Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2017.)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (11:57): I thank the house for their indulgence. I think I am not the only person who has been out of breath. As we know, there are a lot of items on the Notice Paper. I predicted that the previous item would take longer, but it did not. My contribution will be very brief, and that is to put on the record that the Greens have some serious concerns with this legislation. We have been contacted by a number of people, individuals as well as organisations.

The Law Society has written to us and said that they have some serious concerns with this bill. They are worried that the bill will unfairly impact certain sectors of society. I think at the heart of their concerns is an understandable anxiety that, when we have seen how debt recovery works at the federal level, we have seen robocalls and automated debt recovery, and we have also seen in other areas the involvement of private sector debt collectors. You can see how what seem like good idea efficiency measures end up in tears. I think that is something we need to be very cautious of.

The Law Society points out that enforcement action against youths has not been well thought through in the legislation. They are suggesting that amendments would improve the bill. The Law Society accepts that, in the case of financial hardship, certain debtors might be able to take advantage of intervention programs, but the concluding position of the Law Society is that they reiterate the concerns they first raised back in 2013.

That submission related to a worry that the government was giving itself favourable creditor status. It was giving itself the power to bypass ordinary rights and protections for debtors and to exploit parliamentary power to enable the outsourcing and sale of fine revenue. They have raised some serious concerns, and on behalf of the Greens I just wanted to put those briefly on the record.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Darley.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:00): We will talk about that, too. This bill will broaden the powers of the government to recover debts and expand the circumstances whereby community service and intervention programs can be undertaken in order to service a debt. The bill will also enable all debts that are owed to the government, including civil debts, to be dealt with by the fines unit.

I am supportive of the provisions in the bill; however, I hold some concerns that the chief recovery officer will now be able to terminate a payment arrangement if they are of the opinion that a person's circumstances have changed and they are of the opinion that the person is now able to pay the debt.

The paperwork required by the fines unit to enter into a payment arrangement has increased in the past few years. It is no longer simply a matter of requesting a payment arrangement and having it granted. Individuals need to demonstrate that they would suffer financial hardship should they be required to pay their debt up-front, so it is not easy for a payment arrangement to be granted.

I understand that payment arrangements would only be terminated in circumstances whereby the CRO becomes aware of a person's increased capacity to pay. However, I would hope that the CRO would consult with individuals before terminating such agreements.

The government's attempts to find alternative measures so that people will be able to service their debts are commendable. However, Advance SA believe that the government should also be looking at the other end of the spectrum, that is, the cost of fines in the first place.

South Australia's speeding fines are 50 per cent higher than the national average. The most directly comparable jurisdiction to South Australia is Tasmania, and our fines are approximately double theirs. These stats indicate that the fines are not about safety; rather, it is revenue raising for the government. Last year, $126.6 million was raised from fines and penalties, with an expected 20 per cent increase to $152.4 million in 2020. Clearly, the government expect to keep milking this cash cow.

While I commend the government for trying to help vulnerable people, if they were serious about it, they would also be looking at not slugging them with outrageous fines in the first place.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.