HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Statutes Amendment (Use of Devices in Vehicles) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 November 2022.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:49): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Use of Devices in Vehicles) Bill, and I note that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. I would also like to note that the opposition will be supporting this bill, albeit we do have a number of questions to raise in the committee stage, particularly those questions that were either not answered in the other place or taken on notice by the minister.

I would like to start by acknowledging that a lot of the preparatory work on this bill was done by the former Liberal government. It is a bill that is an important step in improving road safety, and efforts to do better on our roads should always be bipartisan. Driving is a privilege and yet it is something that many of us take for granted. Each time you get behind the wheel of a vehicle or sit on your motorbike, you have a responsibility to every other road user because the choices you make on the road can have deadly consequences.

Drivers must remain vigilant to the fatal five causes of road trauma: drink and drug driving, speeding, driving whilst distracted, not wearing a seatbelt and dangerous road behaviour. Of those fatal five, driver distraction is the leading cause of fatalities and serious injuries on South Australian roads. The statistics are damning.

In South Australia, inattention was a contributing factor in 51 per cent of fatal crashes and 34 per cent of serious injury crashes in the last five years between 2017 and 2021, representing 247 deaths. This year alone, 1,330 serious injuries and 17 deaths have been attributed to a distraction whilst driving. It is heartbreaking, it is a senseless waste of life, not to mention the catastrophic and life-changing injuries. Lives lost. Lives changed. Families, friends, communities forever altered.

I understand that 30,000 expiation notices have been issued over the last four years for mobile-related offences in South Australia. That is 20 people every day on South Australian roads putting themselves and others in harm's way, and that does not account for those who are not caught. This bill will enable the installation of new mobile phone use detection cameras, which will be able to detect drivers illegally operating mobile devices. It will enhance efforts to make sure that drivers on our roads are paying attention.

It is technology already used in New South Wales and Queensland, and being trialled in Victoria and the ACT. It will be another important tool in our toolkit as we continue to work Towards Zero Together. It will help us to deter those 20 people who get caught every day and hopefully deter all those who police officers are not able to capture through direct observation tactics alone.

The mobile phone detection cameras are a new purpose-built, high-definition camera to be installed at high-risk metropolitan sites. Where technology exists that has the potential to have a positive effect on road safety, it is incumbent upon us to consider how it can be applied with certainty and legislate accordingly.

Too many lives are lost unnecessarily each year on our roads. We must take every step possible to improve road safety in South Australia. We must reduce the risk to drivers, to cyclists and to pedestrians. It is my hope that these detection cameras will act as a strong deterrent to drivers who attempt to use their mobile phone whilst driving and will help to change driver behaviour over the long-term so that drivers are more attentive when behind the wheel.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:53): Driver distraction is a major road safety risk and a leading cause of fatal and serious injury crashes on South Australian roads. Using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous. Road trauma is a blight on communities and tears families apart. The Malinauskas government is committed to reducing dangerous and high-risk driving behaviours such as distraction. This measure is an important deterrent to a significant behavioural contributor to the road toll.

Mobile phone detection cameras have been installed interstate and have proven effective in identifying drivers illegally using their phones. The introduction of mobile phone detection cameras aligns with South Australia's road safety strategy target of reducing serious casualties to fewer than 43 lives lost and 477 serious injuries by 2031.

The Statutes Amendment (Use of Devices in Vehicles) Bill 2022 amends the Road Traffic Act 1961 to allow for the use of mobile phone detection cameras. Between 2017 and 2021, inattention has been a contributing factor in 51 per cent of fatal crashes and 34 per cent of serious injury crashes. That equates to 247 deaths and 1,333 serious injuries. Over the past four years, well over 30,000 expiation notices were issued to drivers in South Australia for mobile phone offences. No doubt these new measures will increase that quite dramatically, making it much more inconvenient for people to use their phones while driving a car.

