Parliamentary Committees

Legislative Review Committee: Motor Vehicle Registry Petition

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (15:53): I move:

That the report of the committee, entitled Inquiry into 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 on 11 July 2019. Those amendments inserted section 16B—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 section 12(ba), Functions of Committee, into that act requiring the committee to inquire into, consider and report to parliament on any eligible petition referred to it.

As it was the member for Florey, Ms Frances Bedford MP, 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 12,705 signatures to the House of Assembly.

The 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 privatising the motor vehicle registry.

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 for Florey as to the process the committee might adopt in inquiring into petitions.

The committee next sought evidence from the then Minister for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, the member for Schubert, the Hon. Stephan Knoll MP. The former minister provided a letter attaching his responses to questions posed by the committee. 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 decision of the government without the committee needing to take further steps in its inquiry into the petition.

The petitioners' first request is that the government not privatise the motor vehicle registry, an action that the 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 it failed to do so, pursuant to that agreement, the government could be liable for a fee of $80 million. On 10 June 2020, the former minister confirmed to the committee that the government reached a decision in December 2019 not to privatise the motor vehicle registry.

The petitioners' second request is that the government maintain all Service SA centres and preserve face-to-face customer services at all centres. As members 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—are amongst the busiest centres. The member for Florey and other members also voiced concerns that seniors, residents who are not fluent in English and those with lower incomes would be particularly disadvantaged by a shift to online services. Closure of these centres could result in longer queues, longer wait times and poor service delivery at other already busy centres.

The former minister confirmed in correspondence dated 23 July 2020 to the committee that the government would no longer be proceeding with the proposed closure of the Service SA centres at Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect. The former minister also advised the committee that the government intends to progress other improvements to the existing centres. The former minister's correspondence states as follows:

We have trialled a new service delivery model in some of our centres, including the new flagship Currie Street Centre in the CBD, which has received positive feedback and seen a reduction in wait times. This new centre provides an alternative and modern way for customers to transact with five assisted self-service PCs and two self-service kiosks. Recognising that not everybody wants to or is able to transact online, the new Adelaide centre also offers six face-to-face service counters for customers that require or prefer this service.

We are now looking to rollout these better services across other Service SA centres around Adelaide.

Despite the government's decision, 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 decisions not to privatise the motor vehicle registry and not to close the Service SA centres at Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect, have satisfied the committee that the petitioners' concerns have been addressed. The service delivery model described by the former minister and already in place at the new Currie Street Service SA office has reportedly received positive reviews and feedback and, importantly for the petitioners, includes 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 centres, self-service PCs and kiosks. Therefore, the committee has made the following findings:

1. The government has indicated that it will not proceed with the privatisation of the motor vehicle registry. This decision means that citizens' personal data will remain in the hands of government entities and not private companies.

2. The government indicated it will not proceed with the closure of Service SA centres at Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect.

3. The government's intention to progress improvements to 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 2019 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 1991. The petition has enabled the voices of concerned citizens to be heard by both the parliament and the government.

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 decision 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 parliament and the government.

I would like to thank the current members of the Legislative Review Committee: the Hon. Zoe Bettison MP, Mr Fraser Ellis MP, Mr Nick McBride MP, the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC and the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos MLC. I also thank former members of the committee who were involved in this petition: Mr Josh Teague, Speaker of the House of Assembly; Mr Dan Cregan MP; the Hon. Dennis Hood MLC; and the Hon. Terry Stephens MLC.

In addition, I thank the committee secretary, Mr Matt Balfour, and the research officer, Ms Maureen Affleck, for their assistance. I would also like to express the committee's gratitude to Ms Frances Bedford MP and the Hon. Stephan Knoll MP for their contributions to the committee's inquiry into this petition.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.