MOTOR VEHICLES (PERIODIC PAYMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 July 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:38): I rise to speak on the Motor Vehicles (Periodic Payments) Amendment Bill 2013 and indicate that I am not the lead speaker on this matter; indeed, the member for Davenport, I expect, will make a contribution in this debate, but I can indicate to the house that we will be supporting the bill. The bill amends the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and also makes some amendment to the Stamp Duties Act 1923. I have directed my scrutiny and attention to this bill in particular to the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act for which I have responsibility for the opposition as the shadow minister for transport and infrastructure. The issue of motor vehicle registration has been a matter that has been dear to my heart, particularly in the last 18 months or so, having most of the time covered the portfolio responsibility, on behalf of the opposition, for the Department of Transport.

The bill essentially provides for the new option of enabling owners of motor vehicles—this is light motor vehicles, not heavy trucks and the like—to have the option of monthly, direct debit payments of their motor vehicle registration. The government, particularly the Minister for Road Safety (minister O'Brien) has, via his office, provided briefings on the bill and I thank them for that, including the registrar of road safety. I have also had some material provided in writing from the minister in respect of material that I had sought as to the financial impact of this proposed measure.

Members will be aware that, historically, registration could be paid either three, six, nine or 12 monthly. In 2011, the state government abolished the six and nine-month options and cancelled registration stickers. There is no question that this innovation two years ago has caused some problems for the consumers themselves.

At the time, there was a presentation that there would be a significant financial impact on the budget by cancelling the use of stickers. These were provided as a disc in response to payment and were affixed to a motor vehicle windscreen and provided a number of things. Firstly, immediate observation could identify whether the vehicle was registered or not. Secondly, it was a reminder to anyone who got into a motor vehicle of the importance of checking.

I just place on the record that I am sure other members of the house as well would have received some plaintiff correspondence from their constituents when their stickers were removed. The opposition is of the view that this is an initiative that has a positive benefit to the budget. There are savings of some $4 million, I think, that were disclosed at the time, that were to be of benefit. I am looking at page 3 of the 2010-11 agency revenue measures. There were very significant positives as a result of the increase in motor vehicle registration administration fees from $6 to $7—we are talking some millions of dollars—and the cancellation of stickers. So, there is no doubt that there was a sort of positive revenue benefit in those changes.

There are still problems. I just want to briefly say to the house that I still receive a number of letters, emails and correspondence from constituents. One of the concerns, for example, is that, when there has been no notice of the renewal received, then people are not prompted by having had the stickers and can inadvertently be driving a motor vehicle without it being registered and insured. Members will be quite well aware that it is not the failure to register that attracts the enormous fines but, indeed, the failure to be insured that attracts now massive fines, so it is of major concern.

In the course of looking at this reform, whilst in principle we are prepared to support it—although we would be keen to look at some restoration of some of the other timeframes—it became clear that the department itself from time to time made mistakes and did not issue notices. We tried to remedy that by presenting a private member's bill to try to give a 14-day grace period to people. That was rejected by the government, and we have not been able to provide that relief to people. Just today—just today—I received an email from a lady who tells me a similar story. She writes to me as follows:

Last week Wednesday the 17th July I had a very upsetting conversation with the dept of vehicle registration. After 30 years of driving registered and privately insured vehicles. I was not sent...a renewal notice for my vehicle that was newly registered 12mths prior. This was due to an error by the Dept of motor vehicles, they admitted my vehicle had some sort of freeze on it previously and they had not removed it after it was re-registered by myself. This is very upsetting to know I and my L-plate learner were left uninsured by no fault of our own.

Now I have requested a letter stating their error so I can contest my $1070 fine in court, if the manager does not waive the fine. But once again I have been left with no reply. The charter for customer service states 90% of emails will be addressed in 1 working day. It is now 4 days with no reply.

Please look into this. I am so upset that no matter how hard we try to do the correct thing the government has made me a criminal just to save money on a sticker that helped everyone!! Bring it back.

For the reasons I have explained, the opposition does not necessarily support the resumption of the sticker as remedying this problem, but this is the very problem that was raised with the department when we looked at some reform to give people grace. Here we have a situation where the assertion is that there had been an error on the department's fault, that it acknowledged it when the inquiry was made. She needs something in writing to be able to go over to the fines section to have that dismissed.

I was told when we were looking at the private members' remedy to this that there were mistakes from time to time, that they were acknowledged and usually sorted out, and that a request went off to the prosecution to withdraw the charge and the fine and it was all tidied up administratively. If that is the case, then for goodness sake, why am I still getting letters like this as late as today, which leave people in a very difficult position where they are trying to seek the grace of the department to actually do the right thing when it has on the face of it acknowledged that it was its error and it has not attended to the paperwork. This is just not acceptable that people be left in those circumstances.

I note also that the Minister for Road Safety has indicated in his contribution that the revenue will be neutral as a result of this initiative to allow a monthly direct debit option which, frankly, if it is any good should have been introduced at the time these other options were moved. Currently an administration fee of $7 is charged for each registration renewal, and a person paying quarterly would therefore incur $28 in administrative fees per year and a person paying annually would pay $7.

The new regime will provide that there is an administrative fee of $2 for each debit, so it will be $24 a year compared to $7 if you make the annual payment. The revenue is supposed to be neutral, according to this. When we had the briefing on this I made some enquiries about the model that was used to identify how that would be revenue neutral. The information has been provided by the minister and I thank him for that. It was referred to me electronically on Monday and we were able to get some of this information at least available for our side to consider. The modelling which is used suggests a neutrality, that is, that there would be a net operating balance in the financial year just gone (2012-13) of minus $100,000 (that is, a cost), minus $558,000 for the financial year we are in, minus $117,000 next year, and then $100,000, nearly $300,000 and over $400,000 in the further out years, out to 2017-18.

What is clear is that, for the purpose of calculating those figures, the budget impacts have been modelled on an assumption that there is a 15 per cent take-up rate over five years for those who take up the new scheme. It is further estimated that 15 per cent are currently 12-month payers. That equates, it is claimed, to about 230,000 vehicles enrolled for monthly debit payments by the end of the fifth year. There is no indication of how that has been estimated.

It seems that, on the information we are receiving in other opportunities for electronic payment, this is a very conservative estimate of the take-up of the use of this. We are talking well over a million vehicles in South Australia that we are dealing with and, usually, on other electronic take-up opportunities for payment, both the private and government sectors tell us that you can expect a significant uptake of this—certainly at a higher level than this.

So, if it were to move to 20, 30, 40 or 50 per cent over that five-year period, you could expect that there would be a harvesting of money like it was raining into the Treasury department, and I am sure that will put a smile on the Premier/Treasurer's face or, indeed, our shadow treasurer, who will be welcoming that with open arms when, in 236 days, he is the new treasurer of the state, we hope.

However, I make the point that the opposition is not fooled by these conservative estimates. I think that it is important that the government indicates what the realistic assessment is on the 15 per cent and on what basis that is relied upon. Obviously, we will be looking at it over the next 12 months to see whether there has been such a saving. I expect that there will be, as they say, in this next two years, still a cost of the adjustment of the new scheme. But we will need to look at that in the future to see what benefit there will be as a budget impact in the outgoing years. With that contribution, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau.

[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau]