HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-03-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Red-Light Cameras

The Hon. J.S. LEE (14:51): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Road Safety a question about red-light cameras.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: In The Advertiser last week, the state's largest monitoring organisation, the RAA, called for the state government to direct the revenue from red-light camera fines to road safety. In the past two years, the number of speed camera expiations has increased by almost 58,000 in South Australia. For instance, in 2012, the number of mobile and fixed speed camera expiations was 131,484 but, in 2014, this number has increased to 189,566. Over the last three years, red-light cameras have generated more than $50 million in fines revenue. My questions are:

1. Can the minister advise what percentage of red-light camera fines is directly funding South Australia's road safety infrastructure?

2. Can the minister advise when the state government will conduct an audit of traffic cameras to make sure they are operating for safety purposes rather than revenue raising?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (14:52): I thank the honourable member for her question. There are a number of elements to her question, but I think we should start with the premise on which she based her question which, of course, is the inquiries that were made by the RAA recently regarding what happens to revenue that is raised from red-light camera offences.

The first thing, of course, is that these are not revenue-raising measures. These are entirely a safety exercise, and there is a whole swathe of evidence that demonstrates that speed cameras and red-light cameras have been incredibly effective in changing people's behaviour. Speed was a contributing factor in 27 per cent of all fatal crashes last year. In over a quarter of all fatal crashes that occurred last year, speed was a variable or a contributing factor, which is an astonishing statistic.

That is why this government remains committed to doing everything it can to change people's behaviour and not allow people to speed. The reality is that speed cameras and red-light cameras are a very effective tool when it comes to changing behaviour. In regard to the RAA's inquiry around red-light cameras, I have been advised that all money raised from red-light cameras—no different to speed cameras—does indeed go into the Community Road Safety Fund.

Money from red-light cameras, as I understand it, as I have been advised, is treated exactly the same as money raised through speed cameras and, ultimately, it ends up in the Community Road Safety Fund, which last year was approximately $81 million. All of that money is allocated to measures and efforts to improve road safety. Those can come in a number of forms, whether they be around training within our schools to promote key messages around not speeding and not running red lights or any other behaviour that can compromise people's safety on the road.

Indeed, some road maintenance programs are beneficiaries of the Community Road Safety Fund. Only on the weekend I was at a similar project at the intersection of North East Road and Sudholz Road. There are a whole range of programs that this government undertakes that are aimed to improve road safety. All of the money that is raised from red-light cameras and speed cameras goes into that Community Road Safety Fund to try and improve road safety.

I just want to say one thing in regard to this suggestion about revenue raising. I understand that people get frustrated when they receive a speeding fine. I understand that people hurt when they receive a fine from a red-light camera. No-one likes to receive a fine, and I for one am incredibly sympathetic to those people, particularly those people on low incomes; when they get a fine, it's a real hit—it hurts. It hurts their budget for a weekend.

But we need to understand why that fine is there: it is there to try and change people's behaviour, and we have been incredibly effective at doing it. I for one would be very happy to see that revenue raised from red-light cameras and speed cameras to go down to zero. If we didn't raise a single zack from red-light cameras and speed cameras, then that would be a great result because it would mean that no-one is speeding and no-one is running red lights.

And if no-one was speeding and no-one was running red lights, sure, there wouldn't be that money, but it would mean that our roads would be safer, less lives would be lost tragically—all of those things that of course cause a massive cost to the economy in any event.We would be very happy to see these things decline,

The reality is that if we were to remove every speed camera, if we were to remove every red-light camera tomorrow, you can lay London to win a brick that speeding rates would go up and people would start to run red lights. I know honourable members opposite wouldn't like to see that occur, so I would ask people to be a little bit responsible when they start throwing around lines like 'revenue raising', which it is not. This is entirely an exercise in trying to make sure that our roads are safer.

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