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.

Clauses 1 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Will the minister clarify the effects of clause 10? In her second reading explanation the point is made that currently, if the holder of a South Australian driver's licence commits an offence outside South Australia, and enforcement in that jurisdiction results in suspension or cancellation, the South Australian Registrar of Motor Vehicles must cancel the licence, even if the penalty in the other jurisdiction is less than cancellation. The government claims the bill gives the registrar the discretion to suspend rather than cancel. I refer to current section 83, because on my reading it gives the registrar the power to suspend or modify in section 83(2). On my reading the new provision is broader in that it refers to any administrative action and not just disqualification, suspension or modification. I want to understand the impact of the legislation, if the minister might clarify.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I will explain the intention of this clause: it is to ensure that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles is able to suspend as an alternative to the current requirement to cancel a South Australian driver's licence when the licence holder is disqualified from driving by an administrative order made by an interstate authority. It has been necessary to delete section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act in its entirety and replace it with provisions that have similar effect but provide the registrar with greater discretion.

The provisions allow the registrar to take action as necessary in relation to a South Australian licence or permit so as to give effect to a court order or administrative action made in another jurisdiction as if it had been made in this state. Essentially, this ensures that the registrar can give effect to the equivalent of the interstate penalty without South Australian licence holders being unfairly disadvantaged. New subsection (2) applies only to a court order; not an administrative action; that is in response to the question asked by the honourable member.

Clause passed.

Clauses 11 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

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

Page 8, line 18—after 'a person' insert:

who is—

(a) a registered owner or the registered operator of a motor vehicle; or

(b) the holder of a licence or learner's permit; or

(c) the holder of trade plates,

This clause relates to the introduction of a new requirement on people with licences and similar permits to notify a change of postal address. The opposition supports the introduction of that obligation, and believes it is reasonable in terms of the administration of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, we submit to the committee that there is benefit in clarifying the provision in two respects.

The first is reflected in my amendment No. 1. Clause 14 purports to insert new subsection (2d) in section 136, the first words of that new subsection being `If a person changes his or her postal address'. In that respect it is out of character with the rest of the provisions in that section because it does not specify the class of persons to which it relates, and the opposition believes there is value in clarifying that it is not an unlimited obligation on all members of the South Australian community to notify, but that it is specifically an obligation held by registered owners or operators of motor vehicles, holders of licences or licence permits, or holders of trade plates.

It is our view that that amendment covers all the classes of persons dealt with under the current section 136, and we believe that, as a Legislative Council seeking to improve legislation, that proposed amendment would assist the government in its objective.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The government will support this amendment. Essentially it is a drafting oversight and we agree that it would ensure consistency with other provisions in section 136 of the act and would clarify the application of the legislation. I agree that it is important that we define the three categories of persons, so that it is consistent with the other provisions in the section.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr Chairman, if it is appropriate I would like to ask questions of the government about the operation of the bill before I move my second amendment. I seek to explore with the government what level of non-compliance there has been in relation to section 136 provisions. As I understand it, section 136 puts a duty of notification on a range of users of motor vehicles to notify the department, and I was hoping the government could advise on the level of non-compliance it is finding with the current section 136 provisions, as well as the administrative and other costs such non-compliance might be placing on the government.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I undertake to bring that information back, because we do not have it with us here today.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you, minister. In relation to clause 14 the maximum penalty specified is $1,250 but that is also out of sync with the rest of section 136, where the most common penalty is $250. Whilst the government is not in a position to advise us regarding the costs that non-compliance is currently creating, I am wondering why the government feels that $1,250 is a more appropriate penalty in this section than the $250 in other sections.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: If the honourable member would move his amendment, which seeks to keep it at $250, I would probably be in a position to explain it to him—unless he wants me to do so without his moving the amendment, and I am happy to do that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to do it that way. Still in the nature of questions—

The CHAIRMAN: Do you want to move your amendment?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Not until after I have finished my questions. In relation to the other elements of section 136, is the government planning to increase the penalty for the other offences in that section?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Yes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: So, is the government intending to move an amendment to the other clauses here today? I ask that because, if the government has opened the act and has decided that it wants to increase the fees for failure to notify, why is the government choosing not to do it today?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Again, this is a bit of a strange way to do things, because it involves asking questions about an amendment the honourable member wishes to move; he wants me to answer questions about it beforehand. I think we have already flagged in this chamber that we are intending to bring back proposed legislation. We flagged that intention when the Hon. Dennis Hood introduced a bill in this parliament—which is now in the other place—in relation to unregistered and uninsured matters. We flagged at that time what our proposal was, and I can go through it now, but I was going to speak to it when the honourable member moved his amendment if he chose to do that.

