MOTOR VEHICLES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 June 2010.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:04): I understand this is the first piece of legislation that the newly appointed Minister for Road Safety has to deal with, so we look forward to some beneficial outcomes relating to the legislation. I advise the house that I am the lead speaker for this side of the house in relation to the bill. However, I will not unnecessarily delay the house because the bill is of a relatively uncontentious nature. The bill deals with some technicalities concerning previous legislation that the house has dealt with in order to correct some errors, omissions and, I guess, anomalies in earlier motor vehicle amendment bills.

Just to give the house an outline and an understanding of the legislation, I advise that the areas affected are the Graduated Licensing Scheme, the regulation-making powers for the higher powered vehicle restrictions scheme and the drug and alcohol dependency assessments.

It is my understanding that amending section 79B of the act requires the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to send convicted drink/drug drivers (who have been caught drink/drug driving within five years of the latest offence) to an assessment clinic to determine whether they are dependent on alcohol/drugs before giving consideration of their application for a driver's licence. If they are found to be dependent on drugs, the application for a licence must be refused. If they are found to be found dependent on alcohol, a licence can be granted subject to the Alcohol Interlock Scheme.

Previously, these provisions were contained in section 46J of the Road Traffic Act and were court based. This bill transfers the responsibility to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and can save court time in dealing with these matters administratively.

Further, an amendment is included in section 79B of the act, which solves an anomaly regarding the timing. The bill proposes that by using the date of committing the latest offence, instead of using the date of application for a licence, it can avoid a potential abuse by the applicant to defer the date of application to avoid undergoing a dependency assessment—and that is obviously a reasonable proposal.

I turn now to other aspects of the legislation concerning another bill, which we dealt with towards the end of last year, which I think was passed by both of houses on 1 December. This bill concerned provisional licence holders and the high powered motor vehicle provisions as well. Amendment of section 81A—Provisional licences—corrects the intention of the legislation. If the bill passes, section 81A(17) will read:

Subject to the regulations, the Registrar may, on application by the holder of a P1 or P2 licence and payment of the fee, if any, prescribed by regulation, grant the holder an exemption for subsection (16) for such a term and subject to such conditions as the Registrar thinks fit.

Obviously, that refers to when a P-plater applies for an exemption under the act to be able to drive a high-powered vehicle. That is my understanding of it, because it was part of the legislation we debated late last year. The previous minister for road safety introduced and had carriage of that legislation and I also dealt with the bill on behalf of the state Liberals. It was the clear intent of the legislation that, in certain circumstances, exemptions would be granted to P-plate licence holders under the age of 25 to be able to drive high-powered vehicles.

They were, from memory, if the family only owned a high-powered vehicle or if it was a requirement of an employer that that person had to drive a high-powered vehicle, then an exemption could be applied for. I am getting some encouraging nods from the minister and the departmental people, so thank you very much for that.

Subsection (16) states that those aged under 25 years and the holder of a P1 or P2 licence must not drive a high-powered vehicle. Relating to this amendment of section 145, regulations at (gf) state:

Providing for matters relating to exemptions under section 81A(17) including the issue, carriage and production of certificates of exemption and the use, suspension and cancellation or surrender of exemptions or certificates of exemptions.

Amendment of section 81AB (probationary licences) corrects a cross-referencing omission to ensure the intention of the legislation is fulfilled by giving reference to 81BB (appeals to the Magistrates Court). That is my understanding of the technical aspects of the bill. I can say that we are prepared to support the legislation. As I said, it is relatively uncontentious; it is making some corrections concerning omissions and anomalies from the other bills.

I want to speak a little more generally in relation to these matters. Part of a good government is good legislation. It is my expectation that when the government brings legislation into the house we should not have to come back and have a second, third or whatever attempt to fix it up. I am not in any way, shape or form making any criticism of parliamentary counsel because they draft the legislation in accordance with instructions from the government.

