The applicant submitted that these offences occurred in the context of difficult personal circumstances, that these circumstances had now resolved and that he had addressed his drug use. He provided the Tribunal with character references in support of his application.

The respondent submitted that the decision to refuse the applicant's application for a licence should be affirmed as the correct and preferable decision. The respondent argued that the circumstances of the application fall within reg 21(1)(a) of the Dangerous Substances (Dangerous Goods Transport) Regulations 2023 such that the respondent, and the Tribunal, do not have any discretion to grant the applicant a licence.

• In the Tribunal's view, there are strong grounds to suggest that the applicant's particular circumstances do fall within reg 21(1)(a), particularly in relation to the driving with methamphetamine offence;
• In the Tribunal's view, the applicant ought to be prohibited from obtaining his dangerous goods driver licence;
• The applicant's driving offence history is lengthy and poor, and the Tribunal is not satisfied that granting him a dangerous goods driver licence is consistent with the DS Act, the regulations or with public safety.

Administrative Review - Dangerous Substances Act 1979 - Review of a decision to not grant an application for a dangerous goods driver licence

Dangerous Substances Act 1979 ss 11, 21

Dangerous Substances (Dangerous Goods Transport) Regulations 2023 regs 20, 21

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 37

Adams v SafeWork SA [2010] SADC 156

Mr N Wong, Crown Solicitor's Office, appeared in person for the respondent

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The applicant in these proceedings has been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. This is an application made under s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 for review of a decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant's application for a dangerous goods driver licence under the Dangerous Substances Act 1979 (DS Act).
2. The applicant sets out in his application to the Tribunal that he would like a dangerous goods driver licence for a job transporting diesel on a private property.[1]
3. I have had regard to the material filed including:

(a) Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, dated 4 August 2025;

(b) Emails from Mining Services Supervisor, dated 17 July 2025 and 17 August 2025;

(c) Letter from the Deputy Principal at a Primary School, dated 3 September 2025;

(d) Respondent's written submissions, dated 2 October 2025; and

(e) Supplementary Book of Documents, dated 2 October 2025.

1. I have also had regard to submissions and evidence at the hearing on 14 October 2025 and the respondent's original decision in this matter.
2. For the reasons that follow, in my view, the correct and preferable decision is that the respondent's decision ought to be affirmed.
3. The applicant is currently employed in mining services driving trucks and maintaining and watering roads to make sure they are dust free. The applicant currently has his general driver's licence and seeks that the Tribunal provide him with a dangerous goods driver licence.
4. A dangerous goods driver licence is granted to enable a person to transport dangerous goods by road vehicle.[2]
5. I agree with the submission of the respondent that the way the regulations and legislation is framed, it is clear that the policy and objects of the DS Act, seeks to licence only those people who are shown to be safe drivers and who would not present a risk when driving either because of personal health, poor driving skills or a propensity to offend against the Road Traffic Rules.[3]
6. Part 3, reg 21 of the Dangerous Substances (Dangerous Goods Transport) Regulations 2023 sets out the criteria in which a person must not be granted a dangerous goods driver licence.
7. Regulation 20 enables the provision of a dangerous goods driver licence, however, reg 21 constrains that discretion. If the applicant is prohibited from having a licence under reg 21, then no discretion exists for the granting of a licence.[4]
8. The respondent submits that the circumstances fall within reg 21(1)(a) and the respondent does not (and neither does the Tribunal), have any discretion to grant a dangerous goods driver licence.[5] That regulation states:

The Competent Authority must not grant an application for a dangerous goods driver licence if - > > (a) in the 5 years immediately preceding the application -

(i) the applicant has been found guilty by a court in Australia of an offence that makes the applicant unsuitable to be the driver of a vehicle transporting dangerous goods; or

(ii) the applicant's driver licence has been cancelled or suspended on a ground that makes the applicant unsuitable to be the driver of a vehicle transporting dangerous goods.

