STATUTES AMENDMENT (FINES ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2013.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (10:19): On behalf of the Liberal team, I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Fines Enforcement and Recovery) Bill 2013: it is distressing, frustrating and disappointing to do so. It is distressing because the government has undermined the justice system. Over the last decade Labor's mismanagement of fines enforcement has created an environment where people snub their noses at the law. As the penalties prescribed by law are not enforced, the law itself is disrespected. Those breaking the law have learnt that if they put it off for long enough then they can get away without paying their dues at all.

While this bill claims to address issues relating to the recovery of fines, it is really about something much greater: it is about years of neglect by Labor of a key element of our penalty regime, neglect that undermines a key element of our justice system. It is also distressing because the money that could have been collected could have gone a long way to deliver much-needed services that South Australians have gone without.

Let us remember that every dollar of unpaid fines is revenue that could have been available to fund other key government services whether it is schools, police, hospitals or community services. That is another dollar that is not going towards positive programs to support South Australians or to reduce the cost of doing business or the cost of living pressures that South Australians face.

This debate is frustrating because the blowout in fines has clearly been an issue for so long, yet the government has been so slow to respond. The government has been in power for more than a decade. Outstanding fines have tripled in that period, yet only now, with less than eight months before the 2014 election, the government is responding to the blowout in fines with this bill.

When consultation on strengthening the legislation commenced in September 2011, just 18 months into the Attorney-General's ministerial career, unpaid fines had already increased by more than $40 million under his watch—about a 25 per cent increase in unpaid fines in just over a year. It took until October 2012 for him to release a draft bill, by which point unpaid fines had increased by $70 million from the middle of 2010—more than a 45 per cent increase over two years. Now, when the legislation is being considered by this parliament, unpaid fines have hit $287 million.

The bill is disappointing because the response is so feeble. The bill does involve significant change, but it is hardly dramatic. The FTE of the new body is only one FTE higher than the old body and, under the government's own reasoning, the bill is far from being the solution to the problem. On the information provided by government, it will not even arrest the increase in unpaid fines, let alone turn the situation around.

The bill will lead, on the government's analysis, to unpaid fines being around 3 per cent lower in four years' time than could otherwise have been expected. In my view, the government's strategy is shifting to creating a smokescreen for inaction. Faced with a chronic problem of unpaid fines, this government has given up and is simply trying to buy time.

First, let us remind ourselves what we are dealing with here. The bill relates to managing the recovery of debts associated with monetary penalties—a range of penalties, such as court fees and fines, whether they are imposed by magistrates, justices or judges. They include victims of crime levies, expiation fees, third-party suitor amounts, such as local government overdue rates and parking fines.

I understand that there are approximately 150 issuing authorities in South Australia. Over the last 11 years of Labor government, the problem of unpaid fines has grown dramatically. Before they were elected to government in 2002, Labor told the South Australian people that it was totally unacceptable that unpaid fines were at $86 million. They told the South Australian people that they would do whatever was necessary to fix it.

Now, 10 years later, unpaid fines have more than tripled on their watch. The government has simply failed to manage the system. The level of unpaid fines steadily increased under attorney-general Atkinson. By 2005, the amount of unpaid fines was $101 million. The level of unpaid fines in 2006 was $112 million; in 2007, it rose to $123 million; it was $142 million in 2008; and $158 million in 2009. So, over the five years to 2009, under attorney-general Atkinson, the amount of outstanding unpaid fines grew by $57 million.

In 2010, the member for Enfield, the Hon. John Rau, became Attorney-General. The situation with unpaid fines has become significantly worse since his appointment. The level of unpaid fines grew to $155 million, then $192 million, then $225 million. When this bill was introduced on 1 May in the House of Assembly, the amount of unpaid fines stood at $275 million. Last week, the Attorney-General admitted that, as at 28 June 2013, unpaid fines stood at $287 million, an increase of $12 million in just two months. In other words, in the time that it has taken to put this bill through the parliament under the watch of Attorney-General Rau, the government has racked up more unpaid fines than it plans to recover through improved revenue collection under this bill over the next four years.

A comparison of the relative performance of the member for Croydon, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, the former attorney-general, and the current Attorney-General puts the current Attorney in a poor light. Between 2005 and the start of 2010 under former attorney-general Atkinson, the level of unpaid fines increased by an average of $11.4 million a year and a total of $57 million. The average amount written off each year was $28 million, and unpaid fines peaked at $155 million. Then in 2010, the member for Enfield, the Hon. John Rau, became Attorney-General and unpaid fines spiked to $192 million in the first year and have since climbed to $287 million. Over the 2009-10 and 2010-11 financial years, $122 million was written off. The average amount written off per year while the Attorney has presided over the portfolio is $57 million—double the rate under attorney-general Atkinson.

