Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — It  gives  me pleasure to  rise  to speak on the  Road Safety  Amendment (Operator Onus) Bill  2012 and also to  indicate and reinforce the opposition’s  support for this bill.  In saying that, the  issues associated with  operator onus have been vexing and they have affected the decision  making of a variety of governments over a period of time.

They are essentially about making  sure that where an offence has been committed the  failure  of  the  registered owner  to  appropriately nominate  the  driver ultimately  does  not  enable  a  person to  not be  held to  account for  their law-breaking activity.

The  opposition when in government introduced a series of bills aimed  at  doing exactly  that.  The Road Legislation  Amendment Bill 2007  first  dealt with the issue of owner onus provisions, which were  then amended  in the Road Safety Act 1996 and the Melbourne  City  Link  Act 1995. The aim of  that  bill,  as it was stated, was to ensure that a vehicle owner should not be able to avoid liability in circumstances where  it  was  unknown  who  the actual driver was. There were provisions to ensure that an owner may avoid  liability  by  making  a statutory declaration  or  a sworn statement.  Making  a false  sworn  statement of course amounts to the crime of perjury.

These owner onus provisions were planned  to  be  superseded  in  2007  with new operator  onus provisions.  Under  those provisions  statutory declarations were intended to replace a simple written  statement, such  as a letter. At that time the Road Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 made it an offence to knowingly provide false or misleading information in a  statement  made in relation to vehicle use offences. The bill also made it clear that  the  nomination process around owner onus that was in the  pre-existing law  was brought  into alignment with the new procedures  that were to commence from 1 July. People making false statements to evade responsibility for vehicle-related offences  under  the existing law would have been charged not  with perjury  but with  a new  summary offence carrying a lesser penalty.  Those  amendments were aimed at facilitating the administrative transition from the old to the new.

The  aim here  is to ensure that there is greater  accountability for  those who have committed an offence and also that the owner of a vehicle is aware of their express obligation to ensure that those  charged with the pursuit of an offender are  adequately provided with  the  requisite information from  the owner of the vehicle under  fault  of liability, hence  the  owner onus.  Indeed  the  Brumby government put in place similar provisions  in  August  2010  in  respect of the Marine Safety Act 2010 to allow the identification of wrongdoers in  a  maritime context. It was important to deal with these issues.

We need to go back and look at the Supreme Court decision in  Dolheguy v. Becker [2009] VSC 106, in which a decision had been made that the operator of a vehicle that was  used to commit a speeding  offence and was detected  by  a road safety camera was  liable to  run the  risk  of  incurring  a  penalty.  There  was  no obligation in effect to enforce against the owner.

It should be noted that a person who is liable for a speeding offence under this operator onus principal of the Road Safety Act  has to  nominate who was driving the vehicle at the time  to avoid liability. All  of  this is about making  sure that if you do  the wrong thing, you will be required to face  the consequences. The  opposition  has absolutely no  difficulty  with that,  because  the fear of enforcement is what drives good behaviour on our roads, and it is something that we robustly support.

Similarly, we also support the proposition that when it comes  to enforcement we need to ensure that there is an onus on the owner of a vehicle to adequately and substantively deal  with their responsibilities in ensuring that law enforcement is able  to  find the offender who has done the  wrong thing. To the extent that law enforcement officers are frustrated or unable to do  so, then  an owner onus should apply.

However,  in  a  broader  context  there  are  concerns around  this  particular initiative and  a  number of others that  seek  to extend the owner  onus to the corporate  sector  —  that is, incorporated organisations rather than corporeal organisations, or people to  put it another way. It is increasingly important to bear in mind that the government must put in  place a  more substantive approach rather  than a  piecemeal approach  to the  way it seeks to address  road safety issues.

The road toll is approximately the same, and I make nothing of  any variation in the statistics because it is more than just a numerical game here. This is about recognising that what we do in road safety needs to drive improved behaviour and improved safety through

Page 4951

the  provision of safer roads and through safer drivers being cognisant of their responsibilities and  of  a legislative regime that will not allow them to avoid the scrutiny of detection for any wrongdoing, because being in charge of a truck or a motor vehicle  brings  with it an enormous responsibility which applies not only  to  themselves  and their families  but  to  all  other  road  users.  The responsibility it accords to  government is that it must also recognise that the settings it has put in place in respect of road safety are critically important.

Over the  six years of the previous government’s Arrive Alive strategy we saw  a consecutive yearly decrease equating to 30 per  cent;  and  from 2001 onwards we actually saw the decline reach 31 per cent. In Arrive Alive 2 the aim was to get the road toll down by a further 30 per cent by 2017 — a goal that  we  set  for ourselves and that we believe needs to happen.  I am concerned that there  is no demonstration  of action  from  the  current  government  beyond  the  piecemeal approach of introducing legislation after legislation.

There is no general story about where we are going in road safety.

The  minister responsible for this area was recently asked on  a  morning  radio program why  there is not an overarching road safety strategy. His response was, ‘Well, the pre-existing one is in place, so everything’s going along’.

You cannot simply rest on your laurels when it comes to road safety. There needs to be an action plan, and the community needs  to know what the direction is and what the actions are. We have seen a worthwhile piece of legislation before this Parliament  today, but  it cannot  be the  sole context  in which road safety is measured — not piece by piece. There has to be an overall vision and direction. If there is not, then the community does not understand that the  government has a clear and stated view about where to  go, is  making the necessary investments and has a view about what new technology will be harnessed and invested in.

Where are  the arterial roads connections  and the road safety improvements that will be made?  And  what  motivates the government  to  do  it? All of  that  is critically important in showing the community that through the  diligent work of people in the road safety area — whether  it be  Victoria Police, the Transport Accident  Commission, VicRoads  or  the  Department of  Justice  — we  are  and continue to be one of the leading jurisdictions in the world with regard to road safety. But you cannot take your eye off the road or indeed allow yourself to be distracted.  A failure to make continuing changes and to  have  a  clear  script about where we are going means  that the onus will fall upon the  owners  of the Treasury  benches — the ultimate  owner onus. They  need to take responsibility for road safety. We support  this bill.  It is a worthwhile contribution to road safety, but more needs to be done.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.