HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-12-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROAD TRAFFIC (RED LIGHT OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 29 September 2011.)

Clause 2.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that it have power to consider a new clause in relation to a Community Road Safety Fund.

Motion carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: When we were last in committee the Hon. Mr Ridgway asked a number of questions in relation to the Community Road Safety Fund. I have been provided with the following answers in a table of a purely statistical nature and I seek leave to have the information inserted into Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Community Road Safety Fund (CRSF)

2003-04¹Actual($'000) 2004-05Actual($'000) 2005-06Actual($'000) 2006-07Actual($'000) 2007-08Actual($'000) 2008-09Actual($'000) 2009-10Actual($'000) 2010-11Estimated Result²($'000) Total($'000)
Opening Balance 0 276 468 463 2,745 1,894 3,376 9,584
Revenue
Interest Received-CRSF 60 178 810 395 779 514 534 782 4,052
Appropriations-CRSF³ 38,700 58,500 58,500 68,521 72,796 77,317 79,251 79,251 532,836
Other Revenue - - - 151 431 310 342 87 1,321
Total Revenue 38,760 58,678 59,310 69,067 74,006 78,141 80,127 80,120 538,209
Operating Expenditure
Payment to SA Police 14,900 34,700 34,700 34,700 34,700 34,700 34,700 34,701 257,801
State Black Spot - 984 1,669 2,000 2,482 3,438 1,471 2,373 14,417
Responsive Road Safety Program - - - 225 4,710 2,003 1,126 1,421 9,485
Guard Fence Maintenance 1,652 1,525 1,638 - - - - - 4,815
Level Crossing Safety Upgrade - - - - - - 933 2,060 2,993
Safety Policy Advice 912 969 1,143 2,396 3,051 4,115 4,091 4,912 21,589
Information & Education Programs 4,017 4,803 520 5,388 3,324 3,250 3,510 3,610 28,421
SAPOL Payment Saturation Campaign - - 153 153 153 153 244 153 1,009
Driver Training & Audit - - - 2,084 2,576 2,697 2,634 2,704 12,695
Road Safety Enforcement - - - 262 331 345 346 346 1,630
Green Cycle Paths - - - 197 - - - - 197
Mass Action - 1,004 1,204 - - - - - 2,208
Roadside Hazard Protection - - - 446 70 - - - 516
Driver Fatigue Management - - - 226 - - - - 226
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Works - 112 305 906 - - - - 1,323
Maintenance of Safety Cameras - - - 102 205 242 248 108 905
Safety Related Road Mtce - - - 2,149 - - - - 2,149
Other Works - 31 - - - - 238 777 1,046
Subtotal -Operating Expenditure 21,481 44,128 41,332 51,234 51,602 50,943 49,541 53,165 363,425
Investing Expenditure
State Black Spot Program 7,000 5,213 4,811 3,815 5,039 4,489 5,569 6,052 41,988
Level Crossing Safety Upgrade - - 3,145 2,497 2,481 1,796 561 578 11,058
Responsive Road Safety Program 2,207 2,096 1,938 2,092 2,532 2,390 2,785 3,499 19,539
Mass Action 996 - 901 - 1,138 - - - 3,035
Overtaking Lanes Program - - 5,973 3,942 - - - - 9,915
Shoulder Sealing Program 6,800 7,049 1,215 - 7,880 8,945 9,539 5,924 47,352
Long Life Roads - - - - 3,127 929 17 - 4,073
Rural Road Safety Program - - - - - 4,606 6,471 7,560 18,637
Reaching the Road Safety Target-Safety Camera Program - - - 3,202 - 1,528 1,407 1,207 7,344
Subtotal-Investing Expenditure 17,003 14,358 17,983 15,548 22,197 24,683 26,349 24,820 162,941
Balance Sheet Adjustments - - - 3 1,058 1,033 -1,971 -825 -702
Total Expenditure 38,484 58,486 59,315 66,785 74,857 76,659 73,919 77,159 525,664
Closing Balance 276 468 463 2,745 1,894 3,376 9,584 12,545

¹ The CRSF was established 1 July 2003

² Subject to finalisation of 2010-11 financial statements

³ The CRSF is currently funded by an appropriation from DTF

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 2, lines 4 and 5—Delete the clause and substitute:

2—Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

(2) Sections 4(5) and 5 will come into operation on 1 July 2012.

