2.1
The Inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020 (NRSS Inquiry) identified that the strategy was plagued by ‘implementation failure’, driven by limited governance capacity, poorly defined and resourced actions, and an inability to report progress in a meaningful way. The inquiry identified strong national leadership, better strategic planning, intergovernmental collaboration, and increased accountability as key means of addressing this failure and delivering meaningful improvements in road safety.
2.2
Enhancing road safety in also requires reliable, accurate data. Without access to such data, the road safety environment in Australia will remain poorly understood and it will be difficult to develop, implement and evaluate road safety interventions.
2.3
Innovative solutions underpinned by high quality research are also essential, particularly noting that reductions in road trauma appears to have stalled. Research requires support at the national level via sustainable investment and measures to ensure research outcomes can be translated into real-world improvements in vehicles, infrastructure, and human behaviours.
2.4
This chapter considers the importance of effective leadership and oversight, reliable, accurate data, and quality research to road safety outcomes, and outlines areas for improvement. This is intended to foreground subsequent discussion on specific areas in which road safety could be enhanced, such as vehicle safety features, education and licensing, and infrastructure upgrades. The chapter concludes with the committee’s views and recommendations.
National leadership
2.5
Stakeholders called for effective leadership at the national level, noting that this will be crucial to enabling consistency in how jurisdictions understand and respond to road trauma; to widespread adoption of the Safe System approach; to cultural change; and ultimately to achieving Australia’s road safety targets.
2.6
The Australasian College of Road Safety (ACRS) told the committee that the Commonwealth has a critical role in ‘setting the tone’ for road safety, noting that state and territory programs often follow their federal counterparts. ACRS also noted that the Commonwealth has several policy levers available to it, including:
Vehicle regulation (that is, Australian Design Rules (ADRs)).
Funding and investment for infrastructure and road safety.
Oversight of road safety policy and programs.
2.7
Stakeholders also noted that a critical component of national leadership will be ensuring intergovernmental collaboration on road safety interventions, and facilitating the sharing of data, resources, and examples of best practice. The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) stated:
[There should be a] formal mechanism to bring the spheres of government together, and at an operational level as well. I think it will need a formal instrument—a partnership agreement or some sort of committee that would be set up to look at those and work collaboratively.
2.8
Further, stakeholders indicated that effective national leadership is needed to align road safety policy with the priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) told the committee that programs should be developed with, or co-designed by, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, especially if a measure aims to improve safety for or otherwise directly impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
2.9
NACCHO further noted that while the Commonwealth has made headway in partnering with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, more is needed for meaningful reductions in road trauma. NACCHO pointed to engagement with the Department of Health as an example of good practice:
[The Department] come[s] to us early now and bring people on, on: 'How do we design this program?' So rather than just announcing, 'Here's a program,' they announce the areas that it's for and then come in and co-design. That is critical …[T]hat's [also] what we do. Our team goes out and works with a group of ACCHOs—and, like ACCHOs, they're remote or regional—and sit down and work with them and then identify how we can assist.
Parliamentary oversight
2.10
Inquiry participants emphasised that national leadership in relation to road safety requires greater parliamentary oversight and called for measures to ensure stakeholders responsible for road safety outcomes are accountable to the Parliament for meeting Australia’s ambitious ‘Vision Zero’ targets.
Minister for Road Safety
2.11
The NRSS Inquiry recommended the appointment of a dedicated cabinet-level Minister for Road Safety, to ensure road safety receives sufficient attention at the national level. According to the inquiry report, the minister would be responsible for establishing and monitoring road safety performance indicators tied to road infrastructure, vehicle-related research and development, federal funding, and federal transport-related contracts.
2.12
Participants in this inquiry also indicated that there would be value in appointing a dedicated cabinet minister for road safety, and made suggestions as to the powers, functions, and responsibilities of the position. Many of these were tied to implementation of the NRSS 2021–2030 and advocating for road safety at the federal level.
2.13
The Australian Road Safety Foundation (ARSF) noted that appointment of a dedicated minister would establish clear, visible leadership on road safety at the national level, encourage collaboration with the health, education, and transport portfolios, and ensure road safety remains on the national agenda. ARSF stated:
[This] sort of leadership sends a very strong message to not only people in government but also the broader community and the corporate world…[T]he more we can intensify that leadership the better. I think the work that the committee is doing and the work that is happening in that space, and certainly the fact that we've got ministers who are responsible for road safety now, are very positive steps, and those are things we need to intensify.
2.14
Similarly, the Australian Automobile Association (AAA) stated that the lack of real progress on road safety in the last decade necessitates elevating the matter to the cabinet level:
Within the bureaucracy, we've…been critical of the fact that the people in the Commonwealth who are trying to fix this problem—and trying they are—are not as senior as we would like. They're not making the decisions relating to infrastructure funding or all the other elements that impact our capacity to improve road trauma.
2.15
In support of appointing a dedicated minister for road safety, the Police Federation of Australia (PFA) noted that the current minister responsible for road safety is also responsible for shipping, aviation, and rail, and may not be able to give road safety sufficient attention. According to PFA, a portfolio minister for road safety could also facilitate ‘direct link[s]’ with state and territory ministers for the justice and road traffic portfolios:
A Federal Minister for roads could cut through border restrictions and…look at harmonising best practice…[They] would probably start with a lot of research and funding, as you've been discussing, for black spots or some predictive roadworks. That would be the sole responsibility of the minister…and the whole department would be focused on that…Getting everyone on the same page is going to take years and years and years just in the exchange of data, upgrading infrastructure and changes to legislation, so it is a task that should be the sole responsibility of a minister.
2.16
The Australasian Trauma Society (ATS) proposed that a Minister for Road Safety would have oversight of the Office of Road Safety (ORS) and be required to report on a regular basis to a parliamentary committee. The ATS stated that if such arrangements are not implemented, the NRSS 2021–30 will suffer the same ‘implementation failure’ as the previous strategy.
2.17
However, not all stakeholders supported appointment of a cabinet-level Minister for Road Safety. For example, the Pedestrian Council of Australia (PCA) argued that what is needed is an independent commissioner:
[W]e’re very passionate about jurisdictions having a commissioner for road safety [who is]…answerable to Parliament…[W]e've got to get the politics out of road safety. We've now got a Building Commissioner in New South Wales, and he's making a huge difference; we've an Auditor-General; we’ve got ombudsmen—people who are answerable to [the] Parliament. You don't want a minister. You want each jurisdiction to look at that. Maybe that's a way of encouraging jurisdictions, with a carrot rather than a stick. But look at taking the politics out of road safety.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Road Safety
2.18
Several stakeholders called for the establishment of a Standing Committee on Road Safety, noting that such a committee could facilitate parliamentary engagement with and oversight of road safety at the Commonwealth level, including scrutiny of whether national strategies are meeting their targets.
2.19
ACRS stated that it is very important for the current committee to set in motion what is required to establish a Standing Committee on Road Safety in the 47th Parliament, asserting that such a committee will be critical to ensuring government is held accountable for the quality and impact of road safety policy. Additionally, a Standing Committee would help facilitate bipartisanship on road safety.
2.20
The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q) stated that a dedicated committee could encourage greater allocation of resources to road safety, facilitate introduction of countermeasures, and hold government accountable for road safety outcomes. A committee would play a key role in gathering evidence, reporting to Parliament on road safety, and securing agreement on recommendations for policy and law reform.
2.21
ORS indicated that it would support establishment of a committee for road safety, noting that it ‘hopes for the oversight of the…committee as it is at the moment’.
Independent review panel
2.22
Some inquiry participants indicated there would be value in establishing an independent entity with review, governance, and advisory functions related to road safety, to operate in addition to a parliamentary committee.
2.23
For example, CARRS-Q recommended the establishment of an independent body for review of the actions under the NRSS 2021–2030. According to CARRS-Q, the body should conduct a review in the first 18 to 24 months of the strategy’s implementation and should report to the public.
