Parliamentary Committees

Legislative Review Committee: Motor Vehicle Registry Petition

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (11:02): I move:

That the report of the committee, entitled 'Report on the House of Assembly petition No. 1 of 2020: government retention of Motor Vehicle Registry functions and Service SA branches', be noted.

The government retention of Motor Vehicle Registry functions and Service SA branches petition was the first to be presented to either house since the amendments made by the Parliamentary Committees (Petitions) Amendment Act 2019.

Those amendments inserted section 16B, which was titled 'Certain petitions referred to Legislative Review Committee', into the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. Section 16B requires any eligible petition presented to either house containing not less than 10,000 signatures to be referred to the Legislative Review Committee.

The amendments also inserted paragraph (ba) into section 12—Functions of Committee—of that act, requiring the committee to inquire into, consider and report to parliament on any eligible petition referred to it and, to date, I note that we have had three petitions referred to us: the one that we are tabling and discussing today, as well as one on the Teachers Registration Board and one on the planning act.

As it was the member for Florey who presented the Parliamentary Committees (Petitions) Amendment Bill 2019 that ultimately brought about these amendments, it was fitting that it was also the member for Florey who, on 5 February 2020, presented the first eligible petition, containing some 12,705 signatures, to the House of Assembly. That petition urged:

…the government to retain the Motor Vehicle Registry and all its functions under public control, to especially protect personal data from being used for private profit, and to keep all Service SA offices open, preserving face-to-face services upon which people rely.

The petition arose in response to a government announcement, as part of the 2018-19 state budget, that it intended to close three Service SA centres at Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect, and the government's acknowledgement in February 2019 that it was looking at the motor vehicle registry, as it was compelled to do thanks to a previous deal done by a previous government.

Once the petition was referred to the Legislative Review Committee by the House of Assembly the committee invited the member for Florey to appear before it. Given the member for Florey's instrumental role in referring eligible petitions to the Legislative Review Committee, the committee also took the opportunity to query the member as to processes the committee might adopt in inquiring into petitions.

The committee next sought advice from the then Minister for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, the member for Schubert. The former minister provided a letter attaching his responses to questions posed by the committee. I have to say that being a recent addition to that committee I did not have the pleasure of hearing from those two witnesses, but I am certain it was compelling evidence.

The committee intended to seek further evidence in the form of submissions and evidence from the public and stakeholders. However, in the view of the Legislative Review Committee the issues raised in the petition were satisfactorily resolved by the decisions of the government without the committee needing to take further steps in its inquiry into the petition. That being said, the petitioners' first request was that the government not privatise the motor vehicle registry, an action that petitioners feared could put customers' personal data, including medical information and banking details, at risk of being used for private profit.

The former minister advised the committee that the government was required, under an agreement struck by the previous government during the privatisation of the lands titles office, to use 'reasonable endeavours' to consider privatising the management of the motor vehicle registry. If this government had failed to do so, pursuant to that agreement done by the former government this government could be liable for a fee of up to $80 million. On 10 June 2020, the former minister confirmed to the committee that the government reached a decision in December 2019 not to proceed with that decision on the motor vehicle registry.

The second request of the petitioners was that the government maintain all Service SA centres and preserve face-to-face customer services at all centres. As members of this place would be aware, Service SA provides important services to customers in South Australia, including registering vehicles, licensing drivers and providing numberplates. The petitioners expressed concerns that the centres slated for closure—Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect—were among the busiest centres we had.

The member for Florey and other members also voiced concerns that seniors, residents who are not fluent in English and those with low incomes would be particularly disadvantaged by a shift to online services. Closures of these centres could result in longer queues, longer wait times and poor service delivery at other already busy centres. The former minister then confirmed, in correspondence to the committee of 23 July, that the government would no longer be proceeding with those proposed changes to Service SA at Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect. He also advised the committee that the government intends to progress other improvements to the existing centres.

Despite the government's decisions, the member for Florey requested that the committee continue its inquiry into the petition to seek details about the new model for operations of Service SA centres described by the former minister. The member for Florey expressed concerns that the kiosk model of delivery could be contrary to the petitioners' request to preserve face-to-face delivery of services.

