STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO—PENALTIES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 March 2011.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:01): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition in relation to this legislation. I understand that the bill is to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961, the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993. It is my understanding that the changes to the Harbors and Navigation Act are consequential to the changes to the two other acts.

Furthermore, the purpose of the bill is to increase the maximum penalties that can be imposed for a number of offences under those three acts, and a maximum level at which expiation fees can be set for offences against the acts and the regulations. It is my understanding that here in this state we have two systems running side by side in relation to imposing penalties, for a variety of offences under those acts, that being the expiation fee penalty system and the court imposed fine/penalty system.

Over time, with the expiation fees increasing every year or so, whenever fees do increase, the difference between the expiation fees and the maximum that the courts can impose in terms of fines has narrowed. The explanation from the government, government officers and the minister in his second reading explanation is that it has lessened the deterrent for those who have received an expiation fee to actually pay the fee and rather to take the matter to court.

My understanding is that one of the fundamental reasons for having the two schemes in place is that minor offences are dealt with through the expiation fee system and not taken to court—that was the case previously—where the courts are able to deal with more serious offences under these and other acts. Over time the gap has narrowed. The difference between the fees and the court imposed fines has narrowed and we see that defendants are looking to take matters to court and consume the time of the court.

There is nothing wrong with that: everybody has the opportunity to take a matter to court if they so wish—it is part of our basic democratic rights in this state and country that matters are able to be dealt with in court. However, if a person pleads guilty to the offence they pay the expiation fee and I understand that there is no conviction against them. They pay the fine and there may be some other penalty in terms of the accrual of demerit points and other things, but basically it is a low cost way of dealing with the minor part of offending.

The bill is looking to do two things, on my understanding: to increase some of the maximum fines the court can impose and, also, allow an increase in the threshold limit that can be set under regulations in relation to expiation fees. I will deal with those two issues separately through the course of the debate.

I want to state that the opposition in this place will not provide unqualified support for the bill at this juncture. We are prepared to allow the bill to pass through this place; however, we have consulted on the bill and not yet received feedback on the consultation, so we will consider the matter between houses. I can advise the minister and the government that we do not oppose it, but it does not have our unqualified support. We have conducted consultation with the key stakeholders but (and the minister may like to correct this) I am not convinced that the government has consulted with key stakeholder industry groups.

As I said, the bill will increase the maximum fines the courts can impose, and we do note that there has been quite a number of years in which some of the fines have remained static. Looking back through the history of these matters, we see that some of the offences under the Harbors and Navigation Act have not changed since 1994. Some have been amended as recently as just last year but, under the Motor Vehicles Act, some matters have not changed from 2001, 1998 and 1999; and some in the Road Traffic Act go back to the early 1990s as well.

The house can see that some of these fines have not been changed for quite a number of years. Some have been changed more recently than others: in 2005 and 2006 I see there have been some amendments in relation to penalties concerning driving with prescribed drugs and matters relating to those issues. So, we do not necessarily have an issue with the reason for the amendments. However, as I said, we are not prepared to give unqualified support until we get feedback from the industry groups.

One of the questions that was raised is, in comparison to the existing fines, the significant increase in the proposed fines—and I note that these are maximum penalties that the courts can impose. They will increase from $250 to $750, and it is my understanding that part of it relates to what is known as the Acts Interpretation Act which has a system in place called divisional penalties and, under that act, the penalties increase in those increments. I also understand that in 1996 the cabinet's direction was to set a scale of penalties that went from $125 to $250 to $750 to $1,250, and so on. There is consistency, I think, in the application that the government has brought to the house in relation to the incremental increases in the penalties.

I also want to talk more about the regulations and the change to the regulations of the acts, where we see the threshold limit which currently can be set for expiation fees increased under the Road Traffic Act and the Motor Vehicles Act to $5,000 for both acts. There is some complexity in this, and I will just read this out. There is a degree of complexity in understanding this because we talk about offences under the regulations against the act and offences against the regulations; so, there are two aspects to this.

The bill proposes to increase the maximum expiation fee penalties that can be set under the regulations. In the regulations of the act, two types of expiation fees can be set for offences against the regulations and offences against the act. Currently, the expiation fees for offences against the regulations of the Road Traffic Act can be set at a maximum of $2,500 and the Motor Vehicles Act to a maximum of $1,250.