Mobile phone detection cameras will work in conjunction with existing enforcement measures and in addition to other road safety measures introduced by the Malinauskas Labor government, such as the new anti-hoon laws, which could see motorists found guilty of extreme speeding offences facing three years' imprisonment. Mobile phone detection cameras will target distraction, one of the fatal five contributing factors known to cause road trauma. The other fatal factors are drink and drug driving, speeding, not wearing a seatbelt and dangerous driving.

All revenue generated by the mobile phone detection camera fines will be directed to the Community Road Safety Fund to invest in road safety for our community. Examples of initiatives funded by the Community Road Safety Fund include the State Black Spot program, road safety research, the Way2Go school safety program and road safety infrastructure. The cameras are expected to be operational from late 2023, with a three-month grace and education period. I urge you all to support this motion.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:56): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Use of Devices in Vehicles) Bill. Put simply, the bill amends the Road Traffic Act to allow police to use mobile phone detection cameras. These cameras will act as a deterrent and will target distraction, which, as we know, is a contributing factor to motor vehicle accidents and road trauma in South Australia.

Between 2017 and 2021, inattention was a contributing factor in more than half of all fatal crashes and more than a third of crashes involving serious injury. I have seen reports that texting increases the risk of a crash or near crash by about 15 times for drivers of cars and around 20 times for drivers of trucks. These statistics are alarming and yet approximately 60 per cent of Australian drivers admit that they have used a mobile phone that is not hands-free while driving. Of those people, 89 per cent have made a phone call while driving, 39 per cent have sent a text message or instant message while driving and 31 per cent have checked their emails or browsed the internet while driving.

As we all know in this chamber, every year the road toll, the number of deaths on South Australian roads, is recorded. Last year, 99 people lost their lives on South Australian roads and 827 people were seriously injured. We hear reports of accidents and injuries caused by people driving whilst distracted. It is heartbreaking to think of the lives lost to driver distraction and the families torn apart senselessly. That is why the Malinauskas government is committing to reduce dangerous and risky driving behaviour.

The rollout of mobile phone detection cameras aligns with South Australia's road safety strategy target to reduce serious casualties to fewer than 43 lives lost and 474 serious injuries by 2031. Mobile phone detection cameras will work in conjunction with existing road safety and enforcement measures introduced by the Malinauskas Labor government, including new anti-hoon laws. They will be operational from late 2023, with a three-month education and grace period for drivers. They work interstate, so why should we not be making the most of this potentially life-saving technology in South Australia.

The revenue generated through fines resulting from the cameras will be invested straight back into road safety and community safety. It will go into the Community Road Safety Fund, which is used for initiatives like road safety research and infrastructure; the State Black Spot program, which funds low-cost safety works like the installation of traffic signals at road locations that have been identified as higher risk and where accidents have often occurred; and the Way2Go school safety program, which is an evidence-based program to educate students and their families on safety when walking and riding their bikes to school—which I believe my children have just undertaken. I encourage the council to support this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:00): I speak on behalf of SA-Best in support of the Statutes Amendment (Use of Devices in Vehicles) Bill 2022 for all the reasons that have just been outlined by honourable members. The bill, as we know, seeks to amend the Road Traffic Act and the Motor Vehicles Act to facilitate the use of purpose-built, high-definition mobile phone detection cameras in a bid to add another strong deterrent against using a mobile phone while driving a vehicle, which, as we know, still remains a major contributor of driving distraction and has caused senseless death and serious injury to countless people.

I understand the cameras are to be fixed above multilane roads and will operate day and night in all weather conditions. Artificial intelligence (or AI, as it is more commonly known) will triage images in the first instance before a human eye is cast over the image prior to a fine being issued. There is a process involved in what is being proposed here, and we have had lengthy discussions with the government about that process and how it will work in practice. We have heard varying reports as to the accuracy of the cameras in other states, but we have been assured that it is pretty high, with more than 90 per cent of motorists copping fines in New South Wales without challenge.

