HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-10-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOTOR VEHICLES (DISQUALIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 September 2012.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:04): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition to the Motor Vehicles (Disqualification) Amendment Bill 2012, which we received from the House of Assembly. I start by indicating that the opposition supports the Motor Vehicles (Disqualification) Amendment Bill 2012 as received on 6 September, but during the committee stage we will seek to move one amendment, which has been placed on file today.

I think all members would be aware that the background to this bill arose from a problem with the current computer system that was revealed by the government in mid 2011. A glitch in the TRUMP computer program meant that approximately 8,000 notices of disqualification had been forwarded by the registrar to drivers much later than they should have been. In some cases notices were issued two years later. The purpose of the bill seeks to ensure that if, as a result of an administrative error, a notice of disqualification is not given to a person within 12 months after they are liable, the registrar must not give that notice.

Our amendment will go further to enhance the bill. Broadly speaking, our proposed amendment will strengthen the bill by: requiring the registrar to issue a certificate to the Commissioner of Police or a person specifying when a renewal notice was given, if at all; creating a new defence to an offence committed against the bill; and establishing a new requirement that the registrar issue a renewal notice to an owner of a motor vehicle at least 14 days before the expiration of the registration.

Clause (6c) of our amendment will ensure that, if a person is given a notice, the registrar must provide either the Commissioner of Police or a person with a certificate specifying whether a registration renewal notice was given or was not given. No such entitlement exists under the proposed bill. Clause (6d) of our amendment will create a defence for motor vehicle owners in proceedings for an alleged offence. It will mean that an offence has been committed within 30 days after expiry of registration of a motor vehicle and that the driver can only rely on the following defences: firstly, that the registrar did not issue a renewal notice at least 14 days before the registration expiry date and, secondly, that the defendant did not know the motor vehicle was unregistered. There are no such defences under the proposed bill.

Currently, the only way for a motor vehicle user to dispute an expiation notice is to apply to SAPOL for the expiation to be cancelled and for the offence to be withdrawn. This must be corroborated by a statement from the registrar confirming that they have failed to issue a notice of renewal. There are very few instances of this occurring.

Lastly, our amendment to the bill will require the registrar to issue a renewal notice no less than 14 days before the motor vehicle registration expires. This will ensure that drivers are better protected from unknowingly driving an unregistered vehicle. The proposed bill does not create an extra level of protection for motor vehicle owners.

As I have said in these brief comments, the opposition supports the bill but we will seek to move our amendment, which will further enhance the bill to protect motor vehicle users from administrative errors, ensure that expiation notices are issued in a timely fashion, create a new defence for offences committed under the bill, and ensure that motor vehicle users are made aware of their motor vehicle registration expiry.

It is my understanding that the shadow minister in another place, the member for Bragg (Vickie Chapman), has had some discussions with the police and the minister's staff, and I am hopeful that the government will see its way clear to support the amendment that we have filed. With those comments, I support the second reading of the bill and look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (17:08): This bill is a positive move from the government and I commend the bill to the chamber. As honourable members would be aware, the bill has come about due to the transmission error made by the Courts Administration Authority in 2011 in failing to transfer over 100,000 offence records dating back over several years to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. This error resulted in approximately 8,000 notices, I understand, of disqualification being given to drivers much later than they would have been without the delay. This delay caused the greatest inconvenience to licence holders who were learner or provisional licence holders at the time of the offence and had since progressed to a higher licence stage. This meant that, after serving the disqualification, they regressed to a provisional licence or learner's permit and were subject to stringent driving conditions.

At the moment, under the Motor Vehicles Act, the registrar has a statutory duty to give a notice of disqualification if the person becomes liable for disqualification. The registrar has no choice but to act in accordance with the law and is unable to withhold or determine not to give a notice of disqualification. Under this bill, the registrar will not be able to issue a notice of disqualification required under the Motor Vehicles Act where, due to an administrative error, the notice of disqualification was not given to the person within 12 months of becoming liable for the disqualification.

This bill is being put forward because the government recognises that it is unfair for drivers to experience a delay of 12 months or more in receiving a notice of disqualification due to a government administrative error which is outside the driver's control. Touching briefly on two points about this bill, I believe it is also helpful to clarify that this bill does not negate any other licence sanctions under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The bill impacts disqualifications that are imposed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act 1959; it does not impact court-ordered disqualifications. Drivers may avoid a disqualification resulting from an administrative delay but they will still be required to pay the expiation fee or court fine for the offence that triggered the disqualification. Furthermore, the offence will still remain on the driver's record and used to establish the driver's offence history, which may be required to administer other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Secondly, I am aware that two other jurisdictions (Victoria and New South Wales) have similar provisions in their legislation which allow for some scope in imposing licence sanctions upon drivers in situations when it is unreasonable to do so. It is important to note that we are not the first jurisdiction to legislate for this. This government recognises that government transmission errors happen from time to time and that the consequences of such errors and delays can be unfair to drivers.

In summary, this bill will ensure that in the future no other drivers are inconvenienced should there be any more data transmission delays between government agencies, and that is why it is important that this bill commence as soon as possible. I urge honourable members to support the bill in its original form.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I thank the honourable members for their contributions to the debate, and I make the following comments in response. At present the registrar has a statutory duty to give a notice of disqualification if a person becomes liable for disqualification under the Motor Vehicles Act. The registrar has no choice but to act in accordance with the law and is unable to withhold a notice of disqualification, even if the disqualification results from offences that were committed and finalised several years previously but have only recently come to the registrar's attention.

The bill changes this position by not allowing the registrar to give a notice of disqualification where the notice has been delayed by 12 months or more due to government delay or error. The amendment will cover all types of administrative errors whether they are made by the system or a government employee. The only disqualifications that will be affected by the bill are those where an administrative error causes a delay of 12 months or more in issuing the notice.

The government is not waiving penalties. The drivers will avoid disqualification; however, they will have to pay the expiation fee or court fine for the offence that triggered the disqualification, and the offence details remain on the driver's record and may count towards future disqualifications. The bill is forward-looking. While consideration was given to including the drivers disqualified as a result of the delayed offence notification in 2011, it is not possible to apply any relief equitably.

Many drivers have either completed their disqualification period, entered into a good behaviour option or safe driver agreement that allowed them to continue driving, while others particularly those who were already disqualified at the time, are still to commence the period of disqualification. Others have reoffended and are disqualified again. To provide assistance to some people, particularly recidivist drivers while others have already suffered the consequences is not fair and is not supported by this government.

Nothing like the CAA computer error that occurred in 2011 has happened before. In response several reviews have been undertaken and improvements made to reduce the risk of this unusual event ever happening again. Earlier this year, when the CAA undertook an audit of its system, approximately 1,200 more offences that had not been sent to the registrar were identified, affecting about 100 drivers. At that time it was decided that an amendment to the legislation to prevent future inconvenience to the public should be introduced. Without the passage of this bill, the registrar will have no choice but to send notices of disqualification to those drivers affected.

With computer systems automatically processing high volumes of transactions, even one small programming error may affect many people. This government recognises that it is unfair for drivers to experience a delay of 12 months or more in receiving their notice of disqualification due to an error of the government. I will respond to the amendment filed by the Hon. Mr Ridgway when we go into committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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