Office of Road Safety
2.24
As outlined in Chapter 1, ORS was established 1 July 2019 with the aim of improving coordination and leadership across all levels of government to improve safety outcomes. A key function of ORS has been the development of the NRSS 2021–30. ORS will also support implementation of the strategy on behalf of the Commonwealth. Other actions which have recently been progressed by ORS include:
Delivering over 1,000 road safety projects under the first tranches of the Commonwealth’s $3 billion Road Safety Program.
Establishing the National Road Safety Data Hub, and commencing work to improve collation, harmonisation, and access to road safety data.
2.25
ORS described to the committee some of the ways it has improved coordination and leadership relating to road safety as follows:
We have led coordination and creation of the [NRSS 2021–30], we have engaged in talks on future National Road Safety Action Plan…provided significant investment as a proactive measure to reduce risk across the network and…established a way of collecting [data on] network risk, so we're leading in trying to collect [data] to establish where our investment might be best placed. That's quite a step change and a significant improvement to the way things were done before, which was ad hoc and very much looking at a sort of black spot process way of addressing network risk, whereas instead we're now going for a proactive approach.
2.26
Stakeholders told the committee that ORS should take a leadership role in road safety policy and funding and must encourage collaboration across all levels of government and portfolio areas, emphasising that road safety must no longer be understood as only a transport issue but as an issue with far-reaching health, environmental, and economic impacts.
2.27
The Northern Territory (NT) Department of Infrastructure, Planning, and Logistics (NT DIPL), stated that ORS should act as a conduit for government agencies to collaborate to enhance safety outcomes.
2.28
Engagement with local government was also highlighted as a role for ORS. In this regard, the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) noted that ORS (and the broader Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DITRDC)) has ‘excellent engagement’ with local government through the Australian Local Government Association’s (ALGA) Roads and Transport Advisory Committee.
2.29
ACRS indicated that ORS must play a key role in ensuring that all portfolio areas are able to contribute to the national road safety agenda. In this regard, ACRS explained that:
Understanding crashes and risks will not be complete without detailed data, research, analysis, and evaluation from the health sector.
Developing road rules and enforcement strategies requires contributions from the human behaviour, design, communication, and justice sectors.
Managing compliance with road rules is likely to mean addressing contributing factors such as education, employment, housing, health and mental health, language, access to services, technological capacity, and enforcement techniques.
2.30
This was consistent with the general view that achieving reductions in road trauma requires collaboration across government, industry, and the public, and that enhancing safety requires going beyond traditional views of road safety to incorporate health, environmental, and economic perspectives.
2.31
ATS stated that ORS should be advised by a peer-selected body comprising professional colleges and societies. According to ATS, such a body could assist with policy and program development and ensure the success of the NRSS 2021–2030. ATS called for measures to enable road safety organisations to have direct input into the policy decisions of ORS, noting that decisions are currently ‘buried’ in the wider department.
2.32
Stakeholders also indicated that there may be opportunities for ORS to collaborate with regulators. For example, the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) noted that there must be alignment and collaboration between ORS and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR), and with jurisdictional road agencies and workplace health and safety regulators to encourage safe work practices, better driver training, best-practice loading techniques and proper maintenance regimes.
Research, data, and reporting functions
2.33
Stakeholders noted that ORS should have a leading role in coordinating research on road safety to inform policy development and evaluation. For example, ACRS told the committee that ORS should conduct research on existing and recent programs across jurisdictions, to develop an evidence base for government funding decisions. According to ACRS, evaluations must be systems-focused rather than infrastructure-centric.
2.34
The Tasmanian Department of State Growth observed that there is a ‘big opportunity’ for ORS to support coordination of research and thereby support knowledge transfer, noting that smaller jurisdictions have limited capacity to conduct research or evaluate the outcomes of interventions.
2.35
The International Road Assessment Program (iRAP) stated that a key role for ORS is collection, collation, and publication of data, and that additional investment may be necessary to ensure the ORS agency has the capacity to effectively perform this function. iRAP noted that decision-making on road safety funding lacks a ‘risk map’ for national highways, state rail, and local roads of regional significance, and suggested that road safety stakeholders should support a funded secretariat which is accountable for the regular collection of data and provision of this data to ORS’s data hub.
2.36
Regarding the reporting functions of ORS, CARRS-Q indicated that ORS should use the National Road Safety Data Hub to produce a road safety summary for each electorate each year and send the summary to the relevant Member of Parliament. The summary could describe the social and economic cost of road trauma in the electorate and highlight key issues. Elaborating on this proposal, CARRS-Q told the committee that:
[I have] found that [in] talking to local councillors, if I had a map of their electorate with the red marks on it, and if I could say to them, 'This is what's happening in your ward, in the district you're responsible for,' they were much more engaged than if I was talking at a wider level.
State government
2.37
Stakeholders representing state and territory governments noted that there are a variety of initiatives in place or under development to improve road safety outcomes in their jurisdictions. In most cases, these are supported by road safety strategies and action plans tailored to the circumstances of the jurisdiction and areas of road safety need.
2.38
Noting the importance of effective partnerships between jurisdictions to enhancing road safety across Australia, stakeholders called for mechanisms to better align state- and territory-based strategies with the national model, adding that this could help to reduce unnecessary ‘siloing’, facilitate sharing of best-practice approaches, and deliver consistency for road users.
2.39
ACRS stated that aligning national, state, and local government policy and strategies will promote and enable a more holistic approach to road safety, including multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency planning, and performance management and reporting. According to ARCS, ORS should work with agencies in each jurisdiction to develop an integrated strategy to address road safety as a public health issue, including research on best practice.
2.40
Engineers Australia (EA) called for integration across road safety strategies, and stated that each strategy, policy, program, and project should describe:
How the initiative complements or integrates with other measures.
All the participants who can contribute to achieving the outcomes of the initiative—including but not limited to government entities.
Other initiatives which may help to maximise safety outcomes.
2.41
EA told the committee that when a national or state-based strategy is agreed, responsible agencies tend to ‘retreat into [their] area[s] of interest’. This limits the extent to which other areas and disciplines can contribute to road safety outcomes. EA emphasised that achieving real improvements in road safety requires a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary approach involving a range of participants and activities.
2.42
However, stakeholders also indicated that in some cases more ‘bespoke’ interventions are necessary. For example, DIPL observed that the NT faces unique challenges in improving road safety outcomes. These are associated with the large stretches of the territory’s road network which are unsealed, extreme climatic conditions, a widely dispersed population (with many people living in remote or very remote areas), and a large Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population with often unique road safety needs and for whom cultural safety is a key priority.
2.43
ORS indicated that collaboration between the Commonwealth, states and territories is and continues to be a priority, to ensure ideas, strategies, and lessons learned can be shared and—if necessary—optimised, stating that:
That's the beauty of [the Office of Road Safety]—to really make sure things are widespread and to get lessons learned. Where things are not working, we can say, 'Why would you go down that path? There is a new way of doing things. The state has moved beyond that.' With [jurisdictions] that are perhaps not as mature as others, you might be able to hop over a couple of steps because we know that didn't work or wasn't as effective as expected, so you can perhaps try this pathway. We've got a significant number of senior road safety practitioners that really want to share the wins and the successes and make it universal. I think that's without a doubt.
Local governments
2.44
Stakeholders noted that that local government is responsible for managing over 80 per cent of the road network and often has primary responsibility for regional, rural, and remote roads (which are over-represented in trauma statistics). Local councils also understand the needs of their communities at a more granular level. ARRB noted that councils influence road safety by:
Evaluating factors contributing to crash risk on the road network, and ways of mitigating this risk via infrastructure upgrades and treatments.
Encouraging the use of active transport through infrastructure design.
Encouraging uptake of proven vehicle safety features via fleet policies and influencing the purchasing decisions of the local community.
Educating the local community on road safety, including by ‘localising’ federal and state road safety campaigns.