I just referred to the process in terms of the artificial intelligence as to how many photos that will take of vehicles passing through those multilane roads but then also the human element in terms of reviewing that photo where we think a phone is involved, and then a human eye being cast over the photo to ensure that it is actually a mobile phone, is certainly part of that process. I will come back to this point in a moment because it is not a watertight process but it is the best that is available with current technology and human intervention.

In terms of the cost, we have been advised that the outlay is around $11 million in the first instance, with the annual revenue projected to reach $18.89 million in the second year of operation before falling to about $17.3 million in the following year, as drivers hopefully start to learn from very expensive lessons.

I would like to know, and I think I asked this question at the briefing, what that money—and these devices will pay for themselves very quickly, and hopefully they will have the deterrent effect very quickly, so we will see a drop in that revenue—is earmarked for, namely, will it go towards any specific safety projects involving road users or just back into general revenue and government coffers? I would like the relevant minister to provide clarification on that in due course when we get to the committee stage, or at the wrap-up of this debate. That being said, we fully support measures aimed at reducing the number of people either killed or injured on our roads, and that is what this bill aims to do.

In the five years to the end of 2021, 247 deaths on South Australian roads were caused by driver distraction, and that is 51 per cent of all road deaths. That is 247 too many. It is 247 needless empty seats at the family dinner table. A further 1,330 people were seriously injured over the same five-year period through driver distraction, with many sustaining life-changing injuries.

We continue to have some concerns about the definition of 'mobile phone'. We support the passage of this bill, but certainly in our briefings my colleague and I have both raised concerns that we continue to have around the definition of mobile phone. We understand that a broadening of that definition is still under consideration following a national review, but for the current purposes the definition relied on is that which existed in regulation 300 of the Australian Road Rules.

It is outdated, some would say archaic. A case in point is that earlier this month a Queensland magistrate found driver Konrad Gallaher not guilty of the Queensland offence of operating a vehicle while using a mobile phone. I point to this example because it is the precise sort of discussion we have been having with the advisers and police on this issue at those meetings.

Mr Gallaher represented himself at trial and successfully argued that the device he was holding was actually an iPod 6 and in fact was a portable music player and not a mobile phone. He argued that he did not have a SIM card inserted in it and therefore had no mobile phone functionality, and his case was strengthened by the fact that his mobile phone could also be seen in the image in a cradle. He had a mobile phone in a cradle, an iPod over here, and he was pinged for the iPod not the mobile phone, which was legitimately being used in the cradle. The magistrate found in his favour, but I think it was noted that that device used by the driver was just as dangerous as a mobile phone.

The same, of course, could now be said for smart watches. So we have advancing technology, people being able to use various devices while they drive, and the definitions and the rules around using a watch are very unclear. Some members of the public may still not be aware that having a phone on your person while driving is not allowed if you are going to use it. If it is sitting on my knee, it is not something that is allowed. If I press the button while it is on my knee, that is an offence. It has to be sitting in the cradle. But when you are wearing a watch on your hand, those rules become very murky. We do not know if pressing a button on the watch is the same as having a device on your person as opposed to in a cradle.

There is a lot of murkiness in the law at the moment. We acknowledge and accept that that is currently under review, and certainly this government is going to have to decide whether, at the end of that review, it looks at any recommendations that seek to address that mobile phone definition so that it captures all those other—iPod or watches or whatever the case may be—devices and sets parameters around their use in a motor vehicle while driving. I just flag that with the chamber because I think it is something that we will certainly have to come back to and something that we should be watching out for, given the emerging technologies that none of these bills have addressed to date.

I will have some specific questions asking the government just to confirm, I suppose, what we have raised with them in terms of those future challenges prior to any amendment at the national level. That being said, though, we are fully supportive of any measures aimed at reducing our road toll. One life lost, as we all know, is one life too many. We all know that, and I think we are all doing our level best to try to reduce the number of deaths on our roads. With those words, we look forward to the next stages of the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (17:08): I would like to thank members for their contributions: the Hon. Ms Centofanti, the Hon. Mr Wortley, the Hon. Ms Bourke and the Hon. Ms Bonaros. As many have alluded to, driver distraction is nationally recognised as a significant road safety risk. It is the leading cause of fatalities and one of the leading causes of serious injury crashes on South Australian roads.

