Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am told that at the first meeting of the Australian Automobile Association, held in Adelaide in 1924, a resolution was passed calling for uniform traffic laws and regulations across Australia. There is no question that since 1924 we have made considerable progress towards having uniform road laws throughout Australia, but as with so many other matters administered by each state or territory there are still many inconsistencies between the road laws across Australian jurisdictions. The importance of having uniform road laws across Australia should not be underestimated. Inconsistencies in road laws cause confusion, unintended breaches of road laws, road accidents and a loss of productivity.

Whilst I am conscious that this is a complex matter, in today's world, where people are regularly driving interstate and each year thousands of overseas visitors drive on our roads, uniform road laws have become a necessity. In the limited time available to me tonight I will provide some examples of the differences that I am referring to. I start with the issue of U-turns. In South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and the Northern Territory you must not perform a U-turn at a signalised intersection unless there is a 'U-turn permitted' sign there. In Victoria, however, the reverse applies: U-turns are permitted at signalised intersections unless there is a 'no U-turn' sign. In the Northern Territory, the default speed limit outside of built-up areas is 110 kilometres per hour. In most other jurisdictions, it is 100 kilometres an hour. In some areas in the Northern Territory, speeds of up to 130 kilometres an hour are permitted unless a trailer is being towed, in which case it is 100 kilometres an hour. I also note that in the Northern Territory a 60 kilometre an hour speed limit applies in built-up areas; in other states a 50 kilometre per hour limit applies. Another example is Tasmania's provisions for left-turning on red after stopping at traffic lights—a law that, quite frankly, I support but which does not exist throughout most jurisdictions.

One of the areas of significant difference between the jurisdictions relates to the requirements, obligations and restrictions of learners and provisional drivers. For learners and provisional drivers—or P-platers, as they are known—variations with respect to the process, the speeds permitted, the display of P-plates, the towing of trailers, demerit point losses, motor vehicle power permissibility and even restrictions on the time of day a person can drive are prevalent across jurisdictions. I know that all these differences make it particularly difficult for young people living in communities close to state and territory borders. I understand that this became a major political issue along the New South Wales-Queensland border when in 2007 the New South Wales member for Tweed introduced a bill to address a number of anomalies relating to P-platers. At that time, it was estimated that about four million Queenslanders travelled across the border and into the Tweed each year, while approximately 50,000 Queensland vehicles crossed the border daily. Of course, there are many other differences in road laws related to bicycles, gophers, scooters and even horse riding on roads.

I turn briefly to the matter of vehicle compliance standards between jurisdictions. Again, differences exist between states and territories with respect to compliance standards, and hefty penalties can be imposed if breaches occur. I note that regulations relating to windscreen tinting, whilst fairly similar across each of the jurisdictions, can still be open to differences of interpretation by authorities because the regulations are not identically defined in each state. Victoria even has specific provisions relating to bicycle carriers. Again, I commend that state for doing so. Personally, I believe bike carriers should always be removed when the bicycles are removed as they can be very dangerous.

The last example I refer to is the difference in speed limit tolerance allowed in each jurisdiction. This is a matter that causes considerable angst to drivers. In most jurisdictions an eight to 10 per cent tolerance generally applies. In Victoria, I understand the tolerance is three per cent. Whilst I am sure that some people will argue that there should be no tolerance, common sense dictates that tolerance is applied for good reason and should be uniform.

I have little doubt that each year millions of dollars in fines are paid by motorists who unknowingly and unintentionally contravene the law. Whilst ignorance of the law is never accepted as a defence by the authorities, few motorists, if any, would be conversant with every law and every regulation relating to road use in every state and territory across Australia.