2.45
Stakeholders stressed that it is imperative for road safety initiatives to be delivered via authentic partnerships at all levels of government, with local government empowered to contribute through co-design and sharing of information and resources. For example, the Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR), University of Adelaide, stated that:
The last thing we need is a top-down style approach. We need collaborative efforts and…programs where we build capacity jointly with local government …we don't just give them directives, give them a bit of money, and say, 'Here, try to do this.' We've got to work in a genuinely collaborative capacity.
2.46
Representatives of the Transurban Road Safety Centre at Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) similarly indicated that countermeasures should be co-designed with local councils and communities, to assist in targeting the measures to need and ensure community acceptance.
Capacity-building for local government
2.47
Some stakeholders raised concern that local councils may lack the expertise to implement critical safety measures (often due to resource constraints). Of particular concern was the growing shortage of engineers and urban planners. Stakeholders asserted that resources must be dedicated to training and capacity-building.
2.48
EA noted that a lack of engineering expertise in local councils may lead councils to prioritise treatments with lower safety outcomes and suggested that this issue be addressed by updating design guidelines and developing clear rules on work that is eligible for funding under road safety programs.
2.49
The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) stated that targeted training for public works professionals working in and for local councils should be implemented, and that training programs should extend to engineers, urban planners, social services officers, and others with a connection to road safety. IPWEA further stated:
[T]here needs to be a focus on training, development and capacity building within those local roads and local governments. A lot has been focused on the top end, but we also feel there needs to be a focus specifically on local governments and councils.
2.50
IPWEA also noted there would be a road safety dividend in encouraging young people to pursue careers in engineering and other key disciplines, including by reducing barriers to entry into tertiary programs. Measures to encourage people to pursue careers in relevant disciplines might also be implemented through schools, in addition to or as part of other education initiatives.
2.51
ORS acknowledged that local government capacity is ‘pretty varied’ across Australia, stating that the Commonwealth should deliver training to councils and ensure the local workforce includes engineering and system design expertise. ORS noted that training for local government on how to effectively assess risk in the road network and take necessary remedial action is included in the NRSS 2021–30:
Austroads [is engaging IPWEA] to make sure there is training that is fit for purpose for local government. There are network safety plan guides that are relatively easy. We're asking for training to be provided to support local governments [so they can] build understandings of where the system failures or safety gaps are in the local government network. We want to pair like for like councils to make sure that they're learning together, to make sure the training is relevant for them.
Greater independence for local government
2.52
Notwithstanding potential gaps in local government expertise and Federal and state government oversight, stakeholders indicated that local council could be empowered to decide a greater range of road safety matters without as much external authorisation. Stakeholders noted in this regard that local councils are well-placed to understand the needs of communities and may be able to trial safety measures ahead of broader adoption.
2.53
For example, MAV indicated that local councils should be empowered to make decisions on speed limits in the best interests of the community without a need for ‘unnecessary’ external authorisations. MAV noted that the Victorian Government sets speed limits on state roads according to statutory guidelines. If a council wishes to change a speed limit on a local road, they must apply to the Department of Transport (VDT) to do so.
2.54
The Amy Gillett Foundation (AGF) noted that while local governments are well placed to understand the needs of their community, they are rarely empowered to change speed limits on local streets. According to AGF, this impedes introduction of lower (30km/h and 40km/h) limits despite clear evidence that slower speeds reduce fatal and serious injury.
2.55
Stakeholders also gave evidence on the extent to which decisions related to regional roads are made by people and organisations in metropolitan areas, noting that engagement with regional communities is vital.
2.56
VDT, for example, noted that it makes use of rural community road safety groups (comprising local councils, community representatives, and police) to obtain feedback and test ideas, and is considering further measures to improve community engagement.
2.57
The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) indicated that Queensland takes a similar approach, stating:
While [the DTMR] in Brisbane help[s] with policy and direction-setting, we [also] have 12 districts, across regions and districts across Queensland...[W]e have offices in the western areas—the west, central-west and south-west—as well as the coastal areas and Toowoomba. We have 12 areas where we have local experts who can work with the councils and communities who understand the context as well as possible. Our team here in Brisbane works with customer service and the engineering side to…support them.
The National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030
2.58
As noted in Chapter 1, ORS created the NRSS 2021–30 to set the national direction of Australia’s road safety objectives, as well as priorities for action and road trauma reduction targets for the decade to 2030. Supporting the strategy are two five-year action plans.
2.59
Stakeholders provided various views on the quality and potential efficacy of the NRSS 2021–30. These are outlined in the sections that follow. It is noted however that these largely relate to the draft version strategy that was released for public consultation in February 2021. Consultation feedback was used to refine the final strategy, which was released in December 2021. As such, some stakeholder concerns may have been addressed.
Stakeholder Views
2.60
At a general level, P7Safety stated that strategies must be restructured to:
Raise the number of participants contributing to road safety outcomes.
Diversify countermeasures to include financial incentives and subsidies.
Increase the range of target areas to include post-crash management and ‘upstream’ areas such as commerce and community attitudes.
Ensure there is sufficient integration between complementary roles and activities, to avoid silos.
Integrate more thorough investigation and data analysis techniques.
Adopt a more ‘future-focused’ mindset.
Accountability and oversight
2.61
Stakeholders considered it critical that road safety strategies clarify roles, functions, and accountabilities of parties responsible for road safety. Some indicated that the NRSS 2021–30 was lacking in this regard.
2.62
For example, AAA asserted that the NRSS 2021–30 does not sufficiently articulate the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth, states, and territories, expressing concern that this results in the perception that road safety is ‘something that is everyone’s responsibility and [accordingly an issue that] no-one is particularly held accountable for’. In its submission, AAA also said that there is an ‘urgent need’ to address deficiencies in the previous national strategy related to oversight and governance, and called for a clearly articulated road safety role for the Commonwealth.
2.63
PCA raised concern that there are few measures in the current strategy to ensure local governments are held accountable for road safety, stating:
[N]o council in Australia contributes one penny towards the cost of road trauma… [Councils] don't care about road safety. They care about parking meters, car parks and shopping centres…[T]he recent StaySafe Committee in [NSW] into local government and road safety stated…that…councils should be legally bound to meet certain road safety criteria. I think that should almost be the starting point in the [NRSS 2021–30].
Targets and performance indicators
2.64
Linked to accountability is the need to set clear, measurable targets for road safety outcomes. Stakeholders raised concern that while the NRSS 2021–30 includes targets, these are not articulated in sufficient detail and are not accompanied by key performance indicators (KPIs) or baseline data.
2.65
AAA noted that many of the 33 KPIs in the NRSS 2011–20 were unable to be measured or were not linked to specific targets, stating:
To understand how inadequate this is, you only need to compare it with the quality and the timeliness of the COVID data available on any given day. Any news website any of us log on to…will provide harmonised national data on… infections, hospitalisations, deaths, and vaccination[s]...It's a wonderful accomplishment but it doesn't reflect well on our road safety data reporting.
2.66
AAA also felt that the draft NRSS 2021–30 lacked mechanisms to critically evaluate the success of the strategy—such as KPIs, deadlines, baseline statistics, and clearly defined responsibilities for stakeholders.
2.67
EA told the committee that targets in road safety strategies should be more refined, noting that while draft NRSS 2021–30 aimed to reduce road fatalities and serious injuries, it does not set targets for specific areas (such as regional or remote roads) or targets to measure the impact of interventions.
2.68
The Australian Trucking Association (ATA) raised concerns that the NRSS 2021–30 lacks the modelling and quantified sub-targets to enable Australia to meet the overarching targets of a 50 per cent reduction in fatalities and a 30 per cent reduction in serious injuries by 2030.
2.69
The Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) called for a ‘measurable, achievable, relevant, sustainable’ set of KPIs to be developed to ensure the NRSS 2021–30 is implemented effectively and in a transparent and accountable manner.
2.70
WALGA expressed support KPIs for local government, provided these are co-designed (or at least developed in close consultation) with local councils and not simply imposed ‘from the top down’.