Illegal mobile phone use while driving is an activity that is increasingly prevalent and it can be associated with physical, visual, auditory and cognitive distraction. It severely impacts a driver's ability to concentrate on driving tasks or the road environment. The introduction and use of mobile phone detection cameras provides an opportunity to support and expand the traditional on-road enforcement for the offence of using a mobile phone while driving, thereby ensuring greater deterrence across the road network.

This bill is a positive road safety initiative aimed at reducing serious injuries and lives lost on South Australian roads. I thank members for their indications of support for this important bill and I commend the bill to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Hon. Connie Bonaros covered this in her second reading speech, but just for the record can it be explained how the surveillance process will be undertaken? I understand there was a discussion of artificial intelligence and then real person, so if that could just be put on the record by the government that would be appreciated.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The cameras are yet to be procured, and I am advised that technology can vary, but the department understands that some of the cameras of this type available on the market utilise a combination of artificial intelligence and human evaluation to examine the photographic footage and/or video evidence captured by the high-definition detection camera of the inside cabin of the vehicle.

So it is on the basis of the evidence obtained from that footage that SAPOL would then determine what further enforcement action to take. Just to summarise, there will be the photographic evidence but then a real person will look at that after it has been through potentially the AI process.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Further to that point, though, I think—and certainly this is the reason we asked these questions as well—it is likely that there will be photos taken on an ongoing basis of all vehicles that pass through those roadways and then it will have the ability to detect, as well as possible, a phone, and then it is those photos that will be referred to the human person who is trying to actually confirm, I suppose, whether there is a mobile phone in use.

So we are actually talking about pretty much every road user's photo being taken as they pass through that motorway. Where a phone is detected, it is that photo that will then be referred off to a human person for confirmation that there is a phone in use.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that, yes, that is correct, and there is always human adjudication of that.

The Hon. L.A. CURRAN: The Hon. Ms Bonaros in a contribution spoke of the need for a phone to be secured in a cradle, otherwise you are in breach of the law should you be using your phone. Can the minister advise if currently under the legislation utilising a bluetooth or USB cable without a dedicated purpose-built cradle would be in breach of the law—i.e. members of the community using a bluetooth or cable, chucking it in the drinks centre or resting it elsewhere in the car?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, under current Australian Road Rule 300, a mobile phone may only be used to make or receive a phone call—which is defined to exclude email, text or video messages—and only if the phone is either secured in a mounting fixed to the vehicle, and the mounting must be commercially designed and manufactured for the purpose and attached as the manufacturer intended, or remotely operated, and the phone must not be held by or resting on the body. A driver's pocket or pouch is excluded, and there must be no touching of the keypad. This is aimed at bluetooth technology and earpieces and headsets, which themselves may be touched.

Just to conclude, for completeness: if a person wishes to make or receive a call and needs to touch the phone in order to do so, including its keypad, the phone must be mounted. The mobile phone cameras will use human adjudication to determine whether the driver is in fact in contravention of ARR 300 by viewing the image captured to see if the mobile phone is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle. Hopefully, that answers your question.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we maybe simplify that a little bit: most cars nowadays have a digital display. If a cord is plugged into my phone, then I cannot touch the phone but I can operate the phone through the digital display that is in my car on the little screen. You have the mirror image of your phone on your display. There is nothing wrong with operating that display, you just cannot touch the actual phone when it is connected via bluetooth.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that for bluetooth, it can be operated as long as you are not touching it.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Going back to the photos that are taken: will the photos or detection evidence be retained over a lifetime, will they be retained over a certain period, and what is the time frame before that evidence is dismissed or destroyed?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that all records relating to the operation of fixed and mobile safety cameras, including the site selection and digital images captured by fixed and mobile safety cameras, are retained for minimum periods of seven and five years respectively. Section 6(1)(e) of the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 provides that an expiation notice:

cannot be given after the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date on which the offence was, or offences were, alleged to have been committed;

The records and digital images captured by the existing cameras are retained for this length of time to allow for any proceedings in relation to the offence to be finalised, including any prosecutions or appeals. It is anticipated that the evidence captured by the new mobile phone cameras will be retained for similar periods for the same reasons.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The minister spoke about minimum periods; is there a maximum period?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, operationally, although that is a minimum it is also used as a maximum.

