HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-09-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOTOR VEHICLES (DISQUALIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 July 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:41): Thank you, sir. I think I heard you referred to earlier as the deputy speaker. Are you currently our deputy speaker?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M. Wright): No, just acting.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thought you might have been. I thought perhaps you had been elevated and I had missed that. Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I rise to speak on the Motor Vehicles (Disqualification) Amendment Bill 2012. I note that this is the maiden bill of the minister and, of course, I plan to be not only brief but cooperative. This bill was introduced by the minister on 10 July 2012 and, on the same day, the final report of the Ombudsman was tabled in the house. I do not make any reflection on the capacity of the government to be able to introduce a bill which clearly helps to address some of the issues raised in the Ombudsman's report as though they had some kind of early insight into the bill, but I make the observation that from the Ombudsman's report it is clear that the government was well aware for over a year of the problems that this bill seeks to remedy.

I do not say that that was in the personal knowledge of this minister because at the time of the disclosure of this major problem, back in July 2011, then minister Kenyon had provided a public statement in early August 2011 disclosing that there was a problem, and he was clearly the minister seized of the matter. I will come to the purpose of the bill shortly but I make the observation that the minister has really inherited some rather unpleasant, bitter pills in her portfolio. As if public transport difficulties were not enough, and managing the contracts with bus companies has not caused her enough lack of sleep already, to be handed this rather nasty little piece is really, I think, probably a bit uncharitable of senior minister Conlon in not dealing with this matter or keeping it under his wing.

Nevertheless the minister has taken the responsibility, has taken the portfolio, accepted the job, as difficult as some of these explosive issues might be for her, and she has accepted that responsibility. I do not know whether all these things were disclosed to her before she took on the job but, nevertheless, having taken it, she is still there and therefore has this responsibility.

In South Australia car owners should, I think, under this government, on the face of it, have every confidence that they are going to be well looked after. After all, we have four ministers to look after car owners in this state. We have minister Conlon who tells them what roads they can drive on and where they can drive. Of course we have minister Rankine who makes decisions and looks after them as to how fast they can go, and—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, I could sit here for hours and listen to you but, at some point, are you going to get close to debating the bill itself?

Ms CHAPMAN: Absolutely. This is a bill to remedy—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a preamble.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sure you have read in every detail the minister's second reading explanation on this. This is a bill to remedy a problem in relation to drivers of motor vehicles who drive motor vehicles unregistered. Because of a complete stuff-up, in short, by former ministers, under their watch, we are here to remedy it. I am making the observation that, on the face of it, car owners should have some confidence in a government that has four ministers allocated the responsibility of looking after them. I have dealt with the first two.

The next one, of course, is the current minister—minister Fox—who has the responsibility to decide how much it is going to cost them to drive. That is in her portfolio. Then of course we have minister O'Brien and he is the one who collects the money through Services SA. So we have four ministers in the cabinet who are supposed to be looking after these issues and what do we find? We find that we have a bill to remedy a stuff-up a year after the government knew about it, and that is of concern to me.

I think it is important that, especially as the Ombudsman instituted his own investigation as a result of complaints in the community, we have some explanation from the minister, and I will ask her to explain in her response why it has taken a year for legislation to be introduced on this mess. It is claimed—and there is no reason to suggest the contrary—that the government was aware of this problem from July 2011.

Minister Kenyon, in August 2011 provided the material to the public to say that they had a problem and, by December 2011, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles had then—I think, on her initiative—issued notices of request through the electorate offices and Services SA inviting complainants to approach the registrar if they had been adversely affected. So we had some action taken, some disclosure made, but no remedying of a problem which was known to affect tens of thousands of people in this state. I do think we are entitled to some answer on that.

In short, for the purposes of those who might be following my contribution in this debate, currently when a driving offence is finalised, the information is electronically transferred from the Courts Administration Authority and SAPOL to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. The registrar is then obliged to notify the person of disqualification—that is, if the number of demerit points incurred in a three-year period reaches 12 points and/or some other circumstances. That is the current position. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles has no discretion in acting on that. They have an obligation specifically to act and there is no discretion.

Part of this, it is fair to say, has been the development, as we currently have it, to a stronger, stricter arrangement and regime for getting tough on behaviour that is contrary to the road rules—and I certainly do not propose to go into that—most of which the opposition has supported. The problem in this instance arises out of the fact that the registrar has no discretion. It was compounded by what was an apparent problem since 2009 in the TRUMP computer system, when 8,000 notices of disqualification were forwarded by the registrar much later than they should have been, with some people receiving them up to two years after they should have.

A number of these (probably at least half of them) should not have been disadvantaged because they had already opted for good behaviour agreements and thus been allowed to continue to drive. The greatest inconvenience was to the L and P-plate drivers who had progressed to a higher licence stage prior to receiving the notice of disqualification and were then forced to regress to a L or P-plate status.

The bill attempts to address this issue by changing the act not to allow the registrar to give a notice of disqualification where the notice has been delayed 12 months or more due to a government error. Both conditions must be met to avoid the person deliberately delaying the proceedings to manipulate the time frame or avoid disqualification. That is, if the notice has been delayed 12 months or more then the registrar shall not be allowed, under this bill (if it is passed and we support it), to issue that notice.

The alternative course, it seems to me, is one where there would be some relaxation of the mandatory obligation on the registrar; that is, to give some discretion. That is a possibility, it seems to me. I raise that because I will ask the minister to explain what other alternatives were looked at to try to redress those in the 8,000 group not covered by this legislation, as against the more recent 1,400 or so who are getting protection under this legislation. The government's position has been to say, 'We can't make this legislation retrospective to be able to give some protection to the people who have been affected previously.'