2.71
In addition, stakeholders supported KPIs and other performance indicators relating to workplace road safety. The National Road Safety Partnership Program (NRSPP) stated that the NRSS 2021–30 should measure changes in the share of fatal or serious injuries involving work-related road use to enable assessment of trends in workplace road safety and associated costs.
Reporting
2.72
Stakeholders indicated that regular and public reporting of progress against targets in the NRSS 2021–30 is essential to achieving meaningful reductions in road trauma. In this respect, stakeholders asserted that while the strategy contains some proposals for reporting, these should be strengthened.
2.73
AAA, for example, called for measures to ensure that ORS compiles data and reports on progress under the NRSS 2021–30 against key road safety measures. AAA also recommended the strategy include ‘baselines, targets and milestones…[to measure] whether…actions are effective over time’.
2.74
ATS similarly proposed that ORS report successes or failures in the progress of the NRSS 2021–30 against agreed targets on a regular basis (at least every six months), in a transparent and open way. According to ATS, this should ‘stimulate appropriate responses’ from all levels of government according to their various areas of jurisdiction.
2.75
CARRS-Q noted that the NRSS 2021–30 proposes that safety performance indicators will be monitored and reported annually. CARRS-Q called for the report to be made public and that a government response to the report to be made available within six months of the report being issued.
Issues for specific groups of road users
2.76
Some stakeholders pointed to issues in the NRSS 2021–30 for specific road users such as heavy vehicle drivers, cyclists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians.
2.77
The Toll Group raised concern that the strategy does not give sufficient attention to heavy vehicle safety. Toll stated that while the Safe Systems approach contends that safe drivers, vehicles, and roads, as well as swift post-trauma responses, are sufficient to achieve zero road deaths, reducing road trauma in the heavy vehicle sector also requires addressing critical work-related issues such as commercial incentives and permitted work hours. Toll felt that these issues were not fully captured in the strategy.
2.78
Additionally, the Toll Group recommended that the NRSS 2021–30 consider vehicles as a workplace and implement measures to ensure safe working conditions. Toll viewed this as increasingly necessary as the gig economy grows and expands into new sectors.
2.79
AGF stated that the NRSS 2021–30 makes insufficient provision for cyclists. AGF explained that an excessive focus in the strategy on safety for vehicle occupants leaves little room for considerations relating to vulnerable road users, noting that this is emblematic of a more general failure of national road safety programs to improve cyclist safety.
2.80
The Institute for Sensible Transport (IST) stated that it is important to ensure the NRSS 2021–30 contains goals and targets (and funding) to facilitate the creation of cities and towns where walking and cycling are the first choice for short or medium distance trips. In IST’s view, the strategy should aim to achieve not only reductions in road trauma, but also long-term gains in environmental sustainability, health, and local amenity.
2.81
The Motorcycle Council of NSW (MC NSW) noted that while motorcyclists are classified as ‘vulnerable road users’ in the NRSS 2021–30 (with cyclists and pedestrians), there is limited synergy between measures to improve motorcyclist safety and measures to improve safety for other road users.
2.82
Stakeholders also supported a greater focus on the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The National Rural Health Alliance (NRHA) called for the strategy to be aligned with Closing the Gap targets.
2.83
Finally, stakeholders expressed concern that despite the critical role of local governments in improving road safety, local government is often neglected in road safety strategies—including the NRSS 2021–30.
Road safety data
2.84
Designing, implementing, and evaluating measures to enhance road safety requires comprehensive and accurate data. Stakeholders raised concern that there are gaps in data collection, sharing, dissemination, and use, and called for this issue to be rectified as a matter of urgency.
Building a national road safety dataset
2.85
A key issue for many inquiry participants was the need to build a national dataset which clearly and accurately describes the road safety environment. Stakeholders raised concern that without such a dataset, it remains difficult to identify areas of risk and design and implement targeted interventions.
2.86
CASR noted that while existing data provides ‘glimpses and snapshots’ of road safety, a comprehensive national picture of road safety remains elusive:
[W]e still are in a situation where we don't even have knowledge of the network safety plans or the investment profiles for a lot of road agencies around how they're going to optimise that harm reduction task in the years ahead. That is a feature of the [NRSS 2021–30] and …but until we have [the data] it's going to be difficult to assess governance arrangements and have accountability for the actions that will occur. Those are some of the things which are contributing to our headline of implementation failure.
2.87
A key concern in relation to road safety data was that the Commonwealth (and accordingly ORS) must rely on states to supply critical data points.
2.88
For example, MUARC observed that ORS has a ‘huge challenge on its hands’ regarding the National Road Safety Data Hub. MUARC stated that this is because data collection is a state responsibility, and the Commonwealth appears to lack the authority to require the collection of specific data.
2.89
Roads Australia (RA) agreed that the federated model creates significant difficulties for ORS in obtaining consistent data—particularly as ORS lacks baseline data with which to track the progress of Vision Zero goals.
2.90
Similarly, AAA told the committee that the key obstacles on data are the lack of a mechanism to compel provision of data by jurisdictions and the lack of consistency in the data gathered and shared:
[W]e would like to see the federal office collecting data which is, in our opinion…being collected by the states but not being shared. The types of things we're talking about are AusRAP star ratings and the percentage of vehicle kilometres travelled in each jurisdiction by star rating. We would love to see a national dataset of crash data: crash type, crash location, crash conditions, vehicle details, driver details, crash cause, all the things which are being collected but not shared. There's enforcement data which we think would be very interesting, and that includes the number of drivers sampled by offence: RBT, drug driving, speeding.
2.91
Austroads told the committee that its efforts to develop a national dataset (for which ORS will be responsible) are hampered by the refusal of Western Australia (WA) to share at least some relevant data. Austroads said that it needed support to facilitate agreement on this matter.
2.92
Similarly, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) indicated that WA data restrictions stymie efforts to build a reliable national map of road trauma, stating that:
Injury Matters, which is the peak injury prevention group, and the Office of Road Safety, which is our peak group for road safety, must pay for data from the health department. It's in the realms of six-figure sums—100,000, 200,000. We've brothered up with the health department, but it's just bureaucratic nonsense where your peak injury prevention groups must pay for data that will help them target where the injuries are…I think there needs to be uniformity across the whole country in so many areas of data sharing.
Types of data required to improve road safety
2.93
Stakeholders told the committee that gathering a range of information is critical to understanding road safety performance, to developing and evaluating solutions, and to achieving Australia’s ‘Vision Zero’ targets.
2.94
For example, NRHA stated that all governments should collect data on the location of crashes and the place of residence of the victim(s), to ensure consistency across datasets. NRHA added that data on the health and socio-demographic status of the crash victim, and information on alcohol and drug use, would assist analysis of trends in accidents, hospitalisations, and deaths on Australian roads.
2.95
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (MBL) observed that work conducted by the Victorian Government (via VicRoads) with the Victorian police is a ‘great example’ of how government agencies can work together to collect detailed statistics on road trauma, including age, circumstances, locations, and crash speeds. MBL indicated that this data may be useful in obtaining a far more granular understanding of road trauma and designing interventions which are adapted to the needs of specific road users.
Data on specific groups of road users
2.96
Inquiry participants indicated that there are gaps in data relating to certain groups of road users. For example, AGF stated that crashes involving cyclists are ‘significantly under-reported’, with neither police nor hospital data accurately reflecting their number or severity. AGF recommended that governments acknowledge and address current limitations in data relating to cyclists and develop nationally consistent data collection protocols.
2.97
The Caravan Industry Association of Australia (CIAA) noted that data on caravans and other recreational vehicles registered in Australia is only captured via the motor vehicle census, which came to an end in 2021.
Data on crashes which do not involve death or injury
2.98
Stakeholders also indicated that efforts should be made to collect data on crashes that do not involve fatal or serious injury.
2.99
For example, MUARC noted that nationally consistent non-injury data will be invaluable for evaluating safety technologies, as it can pinpoint where a feature is functioning effectively in preventing serious injury.
