HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-11-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOTOR VEHICLES (MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2009. Page 3858.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (21:48): I am pleased to see this legislation before us, legislation that further improves our graduated licensing scheme (GLS). The GLS was initiated in 2005-06 by the Rann Labor government for our novice drivers in an attempt to arrest the worrying trend of driver fatalities and serious injuries.

Statistics regularly reveal that those aged between 16 and 24 years are still over-represented in our crash data; they are three times more likely to be involved in a serious road crash. These proposed new initiatives provide a balanced strengthening of the graduated licensing scheme, as a result of which we will see better trained and experienced novice drivers, as well as providing a level of safeguards. In addition, the bill provides extra restrictions for those who seriously offend.

As the first minister for road safety, I was pleased, prior to my resignation, to announce seven new initiatives that the government proposed to bring to the parliament this year. I congratulate the Minister for Road Safety in the other place on bringing these proposals to fruition, with a view to seeing our young drivers better protected. Clearly, I know the great amount of work that is required prior to legislation coming before the chamber, whether it be informing all existing novice drivers of the proposed changes to the required interagency liaison or basics, such as changing forms.

Whilst I remember writing to them, I did not get the opportunity publicly to place on the record my thanks to the Road Safety Advisory Council and its youth task force, as well as to groups representing young people and associations with road safety interests, for their assistance to the government in arriving at the changes before us, and I do so now.

One of the initiatives that required not legislative change but subordinate change by regulation was the complete prohibition on learner and P1 drivers using any type of mobile phone function, including hands-free or Bluetooth units, while they are driving, and that has already been implemented, as we all know.

I know that we all agree that young drivers need to acquire safe driving experiences with as few distractions as possible. If I remember correctly, research shows that novice drivers often experience difficulty in balancing the many demands on their driving from perceptual, mental and physical tasks. They are also more likely to wander across traffic lanes and take longer to notice driving hazards.

Information has already been placed on the record but, very briefly, the proposed changes before us are the increase in the supervised driving time required by learner drivers, from 50 hours to 75 hours, and the increase in the minimal time on a learner's permit, from six months to 12 months. The premise of these changes is that young drivers will gain more experience over a greater length of time with the benefit of having a qualified driver in the car with them. Through all these proposed initiatives, I believe that we will see the greatest benefit in keeping novice drivers on their L's longer before progressing to their P's and driving unsupervised.

At the moment, we have in place curfew conditions, which apply to drivers returning from a serious disqualification, from midnight to 5am. This legislation proposes to strengthen that curfew by not allowing any passengers, other than the supervising qualified driver, during those hours. We know that young people suffer road trauma during those hours, and this passenger restriction is a further safety initiative for those who have seriously offended.

A common complaint I received as minister came from parents who believed that the current penalty for failure to display P-plates was unduly harsh, and that view was also shared by other stakeholders. At the moment, learner provisional drivers in South Australia have a limit of four demerit points, which incurs a six month licence disqualification.

However, P1 drivers who fail to display their P-plates are also liable for a six month licence disqualification. It is considered that there are more significant offences that attract disqualification—for example, breaching the zero alcohol requirement. Whilst in the future many parents will miss out on many an inventive story about why the novice driver did not display their plates, I am certain that it will nonetheless be a welcome change and bring us in line with other states.

At the moment, should provisional drivers who are disqualified because they have contravened a condition of their licence or incurred four demerit points wish to appeal, they need to do so under the current hardship appeal provision through the Magistrates Court. This ties up valuable court time, but this legislation will make it possible for those provisional drivers who receive a disqualification—that is, not for a serious disqualification offence—to have the opportunity to choose a safer driver agreement.

Those who are disqualified for serious offences will continue to have to appeal to the Magistrates Court. As to be expected, there are some strong conditions attached to the safer driver agreement, not the least a regression to a previous licence stage. If my memory serves me correctly, South Australia was the first state in Australia—when, in October 2006, new laws came into effect—that required disqualified L and P plate drivers to earn their licence back.