Over 60 years ago, in 1947, Australian road traffic ministers formed an Australian Road Traffic Code Committee in an attempt to establish uniform road laws across Australia. Whilst a road traffic code was established and some progress was made, the code in itself did not achieve sufficient consistency in Australian road laws. In October 1999 the National Road Transport Commission, which was succeeded by the National Transport Commission, developed a set of model rules—the Australian Road Rules—which today form a basis for state and territory road laws throughout Australia. With the establishment of the Australian Road Rules, further progress has been made towards having consistent national road rules across Australia. The National Transport Commission last year commenced a 10-year review of the Australian Road Rules. I understand the review will run for two years. The review is an important step in this process as it will enable each of the jurisdictions to assess their own application of the Australian Road Rules in addition to the national effectiveness of the Australian Road Rules.

Whilst the review is both necessary and timely, I hope it is completed as quickly as practicable and that it is not used by states and territories as an excuse to delay or defer changes that would create greater consistencies in Australia's national road laws. Whilst the Commonwealth is a signatory to the agreements underpinning the Australian Road Rules, the rules are not binding on any of the states or territories and rely entirely on the willingness of the states and territories to implement any reforms. With respect to that, I note that continuous improvements are being made to the rules and that those changes are being widely adopted by each jurisdiction.

I note with interest that transport ministers from the Commonwealth, states and territories, together with representatives from New Zealand and the Australian Local Government Association, announced in Alice Springs last Friday that the Australian Transport Council agreed to support forwarding to COAG for signature at their next meeting, scheduled for mid-2011, the intergovernmental agreements to establish the national heavy vehicle regulator. I know that this is a matter that is of keen interest to the trucking industry in this country because there would be few sectors in our community that would be conscious of the differences between the laws that apply in each state. With respect to the trucking industry, in addition to the road laws themselves there would also be laws relating to the compliance of each heavy vehicle. I also note that, when it comes to the trucking industry, they have a range of locally imposed conditions which also vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and clearly also impact on people's ability to carry out their business and in turn on their livelihood.

The ATC also agreed to accept the recommendations of independent expert panels on the unresolved policy issues to be included in heavy vehicle laws. Ministers identified a number of key areas of further work in settling heavy vehicle regulatory requirements which will need to be worked through over the next six months as the national laws are finalised. This is an important step towards developing uniformity across jurisdictions in respect of heavy vehicle regulations.

I bring this matter to the attention of the House in the hope that the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport might take whatever action is available to him to encourage the states and territories to implement uniform road laws throughout Australia, which I know would be welcomed by Australian motorists across this country.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of uniform road laws and compliance standards. I will give some examples of the silliness that currently exists. On the Victorian border, one driver is caught in Albury every hour performing an illegal U-turn at traffic lights. The move is allowed in Victoria but not in New South Wales unless otherwise signposted. Albury police field at least two phone calls a day about road rules. Confusion also arises for those on learner plates. In New South Wales, learner drivers are unable to travel faster than 80 kilometres per hour, whilst learner drivers in Victoria have no such speed restrictions.

In New South Wales, you can be fined almost five times as much as you would be in Victoria for certain speeding offences. Breaking the limit by 45 kilometres per hour in New South Wales incurs a fine of $2,490, whilst in Victoria it is a penalty of a mere $474. A speeding offence that attracts one demerit point in Victoria could cost you half your Victorian licence if it occurs in Sydney. New South Wales docks three points off your licence if you are caught doing between zero and 15 kilometres per hour over the limit and six points during double demerit periods. In contrast, most other states dock you only one point for the least serious speeding offence.

You can be fined in South Australia if you smoke in a vehicle that is carrying someone under the age of 16. In Melbourne or Adelaide, you can be fined for turning right from the right-hand lane, where you should perform a hook turn. This is accepted practice in Sydney. If you try to do a U-turn at traffic lights in Sydney, you will be fined. It is perfectly legal in most cases in Melbourne and Adelaide. In Melbourne and Adelaide, you can never overtake a stopped tram. Fines and demerit points apply in New South Wales if you overtake on an unbroken white line, but that law is not enforced in Victoria.

In the ACT, a learner licence is obtainable from the age of 15 years and nine months. A provisional licence is obtainable from the age of 17 years. To be qualified, you only have to have had a learner licence for six months. You need to display a P plate for three years unless you have completed the Road Ready Plus course after having had a licence for more than six months. If the Road Ready Plus course is taken, you are also granted a four demerit point allowance.