2.100
ARRB told the committee that Australia is not capturing data from such crashes and, accordingly, is losing a substantial amount of data which may assist in understanding road safety risks and developing solutions.
Enhancing data collection methods
2.101
As well as pointing to examples of data that should be collected to support the design and evaluation of road safety interventions, stakeholders noted that data collection methods could be enhanced. Key themes in the evidence were use of technology-based methods and improved crash investigation.
Event data recording
2.102
Some stakeholders expressed support for fitment of event data recorders (EDRs) and the increased use of telematics, noting that these are a useful means of collecting information on ‘near miss’ events to support proactive road safety interventions. For example, ARSF stated that:
For every fatality that we know about …up to 300,000 risk situations have happened [and] maybe 30,000 near misses have happened …[W]e've got no way of knowing what those things are, and often that's how people view their driving performance. Just because they may have never had a crash, it doesn't mean that they haven't been [in] involved activities that have led to somebody else crashing or they've had issues that they…were unaware of. …[C]ertainly we could use technology to help better manage driver performance.
2.103
RACS similarly noted that while EDRs have the capacity to improve collection of pre-crash data, no jurisdiction currently mandates vehicles be fitted with EDRs or that stored data be accessible. According to RACS, mandating fitment of EDRs would enhance collision causation analysis.
2.104
Professor Raphael Grzebieta noted that police and coronial investigations rely heavily on collision findings, including analysis of EDRs. However, fitment of EDRs has not been mandated. Further, if police wish to analyse data from an EDR, they must seek permission from the manufacturer (with manufacturers having rights to refuse). Professor Grzebieta recommended that the Commonwealth mandate fitment of EDRs with access for police.
2.105
By contrast, ARRB cautioned against relying on technology to gather data on near miss events, and indeed against using the term ‘near miss’ at all:
[A] lot of outfits are…looking at data…[on] acceleration. That may not mean a near miss is happening at all. It might just mean there's a lot of congestion on the road and a lot of vehicles are slowing. [T]his [issue] is evolving and it needs to be the right kind of data, when we're talking about near misses, but it's certainly something we're going to be able to look at very soon.
Application-based solutions
2.106
Some stakeholders indicated that there are opportunities to gather data on the condition of roads via road users reporting information to government, for example through an application.
2.107
For example, MBL highlighted an application-based scheme in Victoria that allows road users to record poor road surfaces in a database, which in turn provides feedback reported to local councils.
2.108
RA supported an application-based way of reporting near misses, noting that data on such events is critical to addressing fatal and serious injury crashes. RA noted that while a significant amount of data is being collected from in-vehicle devices, there are governance issues that must be addressed before data on near miss events can be collected or used in a systematic way to combat road trauma.
2.109
NHVR told the committee that an application-based approach could also be adopted in the heavy vehicle sector, stating that:
[NHVR] established and released a confidential reporting line a couple of years ago, which…gives the industry and drivers an opportunity to raise with us their awareness of particular issues. That's probably more in a driving sense than in an infrastructure sense, but we do get some intel around infrastructure.
Improving crash investigation
2.110
Stakeholders indicated that crash investigations can be one of the more effective means of collecting data, calling for existing investigation methods to be improved. Stakeholders expressed particular support for ‘blameless’ investigations, which focus on the causes of a crash and on improving the transport system, noting that at present investigations focus heavily on apportioning fault for liability purposes.
2.111
ARRB similarly raised concern that Australia is not learning enough from road crashes, nor effectively measuring the impact of safety initiatives. Accordingly, ARRB called for the establishment of a national crash review framework and a nationally standardised crash database, adding that while the National Road Safety Data Hub is an ‘excellent first step’ toward national crash data harmonisation, the country ‘has a long way to go’.
2.112
Mr Michael Griffiths observed that assignment of the primary causal factors of a crash is typically undertaken by a police officer (largely for legal or insurance purposes). Mr Griffiths stated that a parallel program of targeted, in-depth crash studies is needed to assess the true causal factors of crashes, recommending that:
Prospective, targeted, and in-depth on-scene samples of road crashes be an ongoing research tool, to ensure quality identification of road safety issues and the development of a range of potential solutions.
The Commonwealth offer funding for these studies, with the caveat that data is collected in-house, and that researchers are located in the same organisation responsible for implementing countermeasures.
2.113
MBL highlighted the importance of capturing the lived experience of people involved in or affected by a road crash, noting that crashes rarely have a singular cause and that the causes of a crash can be seen differently by those involved and by crash investigators, police, and others.
Data sharing and linkage arrangements
2.114
Stakeholders indicated that efforts to share and link data held by agencies across disparate sectors (such as police and coronial data and hospital data) are critical to understanding the full extent of road trauma in Australia, and to developing countermeasures. In this respect, stakeholders observed that enhancing linkages will enable an understanding of both the physical and socio-demographic characteristics of crash victims and how road trauma has affected them and their communities over the longer term.
2.115
RACS noted that much of the data necessary to understand and address road trauma exists, stating that what is needed are measures to link the data together in a systematic way. Using the example of data linkage efforts at the state level, RACS told the committee that:
We can access hospitalisation data within three months. New South Wales and Queensland have both set up data linkage with road safety data bureaus. We have police crash data and hospitalisation data being linked on a routine basis. That data is regularly available to the state authorities to be able to make decisions. That kind of thing could easily be replicated at a national level, with appropriate governance and legislation in place to do so.
We have access to data around where crashes occur through XY coordinates and pick-up zones from ambulance locations, which can be readily integrated into systems that incorporate emergency department data and hospitalisation data and it can even be linked up with deaths data. We have the capacity, the technical skills, the people skills and the starting infrastructure to enable those kinds of things to be set up on a regular basis.
2.116
Stakeholders also indicated that data linkage efforts can be stymied by gaps in available data, as well as by the fact that most databases are designed for a particular purpose, often unrelated to road safety.
2.117
For example, MUARC indicated that data linkage can be impacted by a lack of detail in hospital admission data and inconsistencies in police data. While some jurisdictions have made progress in developing data linkage systems, ultimately what is needed is greater national consistency in what is collected and reported.
2.118
The Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFESAC) noted that it conducts annual collection incident data and aggregates the data in a national database (with AFESAC as custodian). However, although the relevant data covers transport-related incidents, it focuses on activities undertaken at the scene by emergency service personnel and does not capture the causes of the incident. Noting the potential limitations of data it collects, AFESAC encouraged more collaboration across all organisations which collect causation-related data.
2.119
RACS told the committee that it ‘strongly advocates’ for national data linkage efforts between transport and health data, as linkages can provide invaluable intelligence for policy and prevention initiatives. RACS also identified the need to enhance the collection of health data—including information held in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) National Non-Admitted Patient Emergency Department Care Database (NNAPEDCD) and the National Hospital Morbidity Database (NHMD). Suggested improvements include:
Expanding the NNAPEDCD to capture the mechanism of an injury (for example, transport-related or exposure to a noxious substance) and the intent behind the injury (for example, unintentional; intentional assault) using standard classifications.
Reporting injury hospitalisation (drawn from the NHMD) via the AIHW data portal. Breakdown of data by age, gender, region, and jurisdiction, injuries sustained, length of stay, and outcomes, would also provide useful information for minimum effort.
2.120
Injury Matters indicated that estimating the ‘true’ costs of road trauma is limited by a paucity of data on those who may not have been seriously injured; those who may have accessed support via an allied health provider; and those impacted by mental health conditions that may not manifest until years after a crash occurs. This is compounded by inconsistencies in data linkage efforts and how injuries are coded in the health system.
Data on serious injuries
2.121
Some stakeholders noted that the definition of ‘serious injury’ remains inconsistent across jurisdictions, and called for development of a standard, national definition to underpin reliable, accurate road safety data.
