Driver Training and Assessment Industry Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 September 2021.)

Mr PICTON: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My attention has been drawn to the state of the house; there not being a quorum present, ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:58): I move:

That this order of the day be postponed.

Ayes 20

Noes 23

Majority 3

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (12:04): The government is planning to overhaul driver training practices. I apologise to the house: the shadow minister is unwell today and unable to be here for the debate. Unfortunately for the house, I am the government's representative on this matter—

An honourable member: Opposition's.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Opposition's—for now; the opposition's spokesperson on this matter. I think it is fair to say that electorate offices across the state have been inundated with a large volume of correspondence on this matter. It has caused a lot of confusion and it has caused some concern amongst some driver trainers.

I have to say that, looking at what the government is proposing, it looks relatively reasonable and relatively commonsense; however, the responses we are getting from driver trainers is a little bit more alarming, and it is important that the house considers those concerns. There are a number of concerns around the impact of this measure on cost and what this measure will cost potential driver trainers. Will this ultimately drive people from the industry? Will we be able to satisfy demand for driver training in regional areas as a result of these changes?

I understand from briefings the shadow minister has attended that the department has assured him these changes will not adversely impact the driver training industry. That is certainly not the view that has been given to my office and to many members of parliament from the two driver training associations that cover this area, the two relative ones—their acronyms escape me. They have raised serious concerns, and those concerns deserve to be aired and discussed. They claim there is a level of opaqueness around the changes.

To be fair, I am not qualified to say whether that is accurate or not. What I am qualified to say is that I have not seen this level of agitation from driver trainers to a change. Some of the re-accreditation issues are of concern to them, and the costs of that; the cost of installation of cameras in their vehicles, how they are operated and who maintains them. I understand that—again, I am taking this second-hand, because I am at a disadvantage as the shadow minister is unfortunately ill—the cost and operations of the cameras will be determined by regulation after this bill is passed.

We are nearing the end of this term; the government has only two more scheduled sitting dates. That means there is almost no ability, if the legislation passes this house and the other house, for a disallowance motion of any regulation, because the government is not planning on sitting again after the following week. That puts us in a very difficult situation.

It puts the opposition in a situation where, on the face of it, the reforms the government is proposing seem quite sensible, but the people at the coalface, the people who are actually doing the driver training, have raised serious concerns not only with me but also with the crossbench. So crossbench members and the opposition are actively considering whether we refer this legislation either to a select committee in this chamber, or a select committee in the other chamber, for further discussion.

I do not know what the outcome of that will be, other than to say that these changes have been put about, I think, with good intentions. From what I have seen reported—not only in the public press—there have been accusations of corruption in the driver training industry which the government is attempting to stamp out. There have been accusations of sexual assault in the driver training industry, and the government is attempting to protect young people while they are learning to get their licence.

The opposition supports the government's endeavours to try to clean up the industry. I am not questioning the media reports, because some of these involve reports of charges and outcomes of trials. In one example, one driving instructor pleaded guilty to four counts of abuse of public office and one count of bribery only days before he was due to stand trial. Another media article states that an instructor took bribes, and there was editorialising within the paper about changes to this legislation.

I think there is broad agreement in the parliament that we do not want to see a driver training industry that faces the accusations of bribery and sexual assault and that we want to make sure that young people, who are vulnerable on their own in a motor vehicle learning how to drive, are protected. On that aspect, I congratulate the minister and I congratulate the government on bringing this legislation to the parliament.

What I am concerned about is the consultation and what I am concerned about is the industry reaction because I do not think we can lump all driver trainers into the one basket. I do not think we can say that an entire industry is corrupt or that an entire industry is perpetuating sexual assaults on the vulnerable. With that in mind, without more detailed notes, what I will be doing, with the government's agreement, is adjourning this legislation after my remarks. The opposition, on the face of it, thinks that this is a good idea and the opposition, on the face of it, thinks that there should be reform.

