Motor Vehicles (Motor Driving Instructors and Authorised Examiners) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (17:44): I am the lead speaker on this bill. I will try to be as effective as I can.

Mr Odenwalder: We believe in you.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You weren't here last sitting week, Lee.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order! The member for Unley will be heard in silence. He has the right to be heard in silence. Member for Unley.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, sir. The Liberal Party supports this bill. The bill proposes a substantial overhaul of the driver training and licence framework in South Australia, primarily by transferring responsibility for practical driving tests from private authorised examiners to government examiners. Additionally, it mandates higher industry standards, including the introduction of mandatory GPS tracking and cameras in training vehicles. The reform is positioned as a measure to combat widespread corruption and misconduct within the industry as highlighted by past complaints and the findings of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The bill seeks to address significant issues in the current driver training system, including unethical behaviour by some examiners and concerns about the adequacy of driving instruction. The key changes include a shift to government examiners. The most notable change is the transition from approximately 263 private authorised examiners to a government-led testing system of around 40 to 50 examiners.

Obviously, there is some concern, particularly in regional South Australia, about that significant reduction in examiners and what that might do for wait times for people who have gone through the process of getting their hours up, having their driving lessons, filling out their logbook and then sitting for the test. I wonder whether that will mean—a bit like the way some parents will enrol their child in the school of their choice five years before the enrolment date because there is such a waiting list—that learner drivers will need to enrol or book their tests 12 months out in order to not have a delay.

We know how important it is to have a driver's licence. Statistically, you are three times more likely to struggle to get a job as a young person without a driver's licence than if you have a driver's licence, so it is such an important tool in the toolbox for those who are entering the workforce in particular. We believe that the dramatic reduction in amateurs will have severe impacts on the availability of tests, particularly in regional and remote areas where lack of resources could lead to significant delays and force residents to travel long distances. We have a public hospital system here, but we are seeing that there is outsourcing to private hospitals for beds. This government does seem to have an obsession against the private sector.

There have been some awful things that have happened to young women, in particular, in cars with the driving instructors, and we have all read about those in reports in the paper. However, I do not accept that how the personnel are employed will make a difference. It is things like cameras, GPS tracking and so forth that will make a difference, that will make it safer.

I know, from when I had the education portfolio, the number of child sex offences that were committed by public servants who were teachers, or who worked at government schools, was very high—and many of them were still on the payroll while they were going through the process of the court system.

At the briefing, the Department for Infrastructure and Transport noted that there is a shortage of instructors in regional South Australia, but did not consider that the proposed reforms would hamper service delivery. So we are starting from behind the eight ball already when it comes to the testing services, even before this is off the ground. I know my colleague the Hon. Ben Hood, who is a very effective and committed regional-based member of parliament, would certainly like to see those services improved in regional South Australia and down in the South-East, Mount Gambier in particular.

The department will purchase driver training vehicles on a one-to-one basis—that is, 40 or 50 vehicles—and will rely on customers' own vehicles should they have a disability requiring a special set up. That is different from the old days when I had my driving test, back in 1978 I think it was. A government-employed driving instructor at Elizabeth—I think it was the Elizabeth Department of Transport back then, I do not think they had fancy names like Service SA—sat in my car while I drove and marked me off on my three-point turn, my parallel parking, indicator, using my rearview mirror, not exceeding the speed limit, and so forth.

With a portion of vehicles being off-line for servicing and getting deployed to regional communities where there is a need, there is a concern that there will be insufficient supply to meet demand. That is a genuine concern from the Liberal Party.

The department claims that most of the current authorised examiners do not work full-time and that the new model will satisfy current needs. That is a good point, because a hybrid system where you have government and fully-vetted instructors may very well enable people who are transitioning into retirement get a new set of skills. They might only want to work a week a month or a couple of days a week or whatever, particularly those who might be running a farm in regional South Australia. In the off season they could earn some extra money working for the government or, alternatively, working under contract delivering these driving test services.

That would benefit not just the drivers being tested, with the availability of booking space for the driving test, but also in terms of opportunities for additional employment options in regional South Australia. Perhaps that could be considered by the minister or the department when the scheme rolls out.

The competency-based training assessment method used by 80 per cent of learners until recently will no longer to be available in its current form. Instead, all learners will be required to take a practical test with the government examiner, with a hybrid vehicle road test model proposed. This system change would lead to increased costs for learners who may need additional lessons to prepare for the driving test. I think this is an additional expense that has surprised some who have been observing this process.

