Second-hand Vehicle Dealers (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 March 2024.)

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:29): I rise to speak on the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I have amendments that are designed to protect consumers, not water down protections, but I gather that the government, the opposition and other crossbenchers have indicated they will not support them, disappointingly, so I will not be moving them.

While I am generally supportive of this bill, it contains some measures to dilute existing protections in place for buyers of second-hand vehicles, used cars, from licensed dealers, which I see is a real risk. I was proposing a significant amendment to this bill that would have covered private sales and a requirement to have roadworthy safety certificates with the sale of every second-hand vehicle in the state, a replication of what has existed quite successfully for years in states like New South Wales where they are also known as pink or blue slips, or certificates.

To my knowledge, South Australia is the only state in the country where you can continuously drive and register a car without any checks or compliance reporting unless that vehicle is defected or its registration has lapsed. You can sell it, you can transfer the registration and you can keep it on the road without any safety checks or roadworthy condition checks.

My interstate colleagues, especially those in New South Wales where annual registration road safety certificates are mandatory, are astonished to hear this, particularly following a year when we had a record road toll. These certification processes pick up a huge range of defects and faults that must be rectified to register the vehicle—for example, worn tyres, headlights and indicators not working, worn brakes, cracked windscreens, excessive exhaust, excessive noise or modifications that are not approved.

However, I have decided to formulate a separate lemon laws private member's bill, which I will introduce shortly. I have discussed this with the Motor Trade Association and the RAA. The MTA supports it, while the RAA has some reservations even though it covers key areas of prime concern for them: consumer protections, road safety and roadworthiness of vehicles on our roads.

I can confidently state that I have had more run-ins with dodgy car dealers and sellers than any other member in this place, so I am quite familiar with the shonks who have been out there and their dishonest and deceptive practices used to fleece many unsuspecting and trusting buyers, from teenagers right through to single mums and of course pensioners, all of whom scrimp and save hard to afford a set of wheels that will not let them down and cost them a fortune to fix once they have taken ownership.

I have exposed crooks who have sold written-off vehicles like cut and shut repair jobs where two pieces of a car are badly welded together, only to lie to the buyers that the vehicle was never involved in a crash. To the buyers' horror, not only was the repair job shoddy and illegal but there were serious and unseen problems with bent chassis.

Then there was the licensed dealer selling from his backyard. He whizzed back the odometer on one car that was once a taxi by almost a million miles—that is more than three trips to the Moon. There was also the unscrupulous moron who sold a vulnerable student and migrant a vehicle that was 10 years older than what he had written on the sales information and registration forms. This case highlights the problems that still exist today.

If, say, a vehicle manufactured in 1997 is imported from overseas in 2007, its year of manufacture is officially listed on registration certificates as the date on which it came into South Australia. Thus you can easily fool a buyer by saying, 'Well, a 1997-plated vehicle was first registered here in 2007 and therefore it's a 2007 model.' This needs to change.

Another dirty trick was selling off a vehicle which was still mortgaged to a finance company—there are checks in place for this, but there are occasions when people still get caught, especially in private sales—or flogging off cars from interstate which may have been damaged by floodwaters. I once investigated a very large car yard, which as a consequence went bust, that was bribing a justice of the peace to be on site to coerce buyers to sign away their cooling-off rights.

This government bill goes even further, completely removing any requirement for an independent witness. Like with buying a house, there is a lot of emotion that goes into selecting a car, and there is also a lot of trust in the person selling it to you, particularly if you are buying it privately, because there are no warranties applicable, unless, of course, it is a newer model with some new car warranty still in existence.

Many people do pay a little extra to get an inspection done through a reputable repairer or take it to the RAA, but these checks can be quite expensive and battlers usually do not have the extra cash to get that peace of mind. They simply trust the seller is telling the truth—blind faith, sometimes.

Backyarders are still out there, defying the law or getting around it in being able to sell more than the mandated four cars in a year. They simply use another family member. They certainly flourished during the COVID epidemic when the prices of used and new cars skyrocketed because demand exceeded the supply with very limited numbers coming in from overseas. Licensed car dealers can also sell legally from their front yard.

A savvy consumer may ask about warranty, but a more emotive buyer with limited funds may just want to snap up what appears to be a bargain, not realising it is without warranty or having any understanding of the list of defects, as this government bill allows for. Then in their excitement they can waive their cooling-off rights because there will no longer be a requirement for an independent witness. How, I would ask the minister, does this protect consumers?

