Bills

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 September 2024.)

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (11:02): I rise today as lead speaker on this bill and acknowledge that I will not be continuing with the contingent notice of motion—we will be supporting the bill now, with some promises from the minister in the other place to ensure that a consultative committee is set up in such a way that will allow the industry of motor driver instructors to be able to have some say on this bill and the regulations that will be formed within it to ensure that some of the issues that have been raised with me can be dealt with.

Whilst initially being opposed to this bill, following commitments by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in the other place, in the media and in discussions with me between the houses, we now have a degree of assurance that was not previously available to us. For the benefit of the many driver instructors, examiners and learner drivers who have contacted me, I will now put on the record why our position has changed.

Just this week, the minister confirmed in writing that a consultative committee will be formed to develop the regulations, which will include members of the driver training industry. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles is also on board and keen for the formation of this committee. Two of the three industry associations are now happy with this outcome, and with a promise of collaboration between the government, experts and industry.

As I said, our position is a qualified support for this bill, because many uncertainties do remain and many individual driving instructors continue to have concerns about the passage of this bill. Broadly, it is worth highlighting the anger and confusion felt by many driving instructors about the way the minister has introduced these reforms and for the offensive language that has been used in the media. Not only were many shocked about the depth and breadth of the reforms but they were also taken aback by the minister's strong language referring to them as corrupt and as sexual predators.

As the President of the Get Home Safe Foundation, Darren Davis, said on radio recently, the language used by the minister has been really unhelpful and incorrect, in his view. He went on to say that 99.9 per cent of the people he knows in the industry are great people trying to achieve the best possible road safety outcomes for everyone. There are bad elements, as there are in any industry, but they themselves are working to get rid of those bad apples.

Politics is a game of numbers, and the arithmetic of this chamber is such that the Labor Party only needs the support of two non-government members to be successful in the Legislative Council. This bill will pass, but of course it is good to get that qualification from the minister that a consultative committee will be set up to determine those regulations.

I do, though, continue to be contacted today by motor driving instructors who are disappointed with this outcome, and this is the reality that we are faced with. Rather than engaging in policy on the run and insisting on wideranging amendments that individuals are calling for, the power will instead be put into the hands of motor driving instructors via their membership-based industry groups to inform the operation of this bill and the regulations.

On the proviso that genuine and meaningful consultation occurs in the way that the minister has now promised, the opposition is willing to allow its passage. I will, however, reserve my right to ask some detailed questions at the committee stage and will outline many of the concerns of our state's motor driving instructors and examiners.

While it was not always the case, I am heartened by the minister's newfound commitment for consulting with the industry on these landmark reforms to driver training in South Australia. As described by the minister himself, these are the most significant reforms that any government has made to the driver training industry in this state. That is why it is concerning for the other place to be told in no uncertain terms that no consultation whatsoever had occurred with the industry prior to the announcement.

The opposition, and I personally as the shadow minister, were understandably inundated with correspondence from across the industry, including from dozens of motor driving instructors, specialised or disability-focused instructors, authorised examiners, road safety advocates, learner drivers and the disability community themselves sharing their concerns about the proposed reforms. Before putting on the record some of those concerns, I will touch briefly on the key aspects of the wideranging reform bill in front of us.

Building on the proposed reforms that were consulted on by the previous Liberal state government, the bill before us contains the following elements. There is a shift to government examiners. This is a new addition to the previous government's bill, which transfers responsibility for driving tests from private authorised examiners to government examiners, reducing those numbers from over 260 to around 40 or 50.

The bill proposes the end of the CBT&A system, the Competency Based Training and Assessment system. The bill phases out the popular CBT&A, mandating a practical driving test with government examiners, although I understand they will be merging, or attempting to merge, the CBT&A and the VORT (Vehicle On Road Test) into a new test, and of course now with the consultative committee and industry they will be able to work through what those systems will look like.

The bill also includes mandatory technology. It requires as yet unspecified GPS tracking and cameras in training vehicles to improve transparency and safety. There are, of course, questions around that, considering many motor driving instructors utilise their cars as their private vehicles as well as their vehicles for their business. There will be questions about where that footage belongs or who it belongs to and whether cameras can be turned off if they are being used privately.

Regarding standardised fees, the bill sets up a regulated $240 fee for the on-road assessment, which the minister states is a reduction from the median price of $319, according to a survey. Enhanced authorised officer powers grant extensive investigatory powers, including questioning related parties and accessing residences tied to business operations. There are some concerns around that part of the bill as well.