The government's decision surrounding the motor vehicle registry and Service SA centres at Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect satisfied the committee that the petitioners' concerns had been addressed. The service delivery model described by the former minister, and already in place in the new Currie Street Service SA office, has reportedly received positive reviews and feedback and, importantly for the petitioners, include a number of face-to-face service counters. In addition, Service SA staff members are available to assist customers who choose to process their transactions at Service SA centre self-service PCs and kiosks. Therefore, the committee made the following findings:

1. The Government has indicated that it will not proceed with the…Motor Vehicle Registry [decision]. This decision means that citizens' personal data will remain in the hands of government entities and not private companies.

2. The Government indicated that it will not proceed with the [changes to the] Service SA centres at Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect.

3. The Government's intention to progress improvements to the Service SA centres includes a plan to retain face-to-face service counters.

As noted by the member for Florey in her speech on the Parliamentary Committees (Petitions) Amendment Bill on 20 March 2019, a petition is 'the oldest and most direct way citizens can draw attention to a problem and ask parliament to act'. This petition is the first petition to be referred to the Legislative Review Committee under section 16B of the Parliamentary Committees Act.

The petition has enabled the voices of concerned citizens to be heard by both the parliament and the government, and in this instance the need for the committee to call for public submissions or receive further evidence from stakeholders was alleviated by the government's decisions on the issues raised in the petition. Nonetheless, the outcome has demonstrated that a petition can be an effective means for the public to have an impact on the parliament and the government.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the current members of the Legislative Review Committee: the Presiding Member, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti MLC; the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC; the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos MLC; as well as the Hon. Zoe Bettison MP and Mr Nick McBride MP. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank former members of the committee who were involved in the work on this petition, including the current Speaker, the member for Kavel, and the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. Terry Stephens from the other place.

In addition, I would like to express sincere thanks to the committee secretary, Mr Matt Balfour, and the research officer, Ms Maureen Affleck, for their assistance—and tremendous assistance it is. I would also like to express the committee's gratitude to the member for Florey and to the former Minister for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure for their significant contributions into this inquiry about this significant petition.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:11): I would like to thank the Legislative Review Committee for its work and deliberations and the member for Narungga for the very fine speech he has made in moving that this report be noted. I also note, as he has said, this is the first report following on from the change to petitions and how they are dealt with, particularly petitions of 10,000 or more signatures—that is a significant number of people to approach and explain something in 30 seconds and hope they will sign it.

I would like to acknowledge, too, parliament's role in passing this democratic measure to the ways people can feed their views into this place. For me, it reinforces the notion democracy can happen every day, not just once every four years. This report came about because the signatures in total of 25,766 people were gathered in a very short space of time, evidence of the significant community unrest at the suggestion by the former minister, on behalf of this government, that local Service SA offices in very busy and major shopping centres and community locations were going to be closed.

The unrest went even further: people were not in favour of the services provided by Service SA being privatised, putting their data at risk but, more importantly, delivering another cut to the services government should be providing to the community at a community level. While slightly different, the wording of the petitions required the government to do the same thing and the committee's findings have come down on the side of the people, as have the announced—or, can I say, promised—government actions.

The committee acknowledges, firstly, 'The government has indicated that it will not proceed with the privatisation of the Motor Vehicle Registry,' meaning personal data remains safely in government hands. Rather than being seen as a step backwards in the endless pursuit of cost cutting—because, let's make no mistake, that is why we privatise things—let's look on this as a decision for common sense and retention of the employment and conditions of the valued staff of this essential service.

These are the people with the corporate knowledge to make the necessary improvements to make our system the very best service it can be. Make no mistake also, the people have acted emphatically because they did not want any more privatisations: they truly want the motor registry to remain in government hands.

Secondly, the committee found, 'The government indicated that it will not proceed with the closure of Service SA centres at Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect.' I should hope this assurance has not been given with fingers crossed firmly behind anyone's back. Disturbingly, it does not say much about what those centres might look like into the future, particularly when you take into consideration finding No. 3, which is, 'The government's intention to progress improvements to the Service SA centres includes a plan to retain face-to-face service counters.' Might I suggest the first thing the government does is increase staffing to a level which delivers good customer service while retaining staff morale and sanity.