This bill is primarily aimed at dealers, but there are some provisions applicable to private sales too; for example, increasing penalties regarding odometer tampering and a new offence for making false or misleading statements about an odometer reading in private sales. I welcome the 15-fold increase in the penalty for odometer tampering to $150,000 for first and second offences, which comes with an additional two-year maximum sentence for subsequent offending.

We are not hard enough on these crooks, and this is made most obvious by the statistics. Only nine successful odometer tampering prosecutions have occurred here between 2016 and 2023, and the highest penalty imposed was a measly $4,200 fine and a suspended sentence, when the maximum penalty is $10,000. They probably paid the fine with all the additional profit they made from the tampered odometer.

These changes are important because, as the RAA and MTA tell me, three out of every four second-hand cars sold in South Australia today are sold privately. This is often through Marketplace, Gumtree or other online markets where the seller can literally disappear overnight.

My amendments were simply about reinforcing consumer protections, not winding them back, as some elements of this bill actually do. In brief, irrespective of where the buyer was buying a second-hand car, I wanted the consumer to know the name and postcode of the last-known owner who was not a dealer and if they were a leasing or hire business. In my view, to relieve the dealer or seller of this obligation on the grounds of privacy and to put the onus on the purchaser to actively and deliberately request this information is seriously watering down an important consumer protection.

In our briefing with the government, we were told that there have been no documented privacy concerns, so why are we even making this change at all? The government bill just makes it easier for the seller to hide possible red flags from an unsuspecting buyer and places the onus back on an expectation that the purchaser knows their rights to request information. Personally, I would want to know if the car had spent its entire life in the sea air of coastal South Australia or on an island or had been in the Lismore floods.

The consumer should be entitled to know what the vehicle was previously used for, and one of my amendments was going to do this. I recognise that sometimes there are privacy concerns, and the amendment did provide for the previous owner to protect their private information by instructing a dealer not to disclose this information in the display notice or in documentation concerning the sale.

There are still more challenges ahead for this industry as more people move towards electric and hybrid vehicles. The life and wear and tear of a battery will be one such challenge. New lithium car batteries are expensive to replace, up to $20,000 each on some models out there. It is probably more than the car would be worth. Would you ever contemplate buying a second-hand Prius or a Tesla? I would not.

I am pleased to say that in recent years I have noticed more ethical conduct from established and reputable car dealers, but as the shift to online purchases continues we need to have more, not less, robust consumer protections in place. Sadly, in my experience, some car manufacturers do all they can to frustrate claims for compensation or replacement of lemon vehicles that have either caught fire, repeatedly broken down or had unseen manufacturing faults not caught in vehicle recalls.

Cars today are far more complex pieces of technology than they were 30 or more years ago, and they are costly to fix if something goes wrong beyond the warranty period. I do not think the minister appreciates just what the going rate is now to take your car to a mechanic just for a service or a check-up. You are looking at somewhere between at least $80 an hour to $150 to $200 an hour depending on the make of the vehicle.

These are pretty tough times at the moment and, of course, as we know, in cost-of-living pressure situations there are some things that consumers tend to leave aside and not spend money on, and one of the first is usually car repairs which they leave until something drastic happens and they are forced to get them repaired, but the costs are horrendous for them.

The private member's bill that I intend to introduce shortly will go to these issues that have persisted for years. The anti-lemon laws and measures I am proposing will ensure that dangerous bombs are off our roads, and that unscrupulous vendors can no longer hide behind caveat emptor. It was disappointing to learn, as I said previously, that my amendments will not be supported. In fact, I was told by the opposition that they did not want to create unnecessary paperwork for business. Seriously? We are talking about trying to protect consumers here.

Are they putting that ahead of consumer protections? They will not likely ever have to experience a dud deal, given their generous entitlements. This amendment was about measures to save money for battlers. With those closing remarks, as I said, I will not be moving my amendments, and I will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (15:44): I stand to support this bill and to go through major changes that are occurring. Under part 4 of the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers Act 1995, dealers and auctioneers selling cars on behalf of dealers have a duty to repair a defect that is present in a vehicle or appears in the vehicle after it is sold. There are a number of exceptions to this requirement, including vehicles that are over 15 years old or have been driven more than 200,000 kilometres before the sale. Dealers and auctioneers selling cars on behalf of dealers will now be permitted to disclose defects in a vehicle that will not be subject to the duty of repair, provided the vehicle remains safe to drive on the road.

