House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Expiation of Offences (Speeding Offences) Amendment Bill EXPIATION OF OFFENCES (SPEEDING OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 7 April 2011.) Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Little Para Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:20): I rise to indicate that the government does not support this bill. The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting: Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: Surprise. The member for Fisher has introduced a bill that seeks to amend the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 to change the process involved in issuing expiation notices so that all information contained on an issued notice is written on the notice at the time of the incident and in the presence of the recipient. Full disclosure of evidence at the time of a police officer writing in expiation notice is simply not practical. The Expiation of Offences Act 1996 is an administrative scheme. The purpose of the expiation notice system, established under the act, is to allow the efficient disposal of minor offences without the necessity for all matters to enter the court process. An expiation notice is issued to advise a person that a particular offence has been detected. The notice informs the recipient what the offence is; the time, date and location of the offence; the expiation fee; the issuing officer's particulars; information on how to pay the expiation fee and alternatives to payment, including the right to elect to be prosecuted and to enter into the court process. This is the principal decision to be made by the recipient of an expiation notice. The notice is not designed to prove every element of the offence. An expiation notice should not be equated with a prosecution. If the recipient of the notice elects to be prosecuted, he or she will be entitled to full disclosure of material in the possession of the prosecution, as has been determined by statute and case law precedent. The current scheme allows for the disposal of minor matters quickly and efficiently without, in most cases, a court appearance. People who wish to dispute the notice can do so by having the matter heard before a court. In that case, evidence to support the charge would be provided to them through disclosure. The bill also seeks to create an independent panel to review expiation notices. I believe, and the government believes, that this effectively duplicates the role of the court, and so is unnecessary. SAPOL already has the capacity to undertake a review process, which is generally to check that the notice has been legally issued in accordance with the act and regulations. During this process, the Expiation Notice Branch can withdraw a notice entirely or issue a caution, should the review reach that conclusion. After this review, if the notice is to stand, the recipient still has the option to elect be prosecuted, whereby they have the opportunity for the matter to be heard before the court as the independent arbiter. To create a review mechanism in the nature of a panel would create another layer of administrative function, which would be inconsistent with the intention of the existing act and regulations. The legal status of decisions made by such a panel would, in any case, require careful examination. It is also likely that there would be considerable budgetary implications in establishing such a panel, whose decision may ultimately be that the matter needs to be resolved in court. Changes to the current process are not supported, and it is the government's opinion and my opinion that the bill would create an unnecessary waste of time and resources and would duplicate court process. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Goldsworthy.