The average amount of unpaid fines written off each year, $57 million, is coincidentally the same as the increase in fines under the last five years of the previous attorney-general. The amount written off on average by the former attorney-general, that is $11.4 million, is less than the increase we see from the current Attorney-General in two months, that is $12 million. In the last six years, unpaid fines increased from $142 million to $287 million; 91 per cent of that increase, that is $132 million, occurred under Attorney-General Rau's management. The amount owing increased by nearly 28 per cent, which is $62 million, in the last financial year alone.

The rate at which the debt has been growing since this bill was introduced has been $6 million a month, or $203,000 a day. If fines continue to grow at the rate of the last three years, South Australia will have accrued $416 million of unpaid fines in four years time—that is at the end of the forward estimates period. This is a conservative estimate, based on this government's previous record and overly optimistic forward projections. Might I also add that this is presumably that the government will continue with its current practice of writing off significant amounts of debt each year.

Extrapolating the averages over the next four years, the combined amount of written-off and unpaid fines could be expected to reach more than $925 million in four years' time. That is $509 million in written-off fines and $416 million in unpaid fines: $925 million in total—that is almost $1 billion. These projections are based on Attorney-General Rau's average recorded increase in unpaid fines, which was less than the increase recorded each year in 2011 and 2012 and almost half the $62 million recorded in 2013.

What is the profile of this unpaid debt? In the October ministerial statement, we were advised that two-thirds of the debt outstanding is more than three years old and that the largest defaulter owes $171,000. Last week, the government indicated that, of the $287 million in outstanding fines, $140 million is not yet payable or is subject to an agreed arrangement, $107 million is overdue after 28 days or not subject to an arrangement, and another $40 million is being pursued by Dun & Bradstreet. Having spent 11 years creating the problem, the need for action has been clear for years, but Labor has been excruciatingly slow to deal with the blowout in fines under its watch.

In October 2010, the Attorney-General told the House of Assembly that the government was getting very serious about fines. In the 2010 budget, the government said it was pumping millions of dollars into the Fines Payment Unit. The Attorney-General told the House of Assembly that this money would fund a SWAT-style team and that fine defaulters should be very fearful because the government was very serious.

In February 2011, after talk of SWAT teams, the Attorney showed again that he thinks that the best form of attack is review: the Attorney-General announced a major review of fines collection. The findings of the review were put out for consultation in 2011. Labor had no sense of urgency at addressing the problem it had created. By October 2012, the government tabled a draft bill on penalty enforcement for consultation. In December 2012, we were told the government would bring 'legislation into the parliament as soon as we return in February next year'. February came and went—still no bill.

The headlines in March proclaimed that there would be a new 'squad to hit fine dodgers'. In late March, the Attorney promised 'on a stack of bibles that by next month this will be in the Parliament'. It was not—so much for a stack of bibles. The bill was finally tabled in the House of Assembly on 1 May and progressed to this council on 5 June 2013. Two sitting weeks came and went in this place without it being brought on for debate.

Last week's priority letter came out. The bill was listed priority nine out of 10. After I highlighted the government's lack of urgency, a revised priority letter was issued putting it at No. 1. To feign action, the government makes it a priority bill for debate this week. So, why the delay? The Attorney has made no secret of the reason for the delay. Repeatedly, in the media he has admitted that the bill has been held up within government. He has failed to drive change within his own government. The government is increasingly tired, arrogant and ineffective.

On FIVEaa on 12 October 2012, Mr Byner asked the Attorney-General, 'Why did it take nearly another year?'

Rau: I am very disappointed by this whole process, I have to say.

Byner: You're the boss, you're the Minister.

Rau: Well, I'm only the Minister.

Byner: Yeah, but how come there appears to be a recalcitrance in the department that says, 'Bugger you, we'll do it when we're ready, and if you don't like it, we won't do it'?

And later:

Byner: We're not building a Meccano set... we're asking people to pay their bills, for God's sake.

Rau: I agree with you. I agree with you. Look, trust me I am very committed to this. I have been for a long time. Nobody is more embarrassed than me that I haven't had all this sorted out by now.

Five months later, on 28 March this year, with a different presenter, Mr Matthew Pantelis, the minister seemed to be using the same script:

Pantelis: John Rau... you're having another crack at this, do you think you'll be successful this time?

Rau: I have been pushing along with the same thing and, I have to say, Matthew, it's extremely frustrating to be in a position where this has taken so long and it's one of the great disappointments I have in my job.

Pantelis: ...why has it taken so long?

Rau: I guess...everyone seems to think this is too hard, everyone except me that is... there's a lot of resistance to it.

Pantelis: ...you're talking cabinet, you're talking the government, both?

