Committees
Community Development and Justice Standing Committee
Tabling
Mr Peter Rundle (Roe) (10:17 am) : I present for tabling the 2nd report of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, which is titled Ride Safe: Inquiry into the safety, regulation and penalties associated with the use of electric powered mobility devices.
(See paper 787.)
Mr Peter Rundle: This is the first inquiry report tabled by the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee in the 42nd Parliament. The Legislative Assembly referred the inquiry into the safety, regulation and penalties associated with the use of electric powered personal mobility devices—e-rideables—to the committee on 18 June 2025. E-rideables include e-scooters, e-skateboards, hoverboards, e-skates and e-unicycles, but not e-bikes. When referring to both e-rideables and e-bikes in this report, the term electric mobility device (EMD) is used. In Western Australia, e-scooters have been the cause of most concern regarding EMDs. This is in contrast to other states such as Queensland and New South Wales, where e-bike regulation and safety is currently the main focus due to an escalating use of noncompliant e-bikes.
Like WA, those states have also launched parliamentary inquiries into the use of electric mobility devices (EMD). The referral of this inquiry followed the tragic death of Thanh Phan, who was hit by an e-scooter in the Perth CBD in May 2025, which is believed to be the first death of a pedestrian from an e-scooter accident in WA. In addition to Mr Phan, there have been 12 rider fatalities since 2022. Tragically, some of these were children.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all those who have lost their lives as a result of e-scooter or e-bike incidents. As we have come to understand through this inquiry, sadly, these deaths were preventable. We were privileged to hear from Brooke Lane, who lost her brother, Leigh Tagell, in February 2025 following an accident riding an e-scooter he had received and modified that day. I also acknowledge that many more have been injured, some very seriously, due to e-scooter incidents. The WA health system is dealing with an increasing number of injuries resulting from e-scooter use, with reports of daily presentations to hospital emergency departments around the state. It is difficult to quantify exactly how many injuries are being sustained through e-scooter and e-bike incidents. Limitations in data collection and reporting, including the likelihood of significant under-reporting, make exact assessments difficult. Nonetheless, anecdotal reports from medical professionals and others are unanimous in suggesting that injuries and fatalities are increasing in number.
Although electric-powered vehicles are not new a technology, the use of EMDs has increased in popularity over the past decade. This includes the emergence of shared schemes that hire out e-scooters and e-bikes. The sudden advent of this new form of transport has posed regulatory challenges for governments. EMDs are, effectively, a new type of vehicle with characteristics somewhere between traditional bicycles, motorcycles and larger motor vehicles. As such, they require appropriate infrastructure, road rules and vehicle standards designed to mitigate risk and promote the safety of riders and other road and path users. The provision of adequate infrastructure is challenging, particularly in a car-centric city such as Perth. Allowing e-rideables to travel with larger motor vehicles on roads presents a high risk due to the speed differential between users. On the other hand, many paths in Perth are not designed to safely separate fast- and slow-moving users, and the use of footpaths by e-rideables creates conflict with pedestrians. Footpaths are not designed for motorised devices, particularly those travelling at higher speeds. Pedestrians report feeling unsafe using paths due to experiencing or witnessing collisions and near misses. This is exacerbated if EMDs are travelling faster than the 25 kilometre-an-hour speed limit, or the 10-kilometre-an-hour limit for footpaths.
The use of noncompliant EMDs, which can exceed 25 kilometres an hour, is an emerging issue both in WA and elsewhere. In WA, it is a particular issue in relation to e-scooters, although we are increasingly seeing noncompliant e-bikes as well. Across Australia in recent weeks, fatalities resulting from the use of e-bikes, some of which are noncompliant with current regulations, have been reported on in the media. For example, a recent 60 Minutes episode reported the lack of e-bike regulation in Australia and fatalities occurring as a result. It highlighted a widespread lack of awareness within the community about the rules for e-bike use and the increased risk of injury or fatality when riding an e-bike that does not comply with legal definitions. It is apparent that many Australians are not aware of the rules governing the use of e-bikes and e-scooters, particularly parents who have purchased them for children who are not of legal age to ride them. The Australian public are accustomed to purchasing and using motor vehicles that are heavily regulated at national and state levels in terms of vehicle design, with mandated information and product standards. The ready availability of EMDs, which are not yet regulated to this extent, has meant that people are buying these with an assumption that they are safe and compliant with standards. Many are unaware of the possibility that the product being purchased might be noncompliant and therefore unsafe for use in the current environment. Others modify them post-purchase without thinking about how that might increase the risk of serious injury or death. There are concerns regarding the use of EMDs by children and young people, who appear to be over-represented in fatalities resulting from falls, crashes and collisions.
