HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOTOR VEHICLES (MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2009. Page 4549.)

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (15:46): I have taken an interest in these particular matters for a long time. When I spoke yesterday on this matter, I indicated that one of the things that I have done as a member of parliament is probably driven further than anyone else who has ever been in this house. I have had a wide range and variety of vehicles and driven over variable conditions. I also got my private pilot's licence in the time I have been in this place.

I understand that one has to be disciplined in some of these particular activities and you have to learn certain principles. Therefore, any changes to the law, as well meaning as they may be, have to have a practical side to them. My only concern is that we are not, again, legislating to make life more difficult for people who should not have to put up with those difficulties.

One of the challenges is always that the further away you are from the decision-making process, or the administrative process, the more difficulties you can have. At the end of the day, if you live in an isolated community there is limited means of transport and, therefore, if there is only a V8 motor vehicle available then you have to learn how to drive it.

I understand the concerns about some of these high powered V8 vehicles. I often wonder why people want to buy them, because the six cylinder motors that are out today give very high performance. I happen to have a four cylinder turbocharged dual cab vehicle and it is pretty nippy. I do not understand why you would want to get one of these V8s with little tyres on them. You pay a lot of money but it is not going to get you there any better and it will probably use a lot more fuel. In this particular case I would say to the minister that I hope the administration of this act is carried out with common sense and fairness.

One of the interesting things in rural areas, as the minister would be aware, is that Toyota LandCruiser utes are probably the most popular commercial vehicles in the agricultural, pastoral and mining industries. All four wheel drives are good, but Toyota has a name. Unfortunately that company only makes V8s now. I hope the people involved in those industries that I mentioned will still be able to access and drive those because they are an important tool in the daily administration of their work.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why that particular company has gone down that track. However, I suppose the wiser heads in Japan have better market analysis than I have, but that is a matter which concerns me. The other matter is that, if you are going to extend the period for people to have learner's permits, P-plates, and things, we have to clearly understand that that may be applicable in the metropolitan area but it can cause difficulties in rural South Australia.

Some of us learnt to drive at a very young age. I started driving trucks when I was 16. Touch wood, I have not had much trouble with them. My children learnt to drive at a very young age, and I still recall my youngest bloke driving and when he used to change gears he used to disappear and you could not see him. He would put the clutch in and would disappear. Now he has become a very good driver. He can drive around Melbourne and a lot of places a lot better than I can. I do not even know my way there.

Some of the academic exercises that go on often do not always recognise that we still, in many cases, live in a practical world. A lot of these children, including one of the parliamentary counsel, have learnt to drive on my farm. He came here as a young bloke and we taught him how to drive a Toyota for his first experience. They then get experience in driving tractors. It has certainly taken a lot of their enthusiasm out of driving. If you put them on a tractor on a cold day when the cabins were not so good for a few hours, they lost a bit of enthusiasm following the plough mark, but we do not do that any more. We all have GPS.

I hope that it is going to be practical and common sense. We have passed these heavy vehicle laws and we were given all sorts of undertakings. We have seen a lot of nonsense and a lot of unintended consequences. All I can say in this house today is that, during this current harvest, I am going to be visiting the silos and I am going to take the numbers of their vehicles and I am going to go after them, really go after them, because they have done some silly things. You have the nonsense of people trying to get home and they cannot get there. The minister gave us undertakings and they have gone outside of them.

We live in a parliamentary democracy and, while I am here, I will do my job. I have no hesitation about some of these characters. Occasionally, the police know that I put a question on notice—and I do not do it to be vindictive—so that they clearly understand that it is the role of a member of parliament not only to make the law but to observe how it has been implemented and what the consequences are. When common sense does not apply, you take the consequences. There are consequences in a democracy.

Minister, you have 28 clauses in this bill and they have wide-ranging implications. I am one of those who strongly believes that it is necessary to make sure that the provisions we make are not unworkable and do not cause unnecessary hardship. There are people who believe that certain elements of the enforcement regime pick on P-platers and young people. I do not know whether that is true. I do admit that some of the P-plate drivers I see on the road sometimes do foolish things. I see as many as anyone. I have been driving about 2,000 kilometres a week. I do not intend to continue that in the future.

Ms Breuer: Have you ever done 160?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I would say to the honourable member that I understand that she has been pinged, too.

