EXPIATION OF OFFENCES (SPEEDING OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:51): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Expiation Offences Act 1996. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is, I guess, the second string to the bow in terms of trying to reform the way in which traffic matters, and particularly speed, are managed in this state. Expiation notices go beyond speeding, but that is where their primary use is.

We know why governments like expiation systems; that is, it is a sure-fire way to make money because most people will just pay up. They will not challenge because, as we know, in South Australia—the justice state—if you challenge an expiation in court and you lose, you get a criminal conviction. That is South Australia, which does not make this state look too good in comparison with other places.

The expiation system, which is sometimes called a curial system—I would call it a curious system—is designed to simplify matters and ensure that there is a steady flow of income coming into the Treasury. The current arrangements relating to expiations are what I would call somewhat rubbery.

I indicate that because when somebody gets an expiation at the moment, what they get is a top tear-off slip which has minimal information on it—the name of the alleged offender, where it occurred, the offence that allegedly occurred, the date and occupation. I am not sure why that is important. I suppose if you put down 'judge' or 'magistrate', that might help. I am not sure why that should be on the top part but, anyway, it is.

That particular bit of information you get then tells you very little about the basis of the allegation against you. Currently in South Australia, you will not get the rest of that expiation notice that has the detail on it unless and until you go to court and, even then, the police will fight often to stop you from having the information that the police officer records at the time on what is in effect the bottom part of that sheet.

I make the point, which I have made many times, that most of our police are fine people. I know many of them. Many of my mates' sons are in the police force and I believe the overwhelming majority of police are fantastic, dedicated people, but you need to have a system which has integrity built into it as best you can.

When meeting with the Commissioner, he said that, ultimately, these things come down to the integrity of the officer and that is true. We should have a system where, wherever possible, it helps ensure that justice is served and that any complaint made is correct, the detail is correct and the person who is accused of something has the right obviously to defend themselves. That is currently not necessarily the case.

Once again, I can speak from my experience. I am not here to provide a cleansing ritual, but I do know from first-hand experience—it is the only way I did find out how these things do not work. The police, to their credit, have changed the expiation form a little bit in recent times, probably as a consequence of my stirring and letter writing and so on, but it is still inadequate. I will just give you some examples.

Currently, on the expiation, the officer puts down the location. Well, if it is put down as South Road, that is a pretty long road. Where? In my situation, Oakridge Road is about a three to four-kilometre road. Whereabouts? When questioned in court, the police officer said, 'I wasn't where I had it on the expiation, anyway.' I was further down the road. He could not fit in his half a kilometre visual estimation of my speed, so he changed his location, and magistrate Tracey allowed that—and I will let members pass their own judgement on it.

What needs to happen with the expiation is that it needs to be more specific. That particular officer, Gregory Luke Thompson, even though he claimed to be in a different location (what turns out to be No. 70), said that he had been there 11 times but he did not have any idea what the number of the house was. Well, that house has larger house numbering than any other house in the street, as far as I know—big bold numbers indicating No. 70—but he had been there 11 times and he said that he had no idea where he was.

On the expiation, the officer should be required to be more specific about the location because that can be critical in terms of things such as measuring speed. Speed is distance over time so, if you change the distance, you change the speed calculation; that is first-year physics. I think that people would be surprised to see how vague the current system is in terms of what is required on there. At the moment, the form does not allow for specifying a full range of what traffic is present.

In my case, in court—and I wrote the day after the incident—I nominated a red Falcon with its lights on coming up the road at the point where this copper allegedly pinged me, but the magistrate did not accept that because she said that you would have to say exactly how many metres away that car was. On the form there is only limited provision for what is the traffic flow. In court, the officer said that there was no traffic whatsoever on the road, which was untrue, but on the form it has 'light traffic; medium, heavy'. Well, there are other categories: it can be 'no traffic'. If that is what he believed, it should be on there.

What this bill does is amend the current legislation to ensure that a detailed copy of an expiation notice is provided to an individual within six months of allegedly being detected, and that will allow more time for someone to determine whether or not they want to challenge it in court. If you had a better, clearer, more transparent expiation notice system, you would have a lot fewer people challenging in court because they could make an informed decision about the alleged facts of the case.

This new bill requires that the expiation notice contain a lot more information, and it is also more specific in terms of the street location: if it is in the street, distance from a landmark and so on; the tracking history; if it is a hand-held laser, the range in metres; traffic conditions, no traffic, light traffic, medium traffic, heavy traffic; dry or wet; road construction. Some of these things are currently on there but not to the extent they should be.

It will also allow for an indication of whether the analyser was shown to the alleged offender or not. In my case, Constable Thompson did not show the analyser, and currently they don't have to. I think that is also a deficiency in the current system. If someone makes an accusation, they should be required to show you the evidence at the time. The magistrate said she was surprised I did not ask for it—well, I had been informed that they do not have to show it, and he did not show it.

The new form will require more details about the device used to detect the speeding when it was calibrated—all that sort of information—and the usual information about the amount of the fee, when it is payable, and choices available to the offender, including the opportunity to contest the matter in court.

So, this bill is really about openness and transparency. Talking to police frontline, motorbike police and others, they say they do not have a problem with giving a person the completed expiation there and then. However, in fairness to the officer in terms of time and so on, if it is made available to the alleged offender within reasonable time, then I think that is appropriate, so that a decision can be made, 'Oh, yes, I was in that situation. I was in that location and, therefore, I will or will not contest the expiation.'

I commend the bill to the house and conclude by saying that South Australia really needs to—in terms of the way in which traffic and other expiation notices are issued—improve the system so there is less opportunity for abuse and misuse in the system. In my case, Constable Thompson said that he did the morning and afternoon test at the same time in the morning, and he always got the same result. Well, that should show up on the form. It should be quite clearly shown when the person did the test, and also that a more senior officer checked the information. In my case, he checked his own.

Now the commissioner has issued an instruction not to do that unless they are out the back-of-beyond, and I think that that is appropriate. So, some changes have been made and I welcome those, but I think it is time that the whole form was changed and updated, and improved and upgraded, along with the whole process of expiation notices because, as I say, if you challenge one and lose in court you get a criminal conviction, apart from all the other costs and so on. So, I think it is appropriate that people who are issued an expiation get the correct and complete details so that they can make an informed decision in terms of court appeal, or whatever the case may be.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Sibbons.