I think the Ombudsman's report is worthy of some comment. In his report dated July 2012 and tabled in this house on 10 July, the Ombudsman considered three issues: (1) the Courts Administration Authority delay in informing the Registrar of Motor Vehicles about the commission of offences that had attracted demerit points and other penalties; (2) the Registrar of Motor Vehicles should not have issued disqualification notices; and (3) the authority and/or registrar should have taken steps to prevent a failure in transferring data.

Interestingly, this is not an investigation by the Ombudsman that has been at the referral of any other agency. This has been an investigation that arose out of his office receiving a number of complaints by individual licence holders. Each of them had complained, he said, about the unfairness caused by the issuing of disqualification notices by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles some considerable period of time after the commission of an offence or offences. I think that is very disappointing because the government knew about this a year ago. He said:

In order to consolidate these complaints I decided to commence on my own initiative an investigation under section 13(2) of the Ombudsman Act...

It is also worthy of note that, as the Ombudsman explained, he was only able to investigate agencies—namely, the Courts Administration Authority and the department of transport, infrastructure and energy, now the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. He was unable to investigate at all the behaviour of the South Australia Police department because the Ombudsman Act does not provide any jurisdiction to do so.

There are many good reasons why the police do not get brought into Ombudsman inquiries. My personal view is that we need to look at whether administrative acts carried out by the police department—which I suggest this is—should not escape the scrutiny of the Ombudsman. Nevertheless, we are left with Caesar reviewing Caesar, of course, over there with the Police Complaints Authority. I do not know what action they have taken, if any, in dealing with that, or if SA Police were in any way at fault in this whole process. In fairness to them, if they were completely innocent of any negligence in the management of this then they ought to be able to have their name cleared at the very least. It seems to me that there is some deficiency in the act.

I would hope that members have read this report of the Ombudsman and, in the interest of time, I will not repeat significant amounts from it. However, from the time of issuing the provisional report and then the letters of response in late 2011 from the departments, trying to explain away their lack of attention to this and missing the boat, it is fair to say that the Ombudsman found a number of things. Firstly, the Courts Administration Authority was criticised for failing to establish any internal controls. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles was criticised for failing to have a risk mitigation strategy; in particular, that they should have been alert to the massive drop in referred cases and acted upon it.

In addition to that, the Ombudsman invited complainants to approach the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and seek remedies. In his report he also expected that there would be a report from the Courts Administration Authority and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles on that process by 30 September 2012.

I would invite the minister to assure the house, at least in the department she is responsible for, that she will report to the house as to the progress of that recommended action by the Ombudsman, that she would expect compliance with that, and that she will ultimately provide to the parliament (if the Ombudsman does not himself) his further report on the recommended action that he suggests that they take, independent of what we might fix up here in the parliament. I think everyone is entitled to have some response on that.

There has been a major problem. The second reading explanation was probably a bit thin on this, but the Ombudsman's report makes it absolutely clear that, whilst there was computer error in the data management, there was also human error in this whole process, and we cannot all blame computers for everything. I thought it was a bit cheeky of the minister to come in and present this to the parliament in her second reading explanation as being:

This bill addresses a problem facing governments in this age of electronic information gathering, storage and transmission...namely, programming errors that cause systems to malfunction, resulting in information not being produced or actioned in reasonable time frames.

Good luck in trying to put a gloss on this, minister, but the reality is that this has been a major stuff-up, and the Ombudsman's report makes that absolutely clear. This is not a computer-age problem, this is a problem which does need a serious and considered response. You cannot just blame computers as though they live in some world of isolation and that the people around them in some way are exempt from any criticism of their own ineptness or negligence in their duty.

The Ombudsman is the independent arbitrator on this and I think he has made very clear what his view is about not only the conduct of these agencies but also their attempts, in their responses to his provisional report, to get out of any liability on it and of blaming other people. He makes it perfectly clear that there should have been more attention paid to this, and a lot of people in South Australia have suffered as a result of it.

The parliament should have on the record some understanding of the significance of the personal and financial cost to the community of this issue. I am not talking now about the taxpayers having to pay for all of the new computing system that the government has announced they are going to implement for the purposes of remedying the computing data management, but the personal cost to the individuals who have been affected.

As is clear, thousands of people who have been affected by this are not going to get any remedy. They have been left out in the cold, and I think we do need to have a bit more explanation than the Hon. John Rau's press release which simply tells us it cannot be retrospective. Well, why not, and why should we not have some indication about the problem with that? The minister in the second reading said:

The greatest inconvenience was to people who were a learner or a provisional licence holder at the time of the offence, had progressed to a higher licence stage prior to being disqualified and after serving the disqualification, regressed to a provisional licence or learner’s permit.

That is the entire contribution that is given to all those poor punters who have been adversely affected. Again, good luck in trying to gloss over this. Here is just one piece of correspondence that has come in, and I think it has gone to most members in parliament, about what he thinks about the government's failure to deal with this issue. It starts with:

Dear Representative,

In August 2011 I received a letter from DTEI informing me that I had lost my licence for six months due to a computer glitch from over two years earlier. Many of us affected by this glitch engaged legal representation—

and then he names the legal firm—

with no success. The government would not budge from its position, apparently there was nothing they could do.