The bill proposes to increase the maximum expiation penalty to $5,000 for both acts. For expiation fees for offences against the act, the maximum fine is currently $750, whereas the bill would increase that amount to $1,250. It does take a bit of concentration to understand those two aspects—that there are offences against the act under the regulations and offences against the regulations under the regulation. I am not sure whether the minister has been briefed on that aspect. He is looking a little—

Mr Griffiths: We're confused, too, Mark.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It's all in the briefing paper, mate.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: I want to see where you're going with this.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It was just an explanation. One aspect of this whole process does concern me—and that is why we are not giving unqualified support to the bill at this stage—is the lack of consultation that the government appears to have undertaken.

I understand that the government has gone to SAPOL and got some feedback from the police, which is, really, intragovernmental consultation, but I am not aware of any consultation out to key industry stakeholder groups. I have raised this issue with the previous minister for road safety on another bill that we dealt with, and I got a bit of a rant and a rave as a response from the then minister, who said that it was in the government's election policy, that you went to the election with the policy and that you retained government even though you were returned with only a minority state vote.

However, on perusing—and I am pretty sure that your 2010 policy documents have been taken down from the government's website, because I tried to access it yesterday—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The ALP website, not the government website, I beg your pardon; but I always kept a copy. It is important to keep hard copies of things for future reference. We know that things can come and go off websites.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Like the Adelaide Oval committee's website.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, that's got nothing to do with it. Looking at the road safety policy that the ALP released last year, there is nothing that I could see in these points about increasing the maximum penalties that a court can impose for a range of offences concerning the Motor Vehicles Act and the Road Traffic Act. There is nothing in the policy about that.

So, if the current Minister for Road Safety tries to use that as a reason for not going out to key stakeholder groups to consult with them, well, it does not wash this time. There may have been a semi-plausible argument—and I was not convinced at all—but that was the argument put forward by the previous road safety minister in a ranting and raving dissertation he gave to the house that particular day.

I think he was spruiking for higher office. He was sort of puffing his chest out and saying, 'Well, I can be the Treasurer and I can be something else.' I think that was an audition really to show his own side—not on this side of the house, for sure—that he had the credentials for higher office. He was successful in terms of achieving the position, but I think the jury is still out in relation to his performance in the current role.

I know we have a number of other speakers on this side of the house who want to make a contribution in relation to the bill. I think I have covered matters reasonably in my contribution. With those comments, I am happy to pass it to other members of the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:17): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio—Penalties) Bill 2011. Our lead speaker has addressed a number of issues in relation to road safety. I wish to address my comments to the amendments foreshadowed in this bill, to the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993. The principal amendments under consideration are to increase the monetary penalties for a number of offences for alcohol and other drug consumption whilst on a boat or motor vessel on the ocean.

This legislation, that is, the principal act of 1993, is one which sets out a number of things which I just wish to briefly refer to. Obviously, it is there to ensure that there is a level of safety for navigation in South Australian waters, and, largely, there are sections of this act which provide for regular surveying of motor vessels, the availability for them to be inspected, and the capacity for authorised officers to be appointed and to be able to board a vessel either in a harbour, wharf, slipway or, indeed, on the water.

I think it is fair to say that, in relation to sections 70 to 74, this largely relates to the penalty and process that applies for the operator of a marine vessel or a member of the crew if they have partaken of some alcohol or drug and the penalties that apply to them.

The principal section, which is not under review, under this division in the Harbors and Navigation Act, sections 69 and 69A, precede the sections which are under review by this bill. Under section 69 there are penalties if a person operates a vessel without due care; they can be guilty of an offence. The penalties for an aggravated offence is 12 months imprisonment or, for any other offence, $2,500.

Aggravated offence is defined as it is in a lot of these acts, so I will not go into the detail that is there. If there is an aggravated offence which relates to serious harm, then obviously the penalties are reflected in the period of imprisonment. The dangerous operation of a vessel—similar to dangerous driving that we have on the roads—can attract a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years. They are not being touched, but I will have some questions to the minister about this whole section.

Sections 70 to 71 essentially provide that a crew member or an operator of a vessel cannot operate whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug to the extent that they are incapable of exercising effective control of the vessel or effectively discharging their duties; and there is a fine regime for them. There is also a prescribed concentration of alcohol offence, which sets out this regime of different monetary penalties for breaches of those.

