HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 April 2008. Page 2734.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:30): This bill makes some significant changes to a number of pieces of legislation, including the Motor Vehicles Act 1959, the Road Traffic Act 1961, the Passenger Transport Act 1994, and the Harbours and Navigation Act 1993. While the opposition generally supports the legislation, there will be some questions that will require some answers. I hope that, as in the case of the measure with which we have just dealt, those answers will be quite clear and able to calm the concerns of some of my colleagues, who will be raising issues with this bill in just the same way as they raised issues with the previous one.

The main tenet of this bill is to increase significantly the penalties for a number of offences, and this bill will increase the maximum penalty for driving an unregistered vehicle from $750, or twice the amount of the prescribed registration fee for 12 months, whichever is the higher, to $2,500.

The bill also increases the penalty for driving or leaving standing on a road an unregistered vehicle from $750 to $2,500, with an expiation fee of $250. Minister, if you could during your reply to the second reading let us know how much expiation fees have increased over the last few years, that would be most helpful.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: How much they have increased over the last few years. The bill also increases the penalty for driving or leaving standing on the road without registration an uninsured vehicle, from $2,500 to $5,000 with an expiation fee of $500, and that will be prescribed by regulation. A person whose vehicle is detected on a road without registration and insurance will be liable to the penalty for both offences.

In addition, all road traffic cameras such as speed, red light and Safe-T-Cam cameras (currently used to detect heavy vehicle driving hours offences) are to be used to detect and enforce unregistered and/or uninsured offences, and automatic numberplate recognition technology will be used. Numberplate offences will also be increased to a maximum penalty of $5,000, with an expiation fee of $500.

The bill increases the maximum penalty for a seller failing to notify the registrar of the disposal of a vehicle, and the proposed fee will be $1,250 with an expiation fee of $160, and it increases the maximum penalty applying to the purchaser of a vehicle who fails to notify the registrar. The penalty for failing to notify the registrar of a change of address also increases from $250 to $1,250. There are some concerns there about the little old lady who forgets to do this. Are there going to be some concessions or any flexibility there? An expiation fee of $210 for offences of contravening a condition of driver accreditation will be in place, and this can be used if, for example, a taxi driver fails to display an identification card.

Further, the bill introduces an expiation fee of $315 for drivers who do not hold appropriate accreditation and an expiation fee of $210 for persons who contravene a code of practice to be observed by approved vehicle inspectors. Introducing expiation fees for particular offences will provide an alternative to prosecution and practically act as a more effective deterrent due to the immediacy of the sanction.

The government argues that the increases in penalties are designed to counteract the perceived financial benefit of not paying the registration and insurance fees, and allows the courts to impose penalties that equate to the amount of registration and insurance avoided. The large number of people who drive an unregistered and/or uninsured vehicle and appear before the courts has increased significantly. In his second reading explanation the minister stated that in 2000-01 the figure was 14,517 and in 2005-06 it had increased to over 19,000, a clearly unacceptable figure (as was even the 2001 figure).

The government has stated that it is concerned at the loss of revenue as a result of these people not paying. The opposition is not only concerned about the loss of revenue but also the fact that these people are flouting the law with apparent disregard—not impunity—for other road users, so the significant increase in penalties is strongly supported. The Safety-T-Cam with automated numberplate recognition technology will enable a reduction in the issue time of expiation notices from seven days to three to four days with the rollout of digital cameras. The opposition will watch this carefully because, the way the TRUMPS system has been working, there may be some issues with the efficacy of this move.

Automated numberplate recognition will allow the government to automatically detect when motor registration has been paid late and impose penalties on potentially more than 19,000 motorists. There are some concerns by members on this side about clause 17, which amends clause 45A of the Road Traffic Act concerning excessive speeds and also removes the expiation provision from the act, enabling it to be fixed by regulation. The RAA is supportive of these changes but does not support the maximum penalty being $5,000 for having an unregistered and uninsured vehicle standing on the road. The RAA thinks it should stay at $2,500.