As outlined by the minister, this bill has been introduced to address corruption and sexual predatory behaviour in the driver training sector, and builds upon the departmental review and the 2022 ICAC report. Upon the government's announcement of these reforms, I undertook my own consultation with the industry, which included the RAA, the Motor Driving Instructors Association of South Australia, the Professional Driver Trainers Association of South Australia, the Australian Driver Trainers Association of South Australia, the Get Home Safe Foundation, and many regionally based driving instructors.

Rather than being opposed to the insourcing of authorised examiners, as the minister believed the industry would be, they were in fact broadly supportive as an industry of this move. I understand this brings us into line with almost all other Australian jurisdictions, with only SA and the Northern Territory fully outsourcing both driver training and government examinations.

However, all industry bodies I consulted with, and many other stakeholders who reached out to me, were united in their concern over the drastic reduction to just 40 or 50 government examiners. This represents a more than 80 per cent reduction in assessors and raises the considerable risk of delays and uncertainty for driver trainers, especially in the regions.

In some regions, including my home town of Mount Gambier, I have been told of months-long delays to undertake tests and that similar wait times occur in interstate jurisdictions. For specialised or disability-focused driving instructors, I am advised that there are wait times of one whole year for some learners to begin their CBT&A lessons.

Similarly, I am told of months-long delays that are already occurring to one aspect of licencing that has not yet been outsourced, that being medical practical driving assessments. I understand, however, that recent announcements from the department regarding medical licencing encourages those clients to seek private driver training occupational therapists, which I raise as an interesting contrast to the bill before us.

While both the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and the minister have sought to assure us that 50 government assessors will be able to keep up with the yearly demand of 50,000 tests, the industry and I remain very concerned with this proposal.

I also wish to put on the record the advice that has been received and provided to the member for King in the other place, which somewhat differs from what I have been told from a departmental briefing. In the member for King's second reading speech, she said, and I quote:

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.

I certainly hope that is the case, and I welcome any correction of the record if it is not. Aside from the significant reduction in examiners, another widely held concern raised with me is the effective scrapping of the popular CBT&A logbook method, and I have recently received strong feedback from people with anxiety or mental health issues, the neurodivergent community, and others who are vulnerable or have disabilities that without the CBT&A test they would not have been able to obtain their driver's licence.

The current alternative to the Vehicle On Road Test (VORT), which I mentioned briefly previously, allows students to tick off on 30 different competencies at a pace that suits them, with an instructor who they develop a trust with. It provides for consistency by using the same instructor's vehicle and, unlike the VORT, it does not force students into a different car with a different instructor for the final assessment prior to gaining their provisional licence.

While the department advised me that students will essentially be given a five-minute lap around the block to get used to a brand new car that they were stepping into for their test for the first time, many believe this is insufficient and that mistakes—and therefore increased failure rates—will happen and will be inevitable by forcing them into unfamiliar vehicles, which again, of course, will drive up the cost because they will have to pay for another test should they fail.

People with anxiety, learning difficulties, trauma, PTSD, and who face other difficulties are likely to be disadvantaged should the extremely popular CBT&A logbook be scrapped. It would be extremely concerning if these concerns were not addressed in the two-year implementation phase of these reforms. Again, I am glad there will be a consultative committee of industry experts, as promised by the minister, determining these regulations; hopefully they can bash those issues out.

It is of utmost importance that these South Australians are not left behind—these people with PTSD, trauma, the neurodivergent community and disabilities—and that their independence is not taken away from them. I am sure it is not the minister's intent to entrench inequality, but a combination of a drastic reduction in examiners and abolishing the CBT&A program has a high likelihood of negatively impacting regional South Australians and those facing mental health issues or disability.

Other serious issues raised with me included privacy concerns around the mandatory use of technology such as cameras and GPS in vehicles. There is currently insufficient detail on how the bill will know the operation of these devices and how they will work in practice. In consultation with industry, perfectly reasonable concerns over a lack of privacy of mandatory cameras and GPS devices that may always be in operation will need to be addressed. Ideally, as motor driving instructors often use their vehicles privately, and they may be used by other family members, they would maintain a level of control over the recordings and footage.

Obviously, there is also unknown cost implications for both instructors and students as a result of this, as expenses will need to be recovered in one form or another. These issues need to be addressed as both driving instructors and learner drivers deserve assurances that their privacy will be protected.

