ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC SPEED ANALYSERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 March 2012.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:12): I rise to support this bill. That is the Liberal Party's attitude to this bill. The member for Fisher, the Hon. Dr Bob Such, has long been a strong advocate in this place for fairness and justice when it comes to speeding matters. For four years now, I have been going back to the issue that, if you are going to have traffic speed analysers out there—whether they are lasers, cameras or radars—they had better be accurate. For many years, to my astonishment, South Australia Police's—while they were calibrating their cameras to a very high standard—National Association of Testing Authorities certification had been suspended. That, to me, was just unbelievable.

I got a notice about fitting some meters on to some water pumps that we had down at a property at Meadows. I read the fine print, and those meters had to be tested by a NATA accredited laboratory. So, a water meter has to be accurate and certified by a laboratory that is NATA accredited, yet we have thousands and thousands of South Australians paying expiation notices for speeding offences. While I trust that the South Australia Police are doing their very best—it is like Caesar's wife—let us make sure that we are seen to be doing everything that we should and could be doing, and having NATA accreditation is something that I thought was necessary.

South Australia Police does have NATA accreditation now, but why was it the case that, for a while, its NATA accreditation was suspended? I am not aware of any technical problems, any logistical problems, moving officers, moving laboratories or not having the right people in the right place certified. I understand that it does now have technicians who are certified by NATA to do the testing within its laboratory. So, it is all there, it is in place now. That fact is very pleasing to me, and it gives me some more confidence that, if drivers are pulled over, the speed that has been recorded by the radar or camera is going to be as accurate as you can possibly get.

There is always going to be some error in that, just as there will always be some error or uncertainty for the motorist. I have had a discussions with a number of metrologists, who are people who determine the accuracy of measurement. One man in particular, Mr Les Felix, is a world authority in the area of metrology, has wide experience and has written peer-reviewed papers on speed analysers and the uncertainties in the speed measurement of cars, trucks and buses.

I do not believe that South Australians deliberately and recklessly speed and ignore the laws; I think they do their very best. If some of them are stupid enough to disobey or recklessly ignore those laws, such as hoon drivers, they deserve to be caught and punished to the full extent of the law. But, if you are driving along in your car and are pulled over for speeding, you want to know for certain that that is a genuine offence from both angles—the speed analysers must be accurate. You should be aware that, travelling in your car, the speed that is showing on your speedo—the speed that you recognise you are doing—is accurate.

Unfortunately, while you can do your very best, you may not be travelling at the speed that you think you are. That is why we have tolerances in speed detection—because there are some uncertainties in the measurement. This can be anything from the tyre pressure, tyre wear, the loading of the car, your dominant eye, or where you are sitting in the car. There are so many things that can add up—and they do add up—to a considerable uncertainty between the speed that you think you are doing and the speed that you are actually doing.

We need to make sure, if you are going to be using devices to detect people's speed, that those devices are accurate, and then we need to ensure that those uncertainties, which are physically and scientifically provable, are taken into account. NATA accreditation will go a long way to achieving at least part of that. I assume that NATA accreditation of the laboratories that make automotive instruments is in place; I would be disappointed if it is not. We have motorists who are able to do what they want to do and go about their business without breaking the law, speeding or committing offences.

This piece of legislation will require police to have the certificates for their individual devices available for inspection, and it will also make sure that South Australian police are not put under undue pressure and accused of using equipment that could be inaccurate in any way. It is a good thing for both sides: it is good thing for both the police and the motorists. I do not believe that this will create extra paperwork for the police.

I was given a demonstration around 18 months ago of what the police are doing at the Thebarton barracks. They are going through certification and testing of their equipment, so this is not a lot more. As I have said, they now have a NATA accredited officer and a NATA accredited calibration laboratory, and I do not believe this is going to be any more work for the South Australian police. This will make sure that we not only have a legal system but there will be justice in that system. The Liberal Party is supporting this bill, and we look forward to the government's support as well.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Sibbons.