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

Page 8, line 21—Delete $1,250 and substitute:

$250

This amendment has the effect of bringing this clause into line with other provisions of current section 136. I will be very interested to hear the minister justifying a 500 per cent increase in a government fee.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We oppose this amendment on the basis of a future proposal. It is not normal for government ministers to be flagging proposals, but we have already done that in this place when we were responding to the Hon. Dennis Hood's legislation in relation to uninsured and unregistered vehicles. We explained at the time that, whilst we supported his bill in principle, we wanted to strengthen further legislation and we hoped to be in a position to bring that in early next year.

The amendment is opposed on the basis of a future proposal to better manage unregistered and uninsured vehicles, and that proposal is likely to be considered early next year now. Under this proposal, the increase in the maximum penalty from $250 to $1,250 is proposed to apply to all existing provisions under section 136 of the act to ensure alignment with this new subsection (2d), as per the Motor Vehicles (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill before us.

Again, the details of the unregistered and uninsured proposal have previously been referred to in this chamber on 29 March 2007 and include making unregistered and uninsured offences expiable, with an expiation fee that is sufficiently high to act as a deterrent as well as increasing the levels of detection by making these offences detectable by road traffic cameras.

Again, I acknowledge that the Hon. Dennis Hood has legislation before the parliament. As we said at the time, we supported him in the principle of making the offences expiable, but there are a number of other issues we want to consider to strengthen the bill. Clearly, it is our preference not to have to come back to this place with another amendment next year to revisit this section. I point out to honourable members that the small number of recidivist offenders who use loopholes should not be treated leniently. That is our view.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Certainly, on behalf of the opposition I would share the government's concern that the Hon. Mr Hood has brought to this chamber in terms of dealing with unregistered and uninsured drivers. That is indeed an area of great concern, but I do not think we should confuse the bulk of this bill, which deals with the process of disqualification, with this element. As I understand it, clause 14 deals more with the general administration of licences.

Let us remind ourselves what we are talking about. This is every licence and permit holder having a duty to notify a change of postal address within 14 days. We support that—we think it is good to make sure people focus on their public duties—but to my mind $250 is already a severe penalty for that indiscretion, and $1,250 for an ordinary South Australian failing to notify of a postal address change within 14 days I think is unreasonable.

I accept that the minister says she has a proposal that she will bring back in fuller terms, but I would certainly encourage the government to withdraw clause 14 of the bill at this stage so that it can be considered in the context of the whole proposal. I would ask the government to have a good, hard look at whether we really need to put such an onerous burden on ordinary South Australians to deal with that minority of people who choose to drive uninsured and unregistered.

If the government is serious about focusing on the uninsured and unregistered, the postal address will not really help. You cannot turn up at a post box and nab the person. What are more important are other subsections of section 136 that deal with change of abode and residence. I ask the minister to withdraw clause 14 so the government has the opportunity to consider it more fully in the context of the legislative changes she has already foreshadowed.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: I rise to support my colleague. I really have not followed this bill in great detail until now, but the minister herself said that this clause is to stop recidivists, and my understanding of that is people who are repeat offenders; people who deliberately and habitually fail to register their vehicles. We know that those people do exist, but my colleague asked the question: how many of these recidivists are out there? Obviously, if they deliberately do not register their vehicle it is very difficult for us to know how many of them are out there, but I am sure there must be an informed estimate or guess of how many of these people there are.

Two very quick instances have occurred to me while listening to this debate. What about someone who is away on an extended holiday? They come back and they are a fortnight over registering their vehicle and they are copped with a $1,250 fine for a mistake; for an omission. What about people who live some distance from a town? I know this government has no idea of anyone who lives very far away or does not have their mail delivered. There are a lot of people who only receive their mail once a week. I admit there are fewer and fewer of those people, because they are so seldom considered in this place. There are people who get their mail once a week.