We know that we are already in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. We know that families are struggling. It is a family responsibility getting a young person a driver's licence, and it is a very pleasurable one. My advice to the transport minister with his daughters is that he be their instructor and spend all of those hours with his daughters in the car. It is amazing what conversations you can have once they are competent enough to talk and drive at the same time as they get their hours up—and they can't leave; they have to sit there and listen to you and talk to you.

Mr Basham: And they want you there.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Indeed. They want you there because they want to get their hours up. I advise every father to be the volunteer to help those young learner drivers get their hours up. It is amazing when you can advise your children to drive to new and exciting places that they have never been to before and give them a bit of a history lesson as to why you are there.

Technological requirements: the introduction of mandatory cameras and GPS tracking in all vehicles is aimed at increasing the transparency and safety, but it has raised concerns regarding privacy and mental health. The market will determine what types of cameras and GPS systems will be employed. I know that the Hon. Mr Hood has raised some concerns about ignition-linked GPS. Many of the MDIs will have camera recordings in their vehicles, for both private and business purposes, kept by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, with the technological aspects of storing and sending this data to be determined.

The reforms promise a reduced cost for learners. This may be misleading, as instructors argue that learners will likely need more lessons under the new model, resulting in higher overall expenses. Currently, the average cost of obtaining a licence is $1,400. This could rise significantly as more lessons are required to meet the new testing standards.

No compensation is proposed for the current authorised examiners. This is a significant change for those who have built up a business model, of course, around this business. I know that it is one of those areas that is in short supply of quality people who are in it for the right reasons, so people who are doing it, and have done it for quite some time, have put in a significant investment of time and money. They are extremely responsible and take their jobs very seriously. Many of them are probably on the pathway to retirement because they may have come from another job that may have been more labour intensive, for example, and their bones are sending them some messages that maybe they should be looking at doing something else, and they have found this and enjoyed it. So that is sad, that people will be losing their businesses and there is no compensation.

When we had significant changes with the interruption of Uber, for example, there was compensation for taxi drivers, but it is disappointing that there is no compensation or even a phase-out period—that we are aware of anyway—for the drivers. That is an issue that has been raised with the shadow minister on this matter as well. The reforms will create a new regulated fee of $240 for on-the-road assessment. Currently, it is market-driven except for the $38 learners fee which was calculated to cover the proposed expected costs.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:31.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The Liberal Party has been told by the industry that very little consultation has occurred with them on these reforms. Consultation for any change in this portfolio under the previous government was always insisted upon when the minister was the shadow minister in this area. I know that the Hon. Ben Hood in the other place, who is the shadow minister for this, would like to see the bill slowed and not rushed through before the industry has an opportunity to respond to some of the concerns that they have.

Many fundamental questions remain about these reforms, with few answers to be found in the bill, with inadequate assurances about the impact and the department's ability to deliver timely government examiner-conducted assessments, particularly in the regions. I covered that earlier before the meal break. There are 266 authorised examiners currently and we are going down to 40 to 45 government examiners to cover the whole state. We have significant concerns for regional communities and the extra delays and a growing backlog that will be created as a result.

Can the government assure the people of South Australia that the $240 assessment fee will not be increased? Industry groups that the Liberal Party consulted with were concerned that a whole range of additional costs were not being factored in. When the supply of MDIs inevitably contracts as a result of these changes, driving lessons will surely increase. What will this mean for road safety? Will it mean that learner drivers will be getting less instruction? Surely, especially during the cost-of-living crisis, parents will not be inclined to send their kids for professional driving training. When people have limited choices it may very well be that, where a professional driving coach may be required, a family member may step in for the family to save the cost of that lesson.

The opposition have heard strong criticisms of the additional and exorbitant powers being handed to the registrar, things such as that powers could exceed those of SAPOL, or even ASIO some people have raised. We have been advised that by removing police officers from having responsibility over much of this legislation their rights to appeal are effectively being taken away from them.

It is the Liberal Party's understanding that anyone employed as a government examiner cannot be operated as an MDI, therefore does this not remove the ability for corruption or bribery to occur which the minister believes is so rampant? Many South Australians go down the competency based training and assessment pathway, particularly those very young people who face unique challenges such as those with anxiety, domestic violence survivors, those with behavioural difficulties and those on the spectrum. With all these options being abolished, we have concerns about how these people will receive appropriate driver training as government vehicles will only be used.