Rau: Not really cabinet...within the bureaucracy it's something that's just for whatever reason not welcome, but anyway we're pushing ahead with it.

Pantelis: ...the bureaucracy's there to do what you tell it to do, is it not?

Rau: That's the theory and we do our best...

Pantelis: ...but who's running the place, you or Sir Humphrey?

Later in the conversation:

Rau: I am extremely embarrassed it's taken this long...

Pantelis: ...it's taken the whole life of the government because Kevin Foley made comments to this effect when you came into office.

Rau: That may well be so... all I can tell you is that I've been pushing this thing for the best part of 2½ years and it's something that frustrates me enormously. I discuss this frequently with my staff and the senior officers in the department who are also frustrated about this... I've even started talking to my cat about this because it's just so all-encompassing. I get to talk about this every week and always from the point of view of having to apologise, which doesn't make me happy, so I'm really looking forward to next week when I can stop having these phone calls.

As one of the honourable members indicated, at least it is helping the minister with his relationship with his cat. The whole saga has recurring echoes of Sir Humphrey Appleby. The Attorney's lack of management skills and lack of leadership are laid bare for all to see. If the government will not stand up and drive reform within the government, why would fine defaulters be scared? Why would they be scared of a government that will not even stand up and drive reform itself?

What of the bill itself? Is the government's response to the blowout in fines worth the wait? The bottom line, in my view, is that the bill is very disappointing. Labor has yet again been caught out over-spruiking. It is revealed that the new fines enforcement agency would hardly even dent the unpaid fines explosion.

Parliamentary consideration also shows that the Attorney-General does not have his head around the details of the proposal. On 27 June, under questioning in estimates, Attorney-General Rau could not even answer basic questions on his proposal. The Attorney-General could not say how much his new fines body would cost each year, how many staff would be allocated to it or even how many unpaid fines it was anticipated to collect.

These are hardly tricky questions: they are basic ones. Would you not expect that a minister could tell you how much a body would cost and how many staff will be employed by it? The fact that the Attorney-General does not have a handle on the plans for the FERO underscores opposition concerns that the change is more about an appearance of action than a real solution.

I wrote to the Attorney-General in the context of the bill to reiterate the opposition request for answers to the eight questions that he could not answer at estimates. For the sake of the record, I put on the record the answers that I have received. The first question was:

What is the estimated annual budget of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Office?

a. How much of that budget is:

i. new money?

ii. transferred from the Fines Payment Unit; and

iii. transferred from the debt recovery function from the Crown Solicitor's Office?

The answer is:

The annual expenditure budget of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit, once implemented, is estimated to be $10.4 million pa from 2015-16. Of this amount:

around $1.4 million pa is new funding;

an estimated $8.6 million pa will be transferred from the existing Fines Function within the Courts Administration Authority, and

$0.4 million pa will be transferred from the debt recovery function within the Crown Solicitor's Office.

Question 2:

What is the current staffing level of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Office?

The answer is:

The proposed staffing level of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit will be approximately 85 FTEs (once established).

Question 3:

How much of those staff members are:

a. New staff,

b. Transferred from the Fines Payment Unit, or

c. Transferred from the debt recovery function from the Crown Solicitor's Office?

The answer is:

Of the estimated 85 FTEs:

1 FTE will be for new staff;

around 79 FTEs will be transferred from the Courts Administration Authority; and

5 FTEs will be transferred from the Crown Solicitor's Office.

Question 4:

Of the $6.2 million expenditure on the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Office in the next four financial years, how much is offset by reduction of expenditure of the Courts Administration Authority or the Crown Solicitor's Office under the current arrangements?

The answer is:

The $6.2 million expenditure figure, across the forward estimates, published on page 19 of Budget Paper 6 only relates to the new funding provided in the 2013-14 budget. There is no offset to either the Courts Administration Authority or Crown Solicitor's Office budgets for this amount.

Question 5:

Of the inflow of revenue to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Office in the next four financial years, how much is offset by reduction of expenditure of the Courts Administration Authority or the Crown Solicitor's Office under the current arrangements?

The answer is:

The inflow of revenue expected has not been offset by a reduction in expenditure for the Courts Administration Authority and the Crown Solicitor's Office.

Question 6:

What proportion of the budgeted additional revenue will be generated through improved collection, and what proportion through changes to existing fees and charges?

The answer is:

Across the forward estimates, it is estimated that:

43% of budgeted additional revenue will be generated through improved collection;

57% of budgeted additional revenue will be generated through changes to the existing fees and charges structure (including increases for fines associated with driving uninsured and for driving unregistered).

Question 7:

Can you clarify that the $1.69 million in additional recurrent funding to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Office (found within Budget Paper 6, page 19) is the same $1.69 million listed in Program 9, fines enforcement and recovery (Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 52)?