This whole section of the act is under review for increased penalties. As I say, it is not only the person who operates the vessel. That is also defined as being, I think, the driver—perhaps I will put on Hansard exactly what it is. I will come across it shortly, but essentially it is the person who is in control of the vessel, but in addition to that—

An honourable member: The captain?

Ms CHAPMAN: It can be the captain, yes, but we are also talking about members of the crew, and the crew, of course, can include everyone from skippers across to deckhands, and they have a responsibility on these vessels, not unimportant, but remember that we are talking about quite a broad spectrum of people who have responsibility, unlike in motor vehicles, where the driver attracts all the penalties. The person who might be navigating next to the driver is not necessarily going to be in any way in breach if they are under the influence of alcohol and drugs. So, we are talking about quite a broad spectrum of personnel.

The other thing that it is important to note about this act before I go to the penalties themselves is that this act, along with a tranche of other legislation, has specific provision in it now for marine parks. We do have some marine parks. We are having some controversial discussions about no-go zones or exclusion zones within them at the moment, both in the community and here in parliament, but we do have them, and it is important to note that when authorised officers are carrying out their duties under this act they are to have regard to marine park legislation and the policies and regulations under that legislation as well.

That is important because these authorised officers have a lot of powers, as they need to, for the purposes of having the capacity to board a vessel, inspect it, take it into charge, and to actually take into custody someone who is in breach of their regulations. It is a little bit the same as fisheries inspectors, who have another set of rules to board vessels, take possession of the catch, and take into effective house arrest someone who is in breach of their regulations. So, they are people of some significance and power, and under the regime of penalties that has been proposed here by the minister the authorised officers under this act, that is the Harbors and Navigation Act, are also to be obeyed, and in fact he is proposing under this tranche of legislation an increasing penalty if they are disobeyed. So, they are very much relevant, not only to the powers that they have but, in this instance today, to the penalties that will be imposed to be increased if there is a breach of them.

I would invite the minister to provide some information to the house about the offences that it is proposed to increase the penalties on, which are quite significant in proportion to the current penalties. The amount of $400 might not sound a lot when you are looking at the amount in your explanation, and I cannot find much in the minister's second reading speech, because he only addressed two sentences in his contribution. Can the minister provide the following information to the house—and I will confine this to the last two-year period but it can be a longer period if it will help the minister to identify the numbers?

How many persons have been convicted (I will not go into prosecutions because that will complicate it for the minister) pursuant to sections 69 or 69A of the act in the last two years? How many persons have been convicted pursuant to section 70 in two distinct categories—one as a person who operates the vessel and one as a person who is a crew member? In addition, can the minister advise whether anyone has been convicted of disobeying a testing procedure, under section 74—Compulsory blood tests of injured persons including water skiers, which is one of the amendments I think the minister is proposing?

I think it is mostly in section 71, but there is provision under the current act for the authorised person to require this alcohol test and breath analysis when they have boarded the vessel, etc., and there are quite significant penalties if they disobey. However, section 72, which is also under review by the minister, provides that the authorised officer can require a drug screening test, oral fluid analysis or a blood test. In this instance, my recollection is that it makes provision that, to enforce this, they have to ensure that the blood sample or oral fluid test is taken within eight hours of the apprehension, but there is a time limit on that for the reason of reliability of evidence later in court hearings; similarly, that also applies for road traffic offences.

Of course, the point is that, unlike the detaining of a person from a motor vehicle, where there is some opportunity for a reasonably approximate testing facility for them to be taken to, in the case of a marine vessel, obviously the situation would be much more difficult, at no fault of the authorising officer, to stop the ship and board it, identify that there is a problem and give notice of a requirement and, having done the test, take the vessel back to the coast, moor it and get to the appropriate facility for the purpose of testing, etc. It does not matter whether it is crew or driver in this case, but can the minister advise whether anyone has been prosecuted for failing to comply with an authorised officer, pursuant to section 72 of the act?

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sorry if I said prosecuted; I meant to say convicted. The other matter that I think needs to be dealt with is the question of who is going to monitor people, whether it be in a marine park or an exclusion zone, when a marine vessel is where it is not supposed to be and it is carrying, for example, fishing equipment or anchors and things? Who is going to be the policing officer for that? In this instance, as I read it, it is the department for transport and the department of marine and harbors, or whoever covers that, who have the authorised officers to deal with this.