This could add another layer of complexity, particularly for those young people with various degrees of autism. We know that change can be quite distressing for somebody who has autism. Where they have spent the last 12 months driving a particular car, with a particular seat style or a particular driving wheel, they know where the gearstick is and how the accelerator feels, then all of a sudden they are in a car that they are not familiar with, will that mean that the anxiety that they are experiencing will mean that they simply will not be able to focus on passing the test because they are too worried about the changes that are around them? I think that is a very genuine concern and I just wonder if the minister has got an answer on how that would be dealt with.

I know that some jurisdictions have the option of the family car or the car that the child has been driving to gain their experience which can be used. But from what I understand with this bill, it is simply that the government car is the option, which obviously has other issues. What if the car is in for a service? That means instead of 50 cars you are down to 49. What if there is some bizarre system in the computer that sends 10 cars off on a single day for their servicing? What happens in that instance? It just seems that restricting it to 50 really does make it difficult to understand how we will not see a bottleneck or queues or parking, rather than ramping, when it comes to access to the examiners.

We are told that the department has no concerns about dispatching vehicles to far-flung places like Ceduna and Mount Barker to undertake driving tests. The industry have told us that they simply do not believe that it is possible for just 40 to 50 examiner vehicles to service the demand. The department acknowledged the market failures in certain parts of regional South Australia, but how can an 80 per cent reduction in examiners possibly overcome this market failure?

Ultimately, we have heard out loud and clear from the motor driving industry that it is the need for fair, reasonable and reliable testing. They share our concerns, and these reforms do not achieve those outcomes, so I reiterate that both the industry and the opposition have strong concerns about the lack of consultation and the sudden urge for the progression of the bill, despite reforms in the industry being flagged some years ago.

Contrast that with the government's proposed Rider Safe motorcycle reforms, which I understand were heavily consulted on with the direct input of industry groups, where it is the same courtesy to what the minister described as the most significant reforms that any government has made to the driver training industry. The lack of consultation, combined with the lack of detail included in the bill, leaves much of it to the regulations and to the discretion of the registrar, making it difficult for the opposition to give its full support to the bill as it is presented. I am also aware that the shadow minister only this afternoon received answers to his questions after he was first briefed on the bill a week ago.

To conclude, we will not be opposing the bill in this place. The opposition implores the minister to halt the rushed passage of these fundamental reforms to the motor driving training industry and urges him to go back to the community to consult with the industry.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (19:39): It is important that we ensure that everyone who is learning to drive is given the absolute best opportunity to do so and that everyone's safety, be it the student, the instructor and all others who are using the roads, is protected to the best of our ability. It is why I give support to the Motor Vehicles (Motor Driving Instructors and Authorised Examiners) Amendment Bill 2024.

Over the past eight years, I understand that there have been a total of 135 disciplinary actions that have been undertaken involving 124 people, representing about 20 per cent of industry members. Of these, 12 authorised examiners/driving instructors were convicted on multiple charges, including bribery, fraud and corruption, as well as, disturbingly, sexual offences.

Following a number of investigations and prosecutions, the industry was reviewed during 2017 and 2018, and it was found that the appropriate level of oversight of the industry is an issue. This was also confirmed in a 2022 ICAC report. Now we have the bill before us today, which is designed to strengthen industry standards, raising accountability and improving safety outcomes for all who are learning to drive.

One of the biggest changes out of this is that we will now see practical driver tests for class C car licences being undertaken by government examiners and not private operators. For those undertaking what is formally known as the Competency Based Training and Assessment, more commonly referred to as the logbook method, they too will have to undertake a practical test in the company of a government examiner rather than a private operator to be able to obtain their provisional licence (or P-plates).

Turning 16 and being able to learn to drive is a rite of passage for so many South Australians. It can be a really intense time. I know this firsthand because, for me, it was both a combination of ecstatic energy to be that little bit closer to independence, but it also fluctuated with the anxiety of being able to take that next step to learn something new in what did entail serious responsibility and a degree of risk. That is more than enough for somebody who—

The SPEAKER: Excuse me, the member for Elizabeth and friends, maybe if you could just keep the chatter down a little bit so I can hear the member for King. Thank you.

