HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-11-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOTOR VEHICLES (MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 November 2009. Page 3929.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (11:22): By way of concluding remarks, I thank members who have spoken on this bill for their valuable contributions. The bill builds on previous novice driver initiatives introduced by the Rann government and will ensure that young novice drivers are better prepared when they graduate to a full licence. The bill also contains a number of technical amendments designed to improve the operation of the act.

To respond to the Hon. David Ridgway's query about enforcement of exemptions to the provisional driver high-powered vehicle restrictions, it is proposed that, upon application demonstrating the necessity for the exemption, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles will issue the provisional driver with an exemption certificate. The exemption sticker on the P-plate or on the windscreen is not proposed because such identification mechanisms do not confirm the identity of the licence holder and because the exemption will be specific to the individual.

South Australia is following the example of the Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland high-powered vehicle restriction schemes which all issue an exemption certificate and require the exemption certificate to be carried on the person at all times whilst driving a high-powered vehicle and, further, that the certificate must be presented to a police officer upon request. As the driver must also carry their provisional licence with them at all times when driving, it is suggested that both documents be kept together.

The role of SAPOL is to enforce the law, and it would be appropriate for a SAPOL officer who sights P-plates on a high-powered vehicle to stop the vehicle to check whether the driver is committing an offence by driving the high-powered vehicle. It is at this time that the driver would show the officer the exemption certificate if they had one. If they were over the age of 25 and not subject to the restrictions, the birth date on the driver's licence would be sufficient evidence of the driver's age.

It is reasonable for a driver who successfully applied for an exemption to expect SAPOL to enforce the restrictions and, provided that the driver continues to have the certificate on their person at all times whilst driving the high-powered vehicle as required by the legislation, being requested to stop the vehicle at the request of a police officer should not be a traumatic exercise for them.

I foreshadow that I will be moving an in-house amendment about the way the list of high-powered vehicles is published, in response to feedback received from the opposition in the other place. Road safety is a priority for this government, and therefore I encourage the committee to expeditiously consider this important bill before the end of this year so that the implementation of these initiatives can occur as soon as possible.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a very brief comment and a question. Family First supports this measure; it is a sensible measure and we are not critical of it. Compiling this legislation is very difficult because obviously it is hard to draw the line in relation to what cars are in and what cars are out.

One measure that has been touted quite extensively within motoring journalist networks, motoring magazines, enthusiasts and the like—and being one myself I have personal knowledge, having shelled out for Wheels magazines over the years—is a power to weight ratio for cars. In my personal view that is a better measure because V8 cars, for example, are seen as too powerful but of course an older V8 car is less powerful than the V6 Commodore that I drive today—substantially less, in fact. A Holden Kingswood, for example, has nowhere near the power that my 215 kilowatt Commodore has.

These are some of the issues, and I understand that it is difficult for the government to frame legislation in that regard, but I just ask the minister: what work was done in considering those issues and how did the government come to this point?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: South Australia is following the schemes that have been successfully implemented interstate. A power to weight ratio is defined as the power of the vehicle in kilowatts measured at the engine flywheel divided by the weight of the vehicle in tonnes.

Approximately 10 years ago, Victoria introduced power to weight ratio restrictions which defined a high-powered vehicle as a power to mass ratio that exceeds 125 kilowatts per tonne or an engine capacity that exceeds 3.5 litres per tonne of the unladen mass or tare of the vehicle. I will bet you did not know I knew that.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: You learn something every day.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member opposite me is enthralled by the depth of my knowledge.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: As are we all.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: And I have even impressed the Hon. Ian Hunter. However, it was not easy for provisional drivers to calculate this ratio or understand whether their vehicle complied or contravened it; nor was it easy to apply the ratio calculations from an enforcement perspective.

