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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4887 ..

MR WHITECROSS (6.06): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their views on this. There are only a couple of things I wish to respond to in what has been said by others. Mr Kaine wonders why we are redebating amendments which were put and lost only a few months ago. The same could be said of the whole Bill, because, of course, we debated that a few months ago as well. The reality is that, if members are able to change their minds on one aspect of the vehicle testing arrangements, the Labor Party does not see why they should not be given the opportunity to change their minds on other elements as well, especially given that they have changed their minds on that one element in response to representations from the Motor Trades Association, who, I understand, would be more than happy for a return to regular vehicle testing. It seems interesting that members here are happy enough to accept those representations in relation to one matter but see no basis for even rethinking about it in relation to other matters.

Mr Moore, in his remarks, indicated that he is concerned that vehicle testing is not necessary because most repairers act in an honest way and that it is the responsibility of owners to test their vehicles. It is ironic that Mr Moore, who is supporting this Bill because he believes that a licensed motor dealer might act outside of the spirit of the law and construct artificial arrangements to avoid the clear intent of the law, then turns around and says that he believes that people will act in a - - -

Mr Moore: I have not given that reason. Do not put reasons in my mouth.

MR WHITECROSS: You did say that. He is now arguing that he thinks that most people act honestly and in the spirit of the law. So, that is an ironic perspective from Mr Moore.

I return to the basic principle underlying our amendment. We believe that it is the responsibility of individual motorists to ensure that their vehicles are in a roadworthy condition; but we also recognise that in this area, as in a number of other areas, individuals cannot always be expected to have the level of technical expertise necessary to be confident that that is the case. They may - and many do - make errors of judgment about how quickly components wear out and about their need for repair. There is plenty of testimony anecdotally in this town about the impact of random inspections on the roadworthiness of the fleet; but we do not have to rely on those anecdotes. We can rely on the practical experience of the Victorians, with inspections only on change of ownership - which is that the roadworthiness of vehicles is significantly lower and that there are huge rates of defects identified on change of ownership where that system has been in for some time. While, in principle, it may be, as Mr Moore says, the responsibility of the owners of vehicles to maintain them in a roadworthy condition, the practical experience in Victoria is that they do not. So, I commend the amendment to the house. I understand the views of others here; but I believe that, in principle, it is right and members should be supporting it.

Amendment negatived.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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