As I said, good government is good legislation. What we have to do here this afternoon is fix up some mistakes. No doubt previous Liberal governments have faced similar circumstances. However, when we win the election in 2014 and I am (hopefully) a minister of the crown, I will be doing my utmost to see that legislation that I have a responsibility for in this place is dealt with once and once only. Those words might come back to haunt me but, nevertheless, I would like to say that here this afternoon.

Mr Venning: I will come back and watch you.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, well, perhaps we won't go there! Good government is about good legislation. We are dealing with amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act; it is to correct some issues and anomalies and the like that came from the legislation which was debated late last year. The previous minister for road safety (the member for Napier) was the minister then and he wanted to get it through because it was important and the opposition, the state Liberals, agreed to that course of action by the government. However, what do we see? We saw the bills pass in both houses on 1 December. The newly-appointed minister for road safety (the member for Playford) in his own second reading speech stated that that legislation was passed by both houses on 1 December 2009.

Back then we had an announcement with big headlines and a big media release, big television, radio and the like, that the government was looking to restrict P-platers from driving high-powered vehicles and was extending learner's permits from 50 to 75 hours and six months to 12 months. It was all good stuff.

But, minister, why is it taking over nine months to effect that legislation? It is my understanding that this legislation will not come into effect until 4 September 2010—over nine months after both houses passed this bill. I am asking why that is the case. We have had a reannouncement. The previous minister for road safety announced it with big headlines on television and in the newspapers. Only a few weeks ago the minister himself reannounced it.

This is a hallmark of this government. It is government by media release. We saw it as a hallmark of the government back in 2002. It is government by headline. We have had a big double-page spread. The Minister for Road Safety was on the radio. I have to say, Jack: listen mate; when you go on the radio you have to know the detail. When people ring in and ask questions about whether or not this applies to interstate drivers, you have to know your stuff, mate.

I am getting feedback to my office that is somewhat uncomplimentary in terms of the way you are managing those issues, so I am just letting you know that you have to know your stuff. Being a good minister is about getting across the detail. We have seen absolute evidence from the Deputy Premier being not across his detail in relation to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and getting into more trouble than the early settlers. He has had to apologise to the house for a memory lapse. I am giving a bit of friendly advice. Good government is about good legislation and being a good minister is about getting across the detail of the issue.

I think the minister is struggling somewhat. He is new, but he has a whole staff. How many staff have you got, Jack? Is it 20 ministerial staff? You have a whole department. There is a road safety secretariat in DTEI with 150 staff, from memory, and a $50 million budget. You have had to fly in Professor Wegman as a thinker in residence for road safety. Come on mate; you have to get across the detail of the issues.

What do we see? As I said, the point I was making previously is that we saw a reannouncement of the initiative. I have spoken to the media about why it is taking nine months to effect the legislation. No doubt, we will see another reannouncement. We will see a reannouncement of a reannouncement on or near 4 September when the legislation comes into effect; so don't think on this side of the house we are getting sucked into it, because we are certainly not.

We saw a similar situation in terms of reannouncement on reannouncement in relation to the extension of child restraint legislation where children aged seven years and under have to be restrained in vehicles in properly designed and manufactured seating. We supported that legislation. I did some media and supported the minister in relation to that proposal. However, what we saw with that legislation is that, from memory—and the minister can correct me if I am wrong—the previous to the previous to the previous minister for road safety (Hon. Carmel Zollo in the other place) announced that initiative.

Then, when the ministry for road safety came into this place, the member for West Torrens (the current minister for corrections, who had to resign unceremoniously from that portfolio responsibility given his atrocious road traffic offence record) from memory, he announced the child restraints proposal. Then the member for Napier (the current minister for agriculture), who was the then road safety minister, announced the proposal on child restraints, and now we have got the current Minister for Road Safety's reannouncement. So, the government has had about four cracks at this particular issue.