The situation is that lots of people have said to me for some time that, if we are serious about road safety, we should be up-front on signage and that we should say to people that they are approaching an area where speed cameras are operating or an intersection where there are red lights and speed cameras, etc. In fairness to the government, these signs have voluntarily been put up with respect to—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Are you doing No. 1?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sorry, I have read the wrong one.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: This is about the date of commencement.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, and this amendment says that it does not come in until 1 July 2012 and not immediately upon passage of the bill. The proposal is that, as this is the government wanting to bring this in upon passage of the bill, my amendment says that it will commence from 1 July 2012.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In the interest of speeding things up, I indicate that the opposition is prepared to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens are opposing this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: If I can put words into the mouth of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, I would like to describe what I think his amendments are doing. They prescribe locations for red-light cameras at intersections and level crossings and set requirements for their selection and set-up, that is, they must display a sign, a choice of location—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: You are talking about the wrong amendment, too.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, I am talking about all of Mr Brokenshire's amendments because they are of a package.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: That's very efficient.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The choice of location must be based on injuries and fatalities at an intersection or level crossing. I will do the same for you, David, too, so we can get away earlier.

The minister must be of the opinion that the installation of the camera will discourage red-light offences at a location. Also, his amendments are designed to create a requirement to undertake a five-yearly review of red-light camera locations and report to both houses of parliament on injuries and fatalities at traffic light intersections and level crossing locations in the preceding five years, with reasons for the approval of each camera location, and finally to require the installation of signs to indicate the presence of red-light cameras at intersections and level crossings. The government opposes all Mr Brokenshire's amendments.

SAPOL does not, I am advised, support these amendments. Introducing an obligation to display a warning sign in each location, whether it is a safety camera that detects red-light offences, will mean that in a prosecution SAPOL will have to prove the existence of the sign because the sign becomes an element of the offence that the prosecution has to prove to substantiate that offence. It is SAPOL's view that this amendment will make the legislation virtually unworkable. If that is the design of the opposition, let them say so.

Similarly, SAPOL does not support the amendment, I am advised, that prescribes that the minister must approve the location of photographic detection devices for red-light offences. The minister can only approve the location if injuries or fatalities arising from accidents at that location require the installation of the device to discourage red-light offences at that location.

When prosecuting an offence where a photographic detection device has been used to detect a red-light offence, SAPOL will have to prove that the device has been approved as prescribed in the legislation by the minister, and in SAPOL's view this could create evidentiary difficulties. The proposed statutory requirement to display warning signs at intersections and level crossings at which there is a safety camera mirrors current Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure practice.

Placement of advanced warning signage is a DPTI policy which covers all fixed safety cameras used for speeding and red-light offence detection. DPTI publicises camera locations on its website and installs signs warning motorists of the cameras at the approach to the intersection. These locations are also marked in the UBD and Gregory's street directories and on many GPS tracking devices installed in motor vehicles, hand-held navigation devices and smart phones.

Prior to 2009, the Road Traffic Act prescribed that a photographic detection device could not be operated for the purposes of obtaining evidence of the commission of a red-light offence and a speeding offence arising out of the same incident, except at locations approved by the minister from time to time and notified in the Government Gazette.

The requirement was removed by parliament in the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2009 on the basis that the locations are public knowledge and that an incorrect identification of a site could lead to the undesirable outcome of a prosecution failing on a mere technicality. Site selection for the safety camera programs are determined by DPTI, in consultation with SAPOL, and takes into account crash statistics on a priority basis, with individual site suitability governed by site geometry, road alignment and the presence of obstructions.