There is an urgent need for more effective public education about the safe use of EMDs, and the committee makes a range of recommendations about this. The regulatory regime is a work in progress, with responsibilities sitting across federal, state and local government. The lack of an overarching regulatory framework at the national level and variations in state regulation were raised during the inquiry. The committee welcomes the initiative led by the WA state government, assisted by the National Transport Commission, in developing such a framework for all EMDs, including e-bikes and e-scooters.
In my view, and as found by the committee, reform at the national level is critical and should be progressed as a priority, not only by states and territories but also by the federal government. Areas for Commonwealth-led reform include more effective controls on importation, as well as the implementation of vehicle product and information standards to guide manufacture and import. The importation of substandard EMDs, particularly e-scooters, comes with an increased risk of fires associated with substandard lithium ion batteries. Standards regulating the quality of both devices and batteries must be enforced at import and point of sale.
In WA, the committee recommends that the state government review the classification and regulation of e-rideables and e-bikes, with a view to bringing regulation in line with emerging best practices and technological innovation, which some argue will continue to outpace government efforts to regulate. At the same time, a review of rules, offences and penalties should be undertaken, in line with the recommendations in this report to establish standards and point-of-sale obligations for retailers.
I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their diligent work and collegiate approach to this important inquiry: Mr Dan Bull, member for Maylands; Mrs Lisa Munday, member for Dawesville; Mr Frank Paolino, member for Mount Lawley; and Mr Liam Staltari, member for Carine. I recognise the work of the committee secretariat, Ms Vanessa Beckingham, principal research officer; and Ms Lisa Peterson, research officer, also in the gallery at the moment. I also acknowledge research officer, Ms Sylvia Wolf, who assisted the secretariat part-time from August 2025. The committee received further research assistance on a casual basis from several other Legislative Assembly committee office staff: Mr Jamie Bourne, Mrs Maddison Evans and Dr Sarah Palmer. Finally, I would like to thank those who made submissions and gave oral evidence to the inquiry, as well as the departmental and ministerial staff who made themselves available to the committee to answer questions and provide information as requested.
In total, the committee received just under 300 submissions to the inquiry, demonstrating the relevance and timeliness of our investigations. The committee has undertaken this inquiry in a bipartisan manner with a genuine desire to improve the regulatory framework governing the use of e-rideables in WA and to better educate the public about the risks associated with their use. Our hope is that this inquiry and the recommendations in this report will contribute to the body of work being done around Australia and in WA to establish a regulatory framework that will ensure the safety of riders and other road and path users.
In conclusion, I thank everyone involved in the inquiry. It was a pretty herculean task. Our research officers, Vanessa, Lisa and Sylvia, in particular, did a massive amount of work. The police minister across there referred the report to us, and even with the extension of time, it was a very challenging effort to get everything in place for this reporting date. I particularly thank our committee executive staff and, certainly, the members of our committee, who all worked together in a bipartisan way. I think it was important that we left politics behind with something like this that is really important to all members of the Western Australian public who use that form of transport. I remember that it was not that long ago that the Minister for Transport, Minister Saffioti, and the Minister for Racing and Gaming, Minister Papalia, were riding around the car park on scooters. That was probably around 2019 or 2020, when e-scooters and the like were just coming in. It is amazing how that has evolved over five or six years into an important form of transport.
I think it was important for us to recognise that this form of transport has developed and potentially kept a lot of cars off our roads, which is a good thing, but also that there have been a lot of unintended consequences. As I said earlier, our thoughts go out to those families who have lost loved ones in those fatalities over the last few years. Let us hope that some of our recommendations can make improvements. One statistic that I have here is that St John Ambulance attended 120 scooter incidents in 2021 and 539 in 2024, so we can see the exponential increase that has happened and the challenges that have evolved. Of course, there are other challenges, such as the rideouts by large groups of younger people who potentially are not even old enough to ride some of these devices. Some of these things have evolved over time.
I know that other members of the committee are very passionate about this report and will be very keen to speak about it, so I will leave them to talk about some of the further detail in the report. I again thank committee members for the bipartisan way in which they conducted themselves. We can hopefully make a difference.