The dealer and the purchaser will need to sign a prescribed form listing and acknowledging the defects. This amendment brings South Australia up to date with similar arrangements in other jurisdictions and aligned with consumer guarantees in the Australian Consumer Law.

In section 33(2), purchasers are currently able to waive their rights to have a defective vehicle repaired under section 23—duty to repair requirements—by signing a prescribed document. Amendments to section 33 will remove the ability to waive this right to have a vehicle repaired under the duty to repair. This approach brings South Australia into line with the ACL requirements that purchased goods must be of acceptable quality and fit for purpose.

In section 33(2a), under section 33 of the current act a consumer intending to waive their right to the two-day cooling-off period after a vehicle sale must sign a prescribed form in the presence of a witness other than the dealer. Under the proposed amendments the document has been retained to ensure that consumers are clearly informed about the implications of waiving their entitlement to the cooling-off period, but purchasers will no longer require an independent witness to sign this document.

Under sections 16 and 20, dealers and auctioneers will not be required to display the name and address of a previous vehicle owner on notice-of-sale forms under changes to these sections of the act. However, a potential purchaser will still be able to access this information on request of the dealer or auctioneer, and failure to provide the information will attract a maximum penalty of $5,000. In circumstances where this information is not reasonably available, Consumer and Business Services will not take enforcement action against the dealer or auctioneer—for example, where a vehicle has been purchased in another state where the requirement to disclose previous owner details does not apply.

These amendments seek to streamline sales, preserve the privacy of previous vehicle owners and ensure that consumers have access to information to support their purchasing decisions. Under sections 16 and 20, dealers and auctioneers will not be required to display the name and address of the person to whom the vehicle was previously leased as a taxi or hire car on the notice-of-sale for a vehicle under changes to these sections of the act. However, dealers and auctioneers will be required to provide these details on request from a prospective purchaser. Failure to provide the information will attract a maximum penalty of $5,000.

In circumstances where this information is not reasonably available, the CBS will not take enforcement against the dealer or auctioneer where the vehicle has been purchased in another state where the requirements to disclose previous lessee details do not apply. These amendments also seek to preserve the privacy of previous vehicle lessees, whilst ensuring that consumers have access to information to support their purchasing decisions.

The maximum penalty for odometer tampering offences will increase from $10,000 to $150,000 for the first and second offences, and $150,000 and/or imprisonment for two years for third and subsequent offences. Odometer tampering is a serious offence of deception that causes significant harm to consumers and allows unsafe vehicles to circulate on the road. These amendments to section 34 of the act will see South Australia leading the nation, with the toughest penalties in Australia for odometer tampering.

Increased penalties for unlicensed dealing: for the first and second offences by natural persons the penalty for unlicensed dealing will increase from $100,000 to $150,000. For third and subsequent offences, the penalty will increase from $100,000 or 12 months' imprisonment, or both, to $250,000 or two years' imprisonment, or both. The maximum penalty for body corporates will also increase from $250,000 to $500,000 under section 7 of the act. Increasing these penalties may deter more individuals from flouting the law, and better protect the community and licensed dealers from this harmful activity.

Regarding false and misleading statements about odometer readings, under new section 34A a new offence will be created for false and misleading statements about the accuracy of odometer readings on vehicles. A maximum penalty of $30,000 or two years' imprisonment will apply where a person knowingly makes a false or misleading statement about the accuracy of a vehicle odometer reading to a purchaser or prospective purchaser. At present, only dealers can be prosecuted for false and misleading statements about odometer readings under relevant provisions of the ACL. The new offence in the proposed section 34A intends to deter private sellers from engaging in the same conduct.

Regarding compensation for odometer tampering, section 34(6), currently, victims of odometer tampering can only obtain compensation where a dealer has been convicted of an odometer tampering offence. Where a private seller is convicted of the same offence, no compensation is available under the act. Under this amendment to section 34, courts will have the capacity to order compensation for a person who purchased a vehicle with a tampered odometer from a private seller, where the private seller has been convicted of an odometer tampering offence. Compensation would relate to any disadvantage suffered by the purchaser, including costs incurred, or likely to be incurred, to rectify the odometer on the vehicle.

