STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 April 2008. Page 2530.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:32): As always, the opposition is keen to facilitate the business of the council, so I do not propose to recount the debate in the lower house or to go into any great detail to summarise the bill. Suffice it to say that the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill 2008 includes a number of amendments to a series of acts which are related to transport. Most of the changes are minor in nature and aim to improve the operation and administration of the respective pieces of legislation.

I do have a couple of questions on which I would appreciate the advice of the minister. That may not be possible before the passage of the act through this place, but I am happy to receive the advice by correspondence. There are three main themes in the bill. First, the bill aims to improve the management of unregistered and uninsured vehicles by making the offences of driving or leaving standing on a road an unregistered vehicle and/or uninsured vehicle expiable. Secondly, the bill also aims to improve compliance by increasing the perceived risk of detection by making both offences detectable by camera.

There was discussion in the lower house about the need to avoid a person becoming liable to a series of offences by camera. The government tried to mitigate that risk by including a provision that if a person received a notice within seven days then they would be waived, but after seven days they would be enforced. It is clearly an attempt to avoid unfair burdens on motorists who might have inadvertently overlooked a need to renew.

It does raise the issue, if you like, of natural justice within the operation of our road safety laws. In that context, I would be interested to know what the practice is in relation to multiple offences regarding the one event. I appreciate that the member for MacKillop in the lower house suggested scenarios which were not acceptable to the minister such as, for example, that you could have a limited number of speeding fines per day.

One can understand the government's position on that. You do not want people to feel as though: 'I have just been picked by a speed camera, so I am going to go for broke for the rest of the day.' It is possible for a motorist in relation to one single incident at one point of time to be liable for a whole series of road safety offences. It is possible to wipe out all your demerit points. In fact, to be honest with you, demerit points is the area of my greatest concern.

Even a significant financial penalty through a number of offences might be a burden for a number of motorists, but to have all your demerit points wiped out and have your licence withdrawn in relation to one incident would be unfair, except in extraordinary circumstances. I would appreciate the advice of the government as to what is the practice of the police and the prosecutorial authorities in relation to multiple offences relating to one road incident.

The third theme of the bill is to increase the maximum penalties for driving an unregistered vehicle or driving uninsured. The government figures were impressive, in a negative sense. They were that in 2000-01 there were 14,500 unregistered or uninsured charges before the courts, and in 2005-06 that number had increased to over 19,000 charges. The total number of unregistered and/or uninsured vehicles being used on the road network, of course, is likely to be much higher.

The government says that the increase in penalties is designed to counteract the perceived financial benefit of not paying the registration and insurance fees, and allows the courts to impose penalties that equate to the amount of registration and insurance avoided and reflects the seriousness of those offences, and the opposition accepts that.

I was interested, in looking at the bill, that it seemed to be the sort of bill that could have included the government's proposed mandatory carriage of licence. I would ask the government whether in fact the government has dropped that proposal. Its absence from this bill seems to suggest that it has been. With those comments, I indicate that the opposition supports the passage of this bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:37): I rise to indicate Family First's support for this bill. I note that Family First introduced a similar bill with an identical aim as the main objective of this bill back on 6 December 2006. In fact, our bill to expiate unregistered/uninsured motor vehicles passed this council and still remains at No. 23 on the Notice Paper in the other place, as we were unable to obtain government support for it.

At that time, after studying the court lists in four Adelaide jurisdictions over a period of seven weeks, we discovered an alarming statistic; that is, the offences of driving whilst uninsured and unregistered consume one-sixth of all matters in the Magistrates Court. Over a seven-week period we counted some 3,347 cases involving one or both of these offences. That is in just seven weeks in the court lists of only four of our prominent courts—specifically, the Adelaide, Holden Hill, Elizabeth and Port Adelaide magistrates courts. Christies Beach court was not included, nor any of the country courts or circuit courts.

Nevertheless, the figures are clear that we are sending tens of thousands of these cases to court each year, perhaps unnecessarily. The Elizabeth Magistrates Court was the worst offender (if I can put it that way) during our study of this data, with some 44.7 per cent of matters on a particular day being one of these two offences. Overall 21.1 per cent of all matters before the courts featured one of these two offences. That is just over one in five matters before the court and potentially, therefore, one day a week being taken up by magistrates dealing with uninsured motor vehicles.

For the record, over the four trial court jurisdictions Elizabeth dealt with either of these offences 21.1 per cent of the time, Holden Hill 20.8 per cent, Port Adelaide 18.9 per cent and Adelaide was significantly lower at 12.1 per cent. The total number of unregistered and uninsured cases we examined was 16.5 per cent of the caseload of the magistrates courts across the four magistrates courts in Adelaide over a six-week period. Conceivably, 16.5 per cent of the total cases in the magistrates courts would disappear if this bill were passed.

In reality, these matters are often quicker to sort out than other types of offending, but the court process is devoting significant time and resources to deal with these offences which could be otherwise dealt with. Currently, we have what Family First describes as a fractured system. People who forget to pay their car registration on time are hauled before the courts, yet illicit drug cultivators are given on-the-spot fines. I would much prefer that we switch the way in which we deal with these offences, and I hope that the measure before us today will free up court time to deal more properly with drug dealers and other criminals.