2.122
For example, ARRB told the committee that while ‘fatal injury’ is clearly defined, definitions of ‘serious injury’ vary across jurisdictions, and it is presumed that a person who is hospitalised is ‘seriously injured’ even when the injury was not classified as ‘serious’ using established rating scales. By reference to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), ARRB illustrated some of the issues associated with inconsistent definitions of ‘serious injury’:
There are [six] categories…AIS 1 representing a very minor injury and AIS 6 representing a fatal injury. AIS also forms the basis for determining the Injury Severity Score (ISS) of a patient with multiple crash injuries.
In Queensland [in 2009], 6,674 persons were ‘hospitalised’ [and] would…have been classified as being ‘seriously’ injured. However, only 672 persons (approximately 10% of those who were hospitalised) received what medical experts define as a ‘serious injury’ (being AIS 3+ score).
2.123
ARRB also raised concern that classifying a person as ‘seriously’ injured’ when they have sustained minor injuries (but may still be hospitalised) can distort statistics on the impact of road safety interventions, including by giving the impression that an effective safety measure has failed to reduce or has even increased serious injury crashes.
2.124
Austroads noted that road safety measures are very sensitive to input data, and can be affected by improper coding of injury, as well as by inaccurate reporting of crash type or location. Austroads noted that work is ongoing to develop a national dataset on serious injury. However, this has presented challenges and there has not been agreement from all states and territories to share data. Commonwealth support—both investment and leadership—may be necessary to drive this work forward.
Reporting of road safety data
2.125
Stakeholders called for improvements to how road safety data is reported, to enhance awareness of the impacts of road trauma and to increase the accountability of government and industry for improving safety across the road network. Suggestions to improve reporting were often modelled on reporting related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
2.126
RACS noted that the collection and linkage of data during COVID-19 assisted Australian governments to keep the public informed with daily case numbers and information on hospitalisations and deaths, and that the uptake of this information demonstrates that the public has an appetite for and an understanding of public health information.
2.127
According to RACS, the following principles based on the government’s approach to COVID-19 information should be applied to road safety data:
Governments be unambiguous that reliable, accurate data is essential to reducing death and serious injury on Australian roads.
Governments release data and modelling to the public for transparency.
Ensure strong communication on the link between road safety data and relevant decision-making processes.
The Commonwealth continue to provide an ‘overall picture’ of the road safety environment, even if there are gaps in data from jurisdictions. Reporting should not cease only because some data is not present.
Government decision-makers be receptive to evolving knowledge on road safety information, with the expectation that the data will continue to improve over time to assist with management of the situation.
Data is used to create benchmarks, with the result that jurisdictions that fall behind in improving road safety must provide an explanation.
2.128
NHVR stated that in the interests of transparency and accountability, crash data relating to the heavy vehicle sector should be reported publicly at the national level (to the extent privacy can be safeguarded). NHVR noted that it can present such information via its website and portal.
Data under the National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030
2.129
National data and monitoring of safety across the road transport system are recognised as being key to the success of the NRSS 2021–30. Moreover, the strategy recognises that there are many areas where there is scope for better data collection and coordination, evaluation of initiatives and wider sharing of best practice. Under the strategy, there will be a focus on identifying data sources highlighting risk in the road system, and on gathering data from a broader range of sources and in relation to a greater number of road safety- issues, including low-speed incidents involving children and suicide in the road transport system.
2.130
In addition, progress is being made on a national picture of serious injuries resulting from road crashes. The national dataset will enable authorities to better target the interventions needed to prevent the most serious injuries and measure the effectiveness of countermeasures.
2.131
The National Road Safety Data Hub will function as the mechanism for collecting and analysing data at a national level. Initiatives around the Hub aim to support decision-making using up-to-date and accurate data; enable data-driven discovery to allow detection of patterns in data that may be available via disconnected and multiple sources; enable tracking of safety performance indicators; and afford opportunities to share open datasets providing national data for researchers and data specialists.
Research
2.132
Stakeholders stressed that quality research greatly assists in understanding the road safety environment and in designing and evaluating interventions. Noting these benefits, stakeholders raised concern that research institutions are underfunded and that Australia lacks coordinated research priorities in relation to road safety.
2.133
Transurban stated that continuous improvements in road safety require ongoing evaluation of interventions, as well as the revision of guidelines and standards in response to scientific research. Transurban highlighted its partnership with NeuRA as an example of where research has driven safety outcomes, noting that research under that partnership has enhanced safety for children; informed standards for motorcycle design and protective gear; and developed guidance for the safe and effective use of comfort aids such as cushions and back supports.
Research priorities
2.134
Some stakeholders emphasised the importance of having a clearly defined framework for road safety research, including an articulation of priorities and desired outcomes. In noting that sound research is critical to promoting the uptake of road safety interventions CARRS-Q told the committee that:
Change is needed to address the current situation where there are no clear directions for road safety research; research organisations are encouraged to compete, rather than collaborate, for uncertain funding; and…comparisons of the effectiveness of policies and practices across states receive little priority.
2.135
Accordingly, CARRS-Q called for a National Road Safety Research Strategy to identify both short- and long-term national research priorities and to inform the allocation of funds. CARSS-Q noted that while organisations such as the National Health and Medical Research Council have developed strategies previously, these were not adopted by the Commonwealth.
2.136
ACRS also observed that Australia lacks a road safety research strategy, indicating that greater investment in research is needed to ensure that safety programs have a sound evidence base. According to ACRS, this is of particular concern as the road safety environment is becoming increasingly complex. ACRS also noted that a strategy may assist in building links with manufacturers and suppliers, and with the information technology (IT) and communications sectors.
2.137
Some stakeholders also indicated that there is a need to focus road safety research in certain areas. For example, representatives of the Transurban Road Safety Centre at NeuRA indicated that there would be merit in establishing a ‘centre for excellence’ for regional, rural, and remote research, noting that a disproportionate number of fatal and serious injuries occur in regional areas. Such a centre could be a physical location or a collaboration across multiple sites and could work closely with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to support culturally safe road safety initiatives.
Research funding
2.138
Inquiry participants emphasised that quality research will require funding to sustain capacity and drive innovation, raising concern that such funding is difficult to secure. For example, the Transurban Road Safety Centre at NeuRA noted funding is ‘very fragmented’, making it difficult to maintain research capacity:
[W]e probably need…[around] 10 to 15 researchers in each state, because you need the full range of expertise. You need people [with] biomechanics and injury expertise; [and] people [with] health and epidemiology expertise; and you need vehicle technology people...
[T]he problem is that there are small grant funding agencies… [T]here are very few road safety researchers who have [been able to secure sustainable funding], and the success rate for those is of the order of 10 per cent or lower…we lose a lot of people because they get enthusiastic and they start their careers and then they can't get sustained funding.
2.139
Representatives of the Centre also supported the Road Safety Innovation Fund and its focus on research, stating that the fund should be maintained. They also recommended that consideration be given to making road safety a priority in the Medical Research Future Fund, and to collaboration with health funding agencies on cross-disciplinary research programs.
2.140
CARRS-Q similarly highlighted the importance of sustainable funding to road safety research, stating that:
[M]ajor government sources of research funding do not include the salaries of senior investigators. Other sources adopt procurement models…that require researchers’ time to be provided as an in-kind resource, like the universities …[A]dd to that recent restrictions on university budgets, and [that] many research groups, including our own, can no longer extend the contracts of all well-performing staff. …We need to build capacity but, in some sense, road safety research is almost a gig economy.
Research under the National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030
2.141
The NRSS 2021–30 expressly recognises that research is vital to progress the development of new approaches, pilot, and trial real-world new concepts, test the limits to innovation, and develop best practice and exemplar models and guidelines. While noting there are existing national bodies to support research, the strategy also identifies opportunities to leverage the strengths of tertiary institutions and to continue to build and strengthen partnerships with industry and particular cohorts of the community.
2.142
In addition, the strategy notes that one of the Action Plans will prioritise a targeted research program that will change with time as new issues emerge and new programs are adopted.