Therefore, as of 1 July 2007, Victoria amended its definition of a high-powered vehicle to what we are proposing: an engine of eight or more cylinders, a turbocharged or supercharged engine (except diesel-powered vehicles), an engine that has been modified to increase its performance and/or any of the following high-performance vehicles as published in the GovernmentGazette. Using the power to weight ratio approach adopted by Victoria could lead to the use of some high powered vehicles such as Subaru WRXs being permitted, and this is not desirable.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 3, lines 13 to 15 [clause 4(1), inserted definition of high powered vehicle]—Delete the inserted definition of high powered vehicle and substitute:

high powered vehicle means a motor vehicle—

(a) belonging to a class of vehicles prescribed by the regulations as high powered vehicles for the purposes of this act; or

(b) of a kind included in this definition by the Registrar by notice in the Gazette,

but does not include a motor vehicle of a kind excluded from this definition by the Registrar by notice in the Gazette;

In the other place it was suggested that high powered vehicles should be defined in the regulations rather than the Government Gazette. In response, the Minister for Road Safety advised that the government was prepared to consider an amendment to that effect so that there would be no confusion about the government's intention regarding these vehicles. He also stated that classes of high powered vehicles and specific vehicles would be included and excluded. I am therefore proposing an amendment that provides a new definition of a high powered vehicle as a class of vehicle as described in the regulations to give the necessary flexibility. The amendment also provides that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles can include or exclude a kind of vehicle from the vehicle classes provided in the regulations by notice in the Government Gazette.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition supports the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: As will Family First. I think it is a very sensible amendment and we support it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 5 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 8, line 40 [clause 9, inserted section 75A(16)]—Delete all words in this line and substitute:

(aa) where the vehicle is being driven on a road outside of metropolitan Adelaide—100 kilometres an hour;

(a) where the vehicle is being driven on a road within metropolitan Adelaide and—

This will allow learner drivers to drive at 100 km/h outside the metropolitan area, with the appropriate qualified licensed driver sitting next to them. This amendment comes from a number of representations I have had from country people. Of course, having two daughters—one being 19 and the other 16½, and who has only just got her licence—I have been on the open road with them. However, as members would know, I lived at a property on the Victorian border and I still have a number of friends who live in South Australia but whose kids learn to drive in Victoria because they can drive at 100 km/h. My daughter, who has just completed her learners, did some driving with a qualified instructor in a dual-controlled vehicle with extra brakes on the passenger side on the freeway travelling at 100 km/h.

However, what concerns the opposition and a number of people who have contacted us from areas outside the metropolitan area—in rural and regional South Australia—is that you have learner drivers driving, in most cases, with mum and dad, or a qualified licensed driver, on the open road on which everyone else is travelling at 100 km/h or, in some cases, 110 km/h, and the learner is allowed to do only 80 km/h. I have been in a vehicle with one of my children on a single carriage highway with no overtaking lanes when, suddenly, a 40 tonne B-double comes up behind the car. The driver of the B-double has to brake and then, suddenly, you see another vehicle coming from the other direction, and so the B-double has to stay right behind the learner driver. It is quite intimidating for the learner driver to have this great big vehicle behind them. You also notice that people take unnecessary risks on the open road to pass these leaner drivers.

The same problem arises when you are trying to merge into the traffic, say, on a freeway where you do not have to stop to wait for a break in the traffic, but you merge in. If the traffic on the freeway is travelling at 100 km/h or 110 km/h, how do you merge safely into the traffic, especially when the qualified instructors say that the safest way to merge into the traffic is to speed up? That is why you have an on-ramp, so you can be up to the speed, merge into the traffic and carry on. If there is not much traffic around, sure, you can get onto the road at 80 km/h and not be an inconvenience.

Our roads are getting busier and it makes sense to the opposition that, outside the metropolitan area where there is limited access to driving instructors with dual-controlled vehicles, learner drivers should be allowed to drive at the speed limit at which everyone else drives. I think members would accept that the biggest risk with young drivers is not when they are with their mum, dad or a qualified licensed holder, but during that first period when they are on their P-plates and maybe they are by themselves or with a couple of mates and not concentrating as they should. Surely, it makes sense to train them to meet all conditions on the road, especially given that our speed limit is 100 km/h or, in some cases, 110 km/h. It makes sense to the opposition that learner drivers should be allowed to drive at 100 km/h so they can experience all conditions.