Another concern that my attention has been brought to is the removal of ministerial oversight of direction of the decisions of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. I understand that decisions of the department and registrar can currently be reviewed and amended by the minister of the day, but concerns have been raised with me that as this bill before us stands the ministerial oversight will be struck out.

Similarly, the bill appears to restrict motor driving instructors' rights of appeal to SACAT, removing options to pursue recourse through the courts. Many MDIs have been concerned by the increased and seemingly unlimited power being handed to the registrar and the unclear timeframes in which matters are to be dealt with.

The fit and proper person test has also been flagged by members of the industry as an issue. The minister has confirmed that this is loosely based on the outlaw motorcycle gang legislation, and it has been raised with me that it goes beyond the requirements of professionals like teachers, which in many ways is exactly what motor driving instructors are.

Another point of contention is the standardised $240 fee, which the minister claims is a reduction from the median VORT price of $319. A common argument I have heard is that it is by the government's own hand that the costs have increased, given the imposition of a moratorium on authorised examiners. By the same token, many examiners' fees are much less than this and are frequently at or below $200.

Furthermore, I understand that government examiner tests in almost every other jurisdiction are significantly less than $240, with Victoria charging just $48 at the lowest end of the spectrum, and with the Australian Capital Territory charging under $125 at the highest end. This is a large disparity and only compounds further the significant cost premiums paid by South Australians to obtain their licence.

The EzLicence website published just two days ago a comparison of the cost of obtaining your full licence across all Australian jurisdictions, with the result that SA is way ahead at $1,302. The next highest was Queensland, at $925, a full 40 per cent cheaper, with the lowest being the Northern Territory, at $148, or 780 per cent cheaper.

Naturally, there are concerns that adding further cost impositions to our already expensive licensing system will turn students off undertaking as many tests as they otherwise would and may result in an increase in unlicensed and less equipped students.

These are just a snapshot of the many concerns brought to my attention. While I am glad that the pressure put on to the minister has resulted in that consultative committee once the bill has passed, I know that the industry will advocate for these and many more reforms to be made. I urge the government to listen to the industry, as up to this point the associations have said that they have lost faith in the minister. When he was in opposition the minister was calling for proper reform, yet in government he is attempting to ram this legislation or these reforms through.

While the government have made promises, and in talking with two of the three industry associations they are now happy for this bill to pass, now that there is a consultative committee I do urge the department and the minister to ensure that they listen to those experts, that they listen to the people in the industry to ensure we get proper reform in motor driver training and that our industry and the great people who work in it are not left behind. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (11:18): I will speak briefly and indicate that I will be endorsing and supporting this bill. I commend the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, and also his department for the enormous amount of work that has gone into getting this legislation ready and also the ground that this legislation covers to ensure that there is credibility and integrity in the driving instruction industry.

I am also pleased that I have had discussions with the minister in relation to some undertakings relating to incentives for accredited driving instructors. I understand there will be hours taken off the scheme—the 75 hours that are required for learner drivers to undertake to get their licence. If they use accredited driving instructors there are incentives to lower that.

I have also had extremely positive talks with the minister about including a first aid course where learner drivers need to undertake courses in CPR and also the use of AEDs. Initially, the minister was a bit reticent about that. He did not want to add to the cost of getting a driver's licence where it was a requirement that drivers would then have to pay for a first aid course on top of the use of driving instructors.

The good news is that I had discussions with the St John association only recently and they informed me that they actually do have a free online first aid course that covers those aspects of CPR, AED and other things. It is of no charge, and it can easily be adapted to the driving licence regime. The minister has given me an undertaking that he will certainly consider incorporating the first aid course—as long as it did not cost money of course—as part of the required amount of time to get your driver's licence. In fact, it may also lead to a reduction of an hour or two from that 75 hours.

I am heartened by the positive response I received from Minister Koutsantonis. He was particularly pleased that it was not going to cost anything, and St John assured me that it could easily be adapted to be one of the modules in getting a driving licence—it was quite easily achieved. The benefit of having something like that is that we can then look forward to having a generation of drivers on our roads who have at least undertaken a basic course in CPR and first aid.

We have seen some horrendous accidents in recent weeks, one in particular on Main South Road at Wattle Flat. It was a shocking accident involving several cars and a truck, and it resulted in fatalities. I was somewhat alarmed to see that those who stopped to render assistance to those who were injured had to wait for, I believe, two hours for the first medics to arrive. I would hope that some of those who had stopped would have had some dealing in being able to administer some type of first aid.