In New South Wales, a complicated three-stage graduated licensing scheme exists. Learner licences are obtainable at the age of 16 years and require 120 hours of supervised driving. A P1 licence is required for a year and there is a 90 kilometres per hour restriction. A P2 licence is required for two years, and the driver may drive at 100 kilometres per hour and is allowed seven demerit points. There are complaints that speed restrictions cause problems on country roads and highways where other drivers can go up to 110 kilometres per hour. It is the variation of speed that creates this danger.

In Queensland, there have been reforms made to make it similar to New South Wales, and there are only a few minor differences.

In South Australia, L plates are available at 16 years of age and you are required to do 75 hours with a 100 kilometres per hour restriction. P plates allow four demerit points and must be held for two years. In resolving this issue the focus should not be on the debate about which laws are better, although this would be ideal. The most important issue surely is the standardisation of all road laws throughout Australia. These laws are in place to properly administer road traffic throughout Australia efficiently and, to the best of our current knowledge, to enhance productivity and safety.

We are constantly subjected to fear campaigns about speed being the primary culprit in road fatalities and injuries. The extraordinary facts are that there are fewer fatalities now than there were in the late forties and early fifties, yet the number of private vehicles has risen dramatically and continues to do so. There are currently over 10 million registered cars in Australia compared with 769,000 in 1950. The biggest contributor to the reduction in fatalities and injuries is the improvement in the primary and secondary safety of our cars—that is, the ability to avoid an accident due to improved braking and handling performance characteristics in cars, protection of passengers, who are in a virtual safety cage with absorbing materials and design around it, seatbelt laws and airbag technology.

Improved driver awareness campaigns have also been a big contributor in this regard. This may have led to more educated drivers, but it has also created a syndrome where pedestrians are overly protected and overly empowered, with devastating effects. There is a strong belief among motoring authorities, including Peter MacKay, Australia's leading automotive journalist, that driver education and the ability to get a licence is too easy and that the laws to entrap, create revenues and take the driver's licence away are too great and treat the driver like a cash cow. There are any number of examples of speed camera locations and tricky variations in speed, which trap all except those with heightened levels of vigilance. Drivers are really wicked people; they speed! In short, a licence is too easy to get and too easy to lose. That is not the right formula.

It would appear that drivers are the only target for road safety, yet in metropolitan Sydney pedestrians represent one in three deaths on our roads. In Australia we have gone through generations of giving a voice to those who are in need of assistance. This syndrome has resulted in the empowerment of pedestrians and it now puts them in peril due to their own sense of rights and invincibility. The association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities has described pedestrians as:

… the largest single road-user group. Most individual trips, whatever the primary mode used, begin and/or finish with a walk section, so that walking is a fundamental component of all travel.

Yet where is the focus for awareness of pedestrian education and their behaviour on our roads? Where is their punishment for endangering their own safety and that of other road users?

The motion today highlights our nation's clear need for consistent and appropriate speed limits. Uniformity in our rules is very important. We require a level of standardisation of our laws to educate new drivers on how to drive not just in the location of their test but also in foreign conditions. It does not make sense that a 17-year-old, just hours after gaining a licence in Sydney, can drive to Melbourne and be asked to perform a hook turn, which is something he or she would never have heard of.