Basing the decision to place intersection safety cameras solely on five-year crash information and red-light incidents will have a detrimental effect on the decision-making process for future cameras as it will limit the locations at which a safety camera can be located. Some intersections do not have a five-year crash history, for example; new or recently upgraded intersections will have that problem. In some instances, the installation of a safety camera is necessary as a preventive measure and cannot wait five years until crash statistics are available.

Support of this amendment will provide proactive measures and lead to a system of safety camera approvals that is purely reactive. It is arguable that, due to the extreme danger of running a red light at any intersection, every intersection would benefit from the installation of a safety camera that detects red-light offences.

Introducing a requirement to review all locations of red-light cameras every five years to check that they are still required at each location would create an unnecessary and costly burden. The site selection process for camera locations is consistent with that of other jurisdictions, and findings from the evaluations of independent red-light and fixed speed camera programs in other jurisdictions confirm a positive road safety effect.

Crash rates at intersections fitted with safety cameras reduce over time. The 2011 Monash University report titled 'Evaluation of crash effects of Victoria's fixed digital speed and red-light cameras' highlights this reduction to be 47 per cent for the monitored intersections.

Safety cameras that detect red-light offences have a positive road safety effect but, if a five-yearly review recommended that, due to falling crash rates at an intersection, the safety camera be removed, it is expected that, after the removal of the safety camera, the crash rates would rise again. If the crash rate went up, the next review could recommend the re-installation of a safety camera, resulting in further increased costs for the government.

The following amendments have not yet been moved by the honourable member, but I understand that he will be moving them. What the amendments aim to do regarding the Community Road Safety Fund is to establish a statutory hypothecated fund for road safety by placing the operation of the Community Road Safety Fund (the fund) into the Road Traffic Act 1961; to pay into the fund all expiation fees from camera-detected offences where at least one offence the vehicle appears to have been involved in is a red-light offence, and this will also include speeding while disobeying the red light; to allow the fund to be spent only on road safety initiatives; and to report annually to parliament on the income and expenditure of the fund. The government opposes this amendment, which the honourable member said he will be moving.

These amendments duplicate existing processes, including annual reporting to parliament in publicly-available documents, for example, the Auditor-General's Report and DPTI's annual report. They will reduce the revenue that goes into the fund because, since 2005 and 2006, DTF has appropriated funding in excess of the revenue collected from fixed and mobile speed cameras from the Consolidated Account into the CRSF. Setting up the CRSF as a statutory fund will not change existing arrangements to access the fund as expenditure from the fund would still require approval through the normal budget process.

Finally, the government opposes the amendments still to be moved because the current arrangements ensure that annual funding for road safety expenditure programs is maintained even if the annual revenue from camera-detected expiation fees fluctuates.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just to aid the efficiency of the committee, given that the minister has spoken in an omnibus way on all the amendments, I might just put the Greens' position quickly. I have said that we are not supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment No. 1, which relates to the delaying of the date of introduction of this legislation.

I also inform the committee that we will not be supporting any of the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendments, very much for the same reason the minister gave. Those conclusions in relation to evidentiary problems were ones I formed independently of any discussions with SAPOL but, really, they are clearly problems with the legislation.

Whilst the Hon. David Ridgway has not moved any of his amendments yet, I will flag now that the only amendment we will be supporting is the one that requires the reporting of the use of the Community Road Safety Fund. I accept what the minister has said, that is, that the fund already exists. The government has been quite willing to provide the statistics for the last several years of operation, and it seems to be no big burden on government to simply provide that same information on a more regular basis without the need to ask for it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Again, while we are on this omnibus sort of explanation and indication of what we will be supporting. I indicate that, from the opposition's point of view, we will not be supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendments for the same reasons that have been outlined, that is, for evidentiary reasons. I was also a bit alarmed at one of the clauses which provides:

The minister may only approve a location for the purposes of subsection (a) if the injuries or fatalities arising from accidents involving vehicles (including trains) at that location prior to the installation of the photographic [detection] device...