The intent of what I have been trying to push in this place, following the passage of the AED bill, is to get people on our roads who can also carry out first aid in the event that they come across a vehicle accident or some other accident where the person who is injured requires assistance. These are the merits of having something incorporated into a driver's licence, because in the end you will have thousands of people on our roads who will be able to render that assistance and I can only think of that as being a positive for our community.

I have pointed out in this place that it is happening very successfully in a number of countries in Europe where they now have tens of thousands of drivers on the road who are able to perform first aid and other various forms of medical assistance. So I am really pleased that the minister has reacted positively to that and also, of course, is offering incentives for people seeking to get their licence and using accredited driving instructors.

The reasons for this bill have been made clear by the Hon. Ben Hood—and also through approaches I have had from members of the industry itself and others—that basically the industry needed to be cleaned up. It is not that the majority or most driving instructors are corrupt or inept or unprofessional, as I am sure the vast majority do abide by the rules and regulations and apply strict standards to the students they put through these driver's courses.

Unfortunately, as the ICAC report found, there were some who should not be in that industry. They were taking bribes to speed up people getting their licences, and there were also instances of sexual harassment and sexual assaults, and we have seen where some have been prosecuted in our courts. I reiterate that we are only talking about a minority, but it was clear that the industry needed some reform. The department, through I believe the registrar, Emma Kokar, has come up with this legislation in order to ensure that we not only have accredited driving instructors but that they also pass character tests and are competent enough to ensure that the students that they undertake will end up becoming good, responsible drivers on our roads—and that is what we need.

If you have a look now the road toll is mounting again. Here we are almost halfway through November and it is approaching almost the same level as it was this time last year. That is not a good thing and it needs to be addressed. Some of that goes back to driving standards and also the attitude of drivers on our roads, for them to be mindful of other road users and obey the rules that are out there and know that they can do that to ensure the safety of others in our community.

We need to lower the road toll, but we also need better drivers out there in the community, people who are responsible and cooperative. Not a day passes that I do not see some hoon or irresponsible driver on our roads who is just blatantly breaking road laws in an effort to try to get somewhere in a hurry when, in actual fact, they will only be saving a handful of minutes, if that, or even that at all.

I would say that not only is irresponsible driving part of the cause of many road accidents but I think another aspect that needs to be addressed is patience. I think we have a lot of impatient drivers on our roads, and our roads are becoming clogged because there are so many more cars on our roads than there were some years ago.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Better public transport, Frank.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Precisely. The Hon. Robert Simms points out that they should be using public transport. If there were incentives—and perhaps the minister could start looking at using incentives, either make it free or do what Queensland tried to do and introduce 50¢ fares—we may get more people off our roads.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: He could respond to our report.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Precisely. It was pointed out in the report—I was a member of that and the Hon. Robert Simms was Chair—where we made a number of recommendations to try to get people back to using public transport: two years later we are awaiting a response from the government, and I hope that the minister and his office have a close look at that.

As I said, in the course of us having a look at and considering this bill, we have consulted with a number of organisations, with the three driving associations. I note that two have given their strong support to the minister and this bill. We met with them.

I point out in particular Darren Davis, a very well respected and credible driving instructor who I have a lot of respect for. I knew Darren in my television days when we often did road safety stories and stories about competence of drivers on our roads. He is an expert, he knows what he is talking about and he knows that the industry needed some type of reform to ensure that we have a high standard of driving instructors on our roads and is also supportive of the fact that the government is now moving back into that area and providing examiners, along with cars, for people to take part in.

I have been driving since I was 16 years old. I am now 70 years of age. When I got my licence I used a driving instructor and it was in a manual Holden HQ vehicle. Once I undertook the period of time when I got comfortable with using that vehicle, it was time to be examined. I was examined by a police officer. In those days you would make an appointment with a policeman and he would take you out on a set course and the moment you made one mistake that was it. Even for something as simple as failure to look into your rear-vision mirror, failure to turn on your indicator at the right time, they would fail you. You were always mindful that you wanted to pass and you did not want to fail.

In this case now, fast-forward to today, I am sure that the standards are going to be applied as rigorously by government examiners and also the instructors who are going to be accredited following the passage of this bill. I also want to say that we met with the RAA along with Mr Davis and Mr Davis has certainly assisted me and others in this place, including the minister, in giving some well-heeded advice on how these new laws will be able to progress and how they will be applied and the benefits that are going to be derived from them.