There are a number of issues raised within the driver trainer sector that have raised concerns about the re-accreditation, the retraining and the costs of that on the driver training industry and what that will mean for the industry going forward: either it will be a full cost recovery process, where the fees and charges are increased for people who are attempting to get their driver's licence to try to recover the costs of the regulations the parliament will be imposing on driver trainers, or whether there is a happy medium, where we can consult more broadly with the industry to have that industry then be more supportive of the changes and we can have a bipartisan approach and reform this.

I do not want to see anyone take bribes for a driver's licence, nor do I want to see anyone sexually assaulted while learning how to drive. We do need to protect people. Given we have cameras in taxis, it makes perfect sense to have cameras in driver training vehicles. An example from the one briefing I had with both driver associations was that there was very little clarity from the department—and I do not know if this is accurate or not; this is again a third-party description of the industry briefings from the department—and the questions were asked: who would operate the cameras, who would hold the data and for how long, and who would be responsible for the cost of the maintenance of that data?

Another pretty important question is: which way would the cameras face? Would the cameras face inwards at the driver and the driver trainer, or would they face outwards? I do not know. Given that we are talking about bribery and corruption, maybe there are other experts in this place who might want to give us a few of their anecdotes about bribery and corruption.

Mr Whetstone: You should know which way they face.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Chaffey volunteers. I think it is an important piece of legislation that the government has brought forward. I think the intentions of the minister are honest in relation to this matter and I think, given the media reports, there is an industry here that needs greater regulation. The question is: can we do both with the agreement of the industry as a whole?

Another concern I have is the impact on regional communities. Again, I have been told by the associations that this will have an adverse impact on regional communities and the accessibility of driver training in regional communities because of the extra potential cost and regulations. I do not know if that is an ambit claim or if it is true. I do not know if that is what the associations are simply telling us so we do not pass this legislation, or if there is actually an issue about regional learner drivers getting access to driver training in regional communities. I imagine that the tyranny of distance applies to many things, including driver training.

Perhaps at the end of this process, while the minister is kindly sitting in the chamber and listening to the contributions, he goes back to the department, gets some answers for the opposition on these matters and we consider whether or not a brief select committee of a day or two, just to take evidence from the driver trainers associations on what exactly their concerns are, or do that between the houses, potentially in the upper house, to make sure that we are passing a piece of legislation that the industry will embrace.

In my experience, whenever we impose regulations on an industry we could see a whole number of people exit that industry who have years and years of experience and who are valuable to driver training. I also point out that I have had a number of driver trainers come to me completely supportive of these changes, who have said over and over again that they support these changes, that they think these changes are necessary and want to see the industry cleaned up. When you ask for detailed evidence, they provide some, but again the devil is always in the detail.

I am interested in getting to the bottom of the costs—the cost of operating the camera, the cost of installing the camera—and the regulations governing the operation, use and storage of data from those cameras. There are some basic questions: will the cameras pick up audio, or is it just visual? I am assuming you would need audio as well to be able to accept, discuss, a bribery, but I do not think the cameras are there about the bribery. I am assuming they are about attempted assaults. Again, I would like some clarity from the government around those issues. Other than that, it is a good piece of legislation.

The associations' and the driver trainers' wariness of it came as a bit of a shock to me when it first came to my desk, that they were opposed. When you read the legislation, it all seems very reasonable but, when you speak to the practitioners, many of them found it very offensive. It is important that we hear what they have to say because they do provide a valuable service to the community. We cannot afford to lose large numbers of them from the industry.

With that in mind, I point out to the house that we are supportive of the bill. We are not attempting to delay its passage dramatically. What we would like to do is to get some evidence on the parliamentary record from the associations about their views on and concerns about this legislation. Perhaps the government can address those quickly and easily and we can pass this legislation very, very quickly.

If we can get an assurance from the minister about those questions, about the regulations, the cost, the data management and of course making sure that we are not throwing people out of the industry because of the increased cost burden, these are things I think we can work through together and get an answer on relatively quickly.

With those few words, I again apologise to the house for the shadow minister not being here, but he is ill and he is paired with the member for Hartley, who is celebrating exceptionally good news—the birth of a new baby. We all wish him and his lovely wife all the very best on the safe arrival of their newborn. I am sure his parents are very pleased that finally he has made them proud.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr Harvey.