HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-10-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOTOR VEHICLES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 15.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Since the committee last met, the government has tabled amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister for Road Safety. In consideration of that amendment and in consideration of the undertakings given by the minister earlier in committee, the opposition considers that we can best protect the interests of South Australians living in rural and regional areas by not pursuing this amendment, so I propose to withdraw it and make comments in the context of the government's amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the Hon. Mr Wade seek leave to withdraw his amendment?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, sorry, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First think that this is a good compromise and we are happy to support the government's amendment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I move:

Page 8, lines 35 and 36—Delete 'at a specified location within a specified period' and substitute:

, within the period specified in the notice, at a specified place of a kind prescribed by the regulations

This amendment will allay any concerns that the opposition or other members might have had in relation to our actually being able to say in the regulations where people will be serving the notices. In response to earlier debate, the government is pleased that it can introduce this in-house amendment to make it completely clear that the locations at which a licence holder will be required to attend to acknowledge receipt of a notice of a disqualification will be prescribed in the regulations; specifically, the Motor Vehicles Regulations 1996.

It was always the government's intention to prescribe these locations in the regulations (as I had earlier thought) and to ensure that licence holders are aware of the locations they are required to attend. As this is a cost-recovery initiative, there is no incentive for the government not to ensure an adequate network to service all licence holders, particularly those residing in regional and remote areas of the state.

If these locations were included in the act itself, it would limit the government's ability to negotiate an appropriate fee with appropriate service providers. From a business perspective, and in the interests of the community in keeping cost recovery to a minimum, we do not think it is prudent to force any government to deal only with the service providers listed under the act.

As mentioned previously, by including these locations in the regulations, parliamentary members will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations at a later date. If they are not happy with the regulations the government puts forward, they have the opportunity to disallow those regulations, but I am certain that will not happen, because it is our intention to ensure that this legislation works well. I thank honourable members for their support.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Further to my comments in withdrawing my amendment, I would like to stress that we are accepting this amendment with the background of the minister's comments at the committee stage, in terms of the undertakings. The opposition would not want to put Australia Post or any other provider in an unfair negotiating position with government and so, in that context, it is appropriate that the regulations are for the place where that agency network is recognised rather than in the statute and, therefore, binding the government to a particular user.

We accept the government's invitation to proactively review the regulations and we look forward to doing that. In that context, the opposition would like to reiterate its expectations for the regulations. The government has already indicated that it intends that the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure's community service centres would be specified locations. We welcome that. As I said earlier in committee, the opposition's view is that the network of 136 police stations around South Australia is another appropriate specified location, and we express our disappointment that the police do not see this as part of their core business. We note the government's interest in using Australian Post as an agency network. However, of course we appreciate that it is still subject to negotiations with that agency.

If Australian Post is not a viable agency network, the opposition would expect agency arrangements of similar reach to be made. The minister indicated that she understands that there are about 405 postal outlets; and, whilst it may not be possible to get an agency network of a similar size within one agency network, it may be possible to arrange for a set of other agency arrangements. If those negotiations prove troublesome, we would encourage the government to consider an alternative mechanism—perhaps alternative amendments—to the act. For example, it might be that to meet the needs of the legislation to confirm the identity of a person we could use justices of the peace to confirm a statutory declaration in terms of notice of disqualification. After all, we have similar proof of identity issues in relation to passports, yet the commonwealth, as I understand it, is willing to use non-government mechanisms of proving identity.

With those comments, I indicate that the opposition looks forward to seeing the regulations that will need to be put in place under this bill. We look forward to the government meeting its commitment to ensure that South Australians in rural and regional areas have fair access to agencies to fulfil the obligations under this act.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I thank members opposite and members on the cross benches for supporting the government's amendment. I pick up the point the honourable member made in relation to using JPs. Of course we are talking about someone being involved in a transaction of money here. We think this is a little different for evidentiary purposes in case it goes down that path. I just make that comment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 9, lines 5 and 6—

Delete 'a service fee of the amount prescribed by the regulations' and substitute:

The specified service fee (being an amount prescribed by the regulations)

Again, this amendment is similar to the previous three amendments. It is an attempt by the opposition to support the spirit of the legislation and improve its effectiveness. Our reading of the clause is that the notice given to a person, in terms of notice of disqualification, could advise that a service fee is payable but that it could be expressed in general terms as a service fee payable under the regulations.

We think it would increase compliance if people were actually advised of the fee in the regulations. In other words, being told that rather than being invited to access legislation (however difficult that might be for individual users), so that they get due notice of the fees involved by that fee being indicated in the letter itself.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: This amendment is opposed as it appears not to change the effect of the clause. Under the bill, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles is required to inform the licence holder of the process they must follow and the appropriate fees that will apply. Whilst the fees themselves will be prescribed in the regulations, it is in the government's best interests to ensure that all licence holders, particularly those who are liable to a licence disqualification, are aware of the $24 administration fee and consequent $60 process server fee should the licence holder fail to comply with the original notice. This will assist in ensuring that all clients respond in a timely way, and it may reduce the need to engage a process server. Essentially, we will be doing what the honourable member suggests, and we will be doing so in a letter informing people what they are liable for, as well as prescribing it in the regulations. As I said, this amendment does not really change anything.

In addition, to ensure that licence holders are aware of the new legislative requirements, a brochure will be forwarded with each registration and licence renewal as well as each letter that notifies a licence holder that they have accumulated at least six demerit points and each notice of disqualification. The brochure will provide the licence holder with legislative and administrative information concerning the licence disqualification process and the new requirements. As I said, we believe that we are already doing what the honourable member is suggesting.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think it is a shame that, if the government is of that view, it does not take the opportunity to clarify the legislation. However, we are trying to improve it; if the government does not want to take it up, we note its undertakings and will be alert to ensuring that the documents provided to people affected by these provisions reflect the undertakings of the government. We do not intend to pursue the amendment, other than allowing it to be dealt with by the committee.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (16 to 18) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments; committee's report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 16.25 the council adjourned until Tuesday 13 November 2007 at 14:15.


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