Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 September 2025.)

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:09): I rise today to speak on the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025. This bill seeks to improve the efficiency and consistency of the current fines and debt recovery system. The government's stated intent is to streamline processes, reduce duplication and make it easier for both the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit and individuals to manage their obligations. In South Australia, if you do not pay a fine that has been issued by the due date, you will receive a reminder notice, and a penalty may be added to the amount payable. If you still do not pay, the matter is passed on to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit.

There are several measures in this bill that the opposition supports in principle. The ability for people to add new penalty notices to existing payment arrangements without starting a new process is a practical and overdue reform. For those trying to meet their obligations, this avoids unnecessary administrative cost and burden. Late fees will now be calculated on the total amount owing rather than on each individual fine. This is a simpler and fairer approach, reducing confusion and administrative complexity for both the fine unit and the debtor. The bill also makes amendments to prioritise the amount of funds to victims of crime over the creditors. This reflects community expectation and ensures that victims are properly compensated for any remaining funds distributed elsewhere.

The opposition also notes the change allowing the Chief Recovery Officer to write off debts where there is no reasonable prospect of recovery or where recovery costs would exceed the debt. This is a reasonable measure that reflects common sense. The bill also removes mandatory treatment programs for addiction-related penalties that remain unpaid. The option for voluntary treatment remains available, which is the right approach. Forcing individuals into programs that they are unwilling to participate in has not proven effective; the focus should instead be on supporting those who are genuinely seeking help.

While we recognise these efficiency measures, the opposition has raised concern in the other house and again today about clause 42(1), which amends section 63 of the act relating to the seizing or sale of assets, hence my amendment which has been tabled. The amendment bill replaces the phrase 'the land or personal property of a debtor' with 'land or personal property owned (whether solely or as co-owner) by a debtor'. This could have unintended consequences for co-owners who have not committed any offence or accrued any fines, yet may find jointly owned assets exposed to seizure or sale. The government must provide clarity and assurance that innocent co-owners will not be unfairly penalised—for example, someone who is separated or going through a divorce but they still co-own assets together. The opposition calls on the government to support the amendment standing in my name to ensure proper safeguards are in place.

To provide some further context to the scale of fines and enforcements in South Australia, according to The Advertiser report from December last year, the state's 10 worst fine dodgers owe more than $2.2 million, with two residents from Hamley Bridge alone owing a combined $730,000 in unpaid fines. With that, I will support the bill and look forward to debating the amendment that I will put forward in due course.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (11:13): I rise today to speak on the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025. The original act, passed in 2017, established a Chief Recovery Officer as the central authority for recovering government-owed debts, ranging from expiation fees and pecuniary sums to civil debts and victims of crime payments.

This bill responds to the feedback from those working within the system, aiming to make the debt recovery process more client-centric and efficient. This bill seeks to improve operational efficiency and fairness in government debt recovery. It introduces mechanisms that reduce unnecessary fees, allow for more flexible payment arrangements and extend services to additional public authorities such as SA Water, PIRSA and SAPOL, etc., helping to streamline processes and reduce duplication.

Importantly, the bill removes outdated and punitive measures, including the power to mandate involuntary treatment programs and the possibility of imprisonment for civil debt non-payment. These changes reflect a modern understanding of rehabilitation and hardship, recognising that voluntary treatment and community service are more effective and humane alternatives.

This bill also prioritises victims of crime, ensures overpayments can be redirected fairly and clarifies the interaction between the act and other statutory schemes. These amendments are expected to not only improve recovery rates but also reduce administrative burdens and support vulnerable individuals.

While there is always room for scrutiny, the amendments proposed here appear to be well targeted and grounded in operational experience. They reflect a shift towards fairness, flexibility and better service delivery, and for that reason I do want to support the bill. However, I also indicate that I am considering the amendments to be moved by the Hon. Heidi Girolamo and that I will provide my indication in the committee stage.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (11:15): This legislation drives practical reform in how the government manages fines and debts owed to the state, which has a direct impact on the lives of thousands of South Australians. The Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit is a single point of contact for individuals managing outstanding debts, and, crucially, the bill will make the system more equitable for the very people most vulnerable to the unit's failings.

The bill updates the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017 and addresses technical anomalies and ensures that the 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, saving time and preventing the duplication of fees and, most importantly, enforcement action.

The bill 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 bill reflects practical realities, with feedback coming from those with direct knowledge of the debt recovery system, including frontline staff, specialist practitioners and advocacy groups representing the interests of our community. For government agencies, these amendments will streamline processes, free up staff resources and improve consistency in how debts are recovered. For advocacy groups, reforms answer longstanding calls for better safeguards against unfair penalties.

For individuals, it is about simplicity: one payment arrangement, one point of contact and 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 adding debts to existing payment arrangements, rather than initiating separate enforcement actions. Many individuals in advocacy organisations have specifically asked for this, and it will make a real difference in reducing financial stress for people already doing their best to pay down what they owe.