Under new section 34B, the commissioner will have powers to rectify altered odometers. The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs will receive new powers to direct a person to rectify an altered odometer or refrain from selling or disposing of a vehicle with an altered odometer unless the commissioner has provided written approval or the vehicle odometer has been rectified. The new section 34B in the act will ensure that vehicles with an incorrect odometer reading are not allowed to continue circulating in the community, misleading potential purchasers.

The commissioner will initially provide a written notice of the direction and individuals will be able to seek a review of this direction through the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT). Failing to comply with a direction will attract a maximum penalty of $20,000. The commissioner will also be able to issue directions where odometer interference occurred before the amendment act commenced.

Electric and hybrid vehicles in sections 3(2) and 23(7): duty to repair requirements will be expanded to cover the main propulsion battery for hybrid and electric vehicles within the statutory warranty period, recognising the growing popularity of these vehicles in South Australia and the need for equivalent protections for these vehicle owners. The duty will apply to electric and hybrid vehicles purchased before or after commencement of the amendment act.

Under schedule 3, section 3(2), the purposes of the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers' Compensation Fund will be expanded so that the fund can be used for education, research or reform programs that benefit dealers, auctioneers, salespersons or the general public. Under the changes to schedule 3 of the act, any proposed expenditure on these programs would still require approval from the minister.

Regarding additional information in contracts of sale, in section 17(1a), dealers will be permitted to include additional information as they see fit in the contract of sale, provided that the contract retains important information required by section 17 of the act and prescribed forms 5 and 6 in the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers Regulations 2010.

This amendment aims to reduce red tape and provide greater flexibility for dealers, whilst retaining important information for consumers about their rights and obligations under contracts of sale. Dealers will be able to include information such as the names or identification of salespersons, vehicle stock numbers and other details that are relevant to their operations or a vehicle sale.

Regarding fax communication, sections 18B(3) and 51(1): section 18B of the act will be amended to remove the option of fax communication for purchasers providing written notice to a dealer of their intention to rescind a sale contract during the cooling-off period. Section 51 will also be amended to remove the option of fax communication for service of documents under the act. These amendments reflect changes to communication practices in the industry, including the increased use of email and the declining use of fax communication.

These very important amendments will make consumers much more confident in not being shonked while buying a car. Many years ago, I remember being at a function where a particular car dealer was complaining about how the new consumer protection laws were interfering with his business. His attitude was, in his exact words: 'If someone is a sucker enough to buy a vehicle they should cop the consequences.' It always stuck with me how some of these dealers—not all, most of them are very honest—have no consideration at all for the rights of consumers. This legislation will hopefully come some way towards getting some decency in the industry.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:55): I rise to indicate Liberal Party support for amendments contained in the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. Indeed, the existing act has been in place for some time and forms part of the suite of protections for consumers that have been brought into effect at state and national level over many decades. As has been the attitude in the past, it has been very much the onus of purchasers, according to 'caveat emptor' or 'buyer beware'.

Over the years we have had an increased appreciation that people who sell things can be deceptive. I think we have all had our own stories to tell, over the years, about things that we had purchased and which were not as we had thought they were. For those situations we need to have remedies, and in some cases very strong remedies.

There is a duty of care for sellers or vendors—in this case the language is vehicle dealers versus the duty of the consumer to ensure that they have attempted to make themselves aware of any reasons why they may not wish to purchase a particular product, in this case a second-hand vehicle. Over the years as well, particularly from organisations such as the Motor Trade Association of South Australia, issues have been raised about private sellers who have not been captured by the consumer protection laws in this act in the same way that licensed dealers have. One of the things that was raised with me at some stage was people who were selling cars advertised on the side of the road, who were able to escape paying any of the fees associated with that and did not provide any of the consumer protections.

We do need to review these laws from time to time because I think we need to strike a balance between fair trade, transparency in disclosure and also minimising unnecessary paperwork, because unnecessary paperwork actually equals costs, and the people who ultimately bear costs are the consumers. That then brings us to this particular legislation, which I would consider a review to try to rectify the balance in what is a reasonably significant existing act. There are some things that may have been put into the act that were well-intentioned at the time but are perhaps now unnecessary, and there is a need to address issues that are emerging.

As has already been referred to by my colleague the Hon. Russell Wortley—and indeed also in the other place by the member for Heysen, Josh Teague, who is the shadow minister for this space—there is the matter of odometer tampering.