The answer is:

Note it is assumed that the question relates to the $1.96 million additional funding to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit on page 19 of Budget Paper 6. This is the same as the $1.96 million listed in Program 9: Finance Enforcement and Recovery, on page 52 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 1.

Question 8:

Is $52,000 in 'operating revenue' to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Office (Budget Paper 6, page 19) included in Program 9: Fines Enforcement and Recovery (Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 52)?

The answer is:

The $52,000 in operating revenue in Budget Paper 6, page 19 is included under AGD Controlled Items - Program 9: Fines Enforcement and Recovery, (Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 52) and AGD Administered Items - Fines and Penalties (Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 59).

That is the end of the answers. Let me highlight a couple of interesting elements in the response.

First, members might be surprised that that allegedly strong response from the government will be delivered with only one additional FTE. The FTE of the unit will be only one FTE higher than the legacy units; 84 FTE will become 85 FTE. Second, across the forward estimates it is estimated that only half the 43 per cent of budgeted additional revenue will be generated through improved collection; 57 per cent of the budgeted additional revenue will be generated through changes to the existing fees and charges structure.

The bill amends the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 to increase the penalties for two offences: the penalty for driving an unregistered vehicle increases from $2,500 to $7,500, and that for driving an uninsured vehicle increases from $5,000 to $10,000. As a corollary, the bill also amends the maximum amount of an expiation fee under this act, from $1,250 to $2,500. This will permit proposed increases in the expiation fees for these two offences. Those expiation fees are set by regulation, and we are informed that the government intends to increase that fee, from $315 and $582 respectively to $1,000 and $1,500 respectively.

So, even after all this hype, most of the budgeted revenue increase comes from increased fines rather than increased collections. On radio last week, the Attorney-General estimated that the new fines enforcement and recovery office will reap an additional $26 million in revenue over the next four years. The government plans to spend $16 million to achieve this. So, the net increase in revenue is a mere $10 million from the measures we are debating today over four years.

The amount yielded from this bill's increased enforcement measures is expected to be $11.18 million over four years, or approximately $2.8 million per year. Let me say that again: $2.8 million per year. It is worth repeating again because, on the basis of those projections, even if Attorney-General Rau's fines blowout miraculously stopped three weeks ago on 22 June when the last stocktake was taken, the government's own costings would indicate that it would take more than 44 years to recover the unpaid debt. Again, for it to take 44 years, the increase in fines would have had to have stopped on 28 June, for we know that unpaid fines are increasing at a rate of $6 million per year. That means that, in a mere fortnight, the increased amount of unpaid fines would have increased more than the amount that these measures expect to recoup by improved enforcement measures in a whole year.

I turn now to the implementation of the bill. On 28 March 2013 on radio station FIVEaa the Attorney-General was in conversation with Mr Matthew Pantelis. Mr Pantelis asked, 'When do you expect we will see something in place, something working?' The Attorney-General responded, 'We get into parliament and we get the support across the parliament. I'd be hopeful that this thing would be up and running well before the beginning of the next financial year.'

Given that the Attorney-General was asserting that it would take less than three months to have the agency up and running from 28 March, the opposition looks forward to the agency being up and running well before late October this year—that is, three months from now—and getting regular updates on progress following that date. This is especially the case given that the bill is likely to go through the parliament this week, and the Attorney-General's three months in his March comment included the parliamentary passage of the bill. Yet I fear that by the time this bill is passed through the parliament, by the time the government sets up the agency, by the time the government gets around to implementing strategies, by the time the government allows itself to be held accountable, the election will be with us. This bill has all the hallmarks of Labor game-playing to avoid accountability for its mismanagement.

I turn now to some elements of the bill. The bill involves a range of new enforcement tools to recover debt. Examples include clamping and impounding vehicles—previously a vehicle could be confiscated but could not have these interim measures imposed on it; the sale of the debtor's primary place of residence if the debt is more than $10,000, and there is provision for placing charges on land; the publishing of debtors' names on a website as a means of serving notices where the debtor is unlocatable; and open-ended licence disqualification provisions.

The FERO may also place a charge on land, or even sell the land, if the debt exceeds $10,000. The bill will provide more flexibility in debt enforcement. The FERO, unlike the Fines Payment Unit, will no longer be required to follow a predetermined process to escalate the debt-collection measures. All measures will be available as soon as the debt is overdue.

Obviously the process will require the sensitive use of discretions by the officers involved. The FERO can exercise full discretion to waive payment of the whole or any part of an amount payable by a debtor. This could be a licence for mass write-offs at the debtor level rather than at the macro level, and the parliament needs to be alert to monitor how this power is being used.