Another area that this legislation addresses is one that has caused enormous community debate and discussion. The use of high-powered vehicles by P1 and P2 platers has regrettably made for many a headline. The restriction of P1 and P2 platers under the age of 25 from driving high-powered cars is addressed, with appropriate exemptions to be placed in regulations, because none of us want to see families face undue hardships, particularly in rural South Australia. Our scheme is to be aligned with those in other states.

I understand that a number of technical or administrative amendments are also contained in this legislation to improve the operation of the act. It is not my intention to repeat the excellent second reading contribution of the minister, which provides members with all the detail, but simply to add my support for this bill. Clearly, I have a strong interest in this matter and, more importantly, I congratulate the minister in the other place on bringing it to fruition.

I think it is good to remind ourselves that, essentially, what this legislation before us does is strengthen the GLS for all those between the ages of 16 and 24 with extra training and safeguards, as well as placing those extra restrictions on those who seriously offend. Despite steady falls in South Australia's road toll over the past decade, young drivers continue to be overrepresented in road trauma statistics. People aged 16 to 24 years of age make up 12 per cent of the population but account for 27 per cent of road fatalities and 30 per cent of serious injuries. At least they were the statistics I worked with, and I hope they have not risen again. Road safety is generally an area of strong support across all parties, and these improvements to our graduated licensing scheme is one very good example of that support.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (21:58): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to this bill. Given the time, I will not make a particularly long contribution. This bill passed in the House of Assembly, and the shadow minister, Mr Mark Goldsworthy (the member for Kavel), certainly outlined the opposition's position on this bill.

The bill does make some significant changes to the South Australian graduated licensing scheme for novice drivers, and the opposition has supported the amendments to this. The bill increases the supervised driving time for learner drivers from 50 to 75 hours; increases the minimum time on a learner's permit from six to 12 months for drivers under the age of 25; introduces a restriction on the driving of high-powered cars for provisional drivers—both P1 and P2—under the age of 25; changes the penalty for the failure to display two P plates from disqualification to a fine and the loss of demerit points; replaces the current hardship appeal provision with the offer of a safer driver agreement; strengthens curfew conditions applying to drivers returning from serious disqualification offences by restricting the carriage of passengers during a curfew period; and a number of other smaller technical amendments.

I note that the former minister spoke just a moment ago in relation to the restriction on high-powered cars for provisional drivers. I am glad that the government has addressed not only people in country areas but anywhere where a family only has access to a four-wheel drive, a V8 or a supercharged or turbocharged car. We might wonder why they need such a vehicle, but the Hon. Caroline Schaefer said in our party room discussions that when her children were learning to drive they had a V8 for towing a horse float to a number of country shows, and that was the main vehicle they used. I am glad the government has seen fit not to enforce that, but I am concerned that it will not be good for somebody on their P1 or P2 permit if the family has only a high-powered vehicle. I am concerned that the only way we will know that is when the police, seeing someone on P-plates in a V8 or high powered vehicle, will have to pull them up to check that they are on that level of exemption. For a young driver to be stopped by a police officer when abiding by the law seems a waste of police resources.

Will the minister explain in committee exactly how it will work? If somebody has an exemption, can they display it on their P-plate in the window so that they will not have to go through the trauma of being stopped by a police officer to check whether they have a bona fide exemption, or must anybody driving a V8 or high powered vehicle on a P-plate at all times be prepared to be stopped by the police—maybe several times a day if they happen to come under the scrutiny of a police patrol? We understand what the government is trying to do, but I am trying to work out how the mechanics of it will operate.

The other area of interest—and members will note that I have tabled an amendment—relates to people learning to drive at the speed limit. The member for Kavel (Mr Mark Goldsworthy) raised the issue of learner drivers who I understand, driving with a qualified driver, cannot drive at any more than 80 km/h on the open road. If they were with an instructor or with someone in a vehicle with dual controls or brakes they could drive at 100 km/h, but they cannot drive at that speed with another responsible qualified driver. The opposition is concerned that this presents some significant road safety issues.