I am not going to speak in detail about all of the provisions in the bill, but just speak about the ones which are the most significant. The position of a buyer is that they want to know that what they think they are buying is what they are actually buying. I think if there is disclosure in this process, and they are aware of it, then people would be satisfied with that. There are amendments, which will enable disclosed defects in a vehicle to now need to be repaired, provided that the vehicle remains safe to drive on the road, and that will be done through prescribed forms to acknowledge those defects.

There are also matters of waiving the duty to repair rights through signing of a prescribed document, waiving of cooling-off rights, which is, again, through a prescribed form, and I do note that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has amendments in relation to the independent witness, which we will be supporting, because we think that is an important consumer protection, particularly for more vulnerable clients.

In terms of some of the paperwork, which perhaps was a good idea at the time, for either privacy reasons or because it is not actually particularly useful to include that in every case, matters such as the previous owner details and hire car history will no longer be required. There is a number of amendments in relation to odometer tampering, including increasing of penalties for the first and second offences and a potential imprisonment for third and subsequent offences.

There are penalties for unlicensed dealing, which I think is potentially a very serious issue as well in this space. Again, there is a new offence for false and misleading statements about the accuracy of odometer readings. Then there are some areas which will address matters where there have been cases of odometer tampering. Where consumers have been caught, the commissioner can rectify odometers, and there will be compensation available for those who have been victims of odometer tampering.

Electric and hybrid vehicles is an emerging area, so there will be a new section that will cover areas in relation to batteries within the statutory warranty period, and a few other matters, which I think can be broadly considered as administrative. It is important that all of our laws are reviewed on a regular basis, particularly consumer protection laws, as we know that modes and modalities in terms of communication change over time, but also areas emerge which may not have been covered by previous legislation.

As the Hon. Frank Pangallo has already outlined, we will not be supporting his amendments. He has been made aware of that. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:03): This bill proposes changes to the existing South Australian Second-hand Vehicle Dealers Act 1995. The bill significantly increases penalties for various offences committed by dealers, including failing to be licensed, tampering with odometers, and not disclosing previous owner information.

The bill strengthens consumer protection by requiring dealers to disclose the name and address of the previous owner upon request. It allows dealers to include additional information beyond minimum requirements and sales contracts. It gives the commissioner power to direct owners to fix inaccurate odometers and to prevent them from selling the vehicle until it is fixed. The bill creates an offence for making false and misleading statements about odometer readings.

The bill will also expand the purposes for which the Second-hand Vehicles Dealers' Compensation Fund can be used. It is important to protect consumer rights, not just in the interests of safety but also to ensure value for money when purchasing a second-hand vehicle. I am pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:04): I rise to speak in support of the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2023. As we have heard from several speakers now, the bill seeks to modernise several aspects of the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers Act, taking into account stakeholder feedback and ensuring parity with national consumer protection laws.

There is one aspect of the bill that I have looked at more closely in terms of what was originally in the bill, and I will speak to that during the amendments, but I have filed an amendment that seeks to delete the clause eliminating the requirement for an independent witness signature on the cooling-off waiver form. I note for the record that this was an issue over which I had lengthy discussions with the RAA during my briefings. Very generally speaking, we have heard that the stakeholder feedback has been positive subject to a couple of areas, and this is certainly one that the RAA raised with me and is a concern that I share.

The suggestion has been that the independent witness signature may not offer the intended safeguard as purchasers might find someone to fulfil that role easily without any accountability, randomly grabbing somebody on the street and getting them to sign as that witness. I do not accept this as a sufficient reason to do away with this important step. The two-day cooling-off period exists for very good reason, and it is particularly important for vulnerable purchasers.

I appreciate that there are many well-informed and rational purchasers who wish to exercise the option of taking immediate possession of their purchase, which is why the waiver form should be retained, but I do not think getting an independent witness signature is a particularly onerous step for that class of purchasers. They are not the ones I am concerned about with this amendment. The acquisition of a second-hand vehicle represents a substantial financial commitment for many people. We are talking on average $30,000, maybe less, maybe more, sometimes significantly more.

If you think about an overly enthusiastic purchaser, my mind goes straight to a very young purchaser in particular, an 18 year old who has just got their licence. I can recall a very real example of this: an enthusiastic 18 year old embarking on their first major purchase without the guidance of a parent or guardian around them, eager to get on the road as quickly as possible. That is one example of what could be a vulnerable purchaser. In those instances, in that haste, I do not think it takes much to understand that they might sign anything in that excitement of getting behind the wheel of their brand new car.

