Impounding Amendment (Shared Bicycles and Other Devices) Bill 2018

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-103784

Hansard session: Fifty-Sixth Parliament, First Session (56-1)

Impounding Amendment (Shared Bicycles and Other Devices) Bill 2018

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from 19 September 2018.

Ms JODI McKAY (Strathfield) (11:35:17):

I lead for the Opposition on the Impounding Amendment (Shared Bicycles and Other Devices) Bill 2018. I say from the outset that Labor is committed to encouraging active transport modes such as cycling and walking and, as such, we support bike sharing as a way of getting people out of their cars and encouraging them to be active in moving about the city and our regional areas. Rental bike sharing can have an important role to play in Sydney's transport future, but operators of dockless bike share schemes must be appropriately held to account. While Labor supports this bill, it has been far too long in coming. Despite cries of assistance from local councils, the Government is only now moving to create a supportive environment for share bikes—ironically, at a time when the majority of share bike companies have left the city.

In formulating its response to this bill, the Opposition has sought the advice of local councils and Local Government NSW. Unfortunately, the responsibility of managing this issue has to date fallen unfairly on councils. The Opposition believes this bill will begin to address the public safety and impoundment cost issues that councils have for too long been carrying the burden of. As I said, Labor understands the great environmental, health and traffic benefits that cycling brings to New South Wales. Cycling is a highly beneficial mode of active transport for short trips, particularly the "first mile" and the "last mile" of a commuter's journey—the journey from home to the train station on the way to work and vice versa. We are committed to ensuring that cycling is encouraged as a legitimate mode of transport and that cycling infrastructure is properly funded and resourced.

In considering active transport, share bikes or dockless bikes are a relatively recent phenomenon, characterised by ease of access, availability and mobility. Share bikes have been successfully introduced in cities around the world, but in Sydney the experience has not been a positive one for residents. Dockless bikes are picked up and dropped off where and when the user wishes, and this has been the cause of great discontent. It is not that people oppose share bikes; they just oppose the way in which the introduction of share bikes has been managed. We saw companies such as ofo, Mobike, oBike and Reddy Go establish themselves in Sydney in a relatively short period of time, but it was not long before residents, particularly those in inner-city areas, saw a fundamental flaw in the system as the number of bike operators and therefore number of bikes increased.

Bikes have been left strewn along the footpath, obstructing driveways and blocking shop entrances. They have been dumped in waterways and left in front yards. These were not just one‑off incidents. In the Western Sydney area I could not drive around a residential block without seeing an abandoned bike—yellow, red and black bikes were dumped in the streets. What was supposed to be a positive inclusion to our transport offering quickly developed into a major public safety issue, as bikes were regularly dumped, blocking thoroughfares and causing safety concerns. Currently, the Impounding Act 1993 confers powers on enforcement officers to impound bikes when the enforcement officer believes on reasonable grounds that the bike has been abandoned or left unattended. However—and this is why this bill is needed—the powers of councils and public landowners to impound abandoned articles do not allow for the owners of those articles or objects to be penalised. Only the individuals who left them behind in that public space will be penalised. In the case of share bikes, that is the user, not the operator.

Councils have called for greater regulation to allow them to deal with the issue of dumped share bikes. Impounding bikes that are dangerously and badly parked by the user is highly costly and time consuming for councils. Ultimately, ratepayers have to bear the cost. In the absence of action by the Government, a group of six Sydney councils convened in December 2017 to develop the guidelines for dockless bike share operators—a framework that aimed to set out minimum standards and expectations for dockless bike sharing operations in Sydney. While the guidelines provided a framework around customer safety and conduct, data sharing and insurance, it also outlined the conditions by which a bike could be impounded if dangerously parked or abandoned. Following the end of a three-month trial of those guidelines, mayors from the City of Sydney, the Inner West Council, Waverley Council and Woollahra Municipal Council called for immediate action from the State Government on new laws to cover dockless bike sharing.

I thank those councils for being proactive in this space. They have not opposed share bikes, but they have called for greater support from the State Government to develop a workable framework to manage them. As the dockless bike share system is dependent on a network of users who regularly cross council boundaries, it is clear— and it was clear from the very beginning—that a standardised approach is needed.I will now briefly turn to the contents of the bill. As we have heard, the bill amends the Impounding Act 1993 and Impounding Regulation 2013. As stated, the primary purpose of the bill is to give impounding officers appointed by local councils, or by other public authorities, additional powers to move or impound shared bicycles and other devices that are provided for hire as part of a sharing service and that have been left in a public place.