This is an offence that other jurisdictions expiate; in other words, they grant on-the-spot fines for them. The reason for that is that most, but not all, offenders are honest people who have simply forgotten to pay their car registration. I am careful not to over-minimise the offence. However, as an uninsured motor vehicle is exactly that—uninsured—with respect to third party personal injury we must remember that serious financial issues need to be sorted out when drivers of uninsured motor vehicles are involved in accidents.

Queensland is one of the jurisdictions that expiates matters such as this. From May 2005 to April 2006, Queensland handled some 36,124 expiations for unregistered vehicles and trailers and 21,197 expiations for having no compulsory third party insurance—a total of some 57,321 expiations in 13 months. Clearly, they are seeing a significant saving in resources.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This bill proposes an expiation fee of $250 for an unregistered vehicle being driven or left standing on the road and $500 if that vehicle also becomes uninsured—which I understand occurs 28 days after the registration lapses. The proposed fines are similar to the interstate average. The expiation fees in Queensland range from $120 for an unregistered trailer up to $1,200 for an unregistered B-double truck. For an uninsured vehicle, it ranges from $150 for a motorcycle to some $900 for a B double.

In New South Wales, the expiation fee is $461 for a class A (standard vehicle) and $974 plus four demerit points for class B, class C or heavier vehicles. In Victoria, the expiation fee for driving an unregistered vehicle starts at $110 for an unregistered motorcycle of less than 60cc through to $500 for a two-axle vehicle and up to $900 for a vehicle with more than four axles. In the ACT, the expiation fees are $484 for each offence; in other words, $968 for the usual case where both offences are committed. Finally, in the Northern Territory, the expiation fee is $200 if the registration and insurance are less than one month overdue, $500 if they are between one and 12 months overdue, and if it is a trailer a flat rate of $100 applies.

This bill is essentially for people who have simply forgotten to pay their registration for a period not exceeding 30 days. Someone might be overseas or interstate on holidays or business, the registration renewal might arrive in the post but they do not pay it and, as a consequence, they get a court summons.

Not surprisingly, I prefer Family First's bill to this bill, which imposes the same penalty for a car uninsured for one day as it does for a vehicle uninsured for six months. The Family First bill gave people who simply forgot to pay their registration on time an on-the-spot fine, but forced drivers of long-term unregistered motor vehicles to court. Our bill also distinguished between unregistered motor vehicles and unregistered trailers. They are clearly offences of a different magnitude but they are treated similarly by this bill.

Nevertheless, we are happy that the government has brought up this proposal. We think it is an incredibly sensible proposal. It will free up court time so the courts can deal with real criminal matters, and it will stop making criminals out of many ordinary people who simply forget to pay their car registration on time.

I have raised with the minister's staff our concerns regarding expiation fees for unregistered trailers. I have also raised our concern regarding clause 28, which provides for a seven-day grace period when an unregistered car is caught on a Safe-T-Cam camera. These cameras automatically recognise numberplates on unregistered cars, and I have suggested that seven days is potentially not long enough for a Safe-T-Cam fine to be processed and received by the driver; something like 14 days might be more appropriate.

I have also raised whether it would be more appropriate for these notices to be sent by registered post or a process server, as is done with notices of licence disqualification. Overall, however, this is a welcome and sensible bill from Family First's point of view. We certainly endorse the bill and we thank the government for listening to Family First's concerns regarding the expiation of these offences. We indicate our support for the second reading.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (17:44): I thank the Hons Mr Wade and Mr Hood for their contributions to this bill. The Hon. Mr Wade asked: what is the practice re multiple offences relating to one road incident? I am advised that a person cannot get multiple demerit points unless it is a red light and speeding offence as prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act. That is the only occasion. In all cases, I am advised that where two or more offences arise from the same incident the highest demerit points apply. If three offences were committed with two points, two points and five points, the person would get five points. In relation to the mandatory carriage of a driver's licence, my advice is that provisional and heavy vehicle drivers—as well as those subject to alcohol interlock schemes—are required to carry their licence. The matter of making the carriage of a driver's licence mandatory has not yet been considered by cabinet. There are some proposals around, but, at this point, that matter has not been considered by cabinet. I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I refer to the contribution of the Hon. Mr Hood who queried whether seven days' notice might be sufficient in terms of equity or fairness for people to be notified of the fact that they have been identified as an uninsured or unregistered driver. I do not have the document with me, but my understanding was that the material on this bill suggests the introduction of digital cameras might reduce the time to three days rather than seven days. Would the minister be able to clarify that in the context of the Hon. Mr Hood's comments?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that the government has chosen the seven-day period because not only does the photograph have to be taken but also it has to be downloaded. It then has to be adjudicated, and the sorts of issues that might arise in the adjudication process would be whether or not the vehicle was stolen, whether the vehicle currently was subject to a change of ownership and, perhaps, whether the vehicle was unregistered but at the same time driven under a permit. They are the sorts of matters that might be subject to the adjudication. Of course, following all that, the matter must be processed and the expiation notice issued, so that is why it is seven days.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Would that period be reduced to three days with digital cameras?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that, with the improvement in technology, it may be possible. I digress for a moment to say that at the police ministers' conference a week or so ago there were talks about better linkages of databases into things such as international databases on stolen goods, drivers' licences, and so on. It would be possible to reduce the time, but at this stage the government intends to stick with the seven days because, even if it is theoretically available, the technology may not yet have access to it. Also, the seven days does take into account any unforeseen delays that might occur. It does have that buffer.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 33) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.