Committee view
National leadership and oversight
2.143
The committee heard that national leadership will be critical to improving safety outcomes on Australian roads, and that key policy levers available to the Commonwealth include vehicle regulation, funding and investment, federal oversight, and standards for workplace safety. As set out in this chapter and Chapters 4, 5, and 8, respectively, the committee supports:
Increasing national oversight over road safety matters.
Increasing the extent to which federal funding is contingent on recipients adopting best-practice safety principles in the design and construction of infrastructure and the implementation of road safety initiatives.
Using federal regulations to encourage if not mandate uptake of proven vehicle safety features.
Embedding road safety in the workplace as a core part of business.
2.144
The committee agrees with the view that a critical component of national leadership is intergovernmental collaboration, including through working together on interventions and sharing data, resources, and examples of best practice. The committee notes in this regard that the Infrastructure and Transport Ministers’ Meetings provide a forum for the Commonwealth to work with jurisdictions to improve safety and productivity in Australia's transport and infrastructure.
2.145
The committee encourages the Commonwealth, as well as state, territory, and local governments, to regularly dedicate such meetings to key road safety issues—including those discussed in this report. The committee is of the view that an immediate and critical priority should be agreement on the sharing of road safety data between jurisdictions, and harmonising of definitions relating to casualty rates, road safety ratings, and speed.
Supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
2.146
The committee heard that road safety policy and programs must be aligned with the needs of, and co-designed with, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Stakeholders indicated that efforts at the national level are necessary to ensure this occurs.
2.147
The committee notes that a priority are for the National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030 (NRSS 2021–30) is addressing over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in road trauma. The strategy proposes as action items:
Partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations to develop place-based and community-led strategies to address road safety, incorporating strong partnership elements under Priority Reform One of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.
Working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations to meet shared goals via Closing the Gap Priority Reforms.
2.148
In addition, the strategy expressly acknowledges the need for insights from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on the complex interplay of social, cultural, safety and justice issues before proceeding with more solution-driven initiatives. It is proposed that the Commonwealth will lead work focused on understanding authorising environments and interactions between government policy aimed at addressing inequalities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
2.149
The committee strongly encourages the Commonwealth to ensure working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples incorporates co-design principles. The committee notes that work by the Department of Health has been highlighted as an example of good practice and encourages the Commonwealth to follow or at least consider this example in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to improve road safety.
Parliamentary oversight
Minister for Road Safety
2.150
The committee heard that there is support for the appointment of a federal minister for road safety, with stakeholders noting that this would help to increase accountability on progress towards Australia’s ambitious ‘Vision Zero’ targets and enable collaboration on key issues across portfolio areas. The committee notes that appointing such a minister was recommended in the 2018 inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020.
2.151
The committee agrees with stakeholders that a minister for road safety should be appointed. Noting that responsibility for road safety currently sits with an Assistant Minister who is also responsible for freight transport, the committee is of the view that the appointee should be a cabinet-level Minister with a clear focus on road safety issues. This is to elevate the profile of road safety at the federal level and avoid splitting the minister’s attention across multiple areas. The committee supports the minister having oversight of the Office of Road Safety and reporting to a parliamentary committee.
2.152
Moreover, the committee is aware that it can be difficult to justify spending on road safety measures at the national level, as while funds may be spent from the transport or infrastructure budget, savings are often realised elsewhere (for example, in the health budget through lower hospitalisation rates). In the committee’s view, appointment of a dedicated cabinet-level minister may assist in securing additional road safety funding, including by cementing road safety as a national priority and by facilitating negotiation across portfolios on spending and offsets.
2.153
The committee heard that justifying additional road safety spending at the federal level might also be supported by an increased focus on road safety as an economic issue, and through increased engagement with social impact investment activities which provide the opportunity for portfolio ministers to discuss the cost of road trauma on a system-wide basis.
2.154
The committee recommends that a cabinet minister for road safety be appointed. A key responsibility of the minister should be reporting to the Parliament on an annual basis in relation to the performance indicators in the National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030 (NRSS 2021–30) and on progress in relation to the goals and priority actions in the NRSS 2021–30 and associated Action Plans.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Road Safety
2.155
There was continuing support for the establishment of a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Road Safety to support engagement with, and oversight of, road safety matters at the national level—including ongoing scrutiny of whether national strategies are meeting their targets.
2.156
The previous Joint Select Committee on Road Safety was tasked with gauging levels of support for establishment of a Standing Committee on Road Safety and seeking views on its role and functions. It recommended establishing such a Standing Committee, noting that the recommendation had strong stakeholder support.
2.157
The previous committee also supported stakeholders’ views as to the role of a Standing Committee, including that the committee take a leadership role, maintain a bipartisan approach to road safety, ensure accountability, and promote better coordination across all jurisdictions and stakeholder groups. The previous committee also agreed that a Standing Committee would provide a vehicle for stakeholders to have their views and expertise taken into consideration, and to participate in policy processes.
2.158
This committee supports establishment of a Standing Committee on Road Safety with the powers and functions described in the previous committee’s report. The committee strongly encourages members of the 47th Parliament to establish such a committee as soon as possible.
Office of Road Safety
2.159
The committee heard that the Office of Road Safety (ORS) has generally been effective in providing coordination and leadership on road safety and should continue to lead on road safety policy and funding initiatives.
2.160
The committee also heard that ORS should encourage still greater levels of collaboration across all levels of government to embed road safety a part of business as usual and to encourage stakeholders to view road safety as not only a transport issue, but as an issue with economic, environmental, and public health ramifications. The committee heard that key functions for ORS should be acting as a conduit between government agencies and other stakeholders to facilitate collaboration on road safety initiatives; supporting coordination of research; and collection and reporting of road safety data.
2.161
Noting the need to identify safety initiatives that have been successful, and which may be appropriate for national rollout, the committee encourages ORS to develop a repository of information on such programs, and to work closely with jurisdictions to support implementation of successful programs across the road network. The committee also encourages ORS to work with states and territories to trial innovative road safety measures by providing investment and other support. As part of this, the committee encourages the Commonwealth to identify whether additional resources may be needed to support ORS to undertake this role.
2.162
The committee also considers that there may be merit in establishing a peer-selected advisory body, comprising road safety experts and professional colleges and organisations, to advise ORS on road safety policy matters. The committee notes that the body should not be granted decision-making functions. Rather, it would provide expert views on road safety policy to support development and implementation.
2.163
The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate options to establish an advisory body for the Office of Road Safety, comprising road safety experts and professional organisations.
State government
2.164
The committee heard that there are a variety of initiatives in train or under development at the state and territory level to improve road safety. These are supported by strategies and actions plans which are tailored to the needs of the relevant jurisdiction.
2.165
The committee also heard that road safety strategies and action plans at the state level should be aligned with the national model, with stakeholders noting that this would improve consistency and facilitate sharing of best-practice approaches to improve road safety.
2.166
While noting that state and territory strategies remain the responsibility of state and territory governments and acknowledging that some issues will require ‘bespoke’ solutions, the committee encourages states and territories to align their strategies with each other, and with the national model, where possible. In the committee’s view, a key advantage of such an approach will be the identification of best practice approaches which might be adopted for national rollout.
2.167
The committee notes in this respect that some jurisdictions already base their road safety initiatives on measures that have been proven successful elsewhere and considers that greater alignment between state and territory road safety strategies, and greater intergovernmental collaboration, would accelerate implementation of proven solutions. The committee welcomes evidence from the ORS indicating that intergovernmental collaboration remains a priority moving forward.
Local government
2.168
The committee heard that local governments have a critical influence on the design and safety of the road network and play a key role in improving road safety outcomes across Australia. Accordingly, the committee considers that road safety initiatives must be delivered via authentic partnerships with local government, including through enabling opportunities for co-design and by identifying priority local areas for targeted investment.
2.169
The committee considers that this will help ensure road safety measures are directed to areas of need, ensure measures have the greatest impact, and garner community acceptance. This is particularly important for measures such as speed limit changes, as local acceptance of such measures is often difficult to secure.