Mrs PEARCE: As I was saying, that is more than enough for someone to navigate through. Learning how to drive should not come with the additional risks to one's safety above what can be expected when you get behind the wheel for the very first time, nor should they be ripped off for this necessity, with many relying on being able to drive to get to school, work, volunteering commitments and so on.

Now private operators will continue to deliver driver training, and the reforms introduced in this bill will implement higher industry standards, including safety measures such as the mandated use of in-vehicle cameras and GPS tracking. Not only is the utmost priority of the government the safety of our learner drivers, but I can also attest that it is the widely shared sentiment among the community that, where it arises, we stamp down on inappropriate behaviour within the sector.

These recording devices will be required to operate during all training and assessments that are delivered by both private industry providers and government examiners. Such use of the devices will help to minimise misconduct and poor behaviour and provide reassurance to both trainers and learners alike. The cameras will also ensure that training and assessments are being delivered in the correct and appropriate way.

Should a camera not be used in line with the requirements, it will be an offence of the requirements; however, drivers will not have to utilise the camera during their own private use of the vehicle.

With the new code of practice to be developed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, it will set the standard expected of all instructors through the inclusion of expectations such as:

a minimum standard of conduct and behaviour;

standards of driving instruction;

business practices such as written agreements for services, refund rights and costs provided to customers and issuing of receipts;

camera use and data transfer requirements; and

complaints management processes.

Failure to follow the code will be enforced with breaches able to be sanctioned by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, who will be given greater power to sanction driving instructors through measures including formal warnings, providing expiation notices, prosecution, requiring further training, the suspension of accreditation and the possible cancellation of accreditation.

Of course, when it comes to safety on the road, we also have it front of mind that people cannot be learning in cars that are long past their best before date, which is why I am pleased to see that there will also be the introduction of a minimum standard for vehicles used for training and assessments.

In line with this, it will be the standard that all training and assessment vehicles will have to meet the standard of a minimum ANCAP rating of five stars, be no older than 10 years, be fitted with dual brakes and, key amongst all others, be roadworthy. Like many, though, hearing this news, my mind also extends to the country kids who are learning to drive, often due to the necessity of needing to navigate further distance, which comes with a life in the regions.

Around 7,000 Class C tests occur in regional areas each year and, as a girl who learned to drive out in the back paddocks of the family farm, I am pleased to share that these reforms will significantly improve the quality of service they will receive in this space because learners in regional South Australia will benefit from reduced and regulated fees, ensuring that they are able to receive the same fair pricing as learners in the city. In application, it will mean that no matter where a learner driver wishes to take their test in South Australia, they can rely on receiving the best quality of service at the same prices as a learner in the city.

I understand that with the passing of this bill, there will be permanently based authorised examiners in the regions to deliver practical tests, with the locations of these examiners to be decided upon following discussion with the industry in the coming months. These reforms as a whole are a significant step forward, helping to make the process of learning to drive more consistent, more fair and safer across the board for all who are involved in what is already a daunting process.

Through our introduction of stronger oversight, higher standards across the industry and our steadfast commitment to prioritising the safety and wellbeing of learner drivers, this bill will help drive much-needed improvements within the industry.

I commend this bill to the house and welcome the many necessary changes it will bring. Importantly, it is another step in the Malinauskas Labor government's commitment to improving road safety for all South Australians.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (19:47): I rise to make a brief contribution and, in doing so, I understand and recognise that there will be a certain amount of information which will need to be gained through the committee process, not just in this house but I assume in the other place as well.

Although I recognise there are intentions that are good and pure when looking at this process, there are aspects that, as a regional member of parliament, especially one from the further flung areas of our state, I have concerns about— for example, the realities of how it will be delivered to regional communities.

Already, at the moment, with the existing number of trainers and authorisers within regional South Australia there are challenges. There are challenges for accessibility for people in further flung regional areas and there are challenges with affordability.

The member for King, who has just spoken, highlighted the aspects around trying to create a system that puts in place a level of equity and that is something which, indeed if it is able to be achieved through this process, is certainly admirable and welcomed.

I still have a lot of uncertainty about the reality of how this looks for regional communities and near-on concern about what it will mean for those of us who hail from small regional centres, small population centres and isolated population centres but population centres nonetheless. I think about communities such as Ceduna and Streaky Bay. Obviously, Port Lincoln is a significant regional centre, but it is an area that still has challenges when it comes to making sure there are enough trainers and accreditors within a populace like that.

