owned scooters and so forth shows that the member for Hartley is a person who is willing and prepared to look for continuous improvement and beneficial outcomes as more information is known and more feedback is received about a bill. That is how it has always worked in this place.

The Labor Party have been experts at sniffing the wind after something has gone out for consultation or even after a bill has been brought into this place, and then there have been amendments, sometimes dozens of amendments, to bills before they are agreed to in this place. Those amendments often happen after the bill has gone through its first and second reading phase; we see that. When I brought the Skills Commission bill to this place, it sat on the table during the winter break, when we expanded the consultation process. When we returned from the winter break, I put my own amendments into that bill based on additional feedback received, which was always the intention.

It was never the intention, I do not believe, of the Liberal Party, when we brought this bill to this place, that we would not be inviting amendments to improve it. As a matter of fact, we would have been delighted if the government brought amendments at that time. I do not accept the premise of the transport minister that there is anything sinister or contradictory about the position that the Liberal Party has in bringing this amendment to the table today. The minister has made it clear that the government will not be supporting it, so I shall not subject him to any more of this pain.

Mr McBRIDE: I am very pleased that the member for Unley has withdrawn, by the sound of it, and sat down and is not going to subject the minister to any more pain, as he just said. I really did appreciate the briefing on this, minister, from your staff. As your staff would know, I am a very big supporter of the rollout of this. I find that it is quite regulated in its rollout and the rules are quite tough. What fascinated me about this amendment, which has potentially now been withdrawn, is that there was more regulation by a conservative Liberal opposition in talking about licences, insurance and other types of bureaucratic rollout over an electric scooter.

I would like to see these scooters be an alternative transport and a mode of transport for those who live in densely populated areas. I would like to see scooters used in a way so that they do not look like the hire scooters we have talked about that are laid or strewn on the footpaths in our city of Adelaide at this stage. My intel is that these are expensive scooters. They will not be dumped or left by the owners where they should not be, and they will probably be looked after with security so that no-one will steal them.

All I can say, minister, is that I am glad there are no more restrictions there. The question to you, minister, and probably to the government, is about the rules you talk about in the Road Traffic Act with a mobility device that is allowed to do such a speed on the footpath of 10 or 15 km/h and 25 km/h on a road. As I say, if you walk, on average it is 6 km/h. If you walk fast you can probably walk at 12 km/h. If you got me to jog I am probably going to be doing 15 km/h, and if you get me to run fast I might be able to even beat 25 km/h, which means I am going to beat these scooters. I am hoping I do not have to wear a helmet when I do that. That is one thing that I was obviously worried about.

I do hope that with what is being rolled out here in these amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, the rollout of these electric scooters, there is the opportunity to roll out a mode of transport that might suit people who have lost their licence, who do not own a car, who live in intense housing and do not have the means to park a car. Are you supportive of having this scooter everywhere possible? A little bit on the side of that, minister: do you think the scooter is going to be a means of getting home from those events where alcohol is involved? At what level of consumption would alcohol be allowed to be used with a scooter? Are they walking alongside of that scooter? Are they then standing on that scooter? Is there any terminology that leaves any doubt that innocent people, trying to do the right thing here, are not going to get caught?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Speed limits for footpaths are out to consultation. We are looking at between 10 km/h and 15 km/h, so we will make a decision on that through regulation. The government is pretty settled on 25 km/h for roads. Drinking under the influence applies for these vehicles, as it does for bicycles. You cannot ride a bicycle if you are intoxicated either. It is not an alternative form of transport if you are intoxicated. You can be drug-tested and alcohol-tested if you are on a bicycle and if you are on a mobility device like this.

If you are walking home and you are carrying your scooter, the discretion is on the police obviously to make a commonsense assessment. They will make an assessment about whether or not you are in control and command of a device. Clearly, if you have bought a very expensive e-scooter, you do not want to leave it outside the pub. You want to take it home. If you are walking home and you have it over your shoulder, and you are clearly walking home and police have not seen you use that scooter, why would you be infringed upon? I do not think that is an issue. I hope that answers his questions. It is good to see there is one real Liberal left in the chamber.

