House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 3 April 2025.) S.E. ANDREWS House of Assembly Gibson S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (16:17): I rise to speak in support of the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025, a bill that reflects our government's commitment to fairness, accountability and a more compassionate system of justice. This legislation delivers practical and meaningful reform as to how we manage fines and debts owed to the state. It will centralise the currently fragmented system by establishing the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit, a single point of contact for individuals managing outstanding debts and, crucially, it will make the system more equitable for the very people most vulnerable to its failings. A brief overview of the changes can be explained as follows. Regarding clarifying and enhancing powers of the Chief Recovery Officer, the bill address technical inconsistencies and administrative anomalies within the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 by clarifying and enhancing the powers of the Chief Recovery Officer. These adjustments come in response to identified issues in the act and feedback from operational experience. Regarding the extension of existing payment arrangements for new fines, if an individual already has a payment arrangement in place and a new expiation or pecuniary sum is referred, the Chief Recovery Officer can include the new debt in the existing arrangement, helping to avoid new fees or enforcement actions. The individual will have 14 days to opt out and retains the right to challenge the new expiation. In relation to adjusting late fee applications for pecuniary sums, late fees for pecuniary sums will now be charged based on the date the debt fell due, rather than one fee per criminal charge. This change reduces duplication, especially where multiple sums are ordered on the same day. Prioritising victims of crime payments clarifies that court-ordered compensation or restitution to victims of crime must be paid in full before any remaining funds are allocated elsewhere. This ensures victims receive their due priority. Regarding the staggered addition of reminder and enforcement fees, rather than layering multiple fees at once, reminder and enforcement fees will now be added gradually in response to non-payment. This incentivises early resolution of debts and shields individuals from sudden, overwhelming penalty stacks. In relation to the removal of involuntary treatment and imprisonment sanctions, the bill removes two harsh and ineffective enforcement measures: courts can no longer require clients with unpaid debt to attend a treatment program and imprisonment is no longer a penalty for failing to comply with treatment or for non-payment of a civil debt, under both the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act and the Enforcement of Judgments Act. Voluntary treatment remains an option if a debtor chooses it. Regarding clarifying recovery of civil debts owed to government, the bill expands and clarifies provisions for recovering civil debts owed to government agencies. It also sets out how these processes should interact with other debt-creating legislation, eliminating conflicting or overlapping enforcement mechanisms. Certain categories of debt are explicitly excluded from the definition of 'debt' under part 8 of the act. We know the burden of fines does not fall equally. People on low and fixed incomes, including pensioners, carers, people living with disability and those relying on income support, can be hit the hardest. A fine that might be a minor inconvenience to one person can be a devastating setback to another. For so many on tight budgets, even a relatively small fine can mean going without essentials such as food, medications or rent. When fines are managed across multiple agencies, each with their own processes, timeframes and communication channels, the challenge multiplies. People can be left confused, anxious and at risk of further penalties, not because they refuse to pay but because the system can be too complex to navigate. That is not justice, that is a system failing the people it is meant to serve. This bill addresses that. By creating a centralised fines enforcement and recovery unit, we are building a system that sees the whole person, not just the debt. We are enabling early engagement, more flexible payment options and support tailored to people's real life circumstances. This is especially important for people on fixed incomes. When you rely on a pension, a carer's payment or JobSeeker, you cannot just find the money. That is why this legislation enables smarter and fairer management of debt for things like consolidated repayment plans, early intervention and clear pathways to support. It also means better communication, one contact point, one consistent system and one accountable body to work with people, not against them. For vulnerable members of our community this clarity can be the difference between getting on top of a fine or falling into deeper hardship. This reform aligns with our government's progressive values, putting fairness at the heart of public policy and ensuring that nobody is left behind because they might be poor, sick or unsupported. It removes unnecessary barriers, supports people doing it tough and ensures a more compassionate, coordinated response to state debt. It is good policy and it is the right thing to do. I commend the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025 to the house. Mr TELFER House of Assembly Flinders Mr TELFER (Flinders) (16:24): I rise as the lead speaker of the opposition on this, but I will not be speaking for too long. Obviously there are a few different aspects to this bill and I look forward in the committee stage to dissecting a few of these points, in particular, a few of the questions that are outstanding in my mind as we are considering this bill. Obviously, this bill seeks