So, essentially, the minister is saying that they have to send that back; if they are not computer literate—and quite a lot of them are not—they have to send it back by return mail. The minister has already given us warning that there will be further changes early next year. I would just like to support my colleague and ask the minister: does this pass the commonsense test? It clearly does not pass the commonsense test, so why don't we leave it as it is until we can have a look at these more detailed changes early next year?

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I think this provision in the bill is absolutely over the top, and we have not had an adequate explanation for it. In addition to the examples the Hon. Caroline Schaefer has given, I can think of a number of instances where mere oversight can be a problem. Think of a situation where there has been a death in the family. Their minds are—

The Hon. C.V. Schaefer interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Yes; a car crash, where they have had to identify a member of the family. They have to organise a funeral, and their mind is on a whole range of other things. What about someone who is unexpectedly hospitalised and held in hospital for four weeks? Again, it is so easy for someone like that to be trapped in this, and it is hardly a heinous offence. I agree with the Hon. Caroline Schaefer when she says that this does not pass the commonsense test.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As a general rule, I think the penalties for motoring and motor vehicle-related offences in South Australia are, in many respects, too low. When you have visitors from interstate and they are thinking about parking for a bit longer in a carparking spot or contemplating some other offence, they are amazed at how low our penalties are. However, the punishment does need to fit the crime, and I am very persuaded by what the opposition speakers and the Hon. Ms Kanck have said. If the only offence is failure to notify change in postal address within two weeks, that is hardly a heinous crime.

People might be aware that, with the complexity of life now, when people move house many of them go to the post office and buy a pack, because you actually do need a list of all the people you need to contact. Even those of us who like to think their life is under some sort of control leave things out. I lost track of a small superannuation fund once because it did not have much in it, and I forgot to notify them; it was not a group I corresponded with more than about once a year, and it is easy to forget things. If it is the government's intention to come back with some other changes and expiation measures in the future, we could revisit it then. We could have a large fine for the recidivists and we could have a more reasonable expiation for the genuine accidental 'I forgot to notify' type of cases. I am quite happy at this stage to have the amount of maximum penalty at the lower amount, as proposed by the opposition, and I support the amendment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I think honourable members may have lost sight of what this is about. This is about the duty to notify a change of address, and it is about people who are repeat offenders. We are not talking about a penalty here; we are not talking about an expiation fine. We are talking about a maximum court-imposed penalty; we are not talking about people receiving expiation fines. I think honourable members may have misunderstood. The intention of this legislation and all future legislation will be to ensure that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, in terms of his administration of the act, relies on having accurate and up-to-date information. The increase in penalties aims to reduce any manipulation of the system by repeat offenders when they go before the court. We are not talking here about people receiving an expiation fine.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I invite the minister to highlight to the committee where clause 14 (in other words, proposed section 136(2d)) limits its effect to people who are recidivists, even on their second offence. My understanding is that new subsection (2d) applies to any South Australian. If that is not the case, can the minister please explain how it interacts with other provisions to make it apply to recidivists?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: It does apply to all South Australians, but what we are talking about is a court imposing a higher fee up to that maximum if someone appears before the court on more than one occasion.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: So, this penalty would not be imposed by administrators; it can be imposed only by a court?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Yes.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: If the person concerned shifts or, as we have said, is sick and has two or three vehicles, does that then involve a cumulative fine? This clause makes very little sense. You are using a sledgehammer to crack a very small walnut.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that, potentially, yes, it does, but they would be combined as one matter in the court. I understand there is a $99 expiation fee, or people can be taken to court, but I am advised that it is not readily enforced and, I guess, therein lies the problem. We want a database that has some integrity.