Broadly, the bill outlines two circumstances in which a shared device may be impounded or removed by an impounding officer. Proposed new section 19D notes that a device may be impounded or moved when it has been left in a public place and the impounding officer believes on reasonable grounds that the shared device has been left in a way that causes an obstruction or safety risk. The circumstances under which a discarded bike is considered an obstruction or safety risk is when it is left in a way that causes an obstruction to traffic, whether vehicular or pedestrian, or that is likely to be a danger to road users or the public. Once notified by an impounding officer, the operator must remove the bike within three hours. I believe that many pedestrians, residents and shopkeepers will be pleased with this proposed new section because the onus will be on the operators to remove the bikes quickly and efficiently while also permitting impounding officers to simply move the bike to a safer location at their own discretion.

Proposed new section 19E notes that a device also may be impounded if the device has been abandoned, which is defined as being left in a public place for more than seven consecutive days. In some circumstances, a share bike user or any other person is also able to trigger the provisions. Perhaps the Minister will provide some guidance on how that will work with an individual if they contact the operator—how that is proven and by what method that will be acceptable. Given the extraordinary number of bikes we have seen dumped, I believe this is an important addition because it allows residents who see a dumped bike to report the location of the bike and seek to have it removed. But I again ask the Minister: How will this work in practical terms? How will residents know how to report the bike? How will residents know where they can report it and what communication channels they can use?

I also note that in proposed new section 19B the bill does not limit the definition of a "device" to encompass dockless bikes only but also encompasses any other device used for transporting persons. I am pleased with the inclusion of this proposed new section, and I congratulate the Minister, as scooters or any other shared transportation devices that may be introduced to the market in the future also will be properly regulated. This will provide councils with more scope to deal with new emerging personal transportation trends. That is incredibly important. I note that bike share companies have been open and keen to work with the Government in a positive and constructive way. I applaud those companies that strived for the long-term benefit for the community rather than rushed and cheap solutions. Unfortunately, while they have waited for action, many have not financially survived and have been forced to leave the city.

Stakeholders, including the Mayor of the Inner West Council and Local Government NSW, are broadly supportive of the bill and see it as a positive step in helping councils better manage dockless ride‑sharing services. I note that some councils, including the City of Sydney, maintain the view that a permit system would be a better option for regulating shared devices. While acknowledging the concerns of that council, the Opposition believes it is necessary to proceed with the legislation in its current form as a matter of urgency, due to the lack of current regulation in the space. We have waited far too long for this. As I have mentioned, Labor is committed to ensuring that bike share and dockless services are integrated in a properly regulated system that works in conjunction with councils and the State Government. This bill will begin to empower councils to properly address the significant public safety and obstruction issues that for some time they alone have had the burden of addressing. As stated, Labor will not oppose the bill.

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (11:45:29):

It is a great honour to speak in support of the Impounding Amendment (Shared Bicycles and Other Devices) Bill 2018. I am pleased to support the bill because bike sharing has been a part of daily life in many cities around the world for many years. There are well-established bike sharing schemes in international cities such as Paris, London and New York. The main feature of those schemes is that they are docked systems. Bikes are available from fixed docking stations to which they are locked until the user enters their payment details in the docking station. The user can then ride the bike where they please but must return it to a docking station, where it is relocked. In Australia, Melbourne and Brisbane have docked bike share systems. Melbourne Bike Share has 600 bikes at 50 stations and is owned by the Victorian Government, which contracts the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria—Victoria's equivalent of the NRMA—to operate the service.

Installing a docking station is not a cheap or simple matter. A docking station makes permanent use of public land. It involves up-front costs to install and ongoing costs to maintain. In most cities, they are publicly funded. The locations of docking stations need to be carefully planned to minimise the impact and costs. As a result, there is not always a docking station available close to where a user finishes a trip. Dockless bike share, by contrast, is a lower cost version that can be delivered without public investment. Free floating dockless share bikes do not need to be returned to a fixed docking station. They can be left anywhere by the user at the end of the trip. They usually have an electronic rear wheel lock. Bikes are located by their global positioning system coordinates on a map and then unlocked and paid for using a phone app.