The minister can appoint authorised officers to enforce pecuniary sums under the act and the FEROs themselves must be persons employed in the Public Service. The bill gives the minister the power to declare an amnesty from costs, fees and other charges and they may apply to a debtor or a class of debtors.

The bill has generated significant concern amongst stakeholders. The Law Society has expressed concern about the lack of transparency of the administrative arrangements under the bill, the lack of accountability and the expanded enforcement options. The society is concerned that the hierarchy of penalties has been removed without, in its view, adequate safeguards being put in place to provide restraint or oversight. It is also concerned about provisions that allow the deduction of payments from a person's bank account without their consent and for the FERO to seek any documents relevant to the debtor's financial affairs. The society concludes:

The powers, discretions and processes of the bill are wrong in principle. The removal of review and appeal rights is especially draconian...We suggest that the processes of the bill are also unlikely to be very productive in practice...the Society strongly suggests the increased enforcement powers provisions of the bill be withdrawn and reviewed, with a view to open process, administrative review and appeal, and provision for hardship cases.

The South Australian Legal Assistance Forum has expressed a concern that imposing late penalties on those who cannot afford to pay (the homeless, the mentally ill and so on) will reinforce the poverty trap, exacerbate their difficulties and make payments less feasible. The forum asserts that the bill will result in those less able to pay owing more than a person who can pay, despite the initial penalty being the same. The forum has also raised concerns that procedural fairness and the consideration of hardship have effectively been removed by giving the FERO absolute discretion to waive a payment of a pecuniary sum. The forum would like to see notification provisions, a fairness test and the requirement to give reasons to be inserted in the provisions.

In addition to the concerns raised by the forum, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement provided an example of a perceived injustice under the provisions of the bill. They cited a case where a person with a severe psychiatric disability had accrued $3,000 worth of fines. The person had been in custody for over a year and was found unfit to plead to a serious offence. Under existing 70I, the ALRM could make representation to the court for the psychiatric reports to be considered. This ability to make representations in such circumstances is proposed to be removed. The movement also provides examples of a number of other similar cases.

The opposition's view is that the comments of the stakeholders highlight significant issues which need to be addressed. The FERO will need to develop a set of policies and procedures to operationalise the legislation. A number of the concerns raised could and should be addressed through appropriate policies and procedures. If elected to government in March 2014, the Liberal Party will consider the operation of the legislation after an appropriate period of operation and the nature of any issues that are evident at the time would influence the type of the review.

The Local Government Association also expressed concerns, but of a significantly different nature to those of the legal stakeholders. The LGA is concerned about the government's plans to impose a lodgement fee on councils if they want the new fines enforcement and recovery officer to recover fines on their behalf. The LGA said that this change would lead to ratepayers paying for recovery action against recalcitrant offenders. They suggest that any fee paid by the council should be recoverable from the offender, in addition to the outstanding debt. However, the government was apparently reluctant to do this, so the LGA proposed that an increase in the reminder notice, which is currently $48, be allowed to offset the cost of the lodgement fee. The government made a commitment to do this in the Attorney-General's second reading speech summary in the House of Assembly on 4 June 2013. In his comments he said:

The government will commit to increasing the reminder notice fee for expiation debts as a means of reducing the impact of introducing a new $18 lodgement fee that will be imposed on issuing authorities, including local government councils, for lodging debts with the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Office.

The government will commit to modelling the impact of this new lodgement fee in conjunction with the Local Government Association and the Department of Treasury and Finance prior to this bill becoming law. Any increase in the reminder notice fee will come into effect on the day that the new Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit opens its doors.

The Attorney-General has been known to describe his bills as masterpieces and accuses the council of despoiling them. He repeatedly asserts that bills he puts forward should be passed without amendment. Again, with this bill the Attorney-General has demanded that it be passed without amendment. What arrogance! It is a particularly bizarre position to hold when the government itself has moved three sets of amendments in the other place and is putting forward a fourth set of amendments to the bill in the Legislative Council.

Government amendments in the House of Assembly were tabled while the debate was underway. If the Attorney's bills are perfect and they should be passed without amendment, where did these government amendments come from? In my view, no bill is perfect, and even less so the ministers and members who draft them. I propose, at this second reading stage, to put some questions, and I would be indebted if the minister could provide answers at the second reading summing up stage.

I have already quoted from the statement of the Attorney-General in the House of Assembly in relation to the local government reminder notice fee. In relation to that quote, I ask: has the modelling envisaged been undertaken; who has or will undertake it; if the modelling has been undertaken, what was found by the modelling and, if not, when will it be undertaken?

In a press release of 9 September 2011, the Attorney-General said:

In addition to the review, Mr Rau said he had asked the Federal Government to consider giving State collection agencies greater access to Commonwealth data to assist in finding fine defaulters.