However it has been brought to my attention that DTEI has since had another computer glitch and the government is looking at changing legislation so that the new group of drivers to lose their licence will be receiving their full licence back at the end of their disqualification. Yet I cannot get my full licence back for two and a half years, surely all people who have lost their licence due to these glitches should be treated equally?

Needless to say I find this is no less than an absolutely disgusting move by the state government. On the one hand to treat the first 8,000 most unfairly, yet for the next group of unfortunate drivers, they are going to get special treatment.

It goes on and on about a number of other aspects, but here is the real impact on the person who has written this letter:

Due to my loss of licence I had no choice but to use Australia's most unreliable and sporadic public transport system to travel from Happy Valley to Semaphore so I could keep my job as a kitchen hand. The round trip alone on weekends was between 3.5 - 5 hours depending on the day, plus my shift at work (It took me 40 to 50 minutes in my car) I was unable to work many shifts because public transport was unavailable at that time (i.e. dinner/closing shifts).

Just to give you further understanding of my situation—

The letter continues and he talks about his disability and so on. I do not think I will go into all the personal aspects that he faces. I think it is important—and he begs me in this correspondence as one of the recipients of this letter—to make it clear to all members of parliament how this type of situation affects real people in real situations and has real consequences. In any event, he makes an almost rather unpleasant comment about how he feels that the government has failed to deal with this matter. He says in conclusion:

I hope that when you sit in parliament on the day this legislation is put before you and the other members that you will remember who you are and indeed who we all are as South Australians and that you will be a beacon of light, justice and fairness for all.

I do not think he means me personally; I think he means all of the parliament. I make the point that we need to understand as a parliament, particularly the ministers need to understand, that when these stuff ups happen they affect real people in real time and they have real consequences. It is not good enough to come in here and say that we need to fix up this because we are in the age of computer glitches and gloss over the significance of this for thousands of people—on the record from the Ombudsman's office it is tens of thousands of people. There are real consequences here.

I think we need some explanation from the minister as to why this one line retrospective referral of the Attorney-General was made in a statement in his press release on 10 July. I notice that he has run 100 miles away from this as well, minister. Obviously we have had minister Kenyon as well and minister Rau who all seem to have dumped it on your plate.

So, I am sorry for you that, as a maiden bill, you are stuck with this, but it should not escape the attention of you or other members of parliament here that there are real human consequences to this and they are entitled to have some answer to the remedy that is being offered and, on the face of it, the inadequacy of it. There may be some justified reasons for that, but I think that they are entitled to some.

Ms Julie Holmes, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, and other members of the department and members of the minister's staff provided a briefing on this matter. I am pleased that we had the opportunity to have that briefing and I thank them for their time in doing so. It seems clear from that briefing, and I should also place this on the record, that, whilst there is no definition in the bill proposed by the government as to what an administrative error is, I am told, so I place on the record, that that will include an electronic or personal error. So, it is not designed to be able to be evaded, as it could be if it was just one or other of those.

I am a bit surprised that there is not a definition in the bill of what administrative error is for its application because this is a sort of new-age type approach as to how we manage these. It is something that I think needs to be made clear by definition for the purposes of those who might seek to have some remedy under this, but so it is also clear for those who are administering these departments so that they understand what type of conduct could result in them having to implement the terms of this which, in this case, is the registrar to be prohibited from issuing a notice after 12 months. So, I think we need to have some clarity on that or at least confirmation about what that is going to be doing.

I will foreshadow, as the minister knows, an amendment to the bill. While we are dealing with administrative errors, we would like to remedy another problem. Information on this had been provided in the briefing, so I confirm that it is not just me as the shadow minister for transport, but there are real people out there who suffer as a result of not receiving notices of registration and insurance renewals.

This does not include those, I place on the record, who should take responsibility for making sure that they get their notices. I am sure other members have had people complain that they have not had their renewal notice but, in fact, they have been entirely responsible for that because they have not advised the proper authorities of any change of address, for example, or any change of status which might give them eligibility for a renewal notice in a different format.

So, that is their fault and I think everyone in the parliament agrees that this is a personal responsibility thing and they are responsible, but where there is an administrative error—I do not care whether it is a computer or a departmental person—there is a stuff up and they do not issue the renewal, then there are serious consequences. The history of penalty on these is very high, both in fines and demerit points. It used to be an automatic three-month suspension of licence in the old days, but the reason it is so serious is because this notice is not just for the registration but for the insurance.

We have a third-party protection system in the state. Everyone has got to contribute to that if they are driving motor vehicles and it is through this system that that contribution is made. So, it is quite properly very severely frowned upon, and the penalty reflects this, if people do not pay it, because there is a serious consequence for those who might have to end up paying enormous—that is, up to millions of dollars for people in personal injury claims—amounts if there is no insurance. It is all very well to say that the person might have to be liable to pay them, but usually what happens is that person cannot pay it and the victim then is left without proper cover.

So, there is a very good reason why it is severe, but there is also a very good reason, then, why we insist that the government, if there is a stuff-up, should have an obligation not to be able to recover. We foreshadow an amendment to provide that in the circumstances, to present a legal obligation on the department to issue the notice, and that if they fail to do so within that 14-day period we have provided, then the penalties, of course, lapse.

We have put a three-month clause in there to ensure that we do not allow a situation where somebody might be able to get away with the fact that they have not had a notice and be able to get away with it year after year. We recognise that that should not occur either, but this is a mandatory obligation which we think is reasonable.