The Hon. L.A. CURRAN: Returning to the previous question: can the phone be used if it is on the person's body but bluetooth is being utilised? My second question is: can the phone be left loose in the vehicle, not in a dedicated phone cradle that is purpose-built, i.e., you are utilising the hands-free functions of your vehicle and it is resting elsewhere in the car?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the answer is, no, it cannot be on the person or on the seat, it must be, as I think I mentioned in the earlier answer, on a commercially manufactured holding apparatus and used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

The Hon. L.A. CURRAN: Am I correct in saying that any member of the community, as the legislation currently stands, who plugs in a USB cable or utilises bluetooth functions, who rests their phone in their cup holders or in a tray within their car, is currently in breach of the legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, yes, you are correct, but I am assuming from your question that you are only referring to making a phone call during that time.

The Hon. L.A. Curran: Utilising the hands-free function for the purpose-built within the vehicle.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that, yes, what you have said is correct.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If the phone is plugged into a cord and it is sitting in your console, as opposed to in a cradle, but you are not touching the phone and it is not on your person and you are operating the phone via the screen that we were referring to, is the minister suggesting that that is also in breach? You are not touching the phone. It is not on your person. It is simply connected to a cord.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the current rule is that it must be secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle, if you are using it. Even if remotely operated, the phone must not be held or rest on the body, other than a pocket or pouch.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What if you are using the phone itself—if you are using the telephone, as opposed to the functions of the phone that are mirrored through the digital display?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am asking for a friend—not a very techy friend. Minister, imagine that someone has a bluetooth pairing of their phone with their car. The phone is in their pocket or purse or in a bag in the back, but it is still paired and they are operating the phone with the buttons on the steering wheel. Is my friend contravening the law, or is he not?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, if it is being operated through bluetooth, it cannot be on the person but it can be loose in the car, as long as one is not touching the apparatus. I would just like to point out, though, that my advice is that the current Australian Road Rule 300 to which we are referring is not subject to change under this. The actual rule is not changing, just to be clear in terms of what we are debating here.

The Hon. L.A. CURRAN: Does that also extend to USB-attached mobile devices that are being utilised through hands-free functions of the car? So you are not touching the phone. It may be loose in the vehicle in the sense that it is not secured within a cradle that is purpose-built and secured to the vehicle, so it may be on the seat or in a drinks holder or something. Is the minister's advice that currently members of the parliament—

The CHAIR: Public—members of the public.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. L.A. CURRAN: —members of the public are able to do so, and that extends beyond bluetooth?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised, yes, you can use that in the same way as the bluetooth technology.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have asked these questions for a friend as well, who really does not want to get in trouble, which is why she keeps asking these questions at these briefings, bearing in mind that the thing we are all trying to prevent is driver distraction, but nobody wants to be doing the wrong thing when this technology is available. I think the questions are good because they point to the issues in that case that I referred to, which I am going to ask the minister about.

I do note, just before I ask that question, that the reason this is important for everyone to understand and the reason I want the minister to confirm that that review is underway, is that there is actually a decision in South Australia—2006, Justice White, I think it was Kyriakopoulos v Police—where the finding of the magistrate was completely at odds with what the minister has just described in terms of using a handheld device and earpiece, for instance. That case was used very recently in the Gallaher case in Queensland as precedent for why those charges should be thrown out.