The Hon. C.V. Schaefer interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As the Hon. Mrs Schaefer mentioned, it is baffling to see why the government is increasing a penalty for an offence that it is not currently enforcing. One of this bill's main attractions for the opposition is that it reduces the administrative burden on police and on transport department officials. It seems incongruous that we are moving away from an expiation notice approach to what is a very draconian court-based approach. My question again relates to the related clauses in section 136, considering that this is a provision in the context of a wider clause. Considering that the change of postal address is proposed to be lifted to $1,250, in the government's planning for further amendments to this clause are the other penalties to be lifted to $1,250, or some other rate?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Two matters: we are not changing the expiation fee; and, in response to the second question, the answer is yes.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just to clarify: in future, does that mean that the expiation fee for the same offence would still be $99 but, for repeat offenders only, there would be a maximum penalty (if they go to court) of up to $1,250—for repeat offenders only? I want to be very clear about that.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The only way I can respond to that is to say that the expiation fee will remain the same at $99. This debate is occurring because we have flagged future legislative amendments (which have arisen out of the Hon. Dennis Hood's initiative) to see unregistered and uninsured people being expiated. That is well in train and the government has said, 'Yes, we will pick up that aspect of this legislation but go further for repeat offenders.' The bill we are dealing with today does not address repeat offenders. This debate has come about because we are talking about proposed legislation, which we all know about, because it has been before this council and, when the government responded to the Hon. Dennis Hood's bill, we put that on the record. I do not want to avoid it; we put it on the record before.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Again, I stress that the opposition supports efforts to deal with uninsured and unregistered drivers and vehicles, but we also want to protect ordinary South Australians. I think the minister failed to answer the Hon. Dennis Hood's question, which was: does this proposed clause to amend section 136(2d) deal with people who are not recidivists? The answer (which I think might be clearer from my lips) is that it does apply to first offenders. There is nothing in this clause which says that the penalty of $1,250 does not apply to a person on their first appearance. That being the case, we believe it is a draconian imposition on ordinary South Australians. Again, considering that the government intends to re-open this act in the near future to change other elements of section 136, rather than impose this draconian penalty on first offences or make this penalty available for first offenders, we urge the government to withdraw this clause and allow the committee to consider a future clause in toto.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think the Hon. Stephen Wade and the opposition make a good point. If there is no certainty that this penalty will not apply to first offenders, the $1,250 penalty (or potential penalty) certainly does seem very severe. Is it the case that this penalty may, in fact, apply or (as it is currently written in the act) would apply potentially to first offenders?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The response to that is yes, but I remind honourable members that we have not changed the expiation fee; it is still $99. We are talking about a court-imposed possibility of a maximum penalty. We are not talking about acting under any level of administration.

The CHAIRMAN: You might get a couple of hundred dollars.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That being the case, Family First will support the amendment. We think $1,250 for a first offence is potentially too high and we look forward to the legislation from the government, when it comes through, and supporting it and re-aligning all the penalties at that time.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Before we put this clause, I should point out to honourable members that, when I talked about recidivists or repeat offenders, I may well have put other information on the record. We have a system now, when we detect road traffic offences through cameras, where the expiation notice is sent to the owner of the vehicle as recorded on the register of motor vehicles. I think everyone follows that. If people are not giving their correct address then they are getting away with it, if you like (for lack of a better expression). Anyone could inadvertently forget a notice, or be away or something, so there is a simple expiation fee. However, if other people are using that as a loophole, they can go to court and face a maximum penalty of $1,250. Really, what this is all about is a safer community on our roads; it is not about anything else.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister's point, that this is about road safety, is not disputed by the opposition. As I said before, we argue, however, that other elements of section 136 are even more relevant to dealing with road safety. Surely, it is more relevant to know the place of residence of a person so that the police and other officers can serve notices, make an arrest or do whatever else they need to do. We believe that $1,250 for a mere postal address infringement is draconian, and we intend to persist with our amendment, because the government is not willing to withdraw clause 14. We look forward to considering a refreshed section 136 when the government brings forward a more considered proposal.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In a way, the minister's information was new information. I understand why you would want to close the loophole. If the camera takes a photograph of an alleged wrongdoer, is the only information you have their postal address, or do you also have their residential address? As the Hon. Stephen Wade says, if you also have their residential address, you have the ability to find them anyway. Do you have only a postal address? If a postal address is all you have, it gives more credence to what the minister is saying. However, if you also have the alternative of going to their house, it seems that this is too severe a fine for just failing to notify a change of postal address.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that there may be some cases where they have only a postal address and that is the only way of their being able to reach people. I understand that people have up to 28 days to pay the expiation fee they receive up front.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My reading of the act does not accord with the minister's last answer. Section 136(1) provides:

(1) If a person (other than a body corporate) who is—

(a) a registered owner or the registered operator of a motor vehicle; or

(b) the holder of a licence or a learner's permit,

changes his or her name or the place at which he or she is ordinarily resident, the person must within 14 days of doing so give notice to the Registrar in a prescribed manner of the new name or new place at which he or she is ordinarily resident, as the case may be.