With the proposals that are put forward here, I worry that that number is already at a stretch as far as the ability to be able to appropriately service the populace. The proposal that is put forward here and the details that are being provided broadly to the opposition actually point to there being fewer opportunities and fewer examiners that may be accessible. As a regional MP, I know the smaller the number, the harder to access. We are always at the pointy end when it comes to these arrangements, so I recognise the intent of the bill.

There is some uncertainty in my mind as to the size or the scale of the problem that the minister is aiming to solve as far as some of the alleged inconsistencies when it comes to the assessment process. My interest is really in ensuring my regional community is not further disadvantaged through this process because regional kids in our communities actually rely on having their licence, having their transport, having the ability to get to work and get to different parts of their region even more so than their metropolitan cousins because there are no other alternatives. There are no public transport options. There is no ability to more easily carpool because the populations are spread out further.

Through this process, I am looking forward to trying to unpack and get some answers from the committee stage to come and also, I am sure, in between the houses and in the other place. As a regional representative, what I want to ensure is that my community, my regional kids learning to drive, are not further disadvantaged by this process.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (19:51): I want to thank members for their contributions and thank them for their thoughtful, constructive advice on this piece of legislation. It is legislation that has had a long passage. It was borne out of an ICAC report to the previous government. It is fair to say that this legislation has been borne out through a long and bitter process. I hope it has a speedy and bipartisan passage through both houses of parliament.

What we were attempting to do is to lower the cost of getting a driver's licence for families and ensure that our children are indeed safe while they are learning how to drive. The important reforms we are making here are cameras in cars and making sure that the final assessment is done by an independent government employee, not the trainers. That delineation is vitally important to improve probity and improve measures to make sure there is no unnecessary cost put on families and of course the insourcing and the assessment are a big part of that.

Most importantly, we want tools available for parents to teach their children how to drive available for them freely on the internet. I think parents are best placed to know when their children are ready to take a test. By and large, these reforms are pretty similar to the reforms introduced by the previous government that were delayed for a period of time by the previous government and these reforms now should, I think, achieve a good level of bipartisan support. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, minister, for this opportunity. As I said, there are some questions and uncertainties. In my second reading contribution I highlighted that there are some aspects which, especially as a regional member of parliament, I am looking to have some clarification on—in clause 12, the interpretation aspect in particular. Is the interpretation of this part modelled on the outlaw motorcycle gang legislation and, if so, why is it considered necessary for such restrictions of association to be imposed on motor driving instructors?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, it is loosely based on those association laws—loosely. Again, remember that the foundation of this legislation is an ICAC report. The ICAC report found a lot of systemic issues of corruption, bribery and sexual assault, and what we are attempting to do is to make sure that we can protect young people from predatory behaviour in this industry.

This is very similar to the legislation the previous government introduced when my predecessor was in this position, so I am pretty sure that the member is familiar with the reasoning for this—maybe not the current member, but the previous member would have been reasonably comfortable with the assessments done on this, based on what their party room had been briefed on by the previous minister.

Mr TELFER: That being the case, what evidence does DIT or SAPOL have about the extent of that criminal association in the MDI industry?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is not about particular connections with outlaw motorcycle gangs, it is about protecting people from that type of behaviour within the industry. The government is not making an assertion that there are people who are involved in training and assessment who have links to outlaw motorcycle gangs. What we are saying is that we are using similar pieces of legislation, through the drafting by parliamentary counsel, that allow us to ensure that the types of practices and behaviours that might have occurred can be outlawed and to make sure that we minimise any impacts on young people. I am not sure what the concern is.

Mr TELFER: I am just trying to unpack the nexus of the legislation. Given that government examiners will be taking over the testing regime of the provisional drivers, alleged offences such as bribery and the like that may have been in the previous regime will now obviously no longer be an issue—we sure hope. The powers of the Registrar are significant powers. Why then do we hand the Registrar such significant powers and legislate against driver instructors' families and friends being associated with potential criminals when the opportunities for bribery and corruption are now, hopefully, significantly lessened?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There are a couple of reasons: (1) we do not want people who are associated with these organisations teaching young vulnerable people how to drive, and (2) in the heavy vehicle sector there is still the training and assessment being done by the private sector, so we want to make sure we remove that risk. These were all parts, from my understanding, of the previous government's reforms that were outlined in the ICAC report.