Ms Breuer: Me?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes—for driving, some time ago. No, I have never done 160 km/h. I have done about 160 knots in a Cessna 210 plenty of times. I lifted a gear up and got it going. You have to make sure you have it trimmed up right, get the automatic pilot going and get it up nice and high. Sometimes you get better than that.

Mr Pederick: You're above the law.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, you're above the clouds, above the immersion layer, ahead of the bumps. I say to the honourable member that, if you start throwing stones, a few might come back. Always remember that I have a good memory and I do not want to have to activate it.

We have to make sure that there is a clear difference between a minor breach and a serious breach. I do not have a problem with people who have been drinking and get pinged—or if they are doing wheelies or burnouts—I do not have a problem with that. I can never understand why anyone would want to do that to their car tyres. I have found tyres are very expensive to buy.

I drive in the country and I see that happening at cross roads and I think how stupid people are. On occasions, I have contacted the local enforcement agency and said that I think perhaps it is time they had a bit of a look around there, because someone is going to get killed. However, some of them are minor things.

With those few comments, I support the bill. Obviously, there is a need to bring uniformity across Australia and we need to take reasonable steps to ensure that young people are not putting themselves in unnecessary danger. I do not have any problem with restricting V8 vehicles, except where they are needed for commercial activities, like four-wheel drives and other things. Otherwise, I do not have any problems.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (15:56): I thank the opposition members who contributed to this bill and I will endeavour to respond to each of the queries raised.

The shadow minister, the member for Kavel—who I wish to commend on the thoroughness with which he approached this bill—put in a lot of effort and consulted with a large number of individuals. He has been very much on the money in terms of areas that needed further interrogation.

In relation to the shadow minister's concerns with respect to high-powered vehicles, the classification of a vehicle as 'high-powered' will be if it has an engine of eight or more cylinders. I am reading this into Hansard so that there will be no confusion or disputation later as to what the government intended by way of the classification of high-powered motor vehicles.

It means an engine of eight or more cylinders which could be, by way of example, a V8 Ford Falcon or a V8 Holden Commodore, a turbocharged or supercharged engine, by way of, for example, the Subaru Impreza WRX, Nissan 200SX or Nissan Skyline turbo models, and vehicles that have been modified to increase engine performance.

Also, a number of nominated high-performance vehicles will be classed as high-powered motor vehicles. They are: BMW M and M3; Honda NSX; Nissan 350Z and 370Z; all models of Porsche from 1994 onwards—by way of example, Porsche Boxster, the 911 and the Cayman; and Mercedes-Benz SLK350. These specific models of vehicles have been selected based on their high power to weight ratios. The other states also identify these specific vehicles as high-powered vehicles for the same reason.

The following vehicles will be excluded from the restrictions because they are low performance in nature: all diesel powered vehicles, only if less than eight cylinders; all models of BMW Smart vehicles; Suzuki Cappuccino 2D, Cabriolet turbo 3 690 cc (1/1/92 to 1/12/97); Daihatsu Copen L880 2D (which is two door) convertible turbo 4 690cc (from 1 October 2003 onwards).

It has been suggested that the high-powered vehicle classification should be placed in the regulations rather than the Government Gazette. That was suggested by the shadow minister. The reason the bill provides for the notification process to be by gazette is to enable any necessary change in specific vehicles on the list to be made quickly.

From a policy perspective, inclusion in the Government Gazette will enable the restrictions to be more easily administered by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. If the vehicles are listed in the regulations, it will take some time to amend, and this is not desired. The registrar already lists approved motorcycles in the Gazette as part of the Learner Approved Motorcycle Scheme for learner motorbike riders.

Further, there are discussions amongst the states on introducing a uniform list of high-powered vehicles for provisional licence holders, and the inclusion of the classifications in the gazette will help facilitate this by allowing any necessary changes to the list to be made quickly. I raised this in informal discussion with the shadow minister. We do not want to a delay of four or five months from the arrival on the market of an extremely highly powered and potentially dangerous vehicle before it can be picked up by way of regulation.

That said, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria each currently has their high-powered vehicle classifications in their respective regulations and features any nominated high-performance vehicles in other documents, such as a gazette notice, so it seems to be a bit of a hybrid model: it gives certainty, but also allows flexibility.

The government is prepared to consider an amendment along these lines, where the high-powered vehicle classifications are featured in the regulations, together with the provision to allow the registrar to notify specific vehicles that need to be included or excluded from the classifications in the Gazette.