I have compared other states and jurisdictions and there seems to be no consistency between jurisdictions, which makes it difficult to compare penalty levels. However, the move by the government is one that the opposition generally supports but there are questions that some of my colleagues will raise in their second reading contributions and put to the minister.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:36): I could make identical comments to those I made when speaking to the previous bill, and I certainly will repeat my comments with regard to clause 27 of this bill which will amend section 45A to remove the expiation provision and enable the expiation fee to be fixed by regulations. Again, I repeat my comments about regulations. I think this parliament should take a very dim view of legislation constantly coming before it which gives these powers to ministers/bureaucrats via regulations. I believe we will get from this speeding fine changes made by regulation rather than being debated on their merits in this parliament.

I do not think there are too many people in the community who believe that speed cameras, radar guns, etc., are out there solely for the purpose of road safety. If you took a survey, I think just about everyone—it would be in the high 80s, if not 90 per cent of people in the community—would genuinely believe, and with very good reason, that these mechanisms are designed to raise revenue rather than have an impact on road trauma. In fact, in the second reading contribution of the minister to the previous bill, he acknowledged that 52 per cent of insurance claims are caused by fatigue, not speed, yet you keep hearing the pronouncements (not just from this government but also governments in every state and jurisdiction of this country, of every political colour) that the number one issue in road trauma is speed. I am yet to be convinced of that. In fact, I am nowhere near convinced of it. I always thought the number one issue with regard to road trauma is fatigue and inattention.

I have argued and debated with at least three ministers now in this government over the reduction in the open speed limit on the road between Meningie and Salt Creek from 110 to 100 km/h. We have since seen the road shoulders widened and sealed, yet the speed limit remains at 100 km/h. Through FOI I have got documents containing advice within the department that the speed should not be reduced unless the section of road was significantly different from the section of road at each end of it, and arguing on that criteria that that road should not have a different speed limit to other sections of the Princes Highway along the Coorong. So, on that particular road, we have this fixation about speed.

I was talking to the chairman of one of the local councils down there over the weekend, and he said that his council accessed documents through FOI that suggested that the biggest cause of accidents on that piece of road is wildlife, such as kangaroos. If anyone wants to go down to the car park and inspect my car, they will see what happens when a kangaroo jumps on the bonnet of your car; it is a pretty ugly sight. A lot of people—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Come down my way, Gunnie.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: That may be so—particularly people who are not used to driving on country roads, particularly at night, who are not aware of the dangers caused by wildlife. I can understand that wildlife jumping out in front of cars causes accidents. I did hit the brakes heavily on Sunday evening, when I was driving up to the Coorong, when a deer with a large set of antlers was standing right on the edge of the road.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: They should go and pick them all up; they have no reason to be there.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, they have no reason to be there. I could debate that issue, too, with the minister at length in this chamber. I do have a problem with this fixation on speed, and I repeat that I do have a problem with our use of regulation-making powers, particularly in this sort of instance. I do not think the parliament for many years has had a decent debate on the contribution made by speed versus other factors to road trauma, and I do not think we have had a decent debate in this place for a long time about the other various factors. I do not think the government for a long time has been responsible in this regard.

I spoke earlier about road conditions, particularly in relation to the closeness of vegetation to the road verge in a number of places—and along the Coorong is a case in point. The biggest cause of accidents there is recognised as being wildlife, yet the native vegetation, most of which is boobialla (coastal wattle), is spreading rapidly. It is questionable whether boobialla is native to this country or, indeed, to South Australia. A lot of people argue that it is an introduced species and that it possibly came from South Africa. That may be the case, because it has spread rapidly. If it were the case that it is a native species to that area, I would think that it would have been endemic many years ago, but it is spreading and it is right up to the edge of the road. I have written letters to various ministers over the years asking them to have it trimmed back.

At the moment, it is not too bad; I still believe it is too close. Sometimes, when I am driving up there, the next thing I see is a red or white light on the white post on the side of the road and, all of a sudden, wildlife appear out from amongst the bush. That is how close the scrub is to the road in that area, and I am sure there are other roads in the state that are just as bad.

The point I want to make is in relation to the over-emphasis of speed and the use of regulating powers to change the fines imposed. Another point that I was interested to note when I read the minister's second reading explanation on this, and I think it is clause 28—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I am going to talk to the minister about that particular point when we discuss the national gas bill, so he had better read that one.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Okay; I accept that. I was interested to note that clause 28, I think it is, will enable the offence of driving an unregistered vehicle to be detected by a particular camera that has been installed to detect trucks and the driving speed of truck drivers; so it includes numberplate recognition technology. The bill will recognise that there will be a continuing offence for someone who is detected twice within seven days, I think it is. Only one offence will be recorded, which will give time for notification of the offence to be sent out to the person to give them time to remedy the offence of driving an unregistered vehicle.