Maximum penalty: $250

My understanding is that we know where they are ordinarily resident. We can meet them there or we can post there in lieu of a postal address. I am sure that policemen have not been inhibited in sending out notifications because they are yet to receive a section 136(2d).

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that, in cases where people want to keep that residential address quiet (I understand that happens sometimes because of the nature of their employment, such as people in the medical profession or a particular branch of the medical profession), they sometimes provide the Registrar with only their postal address.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I take the minister's answer just as the Hon. Caroline Schaefer has highlighted it—that the government apparently is not currently enforcing the postal address expiation requirements. Do I take it from the minister's answer that the government is currently not enforcing the duty on people reflected in section 136(1) to notify a change in their residence?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We are going back over the same ground now. I said before that certainly people are required to, but we know that it is not always readily enforced. That is what this legislation is trying to do: we are trying to ensure that the integrity of the database of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles is always the latest and most up-to-date so that those who are trying to beat the system, if you like, not people who just ordinarily forget or who have difficult circumstances, are detected.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will not prolong the discussion, other than to reiterate that the opposition's amendment will support the introduction into the legislation of a requirement for notification of a postal address. It will ensure that the penalty is as great as any other notification requirement under section 136. We believe that is reasonable. We believe that it will support the government's road safety efforts. If there is reason for that penalty and for other related penalties to be increased, we look forward to considering that at the appropriate time. However, we urge honourable members to be circumspect in putting penalties on ordinary South Australians who have perhaps never committed an offence in relation to these mere administrative-type matters and to accept the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: It appears that we do not have the numbers, so I will not divide. However, as I said, I am disappointed. This is not about people just forgetting or whatever. There is an expiation fee of $99, which we are not increasing in any shape or form. This is about ensuring that we have a database that has integrity and stops those who want to divert the course of justice from being able to do so. It says to them that they are responsible to ensure that the database is up to date and, if they do not do so, they can face the court and a maximum penalty of $1,250, but that is really up to the court; it is not an administrative charge.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 15.

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

Page 8, line 35—

After 'attend at a' insert:

police station, post office or

I reiterate almost to the point of tedium that the opposition supports the fundamental direction of this bill—we supported the second reading. Our amendments are in the nature of legislative review to improve the legislation to make sure that they apply as effectively and as fairly as possible. Amendment 3 standing in my name in that context relates to the proposed process to require licence holders to take notice of disqualification. For the benefit of honourable members I will briefly reiterate that process.

The bill—and the opposition supports the bill—requires a three stage process for notification: a letter is to be sent requiring the licence holder to surrender their licence to a specified location, they must provide proof of identification, and they must pay a fee, which the opposition understands will be in the order of $24. If the licence holder does not respond to this letter, the notice of disqualification will be served on them personally—for example, by a process server—and they will be liable to a fee, which, we are advised, is expected to be around $60. If personally serving this disqualification is unsuccessful, the licence holder's licence will still be disqualified, and the registrar of motor vehicles has the power to refuse to enter into transactions with the licence holder.

If the person comes into contact with the police, they (the police) will also be able to serve the notice on them immediately. The government has assured the opposition that the fees to be set by regulation will be maintained on a cost recovery basis. In the context of our support of this bill we have proposed two amendments. The first relates to the location at which a person needs to attend to present their licence; that is proposed section 39B(D)(3). The bill merely refers to 'a specified location'. We are of the view that that is too general. It was suggested in a briefing that a likely specified location might be a customer service centre for the Department of Transport. There are 20 such centres around South Australia—10 in the metropolitan area and 10 in country areas.

I do not envisage any problems with metropolitan South Australians accessing a customer service centre, because within a reasonable period—seven days or 14 days—one would expect that people would be able to readily access such a centre. My particular concern and that of the Liberal Party is the impact on South Australians living in regional and rural areas. In particular, I am concerned for people in the west and north of our state. The South-East is relatively well serviced. There are customer service centres at Mount Gambier, Murray Bridge and Naracoorte, but in the western area there is no centre west of Port Lincoln and no centre north of Port Augusta. The impost on people living west of those three centres, such as people living at Ceduna, could be quite severe. If you live at Ceduna, it is a five-hour drive to Port Lincoln (where there is a customer service centre), a five-hour drive to Port Augusta, and a five-hour drive to Whyalla.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: They are all in the one seat.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes. As the Hon. John Dawkins has highlighted, even within the areas that are, shall we say, further south there are black spots.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: He has highlighted the concerns of the residents of Clare, who have to go to either Berri or Gawler. We urge the committee to be mindful of the impact on South Australians beyond the metropolitan area. I appreciate that the Labor Party does not need to worry about that because of its historic failure to win the confidence of the people of South Australia beyond the regional areas. But we in the Liberal Party have always stood up for rural and regional South Australians, and I recognise the respect that the crossbench MLCs show for regional and rural South Australia because there are so many preferences out there.