Furthermore, apart from the undertakings I mentioned about first aid, the minister is also considering the concerns that have been raised with me and obviously with the Hon. Ben Hood about testing learner drivers who may well be on the spectrum, the neurodiverse persons, and the anxieties that they could feel when suddenly they have gone from undertaking their lessons with somebody they are familiar with and then being thrown in with somebody they do not know and are unsure how that person will react to their anxieties or whatever.

Part of the discussions that we have had with the minister was at least enabling that person, the neurodiverse person, to be able to have a support person in the vehicle while undertaking the examination to give them not just the support but to ease their anxieties and enable them to be able to take the final examination with a degree of confidence. As I said, the minister is certainly supportive of that.

There are many people in our community who have all sorts of disabilities and other issues and going for their licence should be made as comfortable as possible for them. Many of these people also rely on having a driver's licence not just for work but also being able to get around to meet family and friends and whatever. Having access to transport is very important to them. We certainly should not be making it harder for people to be able to get their licence in that regard.

The Hon. Ben Hood also mentioned the issue of the availability of examiners, particularly in country areas, for being able to have the final examination to get a licence. Again, the government and the minister have given assurances that they will be able to meet the demand, particularly in the regions, for persons seeking to get their licence—that there will be enough examiners available in regional areas so that there would not be inordinate delays in people trying to complete their examination and get their licence.

It is important, particularly in regional areas, for people to be able to get their licence in an acceptable timeframe. They may need it for various reasons, such as transporting elderly people or transporting others in their family and for work purposes. A young person may be about to start an apprenticeship and requires their licence to be able to travel to and from work, particularly for the long distances in regional areas. The last thing those people would want is having to wait weeks or even months to complete their driver's licence. Again, the minister has given me an assurance that there will be enough examiners available to do that, and also on the days of the week when they will be able to conduct those tests.

I think the government have appreciated the feedback that they have got from those driving associations, the feedback they have got from motoring organisations and the feedback they got from myself, and I am sure the Hon. Ben Hood as well. It is heartening to see that they are now incorporating some of those suggestions into either the legislation or the regulations that are likely to follow.

I think another positive is the consultative committee that the minister has agreed to set up, which is a great thing. I have spoken briefly to the Hon. Ben Hood, that I think it is time we also have a parliamentary friends of road safety committee. I think it is quite important, particularly the way that the road toll is going, as I mentioned earlier, not just in South Australia but right around the country. I think it is an important move, and I think parliamentarians should be actively involved in promoting road safety. I look forward to talking to other members in this place about setting up that parliamentary friends of road safety. With that, I support the bill and look forward to its passage.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (11:37): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Motor Vehicle (Motor Driving Instructors and Authorised Examiners) Amendment Bill 2024. The Malinauskas Labor government recognises the clear need for major reform of driver training laws. The reforms proposed in this bill represent the most significant reforms that any government has made to the driver training industry in South Australia. They will have the effect of addressing misconduct in the sector; they will also have the effect of improving the skills of motorists and reducing costs for learner drivers.

Under the proposed reforms, practical driving tests for the class C licence, which is a typical car licence, will be undertaken by government examiners, rather than private operators. Competency-based training assessments, which many people may know as the logbook method, will have a new format. Learner drivers will be required to pass a practical driving test with a government examiner in order to obtain their provisional licence. Driver training will continue to be delivered by private operators, but those operators will be required to comply with new and more rigorous industry standards. The safety of learner drivers is a top priority for the government and a key reason for bringing these reforms about. The proposed changes will crack down on inappropriate behaviour in the sector.

Cameras will be required to be installed in vehicles, and GPS tracking will be required to record all training and assessment that is provided by both private industry and government assessors. The intention is that having cameras mandated in vehicles will serve as a strong deterrent against inappropriate behaviour and criminal conduct. The presence of cameras will provide reassurance and protection for both trainers and learner drivers.

Camera footage will also assist in ensuring that training and assessments are being undertaken properly. There will be requirements around how and when the camera should be used, and it will be an offence to breach these requirements. Cameras will not be required to operate during an operator's private use of the vehicle.

Additionally, a code of practice will be established by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that will set out the standards expected of instructors. This may include things such as providing minimum standards of conduct and behaviour and standards of driving instruction; business practices such as written agreement of services, refund rights and costs provided to customers, and issuing of receipts; management of complaints; camera use; and data transfer requirements. Penalties will be introduced for failing to follow the code.