The department has confirmed, in the course of the briefings that we have had via the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, that yes, there have been occasions when there has been a computer glitch, or incorrect data has been entered. It apparently occurs rarely. It is apparently most likely to occur in circumstances when there is a transfer of ownership of a vehicle, or transfer of the status of a vehicle from urban to city, or city to urban, and when different types of registrations are applicable. Therefore, it is a very real problem.

The only remedy at the moment is for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to beg the police not to prosecute. That is obviously not a very satisfactory situation. We need the registrar to have sufficient powers to deal with these matters, and I see that the government has gone down the administrative error formula, and so, consistent with that, we have placed this in the same methodology of management of this type of problem.

Of course, we do not know how many people there are out in the community who have just taken this situation on the chin. They may have thought, 'Well, I haven't had the notice, but I could have mislaid it,' or, 'I've got no avenue of redress, I've got no form of complaint, I know I can't deal with it; there is no power for me to get exempted from this—there's not much point in me going to court and saying to the judge that I didn't get my notice.' They do not know that they have any remedy. Those who have really taken that issue up—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, did I understand you correctly in saying you are going to move an amendment to this effect?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right; do you wish to perhaps save your energies for that amendment when it comes before the committee?

Ms CHAPMAN: Normally I would, Mr Deputy Speaker. I spoke to the minister before we commenced the debate and indicated that I was happy to just cover the gist of my amendment so that, when we do move into committee, it can be dealt with rather quickly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was unaware of that agreement.

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister has highlighted what her indication is on the matter—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that your understanding, minister?

The Hon. C.C. Fox: That is my understanding.

Ms CHAPMAN: —and so, in the interest of time—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just wish to confirm that is the minister's understanding. Yesterday, we had a situation where one of the members said something and the minister accepted it, but it was not the case at all.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Yes, I absolutely accept what the member for Bragg says. I also think I imagined the word 'brief' in there, but that was not the case.

Ms CHAPMAN: My brevity in the committee stage will stun you. I am actually winding up, as you might appreciate, because I only have one amendment. The gist of it is: the obligation follows some information that has come to us and it has been confirmed in briefings. We accept that, if we are going to go down the administrative error model, we will follow that to the extent of imposing this obligation, rather than providing a discretion back to the registrar to deal with these matters.

I am also informed—and I am sure quite reliably—that it is not that difficult for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to check. If there has been an error, they soon know about it. They can soon check whether in fact they have not issued a notice. So, we are not intending to impose any significant obligation.

I think it will be of great comfort to registered owners out there to know that they not only have four ministers looking after them, but that they are going to be properly considered when situations arise which result in an injustice to those adversely affected. With those few words, I commend the bill. I hope to have the support of the minister. As I have indicated, we will be supporting her bill, and I look forward in due course, when she has had an opportunity to investigate the benefits of this amendment between the houses, to her welcoming it back with open arms.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:15): I rise to speak on this bill because, having had the transport portfolio in previous parliaments, I am quite familiar with the TRUMP system, the system that replaced the DRIVER system. It was supposed to make the registration of motor vehicles quite transparent and seamless, and it was supposed to enable people to use the internet to go about various transactions to do with the Department of Transport, obviously registering their motor vehicles and getting their driver's licence.

I can say that I do have the EzyReg app on my iPhone. I can see that the registration of one of my cars is there. I am due to register the car on 17 December 2012. In fact, I have not opted to pay it now; I have opted to set a payment reminder which has gone into my calendar. However, if you do not have an iPhone or you do not go down that path, you are subject to the TRUMPS software.

The TRUMPS software was first implemented in the department in 2003-04 following the necessary approvals and it was scheduled to be completed during 2005-06. We know that this was not the case. We know that in at least one case there have been qualified audits for the Department of Transport that have had TRUMPS at the centre of their focus. In fact, a supplementary report for the year ended 30 June 2008 was put out by the Auditor-General, which spoke in detail about the problems with the TRUMP system at that time.

Most of the issue that we have now comes back to the fact that the TRUMPS software has never worked properly. In the end, I believe it cost $17.4 million. That is typical of this government: it spends big on a project but is unable to implement it in either its intent or its form, and the results of the projects are not achieved.

It is absolutely vital that motorists in South Australia are aware of when their vehicles need registering. I personally would like to go back to a system where if people want to get a sticker, they can get a sticker. I know of cases where motorists from South Australia have been driving interstate under the new system, without registration stickers, and have been pulled over by the police. In fact, I have written to police ministers interstate to clarify what is going on. Motorists have been pulled over by police interstate and given infringement notices for having unregistered vehicles.

Going on to the EzyReg app is apparently not good enough for the interstate police. There are serious issues with the way cars are being registered in South Australia and, in many ways, it comes right back to the TRUMP system, which has been around for a long time, has cost many millions of dollars and has been the subject of the Auditor-General's supplementary reports and qualified reports. It is about time this government got it right.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:19): I would like to make a few brief remarks. As everybody in this house would appreciate, it is always a challenge to follow the member for Bragg, because she is very thorough and organised and manages to bring many issues into her comments. I will just focus on one aspect that she brought up, and that is human face of this issue. There are two key issues that we are talking about here. One is in the government's bill, and that is the delayed notification—and probably quite rightly so—when demerit points are accrued and motorists find out later about a disqualification.