In the marine park areas—and I am not talking about a breach of the Marine Parks Act, which may be that people are fishing in an exclusion zone or something of that nature; I appreciate that that is not your jurisdiction, minister—if they are out there traversing the park area or just sitting looking at the seagulls or taking pictures of something, all of which are assumed to be legal activities, if I can put it in that sense, but they are drunk and a danger to themselves or others on the vessel, then this is the area that you are seeking to protect. So, I would like to know who is going to be responsible for that and whether the authorised officers from the department of transport can traverse into the marine parks area to bring them back to shore or, alternatively, whether there is going to be some transfer of that role to the police department.

It may be that, at present, in certain circumstances (and I think this is the case from my own personal knowledge) there are sometimes situations where a marine vessel is undertaking activity—not necessarily fishing in a prohibited area, or whatever—but might be in an area that they should not be. It may have illegal cargo on it, so it may become a national customs issue, and the like, where other jurisdictions come into play. In this instance, we are talking about someone who is out there on the ocean and, for good reason, we have a raft of legislation to ensure that they do not consume alcohol or drugs while they have a responsible position out there.

We need to know who is going to deal with it: a transport officer as an authorised officer under that act or the police, who may be called in perhaps in a circumstance where the transport officer as the authorised officer says, 'I've been out there, I've viewed the situation. It's quite serious. There's more than one person. I'm going to contact the police to come out here to actually board the vessel because I don't want to put other authorised officers of the department at risk when dealing with the situation.' I can imagine that there would be situations where police, Customs, the Australian Federal Police, and the like, would be brought in to manage or support transport officers, but I would like to know who would have jurisdiction in the marine parks area.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:33): In speaking to the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio—Penalties) Bill, I understand the rationale for trying to ensure that the nexus between expiation fines and court appearances is maintained in a sensible, rational way, but I believe this bill will deter people from accessing the court as an option if they want to challenge an expiation fine.

From my own experience—and I have had a bit of experience in this area—I do not believe anyone eagerly rushes off to contest a matter in court, because the cost is significant. Legal Aid, I am advised, does not fund basic traffic matters in court. It may fund, say, a drink-driving matter, but it does not, and will not, fund basic challenges to what are in the context of crime overall relatively minor traffic matters.

In my case, from memory, there was something like 10 or 11 half days' attendance at the Magistrates Court and there were three days of trial. Now, someone in business, or anyone else, would have lost that time and those work days. The cost of that is significant. The lawyer's fees, if you have a lawyer, are significant. In my case, the lawyer said, 'Look, I love representing people who are going in on principle,' and after the trial he said, 'That will be $14,000.' That is a lot of money. I suspect that was 'principle' plus interest.

I am strongly opposed to people speeding. I would like to point out to the house, first of all, that a nephew of mine and his girlfriend were killed by a speedster. I am back to zero demerit points. I have never had a speeding fine in my life, up until what I believe is a false allegation made by a police officer. I have never had a speeding fine in my life. I have never had an accident. My nephew, who was a lovely lad, was killed. He was innocently sitting in the back seat with a female passenger, who was also killed, by someone who was speeding and behaving recklessly. So I do not condone speeding at all.

In terms of the court process, I think there are several aspects which are relevant. The first is that a magistrate may not have the technical expertise to deal with certain traffic matters. A magistrate might be well qualified in civil matters and might have a strong background in that area, but may not be well-equipped to deal with, for example, a technical matter involving maths, physics and spatial elements. That is the case, for example, in a laser-type situation.

Following my experience, I raised with Chief Magistrate Elizabeth Bolton, for whom I have very high regard, the question—and I have raised this with the Attorney—of whether or not we should actually have a specialised traffic court division of the Magistrates Court. Some jurisdictions do have that; we do not. I think it may not be relevant in all traffic situations but, certainly when you have a technical issue, I think it is important.

In my case, the police officer, in his affidavit, claimed that he saw my car at 500 metres and could tell what speed it was doing. In court, he later changed that to 420 to 440 metres. He claimed to get me with the laser at 416 metres, which you would have to be very agile to do that. In court, with the expiation notice (this is a key point in what I want to say), he was allowed to change his location from where he said he was (20 metres north of Crossing Road). He said that he was further down the road, the magistrate allowed that, and said he did not change it, because you cannot pull people over 20 metres north of Crossing Road. To cut a long story short, the magistrate ruled in favour of the Crown (the police).