I notice that in a lot of our debates it is the crossbench MPs and the Liberal Party MPs who discuss the impacts while the Labor members sit on baffled. And this is another example of that, where the impact on South Australians beyond the metropolitan area has not been properly considered. We appreciate that the government might be interested in providing for people to be able to access police stations and postal services, but, to be frank, we are not satisfied with the government's interest. This is a government which only this week has made it very clear that it is withdrawing 250 public servants from rural and regional South Australia—

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Hon. I.K. Hunter): The member might keep himself to the business of his amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, Mr Acting Chair, this is directly relevant to the amendment. What confidence can South Australians have that the government will pursue a proper network of services when it is in the process of withdrawing shared services from regional South Australia the very week that we are considering this amendment? I think it is directly relevant to how much trust South Australians, particularly members of this council, should put in a government's statement of intent. We believe that it is completely reasonable for a post office and a police station to be specified locations, and for other locations to be able to be specified by the government.

It is common practice for those facilities to be accessible for South Australians in terms of discharging their duties; for example, the post office is becoming, as I understand it, the preferred venue for South Australians to deal with passport matters, and you can go there to pay fines. Why should you not be able to go there to hand in your licence? We support this provision, but we believe that parliament needs to have some assurance that service levels will be kept such that South Australians can readily fulfil the duties specified in this new arrangement.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will preface my question of the mover by saying that I am very sympathetic to what he is trying to achieve in having a broad range of locations that you can attend. I note that the government could do that by specifying a broad range of locations, and I will ask the minister—I will not need to, she will tell us—what ranges they have in mind. I can understand that a police station which is in the control of the state is an appropriate place, although I would have some concerns about part-time police stations. Not all police stations are open during office hours.

My specific question in relation to post offices is: would there not be an additional administrative expense, because post offices are not owned or controlled by the state? We would have to enter into, I imagine, a commercial arrangement with them so that these surrendered licences would then presumably have to be forwarded somewhere else by registered mail to ensure their safety. I am just wondering what the mover's idea is in relation to handing something in to facilities which we do not control; and, secondly, whether there is any difficulty with the definition of 'post office', because there are some postal agencies as well as full-time staffed post offices.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for his question. My understanding is that a post office, rather than a postal agency, is linked up through an Australia Post electronic system, such that a person, at the time of handing in their licence, would be able to receive a receipt for their licence and at the same time the Registrar of the Department of Transport would be instantly advised of the processing of that transaction. In that context, as I would remind honourable members, that is already a service which is taken advantage of by the commonwealth in relation to passports.

I think it is important to understand the impact on ordinary South Australians. I appreciate that these are people who have transgressed, otherwise they would not be facing a licence disqualification, but I think it is really important that we maintain accessibility, for two particular reasons. First, we want to encourage compliance. If you are at Roxby Downs, Ceduna or Clare and you are faced with a trip down to Gawler or across to Port Augusta from Ceduna, that is not a short trip, that is a matter of travelling up to five hours. So, if we are going to try to increase compliance, to encourage people who have already shown themselves to be disrespectful of the law, we need to maximise the service.

In that regard, I think that police stations and post offices are generally accessible around South Australia and should be used, and that we should not just rely on a government statement of intent but that we should actually put it in the legislation. I would warn the government that if it does not ensure accessibility it will find that people will fall back to the second step. After all, if I was at Ceduna and I was faced with the prospect of having to go to Whyalla, Port Lincoln or Port Augusta, involving a five-hour trip, to hand over my licence and pay a $24 fine and, let us remember, find my way back to Ceduna —

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sorry; this is what I am wanting the government to do, to assure us, through legislation, that it will be accessible, because it is also a matter of getting home again. You have handed in your licence, so presumably you are not going to drive unlicensed. It is a fair walk, so you have the cost of driving back. Faced with that scenario, if I was a rational person of Ceduna, and there are lots of other South Australians, I would wait for them to serve it personally and pay $60. Why would you bother using the first step?