The absence of costly infrastructure makes dockless bike share more attractive to private operators. That is exactly what we have seen, not just in Sydney but all over the world, with private operators setting up dockless bike sharing services in many cities and towns. From a user's point of view, dockless bike sharing is much more convenient. Available bikes can be located via the app, unlocked, ridden to wherever the user wants to go, and relocked, ready for the next user. A small‑scale survey undertaken by Transport for NSW revealed that the ease of finding a bike and being able to leave it at the user's destination were two of the things users most valued about these services.

Private enterprise has identified a gap in the market and provided a low‑cost and convenient alternative for those who want to take advantage of an active transport option for getting around any town or city. All of this comes at little direct cost to government—no docking stations and no contracting for services. On the other hand, we are all aware that the dockless model creates some negative externalities, as economists refer to them, which are the impacts of the services that are borne by the public and for which some operators take little responsibility. Bikes that are able to be left anywhere can, if mishandled, pose a threat to public safety and the surrounding amenities. They can get in the way, presenting obstacles for people with disabilities, for example, particularly those who have a visual impairment. Sometimes they are left in front of fire exits, shop entrances and station entrances. Often it falls to councils and other public land managers to ensure that those public spaces are clear and safe for everyone. Thus, there is an indirect cost for the businesses operating a dockless bike share service. The bill before us seeks to return the responsibility for that indirect cost to the business without interfering with the business model or the ability of the operator to innovate in the way it delivers its service.

While councils will have enhanced powers to impound shared bikes where they are causing problems, the key responsibility will be on the operator to move them after being notified of the problem. The problem might be that the bike has been left in front of a fire exit, an access ramp or stairs, or is sometimes getting in the way of pedestrians. The problem might be that the shared bike has simply been left unused in one place for too long—in front of a railway station, for example. In those circumstances, the public land manager or any member of the public can notify the operator that it needs to move its bike. Time then begins to run and, when the bike is not moved within the legislated time frame, the operator will find itself liable to a penalty.

This Government is committed to reducing red tape. It is not imposing a heavy-handed permit or licensing system that requires operators to jump through hoops before they are allowed to set up their businesses or that tells them how their businesses should or should not be run. Licensing, permits or exclusive tenders would address safety and access issues less directly, discourage competition and add unnecessary regulatory burden for businesses and innovation in New South Wales. We want to give operators scope to come up with further innovations and develop even more effective models for filling transport gaps.

The business model for dockless bike share and for shared services more generally is still evolving, not just in New South Wales and Australia but also around the globe. Companies are starting to become more selective about the markets they contest. Some companies have already left Australian markets. New companies may arrive, and new modes of transport, or indeed other devices for sharing, may be provided through similar service models. Regardless of which companies stay in or go from New South Wales and across Australia, it is important to have a set of practical, enforceable rules to properly manage side effects of the business model. This will ensure that public safety and amenity are not undermined.

That is why, rather than introducing a pre-approval process, the bill provides clear time frames within which a shared bike causing an obstruction or safety risk must be moved. These are based on guidelines voluntarily entered into by some Sydney councils and operators in December 2017. The Government consulted with land managers and operators, who confirmed that these are feasible, effective and practical standards. The bill also provides the ability for further regulations and a code of practice to be made, should further obligations on operators be required. The consultations revealed that some operators are already responding to the standards set by these guidelines, taking steps to move their bikes where they remain unused or are unsafe for a period of time. However, everyone agreed that some level of enforceability by council officers was required to ensure that all operators take seriously their responsibility to meet those standards.