The variability of speed is a great danger. I drive on a road every day where the speed limit goes from 80 kilometres per hour to 40 kilometres per hour to 80 kilometres per hour to 60 kilometres per hour in the space of one kilometre. Whilst this has been implemented in the name of safety, the variability makes the roads increasingly dangerous as drivers become overly confused by their obligations. We have become increasingly conscious of speed as a direct correlation to danger and fatalities. That is based on common sense. However, the data tells us that the safest roads in the world remain the autobahns in Germany, the roads with no speed limits, as drivers drive to their own capacity rather than feel an obligation to sit on a signed limit. Similarly, the decrease in speed limit on open roads in the Northern Territory saw an increase in fatalities in the following year. These facts show that it is not always the logical solution that attains the desired result. Upskilling and re-educating drivers is important, but maybe we need to think outside the square in implementing uniform rules. Perhaps we need to implement a requirement to re-sit drivers licences every 10 years. I sat my driver's licence more than 40 years ago and, despite living overseas for 14 years, I have never been asked since to show that I understand the local road rules, yet I received my licence before roundabouts were in existence. Surrounding all this, in all states and territories, there is one standout issue—that is, the importance of addressing pedestrian safety through education campaigns and uniform and appropriate laws that are enforced.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion by the honourable member for Makin. Australians love their motorcars and my electorate of McEwen is no exception. We have a very high population of cars, and a very high percentage of our residents have more than two cars per household. This is due to various reasons, including our geographical diversity and the need for motor vehicles in order to work in rural areas. McEwen is also home to many who work in the automotive industry, which has proudly been manufacturing cars in the Australian community since 1925. Australian manufactured cars have been continually at the forefront in design, safety and durability as long as the industry has been in existence. Australia has produced some of the most innovative vehicles in history through manufacturers such as Bolwell, OKA, Lightburn and Purvis, as well as the mainstays of automotive manufacturers in Australia: Ford, Holden and Toyota.

The automotive manufacturing sector has far-reaching value to the Australian economy by complementing manufacturers and suppliers, who employ many thousands of Australians. The automotive industry directly employs some 60,000 people and, as I have said, many others across the nation. That is why we on this side of the House support the manufacturing and automotive industry. We know the importance of jobs in our communities, we know the importance of manufacturing in our communities and we know the value of the automotive sector to our communities.

That is why it is important that we ensure that manufacturers of motor vehicles in Australia are able to supply vehicles from the factories which are able to be sold across the nation to benefit all Australia. The importance of Australian design rules, or ADR, should never be underestimated. ADRs deal predominantly with vehicle safety, especially the role that technology can play in improving the standards of vehicles that are used on our roads today. Vehicle standards are set by the Australian government under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 and form a single body of national law. Amendments to ADRs and new ADRs are developed through extensive processes of consultation. This includes the Strategic Vehicle Safety and Environment Group, which includes the states and territories and industry and community groups and operates as an advisory forum on ADRs. That is why it is important that states and territories continue to comply with the agreed timelines for the implementation of vehicle standards, such as electronic stability control.

In the case of Ford Australia, the Victorian government's decision to move ahead of these agreed timelines has resulted in difficulties for this industry entering the Victorian market. As a result, one model of vehicle was withdrawn from sale in the Victorian market. While the former Victorian government should be commended for taking action to increase the safety of vehicles sold in Victoria, I reiterate that the states and territories should continue to comply with the agreed timelines for the implementation of vehicle standards.

A number of key states and territories have regulations in place that restrict the driving of high-powered cars by young drivers. I fully support the need to ensure that young, inexperienced drivers are not let loose on the road in high-powered vehicles. The results of speed related accidents and inexperienced drivers are, sadly, ones that I have seen too many of over the years, some of which will be etched in my mind forever. I can still hear, smell and see the results of these accidents some 20 years later. I think about the heartache for families and the cost to our communities of the cessation of young lives or the permanent injuries inflicted upon them.

These experiences are all too common on our roads, but I will continue to support safely modified vehicles and muscle cars on our roads if they are in the hands of suitably experienced drivers. As I have said, a number of key states and territories have regulations in place that restrict the driving high-powered cars by young drivers. Each of these standards tends to be different, leading to considerable and unnecessary complexity. Furthermore, they tend to have an outright ban on turbo petrol-powered cars. In the past, turbocharging was used solely on vehicles as a way to enhance their performance and, boy, did they work well. However, in this day and age many car manufacturers are using low-powered turbo technology as the key to reducing motor vehicle CO2 emissions. Turbodiesel motors are now increasingly the new choice for many carbon conscious families, and these engines also produce exceptional fuel economy.

