STATUTES AMENDMENT (BUDGET 2010) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (12:39): I will conclude my remarks in summing up on the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2010) Bill. As I indicated earlier, we have heard a lot from the non-government members in this place about all the dreadful things that cuts to expenditure will do, but what we have not heard is any alternative policy. After all, the whole process of any budget is that the government of the day looks at its revenue, looks at the needs of the community and weighs it all up. It is a very difficult and complex situation. It is very easy to look at one side of the budget and say, 'You shouldn't have done this, that and the other', but you have to put forward an alternative.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Ms Bressington states the classic. It is the easiest thing in the world to be a critic but if everyone in the world were critics who would write the books or make the films for us? It is very easy to be critical but I would have thought that any alternative government would at least come up with some alternative.

I will at least note that the Hon. Mr Lucas, in his response to this bill, said that it was obviously a key part of the government's budget measures and without the measures in this bill the budget would not stand. He said that we have a government that knows the conventions in South Australia and that budgets are not opposed or defeated by oppositions and, like other jurisdictions, they have been adhered to by both the Liberal and Labor Parties for decades.

While any budget measure is subject to criticism in this place, and we accept that as part of the democratic process, at least the opposition (through the shadow spokesman) has indicated that it is has long been tradition in this place that the government should be able to get its budget through parliament. We will have to live with much of the criticism no matter how ill-founded it is.

Again, I remind people that if one wants to look at the economic credibility of this government then, first of all, look at the performance in this country in terms of avoiding the GFC and then compare the measures in this budget with the sort of austerity measures that are taking place in other parliaments throughout the world. As unpleasant as it is for members on this side to have to support some of those cuts (like leave loading for Public Service workers—not all of them by any means as I think less than half are affected—and the long service leave provisions which are, as has been pointed out, very generous by any standard), in the UK there is a wage freeze for two years.

All our public servants will have guaranteed wage rises, as they should have, in their bargain of 2.5 per cent over the next couple of years, but in the UK there is a wage freeze which is the equivalent, when compared to this state, of a 5 per cent cut in pay, as well as much greater cuts in jobs. One has to consider all these things in perspective. It is easy to be a critic but sooner or later those opposite should be challenged by the people outside who are very quick to join in those rallies as to what feasible alternatives they have—and, of course, they have none. We will obviously have more significant debate during the committee stage about some of these specific measures and I am very happy with that. My colleague the Minister for State/Local Government Relations and Government Enterprises will be able to assist me in answering some of those questions that are relevant to her parts of the budget.

In summing up, I will make a few comments on the other issue that has been raised by members during this debate. I have already referred to the public sector measures but I want to say a little about the Motor Vehicles Act component. As I said, we can have further debate on this when we get to the relevant clauses. There were also some issues raised in the House of Assembly in relation to this proposal to abolish registration labels for light vehicles. I would like at least to put answers to some of those questions on record, and they have been again raised by other members here this week.

In relation to photographic detection devices, concern was raised about the new schedule 1 to the Motor Vehicles Act 1959, which is clause 38. Currently, the Road Traffic Act 1961 includes an offence for an owner of an unregistered or uninsured vehicle where the driver of the vehicle is detected by photographic detection device. Because the Motor Vehicles Act will now have an offence for the owner of such a vehicle, regardless of how the offence is detected, the existing provision in the Road Traffic Act is being deleted. However, we still need to be able to use evidence obtained by photographic detection devices to prosecute this new offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, so it has become necessary for that act to include evidentiary and other provisions relating to offences detected by photographic detection devices.

It should be noted that the statutory requirements and evidentiary provisions relating to the operation and testing of photographic detection devices have not been changed by this bill. The requirement of the Road Traffic Act in relation to the operation and testing of the photographic detection devices will apply for all offences detected by photographic detection devices. SAPOL does not support any amendments to evidentiary provisions relating to the operation and testing of photographic detection devices.

In relation to interstate and overseas experiences, there were some questions raised in the other place by the member for Goyder. Western Australia abolished registration labels for light vehicles from 1 January 2010. I am advised that so far implementation has been successful for government and that the initiative has been well received by the community. I am further advised that Western Australia anticipates that it will undertake a formal review around 12 months after implementation. I am advised that other Australian states are also now considering the abolition of registration labels.

The member also asked about international comparisons, and I am advised that vehicle registration is legislated in many different ways internationally, and a registration label is not universal. For example, I am advised that countries such as Denmark and Brazil, and a number of states within the United States of America, such as Connecticut and New Jersey, do not have registration labels.

Now I refer to some clarification of offences and defences contained within this bill. The Motor Vehicle Act currently makes it an offence for a person to drive an unregistered or uninsured vehicle. However, because the government is proposing no longer to have registration labels displayed on light vehicles, it will not be immediately obvious to a driver who is not the owner that a vehicle is in fact unregistered or uninsured. Therefore the bill provides some relief in the form of a defence for a driver who is not the registered owner, or registered operator, of a vehicle, and who unwittingly drives it whilst it is unregistered or uninsured. Incidentally, can I just say there that I just wonder how many people, when they drive other vehicles or hook up their trailer, actually go and check the label to see.

An honourable member: Very few.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I think, as my colleague says, the evidence is very few indeed. The government feels that there are some circumstances in which a driver ought reasonably to know that the vehicle is unregistered or uninsured and the law should reflect that. An example may be where the driver is the husband or wife of the registered owner, or is otherwise closely connected to the registered owner, and to the vehicle, so that it is reasonable to expect that the driver should have known whether or not the vehicle was registered or insured. This will be a question for the court to decide on the facts of the case. There ought to be some obligation, however small, on those who ought to know that the vehicle is unregistered or uninsured.

An area of concern is those drivers connected only minimally to the ownership of the vehicle, such as people who work in motor repair shops, valet parking attendants, and others who frequently have to drive vehicles owned by other people, and who might be at risk in relation to driving an unregistered vehicle, now that there will be no label for them to check.

The government expects that, in nearly all cases, drivers of this kind will be able to establish the defence set out in the bill, because they will not have known that it was unregistered or uninsured, and they do not have the sort of connection to the vehicle or the owner where you might think that they ought to have known. It should be noted, however, that this is a defence to prosecution, and it will have to be proved by the defendant on the balance of probabilities. Obviously, it would be better for drivers of this kind not to be prosecuted at all.

For this reason the government advises drivers to make reasonable efforts to check the registration status of the vehicle before driving it. Ideally, drivers should check the website that is proposed to be set up for the purpose; but if that is not possible for some reason, then drivers should at least attempt to ask the owner whether or not the vehicle is registered before driving it. The legislation before the house does not specifically require drivers to make such checks before driving, because it is recognised that it would not always be possible or practicable to do so, but it is clearly a prudent thing to do.

In the other place, the member for Davenport requested clarification on the obligations of repairers. In a situation where a mechanic or a repairer checks on the registration status of a vehicle and finds that it is unregistered and uninsured, I advise that the mechanic or the repairer has no obligation to advise the owner of this status. I trust that this response addresses all those issues raised, but we can consider them further during the committee stage. I commend this bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 12:54 to 14:17]