Mr Dan Bull (Maylands) (10:32 am) : I, too, appreciate the opportunity to provide some comments on the second report of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, Ride Safe: Inquiry into the safety, regulation and penalties associated with the use of electric powered mobility devices. I will start by saying some thankyous. I associate myself with the comments of the member for Roe around the bipartisan approach that all members of the committee took to this inquiry. In addition to the Chair, the member for Roe, I thank the members for Dawesville, Mount Lawley and Carine for the bipartisan approach taken to achieve this mammoth and really important body of work. I also thank the committee secretariat, who worked so hard and were fully committed. I know there were a number of late nights spent drafting and redrafting the report, so I thank Vanessa Beckingham, the principal research officer; Lisa Peterson, the research officer; Sylvia Wolf, also a research officer who was co-opted to assist; as well as the others who assisted on a casual basis, including Jamie Bourne, Maddison Evans and Sarah Palmer.
As the member for Roe mentioned, we received nearly 300 submissions and undertook a large number of hearings. We realised very quickly that this is a very complex area that is evolving in real time. One challenge in undertaking this work was the need to readjust what we were hearing, seeing and thinking about as things around Australia and the world were still developing. We saw that earlier this week. As we were pretty much in the final stages of the report, New South Wales announced a change to its regulatory regime as a consequence of the tragic death that occurred in that state. Even as we were trying to paint a picture of what was happening around the place, it was evolving. There is every chance that there will be more changes by the end of the day, if not by the end of this week!
I thank everyone who provided a submission or came in and gave evidence to us. There was a lot of passion and expertise in what was provided. I also acknowledge all the people and their families who have lost loved ones or who have been tragically injured and are struggling with their daily lives.
As I mentioned, this inquiry was very complex. Personally, it was much more complex than I thought it was going to be at first blush. Members can see that the report traverses a number of areas, including issues around the fragmented nature of the data, safety and injuries, infrastructure issues, classification and standards, registration and licensing, enforcement and penalties, and education. One recommendation relates to asking young people what they think. We acknowledge that that needs to continue to happen.
I want to make some comments around finding 68, and recommendation 16, in particular. Finding 68 states:
The use of non-compliant e-mobility devices, particularly e-scooters and e-bikes which can reach speeds well above 25 km/h without the design characteristics and safety features required to mitigate risk, is frequently observed. This increases the risk of serious injury and is a cause for concern.
Early on in our deliberations, there was a lot of discussion around tampering with devices and the ability to change the way in which a device operates and its speed. Someone may buy a device that is described as going only 25 kilometres an hour, but various tampering techniques can allow the device to go significantly faster. The question that arose, which came through in a lot of the evidence, was whether there is a need for a mid-tier characterisation of those devices that go 25 kays to 45 kays an hour. Recommendation 16 talks about that. Importantly, it says that the design should include mandated safety features. What we realised in thinking about a mid-tier classification was that it is about not just the speed that these devices can go, but also other design features. Just because there may be a mid-tier classification allowing devices to go over 25 kays an hour, mere tampering with a device should not mean that it now fits into that category. When a device is able to go faster, other safety and design features also need to be considered—for example, the size of the wheels, whether the device has suspension, and the braking system. Interestingly, a lot of e-scooters use a front-wheel brake. I am sure many people will have had the experience of using front brakes on a bike. When I was learning to ride when I was young, I was always told to use the back brake so that I would not flip over. The reality is that scooters and stand-up devices have a different effect on the centre of gravity and front brakes can increase the chance of someone flipping forward when they need to stop quickly. Members can imagine the danger of using a device like that quickly with those kinds of features. The important part of recommendation 16 is that it be mandated that safety features be brought into the discussion when thinking about the introduction of a mid-tier system.
The other aspect when looking at a mid-tier system is that the devices are not ones on which riders can stand. We recommend that any mid-tier system does not include an electric mobility device on which the rider stands and the use of footpaths and shared paths would not be permitted. The other issue that came up is the big question of infrastructure. A number of local governments presented to us at a hearing held in this chamber. They had a lot of really strong views around infrastructure and who pays for that. As I have mentioned before on other matters, there are opportunities for local governments to think about how they do their budgeting and what their priorities are, based not just on what they say their priorities are, but also the money they put towards them. Thinking outside the square and about the way in which federal assistance grants, for example, and Roads to Recovery Program grants are used can make a contribution to the delivery of fit-for-purpose infrastructure.