Mr McBRIDE: Please, I am trying to support you in this; I just love the opportunity that these might bring. The only thing I would come back to is the response you gave about carrying it over your shoulder—I get it—but if you are walking alongside of it, I hope it does not get misinterpreted because you are not standing on that platform. That would be a form of actually riding that scooter compared to walking alongside it, holding the handlebars, as you might not want to put it on your shoulder, especially if you are 80-plus years old. I think these scooters are going to be 20 or 30 kilograms, so I think there would not be too many elderly people throwing them over their shoulders.

The other thing I just wanted to touch base on was the clarity around the 25 km/h speed limit. I know why you are talking about 25 km/h. That is good, but can I just ask the minister to consider what that 25 km/h will look like on the road and how car traffic gets around a 25 km/h moving object, which is considerably slower than 40 km/h or 50 km/h on a suburban road. I think we are trying to avoid having them perhaps on 60 km/h roads or any faster speed limits than those, but I am not sure. I think that is a little bit out in the open, but certainly I do not think you will see them on the open highway.

I suppose I am a little bit disappointed with the opportunity. Maybe one day we might see better, that the 25 km/h might be expanded upon. The reason I ask the minister just to consider that is that slow-moving objects can be easy targets to be hit and we might actually be putting scooter riders in jeopardy, particularly if you think about what racing bikes do. Even older, let's say, types of bikes that a 50 or 60-year-old rider might ride—it might be a female on an easy, comfortable riding bike—they are going more than 25 km/h, especially downhill, and yet on this new e-scooter, we are not allowing them to go above 25 km/h. I hope they do not become sitting ducks in amongst faster moving traffic.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would say that 25 km/h on an e-scooter when you are probably a few inches off the ground is pretty fast, and out to consultation now is the metre width around overtaking. It would be no different to the way vehicles miss and avoid bicycles on the road now. We can overthink this, which is often the problem when it comes to legislation and regulation.

We already have personal mobility devices—they are called bicycles—and there is a very good framework in place for how they are used, and they are not overly regulated. People accept that they are a very old form of transport. We have far too many collisions with bicycles: they do interact with pedestrians in adverse ways, especially along the beaches and sometimes when you walk along Linear Park you see a lot of those issues. So I think we can work this out without being too overly prescriptive.

We are consulting and if, after a period of time, 25 km/h is too slow we might have to prescribe again, but this is the problem I am trying to avoid. I do not want to be too prescriptive other than in regard to helmets, about what protections you need to wear. I do not want to start forcing people to wear knee pads and certain types of footwear as a way to protect themselves while they are using e-scooters, because these things are a very good way—a low-carbon way—of getting around places and being able to go in and out of meetings or in and out of work or in and out of whatever your occupation is, so I do not want to be too prescriptive.

I turn to the other question you asked earlier that I did not answer: do I want to see these rolled out everywhere? Yes, I would love to see these in country areas. I think these would be fantastic in country areas. I do not know how well they would be taken up, especially in some regional areas. I am not sure that the for-hire brands will do very well in regional areas, but they might. This gives us the opportunity at the very least for private ownership and private use of e-scooters. So potentially it is a good outcome. I hope that satisfies some of your concerns.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I just want to take this opportunity to clarify a point made by the member for MacKillop. There is no additional regulation, no additional cost to any user or owner for supporting the nominal defendant. They do not have to fill out a form, they do not have to pay any money. It is just like somebody who is the victim of a collision with an unregistered motor vehicle. This is simply and extra protection. There is no additional bureaucracy, it is simply an extension of something that is already there.

I just wonder whether the member for MacKillop thinks that the existing nominal defendant legislation that is there at the moment should be removed because it is bureaucratic for people who own cars. The nominal defendant is a last chance for those who are innocent victims of an irresponsible driver who was driving a motor vehicle that has been unregistered for three months or longer. That is what it is. So we do not support it being used for bikes, as was suggested by the minister. The minister himself has admitted how much bigger and heavier these particular devices are. Our focus is on those who are using footpaths or legally crossing the road.

Also, I think the difference between bike riders and e-scooter riders is that bike riders are generally much more experienced. Those who are going fast are usually almost fanatics. They use it as a form of transport and fitness to get to and from work, whereas those who are using e-scooters could be using them for the very first time, and an accident happens simply because they are not sure how it works. They mix up the 'up' with 'fast' and the 'down' with 'slow', whereas it could be the opposite. You could end up with a situation where they do not get their foot on the brake in time.

