Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4407 ..

MR OSBORNE (11.01): I present the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 6) 1997, together with its explanatory memorandum.

Title read by Clerk.

MR OSBORNE: I move:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

This Bill repeals two subsections of the Act which prevent motor vehicle dealers from applying to become authorised examiners when cars or trailers are inspected for registration or those inspections being carried out on dealers' premises. As members will recall, the whole issue of vehicle inspections was debated at length earlier this year when the Minister, Mr Kaine, tabled the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 3). These two subsections were the result of an amendment put forward by Mr Whitecross. Mr Whitecross's argument for preventing dealers from becoming examiners and their premises from becoming inspection facilities was very compelling at that time. In fact, it was so compelling that I supported him. If I remember correctly, Mr Whitecross was quite rightly concerned that a conflict of interest could develop if the person inspecting the vehicle was the same person who sold the vehicle. As I said, Mr Speaker, he won me over on that one.

However, a few weeks ago, I was approached by the MTA to consider bringing forward these amendments. Like me and Mr Whitecross, they were concerned that the system of fitness-for-registration inspections be above reproach and that conflicts of interest not arise. After speaking to them and to a number of people, I agreed to bring this Bill to the Assembly for two reasons. The first reason is a matter of commonsense. Quite simply, the dealers have found a loophole in the authorisation process which I understand would be virtually impossible to plug. If a dealer wanted to become an authorised inspector, they could do so by simply subleasing a part of their building to a third party, maybe an employee, who would then make application to become an authorised inspector. The dealer would then be able to have their cars inspected and, in doing so, completely circumvent the intention of Mr Whitecross's amendment. I believe that should this Bill not become law a number of dealers are ready to take that kind of action. It would seem more sensible to keep the whole process above board and to make it work somehow.

My second reason for bringing this Bill forward is that the process of authorisation and, most importantly, the monitoring and auditing system now in place are more onerous than I first believed. It is one that we can, and ought to, have confidence in. I am now satisfied with the arrangements for checking up on private sector vehicle examiners and have been reassured that those dealers who abuse their responsibilities will be severely dealt with.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .