Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I commend the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development for bringing forward this road safety report. It is important to recognise that there has been a great deal of bipartisanship in this area. We all recognise that it is a great tragedy for so many Australian families each year that we still have so many deaths on our roads. I do think there has been a very sincerely felt joint commitment from both state and federal governments to get on top of these issues and do what we can to reduce this annual carnage that occurs on our roads. I do concur with many of the conclusions that the assistant minister has come forward with today.

Of course, we have a slightly different perspective on some of these factors. There is no doubt that investment in roads and well-designed roads can certainly improve the safety of those roads. But I do think it is very important to understand that research quite clearly shows that investment in public transport and, indeed, investment in rail is indeed even more effective in improving the safety on our roads. Some interesting statistics have come out of the World Health Organization showing that, after investment in rail, thereby taking people off the roads, there has been a marked decline in the number of road accidents and fatalities in a number of cities. We need to look at these things more holistically than simply focusing on the construction of roads.

I note that the assistant minister made reference to the building of the East West Link. I put it to the minister that the decision by the Andrews government to invest in the Metrolink will enable many more trains to run on the Melbourne system and that the increment that that can deliver to road safety is likely to be greater than that which would have been generated by the construction of the East West Link.

I do note and we commend the government for the increase in funding in black spot areas, which at this stage is scheduled to take place in 2016 and 2017—

Mr Briggs interjecting—

The extra $200 million in black spot funding—that is a positive to hear that. I am sorry; I was operating on advice on that. I do note that we have changed the BCR ratios for the black spot funding from two to one, to one to one. We support that, provided that it does not mean that projects that do deliver a two to one or something in excess of one to one will not be given less preference than those that are given the one to one.

There has been form in the past where Roads of National Importance became 'Roads of National Party Importance.' The Black Spot Program is a very important program. As I said, we commend the government for increasing the funding to it. But it must be very much focused on delivering to areas of greatest need. We would be very concerned if we had projects that were achieving a BCR of two or more that suddenly found themselves not being funded because the ratios had been expanded. Obviously, we will be monitoring that.

In relation to the personal importation of new cars, notwithstanding the fact that we do not agree that the Australian motoring industry is necessarily dead and that it may well be possible if we get back into government in 2016 to keep this industry alive, we are certainly open to reviewing the rules on the personal importation of new cars. However, we do note that this should be subject to the caveat that came with the report to the minister earlier this year that regulation would need to include an appropriate enforcement regime that was rigorous enough to detect identified hazards with vehicles being imported.

We do note and we agree with the assistant minister that there has been a lot of technology that has driven improvements in road safety. We agree that we need to ensure that we have mechanisms in place so that we can incorporate those as quickly as possible. We note that it is quite possible that within the next decade, or two decades, we may even see the ultimate safety: the development of the driverless car. That technology is now becoming quite seriously entertained.

But we note that there was a recent report from the World Health Organization that made the point that we have, since the 1970s, been looking at a range of developments of vehicle standards that very much focus on making the persons within that car safer and that really we now need to be doing more to focus on making vehicles safer for the non-car road user. This picks up some of the comments and concerns made by the assistant minister about the safety of cyclists. There are new global standards for pedestrian safety that focus around the design of vehicles. So, it is not just about protecting the people who are inside; within those standards there is innovative technology, such as bonnet airbags. And I think the minister did acknowledge autonomous emergency braking, which really offers an improved prospect of safety for vulnerable road users. The bonnet airbags are certainly one thing that we should be investigating.

I note and understand the minister's expressions of support for the Amy Gillett Foundation and the understandable concern that many cyclists have about their safety on our roads. Within the cycling community there is a lot of concern that the one-metre rule has now become the focus of cycling safety and there is really not that much evidence that, of itself, that really is an answer to the problem for cyclists or is even achievable on many of our roads, particularly narrow roads in inner-city areas. It is being trialled; I understand that. But I guess this takes us to another point, and a point that was made by transport safety personnel from Monash University, that unfortunately in the overall spend on road safety research the area of funding of research into cycling safety is massively underdone. And I would say to the assistant minister—if I could get his attention for a moment here—that we really do need to be doing some more-detailed research on what actually works in cycling safety. There is certainly a lot of emotion surrounding the work of the Amy Gillett Foundation, and I totally understand that. But many in the cycling community and in the road safety area say that this is an area where we have to do more research and that we have not focused enough on the most reliable way to protect the safety of cyclists.

I note with some concern the assistant minister's apparent view of the Australian Design Rules as meaningless red tape. The minister has said that he wants to harmonise the Australian Design Rules for vehicles with the UN rules. Now, there is no doubt that there has been a long-term bipartisan government objective to, where possible, align the ADRs with the UN regulations. That has gone back to 1999, and we have made significant progress towards that. But the minister's own review of the motor vehicle standards earlier this year did in fact say that there was cause for concern. The report said:

While there are opportunities to reduce the regulatory burden and compliance cost by minimising the unique characteristics of the ADRs, this should not be at the cost of lowering road safety in Australia or constraining productivity. … Australian regulators are contributing to development of updated UN Regulations but the ADR should not be made less rigorous in the meantime.

They point to the 12 ADRs that are not aligned to the UN regulations, and in each case the Australian regulations are either more stringent or there is no UN coverage for that requirement. And that relates particularly to the area of heavy vehicles, where we have many unique combinations—combinations that are not found in Europe or in North America. So I think we have to be very cautious here. For example, our child restraint standard is much more stringent than the UN regulations, and I think we have to be very, very cautious that we are not allowing a fetish on red tape to take us down the wrong path.

We note the minister's concern about heavy vehicle safety—a very major area of concern. I would like the assistant minister to let us know and let the Australian public know whether or not they are seriously continuing with their review of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. We know that the work of that tribunal is very much focused on addressing this core problem of driver fatigue and of drivers being required by commercial considerations to work hours and in a manner that is simply unsafe. So, we would urge the minister that his concern for heavy vehicle safety transmutes into a commitment to allowing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to do its very important work in continuing to protect not only the truck drivers but also all those other people who are sharing the roads with our truck operators. (Time expired)

See this speech in context