In the event of a breach of the code by a member of the industry, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles will have greater powers to sanction a driving instructor. This will include the issuing of a formal warning, the issuing of an expiation notice, prosecution, immediate suspension of accreditation, cancellation of accreditation and requiring the driver to undertake further training. A minimum standard for vehicles used for training and assessment will be introduced and will include things such as a minimum ANCAP rating of five stars and a maximum vehicle age of 10 years.

The government has considered the needs of regional learners in developing these reforms. On average, about 7,000 class C driving tests occur in regional South Australia annually. These reforms aim to improve the quality of service provided by authorised examiners in regional South Australia while reducing the cost for learner drivers undertaking practical driving tests. Currently, the service provided by private authorised examiners in the regions is inconsistent.

Fees for those services can be significant. It is understood that in some cases learners are paying $500 for an authorised examiner to travel to their community and conduct a test. This is an unacceptable impost on learners and their families. By bringing driving tests back into government hands, the fees will be regulated, meaning that no matter where you live the price for a driving test will remain the same and the overall service level will be improved.

Under the changes, a handful of authorised examiners will be based in regional South Australia to deliver practical driving tests. The precise locations of these examiners will be the subject of discussion with the industry in the coming months. Arrangements for driver training and assessment in relation to heavy vehicles will not be affected by these reforms. That responsibility will remain with private industry.

Changes will be made to driver assessment. A digital scoring system will be introduced that must be used by both government assessors and heavy-class authorised examiners for the scoring of practical driving tests and the issuing of certificates of competency. This will eliminate paper certificates of competency. Each test should take no greater than 45 minutes to complete. Students will be able to choose their instructor. An online register of motor driving instructors and heavy vehicle authorised examiners will be created to help the public make informed and thoughtful decisions about choosing their instructor. The register will provide details of every industry member, including their name, their geographical service area and their accreditation status.

The need to strengthen industry standards was very clear. Over the period of the past eight years, a total of 135 disciplinary actions have been undertaken involving 124 people, representing a staggering 20 per cent of industry members. This includes 12 authorised examiners who have been convicted on multiple counts of charges such as sexual offences, bribery, fraud and corruption. Following a range of investigations and a number of prosecutions of driving instructors in the year 2017-18, the department initiated a review into the industry. This review found that appropriate oversight and regulation of driver training and examinations was an ongoing problem.

This was confirmed by an ICAC report in 2022, which reported that the controls in place to prevent corruption in the driver licensing industry have been less than adequate. We certainly want the public to have confidence in the integrity of government agencies. We unequivocally do not want negative experiences or adverse outcomes for learner drivers, nor do we want inappropriate conduct or criminal behaviour occurring in settings where members of the public have the right to feel confident they will be safe. This is why we are undertaking reform to strengthen industry standards, enhance accountability and improve safety outcomes for new drivers. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:44): I had not intended to speak on this bill because it had been my understanding that it was going to be referred to a parliamentary inquiry, so I was pleasantly surprised to learn that that may not be necessary. Of course, it would have been nice to have heard that from the minister and to have been advised where things were at. I know Christmas is coming, but Secret Santa is not always the best approach when it comes to matters in the parliament.

I received a number of representations from stakeholder groups in relation to this bill, and indicated that I would be happy to refer it on to a parliamentary committee so that we could address some of the issues they had raised, in particular the issues the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Ben Hood flagged around the potential impacts on people with autism, for instance, who might be using a motor vehicle that is unfamiliar to them when undertaking a test. That is of concern to me, but I am pleased to hear that the government is now setting up a consultative process to look at those issues, and it will be incumbent on the minister to make sure he takes on board that feedback and finds the right solution.

I recognise that a lot of regional people do not have a choice necessarily in terms of being able to leave their car at home or take public transport, because the areas they live in are not appropriately serviced by public transport. Many members in this place will know my strong views around the need for regional rail, but also the need for us to have a public transport network that is consistent and runs right throughout the state, not just in metropolitan areas.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo flagged the parliamentary inquiry into public and active transport, which I chaired. The report was handed down nearly two years ago. It has sat in a drawer, I suspect, somewhere in the minister's office gathering dust. I hope that, with just a year left before the next election, the minister will respond to the report or at least agree to meet with me to discuss the recommendations of the report, so we can look what we can do to improve public transport in our state, in particular in the regions because time and again we are reminded of how vitally important that access to public infrastructure is for people living in regional communities. With that, I conclude my remarks.

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