I think it is a pretty fair and reasonable thing to say that we do not want people who are involved in illegality or criminality training and being in close contact with young people in any form of enterprise. The specific prohibition is to protect people who are learning how to drive from these types of nefarious behaviour and also to make sure that in the areas where we have heavy vehicles, where you still have the training and assessments done by external providers, we specifically say there is illegality in that area, and we can clamp down on it quickly.

Again, it all goes back to the foundation principle of the ICAC report. I spoke to Ann Vanstone about this on her last day in office. One of the key guiding principles in all these reforms for both governments, the Marshall government and the Malinauskas government, has been her report. Wherever we can stamp out organised crime or any level of criminality, or wherever it can flourish in an area where, at the end of the process, it is a regulated benefit, there is the potential for bribery and corruption, so whatever measures you put in place leading up to that regulatory benefit give the government and the public a safety valve to know that the people who are assessing and training are free from any influence of any organised crime.

Mr TELFER: It is a unique part of a piece of legislation. I am trying to unpack the nuance, the detail. We consider a lot of different legislation and regulated aspects within this place and there is not too much where there is this level of definition around association included within the legislation. I am interested, obviously, in trying to understand the consultation that went with the process of developing this legislation, this part in particular. What level of consultation was there and who was consulted during the development of this part in particular and what, if any, concerns were raised?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Consultation was done by the previous government. Ministers Wingard and Knoll did a large part of the consultation. I make no apology for the fact that we did not consult with the industry on the insourcing of the assessment. The industry quite obviously and blatantly would not support that, because that is a direct impact on their financial model, but it is also fair to say, in the consultation done by the previous government and in our ongoing consultation, that they also accept that the only way to remove the risk of bribery and consultation is to have an independent assessment process.

Let me give you some of the anecdotal stories I have heard back from people who have had their children learn how to drive through a training and assessment process with an outsourced private company. It is fair to say that I do not want to generalise across the entire industry. The ICAC report has made its findings and they are, I think, bankable. What we were hearing is that people were being told to bring large cash amounts to car parks to pay an assessor for the last lesson and assessment. At the end of that large payment in cash, children were being failed and told that they needed further training and further assessment.

The ICAC, the government and the previous government felt that that system was flawed. Whenever you consult on an industry body that does the training and assessment and say to them, 'What do you think about us carving off the assessment part from your business model?' I think the answer is pretty obvious: they will say, 'No, don't do it.' So we have looked at this, gone out and consulted, and we accept that the industry as a whole will not say that this is a good move for them, because it is actually impacting their financial model. But simultaneously, what the consultation has showed us is that even the people who are doing the training and assessment do concede that the only way you are going to rule out bribery and corruption from this industry is to insource the assessment.

The insourcing of the assessment I think makes a lot of good common sense. I will be entirely frank with you: it is no my natural place to think the solution here is more public servants and more bureaucracy, but here it is pretty clear-cut. Parents know their children. The member for Unley spoke quite eloquently about his experience with his children. It is a good experience teaching your children how to drive and you generally know when they are ready to take an assessment.

We are saying that we are happy for parents to have all the modules and the training available for them online for free that they can access and understand what they need to know and what their children need to pass a driving assessment, but simultaneously we are not going to allow the people who deliver that training to also do the assessment, because they are inherently compromised because they are almost perversely incentivised to fail people so they get more training out of them. What we are saying is we accept that the consultation did not come back with the outcome we chose, because the outcome we chose is not beneficial to the people we consulted.

The member for Unley made a very good point. In his remarks in his second reading speech—and I do listen to what the member for Unley says; I always pay attention to his remarks—he made it very clear that this is going to hurt the financial model of some trainers. My view is the good trainers will prosper, the poor trainers will suffer—the ones whose financial model is to continually fail students or continually try to impose more training, more assessment, through these processes to get more revenue and more income. The good ones will want high turnover, giving good training and a high success rate, and they are the ones who will have the financial model and will succeed under what we are doing.