I think that is reasonably sensible. I do not have a problem with that, but my question to the minister is: why do we have a continuing offence of driving an unregistered vehicle, yet we do not recognise a continuing offence of somebody doing 10 km/h over the speed limit getting pinged by a speed camera and, five kilometres down the road, getting pinged by another speed camera? I would argue that that may be a continuing offence: they did not necessarily slow down below the speed limit between the two points of detection.

I will give an example of out in the country. This goes back about 18 months or two years, again, down on the Coorong. I was attending an event at the Salt Creek Primary School on a Sunday afternoon and, as I approached Policeman's Point—which, again, is on this piece of road where the speed limit has been reduced from 110 to 100 for, in my opinion, no particular reason—I saw a car with, obviously, a speed detection camera in the front window. I thought: fair enough; Sunday afternoon; catch the poor Sunday drivers out here in the middle of nowhere causing nobody any trouble, and we will raise a bit more revenue. There was another speed detection camera within 10 kilometres, doing the exact same thing.

I would argue that somebody driving down that road could inadvertently stray over the speed limit by 10 km/h and, in fact, drive at a speed they would more than likely think they were legally able to drive at, because it is the Princes Highway (Highway 1) between Adelaide and Melbourne, and they could get pinged for two offences. This legislation is a bit of a revelation to me, because it actually recognises a continuing offence. So, actually only one offence was committed and it therefore recognises that you should be charged only with that offence or forced to either expiate that offence or challenge the offence in court once rather than twice, three times or whatever.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: For how long?

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, I would like it at 12 months, if we are in the process of negotiation. I would have thought that it should not be an issue if we did not place speed cameras within a short distance of each other, particularly out on an open country road, but also within the metropolitan area. If a speed camera were placed, say, down on Torrens Road and another one is placed 400 metres up the road, particularly if there are no traffic lights on that section of road, I would have thought there would be no way that you could convince the punters that this was about road safety and not about revenue raising.

I make the same claim about Highway 1, the Princes Highway, down in my electorate where the speed limit has been reduced over about a 50 kilometre stretch. I think it insults the intelligence of the population to say that we have speed detection devices out there supposedly to reduce road trauma when we put them on a section of road like that.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I didn't get caught on that particular day actually, minister. As I recall, a very generous driver coming towards me flashed his lights and I thought 'Hello'. I admit that I thought at the time that it was way over the top to put two speed cameras within a 10 minute drive, and probably only five minutes apart on the highway. I am pleased to see that the government is starting to recognise that a continuing offence might last for more than five minutes, or for around five to 10 minutes. I hope to see more legislation come before the house to correct what I see as a glaring anomaly.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (12:50): I have a very brief contribution to make in relation to the registration of agricultural equipment and implements. Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides clear exemptions in relation to a certain amount of equipment. My concern in relation to this matter is that the officers who are going to implement this, particularly the police, have a clear understanding of what is an agricultural implement, because I think there is a lack of knowledge. In their enthusiasm to comply with the 70 vehicles that they are supposed to stop every day of every week, they are pinging people.

I very pleased that this happened to my farming business because we knew our rights, and the copper did not, and the bureaucrats did not. I will give you an example. There is such a thing as a crutching cradle, which is on a trailer, which you tow between farm and farm, and which runs sheep up to crutch. It has no other purpose. An employee of my establishment was towing it down the road, and got stopped by an enthusiastic copper, who said that it was unregistered, and he was told that it did not have to be registered. When my son got back, he spoke to the copper. The bloke obviously had a very limited understanding of the law. He did not understand that I actually knew what section 12 provided—and it was pointed out to him. We invited him to go to court. We made it very clear that he would have a QC to deal with and that we would go in for costs and other things.