So, it is a hybrid model, with broad delineation of category but with the opportunity for us to act quickly, in concert with other states along the eastern seaboard, to preclude the use and purchase of new motor vehicles that could be potentially dangerous from the reach of the P plate drivers. This will be the subject discussion between the shadow minister and I as the legislation moves between the houses.

Again, as requested by the shadow minister, I can confirm that Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are yet to evaluate their high-powered restriction schemes. I saw some reference to a body of work in undertaken in Victoria that tended to indicate that the prohibition on the use of high-powered motor vehicles by provisional learners was showing positive benefit, but again they were extremely cautious by virtue of the small sample size and the fact that the scheme had not been in operation for a considerable period of time. I have been trying to track down the legislation, but they were of the view that there were discernible benefits.

I also refer to the situation which the member for Kavel brought up yesterday, where a family had two vehicles: one was damaged and unable to be driven for a period of time and the other fitted the classification of a high-powered vehicle. I confirm that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles would consider the evidence and, if satisfied, would grant the provisional licence holder a temporary exemption for the period the first vehicle was unable to be driven on the basis that the second vehicle was the only vehicle available to the provisional licence holder, and I think that is fair and reasonable.

All drivers under 25 years who were issued with a P1 licence after the date of implementation of the restrictions will be subject to the high-powered vehicle restrictions. I think it is important to highlight to the house that the bill has transitional provisions that exclude those who hold a provisional licence at the time the legislation comes into operation and who do not subsequently incur a disqualification from the high-powered vehicle restrictions.

In response to the member for Flinders' query about whether the high-powered restrictions will inadvertently affect those driving heavier vehicles, I confirm this will not be the case. A driver is required to hold a class C licence (which is a full/unrestricted driver's licence) for a minimum of one year before obtaining a heavy vehicle licence. The high-powered restrictions will only apply to provisional licence holders who have no adverse impact.

On the issue of the safer driver agreement, to clarify the member for Kavel's query about the regression effect of the safer driver agreement on a provisional licence holder, both P1 and P2 drivers would return to the initial P1 stage; that is, a P1 provisional licence holder will not regress to a learner's permit. This is consistent with the current licensing process adopted by the courts when a provisional driver successfully appeals against their licence disqualification on the basis of hardship.

On the issue of the introduction of the offence of being in possession of a driver's licence that has been unlawfully altered or damaged, I confirm the understanding of the member for Kavel about the proposed offence of being in possession of a driver's licence that has been unlawfully altered or damaged. The key word is 'unlawfully'. It is not an offence to be in possession of a driver's licence damaged through wear or tear.

On the issue of the increase in supervised driving hours and the increase in minimum time for a learner's permit, the member for Schubert queried why this bill does not allow for a driver over the age of 25 who has a reduced safety risk due to their higher level of maturity to complete a reduced number of supervised driving hours and have less minimum time on a learner's permit. In fact, this bill does that, and I refer members to clause 11 of the bill, which sets this out.

On the issue of the maximum speed permissible for a learner's permit holder, the member for Schubert (and also the member for Kavel in conversation with me) queried whether the maximum speed limit of 80 km/h for a learner's permit holder should be higher. In fact, if accompanied by a motor driving instructor in a clearly marked driving school vehicle fitted with dual control pedals (braking pedals), the maximum speed a learner's permit holder can drive at is 100 km/h. In all other circumstances, the maximum speed is 80 km/h. An increase in these circumstances is not under consideration, because excessive speed is a prime factor in the youth road toll and young driver offences. I have seen some evidence to indicate that there can be a propensity to speed on Ps if the learner is detected exceeding the speed limit, with some work that has been recently released by the University of Adelaide.

It also should be noted that the maximum speed for learner's permit holders of 80 km/h is consistent with New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. In discussions I have had with the officers in the last half hour, issues of practicality were indicated, in terms of SAPOL seeing the L-plates and not knowing at what stage through the 12 month period the learner is at, and also the current complexity of the L and P-plate system. I have to admit that, after looking at the structure, I believe there is a high degree of complexity, and I think we were a little reluctant at that stage to confuse what is already a reasonably complex system even further by inserting a scheme whereby an L-plater, say, for the first six or eight months can drive at 80 km/h and for the remaining six or four months can take that limit up to 100 km/h. That concludes my comments on the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Minister, thank you for your comprehensive comments in closing the second reading debate. That has explained and clarified quite a number of the issues that we raised during the course of the debate. As discussed, we have no amendments at this stage. My question relates to high-powered vehicles. I fully understand the different categories and descriptions, and I could even identify some of the makes and models which the minister read into Hansard.