In previous employment, I worked for Medicare, in its very earliest days, in the very small floor space that was their initial cash payment centre. There, four assessors, four information officers and two cashiers, of which I was one, processed hundreds and often thousands of claims every day. This was a very small pool of staff processing so many claims that it was considered by management as a miracle and an example for the rest of Australia to follow.

But I can tell you, I did not observe that sort of pressure reflected by the output of the people working upstairs, who were often significantly working out at the table tennis table rather than at their desks. Mind you, I can seem to bear a grudge for a very long time, can't I?

During the pandemic, our constituents have still needed to use and visit the Service SA centres, because not all services can be performed online and, more often than not, we just need a bit of advice or guidance on how to go about the tasks we might try to perform online. The lines have not diminished. They have been out the door and onto the footpath in 40º heat, and the pressure on customers and staff has not abated. I firmly believe we will always need face-to-face service of some kind because, while technology is well and truly here, there is no substitute for human interaction.

While looking at the service that Service SA provides, might I suggest we begin to make numberplates again here in South Australia, rather than outsourcing that to Western Australia. Not that there is anything wrong with Western Australia, but I think we can support local industry here just as well.

In welcoming the findings of the report of the Legislative Review Committee in report No. 1 on petitions, I sincerely hope government has listened and will not inflict death by a thousand cuts onto these three Service SA offices, in particular, but the entire Service SA operation. Our constituents have every right to now expect that government will keep their word in the true meaning and understanding of the commitment and be able to recognise the services provided by Service SA well into the future, and not have it look like some sort of high-tech, sci-fi shop or ATM centre where the doors open and close and there is nobody else involved in the space.

This will be an election issue. There will need to be continuing assurances given, and it will be expected those assurances will be upheld. I thank the committee for their report and commend their findings to the house.

Mr DULUK (Waite) (11:16): I also thank the member for Narungga and the work of the Legislative Review Committee in bringing this report to the house today to be noted. Indeed, I thank the member for Florey for her campaign not only to see the Service SA centres in her community and across the north-east saved, and indeed mine in Mitcham, and Prospect as well, but also to see some reform of parliamentary procedure and the way that we deal with petitions.

It is fantastic to see that now a petition of over 10,000 signatures that is presented to the house will get due consideration within the committee system as well, which I think is very important. I think it adds to the important work of the Legislative Review Committee, and I have no doubt that the staff of the committee will be able to handle petitions that come through and any delegated and subordinate legislation that they have to deal with as they sit on every alternate Wednesday morning.

In terms of my community, people in my community were very disappointed and upset when the news came through in the 2018 state budget that the Mitcham Service SA centre would be closing. I know that people from my community were part of the many thousands of signatures that formed the 25,766 signatures presented to this place to express the people's disappointment at the closure of three very well-utilised service centres.

I understand that there is a legacy issue from the former Labor government's privatisation and sale of the lands titles office, which in and of itself was absolutely disgraceful, and there was a bit of a catch-it clause in there, but for the government and the bureaucracy to think that they can close three very well-used service centres in communities, especially by many of our elderly residents who are not as au fait with technology as some of us in this house might be, is actually a real indictment of all of us.

I know I was in the Mitcham shopping centre all through 2018 and 2019 collecting petitions, and I give a true thank you to everyone who contributed. I then presented the signatures to this house and spoke to my colleagues across the parliament against the desire to see the Mitcham Service SA centre closed, and indeed those in Prospect and Modbury as well.

As the member for Florey said, it is good to know that people power is being listened to and being used. More importantly, it is our job as members of parliament to hold the bureaucracy to account in order to ensure that the centres stay open and that they are not providing a diminished service.

I know lease agreements are up in all three of those centres, including mine in Mitcham, and I implore the government to maintain the service in Mitcham and to ensure the FTE is available for the people. The Mitcham Service SA centre has been there for many years. I was in there a few months ago because I had to finalise some paperwork. I still use a chequebook and I still use the Mitcham Service SA. It is important that we use local services in local communities because that is what keeps us together.

