EXPIATION OF OFFENCES (SPEEDING OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 May 2012.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:03): This was part of a two-barrelled approach to try to bring some meaningful changes to the way in which expiation notices are issued. The Police Department calls it as a result of community input: I think it is more the result of a bit of stirring. They have made some changes to the expiation notices, and one in particular, which is very important, is that an expiation notice now issued by a police officer will be checked and signed by a more senior officer unless the issuing officer is out at Coober Pedy, or somewhere like that, where it is not realistic.

That is very important. I do not want to go into the history of my situation, but in my case the officer signed as if he was the checking officer, and he got away with it. Other police I have spoken to, including people at very high levels in the police force, shake their head to think that a police officer could sign a legal document and pretend that they are a more senior officer. In my view that is falsifying a public document. He got away with it, and I have to wear the consequence of what happened.

The good news is that the police commissioner has recently issued a directive that all expiation notices are to be checked and signed by a more senior officer, and that is the way it should be. That is what happens in most jurisdictions. Most police do the right thing. The overwhelming majority of police are decent, honourable, ethical people, but the police commissioner told me that there is always the possibility of someone not acting with integrity. The reform is welcome, and it is in place.

The other change that has been made is that, when a speed detection device is used, the details will be recorded on the expiation notice; that is important. There is still one significant deficiency in the current notice. I recall what the minister said when she spoke on this two weeks ago, that is, the police department welcomes input from people on this issue. One deficiency relates to the use of the term 'place'. With modern GPS and other technical equipment, it is possible to be a bit more precise than to just say someone was booked on Main North Road. Where? That can become critical if the matter goes to court: place, whereabouts?

In my case, the police officer claimed that he had been in front of a house at Oakridge Road 11 times—No. 70—and he had no idea that he had been in front of that house. That is pretty implausible. That house has larger than normal numbering (No. 70). He claimed that he had been there 11 times, but he had no idea of the house number. I think that is a deficiency. The question of place needs to be a bit more precise. Some police have said that with GPS and other equipment they could now give a pretty precise location. Most times it would not matter but it can matter in some critical instances.

The other thing is that the police have not agreed to disallow the practice of pre-typed questions on the expiation notice; I think they should. I think it is outrageous that someone can have an expiation notice with pre-typed questions, in effect asking: why are you guilty, why were you doing a certain thing? You then go to court and have to try to explain that it was not the question that was put to you at all. Some police officers, not all of them, but the ones with a bit of integrity, do not pre-type their questions, so that what they record on the expiation is what is actually said in the conversation, and that is what should be the case.

I understand that this process of reform goes on. I am pleased that it has had an airing and I am pleased that the police commissioner, through the reform of the notice system, has brought about some significant and important changes.

Second reading negatived.