So I hope that answers your question. There is no level of consultation where we are going to get a tick from the industry saying, 'Yes, great result—you're crashing our business model.' No-one is going to like that, and I accept that ,and so did the previous government.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The authorised examiners will be employed by the department; it will be their employer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They will be public officers.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Public officers on Public Service terms and conditions. Is there anything in this legislation that prevents that term of employment being a contract, not in the way of a public servant contract but a contract where they work exclusively for the government, and the government is paying them to conduct the examinations? They manage their own finances, they pay their own tax and they have an ABN. Does it stop that from happening? Is it prohibited under the bill and is it prohibited under the bill for labour hire?

In other words, a company may start up and provide the training and the specialist skilled staff to then work directly for the government in the same job, and the government would be billed by the labour hire company to actually employ them while they are conducting the same work that employees would do. It happens often, particularly in the hospital system. Is there anything that prohibits that from happening or is that an option if the registrar chooses to do so?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is a good question by the Opposition Whip. I will just lay out a few governing principles for me as minister. First and foremost: no, we are not looking at labour hire. We are looking at government employees. Government employees cannot have a secondary piece of work, a second job, without the permission of their employer. All of our assessors will be employed by the South Australian government. If they wish to do driver training as another business, they will need to seek the permission of their employer, and obviously they would be inherently conflicted if they were attempting to assess a former student.

I suppose the question then becomes: would you let someone train someone for free? No. My point is we want these people to be public officers. Once they are public officers, they are captured by the governing rules of the public sector, which also includes the Office for Public Integrity, the Ombudsman and the ICAC. Any public officer acting outside the limits of the legislation would be subject to maladministration, misconduct and corruption findings or proceedings against them.

I think what you are asking me is: can we hire someone who has an ABN or has his own company to do assessments on behalf of the government, like a provider? The answer to that is we are not specifically legislating in the legislation to say they will be government employees: we are in-housing them. It is the view of the government that we do not need that in the legislation. We are simply going to say that assessment will be done by the government, and we are going to go out and hire assessors to work for the South Australian government as public sector employees to deliver the service on behalf of the government. We will pay them their wages and conditions, and we will charge the public a fee.

So we are not prohibiting the scenarios that you have mentioned, but that is not our intent. Our intent is to hire people to work for us as public servants in the same way we hire other public servants to deliver frontline services, like at Service SA or in any other form. They would be working for us in delivering this service.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The 40 to 50 number of examiners that has been quoted in the debate: is that full-time equivalent? In other words, is there an ability for, for example, women who want to get back into the workforce to only work a couple of days a week or six hours a day, or farmers to be employed during the off-season by the Public Service, and what would the registrar's attitude be to them having a secondary job, whether it was running a farm or whether it was the family business? Will it be the default position that, no, you have to do this full time, or if you are doing it part time or casually you will not be able to do anything else, even if it is unrelated?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, excellent points by the Opposition Whip. They will be full-time equivalents. I am up for some of the scenarios that the Opposition Whip mentioned. They make complete sense. If in regional areas it is going to be hard for us to find assessors, why not find farmers who could do the work, like the member for Flinders? From what I hear, he is not a very good farmer, and that is why he is here. That is a joke.

Mr Telfer: It is not funny.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it is; it is what your colleagues tell me. I think it is a good idea. Women in the workforce: absolutely. All these scenarios are welcome. What I am not keen on, though, is the idea that we would have people doing training and assessing and cross-contaminating the two processes, because the fundamental aspiration of the act is to disconnect the two to make sure we do not have the ability for corruption and bribery. Importantly, the other aspects are where we have young, vulnerable people who are subject to sexual assault or grooming.

So we want a number of things to change in the entire industry. This is a pretty radical upheaval of the industry; I accept that. Not everyone in the industry is going to like this; I accept that. But I also say that two governments in a row, Labor and Liberal, have both read this ICAC report and have come to the same conclusion: it cannot continue.

We cannot have young, vulnerable women in cars without cameras and trackers. We cannot have it. We cannot have the people who are exposed to potential sexual assault or bribery with the people who have the keys in their hands to a driver's licence. Think of what a driver's licence offers a young person: freedom and employment. It is something that they strive for.

It is a very important regulatory licence that the government issues, and it is important that there is integrity behind it. We have two responsibilities: one, to make sure that people who earn this licence to drive on our roads are fit and proper to do so, and two, to make sure people who are seeking to earn that right to drive on our roads do so in a fair and proper way without having to succumb to sexual assault, sexual intimidation or bribery.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Do you think it is then clear enough in the legislation, or under the Public Service Act, that the default position would be: no, if you are a private driving instructor we will not be giving you a job as a government examiner? Or could that happen under these changes?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There are a number of private trainers we would like to hire. There are a lot of private trainers in the industry who we think are first-class, who we would like to pinch to come and work for the South Australian government to deliver these assessment processes. This would mean we would lose them to the training sector.