I know that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is a member of the Family First party, but it appears here as if he is wanting you to kill half your family first and then they will put a camera there afterwards.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: That's what happens at the moment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, the opposition's view is that they should not wait for fatalities or injuries; the government should be proactive and make sure that these things are in place. If they are there for a positive road safety and pedestrian outcome, then they should be there ahead of any potential injuries or, God forbid, fatalities. So the opposition will oppose the amendments proposed by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. As the Hon. Mark Parnell said, the Community Road Safety Fund already exists. We think there is some benefit in having that reported annually to the parliament.

While we are having this discussion, I have not formally moved this, but we believe that an alternative to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment may be:

A photographic detection device may not be operated for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of a red light offence except at locations approved by the minister from time to time.

We think it is reasonable to have that approval from the minister. In addition:

The minister may only approve a location for [the purposes of] subsection (9a) if in the opinion of the minister the installation of a photographic detection device at that location for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of red light offences will increase the safety of drivers and pedestrians at that location.

This government has, time and time again, been accused—sadly, I think rightly so—of being focused on revenue raising. This amendment will give the government and the minister the opportunity to say that they are only deploying these particular pieces of equipment where there has been, and will be, a proven road safety outcome.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As we are doing omnibus, I will just summarise and refute some of the points that have been made. First, strictly speaking amendment No. 1 really is consequential to amendments Nos 2 and 3, and arguably could or should have been postponed and recommitted after we had discussed them, but that was how I had to do it according to the way it was drafted. I just want to make that clear.

Secondly, I do not agree with the argument that because there might be an evidentiary problem with respect to a prosecution that that is an out for SAPOL or any other organisation not having to put up signs. We have seen a situation under this government where even 'Speed cameras save lives' signs have been removed and just left out there. We see nothing in the way of proactive messages about issues regarding road safety.

Whilst I acknowledge, with respect to red-light and speed cameras, that the department has, to my best knowledge, voluntarily put up signage, the fact is that there is no guarantee at law that it has to do that. Of course, if you go through a red light or speed through a red light then Family First would be the first ones to say that you should get caught, but the fact is that, if there are signs there, subconsciously every time someone enters that intersection that sign reminds them about the dangers of speeding or travelling through red lights, of speeding through intersections or of trying to beat red lights. It is about being proactive about road safety and being up-front with people.

We cannot base everything on, 'Oh well, if we put this or that in the bill there may be an evidentiary problem down the track.' I can tell you that that could occur with most pieces of legislation. The fact is that departments and agencies have to abide by legislation. It is an easy way out for them to say, 'If we don't put one sign up there, then we may not get a prosecution.' They have to do things with respect to proving that their speed detection equipment is accurate and tested regularly; what is the difference with being required to put up a sign?

I also want to say a couple of other things. The requirement that every five years the minister must review red-light camera placement to ensure that they are placed only at intersections that demonstrably require such cameras due to fatality and injury occurrences is the opposite to what the Hon. David Ridgway said. I know he must have been speaking tongue in cheek, or I would be extremely disappointed with his comment. Family First wants to see all families, all communities, all people protected in a road safety situation.

That is precisely why we have this amendment: we have seen from FOIs that where blackspots are identified, where there should be speed detection equipment, guess what? The majority of those blackspots do not have that speed detection equipment, and when you actually drill into it further you will find that most of the speed detection equipment is located totally away from where the blackspots are, and this can only be described probably as revenue raising on that basis.

I will give you a classic example: just straight out to the north-east of Parliament House here, right alongside the Adelaide Oval, I think they rake in somewhere near a million dollars a year with that particular speed camera. When you have a look at the number of accidents there, they are minimal and yet there are other intersections where there have been fatalities and serious road crashes and there is no speed detection equipment. Contrary to what the Hon. David Ridgway said, Family First is moving this amendment in the hope that it would improve road safety because they would actually be put where they should be put.

I will just finish with a couple of other points. The fact of the matter is that the amendment provides that the minister may only place cameras from time to time at intersections where, in his or her opinion, fatality and injury require a camera to be placed there. There is flexibility for the minister or obviously the person who is delegated the day-to-day decision-making behind that.

