HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROAD TRAFFIC (OWNER OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (12:08): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (12:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Members would be aware that I made a matters of interest contribution some months ago in relation to a matter that involved Mr Vili Militsis, the owner of Vili's pies. Mr Militsis and his wife trade as a partnership rather than a company or any other business structure, and I mentioned that he had some 50 motor vehicles registered in his name operating across a number of states in Australia.

As members would be aware, when a company or corporation receives an expiation notice for an employee driving a vehicle over the speed limit or disobeying the road traffic laws in any state, and if you are unable to prove who was driving, you can elect to pay a corporate fee, I think of $300, to expiate that fine.

Mr Militsis and his wife trade as a partnership and have chosen to do so for, I think, pretty much all their working life. As we know, they have a very successful business. Vili's cakes and pies are world famous, and are especially nationally famous. However, because they trade as a partnership, the law does not recognise them in that corporate sense.

If, as has occurred on a number of occasions, Mr Militsis receives fines in different states on the same day, he still has to pay the expiation fee himself, and potentially he could lose his licence, yet he cannot be in two or three different states on the same day.

He has made a significant number of representations to the police who, of course, are operating within the law, and there is no opportunity for them to give him an alternative way of explaining that he was not driving the vehicle and that he was not in two or three different states within a day or two of each other, or, indeed, on the same day. I listened to his story, and that is why I brought it to the attention of the council in my matters of interest contribution some months ago.

It seemed to me that the logical way to resolve this would be to bring forward a small amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1961 to afford people who operate as partnerships (as Mr Militsis and his wife operate) the same opportunity as Australians who choose to run their business in a company. The effect of this very small amendment is to allow someone who trades as a partnership, basically, to be given the same opportunities to sign a statutory declaration to say, 'No, I was not driving. It was in actual fact an employee, but we are not able to identify that employee.'

Mr Militsis says that they do have a pretty good information management system within the company to determine which drivers are driving on which particular days, but he said that, certainly at royal show time and at other times, it is quite a hectic business for them making deliveries, and occasionally someone jumps into a vehicle who maybe is not rostered on or does it to fill a quick gap or to make an urgent delivery.

It is the same for big events. I think that during the Olympics in Sydney it was the same: they had a particularly frenetic time making deliveries and it was not always easy to identify exactly who was driving the vehicle at the time. This small amendment will allow people such as Mr Militsis and his wife the opportunity to deal with the expiation notices in the same way as any other corporate body or corporate entity, namely, to sign a statutory declaration to say that they are unable to identify the driver and therefore not incur the expiation themselves; or, of course, to identify the driver to make sure that the person who has breached the Road Traffic Act certainly attracts the same penalties because he or she was the person who was driving.

I will not prolong this explanation much longer. It is a simple bill. I thank parliamentary counsel. As of yesterday, with the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Darley that went through on the budget bill 2010 in relation to registration stickers, parliamentary counsel always has their finger on the pulse and realised that this amendment bill needed a slight amendment, which they made overnight, and I thank them for that.

I look forward to members supporting this bill. We only have one Wednesday sitting left, so it will be in the new year, but in supporting this bill members will recognise the great contribution Mr Militsis and his wife and other families have made, having chosen to operate as partnerships. The parliament recognises the contribution they have made to our economy, and I ask that members support this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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