25/09/2026
Sent below inquiry to DIT based on recent bulletin:
========================================
Hi Team ,
Thank you for the recent industry bulletin. However, the guidance to turn off dash-camera use appears one-sided, prioritising the interests of DIT and its officers while giving insufficient consideration to the broader safety and security of students, examiners, industry members and the public.
I have several questions and would appreciate clarification. As DIT prepares to transfer responsibility for practical testing from private examiners to government examiners, it would be helpful to understand how the Department intends to manage these same risks once it becomes directly responsible for delivering the testing system.
The industry understands that VORT routes must not be disclosed and that sharing GPS or video recordings of a test route would breach the Rules Governing Authorised Examiners. However, it is unclear how rules specifically governing Authorised Examiners can be imposed on MDIs who were never given a reasonable opportunity to become examiners.
This highlights a broader concern: DIT did not regularly introduce new examiners into the system, allowing the same group to control the testing regime for more than 20 years. Providing pathways for new people to enter and progressively replace existing examiners may have reduced this concentration and improved accountability.
Within our business, route-confidentiality risks are already managed through secure encrypted storage, restricted access and penalties for unauthorised disclosure, without completely removing an important safety and evidence system.
Why impose a complete dash-camera ban when footage can protect students, examiners, authorised officers and members of the public during crashes, medical emergencies, threats, arguments or disputed events?
Why do DIT and its employees object to independent recording during assessments? Is it because Industry members frequently receive inconsistent instructions from different DIT officers, who appear to apply their own interpretations of road laws and assessment requirements? Has this issue raises concerns that DIT is struggling to ensure all officers follow and enforce the same standards consistently?
If a dispute arises, DIT may be able to request industry footage, provided it acts promptly before the recording is overwritten (usually 24-48 Hrs depending upon the size of microSD card). Yet industry members must disable their cameras during assessments involving DIT officers. This creates an unequal system in which conflicting instructions, disputed decisions or departmental errors cannot be independently verified. Is this genuinely fair, transparent and capable of passing the community “pub test”?
If a serious or life-threatening accident occurs during a test, who accepts responsibility when DIT has required potentially valuable video and GPS evidence to be disabled? What if the authorised officer’s body camera does not capture the incident because they are seated in the back with limited visibility?
Why does the new legislation promote cameras and GPS for safety and accountability while current DIT policy prohibits the same protections during assessments?
What happens if a DIT employee’s camera fails, is obstructed or does not record an incident? Why should an independently owned camera not provide reliable backup evidence?
How can an examiner challenge incorrect advice, an unfair decision, personal bias or a disputed account given by a DIT employee when the examiner has been required to disable their own objective evidence? Does this not create a one-sided and unfair situation that favours DIT from the outset?
Could cameras remain operational, with encrypted footage accessible only following a crash, complaint, safety incident, court proceeding or authorised investigation?
What exact section of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 creates a blanket prohibition on openly disclosed dash-camera recording? Consider the leaked video appearing to show former SA Liberal leader David Speirs snorting a substance. Although he may not have authorised its recording or release, the footage became important public material and was followed by a police investigation and criminal charges. Likewise, someone entering Westfield Marion cannot demand that every CCTV camera be switched off, because those cameras serve legitimate safety and security purposes. Why, then, can DIT not protect confidential VORT routes through strict access and non-disclosure rules while allowing dash cameras to preserve potentially vital evidence of crashes, threats, disputed instructions or serious misconduct?
Does DIT enforce the same rule against Uber drivers operating their own dash cameras in their privately owned cars to run the business? If not, why are privacy and safety treated differently in those situations?
A controlled recording system would protect route confidentiality while also promoting safety, fairness and accountability for students, industry members and DIT employees alike.
Kind regards,
Raj