We do not say to them in the city, where the speed limit is 40, 50 or 60, 'You can only drive at 80 per cent of the speed limit because you are a learner driver.' We expect them to drive at all the other speed limits across the state, except in this particular case. I use the example of people living on the South Australian border. During the football, cricket or tennis season, all the kids want to drive in Victoria because they can do so at 100 km/h. Okay, for them it is a little more fun to drive at 100 km/h than 80 km/h, but you do find that they learn better and they can participate in the road traffic.

The other issue is that, if kids can drive at 100 km/h on the country roads, you will see them doing more training. I know of family and friends who have said, 'We need to go to Adelaide for the day, but, hell, we haven't got time for to you to drive today because you can only do 80 km/h and we need to be there in three hours; we haven't got four hours to get there.' I think you would find that, if learner drivers were able to drive with their parent or a qualified licensed driver at 100 km/h, there would be many examples of increased levels of training because the kids would be able to drive at the speed limit.

With those words, I hope that the government supports this; if it does not, I hope that the crossbenches and the minor parties see the common sense of allowing our young drivers to learn and train at the speed limit, given that when they are on their P's they are at greatest risk, yet we are saying that they cannot learn to drive at the speed limit unless they are with a driving instructor in a dual controlled vehicle. That is the advice the shadow minister, Mark Goldsworthy, gave me when the government rejected the suggestion in the other place.

I appeal to the crossbenches to support this amendment, if the government does not, purely because I think that it is a common-sense measure that will bring about a better quality of training for our young drivers in the country. We know from anecdotal evidence that many farm kids, and a lot of town kids in country areas, have been driving on farms for years before their city cousins.

Many of them are probably quite competent drivers, but they would never drive at 100 km/h around a paddock. On-farm driving is much slower, so that last little bit of training to get them up to travelling at 100 km/h—learning to exercise judgment in overtaking lanes and pass something safely before the overtaking lane ends—will contribute to a better road safety outcome. It is just a common-sense measure.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The maximum speed a learner's permit holder may currently drive in South Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory is 80 km/h, although it may be up to 100 km/h in South Australia if the learner driver is in a designated driving school car fitted with dual controls.

The top speed for a learner driver in Western Australia is 100 km/h, but there are no such restrictions in any other jurisdiction, other than the posted speed limit on each road. The opposition has moved to amend the legislation in South Australia to increase the speed limit for learner drivers to 100 km/h on rural roads.

We are talking not just about country kids here. The honourable member seems to suggest that country kids are all experienced in driving, but that is not the case. We are talking about any young person driving outside the metropolitan area, and that includes far more than those kids who may be well versed in driving. Of course, we need to make rules to protect the safety of everybody, and that is what we are doing here.

The government does not support the amendment. Speeding and inappropriate travel speeds directly contribute to at least 40 per cent of deaths on South Australian roads each year. Travel speed has a dual impact on road trauma because it influences the risk of having a crash as well as the severity of the crash. In rural areas, travelling at just 10 kilometres above the average speed doubles the risk of a casualty.

Young drivers are at greater risk than the rest of the driving population, and controlling their top speed is an effective way of reducing this risk. The number of crashes that occur reduces at lower speeds because road users have more time for decision-making, they are less likely to lose control and more able to take evasive action and stop a shorter distance. This is particularly important for learner drivers, who are still developing the necessary driving skills and experience to become safe drivers.

The Centre for Automotive Safety Research has reported that the most common type of crash for novice drivers generally is leaving the road and hitting fixed objects. Allowing learner drivers to drive at higher speeds increases their risk of being involved in a crash, as well as the crash severity and resultant injury.

Even with a supervising driver present, young and new drivers should take particular care when driving at high speed, as control of the vehicle is a lot more difficult should something go wrong. That is the advantage of the current provision of only allowing learner drivers to drive at 100 km/h per hour with a motor vehicle instructor in the vehicle fitted with dual brakes.

It has been argued that not allowing learner drivers to travel at up to 100 km/h can create safety issues relating to merging and speed differentials between vehicles, as the Hon. David Ridgway has outlined. Learner drivers and their supervising driver should look for safe opportunities to practise in a range of conditions, including merging in busy traffic.