What we want is a market-driven training market and a government-led regulatory assessment, which I think is a good mix of best practice. What we do not want is for somebody to have the ability to do both the assessment and the training. We are leaving it in place for the heavy vehicle sector simply because of productivity and commercial requirements, but when it comes to class C licences I think it is important that we separate them, as per the ICAC report.

The CHAIR: The member for Flinders has actually had four questions already, but I will be lenient.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, I appreciate that, sir. The clarification is supplementary to that, and this is where I look at it from a regional perspective and the capacity to be able to have enough people to do the work. Would there be a scenario that you envision where assessors can be MDIs, or vice versa, but not for the same individual? For example, I could be a driving instructor doing the lessons for a student who I could not then assess, or I could assess a student who has received training from someone else. I have the ability and the skill set to do either, but not on the same student. So separate that out but obviously give the opportunity—especially in regional centres where you might not be able to have the capacity to attract people to do the separate jobs? Do you understand?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will be very clear: no. In regional areas, I expect public servants will have to move to regional areas to do assessments over a period of time if there are backlogs. I will be very clear: I understand the concerns that regional communities have about there not being enough assessors, so I would expect that there are a number of metropolitan-based assessors who would be required, under the terms and conditions of being a South Australian public sector employee, to travel to a regional centre to conduct assessments. What I am not going to have is in the industry people who do training and assessment for a class C licence. That is not going to happen anymore.

Mr TELFER: Even separately?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Even if it is separate. I am not going to have them saying, 'I can train Johnny but assess Jill.' No: you are either an assessor or you are a trainer. If you are an assessor you work for the South Australian government; if you are a trainer you are in the private sector. There is a very clear delineation of responsibilities. One is market driven.

Families will be able to go and see a price structure and a plan about what they need to do to train an individual to get their driver's licence, but the assessment is done independently, which means you cannot go off and (1) buy your driver's licence from a trainer, (2) trainers cannot extort vast amounts of money by continually failing the students and insisting on more training, and (3) people know themselves, people know their children and they know when they are ready.

I do say this as a Labor MP: I would have thought Liberals (conservatives) would have thought this is a much better system because a lot of farmers would have taught their children how to drive. A lot of people in regional areas do not necessarily need to do lessons. I imagine a lot of them have been driving well before they were potentially legally able to, but maybe on private roads.

My point is that, as long as the assessment is independent and rigorous, does it matter where you got your training? The member for Flinders is probably well equipped to train his own children how to drive. He might not have to spend a cent on driver training. Right now, people are spending up to $2,000, $3,000, sometimes $4,000 to teach their children how to drive. In a cost-of-living crisis, those types of dollars are huge. Then ask yourself, in this system, how many people of a lower socio-economic background, who require a driver's licence to get a job to go off and work, simply cannot afford to do so because the people who are offering the training are insisting on more and more training before you pass an assessment?

There is no rigour in between. There is no independent umpire who you can go to and say, 'I think I passed this test but I failed.' There is no camera, there is no independent assessment—you are completely reliant on the person you are paying to do the training. What we are attempting to do is to say, 'Hang on a second. The ICAC report is independent enough for us to rely on to think that there is a lot of extortion going on here and a lot of bribery and a lot of sexual assault, and we need to clean it up.'

I think, by and large, this legislation will fly through the parliament because I think we all generally know this is the right thing to do. I also understand that there are vested interests in industries that are very upset about this, and that is what should reassure us because that tells us everything we need to know about what we are cleaning up.

Mr BASHAM: Just a quick follow-up in understanding that answer in relation to someone training for a car not being able to assess: what about someone who is a heavy vehicle trainer? Could they be an assessor?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can you explain that?

Mr BASHAM: You said earlier that there is still going to be the private sector looking after heavy vehicles, but could someone who is a dedicated heavy vehicle trainer assess someone in regional areas? If the government employed someone as an assessor, could they employ that person as assessor—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For car licences?

Mr BASHAM: —for car licences if they do not do car licences.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No.

Clause passed.