This has hurt people in the electorate of Stuart, particularly young people who might have been on L and P plates. I have had cases brought to me on this, and then they find out, perhaps two years later, that they have lost their licence and that they are going to still have their licence taken away from them, by which time they might have an apprenticeship or they might have a job. In country areas you really struggle to fulfil those responsibilities if you do not have a car, if you do not have a licence and if you cannot get around.

I will not go into naming names but I have quite a few real world examples in the electorate of Stuart where young men have lost their licence. They might have done the crime, lost the points, and it is quite understandable and quite fair that that happened, but up to two years later when they have got on with their life—and you can imagine that, if you are 17, 18 or 19, two years represents an enormous chunk out of your time; you have changed and you have grown.

In one case I went back through the whole record and he had not had one single traffic infringement of any kind. He had driven with a perfect driving record for longer than the disqualification was going to be, and then this person actually lost his job because he could not go to work because he could not drive his car. So, this is a very real issue in the electorate of Stuart.

The other half of this is the issue that the member for Bragg will raise with her amendment, that is, the issue with regard to unknowingly driving an unregistered car when the owner of the car was not sent a registration form. This is something that I wrote to minister Conlon about on behalf of three constituents, not because it only happened three times but because there were only three cases where I could show, without a shadow of a doubt, that the renewal notices had not been sent.

So, there were three cases and I wrote to the minister and said, 'Look, this constituent was unknowingly driving an unregistered car. They did not realise it was unregistered. They had been to Service SA who confirmed for them that a renewal was not sent, so surely, minister, you can help these people out in this situation.' The answer was a resounding, 'No, I am sorry, the letter of the law applies,' which, of course, is technically true, but my very strong view was that that was quite an unfair response in terms of trying to encourage people to respect the law, trying to encourage people to respect parliament, and trying to encourage people to respect the government.

I wholeheartedly support the member for Bragg in the amendment which we are all aware of and which she will formally put forward shortly. One of the things that I would like to mention is that it only applies in cases where a renewal is not sent. It does not apply to ones where the dog ate it, or you forgot, or you ran into some other thing, or you were away on holidays and did not get home in time—all of the other things which may or may not be quite reasonable, but it does not apply to those. It applies to the ones where a renewal notice was not sent in time and, in this instance, two weeks in advance of when the renewal was due.

Also, very responsibly on behalf on the member for Bragg, it does not apply if the situation is more than three months after the renewal would have been due, anyway, which I think is very appropriate because it does not say to the driver or the owner of the vehicle, 'Look, you have no responsibility. If you do not get one sent, you do not ever have to worry. You still have some responsibility in this.'

So, in the case of the member for Bragg's amendment, if you do not get one for six months and you are driving your own car unregistered for six months, well, bad luck, because you probably should have thought of it in that time. But if this does occur from two weeks ahead of when the renewal was due, up to three months after the renewal was due, then, essentially, you get some understanding from the government, and I think that is a very appropriate situation.

I will not take up too much more time but there is a very human face to this issue in the electorate of Stuart, where people really need their driver's licence, and people really need their cars. We have some public transport but not a lot of it and people who live in Port Augusta, the largest centre by population in the electorate of Stuart, still need to get around the countryside. Even if you live in Port Augusta, you work in Port Augusta, and most of your life is spent in town, in the country you still need to be able to get around, and so a car for us—me and the people I represent—is probably far more important than it is to most people in Adelaide.

The last thing I would like to say is that this has all come about at a very unfortunate time when the government took away the registration stickers. I think that it is probably just an unfortunate coincidence that this issue has come up at the same time as the stickers were taken away, but I think it is a very positive move by the member for Bragg, because her amendment will address that issue of people driving unregistered cars unknowingly.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:25): I also wish to make a contribution to the Motor Vehicles (Disqualification) Amendment Bill and put on the record some of my recollections of personal discussions and approaches that I had when the disqualification of some 8,000 drivers' licences became known. At that time I had some level of responsibility from a shadow portfolio perspective and I had contact from just about all around the state—younger drivers, older drivers and people everywhere in between—and I listened to some terrible stories of the impact that it was going to have on them.

They recognised that they had done the wrong thing. Their complete frustration though was that, to a large extent, their lives had moved on. Their circumstances in some cases had changed; they had different jobs that relied upon a driver's licence; they had moved to other communities where no public transport was available. For one young fellow who was an apprentice working in the Adelaide Hills who used a motorbike to get to work—and that was his only method of transportation—the loss of his licence meant that he was going to lose his job.

This was a young bloke who was proud of himself. He had come from very difficult circumstances with his family. He was determined to be employed gainfully, which was not evident in other members of his family, and here was his chance of becoming a useful contributor to society being taken away because of the fact that there had been such a dramatic error. I am sure most members in this chamber would have actually heard these sorts of stories. If they had listened to them, it might be a different story, but I know they were contacted on a regular basis and it was uniform throughout the state.

They wanted to do the right thing. They wanted to ensure that they served their penalty, but there was an expectation that the system should have worked much better than it did and that they would have been able to do that at the time—suffer through it but ensure that they had an opportunity to move on. Instead, they thought, 'What's happened here? Nobody has contacted me. I've still got my driver's licence. As far as I know, I can still keep driving,' and all of a sudden they find out up to two years later that that opportunity has been lost.

I had parents contact me on behalf of their kids who were not confident enough to speak to members of parliament, often from metropolitan areas and in Labor-held seats, who were fearful about what their kids were going to do. They pursued every opportunity. They knew that agreements could be entered into but that opportunity had been lost. There was an issue about the costs associated with it, the fact that they would have had to go back to a lower scale of licensing and start out again from scratch.