By the same token, fully licensed drivers should be prepared to slow down as they approach a vehicle displaying L-plates. This is one of the reasons that learner drivers are required clearly to display L-plates. Care and consideration is required by both learner and full licence holders. As speed is a prime factor in the youth toll, the government does not support this amendment. Having lost my brother at a young age to road fatality, one death is one too many.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister talks about the importance of young learner drivers developing their skills. If they do not have access to a driving instructor and a dual controlled vehicle, how can they develop skills on the open road above the speed of 80 km/h if it is illegal for them to do so? We are talking about preparing young drivers for a very important role in our community—that is, to be safe drivers—yet we are not allowing them to learn. In relation to the minister's comment about merging, I will wait for the minister to listen.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: I'm listening.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I forget that women can do several things at once, so I apologise. If the traffic is travelling at 100 km/h, how do you merge into the traffic safely when you are doing 80 km/h? I understand the minister's concern about young drivers and speed and speed being a factor, and I am very sorry to hear that her family suffered a loss, but I suspect that it may not have been while her brother was a learner driver; it may have been beyond that time. Clearly, the statistics show that it is not learner drivers who lose their lives; it is once they are off their L-plates that there is a problem. So, to prepare them for driving in all conditions, I would like to know how they can develop their skills if they do not actually drive at the same speed as the rest of the motorists they are working with.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: I support the Hon. David Ridgway. There is only one way to learn to drive, and that is to drive. By not supporting this amendment, what the minister is doing is condemning learner drivers, who after all are accompanied by a responsible adult, to driving below a speed which enables them to handle a car on the open road. So, what happens is that, by the effluxion of time, they get their P plates and then drive on an open road without the experience of driving at 100 km/h.

I know it is very easy to say that if you drive slowly you are safe, and that is probably the case, but the majority of people who drive on the open road travel at or just below the speed limit, which is 110 or 100, depending on where you are. So, without that experience, we suddenly allow particularly young people to drive at the speed limit, unaccompanied and under-experienced or not experienced at all. I think the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment, again, shows some common sense. The name of the licence is a learners permit, and what he is endeavouring to do is to allow them to learn while they are accompanied by an experienced driver.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First is attracted to the amendment of the Hon. David Ridgway, simply because it makes good, logical sense. If we are talking about someone learning to drive a vehicle, they should learn how to drive that vehicle in the circumstances that prevail on the road and not be limited to learning to drive the vehicle in some or even most circumstances. They learn the basics of driving a car—go, steer and stop—but they have to learn how to go, as well. They have to learn how to control a vehicle unaccompanied by a licensed driver when they get to the P plate level of driving. They have to learn how to travel at 100 km/h and to be able to control a car in a strong wind or whatever the circumstances might be.

The point Mr Ridgway made about merging is very valid. When we first became aware of this amendment we were attracted to it, because it made sense. We contacted a number of our country supporters—at least 20 or 30 of them, and they were adults, not children—and many of them had been through the stage of teaching their children to drive in the country and were very much in favour of the amendment. It makes sense. Learners should learn how to drive a car in all circumstances, and I would rather they learnt that when a licensed driver was sitting next to them rather than when they were not.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: South Australia and other states have a graduated licensing system and a graduated learning system, which obviously starts with L plates, where a person is required to be supervised. Where possible, we encourage drivers to learn in learner vehicles where there are dual controls which offer greater flexibility for the learner, but we certainly accept that not every learner driver necessarily has access to that sort of service or facility.

Nevertheless, when most drivers start out on their Ls they are grossly inexperienced, and the statistics are clear. Particularly at that high level of inexperience, we are saying that even 10 km/h difference in speed can make a huge difference to the risk to that person's life. We are saying that, at that grossly inexperienced level, there are restrictions about what they can do. The next level is restricted driving, when they can drive at 100 km/h. It is about building on so people gain at least some experience and time driving, and then at the next step they are able to build a little more: they are able to drive a little faster, etc.