So, I would urge the government not just to give undertakings but to show its bona fides by accepting this amendment and to use the Hon. Caroline Schaefer's commonsense test. The Hon. Robert Lawson might prefer a reasonableness test, but I think both tests would say that it is reasonable that common places of service of public documents, such as police stations and post offices, should be specified. If the government wants to specify more, then we are more than happy, for regional and rural South Australians in particular, to receive other alternatives. But we think that those two service levels are fundamental.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The government will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Well, I was listening to a lot of nonsense, frankly. The government will be opposing this amendment on the basis that it is not appropriate, from a drafting point of view, to include the specific locations at which a licence holder is required to attend to acknowledge receipt of a disqualification notice and pay the required fee in the bill. I draw attention to the fact that this is not anything different. Obviously, this will be part of the regulations. These locations will, more appropriately—as in other pieces of legislation—be prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Regulations 1996, which will allow for changes to be made without requiring an amendment to the act. This will ensure greater flexibility in the administration of the legislation.

I remind the Hon. Stephen Wade that regulations come before both houses of parliament and the fact that he is relying on the government to do the right thing really is very offensive, because he does have the opportunity to disallow any regulation. To accuse the government of actually not putting something in a regulation really is just nonsense. The debate on which organisations should be included as a location at which a licence holder is required to attend to acknowledge receipt of a disqualification notice is a different matter.

It is the government's intention that another nominated agent, such as Australia Post, will be engaged to ensure timely access to a specified location for all licence holders across the state, including those in regional and remote areas. Again, I took offence to the nonsense that this side does not care about regional or remote South Australians. It really was very offensive. While there are 21 departmental customer service centres located in the main populated towns, there are approximately 402 Australia Post outlets located across the state.

Upon the successful passage of the bill through parliament, the government will negotiate an agreement with Australia Post or an alternative provider if agreement cannot be reached with Australia Post. This is a cost recovery proposal, I remind members. In relation to SAPOL (because essentially that is one of the words this amendment includes), in the early stages of this proposal it was approached with the possibility of serving notice of disqualification roadside or through country police stations. At the time this approach was not considered appropriate for a number of reasons: there would be resource implications and technical issues, and issues of how this initiative fits within core police business. SAPOL's view has remained unchanged.

I can assure the committee, as do all other ministers when we have regulations that can be tested on the floor of the chamber, that it is our intention that another nominated agent such as Australia Post will be engaged to provide timely access to a specified location for all licence holders across the state. I stress that that includes those in regional and remote areas. I place on record that we have 21 departmental customer service centres located in the main populated towns. There are approximately 402 Australia Post outlets located across the state. I urge members, particularly those on the cross benches, not to support this amendment because the locations will be specified in the motor vehicle regulations 1996. If members think we have done the wrong thing, they can move disallowance on the floor of the chamber.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It surprises me that negotiations with the post office, an outside body, are more likely to be fruitful than are the negotiations the government has had with the police stations. Listening carefully to the answer, I can understand that someone who has been in trouble with the law—and we want them to do the right thing by handing back their licence—would find it easier to go to the more anonymous post office rather than front up to a police station.

Having listened to arguments from both sides, I am happy to give the government the opportunity to try to negotiate this cost recovery mechanism with Australia Post. We will see the regulations in due course. If the regulations come back to us showing that there are only 21 places where you can take your licence, and that is the government's best deal, I would be very minded to support any Liberal amendments to this section. For now I am happy to let the government negotiate further, so I will not support the amendment.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: I am somewhat relieved to hear the minister give an assurance that the government will negotiate with post offices. I assume that the minister is also including postal agencies. After all, this government can and does authorise agents for almost anything. We have authorised agents who can fine us and raid our houses for fishing matters, for native vegetation clearance—you name it. We have authorised officers for everything, yet we cannot have an authorised officer to cancel a licence.

The minister also raises another question. She had us note that this was a cost recovery exercise. From that am I to read into it that it will actually cost someone in Ceduna more than it will cost someone in Prospect to relinquish their licence? I also defend my colleague because, when briefed and when he asked for an example of where these places would be, he was given the example of the 21 customer service centres, most of which looked like being closed under the government's latest rationalisation of 250 public servants out of the country. So, we may have even fewer customer service centres.

