ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC SPEED ANALYSERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a modified version of an earlier bill I put in last year, and it relates to traffic speed analysers. For those who do not know, they are hand-held devices for measuring speed—allegedly. The current arrangements in relation to those devices—and members would know that I have had some experience in this area—are deficient because currently, and as I have pointed out before, the Honourable Justice Tim Anderson pointed out to the Supreme court that, under the current law, the police do not have to meet any standards whatsoever in relation to those.

Justice Anderson said that there are no legislated standards, they do not have to meet any standards. Justice Anderson also said that they do not even have to meet the Commissioner's Instructions through general orders. So, what we have here is people out there being allegedly detected for speeding—in some cases, losing their licence and losing their job—on the basis of an instrument which does not have to meet any standard.

The irony is, of course, that SAPOL is on the standards committee for lasers, yet here, for some reason best known to SAPOL and the government, they have always been reluctant to have any legislated standard. What they will say is, 'We meet the standard,' but when you go to court, they say, 'But we don't have to meet it. We are not required, legally, to meet it,' so, they get away with that particular line of argument.

Fixed speed cameras are calibrated regularly, tested regularly and subject to fairly strict conditions. There are occasions when they fail. There was one in January on the corner of Sturt Road and Marion Road that was faulty, and that was pointed out to me by an ex police officer who has an eye for these sort of things. When I raised it with the minister I got a reply saying, 'Yes, that machine is faulty and they are looking at either replacing or repairing it.'

Those fixed red light/speed cameras are subject to stringent standards and they should be. I have said before and say again that I do not condone speeding. I was not speeding in the case alleged against me, but the magistrate, I believe, didn't look at the issue fairly and appropriately and ruled against me.

Part of the problem in defending yourself is that you are trying to defend yourself against the system, which has no standards, which has no benchmarks. The officer in question in my case, Gregory Luke Thompson, said he did not have any real understanding of Australian standards and didn't know much about errors and all that sort of thing that can occur; he said that it was a beautiful instrument and that you can't really make a mistake. You will either get a reading or an error, but it may be off the wrong vehicle or it might be off something else. You can have erroneous readings. You will get a reading or an error, but you can get the wrong reading from the wrong vehicle. In fairness to the public—and I am surprised this situation has been allowed to exist since about 2002, where we have police using these devices that do not meet standards.

I had a case recently where someone came to me as he is about to lose his licence and could lose his job, because, according to a laser reading, allegedly he was 1km/h over the limit for excessive speed, which is 45 kilometres over the limit. I pointed out to him—he did not know and the police do not tell you here and do not adjust—that the manufacturer of those machines says that, even if they are calibrated perfectly, everything operating perfectly, there is an error margin of plus or minus 2km/h.

In effect, if that person is given that margin of error, he has not broken the law to a point where he will lose his licence and his job. That is pretty significant. In New South Wales the police are up-front and tell people that these machines have an error margin and they deduct that from the alleged speed; police here do not. I do not know what it is about South Australia that we have to have this sort of secrecy and reluctance to have proper standards. In Queensland the police are very up-front and very open. They say, 'Come down here with our laser, have a go yourself, try it out.' Not here: they will not let you put your hands on one, even for a court case to get it checked independently.

So, you cannot have an expert here in court testifying in relation to a laser, because the court will say, 'Have you ever used a police laser, Mr Expert?' 'No.' 'You're not an expert, now get out.' That is what happens here. You cannot have an expert to defend you because the expert is not allowed to touch the instrument to say anything about it. What sort of cowboy state is this when that situation prevails?

I wanted in my case to get the laser tested by Professor Veitch at Adelaide University, where they have special testing equipment. No, we were not allowed to have the instrument because of commercial reasons. That is an outrage in what is, in effect, a criminal case, a traffic matter, that you cannot have the instrument to have it independently tested. Presumably, if you apply that logic you could not be allowed to have a firearm tested because Winchester or Marlin or some other company would object. What a load of bizarre carry-on that is in a society that is supposed to abide by rules of justice.

This bill will ensure that traffic speed analysers, hand-held lasers—a lot of people get confused and talk about hand-held radar; these are hand-held laser, a different principle of accelerated light, a different principle to radar. What the bill will do is ensure that these hand-held traffic speed analysers are operated in accordance with prescribed standards, which include the Australian standards, manufacturers recommendations, SAPOL general or specific orders, and standards prescribed by regulation.

Lasers are used for eye operations and all sorts of things. When you say to medical people, 'Look, you don't need any standards when you're using that equipment. Do what you like,' they would be drummed out of business straightaway. They would be deregistered immediately. You go down to the Royal Adelaide where they have got that sort of equipment and get an answer, saying, 'Look, we can use lasers here. We don't have to meet any standards,' there would be an outcry, yet we allow that situation to occur in daily dealings by police with motorists and others.

In the bill, where there is an inconsistency between the regulations and any other prescribed standard, the regulations will prevail. Where there is an inconsistency between the Australian standard and a SAPOL general or specific order, the Australian standard will prevail. Where there is an inconsistency between a manufacturer's recommendation and a SAPOL general or specific order, the manufacturer's recommendation will prevail.

Currently, if you challenge in court you will not be given the manufacturer's specifications or any information. The police say, 'We don't have to give you anything,' and they don't. Once again, we have a mickey mouse justice system in South Australia which is based on the police being able to do things which in other jurisdictions are not tolerated.

I put this bill to the house. It is not about helping my situation. It does nothing for me personally. What it is about is trying to ensure that, for people in South Australia, we have a fair, transparent system, where the equipment used to detect people is properly calibrated and has proper standards. I hope that parliament will support it because I think it is fair and reasonable; and I hope that the RAA, which claims to represent motorists and speak for them, will come out in support of this proposal. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.