House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Road Traffic (Traffic Speed Analysers) Amendment Bill ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC SPEED ANALYSERS) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 5 April 2012.) The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:15): Once again, I think this is a reasonable, responsible measure. Just to refresh the memory of members, what this required of police was that hand-held lasers (in particular the lasers; not radar) had to comply with certain standards. The police say they meet certain standards—yes; but when you go to court, because they do not have to meet the standards, a person challenging does not have a leg to stand on literally. I had a young lad come in today who was allegedly pulled over by a traffic officer at Brighton. The police officer was using a laser but he said there were multiple cars in the area. These devices do not have a photographic capability. The police will not buy the ones with a photographic capability so it is purely a subjective assessment by the police officer. How do you know that the car that was pulled over was the one that was the offending vehicle? The other point is that if you challenge it in court you are not allowed to get your hands on one of these devices. You are not allowed to have them independently tested. You cannot have an expert because the magistrate will say to the expert, 'Have you ever used one of these police lasers?' and the answer is no, because the police will not let anyone touch it, so you cannot have an expert witness. What you have to do in court is to show that on the day in question the police device was inaccurate. All the police have to do is to get an inspector—who can sign on a piece of toilet paper if they like—saying that the device was accurate and that is it, end of story. I do not think that is fair and reasonable in our society and I think it should be changed. I do not think it is unreasonable that the police be required by law to meet proper standards in the way these machines are calibrated and operated. I brought this bill in for that purpose, to try to address what I think is an injustice in our system because the motorist cannot really challenge an expiation that is given to him or her as a result of the police using one of these hand-held devices. I think this law is needed. I am not sure that it will get up today but I think change is necessary because what we have at the moment is the potential for a corruption of process. Second reading negatived.