So a lot more can go wrong riding an electric scooter because it is not as responsive as riding a bike. If you stop pedalling and put the brakes on, you stop on a bike. How many times do you see those stories in the news where someone has confused the accelerator with a brake pedal and ended up in the front of somebody's shop. That would not happen in a pedal car just like it does not happen on a bike.

It is just not a fair comparison to suggest that, because the Liberal Party wants to extend the nominal defendant protection for somebody who might be the victim of a hit-and-run from one of these, insurance premiums are going to go up, because it will go on bikes, it will go on all sorts of other things. That is a bit like the scare campaign the Labor Party runs before every federal election: that the Liberal Party is going to sell off Medicare. It is a standard one they pull out of the drawer. It is simply not true. It never has happened.

The facts are that that Liberal Party has been in government postwar longer than the Labor Party. Post Medicare the Liberal Party has been in government longer than the Labor Party at a federal level and, guess what, Medicare is still there, but it does not stop Labor from pulling out that scare campaign when they have got nothing else to offer.

I just want to bring to those who might be listening or to those who might refer to this Hansard, an understanding of what the intention of the parliament was for this legislation, and what the opposition's intention was for bringing this amendment to parliament—that it is simply an extension of the existing nominal defendant, specifically for these electrified vehicles that will be allowed to be used under private ownership.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will just say to the member for MacKillop, the one thing that the Liberal Party have not told you is the impact on the insurance premiums for third party insurance. As we speak, no doubt we are costing the implications of this amendment. I will be making those public as soon as we get them.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 23

Majority 13

AYES

Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. (teller) Pratt, P.K. Teague, J.B.
Whetstone, T.J.

NOES

Andrews, S.E. Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E.
Champion, N.D. Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E.
Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P. (teller) Hutchesson, C.L.
Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.B. McBride, P.N.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. O'Hanlon, C.C.
Pearce, R.K. Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.J.

PAIRS

Tarzia, V.A. Stinson, J.M. Speirs, D.J.
Cook, N.F. Telfer, S.J. Fulbrook, J.P.
Hurn, A.M. Thompson, E.L.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 4 to 9 passed.

Long title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (16:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (16:42): I certainly enjoyed the debate today. I think that I still am aspirational for some form of system that will give people reassurance that if they are the victim of a hit-and-run by one of these vehicles there will be either a private sector solution that the markets will supply or, alternatively, there will be some consideration of the access to the nominal defendant in some form or the other. But my greatest wish is that we do not have irresponsible users of this device, because it does bring an opportunity for more choice in transport and more choice for getting people from A to B.

Certainly, in my electorate of Unley, being so close to the city, it is a very easy option for people to get into town and get around to see their friends on streets that really are quite safe. Unley is full of 40 km/h streets. For the main roads themselves, King William Road has a 40 km/h speed limit and a large section of Unley Road is moving to a 50 km/h speed limit.

While I am talking about Unley Road, I might just let the minister know that our clearway signs are very difficult to read. We do not want the hours changed at all, but I am concerned because you cannot even read some of them. If you are able to ask your team to perhaps look at that for me I would be very appreciative. The minister is nodding his head, so thank you very much.

What we have seen in the parliament today is an initiation from the opposition and delivery from the government, because only the government can deliver. There are not two governments. When you hear people talking about the parliament they often say, 'I just wish both governments would be able to do something.' Well, there is only one government at any one time. The two parties may very well be the government, but that will be at different times. However, the parliament is working together to achieve this.

It is almost exclusively a game of compromise and, just because a bill has been dealt with and has been signed off to become an act of parliament, it does not mean it cannot be amended at some later stage. There are options, obviously, as they become available to the government or they become available on the marketplace. There may very well be some form of financial security for innocent victims of irresponsible users of these mobility devices.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (16:46): I thank all members for their contributions. I thank the member for Unley. I will get onto those clearway signs for him as quickly as possible. I hope these reforms have a speedy passage in the upper house so we can help decarbonise our personal mobility devices and make sure that people can get around in a much more efficient, quick and safe way.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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