We also made some recommendations around third-party insurance and licensing and registration requirements. The report suggests that e-mobility devices be registered at the point of purchase to travel up to 25 kilometres an hour, with the use of large stickers. Part of the evidence from the Western Australia Police Force related to enforcement challenges; for example, if someone is riding a device in an illegal manner, merely apprehending that person might create a dangerous situation. Having large stickers or some kind of identification on those devices that would allow police to note that information and find the owner of that device at a later stage would be a much safer way of enforcing the law. For devices that travel more than 25 kilometres an hour, we suggest registration and licensing more akin to a moped regime.
I will let other committee members highlight other aspects of the report. Again, I would like to thank the committee members and also the staff for all their hard work. I hope this report assists in some significant reforms to make this new and emerging system of travelling around our state safer and more effective for everyone.
Mr Liam Staltari (Carine) (10:42 am) : I, too, rise to make a brief contribution in response to the tabling of the Ride Safe report. I begin, as have previous speakers, by thanking my colleagues on the committee. I acknowledge the hard work of the Chair and the Deputy Chair, the members for Roe and Maylands respectively, and the members for Mount Lawley and Dawesville. It was a productive, bipartisan conversation the whole way through. For those of us who are new to the Parliament, it really matched what we were told coming in to this place about the value and opportunities provided by standing committees and targeted inquiries on important issues in the public interest. I also thank, as has been mentioned, the secretariat team, which did a power of work: Vanessa Beckingham, Lisa Peterson and Sylvia Wolfe. I thank the Hansard team and the others named by the member for Maylands. Can I also acknowledge and specifically thank the administrative assistant to the secretariat, Trish Woodcock, who I know did a power of work behind the scenes binding things together. Those of us who are new were told when we were elected how diligent the Legislative Assembly committee secretariat staff are. That is absolutely the case and it has been borne out here.
This is a really important issue, as has been noted. It was prompted by the tragic death of a gentleman in the city. It also followed growing public and community concern about the impacts of this new, largely untested technology, as the member for Maylands mentioned, that is literally changing before our eyes and will continue to change. I am very pleased to have been given the opportunity to sit on this committee, not least because it is a matter of interest to all of us, but it certainly is an issue of concern in my community. I was reflecting on this matter only a few months before the inquiry was commissioned. I raised a grievance with the Minister for Police in response to effective police action taken to crack down on a rideout in North Beach. As we approach summer, I get contacted every week by residents who are concerned that again we will hit the summer school holidays and that rideout behaviour from Scarborough to Hillarys and beyond will return. The point that became clear through the mix of evidence taken in the public hearings is that these are valuable, helpful technologies. They help a lot of people, but we need that regulatory regime to catch up and provide a control layer so that, yes, we get the benefit, but we minimise the cost and we give the community confidence.
I will quickly touch on some of the recommendations that I am pleased are in the report. The member for Maylands has touched on some of these. I will go through the ones that really go to that safety element and give the community confidence that when these devices are being used, they are being used properly, and when they are not used properly, there will be an outcome and an enforcement of the law.
Recommendation 5 suggests that e-rideables be fitted with acoustic devices when manufactured to ensure that they are not totally silent. A concern in my community—this came through in the public hearings—is that pedestrians in particular are concerned that e-rideables can move at speed and be totally silent, which is a dangerous risk for them.
The member for Maylands mentioned recommendations 17 and 18, which relate to visible compliance labelling and one-off registration for that lower speed cohort of e-rideables because that will help our police to enforce the law when there is bad behaviour and noncompliance. I was reflecting on that just the other day as I was driving through Duncraig, where I live, probably about a minute from my house. There were three kids on one e-scooter. Only one of them wore a helmet and I doubt any of them were 16 years of age. The current law is that they have to be aged 16 years, so we should do anything we can to help police to enforce the law.
Recommendation 26 suggests that a public education campaign be rolled out, which will also help because we want our community and our parents to step up to the plate as well and be informed about the risks and who can use these devices. The Director General of the Department of Education made an announcement today around banning children under 16 years of age from using e-rideables on school grounds, which is welcome.
Recommendations 24 and 25 relate to extending the liability for bad behaviour to the registered owner of a device, especially if someone under the age of 16 years is using it. This will make sure that parents are aware of the rules when they buy an e-rideable for their child—that child needs to be over 16 years of age—because it is an important part of preventing bad behaviour.
Recommendation 25 is about stiffening the penalties and infringements for noncompliance to encourage good behaviour and to ensure we get the best out of these devices while reducing the risks.