The key point that I want to make is that one of the difficulties with the expiation notice is that, at the moment, the police officer only gives the top tear-off slip, which says, basically, the allegation that you were speeding in a street at a certain speed and the penalty. What they do not give you in South Australia at the time is the complete expiation notice, even though they are supposed to fill it out at the time. What the police are doing now, and what happened in my case, is they do not give you the complete expiation notice—that one-page sheet—unless and until you go to court.

In my case, seven months after the event, I found out that the police officer claims to be somewhere he was not, in my view. Seven months after the event, your witnesses have gone, so it makes it very hard to defend yourself. That sheet that is filled out also includes things like the amount of traffic, whether or not you were breath tested and comments by the police officer, which is another problem, because in South Australia they write comments on the bottom of that expiation notice and you do not get to see them, as I said, until and unless you go to court, and that could be months after the event.

In my case, they had the wrong initial charge and they had to go to court and get it changed; they had the street name wrong and a few other things. What that means in relation to this measure here, and the general thrust of this, is that people have to elect within a minimum number of days whether or not they are going to contest the fine, but you cannot have the expiation detail unless and until you go to court. In the meantime, you have to commit yourself either to contest it or pay the expiation. That is, in my view, totally unsatisfactory and needs to change. There is no reason why the expiation notice, which is filled out at the time by the officer, is not handed to the motorist. That way the motorist can make a better assessment about what the likely evidence claim will be.

I have just been to Queensland and met with the police, who were fantastic and cooperative. They said, if there is a conversation with a motorist, they record it electronically so there is no dispute. In my case, the officer claimed in court that he had written the comments in longhand. If you look at my expiation notice, you will see that the comments were pre-typed and all he put in was a word like 'yes' or 'no', but he had pre-typed all the sentences. That is not longhand, in my view.

The point is there are a lot of problems with the current system just in terms of the road user knowing whether or not to contest an issue. The other thing that we lack here is that, if you want to challenge an expiation initially, you write to the expiation branch and who looks at it? The people who issued it. That is ridiculous. So the police are going to assess whether or not the police issued the notice appropriately and whether it stands. That is completely unacceptable.

In New South Wales they have a different body to look at contested expiations in the first instance, within a different agency. I am not sure whether it is the transport department or whether it is some other agency, but they definitely have a different agency. If we had that system it would save not only a lot of time, effort and money but also court time, because you could have some experts who look at the issue and say, 'This complaint has merit or it doesn't have merit.' You would not go back to the people who issued it to say, 'Did you issue this properly?' Of course they are going to say they issued it properly. There are a lot of other aspects I will not touch on today but will leave for another day.

The independent panel, as I say, is an excellent idea. I believe the Liberal Party has a commitment to have something similar to that (maybe an ombudsman or someone similar) as part of their election platform for the next election. I think it is an excellent idea and I would encourage them to keep pursuing that.

There are a lot of other points that I could raise in relation to allegations of speeding and so on. One is that I think there should be more emphasis on demerit points. I think the focus should be more on demerit points rather than on fining people. In fact, I think there should be a system where someone who has a good traffic record could exchange some demerit points in lieu of paying the fine. I think that makes sense as well.

If someone has been a good driver they will have, in effect, a bank balance of quite a few demerit points. For instance, they could give up the appropriate number of demerit points in lieu of paying a particular fine. That way you get around the criticism that is often made that the government is only interested in making money. If you are interested in road safety, I think it is better to focus on demerit point loss. There is a real incentive there if someone is going to lose their licence, because at the moment, if you are wealthy enough or if you have a business, you can dodge some of the consequences that way, too, in terms of nominating drivers. I think focusing on the demerit points is a better way to go.

Victoria is very strong on this next point and we are not. People say you can write to the commissioner and ask that he regard it as a trifling matter. I personally do not regard speeding as a trifling matter, and the commissioner here generally says no. However, in Victoria, if you have been accused of speeding at the lower end—I am not talking about speed dangerous or things like that—you can (and it is done frequently in Victoria) write in and they will waive that first non-serious speeding offence so there is no penalty. I think that is another very good incentive and it only applies, obviously, to people who have committed a minor traffic offence rather than more dangerous speeding.

This particular bill in front of us is seeking to keep the nexus between the expiation system, which is a curial system, by not having everyone rush off to court. I do not believe it will do what is sought and I think it will discourage people who may have a legitimate right to take the matter to court, because there is no such thing as a cheap visit to court—whether it is time, paying a lawyer, even representing yourself, it is a very expensive business—and the current system is geared against the ordinary citizen, and I do not believe that that is fair or appropriate.

