Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-31 Daily Xml

Contents

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I have some questions at clause 1. I would like to make a couple of very general comments about the bill before asking the minister some questions on what appear to be loopholes or unintended consequences of the bill.

Unfortunately, young drivers continue to be overrepresented in motor vehicle collisions, accounting for 12 per cent of our road deaths and serious injuries. The fact that South Australia has the worst fatality rate for the 16 to 19-year-old group of all Australian states and territories, and almost double that of Victoria and New South Wales, indicates quite clearly that something needs to be done. These are alarming statistics. I appreciate that not all young drivers are reckless, and in some instances young drivers will be adversely affected by the new graduated licensing scheme.

That said, the fact still remains that their lack of experience on the roads is a contributing factor to these statistics. The question is: how do we address this problem? My first question to the minister is: are there any statistics available on the limitations previously imposed on young drivers, for instance, with regard to high-powered motor vehicles and, if so, what do those statistics demonstrate? Further, my advice is that under the proposed scheme it would be quite plausible to have a young driver at the wheel of a carload of peers, most of to whom he or she happens to be related.

For example, 18-year-old Tim could be driving with his 19-year-old brother, his girlfriend, their 21-year-old sister and their 19-year-old stepbrother, and this would be considered okay. Similarly, 18-year-old Tina could be driving with her 26-year-old boyfriend, as well as her two 18-year-old friends, both of whom are drunk, but because her boyfriend is not over the prescribed alcohol limit this would also be considered to be acceptable.

Will the minister advise whether any consideration has been given to these sort of scenarios and, if so, how does the government intend to address them? Furthermore, if 18-year-old Lisa is accompanied by Greg, and she elects to be prosecuted because she thought Greg was over 25, who has the burden of establishing that she, as the driver, knew that Greg was not of the required age or, alternatively, is this even a valid defence to the charge?

Lastly, can the minister explain how the Motor Vehicles (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill, which seeks to provide exemptions from licensing arrangements for Aboriginal people living in remote communities, will fit in with this bill? I appreciate that that bill has only just been introduced this week, but an explanation would be useful in the context of the current debate. Whilst I support the intent of the bill, I think these are very valid questions that need to be addressed.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am sorry, Mr Darley—you have a very quiet voice. What was the third question, please?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Can the minister advise whether any consideration has been given to these sort of scenarios and, if so, how does the government intend to address them?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Perhaps in response to the last question first, whilst advisers are organising responses, in relation to the proposed bill and changes to provisions for L and P-plate drivers on the APY lands, it is complementary to this bill. The APY bill is trying to address the issue of the difficulty of having licensed drivers on the APY lands because of the requirement to have supervised licensed driving time with another licensed driver. I have just forgotten the number of hours that you are currently—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Seventy-five.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Seventy-five, I am advised. In terms of accessibility for learner drivers to have access to a licensed driver to obtain those hours, it is extremely difficult. What we find is people getting in their cars and driving anyway because they need transportation. What is being proposed is to replace that requirement on the APY lands with an intensive training course that the learners would be required to undertake with a very strong emphasis on safety. It is trying to address that particular problem.

In terms of the first question in relation to the statistics and the size of the vehicle, the department has collected these statistics. These figures are for the number of those involved in fatal crashes for the period 2008 to 2012. They show that for metro drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 years, for a four-cylinder car there were 20; for a six-cylinder car there were 13. For 20 to 24 year olds, for a four-cylinder car there were 15 fatalities and for a six-cylinder car there were 15. For rural areas, for 16 to 19 year olds for a four-cylinder car there were 18 fatalities, and for a six-cylinder car there were seven. For 20 to 24 year olds, those figures are almost reversed: for a four-cylinder car there were seven fatalities, and for a six-cylinder car there were 13.

In relation to question 2, which went to the issue of exclusion for immediate family members, the reason for that, I have been advised, is that it has been indicated that there is less likelihood of being distracted with family members in the car compared with a car load of mates and, therefore, less risk of accident. The intention of the exclusion for immediate families was really to enhance the convenience for families who rely on being able to commute children, parents and people backwards and forwards for their commitments and family obligations.

I want to take this opportunity to put on record some answers to questions the Hon. David Ridgway asked during his second reading contribution. Apparently, he raised issues in relation to two to three years on a provisional licence. Extending the provisional licence period will extend the duration of protective conditions, such as the zero blood alcohol limit, speed and vehicle power restrictions, and lower demerit allowance.

Extending these conditions will help to keep novice drivers out of high-risk situations without impinging on their mobility. The minimum provisional licence period is three years in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and ACT, and four in Victoria. All the jurisdictions which have a three or four-year P licence period have much better safety records than South Australia.

Extending the total minimum provisional licence period from two to three years will change the minimum age at which novice drivers can graduate to a full licence to 20 years. There will be no change to the age at which a learner's permit can be obtained, which is 16 years, and there will also be no change to the age at which a provisional licence can be obtained, which is 17 years.

The main point is that by extending the time from two to three years it will not mean that young P drivers are subject to the night and passenger restrictions for three years. The night and passenger restrictions as proposed will only apply to P1 drivers for 12 months. The extension of the P period to three years will mean one year on a P1 and two years on a P2. This will not affect employment or any other access that young P2 drivers currently have. A P2 driver is also not required to display a P-plate. You did not ask a question on proposed night time restrictions; you just indicated that you were not supportive.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: For the benefit of the committee, the shadow minister, Vickie Chapman (member for Bragg), advised me this morning that the minister has arranged a briefing with the Motor Accident Commission—on Tuesday next week, I think, but I am not sure of the exact date—in relation to the proposed amendments I flagged in the second reading debate so, pending that meeting, I move that we report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.