ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC SPEED ANALYSERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 May 2011.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (10:33): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Liberal opposition in relation to this bill, a private member's bill brought to the parliament by the member for Fisher (Hon. Bob Such), looking to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961. The basis for this bill is to require the police to meet and maintain Australian standards in relation to the use of hand-held laser speed detection devices, commonly known as laser guns.

My understanding is that the bill has been drafted as a result of a judgement that has been passed that ruled on the member for Fisher's hearing regarding an issue he had before the court. The judge ruled that, in relation to the use of hand-held lasers, as used by the South Australian police, there was no legislative authority requirement that the police have to maintain or meet the Australian standards regarding the use of the lasers.

I will not go through the bill section by section, because I do not want to hold up the house unnecessarily, but I do want to put the opposition's position in relation to this bill to the house. Sections 54, 55, 56, and 57 of the bill, I think, go beyond the initial intent of the member for Fisher. I think while he has the act open so to speak, in relation to the bill, he has put a number of claims forward, ambit claims you might say, in relation to placing additional requirements in the act.

On this side of the house, we do not support those additional requirements that have been reported to us from a number of key stakeholders and that will put an onerous responsibility on the police and other bodies in meeting the requirements the member for Fisher intends in relation to the bill. What we do support is that there should be some legislation, some law, stipulating how police use laser guns, in particular, the testing, calibration, and operation of laser guns.

As a consequence, the opposition will look to amend the bill that would see us allow new sections 54(a) and (b), which state that the analyser 'must be operated in accordance with the prescribed standards' (this is necessary to ensure that the device is operated in line with the intentions of the manufacturer and the Australian Standard), as well as sections 55(1)(a) and 55(1)(b)(i). These ensure that the traffic speed analysers, or laser guns, will be calibrated on a regular basis in accordance with the Australian Standard. It is our opinion, on this side of the house, that all other aspects of the bill are really unnecessary.

I do understand that the member for Fisher, while the act is open, wanted to insert these other provisions, and I will cover a couple of them while we are discussing the issue. New section 54 provides that laser guns must not be operated in relation to vehicles that are more than 300 metres away from the device on a road with a speed limit of not more than 80 km/h, or more than 800 metres away on a road with a speed limit of more than 80 km/h. I believe that is an unnecessary provision, an unnecessary requirement to be placed on the police. I think they are at liberty to operate this type of equipment where they see fit.

New section 56 provides that any speed traffic analyser that is found to be inaccurate shall be withdrawn from service until it is recalibrated and found to be accurate. Well, you could argue the merits of that; however, we found that new section 57 pushed the envelope a bit. This section relates to the withdrawal of an expiation notice. Under the bill proposed by the member for Fisher, if a laser gun was not operated according to section 54 and found inaccurate during the first calibration following the day of an offence, then the expiation notice must be withdrawn.

I think that opens up a can of worms. If a laser gun is not tested for a period of six months, and it is found to be inaccurate, that means potentially all those offences, all the expiation notices that were issued for that six-month period, would be withdrawn. I do not think that is a reasonable proposition. All in all, we support the core intention of the member for Fisher in terms of—

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: When we get to the committee stage, we do intend to amend it. We have not yet prepared the amendments because I understand that the member for Fisher wants to adjourn the debate until he receives additional feedback. However, I can say that the opposition has gone to the MTA, the RAA, the Police Association and the Law Society and has received feedback in relation to that consultation. Some are sympathetic with what the bill proposes, some oppose it, and I think the opposition's position looks to plot some middle ground, to put some law around how the police administer the law, that there should be some legislative requirements that are in place for police to test, calibrate and operate laser guns.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.