They also might not appreciate the implications of what it is they are signing. Certainly, if approached on the street by an 18 year old—hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?—seeking such a signature, I think most of us would feel compelled to ascertain a basic understanding of the document's implications and potential consequences. That is really why this exists in the first place. It is not an onerous step. I have had a look at the CBS website. The form is there. The sample form is there for everybody to see: document 2, requiring that independent witness signature. Whilst it might not be necessary in all the cases, in many cases, I think it is critically important.

I am not the only one who shares that view. I certainly know that this is an issue, as I said, where overall the RAA has indicated to me their support for modernising this piece of legislation, but that is the one area that was pointed out and one that stood out to me as requiring some change, and it is for that reason that I am seeking to amend that provision. I am speaking to this now so we do not need to repeat it later, but it is for that reason that I will be moving the amendment.

Under section 33, a consumer intending to waive their right to the two-day cooling-off period after a vehicle sale has to sign that prescribed form—document 2, as I said—in the presence of a witness other than the dealer. Under the proposed amendment, the document 2 has been retained to ensure consumers are clearly informed about the implications of waiving their entitlements to the cooling-off period, but the purchaser will no longer require an independent witness to sign this document.

It is that part of the government's bill that I am seeking to amend to ensure that vulnerable purchasers in particular, but not necessarily even vulnerable purchasers, have an extra layer of security there that we should not do away with. As I said, the class of people we are concerned about are the ones who are going to benefit from keeping that witness requirement there, and it is for that reason that I am moving this amendment.

Overall, the rest of the changes I think are reasonable and sensible, as have been described by the government and other members in this place. I am overall supportive of the bill subject of course to that one change which has the support of at least the RAA in this instance, who have raised these concerns, I am sure, with others as well. With those words, I indicate my support for the bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:10): I rise to speak in support of the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2023. This bill aims to strengthen accountability in the second-hand vehicle dealer sector as well as offering protections to people who purchase a second-hand vehicle.

Many will be aware of the longstanding stereotypes that reflect a degree of scepticism about the reputations of used car salespeople. Obviously, not all used vehicle salespeople fit such stereotypes; however, the fact that they exist suggests there are varying degrees of trust and confidence in our community towards purchasing a vehicle from a second-hand dealer or auctioneer.

The purchase of a car can be an important and expensive decision in a person's life. We all have a right to know that a car we choose will be safe and roadworthy. This bill makes key changes to the protections of people purchasing a second-hand vehicle and increases penalties for individuals who flout the laws through actions such as tampering with a vehicle odometer.

This lawbreaking action has far-reaching consequences for both buyers and sellers. It undermines trust in the used vehicle market and can result in financial losses and safety hazards. We know that the distance a car is shown to have travelled on its odometer affects the roadworthiness of the vehicle.

Odometer tampering conceals the correct wear and tear on a vehicle and can lead to unexpected repair costs and depreciation of the vehicle's true value. This bill treats odometer tampering as a serious offence by increasing the maximum penalty from $10,000 to $150,000 for first and second offences, and to $150,000 and/or two years' imprisonment for third and subsequent offences.

At present, only dealers can be prosecuted for false and misleading statements about odometer readings under relevant provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. New section 34A intends to deter private sellers from engaging in the same conduct. The maximum penalty of $30,000 or two years' imprisonment will apply where a person knowingly makes a false or misleading statement about the accuracy of a vehicle odometer reading when selling a vehicle privately.

The duty to repair requirements will extend to electric vehicles, recognising the growing popularity of these vehicles in South Australia and the need for equivalent protections. Sections 3(2) and 23(7) will expand to cover the main driving force battery for hybrid and electric vehicles within the statutory warranty period. The duty will apply to electric and hybrid vehicles purchased before or after commencement of the amendment act.

Under part 4 of the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers Act 1995 dealers and auctioneers selling cars will be permitted to disclose defects in a vehicle that will not be subject to the duty to repair as long as the vehicle remains safe to drive on a road. The dealer and purchaser will need to sign a form that lists and acknowledges these defects.

The bill also updates the Second-hand Vehicle Dealers' Compensation Fund. Currently, dealers provide financial contributions to this fund, which is used to compensate consumers where there is no reasonable way of recovering the money they are owed by a dealer. It broadens the use of the fund to include programs relating to education, research or reforms that benefit dealers, salespersons or members of the public.