I commend the Minister for developing a framework that empowers land managers to remind operators of their obligations to the community, the public and all who use that land by way of active engagement with operators in the first instance and through compliance notices or penalties where necessary. By making operators responsible for abiding by the standards, the new framework will take the pressure off councils and land managers. I look forward to seeing operators and land managers working together to ensure that the standards set by the bill are met and that New South Wales can enjoy the benefits of well-managed dockless bike sharing services that contribute to public amenity and safety as well as maximise the convenience for users. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JAMES GRIFFIN (Manly) (11:54:16):

I am pleased to speak in support of the Impounding Amendment (Shared Bicycles and Other Devices) Bill 2018. The bill demonstrates the Government's ongoing commitment to planning for the State's transport future to deliver seamless, technology-enabled transport solutions for customers. I have spoken in this place before about the Government's vision for delivering innovative transport solutions set out in Future Transport 2056. That vision is focused on transport outcomes that meet the needs of customers, help build vibrant and liveable places, support a strong and growing economy, deliver on safety and performance, and ensure that services are accessible as well as environmentally and financially sustainable.

Like many aspects of our lives, transport is undergoing profound change, which will continue at a more rapid pace in coming years. Members will be familiar with many examples of the innovative approach that the Government has taken in delivering effective transport solutions to date—from the state-of-the-art Sydney Metro, Australia's first fully automated metro system, to trials of automated vehicles and on-demand bus services, through to digital licensing. Technology is revolutionising the way we do things. We are using our mobile phones for a large number of purposes, with many services now offered digitally or through an app. The on-demand bus trials currently underway at 11 locations across Sydney are an excellent example of the Government's innovative approach. I am happy to report that the on-demand bus trial called Ride Plus, operating in my electorate, has been a huge success. More than 760 services are provided every week in the Manly area, stretching from Manly Wharf through to Dee Why. Across all the trial areas, more than 80,000 trips have been made since the program began last year.

Using a phone app, passengers can book a bus at a time of their choosing to travel the first and last mile from their homes to transport hubs, local shops or other key destinations such as hospitals. Transport services have never been more flexible or convenient. Recently, University of Sydney transport specialist Garry Bowditch said that on-demand buses help overcome the tyranny of distance between transport hubs and areas with poor access to public transport and that "this sort of innovation of on-demand services is valuable in being complementary to main trunk routes. That is very important from an inclusion and innovation point of view."

Dockless shared bikes similarly provide a flexible and convenient option for people to make short trips for the first mile/last mile to connect to public transport, enabling a smooth overall journey experience. Dockless shared bikes are an excellent example of how technology can deliver more transport options for the community, allowing people to easily locate, book and pay for their bike trip by simply using a phone app. Global positioning system [GPS], geofencing and other technological innovations mean that operators and customers know where bikes are located. Future Transport 2056 recognises that shared bikes can contribute to achieving our overall future transport vision. Dockless bike share services are an environmentally sustainable option that has the potential to reduce car ownership and usage, minimising greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution. It will also help us manage congestion and improve the performance and reliability of our road network.

Importantly, shared bikes encourage active transport, helping improve the health of our community. They have the potential to improve people's access to public transport by providing a cheap, convenient and flexible way to get to major transport hubs. Shared bikes, like car share, are an important part of a new shared‑use on‑demand transport service offering. They will form part of future integrated multimodal transport services, providing customers with increased choice and flexibility. In future, we will plan our daily trips by simply picking up our phone and using an app to identify the best transport options for our personal needs. While recognising the important role shared bikes can play in delivering seamless integrated transport solutions, we need to ensure that they are managed in a way that puts public safety first and does not adversely impact on the community's enjoyment of public spaces.

I congratulate the Minister on striking the right balance by introducing these amendments to the Impounding Act 1993. This bill represents an appropriate and proportionate regulatory response to protecting public safety and amenity, while not stifling innovation in service delivery. Appropriately, the bill empowers councils and other public landowners to take effective enforcement action when operators fail to move bikes that are parked in a way that causes obstruction or safety risks, or are left in one place for more than a week, without imposing unnecessary red tape such as requiring approvals, permits or licences. It will be up to the operators to ensure that their businesses are run in a way that protects public safety and amenity, as the community would rightly expect.

This bill helps ensure the sustainability of bike sharing services in the long term and is an example of the Government planning for emerging transport technologies. However, the business model for these services is still evolving and individual companies may stay or go. The presence of these new services is a sure sign that we are well on our way to a new era of technology-enabled mobility. There is no doubt that with the rapid pace of technology change there will be other examples of shared transport services that will need to be similarly managed in the future. The bill ensures measures are in place to effectively manage any new shared transport services that emerge by providing a proactive and measured regulatory response. I commend the bill to the House.

Business interrupted.