HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-06-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Criminal Law Consolidation (Driving at Extreme Speed) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 June 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:38): I rise to speak to the bill and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. The bill responds to public comments made in early February—I think 3 or 4 February if my memory serves me correctly—by the police commissioner. At the time, the police commissioner expressed grave concerns about a motorcyclist who had been detected travelling at more than 200 km/h.

To put this in context, an object moving at 200 km/h covers in excess of 55 metres every second. In the two seconds it takes to look sideways or to be momentarily distracted, an object moving at that sort of speed would cover 100 metres. In this time, anything or anyone could enter the roadway and be in extreme danger, even if the road had been clear just seconds before.

That is even without giving consideration to the driver or passenger of the vehicle, who may be injured by a microchange in steering that causes them to collide with signs, trees, fixed objects or in fact other road users. The deaths and injuries of people, even if self-inflicted, cause incredible stress and harm to first responders and family members who need to deal with the aftermath of these sorts of crashes.

When the commissioner raised his concerns he noted the penalties were too low for people until they cause serious harm or death. At the time, the commissioner likened driving at these sorts of speeds to someone firing a gun down Rundle Mall, the recklessness that that carried and the disregard for the potential harm to others.

When the commissioner raised his concerns, we saw absolutely no response from the government. I note that, in Adelaide media, the Attorney was asked a number of times whether the government was going to do anything with the recommendations of the police commissioner and each and every time the government responded with silence. It was reminiscent of the government's response to guilty plea sentencing discount reform, where, after many months and many requests for the government to take action, nothing was forthcoming.

The Labor opposition indicated that, if the government did not take action and look to do something to implement the recommendations of the police commissioner, the Labor opposition would be moving a private member's bill and it was at this stage that the government finally and reluctantly came to the party and moved the bill that is before us. So whilst we are disappointed that it has taken, as it has on many of these things, so long for the government to move to take action on this issue, we will be supporting the action that the government was finally forced into taking.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:42): I want to put on record some of the concerns of the Greens in relation to this legislation. We understand that the Criminal Law Consolidation (Driving at Extreme Speed) Amendment Bill 2021 does have broad support within the parliament. On that basis, we will not be moving to amend the bill, nor will we be seeking to divide, but I did want to take this opportunity to put on record some of the concerns that have been expressed in relation to the bill, in particular by key stakeholders, like the Law Society.

Indeed, the Law Society has been quite critical of this approach, suggesting that it would unnecessarily complicate the existing legal regime. They specifically noted that, under section 46(1) of the Road Traffic Act, a driver already faces a maximum of two years' imprisonment and a mandatory minimum licence disqualification for 12 months for the first offence and three years for subsequent offences for driving a vehicle recklessly or at speed or in a manner which is dangerous to any person. They further noted that the court is already empowered to fix a longer period of licence disqualification in these situations.

The Law Society has expressed their preference for the existing provisions in the Road Traffic Act, as this gives more discretion to the court rather than vesting those powers within the police. The main concerns were raised around the enforceability of these sorts of provisions. As the proposed amendments require the excess of a specified speed, the Law Society holds concerns around the specific determination that these speeds were exceeded, such as the need for a calibrated speed device. As such, it is their view that these sorts of provisions may be rarely prosecuted, with preference afforded instead to the existing road traffic provisions.

There is also concern that this regime, given the significant overlap with the existing legislation, is going to cause concern for legal practitioners, as well as general road users. I think really what we are seeing here is an approach that often happens with these kinds of matters; that is, the government seeking to overlap existing law with the intention of trying to get a headline and with the intention of being seen to be doing something on an issue. We know, of course, that that is a hallmark of the Marshall government: being seen to act but often taking very little action at all.

In terms of some other issues with this bill, the Greens have concerns around speed limits in general. When I say that I mean that we think that at the moment speed limits are too high. We should be looking at reducing speed limits, particularly in metropolitan areas.

I refer you, Mr President, to a 2019 RAA campaign, which was supported by Walking SA, to cut the default speed limits in the CBD area from 50 km/h to 40 km/h after an analysis found that nearly a fifth of the state's collisions involving pedestrians occurred in the Adelaide City Council area. According to the Walking SA analysis, 289 traffic incidents involving a pedestrian occurred in the Adelaide City Council area between 2013 and 2017, making it the top ranking area for pedestrian crashes in the state. It was followed by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield.

We know that when you reduce the speed limit you reduce the risk of injury and fatality, so rather than this law and order approach the Greens would encourage the government to review speed limits, particularly in metropolitan areas, so that we can advance the safety of pedestrians. If they do that, I think they will get far better outcomes in terms of improving community health and wellbeing than this sort of law and order approach. That said, we recognise the numbers are there for this reform and we will not be seeking to divide.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood.

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