1. The respondent relies upon the following offences committed within the five preceding years to submit that the applicant does fall within reg 21:

(a) Driving with a prescribed drug (methamphetamine) on 24 December 2020;[6] and

(b) Exceed speed (average speed) by 10 km/h or more but less than 20 km/h on 30 December 2024.[7]

1. The respondent also relies upon the fact that the applicant's driver licence was also disqualified or cancelled between 10 March 2021 and 9 June 2021.[8]
2. The respondent relies upon the case of Adams v SafeWork SA [2010] SADC 156 at [18] to suggest that it had no discretion in this case and that the applicant should not be permitted a dangerous goods driver licence. That case considered an earlier, similar version of the regulations. In that case, the Court found that it may be in some cases that driving under the influence might fall within an offence that makes the applicant unsuitable to be the driver of a vehicle transporting dangerous goods but the applicant should be given the chance to be heard.
3. The applicant explained some of his offending as being in the context of him being a single father and not having access to his child.
4. The applicant now sees his child regularly and he has a new partner who also has children.
5. The applicant said he is now drug free, although there was no corroborating evidence to this effect. The applicant admitted that he had sought assistance in the past in relation to his drug use, however, despite this assistance, he had still taken drugs.
6. In relation to the driving with a prescribed drug (methamphetamine) offence on 24 December 2020,[9] the applicant said he did not have his daughter that day and he is now clean and sober. His daughter's birthday is on Christmas so it was a difficult day for him.
7. In relation to the not exceed speed (average speed) by 10 km/h or more but less than 20 km/h offence on 30 December 2024,[10] the applicant said he and his daughter were headed to Sydney to see the fireworks on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and they were running late to the airport. The applicant had the cruise control set too high and he felt that was a risk worth taking. The applicant denied that he would take the same risk if he had a dangerous goods driver licence.
8. In relation to his criminal offending, the applicant did demonstrate some insight before the Tribunal and gave evidence that he accepts his criminal history and takes full responsibility for it. Having said that, in my view, given the recency of his criminal history, it is too soon to say whether or not the applicant will reoffend.
9. I have had regard to the Dangerous Goods Driver Licence Assessment Criteria Policy, dated 20 October 2022. That policy is not binding on me and nor does that policy change in any way the requirements under the DS Act or regulations. The policy sets out when a licence will not be granted, including if "the applicant's medical assessment is unsatisfactory, the applicant is prohibited by a court from involvement in the transport of dangerous goods by road or the applicant was found guilty of an offence under the Act".[11] Under the heading the licence "may" (emphasis added) be refused, the policy refers to the applicant being found guilty of offences including driving under the influence of drugs. In my view, the policy suggests there is discretion as to whether or not to grant a licence if a person is found guilty of driving under the influence of drugs.
10. I have also had regard to the circumstances of the driving with a prescribed drug (methamphetamine) offence as explained by the applicant. It appears the applicant turned to drug use due to stress and then drove a motor vehicle.
11. Although it is not free from doubt (because it is not clear what offences make a person "unsuitable to be the driver of a vehicle transporting dangerous goods" and the respondent's policy seems to suggest discretion), in my view, there are strong grounds to suggest that the applicant's particular circumstances do fall within reg 21(1)(a), particularly in relation to the driving with methamphetamine offence. This is because the driving with methamphetamine offence was committed within five years immediately preceding the application and it is an offence, on the face of it, that would make an applicant unsuitable to be the driver of a vehicle transporting dangerous goods due to the risk to the public. It is obvious that a driver under the influence of drugs would be less able to safely manoeuvre a vehicle and more likely to put members of the public at risk.
12. However, even if I am wrong, and the applicant does not fall within reg 21, pursuant to my discretion, in my view, the applicant ought to be prohibited from obtaining his dangerous goods driver licence.
13. There is no dispute in this matter that the applicant has a long and repeated history of offending, including:

(a) Driving with no 'P' plates affixed on 13 August 2004;[12]

(b) Exceed signs speed by 15km/h or more but less than 29 km/h on 6 January 2006;[13]

(c) Driving unregistered on 5 March 2006;[14]

(d) Enter intersection against red traffic light on 24 September 2011;[15]

(e) Fail to occupy seat fitted with seat belt- passenger 16 years or older on 21 April 2012;[16]

(f) Driving with a prescribed drug (drug combination) on 17 June 2012;[17]

(g) Exceed speed limit 10km/h or more but less than 20km/h on 27 September 2012;[18]

(h) Exceed speed limit by less than 10km/h on 1 August 2013;[19]

(i) Driving with a prescribed drug (methamphetamine) on 3 December 2013;[20]

(j) Failing to comply with direction to stop vehicle on 15 February 2014;[21]

(k) Driving uninsured, unregistered and unlicenced on 15 February 2014;[22]

(I) Exceed speed limit 10km/h or more but less than 20 km/h on 12 September 2019;[23]

(m) Driving with a prescribed drug (methamphetamine) on 24 December 2020;

(n) Exceed speed (average speed) by 10 km/h or more but less than 20 km/h on 30 December 2024.