Traffic enforcement should be fair, it should be transparent and it should be reasonable, and people forget that we have gone from a situation where the police used to follow a motorist for something like 300 metres or yards to basically ascertain their intent. During that time, the motorist could slow down and the police officer was able to acknowledge that the person was temporarily over the limit or not aware of the speed limit, and drop their speed. Now it tends to be 'sudden death' when you cross a camera.

Obviously you have to have sudden death cameras at intersections, but we have gone from a system which allowed people to correct their speed because they suddenly realised 'Gee, what is the speed here?' and slowed down. We have gone from a system that was based on intent to a system which is now based on sudden death, and that system is, in my view, unfair. Technically, you should have two cameras to measure speed between two points and average it, or do something like that.

In South Australia, our speed cameras are checked under a certain regime standard and protocol, but not lasers (as I found to my cost). Justice Tim Anderson ruled that in South Australia there is no legal requirement for lasers to have any standard either in their testing or in their use. In the Full Court appeal (which the court did not accept) the Crown argued that the annual calibration of the laser, in their view, was hearsay, had no meaning and they did not have to abide by that.

At the moment, and I think this is totally outrageous, there are no photographs in our lasers here, unlike New Zealand or the UK, where the UK has video camera. In New Zealand you get a photograph—they can show you, here is your vehicle. Former ministers have acknowledged in their letters to me that here there is no objective evidence in using a laser, it is purely subjective, and that is unacceptable, too. Queensland police are looking at getting lasers with cameras, but they told me that their lasers have to meet the Australian standard and other standards as well. Even the distance—where they check them behind a police station—has to be measured by an independent surveyor, not by the police.

Justice Timothy Anderson ruled—and he is quite right: I am not a lawyer but I can see the logic of his argument—that parliament has not put in any legislation any requirement for lasers to meet any standard whatsoever, and he ruled that they do not even have to meet or comply with the commissioner's standards. I find it amazing that the traffic police out there using lasers today do not have to comply with any standard whatsoever, and do not even have to obey the commissioner's instructions in their use. So, in my view, we have a recipe for injustice, and that is the current situation in Adelaide and South Australia and that needs to change.

Most police, I believe, are honourable people with integrity but, sadly, not all of them. In any organisation, particularly under a quota system which we have here, you will get police doing things that they should not do. What it all means is that people can be falsely accused; even with the cameras, there can be mistakes. The police argue that, with a laser, they cannot get it wrong: they can. You get a reading or an error. You can get an erroneous reading. You can get a reading off a different car, for example, going in the opposite direction, which is what happened in my case, but the magistrate said that, because I could not say exactly how many metres the red Falcon with its lights on was from my car when I got pinged, she would not accept that evidence.

You have to have a system that is fair and reasonable. A truck driver recently got a speeding fine on Portrush Road near Loreto Convent and the police argued strenuously, despite our objection that he was not speeding. Fortunately for him, the trucking company had an electronic logging system, and we were able to show that the truck never reached that speed that whole day. The police never admit that they get it wrong with the cameras or lasers, and they said, 'Maybe someone cut in front of him.' That was fanciful.

I recently heard of a case where a lady in the western suburbs got two readings nine kilometres apart in a 50-k zone and, according to the cameras, they happened four minutes apart. That is just not feasible. Someone who is a member of the Uniting Church at Aberfoyle Park—the biggest Uniting Church in Australia—got a ticket in the post for allegedly speeding past a camera on South Road when he was in church with 200 fellow worshippers. The police just let that reach its time limit and then quietly let it fade away.

The point is that we do not have a system that is foolproof. We do not have a system that is perfect. We have an expiation system where a lot of people pay up. Even one of my lawyers said to me, 'I got a speeding ticket. I'm not contesting it; it's not worth the hassle, the time, the money,' but why should you be forced to tell a lie? If you do not want to tell a lie and pay the expiation fee, then your only option is to go to court and test that.