I just want to finish on the Community Road Safety Fund. I can understand why the Liberal Party would not support this because sooner or later the Liberal Party will be in government, and I hope that when they do get into government they will be more transparent than this government, because this government is trying to sell a line out there in the community that all the revenue from expiation notices goes into road safety, and that is bunkum.

What they do is just play with figures and pull some of their money from the consolidated revenue that is given to a department, shift it across to one side and bring some in to offset that from the fund. What is wrong with a little bit of transparency on this? All this clause does is give effect to the often-stated principle that all revenue from such cameras is redirected into road safety initiatives. How do we know? I have tried for years.

When I was police minister, I could have argued that all the money from expiation notices went into police and road safety. You can easily argue that, but it is not necessarily true unless you can actually see a reporting process and some sort of transparency. That is not there at the moment. It is just a flippant, easy, throwaway line to try to offset people's angst when these speed detection devices are not located in the places where they should be for speed detection. I, for one, would like to see—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I remind the honourable member that this is not a second reading speech. I think he needs to conclude.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am just rounding up a little point. I might be able to convince some of my colleagues on the last day to change their mind. I will round it up. The fund was proposed to receive funds from fines imposed via the red light and co-located speed cameras and only applied them to SAPOL or other parts of government that will implement road measures, and they must be reported to the parliament annually, for example, through DTEI's annual report on income and expenditure. I am just trying to get some transparency.

I do hear that the numbers are not on my side, but I wanted to clarify with your approval the fact that we are moving these amendments to better improve road safety for families and communities in this state and have a little bit of transparency, which would not be bad at the end of 2011 for the community of South Australia. I also say that at least the Hon. David Ridgway has put up one amendment that is similar to part of my amendments, and that is a small way forward, and we will be supporting that because we want to see some improvement in transparency.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I appreciate that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is adhering to his line, but I have to respectfully disagree with him, as I have put my reasons on the record already. In the spirit of caring and sharing, as we have embarked on today, I might also make an omnibus response to the Hon. Mr Ridgway's first amendment but also give an indication on the second amendment that he will be moving.

The amendment the Hon. Mr Ridgway has proposed deals with the location of red-light cameras, that they must be approved by the minister and that the minister can only approve the location of red-light cameras if he or she is of the opinion that the camera will increase the safety of drivers and pedestrians at the location.

The government opposes this first amendment. We believe the amendment is unnecessary as the proposed obligations closely resemble existing practice. Site selection for safety cameras is determined by DPTI in consultation with SAPOL and takes into account crash statistics on a priority basis, with individual site suitability governed by site geometry, road alignment and the presence of obstructions, as I have previously outlined.

It is arguable that, due to the extreme danger of running a red light at any intersection, every intersection would benefit from the installation of a safety camera. The government is concerned that this amendment could create prosecutorial difficulties for SAPOL. When SAPOL is prosecuting an offence where a photographic detection device has been used to detect a red-light offence, this amendment could mean that SAPOL will have to prove that the device has been approved by the minister. This adds unnecessary complexity to the prosecution and could cast doubt on the validity of the installation of cameras, resulting in legal challenges to prosecutions.

In relation to the second amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Ridgway (which I do not believe he has moved as yet), I indicate that the government will not be opposing it.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 2, after line 24—Insert:

(5) Section 79B—after subsection (9) insert:

(9a) A photographic detection device may not be operated for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of a red light offence except at locations—

(a) approved by the Minister from time to time; and

(b) at which there is, in accordance with the regulations, a traffic control device advising approaching drivers of the existence of the photographic detection device.