I tell you what, the media was certainly a wake-up to that reannouncement on a reannouncement on a reannouncement, because they were ringing me wanting some comment and, from memory, some of it was published. I am just telling the government and the minister: do not think that we are getting sucked into it and do not think that the media is getting sucked into it. You might have got a bit of a spread in The Advertiser a couple of weeks ago, Jack, but I can tell you, when the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, Member for Goldsworthy—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Member for Goldsworthy?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kavel. One day we will name a seat after you.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed; I am sure there will be. I am sorry to interrupt your natural exuberance, but you keep calling the minister 'Jack'.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That's his name.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, but you know what the rules are.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should refer to Jack as the honourable minister. We're all mates here, aren't we, really?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: To a point.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We're all mates—sort of. That is another glaring example of how this government tries to get some mileage out of reannouncements of reannouncements of proposals. As I said, we are happy to support the bill. In closing, I thank the minister for providing us a briefing through his office, and I thank the departmental people for coming along and briefing us on this particular piece of legislation. We look forward to the bill moving through the house with relative ease. We have no issues to raise in committee, so we can push through that stage.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:22): How much time will I get? Free time. Here we go. Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Twenty? That is good. I will need all that. I rise briefly to speak on this bill—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: To get even one idea out.

Mr VENNING: Pardon?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: To get even one idea out.

Mr VENNING: That will be better than yours. That will be one above you.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I can't recognise who he is.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a lot of pointing going on. Carry on, member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: I rise briefly to speak on this bill and to support the member for Kavel. This bill seeks to amend the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and rectify some anomalies and omissions from earlier motor vehicle amendment bills. As was well put by the member for Kavel, we probably should have got this right in the first place.

The first part of this amendment bill relates to drivers who have been caught drink or drug driving within five years of a previous offence. It seeks to change legislative arrangements so that a repeat offender is sent by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to an assessment clinic to determine whether they are dependant on alcohol or drugs before considering their application for a driver's licence.

I certainly do support this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you understand that I was the member who first introduced drug legislation into this house some years ago now. In fact, over two years I battled hard to try to get the legislation through. The two bills I brought forward failed, and just after the second one the government did bring in its own bill which was almost identical to the one it had just defeated.

I certainly support this because, as the Premier said in the media a couple of days ago, the drug driving offence is a very serious matter in South Australia and the apprehensions are far in excess of what was predicted. It was no surprise to me because, when I was looking at the drink driving problem in South Australia, it was obviously a problem and, when you looked at it, you obviously saw the problem of drug driving as well. When you combined the two, you certainly had double trouble. So it is no surprise to me, and I am pleased that we are able in this instance to look at these loopholes.

With these, if anybody gets picked up a second time within five years, there is a problem—one way or the other, there is a serious problem—and the system needs to look after them to make sure that they get the correct counselling. They should not be able to use the system and a snappy lawyer to get out of it. I am pleased that in this instance we are going to put up a fence so that hopefully nobody, not even the minister, could get over it—not that the minister would ever be caught for drink-driving, nor would I for that matter.

It highlights a problem. As you know, I live in the Barossa Valley and, yes, I do have my occasional drink and, yes, I do drive. Yes, I have a breathalyser in the car. It is not just an ordinary one; it is the same one that police have. I cannot understand why these breathalysers are not widely available because I had to buy mine from the Queensland police because the local police would not sell me one. It was very expensive. I cannot understand why these are not more available because people like me are vulnerable and now I could almost tell you exactly what my safe limit is without going to the machine, but I always test anyway. I know about when to get to the .05 but other people do not have that privilege. A lot of the people selling alcohol ought to have these machines freely available for their patrons; they could encourage people to blow into the machine before they go and perhaps call a taxi, but that does not happen and I think it is wrong.

This matter was previously undertaken by the courts; however, this amendment will make this task the responsibility of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and it will save the court time in dealing with such matters. In other words, it goes straight through—no hassles, no court, no waiting for courts or blocking up the system. This bill will also amend the act so that the date of the latest offence is used with the repeat drink/drug driver rather than the date they apply for a licence, therefore removing a loophole that may allow such a person to avoid having to undergo a dependency assessment.