For your effort in taking it to court, as in my case, you get a conviction if you lose, yet if it is an expiation you do not get a conviction. People say, 'Well, you take your chances,' but I believe the system should be fair. If you go to court, I do not see why you should be treated differently, and the fine should be the same as if it were an expiation. In a court situation, if you lose, you get not only the fine but the court costs as well. What we have is anything but a very fair and transparent system. In summary, this bill is, in theory, headed in the right direction, but I believe it needs some changes, and I think we need to change the Expiation of Offences Act.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:52): I rise to speak to this bill. I note the comments by my shadow minister, and I largely agree with them, but I also very much agree with the member who just sat down—the member for Fisher. I do note the case he has and how determined he is to see his rights abided by and what it has cost him personally.

This is a bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961, the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 and the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993. As we know, the purpose of the bill is to increase the maximum penalties that can be imposed by a court for a number of offences in the aforementioned acts and the maximum level at which the Governor may set expiation fees for offences in the acts and the regulations.

This is an area that I had some difficulty discussing with my shadow minister. As far as I am concerned, this area does also affect the severity in the long term of the expiation fee. The current penalty system operates with both expiation notice fees and court-imposed fines and, of course, the costs of the court go with that. An expiation notice is given when the law is breached and it is considered appropriate for the perpetrator to pay a fine rather than take the matter through the court system.

The expiation fee system is designed to allow a person to take responsibility for their offence, avoid the cost of having the matter dealt with by a court and also prevent the courts from being clogged up as a result of dealing with minor offences, such as minor traffic infringements. We agree that that is all well and good, but I believe other people are intimidated, as the member for Fisher has just said. They pay the fee because they do not want the threat of going to court and incurring the costs. So, to some degree you can say it is an intimidation. For people who have broken the law there is no problem, they pay the expiation fee without any problem at all—end of the issue. They say, 'I'm caught, I'm guilty, I'm happy to pay'—and they pay. However, when you are contesting it because you feel it is not right, the police officer expects you to pay the expiation fee and move on. Well, in the member for Fisher's case and others, no, that is not necessarily so, and that aggrieves me.

More serious offences (such as drink and drug-driving and others), or if the offender elects to be prosecuted for a minor offence, require the offender to attend court where a penalty is imposed or a not guilty verdict is returned. Expiation fees are increased annually and represent a portion of the maximum fine set out in the act, which means that it is almost beneficial financially to pay the fee rather than go before the court. It is believed that the diminishing difference between the fine and the expiation fee encourages people to have a minor matter dealt with by the court as there is the possibility that the court may impose a fine that is less than the expiation fee or, even better than that, be found not guilty.

The intended aim of this bill (and I emphasise the word 'intended' there) is to restore the deterrent effect of the penalties and to discourage people from appearing before the court on minor matters. Yes, I have no problem with that but, as I said, due to the recent publicity about the use of speed cameras and devices and the heavy fines—whether these are revenue raisers or life savers—and the $250 fines that are inflicted on people doing, say, 57 km/h in a 50 zone, brings it into question. Is it saving lives or is it revenue raising?

At the risk of being hypocritical and supportive of all those law-abiding citizens out there who are aggrieved by the over-zealous use of speed cameras, I make these comments today. I have a motion to a select committee before this house. I am told today that the government will not be supporting it and I am quite disappointed. I was happy for them to amend it. All I was asking was as follows:

That this house establishes a select committee to examine the effectiveness of speed cameras and other speed-measuring devices used by the South Australian police.

What do they have to hide? Why would the government not say, 'Yes, let's clear this up once and for all—it is an issue out there'? It certainly is. What have you got to hide? Okay, if you are not going to do it, I will get somebody to do it in the other house. Let us have a full inquiry into what is going on here. There are two sides to the argument—yes, there is. Nobody is going to say that they would oppose anything that is going to save lives, especially not me. However, I am upset, first of all, that the government blatantly will not debate it or, if we are able to get it up for debate, they will just defeat it, or it falls off the Notice Paper. That really upsets me.

Mr Goldsworthy: They don't want to be transparent.

Mr VENNING: They don't want to be transparent. So, I am annoyed at this legislation. When you see some of the increases in this legislation you are talking about a $400 to $500 increase. If you are going to lift those penalties for a person doing 57 in a 50 zone to $500, if that is the case—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr VENNING: He is trying to do that. I am taking the position of the rank and file citizen out there. If you cannot convince me then you are not going to convince them. I have said my bit and it will be interesting to see what happens between the houses.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to seek leave to continue your remarks, which you could also do?

Mr VENNING: No, I think I have made my point. Madam Deputy Speaker.

Debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]