1. The applicant's driver's licence has also been previously disqualified or cancelled on three separate occasions, being:

(a) 13 February 2013 to 12 May 2013;[24]

(b) 11 June 2014 to 10 September 2014;[25] and

(c) 27 November 2014 to 26 November 2015.[26]

1. The applicant's driving history strongly suggests he should not be granted a dangerous goods driver licence.
2. In the applicant's favour, I have had regard to the email from Mining Services Supervisor, dated 17 July 2025. The Mining Services Supervisor states that he is a site supervisor and he requests that the applicant's dangerous goods driver licence be reconsidered as he has a full-time employment position for the applicant. In a further email, dated 17 August 2025, the Mining Services Supervisor clarifies that the applicant will only be on private property. I accept that the applicant would like his licence for employment purposes and this should be weighted in his favour.
3. I have also placed positive weight on the reference from the Deputy Principal at a Primary School, dated 3 September 2025. The applicant worked as a groundskeeper at that school and the Deputy Principal states that the applicant demonstrated strong work ethic and reliability and the Deputy Principal refers to the applicant's friendly and welcoming nature and positive interactions with staff, students and families.
4. I note, however, that neither the Mining Services Supervisor nor the Deputy Principal refer to the applicant's lengthy criminal history. Having said that, the applicant gave evidence to Tribunal (and I accept his evidence) that the Deputy Principal is aware of his criminal history as he needed a criminal history check prior to his employment.
5. The applicant said he would like to have a dangerous goods driver licence to make some decent money and to be able to assist with his family. He said that at the mine site, there is drug and alcohol testing daily and randomly and there are speed limits.
6. The applicant has an extremely poor history of offending relating to his driver licence. He has had his licence suspended or disqualified and has driven a car on a number of occasions under the influence of drugs. He also has a very recent speeding offence, including with his daughter in the car.
7. In my view, public safety is the ultimate consideration for the Tribunal in this matter. Further, I must make a decision that is consistent with the DS Act.
8. There are strong grounds to suggest that the applicant's circumstances do fall within reg 21(1)(a), particularly in relation to the driving with methamphetamine offence.
9. However, even if I am wrong, in my view, pursuant to my discretion, the applicant ought to be prohibited from obtaining his licence.
10. Relevantly, s 11 of the DS Act requires that a person must in transporting goods take such precautions and exercise such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to avoid endangering the health or safety of any person or the safety of property.[27] Given the applicant's driving history, I am not satisfied that granting him a licence is consistent with s 11 of the DS Act.
11. Further, s 21 of the DS Act sets out that a licence must not be granted unless I am satisfied it is in the interest of public safety to do so. In this regard, a key object of the DS Act is the protection of the public.[28] I am satisfied that the applicant has put the public at risk on several occasions in the past, including when speeding, driving whilst influenced by drugs and entering an intersection against a red traffic light. Given that his last offence occurred one year ago, not enough time has passed for him to sufficiently demonstrate that granting him a licence is consistent with public safety.
12. The applicant is not a person with one-off offending. In my view, the applicant's repeated long-term offending, significantly increases the risk to the public.
13. The applicant's driving offence history is lengthy and poor. I am not satisfied that granting him a dangerous goods driver licence is consistent with the DS Act, the regulations or with public safety.
14. In my view, it is appropriate that the respondent's decision be affirmed.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] Supplementary Book of Documents, page 2.

[2] Respondent's written submissions, dated 2 October 2025, paragraph 16.

[3] Respondent's written submissions, dated 2 October 2025, paragraph 43.

[4] Respondent's written submissions, dated 2 October 2025, paragraph 26.

[5] Respondent's written submissions, dated 2 October 2025, paragraph 31.

[6] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, pages 11 and 13.

[7] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, pages 11 and 13.

[8] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[9] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11 and 13.

[10] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11 and 13.

[11] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 49.

[12] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[13] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[14] Supplementary Book of Documents, page 13.

[15] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[16] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[17] Statement of Reasons Book of Documents, page 11.

[18] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[19] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[20] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[21] Supplementary Book of Documents, page 9.

[22] Supplementary Book of Documents, page 7.

[23] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[24] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[25] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[26] Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

[27] Respondent's written submissions, dated 2 October 2025,

[28] Respondent's written submissions, dated 2 October 2025, paragraph 42.