I also want to highlight another couple of problems that have been brought to me in recent times in relation to the enforcement of our road traffic laws, particularly in relation to drink-driving and seatbelts. It was brought to my attention the other day that a constituent was prosecuted for sitting in her car with the engine running without a seatbelt on. This person was a Meals on Wheels volunteer. I believe it was a cold day and she wanted to clear the windscreen so she started the motor. She did not intend to move the car because she was waiting to see the people with their food. She got prosecuted for sitting in the car. I thought that the law said drink-driving meant driving or seatbelts meant driving, that the car was actually moving.

I think it is getting to the point now where people are starting to get pretty cross with some of the pedantic activities of some of our law enforcers when they do that. Also I am curious to know what the actual law is in relation to drink-driving because I often go to my car and, knowing I have had a couple of drinks, I will not sit in the car. I will reach under the driver's seat to get the breathalyser out, because if I sat in the car anywhere I could be pinged.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Of course I've got the keys. How else would I open it up to get the breathalyser out? I have the keys in my hand; I walk to the car, but I never go to the driver's side because I keep it under the passenger seat. If you do sit in the car, even if it is not the driver's seat, apparently you can be prosecuted. I reckon that is ridiculous. If someone is driving that car under the influence, throw the book at them; but you might be sitting in it, especially on a cold night, and you need to turn the motor on to get some heat. Our laws are becoming a little bit draconian, aren't they? Drink-driving means drink-driving—in other words, driving the car and moving it. I feel sorry for this lady who is a volunteer for Meals on Wheels and who was picked up just sitting in her car. It is a fine of about $250. I feel as though the organisation should pay that for her and she probably got three points for it as well. I think that is quite sad. I will take that up with the minister and have that law clarified because I think it is quite wrong, and I am happy to do a couple of press releases in relation to seatbelt legislation that I support, but not when the car is not moving. We support this bill.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:29): I did approach the chamber this afternoon with some trepidation, knowing that I would be subject to the thorough going-over from the member for Kavel, who is known for his forensic skills and his ability to go through a piece of legislation, understand it in and out and completely hold up a minister to ridicule. However, even I was taken aback this afternoon by the member Kavel who just could not help himself. Here I am: a new minister, first piece of legislation, really thinking that the member for Kavel might not come after me in the brutal way that he did this afternoon but, alas, I have had to be subjected to it. I am deeply wounded.

What is the member for Kavel doing on a relatively junior portfolio like road safety? Why is the member for Kavel not sitting in question time every day asking questions of the Premier and the Treasurer? We know of the member for Kavel's knowledge of high finance from experience in the banking industry. Why waste his intelligence on a mere junior minister like me when he really should be promoted? He should be far up the bench. Let his intelligence shine in the chamber and give everyone the opportunity to see his forensic skills in action.

Do not waste your skills on me, Mark. You should be in here asking questions of far more senior ministers than me, taking them apart. You are an incredible beacon to the other members on your side of the chamber; an example of what a good shadow minister should do. Your knowledge of the bill in question shone through. There were certainly lots of questions there that, even with assistance, I struggle to answer.

On the question of the delays in the implementation of graduated licensing, I have been constantly at my department to make sure that this is done as quickly as possible. I understand that the delays have been because of the system change requirements that have to be made and various training that has to be done for the changes to be introduced. Yes, this has taken longer than I and the government would like, but the important thing is that the changes are done properly and quickly, but not in a hasty way which might lead to errors.

I accept the member for Kavel's point that it has taken longer than we would have liked, but the important thing is that it is done properly. I think that was really the only matter of substance that the member for Kavel raised in his second reading speech. I hope that answers the one question he had that had any substance to it at all. I thank the member for Kavel, despite his brutality, for nonetheless putting the knuckledusters away and supporting the legislation. I look forward to its speedy passage.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.