The same release also states:

He has also asked the Federal Government to permit fine defaulters to be listed with credit reference agencies.

My questions are: what action has the Attorney-General taken in relation to those commitments and what was the response of the federal government? When will the agency be operational, particularly in the context of the Attorney-General's commitment that the local government modelling will be done before the bill becomes law? How many individual fines have been written off in the 2012-13 financial year and, in dollar terms, how much was written off in the 2012-13 financial year?

In conclusion, I am glad that this so long-promised refresh of fines enforcement law and administration will finally be implemented. As I indicated earlier, relying on the government's own figures, I am highly sceptical that this bill will halt the blowout in unpaid fines, let alone reduce the level of unpaid fines.

This is yet another illustration that if you want real change you cannot just change the law, you need to change the government. On 15 March 2014 the people of South Australia will have another opportunity to deliver a change in government.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (10:57): I rise to address the bill before us, the Statutes Amendment (Fines Enforcement and Recovery) Bill which, as the honourable member before me (Hon. Stephen Wade) has touched upon, has shot to No. 1 with a bullet to the top of our priorities for this week, having previously languished at No. 9—and in fact over two years in the making and, prior to this week, it has apparently not been a priority for the Attorney-General.

However, of course, I am alerted to the effect of FIVEaa's radio announcer Mr Leon Byner on such people as the Attorney-General and the fact that last Tuesday, when Mr Byner interviewed the Attorney-General and raised this matter, it did indeed cause the parliamentary agenda to be amended. I must say that it was of interest to my staff and myself to receive the priority letter from government on Monday 15 July which had eight items—very important items—all placed before this particular bill. Certainly, this bill was only intended to be progressed but not even finalised, according to that particular Notice Paper.

However, following the Tuesday morning radio interview on FIVEaa, the very next day we received an amended priority letter from the government in which, as I say, this bill before us was put to No. 1 with a bullet. The interview is telling, in that the Attorney-General seems to blame everyone but himself for his inability to progress this legislation. He certainly started with an attack on the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Marshall, and seemed to have been irked somewhat by the words of Mr Marshall in a previous interview, I assume on FIVEaa. In fact, he said to Mr Byner that Mr Marshall had—and I quote:

...made some comments about this which I thought sounded a bit curious and I've sought information from my Department and I can give you the very most up to date position, as at the 28^th June this year. Here are the numbers: total outstanding fines, $287 million, total; of that, $140 million is either not yet due, in other words they're within that 28 day payment period, or people have entered into an arrangement to pay the fine with which they are compliant. So, if you [want] to use an analogy with business, they're either debts which are not yet due or debts [which are] being paid in instalments.

I must say that that does draw my attention to another bill that is on the Notice Paper in the lower house and indeed it comes from the honourable Leader of the Opposition, I do believe.

That bill, of course, is to ensure that government pays not its debts but in fact its invoices within the billing time and yet I am sure that that one is going to languish at the bottom of the Notice Paper for some time. It certainly has not rushed its way into the upper house and it is certainly sitting on the second page of the Notice Paper there in the lower house.

I look forward to debating that particular bill and to the Attorney-General ensuring that his colleagues progress that with great haste. I think all of us here in this chamber would probably welcome being able to debate that bill by the end of this week and having it signed, sealed and delivered so that small businesses that are currently not being paid on time by government actually start to get their bills paid on time and the massive impact that this government has had on those small businesses is alleviated.

However, I will not hold my breath. I will not bother my cat with my concerns about that particular bill. My cat has better things to do than hear the maladies of parliament and certainly I spare my cat. As many members know, I care about animal welfare and I am certainly not going to be bothering my cat with it. I am also not going to be blaming the Legislative Council for eating my homework, as the Attorney-General seems to be doing with this particular bill.

I go on to note with great interest, in that FIVEaa interview, that the Attorney-General then went on to note that, of the amounts that we are talking about with regard to this particular bill, $107 million is overdue and is not being paid within the 28 days and that $40 million has been put out to Dun & Bradstreet some 12 months ago, to which Leon Byner asked, 'How much did they get?'

This was a year ago, when $40 million of debt was given out to Dun & Bradstreet and the Attorney-General replied, 'As I said, I haven't got the number on that but I can find out.' I ask the government: what is that number? What have we recovered from that $40 million that was assigned to Dun & Bradstreet for collection over a year ago? Of the $107 million that is the concern here, I ask the government in which financial years those amounts have been accrued, so that we can see the extent of the time that these fines have been accumulating.

In particular, I ask the government: how much of that money that is outstanding is owed by people who live on APY lands or Aboriginal lands? I also ask the government: how much of that money is owed by people who are on Centrelink benefits of any sort? I also draw the government's attention to some information I gleaned from a freedom of information application in which I asked for the expiation notices that have been issued with regard to the offence of drive unregistered (offence code M774).