I know I spoke directly to the Hon. Tom Kenyon about it, trying to get some common sense into this and to ensure that a method was in place so that these people, no matter where they lived and no matter what age they were, actually had some recourse against what was occurring. I understand that it has been necessary to bring in the legislation and it is a good move that it has finally happened.

I am fearful about what the impact may have been. It would be interesting if anybody had the time to do some follow-up with people who directly lost their licences about what has occurred in their lives, so that we can all understand that sometimes there are very serious implications from omission and, to me, that is what this was. I support the fact that the legislation has been introduced. I am sure that everybody wants to make sure that it has a swift carriage through the parliament, so we will not hold it up for an overly lengthy time, but we have to make sure that the situation is improved.

I also want to put on record my commendation to the shadow minister for transport (the member for Bragg) for the amendment that she has introduced. It is amazing to me that the current situation of receiving a reminder notice is not a requirement but an act of good faith. I am flabbergasted, especially in this age in which we live, when there are no longer registration renewal stickers on car windows and therefore it is a bit more challenging for people to remember when the registration expires, that that guarantee that people would get their notices was not written into that change, which was brought about as a budget efficiency.

I know it occurs in the absolute majority of cases and I do respect that. However, there are those people where, for some reason, it slips through and they cannot find any record of it. They say that, in all honesty, they never received it. The fact that there has been no compulsion to ensure that it has gone out—and when people have checked and it has been proven that no notice was issued, because as I understand it the system is clever enough to understand that that has occurred—is very disappointing to me.

I hope that this amendment has support; it is a common-sense one. There are notices issued already, and presumably it will only be a very minor increase to the cost of doing business to the government, but it provides a level of service to the community who, after all, pay everything towards state revenue to allow these services to even exist, to give people some surety that they are going to get a registration renewal and then they make a decision. I know there are many different ways that you can review your vehicle registration and how you can check on it using different apps and that there is a toll free telephone number you can ring and all that sort of stuff, but the most basic and important principle is to ensure that they get the notice first.

I have listened intently to the contribution made by the shadow minister and by other members on this side about the legislation. All of them have put their concerns to the chamber. I know other members—and we probably still have a few people who wish to speak on this—want to make sure that the contact they have had from constituents becomes part of the historical record of Hansard because it is an important issue; it is not just a flippant thing.

Up to 8,000 people were affected by the delay in processing their infringement notices. Many of them contacted us and there were real concerns that had to be sorted out. It took an enormous amount of time from all the electorate offices' point of view and many MPs devoted a lot of time to trying to help in any way they could, as well as just talking people through the issues.

I had some contact with a trucking finally on Eyre Peninsula. They had second-generation people involved in the business who were impacted by this and were concerned about what it was going to do to the business. It is not just about an individual employee, it is about the impact it has on the business. If you suddenly lose somebody in whom you have invested time so that they have the appropriate skills to be part of a business which requires a driver's licence and then that is lost at a key time, it has an impact on the economy.

Economic activity does drive state revenue so here is a throwaway opportunity to recognise that, if policy and practices are not right and there are no fail-safe procedures in place with computer systems and how they work, the impact can be very pronounced on many people. I look forward to the swift passage of the bill and I hope that there is support for the amendment proposed by the member for Bragg.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:32): I rise to support the bill. I certainly support all the comments from our side of the house and the comments by the shadow minister, the member for Bragg, and her amendment regarding registration renewals. It is just amazing that in this day and age this type of legislation is needed to cover basically what was a computer error, yet there is no recourse for the many people who have come into all of our offices.

I have several inquiry sheets just from my office and I want to talk about a few of them here today. There is one from Tim from Murray Bridge who got a notice of disqualification of his licence from 2008, and this was back in August 2011. There was an accompanying letter from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles stating why it had taken three years for him to receive it. When Tim's incident happened he was on his provisional licence. He then had a full licence but, with the disqualification issue, it meant that his licence was taken away and he had to start on his learner's again after 12 months. This is the letter from the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure dated 5 August 2011, which states:

Enclosed is a notice of disqualification notice that has resulted from an expiation notice (fine) you received up to two years ago. Some time after July 2009, you applied to the Magistrates Court for relief and then entered into a payment arrangement to pay the fine.

The Courts Administration Authority (CAA) is required to notify the Registrar of Motor Vehicles when a person completes an application for relief so that I can record this offence and any associated demerit points against that person's licence record. The Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (the Act) requires that where this results in a breach of a conditional licence or the demerit points scheme, I must disqualify the person from driving.

In 2009 the CAA upgraded its software and the CAA computer system ceased automatically supplying some offence information to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. This error meant that I was not notified of your offence and therefore did not send you a notice of disqualification. The error has only recently been discovered and I have acted to correct the problem as quickly as possible.

I acknowledge this delay may cause inconvenience. I have no discretion though to remove or vary a disqualification required under the Act. However if you are eligible to enter into a Good Behaviour Option, a Safer Driver Agreement or Appeal the disqualification to the Magistrates Court, you still have the same options. The options available to you are written on the notice.

Further information is contained on the enclosed notice, so please read it carefully.

If you are uncertain about what to do, you should contact Service SA on 13 10 84.

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

That is just one of my constituents. We see that the registrar seems concerned that this has only happened after three years. It is just not good enough. Okay, this is someone who has committed the offence, but why have they not been sent the fine and done the time, so to speak, in a timely manner? It is just ridiculous that this has happened and that it has taken three years to get over it.