I will conclude by saying it was a pleasure to participate in this inquiry. I want to thank, as previous members have, everyone who made a submission and those who shared their expertise in our in-person hearings as well as their difficult stories, in particular Ms Lane on losing a loved one because of this runaway technology.
The ball is now in the government's court. As the member for Carine, I call for strong action and a strong response. I am sure that the community expects it. Hopefully, this inquiry will provide some of that road map going forward in addition to the work the government is currently undertaking. I commend the report to the house.
Mrs Lisa Munday (Dawesville) (10:47 am): I rise also to speak on the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee report into e-rideables, a piece of work that I am really proud of. It is an inquiry that I approached with my paramedic hat firmly on, as well as being the member for Dawesville with the responsibility of speaking on behalf of the community and the hundreds of Western Australians who made submissions calling for a stronger and safer approach to e-rideables.
This report does not shy away from hard truths. I do not apologise for the tough recommendations put forward. These are necessary steps to create enforceable rules and are genuinely put there for community safety. I want to read a couple of comments in the report that most of my speech will focus on today. In chapter 4, Professor Dieter Weber, Director of Trauma, Trauma Services, at Royal Perth Hospital, said:
We're seeing the whole range of injuries from broken bones, significant internal organ injuries, brain injuries, spinal cord injuries … that have not just immediate impact but … lasting lifelong effects on patients.
This was another comment from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons:
Our patients are experiencing lifetime consequences or not … surviving from injuries on an e-scooter. Our members and those of other Colleges are seeing this daily in emergency departments, theatres and general practice across WA.
I do not know whether it is surprising for most people, but I was probably one of the people on the committee who wants the Minister for Police to take a hard line on this. I openly hope that he can use this report to make regulations and enforce them. I have to say that when you stand on the side of the road holding the head of a 15-year-old child who has a suspected spinal injury or you work hard to manage the pain relief of an adult who has fractured both femurs after colliding with a car on an e-scooter, you do not apologise for wanting tougher and clearer safety measures.
While I am on the subject of not apologising today, I am also not going to apologise for wanting helmets to be made compulsory, with heftier fines, especially for the under-30 cohort. The prefrontal cortex of people under the age of 30 is still developing. They are not really aware of their decision-making, especially when they are around mates. They can turn a two-second impulse decision that looks like a great idea into a lifetime of pain and regret. For them, their mates and their families, this always ends in tragedy. That is one thing I am not apologising for.
I am also not apologising for wanting age limits enforced. It is like everything; if you buy a red car, all of a sudden you see 1,000 red cars. Since doing this inquiry, every day I see kids, well under the age of 11 or 12 years, riding two-up or three-up on a scooter with no helmets. They race along footpaths and across road intersections. There is so much potential for something to go wrong. For me, this entire report is about potential. It is about the potential for serious harm and the endless "if onlys". If I had a dollar for every time I sat in the back of an ambulance, leaning over someone on a stretcher saying, "If only Jack was wearing a helmet," I would be a wealthy woman. "If only Amy was paying more attention." "If only I wasn't going so fast, I might have seen the lady coming out of the shop." Paradoxically, I have never once heard in my whole 20-year career "If only I wasn't wearing a helmet." It is too easy to see why we need these changes.
I possibly sound like the voice of doom. I am sure I do; I am listening to myself. I am probably the over-anxious mum. I am not trying to ruin the lives of people who are just having fun. I am not actually against e-rideables—far from it. They reduce congestion. They are affordable and environmentally friendly. They help countless people across Western Australia. They help people access work and appointments. For people who have mobility issues or are disabled, they have especially opened up their worlds and their lives. I understand that for people with mobility challenges, these things are really important. I hear that. Also, people who simply cannot afford to buy a car use an e-scooter to get around.
The important point is that our recommendations are not here to change the lives of those people. People who are commuting at speeds of between 10 and 25 kilometres an hour, riding alone, wearing helmets, minding their own business and getting to work may keep doing what they are doing. The police are not interested in them. The Minister for Police is not interested in them. The community is not concerned about them. There was not one submission about them. This inquiry was not called because of them. This inquiry was called for because the death rates are too high. Let us be honest: one death is one too many. It was called for because retailers and online vendors actively helped people unlock their devices to travel at high speeds. It was called for because people make stupid decisions, like drinking and riding or putting multiple people on a scooter. I want the Minister for Police to give the police the power to confiscate and, if necessary, destroy unsafe devices.