It was fortunate that they tried to do this, because I actually knew our rights and what the law is. If this had been my neighbour, they would not have known, and they would probably have pleaded guilty and paid up. I want a clear undertaking from the minister as he is increasing the fees that the people who are enforcing these regulations and provisions actually understand what the law states. This character did not; this character had no idea. He could not even read section 12. He could not even understand when he contacted the department of transport out here at—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Northfield.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, Northfield—what he was told. When I spoke to the lady out there, she said to me, 'You're absolutely right in your interpretation, Mr Gunn, I had a policeman ring up', and I said, 'Yes; and he didn't understand what he was telling you.' So, she let the cat right out of the bag; the ferret got out of the cage there properly. I raise the example today for other people. He did not know what a crutching cradle was. There are other things such as towing header combs down the road. Fuel tankers—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, that's a clear—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I can take it. I am normally a man of few words when I get on my feet. Things that are contestable would-be tractor pack welders on wheels, small fuel tankers and, probably, comb trailers.

An honourable member: Fuel bins?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No—

An honourable member: How about a bin full of molasses.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, I haven't got a sweet tooth. You give that to cattle, and I don't know anything about cattle. They make other products out of sugar that they tell me are not bad. The member for Newland would understand what that product is—it is made at Bundaberg.

I want an assurance from the minister that there will be a proper understanding. You have these people, some of them do not have a lot to do and do not understand how to read the acts, which this parliament sometimes wisely and sometimes unwisely passes. All that does is get people right offside and annoy them.

Unfortunately, there are a few people who have access to the act of parliament. The average person has never read an act of parliament. I, for my sins over a long time, have, and take an interest in this. One of my employees, a former member of this place and a former senior police officer, very clearly understands them, but very few people are in that position. There is no doubt that there is an obsession by certain elements of the police to issue as many on-the-spot fines as possible and to make life as difficult as possible.

I can give you a couple more examples. My outlook on life is that if you treat people reasonably, they act reasonably. If they want to act unreasonably towards my constituents, then I will respond for them; I will play the game.

If they hide police vehicles on the road and I see them, I will take the number every time and we will have a question on notice, and I can put more than one about. And so I will play that game. Clause 12 is the explanation, and it is very important because the penalties are increased and therefore there needs to be an understanding of what the law actually states.

The law is very good and does provide these sensible exemptions for people going about their business, but there needs to be an understanding and that is why I gave the example because it happened to me.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:55): I am most concerned with legislation such as this, and I personally feel very vulnerable because it was I who introduced farm machines registration and I often wish I had not because it has made all farmers targets for this kind of legislation. I am very concerned about the huge increase in fines. There are also cases I have heard of where farmers are not aware that some of their machinery has to be registered, and the question is: will these farmers be fined $2,500 or even up to $5,000?

I am very concerned because, as the member for Stuart has just said, there is general confusion out there about what is farm machinery. Generally, the law provides that many of these farm machines are exempt if they are towed behind a tractor that is farm-registered. There is a great array of things, especially towed trailers, header comb trailers, fuel tankers, bins, super-spreaders and wheeled post-hole diggers, that can attract the ire of the police.

We have fuel tankers, and I have said to the people who work on the farm, 'It doesn't have to be registered, but you make sure it's got mudguards and blinkers, and they must work.' Every year, we get pulled over and they look at this thing and we have never been pinged, but I am concerned about these huge increases in penalty.

There is some confusion among farmers and, as the member Stuart just said, among the law enforcement officers themselves. They get all excited when they see the vehicle going along and there is no numberplate on it. The lights go on and they almost break into a sweat. They pull you over, and it is all very embarrassing; they throw the rule book at you.

I have concern also regarding the increase in fines that this amendment bill seeks to implement with regard to a person failing to notify their change of address. This bill proposes that the fine be increased from $250 to $1,250. That is a huge increase. The question that I raise with the minister is: how can the authorities prove that a person has not notified the registrar? Does the registrar have the power to say that someone has failed to notify them? What if a form is incorrectly filed or lost? What chance does someone have if they have done the right thing and yet the registrar says they never received the notification of change of address? I think that this is a massive fine to expect someone to pay when there is a somewhat grey area regarding where the onus of proof lies.

Does the onus rest with the citizen or with the department? I say that it should rest with the department. I cannot understand, as was the case with the previous bill, why this bill seeks to amend the expiation provisions from the act enabling them to be fixed by regulation, that is, just with the minister. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT