EXPIATION OF OFFENCES (SPEEDING OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 May 2011.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (10:40): The member for Fisher introduced the Expiation of Offences (Speeding Offences) Amendment Bill. There are four key elements to the bill. The first is to require full particulars of the alleged speeding offence to be set out, including the distance recorded by the distance measurement function of the traffic speed analyser. The second is to provide the alleged offender with the particulars at the time of the offence to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether to expiate the alleged offence, elect to be prosecuted or apply for review of the notice.

The third key element is to enable the alleged offender to indicate on the notice whether he or she was shown the information recorded by the traffic speed analyser and whether the alleged offender agreed with the information so recorded. The fourth and final key element is to require an independent body to review a challenge to an expiation notice.

The bill raises some similar issues to the issues raised in a motion moved by the member for Fisher on 28 October, and that sits on the Notice Paper. Obviously, I am not going to debate that motion in conjunction with the debate on the bill, because I know that is out of order, but I want to identify two main objectives that the member for Fisher has raised in that motion, that is, to increase the amount of information people receive at the time of being issued with an expiation notice and to allow people to have their expiation notices independently reviewed without a fee.

Some of the concerns that the member for Fisher has which he highlights in this bill are that when an expiation notice is issued it only contains the following details: name, address and licence number of the person involved, the alleged offence, vehicle details, due date for payment and the police officer's identification number.

The member for Fisher states that people currently receiving an expiation notice rarely receive the additional police notes that accompany that paperwork, such as details of the time of the offence, details of the conditions surrounding the offence, such as the weather, location of the officer, the amount of traffic on that particular section of road and details such as whether a breath test had been undertaken.

Under section 6 of the Expiation of Offences Act, the time frame to pay an expiation notice is 28 days. As it currently stands, an alleged offender can wait months before receiving full particulars of the alleged offence. Accordingly, a person may not have all the information available to them when they are deciding whether to either pay the fine (the expiation fee) or to be prosecuted.

The bill will require police to give alleged offenders a complete expiation notice at the time of the alleged offence. This process will not require the police officer to perform extra work, as full details of the offence should be filled out on the spot in any event. The bill will ensure that the alleged offenders have the basic information on the offence so that they can make an informed decision before that 28 day time frame expires.

The second concern of the member for Fisher, as we understand it, is that the current review process requires a person to apply to the issuing authority to withdraw an expiation notice that refers to Section 16 of the Expiation Offences Act 1996. For example, if a police officer issues an expiation notice, a person must apply to the Commissioner of Police to have it reviewed. The member for Fisher claims that this is Caesar reviewing Caesar. I can understand the argument behind those claims.

In New South Wales request for a review can be made to the State Debt Recovery Office which will either conduct the review or refer the application to the issuing agency. The bill proposes to create an independent body to review any challenges to expiation notices. The bill suggests that a review of the disputed expiation comprise a justice of the peace, a police offer with extensive expertise in the enforcement of laws relating to the driving of vehicles, and a person with technical expertise in the detection of speeding offences. This would allow—arguably, by the member for Fisher—an impartial assessment of the circumstances. Parties wishing to exercise their right to challenge a notice will have to pay a $50 fee, however, if the challenge is upheld, the fee is refundable.

On this side of the house we have had some debate in considering our position concerning this bill. Our position is that we support the first part of the member for Fisher's intentions in relation to the bill, that is, more detailed information should be supplied on the expiation notice when the alleged offence occurs. We think that that is a fair and reasonable request from the police to the alleged offender. However, we do have some reservations in relation to supporting the second part of the bill that looks to establish an independent panel as outlined by the member for Fisher, as I said before, comprising of a justice of the peace, a police officer and so on.

When we get to the motion that the member for Fisher has on the Notice Paper in relation to reviewing these matters concerning the issuing of expiation notices, we are more attracted to looking at a review of how a panel, if you like, an independent arbiter, may be established, with a view to considering that at a later date if the member for Fisher, or somebody else in the house—perhaps a member, myself, or others on this side of the house—brings a new bill to the parliament.

So, in essence, we are prepared to amend the bill to support the first aspects—the first issues raised in the bill—in terms of supporting more detailed information being given to the alleged offender, but we do not necessarily support the second part of the bill that would look to create an independent body. We want to do more work on that before we come to a final decision. So, with those remarks that concludes my contribution in relation to the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:49): As my colleague has just said, this bill has two main aims: to increase the amount of information people receive at the time of being issued with an expiation, such as the distance of the speed analyser from the motorist, time of the offence and the relevant details such as alleged speed, details surrounding the offence such as weather and the amount of traffic in the vicinity at the time of the so-called alleged offence; and the second aim of this bill is to allow people to have their expiation notice independently reviewed without—and I emphasise 'without'—a fee.

Under the current system, an alleged offender must pay an expiation notice within 28 days, yet it may be months before they receive the full particulars of the offence, and I think that is quite out of order and not fair. This means that a person may not have all the details and information available to them when they have to make a decision either to pay the fine or elect to be prosecuted. Surely, I thought you were innocent until proven guilty. In this instance it is almost intimidating to say, 'If you don't pay within 28 days, you get the fine and an overdue payment', but you do not have the details. This bill seeks to rectify the situation by ensuring that an alleged offender is provided with all the details at the time of the alleged offence. I wonder how many people just pay the fine, even though they genuinely believe that they are not guilty because it is too difficult and too costly to fight the charge.

Last month, a pensioner had his speeding fine overturned in the Adelaide Magistrates Court—we all know about that. He was accused of driving eight kilometres over the 60 kilometre speed limit through the intersection of Sir Donald Bradman Drive. The man in question was adamant that he was not speeding at the time in question and supported his claim by giving evidence that he checked his speedometer prior to and during the time he went through the intersection, and at both times it read 60 km/h. The Chief Magistrate found that the prosecutor could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was speeding and the charge was dropped. The pensioner decided to represent himself because he could not afford the costs involved in having someone to represent him.

This is the reason behind the member for Fisher's bill today; that is, it is seeking to implement an independent body that can review expiation notices. I definitely think that this idea has some merit and there needs to be a more affordable and equitable system to enable people to dispute their expiation notices if they genuinely think that they are innocent. However, I can see such a system becoming very clogged up by people claiming that they did not commit the offence just because they do not want to pay the fine, and I am not sure what measures could be put into place to combat that and to stop that from occurring.

I commend the member for Fisher for taking up this issue because, certainly, it needs to have some public scrutiny. I think it needs some legislative support or change, and I wish him all the best in his campaign to see this whole matter cleared up. I support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.