It is staggering their learning experience so they can build on their skills, and then they go on to a full licence. The advice I have received is that to allow those grossly inexperienced learners to be able to travel at 100 km/h is creating risks that we believe are not warranted for our young people. Of course, they can get practice, once on a provisional licence, with experienced passengers and such like.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: This is one of the more sensible amendments I have seen in a long time in this place. Having a country background and having seen how dangerous it is for learner drivers on country roads doing 80 km/h, with trucks jammed up behind them and people in a hurry, I know we really are putting them at great risk. The government is saying that it is fine for them to do 80 with a driver next to them, but the day they get their P plates they can whizz off at 100 km/h without a responsible person sitting next to them. It is absolute craziness. I hope the government can come to its senses.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: When the Hon. David Ridgway talked to me about this amendment I had a great deal of sympathy, because a recent experience in my mind was taking a child on L plates on a very long country trip down to the South-East, and we did have to set off an hour before everyone else, and we got home an hour after everyone else. The trip, incidentally, was to inspect the drains of the South-East—which will be discussed later on—and my son needed to get his hours up, as it were. It was a painful, slow trip, but it was, I believe, a safer trip than if we had been going 100 km/h the whole way.

The Hon. David Ridgway has pointed out a number of practical examples where it would be more convenient to be able to go at 100, and the merging lanes on freeways is a classic example. It is safer if you are travelling on that merging ramp at the same speed as the traffic you are merging with. One practical difficulty of the honourable member's amendment is that there is no clearly defined or signposted boundary of the Adelaide metropolitan area, and I would imagine, from my recollection of the Development Act definition used, that some ramps on the South-Eastern Freeway are in the metropolitan area and some are not. Perhaps the Crafers ramp might be, but perhaps one of the further-out ramps would not be. The learner would also need to know at what point on the freeway they were allowed to start driving at 100 km/h and did not have to stick to the 80 km/h limit.

The Hon. Terry Stephens mentioned the inconvenience experienced by motorists when you have a slow driver in front of you on a country road; it is the same inconvenience as when an agricultural machine or tractor is in front of you, and there is no talk of banning them on country roads because they slow down the traffic behind. Yes, it is inconvenient, but it is for a short period of time. The same applies with learner drivers. Yes, it might be inconvenient, especially when they are towards the end of their learner's period, are feeling more confident and want to go a bit faster, but as the minister pointed out it is a graduated system and it makes sense in a graduated system to start off our drivers at a lower speed.

Ultimately I am most persuaded by the road safety arguments. We kill 100 people a year on our roads. People say that that is unacceptable. That is not true—it is acceptable: we accept it year after year after year. It seems that if this amendment was to come through, the chance of more deaths rather than fewer is higher, and therefore we should stick with our learners learning at a lower speed and, as the minister has said, they can get practice at a higher speed once they have their provisional licence.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I also have concerns with this amendment. When the Hon. David Ridgway approached me it seemed to make common sense at the time, but after giving it further thought, and having had three boys myself go through the whole learning to drive process, at no stage when they were learners would I have wanted to get in the car with them going 100 km/h on an L-plate. This amendment combines three of the most identified causes of road deaths or accidents, namely, country roads, speed and youth inexperience. We are always talking about teaching our children to learn to crawl before they walk and walk before they run. As for the trucks jamming up the rear of a learner driver, that is an issue for trucks.

It is an education program for trucks—tailgating is illegal. Learner drivers display the 'L' for a reason: as the minister said, it is a warning to everybody else on the road that they are driving more slowly, they are less experienced and, if the trucks are not abiding by that, perhaps the learner drivers should be taking down rego numbers and reporting them. I do not see that this will contribute at all to lowering our road toll, and I certainly do not think it hurts learner drivers who learn to handle a car at a reasonable speed in those early days of their driving experience.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: To respond to a couple of comments, in particular that relating to the agricultural equipment that the Hon. Mark Parnell mentioned, I point out that such equipment must display a flashing light and big orange reflective signs, and in some cases of restriction you cannot travel at night with those pieces of equipment. They stand out a lot more and quite often are going significantly more slowly than 80 km/h—maybe only 20 km/h or 30 km/h. They are much more visible and identifiable from a long distance away. I had a property along the main Adelaide-Melbourne highway. You avoid the highway like the plague; you will go five kilometres further around the back road with a big air seeder or farm equipment purely for that reason; it is just not safe to be out there with it. On some occasions you have no choice but to travel on the road, but they are clearly identified. I do not think learner drivers and their vehicles are in the same category.