The bill increases penalties for other unscrupulous actions within the second-hand vehicle sector, such as increased penalties for unlicensed dealing. It will improve parts of the act relating to cooling-off periods, disclosure of information about previous vehicle owners, contracts of sale and penalties for noncompliance by dealers. These changes have been subject to consultation with key industry groups, including the Motor Trade Association and the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia. I therefore commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:17): I thank all members for their contributions: the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Russell Wortley. Indeed, this is an important bit of legislation that provides efficiencies and greater consumer protection.

In the Hon. Frank Pangallo's contribution he noted that he had a number of amendments that he was not going to file, understanding where the support lay in the chamber. I thought it might be worth, though, just glancing over the reasons we are not supporting those amendments for the sake of completeness.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo had an amendment in relation to the names and addresses of the last vehicle owner who was not a dealer; that would have been the first amendment. The reason the government did not support that amendment is the following: removing the current requirement to disclose the previous owner or lessee's name and address on a publicly available notice was in response to privacy concerns raised during the consultation.

When preparing the bill, careful consideration was given to the details required and the way this is disclosed by car dealers to prospective buyers. In the event that the bill passed in the form that we are looking at now, the name and address of the last owner of the vehicle and, in the event of the vehicle being in a leasing agreement, the lessee's name and address will be available from the car dealer upon request from the potential purchaser of the vehicle.

Another intention of this bill is to simplify the requirements and reduce administrative burden. The first proposed amendment from the Hon. Frank Pangallo would have placed additional burden on car dealers to specify the previous use of the vehicle. Car dealers may not have access to accurate information about the vehicle's previous owner and past use, so this information may not be helpful and could even be misleading. For example, information about previous owners is generally not available where a vehicle is bought at auction in another jurisdiction where the same disclosure requirements are not in place.

It should be recognised that a vehicle's age and odometer reading can provide a prospective purchaser with information to reach conclusions about what the likely previous usage for the vehicle may have been. Importantly, no other jurisdictions impose such a requirement to display this information in the notice of sale. The proposal will provide the previous owner's full name, address and postcode. There may also not be sufficient information for the prospective purchaser to contact the previous owner with any queries about the history of the vehicle.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo's second amendment would have required the last owner, who was not a dealer, who has instructed the dealer in writing not to disclose the name on the notice, to not include the name of the last owner but must instead contain a statement that the last owner's name is available on request from the dealer. We would not have supported that. Having previous ownership details available from the car dealer on request is consistent; that is, it does not depend on the previous owner's instructions. This amendment would also place an additional burden on car dealers to record the previous owners' instructions and then to determine what information is required to be included on the notice for each and every vehicle.

The bill before parliament now already sets out a requirement for dealers to disclose the name and address of a previous owner or lessee when requested by a potential purchaser, and imposes the same penalty for noncompliance when making changes to the notice of sale forms in the regulations. The government will insert a statement to the effect that the last owner or lessee's name and address are available on request from the dealer. Finally, the third amendment would have been ancillary, effectively, to amendments Nos 1 and 2.

While we appreciate some of the intent that the Hon. Frank Pangallo had in the drafting of the amendments, there were very good reasons why the government intended not to support those amendments. With that, the government commends the bill to this chamber and we look forward to the committee stage, noting that there is an amendment from the Hon. Connie Bonaros to debate during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 5, line 1 [clause 11(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

I have already spoken to the amendment in terms of its intent. Under the proposed amendments, document 2 has been retained in the bill so that consumers are clearly informed about the implications of waiving their entitlement, but under the bill the purchaser no longer requires an independent witness to sign this document. The amendment simply removes that last part so that the purchaser will still require an independent witness to sign this document. I move the amendment for all the reasons that I outlined during the second reading debate.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be supporting this amendment. I am advised that, after further consideration of representations made by the RAA and the honourable member, it is appropriate to retain the independent witness requirement when a person is waiving their cooling-off rights. As particularly advocated for by the RAA, this protection is particularly important for young and vulnerable consumers who may have significant benefit consulting with a family member or close friend to help them consider whether to waive the cooling-off period.

An independent witness may be able to provide advice to the purchaser about the decision to waive and to query whether the vehicle and sale price are appropriate. Whilst this requirement does not reduce the administrative tasks involved in buying a second-hand vehicle, the government has been convinced of the view that it is an important protection for our potentially vulnerable consumers and customers that ought to be retained.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (12 to 15), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.