We must protect our seniors and pedestrians. I remember talking with the Chair about how we were going to go with the inquiry. I said to him that if I stepped out of a restaurant onto a footpath after dinner, I would not think to look left and right because we all think we can enter a footpath safely. When we step onto a road to cross it, there is an expectation that we will have vehicles coming at speed, so we do look left and right. It is important for us as a Parliament, as a government or as the Minister for Police to be able to keep these people safe.
Right now, WA and Australia really are flying blind when it comes to data. That was one of the strongest themes highlighted in our inquiry. As a science-driven person, I know that we cannot fix what we cannot measure. Our data is scattered across public, police, hospitals, hire companies and local governments, and there is no unified picture. I know how essential the full picture is. We can make better decisions with full information. As an ambo, I know that when I go to a scene, I am more interested in the patient, and my case sheet would reflect that. When police turn up at the same scene, they are more interested in the machinery, the physics of the collision and judging fault, so they collect their data differently. On the patient's arrival at the hospital, trauma specialists are interested in the mechanism of the accident and potential injuries. The Department of Transport and Major Infrastructure and the Insurance Commission of Western Australia ask whether the vehicle was registered and whether the accident occurred on a road, a footpath or a farm. All this data needs to be collected and measured. That is why our report strongly supports embedding data collection into the national framework currently being developed. We need to know who is being injured, how, where, why, when and under what circumstances because it is only with proper data that we can educate, enforce and help to create the kind of infrastructure that prevents harm before it happens.
In closing, I want to acknowledge my fellow committee members for their hard work. I know we have had some robust discussions across the time. I say thank you very much to the Chair, the member for Roe. I really appreciate the input of the Deputy Chair, the member for Maylands. I think that the member for Mount Lawley and I took the strongest stance. I thank the member for Carine for his view on rideouts. These were all very important conversations. I also want to thank our outstanding research team: principal research officer Vanessa Beckingham, Lisa Peterson and Sylvia Wolf. Your professionalism, dedication and countless hours of work really helped shape this report. For that, I am truly grateful.
The core of this report is about reducing tragedies. It is about giving police more assistance to be able to contain dangerous practices, enforce rules and create safer paths and streets for all Western Australians. I thank the Minister for Police for the opportunity to contribute to the change that is clearly needed. I am really proud to stand here today in support of these recommendations and this inquiry.
Mr Frank Paolino (Mount Lawley) (10:56 am): I want to commence by thanking my colleagues who preceded me in speaking about the report and the inquiry. I particularly want to acknowledge the Chair, the member for Roe, for his ability to direct us, lead us and navigate us along this pathway.
However, I also rise with a heavy heart. Today, I take the opportunity to acknowledge the tragic and unnecessary loss of Mr Thanh Phan, a valued member of the Mount Lawley electorate who passed away in June following a collision involving an e-rideable in Perth's CBD. Thanh's life was cut far too short, and he left behind family and friends who continue to grieve deeply. My thoughts remain with Thanh's loved ones during this difficult time. My heart goes out to the victims who have lost their lives in e-rideable accidents and, of course, to the families who are still with us, who will never fill the void their loved ones left.
These devastating incidents remind us of the urgency with which Parliament is required to address e-rideable safety concerns. In my role as the member for Mount Lawley, I felt it was my responsibility to be the voice of my community in this Parliament. As we conducted the inquiry, I held Thanh and his family in my thoughts while navigating the pathway of achieving the right balance between public safety and encouraging active transport, recognising the value of e-rideables as an alternative means of transport.
During this process, I received correspondence at my office from members of my community. The message was clear: residents in my local area were worried. Concerns were raised about speeding on footpaths, the blurred lines between traffic rules and cyclists' rules, and the risks posed to pedestrians and riders. These issues could not be ignored. This inquiry was our opportunity to protect lives, support innovation and create a safer, more sustainable transport future for Western Australia, no matter where someone lives, whether it be in the city, the CBD or regional Western Australia.
Without repeating what my colleagues and previous committee members have said, I will wrap up my contribution by thanking all the contributors who provided us with information, perspectives and, above all, insights into an area that was investigated so that we can make our streets and our local areas better places for people to actively move around in.
I also wish to acknowledge again the victims of these terrible tragedies and their families. I acknowledge, of course, the work that was provided and the support given to us by the executive team and acknowledge my colleagues, the members for Roe, Maylands, Dawesville and Carine. Although we had robust discussions during this process—robust discussions that I imagine will continue to be had during our time in this 42nd Parliament—they came from a point of mutual respect and were in good faith. I hope that continues throughout our time together on the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee.