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 is a sensible and fair approach that will save some people from additional costs.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (11:18): As minister, I will conclude this debate. That is what I choose to do. I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate so far. We look forward to the committee stage. I note that there is one amendment. We will listen to the persuasive powers of the shadow minister very carefully to see whether we will support the amendment. We remain open to doing so.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Are you able to provide details regarding the number of fines that are outstanding? How many people have over 100 fines outstanding at the moment—the number of people?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that we do not have that level of detail now but I am happy to take it on notice to see what can be provided. If there are other questions about amounts and details and numbers, I do not think I will be able to answer them now, but if there are others of a similar nature and the honourable member wishes to read them into Hansard I can undertake to see what I can bring back.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I have two questions of a similar nature. What is the value of outstanding fines that are deemed unrecoverable? Can you take that on notice? How many people are currently on payment plans? Can you provide the number of individuals who have fines that are overdue?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I indicated, I am happy to take them on notice and see what we can bring back.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In regard to it now applying to youth or people under the age of 18, will the guardians of the debtors, where the debtor is under 18, be liable for outstanding fines incurred?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that a notice may be addressed to a guardian but the guardian themselves will not be personally liable.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: What method will the Chief Recovery Officer use to decide if a fine will be waived under the section of enforcement action?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it would likely be on a case-by-case basis, taking into account things like hardship that would be faced, or the vulnerability of the person concerned.

Clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Over the past 10 years, how many people have been imprisoned under this section of the act? How many people have undertaken community service and approved treatment programs as well?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that in terms of imprisonment the number is zero. My advice in terms of the community program is that it is approximately 800.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Do you have data on the level of reoffending—for example, offenders that have been issued new fines after completing community service or treatment programs?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is approximately 75 per cent who do not reoffend.

Clause passed.

Clauses 27 to 41 passed.

Clause 42.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Girolamo–1]—

Page 17, lines 35 and 36 [clause 42(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

I will speak to this amendment. The concerns that were raised in the other place were around the fact that it includes co-owned assets. This has raised concerns that, potentially, if someone is going through a divorce or a separation, they could be liable for fines incurred by their ex or former partners. This is why we have put forward this amendment, to make sure that it is only the assets that the individual debtor has ownership of, to make sure that there are not any unintended consequences.

I am very hopeful that the government will consider this and I am pleased to hear that they are open to this suggestion. I think it is a good, fair amendment to make sure that people are not caught out and are not having to cover the debts of people where it was out of their control, and that they are not connected to the liability either.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have a significant range of questions for the honourable member in relation to the amendment that has been moved that will help us decide whether we support it. Can the honourable member outline the consultation process that the opposition went through in deciding on this amendment?

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: This amendment has come through based on questions that were asked in the other house. Concerns were raised there that it could potentially have unintended consequences, so that is where this amendment has come through.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the honourable member, having carriage of this bill in this place, aware of how many times in the past the Chief Recovery Officer has exercised, in both the civil and the fines debt space, the possibility of seizing co-owned assets?

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I actually asked questions previously to try to get some of that data, so I would really greatly appreciate it if the Deputy Premier was able to provide that information. I think probably one is too many. If someone is going through a divorce and have co-inhabited a house and that house is seized, and they are separated from that individual and have not been responsible for any of the fines, then I do not think that they should be punished for that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to inform the member that my advice is that it has not been exercised before by the Chief Recovery Officer. My final question for the honourable member is: in terms of real property, does the honourable member intend co-ownership to cover both tenants in common and joint tenants in terms of Real Property Act property?

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: The intention is to remove the element around co-ownership. The concerns, as I have outlined, are that, if someone is separated from or is not responsible for those debts, when the government does go after those assets they should be the assets of the individual and not relating to co-owned assets.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If real property is held as tenants in common—that is, you each have a distinct share; it is the one property, but you have a distinct proportional share of it—is that included as co-ownership as opposed to joint tenants, where you essentially jointly and severally own the whole of the property together?

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: It would be good to be able to get some advice relating to this, because if they are in separate names then I guess co-ownership would not apply. The amendment is supposed to be covering the instances where an asset is jointly owned, so if it is in two separate names then I do not think that would be applicable, but if it is in both names then, as the amendment currently stands, it does appear that the co-owned asset could to be seized. So basically, by removing the wording—and all it does is take out that co-owned element—that would not be an issue.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might finally indicate—it is not a question—particularly on the basis that our advice is that the power has not been exercised before by the Chief Recovery Officer, we are prepared to support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to support the amendment. My question to the minister was going to be: given he has just advised us that the chief executive has not exercised the power, does that actually acknowledge that the power could be exercised and this would prevent that? That was a question still to the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What was the question?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is that not an acknowledgement that the power could be exercised and therefore this is a useful measure to ensure that it is not exercised?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think, yes.

The CHAIR: Good answer. Sit down.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not sure how it was phrased, but I think that was the point I made. Given that it has never been exercised, we are happy to support the amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Irrespective of whether or not it has been exercised, the fact that it could be is something that is of concern. I welcome the fact that the opposition are closing that loophole and I am happy to support the amendment.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I am just indicating I will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (43 to 46), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (11:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.