The minister gave an overview of how the scenario would work if there were two vehicles in a family, one being classed as high powered and the other not, and if the second one was in the workshop for whatever reason, then an application could be made for an exemption for a P-plater to drive the high-powered vehicle. When a P-plate driver makes the application, how long is it envisaged that that application will take to be processed and a decision made by the registrar?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: We are seeking clarification on that. It will certainly be expedited as soon as is practicable and it will be set in regulation. I acknowledge the situation that you are talking about where you have two vehicles and the vehicle that the P-plater has been using has to be workshopped for some reason and the only other available vehicle is a high-powered motor vehicle. You are asking how long it would be before the P-plater could access the other vehicle.

A dedicated officer will be given this task. This change to the legislation will be backed up by resources. An officer will be responsible for the administration of the high-powered motor vehicle scheme, and indicatively—and it is only indicatively—we hope it would be done within a matter of two weeks at the maximum.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The authority will be delegated by the person holding the position of registrar. That is, the authority to assess and make a decision on applications will be delegated to an appointed government officer. We just want to canvass this a bit because this is quite an important aspect. As I said yesterday in my second reading speech, this is a new initiative that the government is bringing into this state, so we have to make every effort to get it right and get it working properly from the start. We do not want a situation where we have one officer sitting at a desk and there is a pile of applications like this that it is going to take them three months to work through. That is just a system that is not going to work. I am interested to explore issues around that.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: In response, I am personally assured that the scheme will be adequately resourced and adequately staffed. In considering all aspects of the legislation, I certainly took a great deal of interest in the administrative backbone of the scheme and it will not be a situation where one individual will be totally overwhelmed by the workload. There will be a team working on this.

Just by way of explanation, this is yet another reason why we have a preference for new motor vehicles coming onto the market to be dealt with by way of gazettal because it will significantly reduce the potential administrative workload in comparison to the process of regulation.

We really are trying to do everything that we can to ensure that this scheme causes minimum or no inconvenience to young people transitioning from their Ls to their Ps. There will be a substantial education campaign initially and that will be ongoing, and there will be a full explanation on a website. There will be readily available printed material and, within DTEI, there will be more than adequate resourcing for the scheme.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I might be missing something here in the bill, but clause 4(1) inserts the section where it outlines the high powered vehicle provision. We have talked about exemptions and making application for exemptions and the like but I cannot see—and I am seeking your direction—where the aspect of exemptions is actually stated in the bill because I think it is pretty important that that is actually legislated.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: As the shadow minister would well know, these would be incorporated in the regulations and it is normal practice that the regulations are drafted after the passage of the bill. Interstate, the exemptions are dealt with by way of regulation.

We have given a clear undertaking, if I can use that word, that the scheme that we will be running in South Australia will be, as near as possible, identical to that running in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, and those three states want commonality of the scheme as well. I give an assurance that what we are doing will not digress substantially from the form taken particularly by the Queenslanders, but also the New South Welshmen and the Victorians by way of exemptions.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I understand that, but just because the Eastern States do it does not necessarily mean that we have to follow them. I do not want to draw any analogies in terms of parental advice when children want to do the same things as their friends, and so on, but simply because the Eastern States administer it a certain way does not mean that this state cannot do it in a slightly different manner.

I get back to the point that this high-powered vehicles thing is new. I do not see why we, as legislators, cannot have something in the legislation that says that the exemptions for which provisional licence-holders are able to apply will be administered by way of regulation. It could be one line, and then it is in the bill, the act; it is law. I take the minister at his word; however, the exemption aspect to which we are referring here is an important part of this new initiative, which introduces restrictions on the use of high-powered cars.

Can the minister explain why we cannot have a line in there providing for the exemptions, as they relate to provisional licence-holders who are applying for exemptions, to be outlined by way of regulation?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: This may satisfy the shadow minister. Clause 12(17), page 17, provides:

The Registrar may, on application by the holder of a P1 or P2 licence and payment of the fee (if any) prescribed by regulation, grant the holder an exemption from subsection (16) for such a term and subject to such conditions as the Registrar thinks fit.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 28), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.


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