Ms MICHAELS (Enfield) (11:20): I would like to thank the Legislative Review Committee for looking into this issue and I would particularly like to thank the member for Florey for ensuring that the Legislative Review Committee took time to review the government's decision to privatise the motor vehicle registry and close the three Service SA branches at Prospect, Mitcham and Modbury. The member not only collected more than 12,000 signatures but had to do it twice to comply with the changes in the legislation. I thank her for her persistence in doing that.

The key concerns of the petitioners are the same as the concerns in my local area of Enfield. These were that the motor vehicle registry should be retained in public control to protect our personal data and of course to keep our Service SA centres open, particularly the Prospect centre within my local electorate. I have spoken in this place a number of times about the importance of the Prospect Service SA to my area, and one of the key election promises I made when I came into this place was to keep it open. It continues to be an important issue in my community, and I will come back to that in a moment.

Thankfully, the government chose not to privatise the motor vehicle registry. South Australians do place a tremendous amount of trust in the government in the collection of their data, as we have seen recently during COVID times. The sale of the motor vehicle registry would have whittled away that trust in the South Australian government by our locals, and many people have expressed their concerns to me that providing personal data to private companies was a great concern to them. There are members in this chamber who have had the sorts of computer hacks and leaks of private information going out to the public, and we can all share those concerns around data integrity.

Thankfully, the former minister chose to keep the motor vehicle registry in public hands and I commend him for that decision. We do have a new Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and I come back to the issue of the Prospect Service SA centre, because it appears the future of the Prospect Service SA centre may still be in doubt. My volunteers and I have spent many hours at the Northpark Shopping Centre collecting signatures on petitions and it continues to be an issue in our area.

The committee report contained information that in the 2018-19 financial year Prospect Service SA conducted more than 170,000 transactions and retains its place as the third busiest centre in South Australia. Although the government claimed it listened to the people of South Australia when it announced it would not be proceeding with the closure of the Service SA centres, it took them a very long time before the concerns our constituents were heard.

Unfortunately, the new minister dropped a bit of a bombshell in estimates when he said there were still considerations on the future of the Prospect Service SA centre. I understand a lease has not been signed to keep it open beyond 31 December this year. I note the owners of Northpark Shopping Centre are still concerned that the Service SA centre property is being marketed as available for lease to new tenants from mid to late this year.

We know the government is not afraid to move Service SA as it did with Adelaide, and the model rolled out in the Adelaide branch has a smaller centre, fewer tellers and less face-to-face assistance, with public PCs and kiosks available to people. In COVID times, it is difficult for people to be sharing keyboards, etc. More importantly, my constituents who use the Prospect Service SA centre are predominantly elderly and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds whose first language is not English. They would struggle to use that technology were it presented to them.

Unfortunately, the minister was not clear in his answers in estimates and he could confirm neither that the Prospect Service SA centre was staying open nor that it would not be reduced in size, so my constituents are unfortunately still left with more questions.

Again, I would like to thank the member for Florey for her hard work in preparing the petition and making sure the committee inquired on the government's decision, and I thank the Legislative Review Committee for their work.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (11:24): I would like to thank those members who have made a contribution: the members for Florey, Waite and Enfield. Thank you kindly for contributing to the debate. I think that, whilst we are at it, we should also reaffirm our thanks to the member for Florey for bringing about these changes and ensuring that petitions are heard and not just tabled and forgotten about as they may have been in the past. This provides a wonderful forum for these petitions to be heard and investigated.

I would like to make a quick observation, which I present without comment or opinion. Of the three petitions received thus far, the subject of two concluded before the inquiry itself could conclude. I am sure that government members' advocacy behind closed doors had a significant contribution to those outcome, but I am also sure that the pressure put on by the petition being tabled and investigated had some impact as well. Those two inquiries are completed and there is a third that is ongoing surrounding planning law, though some may argue that that inquiry will also outlast the issue itself.

Certainly from where I sit, it seems to me the petitions are having an effect, and it can only be a good thing if the people are being heard in a forum when they sign a petition and try to participate in democracy. With that, thank you very much to the committee, Mr Matt Balfour and Ms Maureen Affleck, as well as those who contributed to the inquiry. I look forward to future petitions coming before the committee.

Motion carried.