Road Transport Amendment (Demerit Points Reduction) Bill 2026 - Second Read Speech
As The Greens' spokesperson on transport, I speak in debate on the Road Transport Amendment (Demerit Points Reduction) Bill 2026 and say from the outset that we will not oppose the bill. It moves to make permanent what began as a trial—a demerit point reduction scheme that rewards drivers who go 12 months without committing an offence by removing a single demerit point from their record. As the Minister said in the other place:
As The Greens' spokesperson on transport, I speak in debate on the Road Transport Amendment (Demerit Points Reduction) Bill 2026 and say from the outset that we will not oppose the bill. It moves to make permanent what began as a trial—a demerit point reduction scheme that rewards drivers who go 12 months without committing an offence by removing a single demerit point from their record. As the Minister said in the other place:
That is the intent of the bill. Of course, it is an intent that The Greens do not oppose. However, support for an idea is not the same thing as evidence that it works. The reality is that there is very little independent research available on the effectiveness of a demerit point reduction scheme for safe driving—or for driving, perhaps, as one normally would. The most relevant evidence we have is from Transport for NSW. In its own evaluation of the first year of the trial, Transport for NSW found that, despite the scheme having a plausible mechanism of effect, there was no detectable impact on offence numbers or patterns during or after the first 12 months of the trial. In other words, while millions of drivers participated because they drove, there is no clear evidence that it made our roads concretely or tangibly safer.
The broader evidence tells a different story. Demerit point systems, when designed around strong deterrents, do work. A 2004 evidence synthesis by the Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit found that demerit point systems can reduce road injuries and fatalities, but their effectiveness depends on the severity and certainty of punishment. The fear of losing one's licence can be a strong driver of behaviour change. That research also found that the benefits of demerit point schemes can taper off after 12 to 18 months without consistent enforcement. It recommended increasing penalties for serious offences and strengthening measures for repeat offenders. However, that is a long way from this Government's populist agenda.
A one‑point reward for a year of good behaviour may well benefit casual or occasional offenders. People who make a mistake will get caught and then adjust their behaviour. For that cohort, the scheme may provide a modest incentive to stay within the rules, but it is highly unlikely to do anything to change the behaviour of serious or repeat offenders. We know that high‑risk drivers—those who speed habitually, drive under the influence or repeatedly break the law—are far less responsive to incentives. They respond to deterrents, to enforcement and to the real risk of losing their licence. While up‑to‑date academic research on double demerits is limited, real‑world data shows that road deaths decline during double demerit point periods. That is because drivers know the consequences are immediate and serious. While this bill may have a very small role to play, it is not a solution to road trauma.
If we are serious about reducing deaths and injuries on our roads, as everybody is—and as I know the Minister is—we need to look beyond modest behavioural nudges and invest in what the evidence says actually works. Both this Government and the former Government have done that. Road safety infrastructure and speed management interventions deliver the biggest gains. Measures such as safety barriers, roundabouts, median separation, grade‑separated intersections, safe pedestrian crossings and footpaths, and separated cycling infrastructure can reduce fatalities and serious injuries, sometimes by up to 70 to 80 per cent. This Government could be a little more enthusiastic about lower speed limits, particularly as The Greens have championed 30‑kilometre‑per‑hour zones in pedestrian‑heavy areas. Traffic calming measures like raised crossings and chicanes and the consistent use of speed cameras can dramatically reduce deaths and serious injuries, sometimes to near zero.
We also need to be honest about the cultural and systemic issues that sit behind road safety in New South Wales. When I contributed to debate on the legislation that first introduced the trial, I think I made the point that the driving culture in New South Wales too often tolerates speeding. Our policy settings have been shaped by populist reactions rather than evidence, and governments have flip‑flopped on enforcement measures such as mobile speed cameras in response to media pressure, rather than sticking to what works. As I have said before in debate in this place, after growing up in Queensland and then living in Adelaide and Melbourne, it is extraordinary to see the warnings in New South Wales when one is about to come across a speed camera.
Everyone speeds more on New South Wales roads. From my experience coming into Sydney, in particular, it is crazy driving the speed limit. In fact, everybody seems to pass a person who sticks to the speed limit—which, of course, I do. The culture in New South Wales is that people know where the speed cameras are on the highways and they slow down accordingly. It is disappointing that the Government has responded to the 2GB,The Daily Telegraph and the regional New South Wales outcry by removing the mobile speed cameras that no-one knows the location of, because they really do work. The bill does not address those underlying issues, but we are moving to entrench this scheme permanently because it is a nice little—I do not know what it is, actually. Does anybody care that much? But here it is. As I said at the start, The Greens do not oppose the bill, because it introduces a measure that rewards drivers for doing the right thing, but we also do not commend it.