2.170
The committee also heard that local governments may lack the expertise to implement critical safety improvements, with a particular concern being a shortage of engineers and urban planners with road safety expertise. The committee heard that resources should be dedicated to building capacity in local governments, including through training initiatives and by providing the resources necessary to allow councils to attract and retain staff with the relevant skills and expertise. The committee supports this recommendation, and notes that the provision of additional resources might be supported by ensuring that local governments have access to up-to-date design guidance.
2.171
The committee is also pleased that the NRSS 2021–30 recognises that a large part of the network is managed by local governments and includes actions to build local government capacity and enable better engagement between state, territory, and local governments. The committee notes that part of this will be training to support local governments’ understanding of system failures or safety gaps in the local government network.
2.172
The committee encourages the Commonwealth to investigate opportunities to expedite the rollout of training and the development of network safety plans (which can be used to inform targeted investment) if possible. As part of work to enable linkages between state and territory government and local councils, the committee encourages the Commonwealth to work with states and territories to explore opportunities to provide greater independence to local governments on certain road safety measures.
The National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030
2.173
Stakeholders raised several concerns about the NRSS 2021–30 by reference to a consultation draft published in February 2021. Concerns and areas for improvement included:
The roles, functions, and accountabilities of parties responsible for road safety are not clear enough. Moreover, there are not sufficient measures in the strategy to ensure local governments are held accountable for making road safety improvements.
There are not sufficient targets or performance measures in the strategy. Existing targets are also articulated in insufficient detail or accompanied by inadequate levels of baseline data. Key areas seen as lacking included targets related to local government and to workplace road safety.
The ORS should report on successes and failures relating to the progress of the strategy against agreed targets on a regular basis, to enable transparency and stimulate action from all levels of government. Reports should be made public.
The strategy does not give sufficient attention to the needs of some road users such as heavy vehicles, cyclists, motorcyclists, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
2.174
The committee reviewed the draft of the NRSS Strategy against the final strategy (published December 2021) and considers that concerns raised by stakeholders have been at least partially addressed. For example, the final strategy now includes more detailed road safety performance indicators. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. The committee encourages the Commonwealth to continue to refine the strategy, including by consulting with stakeholders to identify and address key gaps.
Road safety data
2.175
The committee shares the view of stakeholders that reliable, accurate data is critical to the design, implementation, and evaluation of measures to enhance road safety and to accountability for government and industry.
2.176
The committee heard that a barrier to gathering road safety data is that the Commonwealth is reliant on states and territories to provide information on road safety in their jurisdiction, and that some states have been reluctant to provide the data necessary to inform a complete picture of road safety in Australia. Stakeholders also indicated that there are gaps in the data which has been made available, and that this limits efforts to assess the overall safety of the road network.
2.177
The committee also heard that a broader range of data should be collected to ensure full understanding of the road safety environment and enable better evaluation of road safety measures. Examples in evidence included:
Data on the location of crashes and on the socio-demographic and health characteristics of crash victims.
Additional data on crashes involving cyclists.
Data on the number and characteristics of recreational vehicle users.
Data on crashes which do not involve death or serious injury, and which may only involve financial damage.
Data on ‘near-miss’ events.
2.178
Stakeholders also raised concern that definitions of ‘serious injury’ remain inconsistent across jurisdictions, noting that this can lead to statistics on the impact of road safety interventions being distorted.
2.179
The committee also heard that sharing and linking data held by agencies in different jurisdictions and sectors will be critical to understanding the full extent of road trauma in Australia and developing targeted solutions. The committee understands that while most of the relevant data exists, efforts are needed to ensure the data is shared and is properly linked together and that gaps in datasets are addressed.
2.180
The committee notes that the previous Joint Select Committee on Road Safety recommended that the Australian Government work with the states and territories to develop a plan and timeline for the harmonisation of data. In addition, the committee notes that the NRSS 2021–30 will have a focus on both identifying the data sources highlighting risk in the road system and on gathering data from a broader range of sources. Moreover, progress is being made on a national picture of serious injuries resulting from road crashes, which will be housed in the National Road Safety Data Hub
2.181
Nevertheless, the committee is of the view that mechanisms are needed to clarify the data needed to enable an understanding of road safety at the national level and provide greater consistency in the data obtained and used. The committee is also of the view that this mechanism should be agreed between the Commonwealth and the states and territories (for example via a Memorandum of Understanding), with a view to ensuring all states and territories provide reliable, accurate data to the Commonwealth on a regular basis. The committee considers that the Transport and Infrastructure Ministers’ Meeting could be a useful venue for securing agreement on such a mechanism.
2.182
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to agree a mechanism for the sharing of road safety data between jurisdictions.
Enhancing data collection methods
2.183
The committee heard that steps should be taken to encourage fitment of event data recorders (EDRs) to all vehicles and to enable access by police to the data recorded, with stakeholders noting that this would be instrumental to understanding near miss events and designing targeted interventions. The committee supports fitment of EDRs as a means of obtaining valuable safety data and considers that the Commonwealth should investigate options to encourage fitment across the vehicle fleet.
2.184
The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate options to encourage fitment of event data recorders across the Australian vehicle fleet, and to enable access to the data by police.
2.185
The committee also heard that there are opportunities to improve crash investigations, with a focus on establishing mechanisms for ‘blameless’ investigations that consider the causes of a crash from a safety perspective—independent of establishing liability for legal or insurance purposes.
2.186
The NRSS 2021–30 proposes measures to make Safe System investigations routine for fatal and serious injury crashes, with research used to support best practice investigation processes. However, the committee is of the view that more could be done to enhance ‘blameless’ investigation and ensure data is used to inform development of interventions. Accordingly, the committee considers that the Commonwealth should investigate options to implement a national crash review framework and standardised crash database linked to the National Road Safety Data Hub.
2.187
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments and other stakeholder to investigate options for a national crash review framework and road crash database.
Reporting of data
2.188
The committee heard that there is support for more regular public reporting on road trauma, with stakeholders noting this has the potential to increase accountability for government and industry by raising public awareness of road trauma and clarifying the effectiveness of solutions. The committee considers that the Commonwealth must investigate options to report road trauma statistics on a regular basis, including by providing information on how the environment has changed over time in response to interventions.
2.189
The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate options for regular public reporting on road trauma statistics, including on rates of change.
Research
2.190
The committee heard that quality research will be critical to understanding the road safety environment and in designing and evaluating innovative road safety countermeasures. Stakeholders highlighted the benefits of high-quality research to enhancing road safety outcomes and raised concern that research institutions are often underfunded and that Australia lacks coordinated road safety research priorities.
2.191
The committee also heard that a defined framework for road safety research would assist in articulating priorities, as well as supporting both increases to research funding and better targeting of funding to promising road safety solutions. Moreover, such a strategy may encourage collaboration between institutions—noting that current research is undercut by competition for funding—and help facilitate the uptake of research outcomes by creating links with manufacturers and other stakeholders.
2.192
The committee is pleased that the NRSS 2021–30 recognises that research is vital to improving road safety and identifies measures to support tertiary institutions and to strengthen partnerships with industry, and that an action under one of the Action Plans is a targeted research program which will change with time as new issues and programs are adopted.
2.193
While the proposal under the Action Plan appears to share similarities with a research strategy, the committee nevertheless considers that there would be merit in developing and implementing a road safety research strategy at the national level. A strategy should cover research priorities; collaboration between institutions; measures to support uptake of research outcomes in the sector (such as through manufacturers fitting proven safety features or altering existing ones); and opportunities for collaboration across different portfolio areas (for example, to enable shared funding).
2.194
The committee also considers that a strategy should explore opportunities for increasing the number of graduate students whose studies and research focus on road safety, noting that this may be one means of increasing the number of staff with road sector expertise in local government agencies.
2.195
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments and research institutions to develop and implement a national road safety research strategy.