The Hon. Mark Parnell raised the issue of the additional cost incurred by the government of handing over a licence at a post office, but I put to him there is the issue of the additional cost for someone who has to drive to Port Lincoln, as well as the fact that they have to take someone with them because they are not allowed to drive back. The minister is worried that my colleague's amendment is not appropriate from a drafting point of view; frankly, I am more concerned about the appropriateness of the laws we make in this place to those who will be advantaged and disadvantaged by them, and I am not convinced that the general populace will be anything but very expensively disadvantaged by this clause. We all know that you have to give up your licence, but what would be wrong with being able to post it via registered mail, for goodness sake? If I were faced with a round trip cost of about $300, and making someone come from Port Lincoln to me, that is what I would choose to do.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I point out to the honourable member (and I am sure that we all agree) that it is obviously in the government's best interests to have as many registered servers as possible, because we do want to make this act work. It does not cost any more; the administrative cost is $24 to start with and then $60 if a process server has to be engaged.

The honourable member also asked why we did not use registered mail. While alternatives to personal attendance were considered, none of the options could really confirm that the licence holder had actually received the notice—and remember, this is about closing loopholes. While registered mail may appear to be a cheaper and more convenient means of service, it cannot guarantee personal receipt of the notice nor provide the proof required by court. Experience has shown that too many disqualified drivers will simply not accept or collect a registered letter if they suspect it contains a notice of disqualification. Again, we need to understand that this is about closing loopholes, about that small percentage of people who do not always want to do the right thing.

Similarly, there are obviously inherent flaws surrounding verification of a person's identity should a licence holder be able to acknowledge receipt of a notice over the phone. Advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office indicates that the only way to overcome the current difficulties in improving service by post is a requirement for personal attendance, which will close the current loophole and prevent further abuse of the system by persistent traffic offenders. Honourable members need to bear in mind that this is about persistent traffic offenders, and trying to stop those people.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think the minister has the wrong end of the stick in relation to the suggestion made by the Hon. Caroline Schaefer. As I understood it, the honourable member was not suggesting that registered mail be the preferred means for giving notice to disqualified drivers but rather that it be at least an option for surrendering a licence. So, on behalf of the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, I reiterate the question: why would registered post not be an acceptable way of surrendering a licence?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I think that perhaps the member opposite has not understood the intent of this legislation. This is not about returning licences but about acknowledging receipt of the notice of disqualification. This is actually about acknowledging disqualification, and you have to acknowledge receipt of the notice of it. What was previously happening was people saying, 'I didn't receive it.' This is actually evidentiary evidence that you have received something. This is what it is about.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: So, to use the words of section 139BD(3)(a)(i), why does the government consider it is necessary for a person to attend at a specified location to personally acknowledge receipt rather than—

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: To stop people claiming they haven't.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: What about the telephone; what about a letter; what about registered mail; what about a statutory declaration?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I have just explained why we cannot use registered mail.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No; with all due respect, the minister has not. If the issue is personal acknowledgment of receipt, why does the person actually to be there? After all, if you accept a statutory declaration from a person from Ceduna, why would you not do so in this context?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: It is about verifying the identity of the licence holder and the fact that the court at the moment is accepting non-receipt of a notice as a defence. We have learnt that this is what has been happening and we are trying to close this loophole. Our advice is that this is the best way that we can do it legally.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Moving to another aspect of the minister's comments, I was surprised that the government is advising us that the government's own agency, the SA Police, does not think it is appropriate for it to receive notices and believes it is not its core business. This act has been brought in by the Minister for Road Safety, not the Minister for Transport; and road safety, as I understand it, is a key strategic goal of the South Australian Police Force, so I express disquiet that the government and the South Australian Police Force are not seeing police as part of this equation.

Apparently there are resource implications for police. I would put the other side of the coin: I would have thought this act would lead to a significant reduction in costs for the police in relation to aborted prosecution proceedings where police take a matter to court and then are stymied by an accused person who asserts that they did not receive a notice of disqualification. In terms of the cost benefit analysis, the cost to the police in accepting this responsibility under this clause would be significantly less than what they are currently bearing.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I have just received some advice in relation to the locations. Apparently, the location is specified in the notice that the person receives and will not be in the regulations. I will move to report progress and bring in an amendment so that it will be brought in by regulation as well as specified in the notice itself; we will do both.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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