Can the minister confirm for the record that there is this murkiness in the law, even in South Australia—our case law here is not consistent, necessarily, with the advice that we have had—and that there is a review taking place in relation to Road Rule 300, that there will be recommendations made as a result of that review and then it will be up to this government to decide whether or not to adopt any of the recommendations made after that review?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the national distraction project has come up with some model laws. They are now out with each jurisdiction, for each jurisdiction to then consult, examine and make decisions around. That is a considerable amount of work. That will include things such as portable and wearable devices, which may clarify some of the situations that members have raised here today.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the minister confirm that the South Australian government is partaking in that process?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that they are currently looking at that, yes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: During my second reading contribution, I referred to the cost outlay of around $11 million and then the projected revenue, which was about $18.9 million in the second year before dipping slightly to $17.3 million. There is going to be a substantial revenue windfall, at least in the first year or two. Can the minister just confirm: is that windfall earmarked towards specific road safety projects or will it go back into general revenue?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the member for the question. I would also perhaps refer to her contribution at the second reading stage, which I think is probably a shared goal of all of us, that this will result in changed driver behaviour. Any potential increase in revenue, or projected increase in revenue, will then decrease, hopefully, as people learn to adjust their behaviour to improve safety on our roads.

In terms of the specifics of where the revenue will go, section 17(1) of the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 provides that money received from payment of expiation fees will be paid into the Consolidated Account. However, the Community Road Safety Fund is an administratively set fund that became operative on 1 July 2003. Any contribution to the Community Road Safety Fund would be by appropriation, as decided by the Department of Treasury and Finance, for that portion of expiation fees payable under speeding fines or other road traffic infringements detected by camera.

I am advised that the Treasurer has decided that such revenue from this change, should it pass, will go into the Community Road Safety Fund, but I am just pointing out the difference between what is required under legislation and what the intention is, as it is an administratively set fund.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think this pays for itself in the first year, or something like that, of operations. For those funds, even though they will go into the Consolidated Account, is it the intention of the government to direct them specifically towards community-based road safety programs?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, the Community Road Safety Fund.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is that all of the funds, because we are talking about $8 million or $9 million I think in the first year alone? Is it all those funds or a portion of those funds?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that it is all of the funds, after costs.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Has the government received advice on the proposed locations and the criteria used to determine the locations of the cameras?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is intended that mobile phone detection cameras will be installed at high-risk metropolitan sites. The exact locations are not known at this stage, and the proposed locations will be carefully worked through in consultation with SAPOL. That will take into consideration relevant road safety data relating to the prevalence of crashes resulting in injury, also traffic volumes, traffic intelligence and the available infrastructure.

The Centre for Automotive Safety Research has also provided advice on the criteria for selecting camera locations and the potential road safety benefits associated with reducing the number of distracted drivers on our roads. It is anticipated also—just for a bit of extra information—that the type of cameras used will be fixed cameras, and the cameras may be periodically rotated to other high-traffic volume locations to allow the cameras to achieve broader deterrence through greater exposure to more road users.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: How many cameras are expected to be established?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is still being worked through.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is it the case that the technology and its application are inherently focused on the right-hand front seat of any given vehicle; for example, would someone sitting in the passenger seat in circumstances such as for a learner driver constitute an infringement?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the cameras are yet to be procured, as I mentioned, and the technology utilised may vary, but it is understood that the camera technology is capable of detecting mobile phone use by drivers in left-hand vehicles. Additionally, the camera technology that is being used in Queensland is capable of distinguishing between the driver and the passenger. So it looks as though both of those circumstances can be caught with the sorts of technology that are available, but I am just emphasising that the procurement has not been completed yet and so the technology might vary.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Will cameras be preceded by a notification or a forewarning, like we see with point-to-point cameras and some red-light cameras?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The member has alluded to the fact that that does currently occur for red-light cameras and speeding cameras. The government is yet to make a decision on that, and so that is the situation at present.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister confirm what infrastructure the cameras will be mounted on? Will they be mounted on the usual poles, or will they be mounted on bridges?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that is still being worked through within the framework of identifying what the most applicable locations are, referring back to my previous answer also that it is in regard to the most high-risk locations.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 7) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (17:36): 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