HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOTOR VEHICLES (LEARNER'S PERMITS AND PROVISIONAL LICENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2013.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:48): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Motor Vehicles (Learner's Permits and Provisional Licences) Amendment Bill 2013. I indicate that the opposition will support the second reading of this bill but opposes two specific proposals. We supported the initial move to a graduated licensing scheme, and we are always pleased to support initiatives that show reasonable potential to reduce fatality or injury on our roads. Having three children, two having recently passed through the scheme and one thinking about driving within a few years, I am certainly most eager to see the best road safety options taken.

The Premier announced earlier this year that he intended to change the graduated licensing scheme. This legislation intends to increase the amount of time young people must remain on their P-plates from two to three years. It restricts P1 drivers to carrying only one passenger, and there are specific exemptions though relating to, for example, employment and training.

It sets a curfew for P1 drivers from 12am to 5am, and learner motorcyclists would also be captured by this provision. It brings forward the hazard perception test from the P1 to P2 stage to the learner and P1 stage, thus reducing the number of times people have to attend a Service SA centre. It also removes regression after disqualification to a previous licence stage. The areas which the opposition will oppose are the increase to the P-plate period to three years and the 12am to 5am curfew.

I reiterate our transport spokesperson's assertion that the DPTI statistics on fatality and casualty crashes do not indicate that the specific late-night period is the biggest problem. We do not refute that 16 to 19-year-old drivers are disproportionally represented in serious crashes in general. However, the curfew does not statistically stack up. Like the provision on carriage of passengers, there will be exemptions for the curfew also.

The shadow minister has painted a picture of what the system could mean in terms of red tape—that a young driver will need to fill their glove box with letters and notes attesting that they are involved with various sporting and working commitments. Then, those notes will inadvertently be left at home when they drive their mum's car instead of their dad's.

They will also need to be taking the shortest possible route during the curfew time to get to their commitment. It is impossible to pre-empt all the reasons that there may be a deviation of route, not the least of which is the state of South Australia's roads, which this government is clearly out of touch with. All these practical problems with an initiative in this bill that is not founded on any sound road safety statistical basis form the main reason we cannot support that aspect of the bill.

The restriction on the carriage of multiple passengers for P1 drivers under the age of 25 is supported. As mentioned there will be exemptions. I will not go through them individually but they are sensible exemptions. Drivers will need to hold evidence of their exemptions and it would no doubt be some inconvenience, but if it assists in policing and if this measure contributes to road safety, it is a worthwhile inconvenience. There will be three demerit points and an expiation fee for a breach of this provision. Importantly, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles will have the power to gazette further exemptions.

We also support the removal of the regression to a previous licence stage so that learners and P-platers who are returning to driving after disqualification will no longer regress to the previous stage. We appreciate that the government is attempting to address an issue here where there has been no demonstrable benefit from causing disqualified drivers to be retested at a previous licence stage in order to return to the road. These laws are about road safety, not about putting drivers through a costly testing procedure multiple times with no road safety benefit shown.

Our licensing system is already extremely costly. As stated by our transport spokesperson, it costs over $400 to get a 10-year licence and each subsequent year's renewal draws a $17 fee just for administration. Drivers will no longer need to visit the customer service centre to upgrade from a P1 to a P2 licence, with the electronic hazard protection test brought forward to the earlier licensing stage. Any opportunity to reduce the time or frequency of visits by the public to government offices is obviously a good thing and a convenience that the motoring public will no doubt gladly accept.

The provisional period is extended from two to three years, so drivers will no longer be able to go onto their full licence at 19. As my colleague highlighted, a significant number of drivers in the 17 to 25 age group live in peri-urban or rural areas and that additional year will place a major impost on their ability to transport themselves between rural towns as is often needed for work or education. It would be a worthwhile inconvenience if it addressed the real danger period, which has been found to be the three months following the gaining of a licence—so, immediately after the period of supervision.

The fact that new provisional drivers will be captured under this new period, while existing provisional drivers will not, is to say that some must bear this major inconvenience simply because they have been categorised in order that certain conditions must be imposed on them until they are 20. This government, with the support of the opposition, has made some positive contributions to road safety, but we must be sure to keep our focus on initiatives that have demonstrable benefit. Our police and, I believe, the motoring public are happy to wear some inconvenience for the sake of safer roads and a safer community but not for the purpose of more red tape. With those few words, I indicate that we will be supporting most aspects of this bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:53): I believe that there are no further second reading contributions to this bill. It is a very important bill that seeks to make particular changes in an attempt to save lives. We know that there is a great deal of carnage on our roads and I could not imagine that there would be anyone in this chamber or the other place whose lives would not have been affected in some way by the road toll. I thank members for their contributions and the general support that has been indicated, and I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

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