(9b) The Minister—

(a) may only approve a location for the purposes of subsection (9a) if the injuries or fatalities arising from accidents involving vehicles (including trains) at that location prior to the installation of the photographic detection device are in the opinion of the Minister such as to require the installation of the device in order to discourage the commission of red light offences at that location; and

(b) must, at least once in every 5 years, conduct a review of all existing approved locations, to determine if each approval is, in the Minister's opinion, still required for the purpose referred to in paragraph (a); and

(c) must, within 6 sitting days after the commencement of this section and thereafter within 6 sitting days after the completion of each subsequent 5 year period, cause a report to be laid before each House of Parliament—

(i) specifying which locations (at which red light offences may be committed) have been the site of injuries or fatalities arising from accidents involving vehicles (including trains) during the preceding 5 years, and the number of such accidents at those locations; and

(ii) setting out the locations currently approved for the purposes of subsection (9a) and the reasons for the approval of those locations.

Amendment negatived.

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

Page 2, after line 24—Insert:

(5) Section 79B—after subsection (9) insert:

(9a) A photographic detection device may not be operated for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of a red light offence except at locations approved by the Minister from time to time.

(9b) The Minister may only approve a location for the purposes of subsection (9a) if in the opinion of the Minister the installation of a photographic detection device at that location for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of red light offences will increase the safety of drivers and pedestrians at that location.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (9)
Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES (9)
Darley, J.A. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E.
Hunter, I.K. (teller) Kandelaars, G.A. Parnell, M.
Vincent, K.L. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.
PAIRS (2)
Bressington, A. Gazzola, J.M.

The CHAIR: There being 9 ayes and 9 noes, I cast my vote in the negative.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

New clause 5.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

After clause 4, page 2—Insert:

5—Insertion of sections 79D and 79E

After section 79C insert:

79D—Community Road Safety Fund

(1) A Community Road Safety Fund is established.

(2) The Fund must be kept as directed by the Treasurer.

(3) The Fund consists of—

(a) all penalties or expiation fees recovered in respect of camera offences or alleged camera offences; and

(b) any money provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Fund; and

(c) any income arising from investment of the Fund under subsection (4); and

(d) all other money that is required or authorised by or under this Act or another law to be paid into the Fund.

(4) The Fund may be invested as approved by the Treasurer.

(5) The Minister may apply the Fund—

(a) for such purposes directly related to road safety as may be determined by the Minister, including in payment to—

(i) the South Australian Police Department or any other administrative unit of the Public Service; or

(ii) any other person or organisation (whether or not an agency or instrumentality of the Crown),

for those purposes; or

(b) in making any other payment required by this Act or another law to be made from the Fund; or

(c) in payment of the expenses of administering the Fund.

(6) In this section—camera offence means—

(a) an offence against section 79B(2) where at least 1 prescribed offence in which the vehicle appears to have been involved is a red light offence; or

(b) a red light offence where the allegation of the offence is based on photographic evidence obtained through the operation of a photographic detection device;

prescribed offence and red light offence have the same meaning as in section 79B.

79E—Report on Community Road Safety Fund

(1) The administrative unit of the Public Service that is, under the Minister, responsible for the administration of this Act must, on or before 30 September in each year, present a report to the Minister on the operation of the Community Road Safety Fund during the previous financial year.

(2) The report must include details of the following:

(a) the money paid into the Fund from each source specified in section 79D(3);

(b) the manner in which any money expended from the Fund was applied by the Minister;

(c) any matter required by this Act or another law to be included in the report.

(3) A report under this section may be incorporated into the annual report of the relevant administrative unit.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 sitting days after the report is received by the Minister.

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

After clause 4, page 2—Insert:

5—Insertion of section 79D

After section 79C insert:

79D—Report on Community Road Safety Fund

(1) The administrative unit of the Public Service that is, under the Minister, responsible for the administration of this Act must, on or before 30 September in each year, present a report to the Minister on the operation of the Community Road Safety Fund during the previous financial year.

(2) The report must include details of the following:

(a) each source of any monies paid into the Fund and the amount paid into the Fund from each source;

(b) the manner in which any money expended from the Fund was applied;

(c) any required by this Act or another law to be included in the report.

(3) A report under this section may be incorporated into the annual report of the relevant administrative unit.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 sitting days after the report is received by the Minister.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire's new clause negatived; the Hon. Mr Ridgway's new clause inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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