HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO—PENALTIES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Premier with South Australia's Strategic Plan) (16:31): I thank the opposition members who spoke on this bill for their contributions. As members have pointed out and as I said in my second reading speech, the bill increases the maximum court imposed penalties that can be set for specific offences in the acts concerned. It provides for a corresponding increase in the maximum court imposed penalties that can be set for offences and regulations under the road traffic and motor vehicles acts and also increases the maximum expiation fee that can be set by regulation for offences under these acts.

The changes are necessary in order to maintain the deterrent effect of penalties by increasing them to keep in touch with the current value of money. Many of the penalties have not been increased for over 10 years. The amendments to the Harbours and Navigation Act relate to drink and drug operation of vessels, the operation of vessels under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and are consequential on the changes to similar offences in the Road Traffic Act.

The majority of the changes to the Motor Vehicles Act to increase the lowest level of court imposed penalties for offences from $125 and $250 to $750. This increase is according to the general scale of penalties that have been applied since 1995 to provide some uniformity in penalty levels for offences under all South Australian laws. Rather than just an increase in the actual fines, it is a movement between categories for the particular offence. That is probably a more accurate way of describing it.

Expiation fees under the road traffic and motor vehicles acts are reviewed annually to ensure they keep pace with the cost of living. The current process has been in place since 1996. As expiation fee levels increase, the periodic review of court imposed penalties is necessary to ensure a sufficient difference between penalty and the expiation fee to encourage matters to be settled without going to court, thus giving the Magistrates Court more time to deal with matters where the alleged offender considers there are good reasons to challenge the expiation notice and with more serious, non-expiable matters.

I will now go on to some of the questions raised by members during the course of the debate. Specifically—and I have mentioned it briefly—the member for Kavel raised the issue of fines increasing from $250 to $750. The reason for that is not so much an increase in the level of fines—it is a technical argument—but moving them from a lower category to a higher category where higher expiation fees apply.

The member for Kavel mentioned a lack of consultation. The only thing I will say about that is that, generally, when people agree with the bill but resort to 'a lack of consultation', it is a fairly weak argument. Members would be well aware that these increases in the value of fines came out of the budget last year in September, so it is difficult to argue that they are not out in the public sphere for a reasonable amount of time. We certainly gave notice that there would be an increase in fines in the budget. A lot of the technical detail that is contained in this bill is a result of that decision to increase the fines in the budget.

It is not an unreasonable assumption on the part of the government that consultation on this would consist of us saying, 'Do you think we should do this?' and everybody else in the world saying no. So, I think in some ways the value of consultation on the raising of fines is an interesting point.

Both the Hon. Dr Such and Mr Venning discussed matters relating to the penalties. The bulk of their debate centred around their own personal circumstances. I note that the member for Schubert was particularly interested in a committee on the whole idea of speeding fines. I will just say to the member for Schubert that we cannot have a committee inquiry every time he gets a speeding fine, but we will get to that. That is a separate matter before the parliament, and we will get to that at the appropriate time.

The Hon. Dr Such, the member for Fisher, raised the issue relating to the specific details relating to his case. That is a matter he may choose to take up with the police minister or the police themselves. It is not particularly related to the bill in any way.

The member for Bragg raised some matters regarding the increase in penalties for refusing to obey a direction of an authorised officer. Essentially, what we are trying to achieve with that increase in the penalties is to make sure that it is not in the interests of people who are suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs to refuse to take the test for such an amount of time until it becomes invalid. I think she mentioned eight hours. As long as the penalty is the same for being found to be under the influence as it is for refusing to take the test as such or, in this case, refusing to obey instructions, then there is no incentive for them to continue to refuse to obey.

Under the Harbors and Navigations Act, only police officers authorised by the Commissioner of Police can conduct drug screening or oral fluid analysis, and only a person authorised by the Commissioner of Police can conduct breath analysis tests. DTEI officers are not so authorised, so the appropriate procedure is for them to direct people suspected to return to shore or to call the police out onto the water so that those tests can be undertaken.