to amend the original act from 2017, the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act, by removing issues of efficiency and consistency. This bill will improve the ability of people to enter into payment arrangements with the Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit, exit these arrangements, or include new penalty notices within an existing payment arrangement without having to go through a new process for each action. This is obviously something that is pretty pertinent. These are the challenges that are faced by some people with payment processes and I think that we could all relate to having constituents that come to us with the challenges of being able to face some of the payment programs. I know some of my colleagues in the chamber may have had to face a number of different fines adding up. The number of fines that add up and the number of dollars that are owed can be a challenge for some people, especially for those with limited means to pay, and this program obviously does look to put a bit more capacity within that system. We see that any late fees are charged on a total amount owing rather than on individual offences, which simplifies the payment process for payees and reduces the bureaucratic requirements for this bill, in particular. I have heard stories of individuals racking up 60 different fines with amounts of over $10,000. For that to be altogether in one amount I think simplifies that payment process. I am sure that some members or ministers might be able to relate to that. The bill also prioritises the payment of funds to victims of crime above other creditors. As I have said, there are some questions which we in the opposition will be putting when we get to the committee stage around some of the nuances, such as when there are properties used to recoup the recompense that is owing—properties that are jointly owned and the like. I think there are a few uncertain aspects to that. This bill removes an obligation on offenders to undertake treatment programs in the case of addiction-related penalties that remain unpaid. While this may seem counterproductive, it has been agreed with the government that offenders involuntarily taking courses are unlikely to benefit from them for lack of motivation. Importantly, offenders and payees who wish to voluntarily undertake treatment to avoid financial penalty can still do so, and voluntary participation is shown to work better than coerced participation by those who are unwilling. I note that imprisonment for unpaid fines is removed from the bill. This raises questions around unpunished crimes, but the option of asset seizure in this bill ensures that punishment and fine enforcement can still take place without the added financial burden on the state of an increased prison population. As I said, there are a few nuances when it comes to the seizure of assets. I hope that the Treasurer, as he takes carriage of this bill, will be able to unpack that a little bit. I note that this bill aims to streamline procedures with other departments that can issue fines to ensure a smoother process, allowing the addition of fines to a single payment structure for those who have built up a backlog, I guess you could call it, of fines. One section on which I am going to be raising my concerns and asking questions—and we in the opposition will be considering in response to answers we may get to this section, in particular—is whether there are any alterations to any amendments that we might be putting in the other place, especially revolving around section 42(1). I do see that this is a challenge where a property that is co-owned by an innocent individual who has committed no offence can be seized by the government to make good on a failure to pay by the other individual of a partnership, or the other individual that might be part of the ownership of the property. Without a decent explanation from the minister through the committee stage, that looks on face value to be deeply unjust and it really does punish individuals by association, which is no different really to guilt by association, and there is no sense of justice in applying such a standard. That was one area in particular that we in the opposition think there are real concerns about and we will be looking for some explanation from the minister. However, overall, this is a bill that is straightening out, streamlining and putting in efficiencies. Thus, we will be supportive of the vast majority of it, despite the concerns around one or two of the clauses that we are going to be highlighting in the committee stage, and we will be considering our position in between houses. Mr FULBROOK House of Assembly Playford Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (16:30): Isn't it wonderful that we are all in agreeance that this is a great bill. To echo the sentiments of the previous speaker, my friend the member Flinders, I rise to support the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I commend the Treasurer for bringing forward a measured and well-considered piece of legislation that delivers both practical efficiencies and meaningful social justice outcomes. While this is very much an administrative bill, its importance should not be understated. The way government manages debt, whether it is a fine, a fee or a court-ordered payment, has a direct impact on the lives of thousands of South Australians. This bill will make the process fairer, simpler and more efficient for both the people who owe money and for the agencies tasked in recovering it. The bill updates the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 and addresses technical anomalies, improves operational efficiencies and ensures that our Chief Recovery Officer, the central authority for government debt recovery, has the right to manage the responsibility effectively. It also allows debts to be managed in one place. If someone owes money to more than one government agency, they will no longer have to deal with each