If I could draw your attention, folks, to subclause 65(2), it is mandatory that the operator have insurance. That's clearly mandatory, but I'm a little concerned about the potential for wriggling out of that mandatory obligation: “No operator is to be found guilty of the offence” of not having insurance “if it is established that the operator exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.”
Surely we're not going to go down that slippery slope of the operator saying he got notice too late that his premium wasn't paid or that he did his best to maintain insurance or the notice was sent to the wrong address, or something weak and lame like that. I don't quite get subclause 65(2). If it's absolutely mandatory on the operator, why are we giving the operator a potential out by saying if you've done due diligence then you'll be absolved?