31 August 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I must say we have just been treated to a remarkable tour of the road safety scene over the last 40 to 45 years. At the 25‑minute mark the member for Monbulk actually managed to speak about the bill for 2 minutes out of 30 minutes. Apart from that the only reference was a grudging admission that opposition members were not opposing the bill.
The central difficulty with the system we have at the moment is an absolute lack of confidence in the system that Labor designed.
If there is anything being blatantly ignored it is the recommendations of the Auditor‑General. Obviously the member for Monbulk did not quite understand the actual recommendations that the Auditor‑General has made. He made it clear that there is a need to strengthen assurances and to establish regular independent testing of the accuracy and reliability of the speed measurement of speed cameras, a need to increase assurance of the accuracy of infringements from cameras and a need for a stronger assurance that the camera operators comply with critical procedures.
The Auditor‑General also suggested that there was an absolute need for an increase in transparency in certification and that justice should be requiring certification service providers to comply with appropriate quality controls. It goes back to a lack of confidence in the system. That has been the problem: a lack of confidence in the system that the former government put in place.
One of the great privileges of being on this side of the house is that we get the opportunity to set the agenda and to fix the problems from the last 11 years. We have the opportunity to deal with problems that have been around for so long that they have become almost institutionalised. Road traffic cameras are an essential part of the enforcement armoury.
If members look back over all the contributions I have made on speed cameras over recent years, they will see that I have never argued that point. They are effective. Not only are speed cameras effective but fixed cameras at dangerous intersections are a constant reminder to drivers that they need to obey the rules.
Mr Noonan — In other words, you are embarrassed about your colleagues.
Mr MORRIS — I am not the one who needs to be embarrassed by this; it is your system that needs fixing, guys! The essential integrity of the system has to be beyond dispute, and that has not been the case for a very long time.
For too long the manner in which the oversight of the cameras has been conducted has been left to a system that is open to doubt. There was not a single person or even one authority that had the capacity or the power to act when it was clear there was a problem with the system. One location — and members of the 56th Parliament will be aware of this as I have spoken about it frequently — in the Mornington electorate became notorious because of problems and failures in the operation of the fixed camera at the corner of Bungower Road and Nepean Highway in Mornington.
The record shows that I raised this matter on the adjournment on two occasions. I also raised it in a members statement, and it was the subject of a response to 32 questions on notice from the then minister for roads and the then minister for police and another 20 or so that were not answered by the time Parliament was prorogued.
Despite all that activity on my part and on the part of my constituents, and indeed many other attempts and efforts to get through the processes, we were totally unable to obtain a satisfactory explanation as to what the problem with this traffic camera was. Just up the road there is another set of cameras that I have had not one complaint about.
The Bungower Road camera generates literally hundreds of complaints. Do not tell me that I have a totally different community less than a kilometre up the road. It is the same people using both intersections, yet there is a problem with one and not with the other.
When the questions were asked the departments of Justice and Transport effectively played pass the parcel. Upon my initial inquiry in February I was told road safety cameras were managed by the Department of Justice. I wrote to that department only to be told that timing issues were the responsibility of the Minister for Roads. From my own investigations, entirely non‑technical of course, it seems that there were in this case a combination of what you might call cross‑jurisdictional matters — issues with the cameras and the sensors caused the problem with this set of lights.
In my second adjournment matter I raised directly the issue of the road sensors. Unfortunately the then responsible minister, Bob Cameron, did not have the opportunity, to put it charitably, to respond prior to leaving the Parliament.
I made the point that this is not the only camera in the area; there is another one around 800 metres to 1 kilometre down the road. There has been not one complaint about that camera — it is exactly the same setup — but literally hundreds of complaints about the others.
The point is that people mostly accept responsibility when they do the wrong thing. They do not like it. They will whinge about it, and they will carry on about it, but they will accept it and pay the fine. It comes at a cost, but they will wear it.
The number of people who have been complaining about this camera makes it clear that there has been a problem in this case. There are steep penalties, as indeed there should be, for running a red light. In terms of the other camera, there were incredible numbers of speeding tickets issued but no complaints.
There was a problem with the red‑light camera. People were quite certain they had not committed an offence, and hundreds of complaints were received. As I said, there are steep penalties, as there should be. There is a significant fine and the loss of three demerit points if you run a red light. It is an entirely appropriate penalty if an offence has been committed, but of course when no offence has been committed it is entirely unfair.
One of the things the Bungower Road experience underlined for me is that despite an incredibly high number of prosecutions and complaints the only option we had, and that my constituents had, was to pursue each one individually.
Hundreds of separate court cases would have had to be prosecuted, each one considered in isolation from the others. There was no capacity in the system at all to say, ‘Look, we’ve got a problem here. There is a wider issue and it needs to be dealt with’.
The proposal put to the house by the government is certainly a welcome one — that is, to establish an office of road safety commissioner, with the processes and authority that are be provided to that office. The central intent, and I believe the outcome, of this legislation will be improved accountability and improved transparency for the entire road safety camera system. With that transparency and accountability will come renewed credibility for the system and improved public confidence in it. Public confidence simply does not exist now.
The commissioner will be a part‑time position. It will be a Governor‑in‑Council appointment for a three‑year term. It will be an independent office, and it will have the capacity to provide the assurance that the Victorian community so desperately needs that the traffic camera system is working properly.
The three main purposes are, as the legislation outlines, quality assurance, complaints management and the power to look at the issues relating to the integrity and accuracy of the system. There is provision for a reference group, and given that this is a very technical field, I think that is an important role that will assist the commissioner and provide detailed assurance. Importantly, under clause 21 there is capacity to report findings directly to the Parliament.
This is an excellent bill. It will restore public confidence in the system. It will provide the capacity to deal with the problems of the type I have alluded to in relation to Bungower Road.
I certainly welcome the implementation of this policy commitment.
Legislative Assembly 31 August 2011
Printer Friendly Version...