separately. Instead, the Chief Recovery Officer will be able to provide a single point of contact, reducing confusion, saving time and preventing the duplication of fees and, most importantly, enforcement action. It also introduces commonsense reforms, such as allowing new debts to be added to existing payment arrangements, with full rights for people to opt out or dispute the debt so that one set of payment terms can cover multiple amounts owed. This simple administrative change will prevent unnecessary late fees and stop enforcement action being triggered against someone who is already doing the right thing and paying off their obligations. The Treasurer's second reading speech made it clear that this bill is the product of genuine and extensive consultation. Feedback was sought from those with direct experience in the debt recovery system, including frontline staff, specialist practitioners and advocacy groups representing the interests of our community. That process ensured the bill reflects practical realities, incorporates the insights of those who work with the system every day and balances the need of effective debt recovery with fairness and compassion. For government agencies, these amendments will streamline processes, free up staff resources and improve consistency in how debts are recovered. For advocacy groups, the reforms answer longstanding calls for better safeguards against unfair penalties. Adding debts to an existing payment arrangement rather than initiating separate enforcement actions is something that groups, individuals and advocacy organisations have specifically asked for, and it will make a real difference in reducing financial stress for people already doing their best to pay down what they owe. It is worth reflecting that the Chief Recovery Officer role was established in 2017 by a previous Labor government. This was an important reform that centralised expertise in debt recovery and created a specialist skill set within government to manage this complex area. Today's bill builds on that achievement, strengthening the role and giving it the legislative backing needed to handle the full range of debts in a consistent, fair and efficient manner. In looking at the notes that were provided to me, I could not help but notice the prevalence of the word 'pecuniary'. Sorry if I have mispronounced that. For someone who must confess to being a little stumped on what they were getting at, I felt my contribution should have a definition for all the folks back home. For those listening today who might not be familiar with the term, it simply means relating to money. A pecuniary sum is a monetary amount owed, for example a fine or a court-ordered payment. This bill changes the way late fees are applied to pecuniary sums so that people are not hit with multiple charges for the same due date, which I consider to be a sensible and fair approach that will save some people from additional costs. In the area of social justice, one of the most important changes in this bill is the removal of the penalty of imprisonment for noncompliance with mandatory treatment programs. The old provision allowed a court to order someone into a treatment program for issues like drug or alcohol addiction, with the threat of prison if they did not comply. We know that treatment works best when it is entered into voluntarily. Forcing someone into a program and then punishing them with imprisonment if they fail does nothing to address the underlying issue. In fact, it can make things worse, disrupting families, deepening disadvantage and pushing people further into hardship. By removing this penalty, we are acknowledging that debt recovery should never be about compounding someone's personal struggles. The goal should be to recover what is owed in a way that is realistic, humane and, whenever possible, helps people to get back on track. Centralising debt management under the Chief Recovery Officer is a logical step forward. It gives government the ability to take a whole-of-person view rather than having multiple agencies chasing the same individual separately. It avoids duplication, ensures consistent treatment of debts, and allows for more flexible and tailored payment arrangements that reflect an individual's capacity to pay. From the individual's perspective, it is about simplicity—one payment arrangement, one point of contact, one set of rules, all managed by a dedicated unit whose job is to recover debts fairly and efficiently. This is particularly important for people in vulnerable situations where the complexity of dealing with multiple agencies can be overwhelming and can lead to debts spiralling out of control. Finishing up, I want to commend the Treasurer for the extensive consultation that underpins this bill. The involvement of agencies, advocacy organisations and frontline staff who deal with these issues every day has been critical. Their insights have shaped a bill that is not just about tidying up legislation but about making real improvements to how government interacts with people who owe money. It is also worth acknowledging the people in our community who contribute through advocacy groups, sharing their lived experience of navigating the debt recovery process. These stories matter, and I feel that they have been heard in the formation of this piece of legislation. The Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025 is a fine example of Labor in government, delivering practical, fair and well-considered reform. It improves efficiency, reduces unnecessary hardship, supports vulnerable people and strengthens the specialist role of the Chief Recovery Officer—what I understand to be a Labor creation—in managing debt recovery for the state. I congratulate the Treasurer on bringing forward a bill that balances administrative efficiency with compassion and fairness, and I thank all those who have played a part in developing it. I commend this bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.