George from Murray Bridge had the same thing, a late disqualification for something that happened three years earlier. Another lady, Kirra, received a speeding fine in March 2011 in Victoria, nine kilometres over the speed limit and it took 14 months to sort this out. After 14 months of knowing nothing of this incident, Kirra says that she has a full-time position at the bank and that the offence impacts on social functions and her day-to-day social life and, apart from that, just getting to work. She made her mistake, paid her fine and did what she was told to put the matter to rest. 'Why does the department of registration and licensing's mistake have to become mine after 14 months?'

I have a handful of complaints from constituents here, and these are just some of the constituents who came into my office. It is not good enough in this day and age where we are supposed to have software and computer systems to make life easier, but here we have people's lives turned upside down. They acknowledge that they have had issues and that they have been speeding. They have paid the fine but then they do not get any notice about demerit point issues. It has impacted heavily on their lives.

I refer to another constituent (a young girl) who lives out in the electorate. They have a property at Milang and another one in the Mallee, so they do not always pick up their mail. By the time they received notice of the safer driver option, they had just over three hours to get back and respond to it. This is people who have a long way to drive into the city to sort the issue out. Thankfully, some common sense prevailed in that situation.

This has been a terrible mess. It impacts heavily on people, especially in regional communities, who do not have the opportunities for public transport and who may not have someone who can assist them in getting them to work or social functions, which could be many kilometres away from home. As I said, it does impact heavily on people in regional areas. I guess we can be thankful that we are here to right the wrong, but why has it taken so long?

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:40): Just briefly, I will declare that I am a victim of this, so I have some feeling about all this. Doing some 66,000 kilometres a year, I will admit, I do not know why, but I have been very, very good in the last 18 months. Whether that is an accident or whether it is some form of relaxation out there, but to lose one's licence for three months for speeding is not easy. I went through the process purely so that I could learn what it was like to have the privilege removed. Certainly I have a different point of view about it now, and I wonder how other members of parliament did not go the same way.

It is pretty sad to realise that the system has broken down in this instance, and people, 14, 15 months after losing a licence, are to be told they have lost their licence and they have to move on and put it to rest. It will be a real shock to get in the mail a notice advising you of the cancellation of your licence. I reckon that is pretty poor. I cannot understand the government's response to that.

I read the paper, and I am also responding to what the shadow minister said, that to fix it up they will just say that the bill changes the act by not allowing the registrar to give a notice of disqualification when a notice has been delayed for 12 months. Well, really, I think that is not the answer to the problem, because you cannot rely on the default of the system to get out of it. It is not fair. Some people will be trapped and some people will not, and it is either right or it is wrong.

I also want to support the shadow minister's amendment, particularly in relation to notification to the driver, particularly of registration loss or expiry. It is all very well if you have got one car, but I think it is crazy that in the same breath we first of all do not have to have registration disks on our cars, and at the same time you have to know, and they do not necessarily send out renewal notices. Well, I think that is ridiculous. Particularly if you are a multi vehicle owner you are bound to have some problems because you are not going to remember when the vehicle registration expires.

I do note that a member of parliament has printed his own disk and distributed it to a lot of members around here to put on our windows just to remind us of when our registration expires. I certainly support the amendment that has been circulated and lodged by our shadow minister, the member for Bragg, who has been here for nearly as long as me, but not quite.

Ms Chapman: I've been here 10 years.

Mr VENNING: You're only a youngster. I believe that the registrar must let you know not less than 14 days before the expiry of the period of registration of a motor vehicle and give to the owner of the vehicle a notice, in the form determined by the registrar, advising the owner of that expiry date and registration renewal notice. The question I would have, though, is that a person could say they have never received it. Is there any proof or onus? I do not know whether that can be answered by the minister or by the shadow minister. Is there any proof? Some may deny that they did not receive the notice if they do get caught out.

It is a concern to see and realise that there are so many vehicles out there now driving on our roads unregistered. None of us would ever accept that as being acceptable because you expect that the vehicle coming towards you is driven by a responsible person and is insured and is registered. It is a real worry, and it is becoming more and more of a trend with our younger drivers in particular who do not see the necessity to either register, be licensed, or be insured; so, that is a big concern.

The whole area needs to be cleaned up, and it was pretty unprofessional for the government to allow something like this to continue for 18 months to two years before it was picked up as being a problem. Certainly I join my colleagues in supporting this, the Motor Vehicles (Disqualification) Amendment Bill 2012. Hopefully, it will be tidied up. I am concerned at the number of people who are losing their licence and I think it really begs us to ask the question as to why and whether we are going over the top with speed limits.

Just having returned from Europe, a person notices very much, first of all, the standard of the highways. The speed limits on those highways are right up. We were on a motorway with a 130 km/h speed limit on it and—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert, I think you are transgressing across the road on another issue.

Mr VENNING: Anyway, I support the bill and I just think we are being a bit overzealous with loss of licence.

The Hon. C.C. FOX (Bright—Minister for Transport Services) (17:45): I would like to thank all those members for their contributions which have been of interest to me. Three particular questions have emerged from the opposition during this debate and they are as follows: why did it take so long for this bill to come to the parliament, what other alternatives were discussed and why is the bill not retrospective? So, if I may, I will address those issues in order.