If a learner driver is merging onto the freeway—coming from an off ramp onto the South-Eastern Freeway, or onto the Port Wakefield Road (I am more familiar with the South-Eastern Freeway because I had a property in the South-East and drove on that road often), and the traffic is travelling at 110 km/h, all obeying the speed limit, how does that driver, who is allowed to travel at only 80 km/h, safely merge with that traffic and learn to drive at 110 km/h if they are restricted to 80 km/h? Closer to the city the speed limit on the freeway drops back to 100 km/h: how do they safely merge into that traffic, especially at times when there are significant numbers of vehicles—it may not be so bad on a lazy Sunday afternoon—if they are travelling at only 80 km/h?

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Terry Stephens talks about the big trucks and makes a very good point. Some of the B-doubles these days doing 110 km/h weigh about 40 tonnes all up, and they may have to break suddenly because a learner driver has pulled into the flow of traffic. That does not seem sensible, given that it is the speed at which the public drive. The same applies with a normal two-way highway: anywhere in South Australia the speed limit is 100 km/h unless otherwise sign posted. As I say, some areas are at 110 km/h, but a fair part of the network is at 100 km/h.

I have seen examples on the road from Adelaide to Bordertown where you will have a learner driver driving at 80 km/h and a significant number of vehicles queued up behind that learner driver because they are not allowed legally to go any faster, then you see other road users starting to take risks to overtake them because they are on a tight schedule or they are frustrated. I have also seen a B-double right up behind a learner driver, almost intimidating that driver, although not intentionally. Clearly, they have not realised that they are a learner driver and suddenly the whole traffic flow has slowed down.

It is my understanding that in Victoria learner drivers can drive at 100 km/h. I have anecdotal evidence from a lot of my friends in the Bordertown and Wolseley area that when the kids learn to drive they want to go to Victoria. They want mum to go shopping in Kaniva or Nhill or go to the footy, the cricket or the tennis because they are happy to drive and learn at 100 km/h. I think this is not about weakening the provisions with these important changes, but I think it highlights some inconsistencies.

I know that Mr Mark Goldsworthy raised it and the government rejected it in the House of Assembly, but I would like to hear what the minister's advisers have to say about how it is safe to allow a vehicle doing only 80 km/h to enter a stream of traffic that is doing 110 km/h or 100 km/h and how is it safe to have them doing 80 km/h out on the open highway when they are contending with vehicles that are travelling at 100 km/h to 110 km/h. It seems to create another hazard on the road.

I think the biggest risk to young drivers is not when they are with mum or dad or a responsible driver on their learner's permit; it is probably when they get to their P-plates when they are not with mum and dad and maybe with a couple of mates or there are some other distractions. It would seem to me to make good sense, as it does to the opposition, for our learner drivers to learn to drive for all road conditions, and that includes all speed limits, whether it be 40, 50, 60, 80, 90, 100 or 110 km/h. We have that whole range of speed limits across the state. It just makes sense.

I will not repeat the contribution that others have made in the House of Assembly or that made by the former minister. I think she has covered most of the points very well. I indicate that the opposition is happy to support the government's amendment. I think that is to do with the high-powered vehicles and having it defined in regulations. That certainly makes sense. The provisions as outlined in the bill are all good, sensible provisions, except we believe that learner drivers should be allowed to drive at 100 km/h.

Learner drivers in some of the country areas need to travel long distances. I know of people who have been driving back to the South-East or the Mid-North who are on a bit of a tight schedule and who have said to their kids that they cannot drive because they have to get there in a couple of hours and they cannot take 2½ hours to get there. Because they are limited to 80 km/h, the parents or the responsible qualified driver does not allow them to drive because it is simply a time consideration. I think it makes significant sense to have a look at that. Obviously, that amendment is on file and we will move it in committee. I urge those on the cross-benches—and I have spoken to a couple of them this evening—to have a close look at it because I think it makes a lot of sense. With those few words, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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