I am a little dismayed. I understand there is a correlation between speed and accidents—we all accept that—but for learner drivers who can only do 80 km/h and do not have access to a dual control vehicle, how do they learn to safely overtake, even in an overtaking lane, or judge how quickly you can get past a vehicle if they have never been allowed to drive at that speed?

The Hon. A. Bressington: That's what parents are for once they have their P-plates.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Ann Bressington says that that is what parents are for once they have their P-plates. I am happy to be driven around anywhere by my daughter, who is on her P-plates, but that is when they get out on the road themselves without any adult supervision. That is the real risk with this group of drivers. We talk about the metropolitan area, and maybe that definition needs to be removed. I put in that definition because clearly in the city you have much more access to qualified driving instructors with the appropriate vehicles, but maybe we should look at that matter.

If this amendment gets up it will come back rejected by the government in the House of Assembly, and if the chamber is agreeable and we get to that point we could look at that definition. The Hon. Mark Parnell is correct in that some of the ramps close into the city and on the Southern Expressway are in the metropolitan area. It makes a lot of sense for those who have had young children driving. As a parent I did not want my kids out on the road when they were grossly inexperienced. As a responsible parent, I did not let my daughters go out at 100 km/h until I felt that they were competent to drive at that speed. Back in the days when I learnt to drive you could go to the police station and do a written test for your Ls; that is all you had to do, and then a fortnight later you could come back and get your licence, and we did it then. This is a great step forward.

The Hon. P. Holloway: You don't look that old.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am very flattered by that but, sadly, I am.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I did. I was lucky; I was a farm kid and had probably driven a fair bit. Certainly, this system is a lot better: the kids take a lot longer and get a lot more experience. We support all the measures—the 75 hours of training, etc.: we think all of that is sensible. We think this is a very sensible amendment to give our young drivers the skills they need to participate out on the open road in all conditions.

If we wanted to take it to the nth degree in terms of safety, maybe we should be looking at saying that you cannot have a licence to tow a vehicle until you have done a test to tow a trailer or a caravan. The silly thing about this is that you can get a licence, hook onto a two tonne trailer with your mum and dad's four-wheel drive and head off down the road, having never towed a vehicle in your life.

If we are serious about trying to prepare our kids, we are not preparing them to the fullest. Clearly, allowing them to drive at 100 km/h is at the judgment of the qualified driver next to them. I think the vast majority of people are responsible. As I said before, the biggest risk to our young drivers is not when they are on their Ls and there is a responsible driver with them while they are learning: it is when they get off their Ls and onto their Ps that they are most vulnerable.

Sadly, that is an area where we see road deaths, although I suspect that most road deaths occur once they are off their Ps, when they are in their early 20s and they think they are invincible and, sadly, so many of them come to grief. I urge all members to support this sensible amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I think the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment is sensible and I will be supporting it.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I was not going to make a contribution, because the minister has very eloquently put on the record that this is about road safety and the safety of young people, who are over-represented in our crash statistics, but I do point out to those members who have indicated that they will support the Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendment that this is about a group of people to whom we should be displaying some tolerance. They are in the process of actually learning to drive. Their plates are clearly displayed and we as a society should be making allowances for them. If we cannot demonstrate that level of allowance for that interim period of time, then perhaps those other drivers themselves should not be on the road.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (11)
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A.
Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. Winderlich, D.N.
NOES (8)
Bressington, A. Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K. Parnell, M.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.
PAIRS (2)
Lucas, R.I. Finnigan, B.V.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The CHAIRMAN: The next amendment is in the name of the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This is an issue that the Hon. Mark Parnell raised and, on reflecting on it this morning, there are off-ramps and on-ramps on the south-western freeway in the metropolitan area that would be very difficult and, of course, the Southern Expressway is all within the metropolitan area. So, given that my second amendment identifies the metropolitan area as being within the definition of the Development Act, I will not proceed with the amendment.

Clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (10 to 28), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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