Why did it take so long? I am advised that, in 2009, the Courts Administration Authority updated their system to affect notifications to other departments. The change should not have affected the registrar's offence notifications. Offence data was still being transmitted to the registrar, as it should have been; however, offences that had been finalised through the court granting relief were no longer being sent. As these present a small number of the total offences sent from the Courts Administration Authority to the registrar, the missing offences went unnoticed for nearly two years. That perhaps offers some background as to why it actually took so long.

The second question that the member for Bragg asked is: what other alternatives were discussed? I am advised that when the delay was realised the registrar had no choice but to issue disqualifications because the Motor Vehicles Act actually required it—that was what she actually had to do.

The final question which, I think, has been raised by nearly every single speaker is: why is the bill not retrospective? I would like to answer that in some detail because I think that the member for Bragg would prefer it to be so and I understand why.

I should say, in sitting here and listening to the contributions by the various members, that I in no way dismiss or, as the member for Bragg has said, 'gloss over' any of the experiences that have happened to these people. We recognise that drivers, no matter what their level of qualification, should not have to suffer because of an administrative error on behalf of government. I accept that and that is actually where the motivation for this amendment comes from.

As we know, approximately 8,000 drivers were disqualified due to the 122,000 offences that were delayed in transmission from the Courts Administration Authority to the registrar in 2011. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, as it currently stands, the registrar has a statutory duty to give a notice of disqualification if an offence results in a person becoming liable for disqualification.

The registrar had no option but to act in accordance with the law, even if there had been a significant delay in the transfer of data, which happened in 2011. This bill seeks to amend the Motor Vehicles Act because, while these drivers have broken the law, the government recognises it is unfair to delay licence disqualification for so long.

Retrospective legislation is not supported by the government. Of the approximately 8,000 drivers issued with notices of disqualification in May 2011, 7,300 have acknowledged their disqualification. Not all had to serve the disqualification and, indeed, some drivers even benefited from the delay by accessing options not previously available to them such as the ability to apply for a safer driver agreement. These people have either chosen to serve the disqualification, won a hardship appeal in the Magistrates Court and kept their licence or have entered into a good behaviour option or safer driver agreement which allows them to avoid their disqualification and continue driving but under stricter conditions.

To create retrospective legislation would be unfair to those 7,300 drivers who actually did the right thing. It would also give an unfair advantage to the 880 drivers who have not done the right thing and not acknowledged their licence disqualification notice.

Of these 880 drivers, almost three-quarters have been previously disqualified. I think that is a really important thing to note: over three-quarters of those 880 drivers had already been disqualified. Of these, around 80 per cent have been disqualified at least twice previously, and 16 per cent of them have been disqualified between 10 and 30 times previously. So, these people are sort of at the far end of offending.

I think that the question in relation to why the bill is not retrospective also leads me to reflect on something which was not actually a question that the member asked for the answer to; that is, did the registrar offer any redress to those drivers who were affected by this delay? The answer is yes.

As an act of goodwill, the registrar set up a scheme to reimburse all licence holders disqualified by the delayed offence data from 2011 for any out-of-pocket expenses for licence tests (such as hazard perception tests and practical driving tests) that were incurred as a result of the delayed offence transmission.

That scheme was advertised through all Service SA offices and all electorate officers in September 2011. Once again, the figures are a telling story. To date, 11 claims have been submitted, four have been settled, four are still considering offers, and three are still being investigated. The total sum of the eight claims paid, or where offers have been made, is around the $1,000 mark.

So, we do acknowledge that there was a problem here; people suffered because of a government error, but it is also worth noting—and, while I do not have it in front of me, I think it is noted in the Ombudsman's report—that there was a significant attempt to make some redress for what has occurred. That is all I have to say on that matter. Perhaps, at this point, I may refer to the amendment as it is suggested by the member for Bragg?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

The Hon. C.C. FOX: The member for Bragg puts an amendment to the house which, while I do not disagree with it entirely in principle, only landed on my desk yesterday at 6pm. It certainly requires further consideration from me, and I would very much like to consult with the stakeholders.

This is not some sort of knee-jerk political reaction situation that I want to go into. I would like to consult with SAPOL and the Motor Accident Commission, I would like to look at the ramifications of what the member for Bragg is suggesting, and certainly then I would be very happy to see if it can be discussed in between the houses.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

New clause 3A.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 2, after line 9—Insert:

3A—Insertion of section 26A

After section 26 insert:

26A—Registration renewal notices

(1) The Registrar must, not less than 14 days before the expiry of a period of registration of a motor vehicle, give to a registered owner of the vehicle a notice, in a form determined by the Registrar, advising the owner of that expiry (a registration renewal notice).

(2) If, as a result of an administrative error, a registration renewal notice is not given to a registered owner in accordance with subsection (1), no offence is committed against sections 9 or 102 in relation to that motor vehicle until the expiration of—

(a) 14 days after such a notice is given to a registered owner; or

(b) 3 months after the expiry of that registration,

whichever occurs first.

(3) In any proceedings for an offence against section 9 or 102 relating to a motor vehicle, a document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Registrar and certifying that a registration renewal notice was given to a registered owner of the vehicle on a specified date is proof of the matters stated in the certificate in the absence of proof to the contrary.

I rely on the comments made in my second reading contribution. I conclude by thanking both the minister for her indication of consideration of the merits of this (hopefully favourably) between houses, and also the member for Stuart, who I certainly should have acknowledged earlier as the member who brought the seriousness of this matter, and perhaps the remedy available, to our attention. Hopefully, it will have passage through the parliament.

New clause negatived.

Remaining clause (4) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.C. FOX (Bright—Minister for Transport Services) (17:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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