From the manufacturers' point of view, it is difficult to sell family cars that cannot be driven by P-plate drivers. I know that the automotive industry is working with states and territories to address the issue of low-powered turbo cars. It is also seeking standard regulation across the states to remove the unnecessary complexity and confusion of different laws. That is why I support the member for Makin's motion. It is about supporting a viable industry and about supporting jobs—a key priority for the Gillard government.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In supporting this motion I commend the member for Makin for bringing the House's attention to an issue of significant importance right across our nation. The motion before the House does cover a broad range of issues and I would like to particularly focus on regional areas. Before I do, I refer briefly to the member for Bennelong's contribution, which highlighted some very important points relating to the inconsistencies between different state jurisdictions. Those rules and regulations in place in different states are presumably based on expert advice, but the simple message tonight is that they cannot all be right. What is the best practice, and whatever that best practice is is what we should be implementing right across Australia. We have such conflicting sets of road rules and vehicle standards that it has got to the stage where you need to be a Rhodes Scholar to figure out what is the most appropriate way to maintain a safe road environment. It is confusing and I certainly support a complete overhaul with a view to making our road laws much more consistent.

Naturally road issues are very close to the heart of regional MPs. I note the contribution by the member for McEwen. We tend to drive longer miles and we certainly rely on our cars to break down our isolation. Having a licence and being able to operate on a good and safe network of roads is critical for not only the economic well-being of regional communities but also the social life of our communities. There is no question that our road network is the artery of economic and social life in regional areas. It is important that our attempts to harmonise road laws and vehicle compliance standards be directed at ensuring clarity for road users themselves and providing certainty for the Australian motorist, as noted in the motion. We also need to focus very much on the need to improve the road safety outcome with everything we do in this regard, and so reduce Australia's road death and injury toll.

Inconsistencies particularly in relation to licensing arrangements for L-platers and P-platers have been well and truly highlighted. In Victoria, a full licence cannot be achieved until a driver is 18 years of age. Then we impose passenger restrictions on young people. That seems to be at complete odds with all our other messages, particularly relating to drink-driving, where we encourage people to have a designated driver. But, as a P-plater, in Victoria you are told you are not allowed to have more than one passenger. That seems to be at odds with all the other messages we are putting to the community in terms of being responsible in the consumption of alcohol. Some of the other states permit a full licence at 17 years of age, which to me would make more sense if you are going to impose those passenger restrictions on young people at a later age.

As I said, the focus of this discussion must be on how we make our roads safer for road users. Various reports have found that improving the actual safety of the road environment is critical to reducing the road toll. While enforcement and driver behaviour are key issues and are a focus of our police officers right throughout the nation, improving the actual safety of the roads environment is paramount. From a Victorian perspective, the road toll has been reduced in the entire state but the regional road toll has remained quite resistant to efforts by governments of both political persuasions to reduce it. The Nationals have been at the forefront of working with the government of the day, with programs such as Black Spots which are aimed very directly at improving the safety of known trouble spots. Also I give credit to the former Bracks and Brumby governments in Victoria for introducing a grey spots program to target areas which have not been a source of accidents but have the potential threat of accidents.

At a federal level, the Nationals and Liberals initiated the successful Roads to Recovery Program in March 2001, which I think was a great initiative. It has been continued by the current government, and it is important to make the point that there has been a bipartisan approach to the program and it has been very successful in focusing on road safety improvements on a local level, where local councils have the opportunity to access additional resources and use those resources to maintain local road networks. Our party is also very keen to see a bridges renewal program introduced right across Australia given the huge backlog of bridges in need of repairs. I understand there are about 30,000 bridges across our nation and our local councils are struggling desperately to try and maintain that network.

I commend the member for Makin for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. I am sure the people listening at home would appreciate, when they travel between different states, that these inconsistencies are a great source of frustration and I am sure they would be heartened to think that members here in this place are doing their best to try and develop a more consistent standard which will improve road safety for all road users.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.