I asked for those figures for the following periods of 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The information I acquired from this FOI was, I think, quite illuminating. We have had a change in procedures and, in fact, in terms of the 2008-09 year, there were only 1,036 expiation notices issued for that year, but I do acknowledge that that is due to changes in process, where people were summonsed in that context.

However, when we are comparing apples with apples, we will start with the 2009-10 year, when 19,700 expiation notices were issued for that drive unregistered offence. The following year, 2010-11, the number jumps to 25,785. In 2011-12, the number is somewhat stable at 25,852, but in this year gone by, 2012-13, the number has skyrocketed again. It is not quite the No. 1 with a bullet, but it is certainly a large increase to 31,575.

That is an extraordinary jump in those figures and, as we know, it has been somewhat controversial that the government has changed the registration arrangements in this state and that people no longer have the registration sticker to remind them and make it obvious if they are driving an unregistered vehicle.

It certainly appears to be reaping rewards for government coffers, and so I would like to see how much of the money that we are looking at recouping applies to that trap that the government has set for young players and for new players who are not informed that their registration has expired and then accordingly are issued a fine. Indeed, those fines have gone up, and I would like the government to outline the levels at which those fines have been applied over those particular years.

The government brings this bill before us today in a rushed debate, and the Greens will not be holding up the debate, but we do have a lot of questions, and we look forward to the answers. Normally, we would receive a briefing from the government and, on the 17^th, the day after we got our amended Notice Paper, we did contact the Attorney-General's office and ask for a briefing, only to be told that the adviser was on leave. We were unable to get a briefing in these past few days on this bill that suddenly jumped to No. 1 with a bullet on our Notice Paper, and so I will have to ask the questions here in the committee stage.

I will acknowledge that we did send emails and that we did get emails in response, but simply allowing the Attorney-General to go on FIVEaa to change the parliamentary schedule, to push this bill up the pecking order without any thought to whether or not the staff would be available and whether or not the crossbenchers would be ready to debate does not bode well for my confidence in the ability of this particular minister to ensure that the Fines Payment Unit is done in an appropriate manner and established in an appropriate way that we hope it would be. However, I will suspend my disbelief that he will be able to accomplish this task, and I will simply focus on the concerns that have been raised and on the facts of this bill.

The bill, we are told, seeks to improve the system for collection and enforcement of unpaid pecuniary sums and expiation fees. We are told that as of 22 March 2013 our state had $275 million under management with the Fines Payment Unit. The bill grants the government the ability to declare amnesties from the whole or part of the costs, fees or other charges from time to time to increase the likelihood of recovery. I ask the government: do you have any intention, for example, to declare an amnesty for those who live on APY lands?

I point to that as a particular example of when many people are fined for driving unregistered or unlicensed, yet on the lands it is very difficult to actually register or pay for your licence or to access those basic services that we expect in metropolitan and rural areas. In such a remote community, it is a vicious cycle, where quite often there is no access to banks or a range of services, and certainly there is no post office as such. People have been caught in the position of, having passed their driver's licence, being unable to pay the fees associated with that, and perhaps not having access to the appropriate abilities to make a payment in the way that you expect most citizens of this state would. The government is well aware of those problems, so I ask: will the APY lands, and other Aboriginal lands facing similar challenges, be considered for such an amnesty in the near future?

We are also told that this bill will expand enforcement options and they include clamping and impounding vehicles, the sale of a debtor's primary place of residence if the debt is over $10,000, publishing a debtor's name on public websites (I am not sure if you would publish them on private websites, I must say) and also indefinite suspension of a debtor's driver's licence. At the moment a limited suspension may be applied. I ask the government: in what cases would indefinite suspension of a driver's licence apply and why would it not be an assigned period of a year, two years or three years? Indefinite to me is an interesting approach.

Would the person who suffers that indefinite suspension have any indication if the suspension would ever be lifted? Would the person involved in this operation—and I am sure the Attorney-General would be right across the operations of this particular unit, given that they want to get the head of the unit onto FIVEaa as quickly as possible, according to that Tuesday interview—have those details so we will be able to know this level of fine detail about whether a debtor would be given some sort of an end point for that suspension and, should they have employment that is reliant on their licence, whether they would face such a harsh penalty that would, in fact, affect their ability to pay as opposed to their ability to drive licensed?

We welcome the option of instalment payments being available without needing to provide hardship, and we are certainly supportive of that provision. However, given the FOI information that I have just provided members with, we note that penalties derived for driving an unregistered vehicle will increase from $2,500 to $7,500 and driving an uninsured vehicle will increase from $5,000 to $10,000, while expiation fees for the two offences are to increase from $315 and $582 respectively to $1,000 and $1,500. With that increase between the 2011-12 year of 25,852 people receiving an expiation notice for driving unregistered and that leap of over 5,000 to this financial year where we saw 31,575 people fall foul of that provision, I imagine the government is looking forward to recouping quite a lot of money out of the pockets of South Australian drivers from this bill. If the government has any forward estimates on that, that would be greatly appreciated.

I draw the government's attention to the fact that, while the Attorney-General—I will not put all government members in the same category here—has been claiming that it is the Legislative Council somehow holding up this bill, the Law Society has had some concerns. While the Attorney-General has dismissed those concerns, I say that the Greens are cognisant of what the Law Society has raised. It argues that the bill has the potential to work serious oppression on people who are at the margins of society and the justice system. I would have thought any Attorney-General might be a bit concerned about such strong words from a body such as the Law Society. However, the Greens certainly take them more seriously, I believe, than the Attorney-General.

The Law Society also has concerns that the state will have the discretion to confiscate assets and impose additional penalties, bypassing the ordinary safeguards with which a civil creditor must comply. I ask the government to respond to that particular charge. Will they have to abide by the ordinary safeguards with which a civil creditor would comply or could they please outline for this council where they will have additional powers?

The Law Society is also concerned that the clamping, impounding and sale of vehicles belonging to someone other than the debtor could occur and, in fact, the term used is that the debtor 'owns or is accustomed to drive'. I have raised my concerns through my staff with the Attorney-General's staff as to whether that would apply should the person who incurs the debt be driving their parent's car, another family member's or a friend's car. I ask the government to put on record whether or not the clamping, impounding and sale of vehicles will, indeed, apply to persons other than those who have incurred the debt. I believe the answer will be yes, but I would like the government to put it on the record.

The current policy, it is argued by the Law Society, should be maintained, that is, that a debtor's house, their primary place of residence, cannot be sold regardless of how much is owed because the forced sale of a primary place of residence will cause undue hardship not only to the debtor but also to the families and the community in general. I ask the government what they intend to do where they require the sale of someone's place of residence. What impact will they take into account if family members, or those close to that person, live in that house? What consideration will be given to that? The policy is also unclear where properties are jointly owned. I would like the government to give some clarity about what the approach will be if the house is owned in conjunction with another person who has nothing to do with the debt in question.

We certainly are very sympathetic, and I note that the Hon. Stephen Wade raised concerns that enforcement in some cases may cause undue hardship, particularly to the vulnerable and mentally impaired. I know that has been of great interest to the select committee that is looking at access to justice for people with disabilities at the moment, and we are soon to report and, certainly, that is of grave concern not only to the Law Society but, I imagine, to most members of that committee.

The bill also proposes to name and shame debtors by publishing their names on a website, as I mentioned previously. Certainly, the Law Society has concerns about this. Again, getting back to that FIVEaa interview, which I would not normally reference quite so often in a second reading speech, the Attorney-General used it not only to outline his campaign for this bill but, indeed, to change the work of the Legislative Council, so they had to send out an amended update so that a staff member who was on leave was unable to provide crossbench members with a briefing on this bill.

I will draw on that interview from FIVEaa again, when Leon Byner put it to the Attorney-General that it is already possible to publish these names on a website. I am not sure whether it is or is not. I would like the government to clarify whether it is already within the ability of this government to ensure that that happens at present. It says in the FIVEaa interview, and the response here was, that they had chosen not to do it. I am not sure whether it was the feeling of the Courts Administration Authority that it was distasteful or inappropriate, but I would certainly like some clarification on whether or not the government already has the power to publish these names on a website, what reasons they have or have not chosen to do so in the past, and whether or not we need this provision in the bill at all.

By way of conclusion, I will put on record, and I ask the government to respond on record, the questions I raised by email, which are these. What is the government's response to the Law Society's view that the bill has potential to work serious oppression on people who are at the margins of society in the justice system? How do they respond to the findings of a recent study which was quoted by the Law Society in their submission and which states that one in five Australians would struggle to come up with $1,000 to deal with an emergency or unexpected liability? How does the government then justify the rise in penalties contained within this legislation, for example, $5,000, and up to $10,000, for driving an uninsured vehicle? That is far more than the $1,000 that one in five Australians would struggle to find.

We also want to get on record, as I said, the situation with regard to vehicles. Could the government clarify the 'accustomed to drive' language used and outline who may be liable to have their vehicle clamped, impounded or sold if they have no debt whatsoever to government? Will any exemptions be made there?

With that, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill. I find it an interesting approach from the government to raise this particular matter to the top of its agenda when it has seemed so reticent to so do in previous years, and I look forward to that government bill that will ensure that the government pays small businesses and other invoices on time. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for putting that firmly and squarely on the government's agenda.