The member for Bragg also raised questions about how these provisions would operate in marine parks. For the sake of these powers, there is no boundary; it is taken to be just on the seas, as it were. There is no specific recognition of a marine park. There is no requirement for marine park officers, as it were, to undertake those tests or to issue those directions for the purposes of drug and alcohol testing.

The member for Bragg also asked questions about the number of convictions. I will briefly read them into the Hansard with the indulgence of the house. Under section 69, there have been six convictions in total. In 2009, three people were convicted of operating a vessel without due care for the safety of a person or property, which was an aggravated offence. In 2010, one person was convicted of operating a vessel without due care for the safety of a person or property, which was an aggravated offence.

In 2010, two people were convicted of operating a vessel without due care for the safety of a person or property, which was not an aggravated offence. So, to be clear, in 2010, there were two people for a non-aggravated offence and one person for an aggravated offence, and in 2009 there were three people for an aggravated offence.

Under section 69A, one person was convicted in 2010 of operating a vessel at a dangerous speed or in a dangerous manner. Under section 70(1), three people were convicted during 2009 of operating a vessel, or being a crew member of a vessel, engaged in duties while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug. Under section 70(2), in 2009 two people were convicted of operating a vessel, or being a crew member of a vessel, engaged in duties with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in their blood.

I think that answers most of the questions of members of the house, so I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

The SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the house to proceed to the third reading?

An honourable member: Yes.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Premier with South Australia's Strategic Plan) (16:41): I thank particularly my new staff, who have come into this in a matter of weeks, to have to put a bill through the house, and also the officers of the department who have been particularly helpful. I also thank members for their contribution today. I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I said we wanted to go into committee.

The SPEAKER: I do not know why there is this confusion. I definitely heard, 'Yes,' when I said, 'Is it the wish to proceed to the third stage?' as did the clerks. So we seem to be in a spot of bother.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I apologise for the confusion, Madam Speaker, but it was my intention, when you asked the question of the house, to go into committee. So I apologise for any misunderstanding, but that was our intention.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I have no objection to going into committee, with the indulgence of the house. If there is a way of doing it, we are happy to do it.

The SPEAKER: We seem to be in a spot of bother here, and it may take a few minutes to sort out. I did put that the bill be read a second time, asked, 'Do you want to go to the third reading?' and then the bill was read a third time, so somehow we have lost track of what's going on here.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: To help the house out, if it is purely a matter of the answering of questions and having them on record, is there a way of doing that without being in committee, if it is just a series questions and answers that are recorded in Hansard? Anyway, I will leave it in the hands of the people who know what they are doing.

The SPEAKER: No, I do not think that is possible. We have actually passed the bill; we have gone through the third reading.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have a point of clarification. I do not have the standing order in front of me but I think the house has the capacity to recommit the bill, with the permission of the house. We have to vote to recommit the bill. I am sure the clerks will have the reference there to enable us to do that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I do not want to hold up the house unnecessarily to recommit the bill. I have been advised that all that is required is for me to move a motion to rescind, is that right?

The SPEAKER: We could go back to the third reading, but we would need a motion and a majority of the house.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:49): I move:

That the vote on the third reading of the bill be rescinded.

The SPEAKER: As there is not an absolute majority of the house, we will need to ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Minister, assuming that the bill is accepted and passed through the other place in its current form, when do you anticipate these new penalties being put in place?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: From 1 July 2011.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you for that. I have another general question, picking up on the closing remarks the minister made in the second reading part of the debate. It surprised me somewhat that the minister said that this was a budget measure. Now, I thank the government officers and ministerial staff for providing me with a briefing. It was a good, comprehensive briefing. I appreciate the haste with which the minister's office was prepared to act to organise that briefing because this was brought on fairly quickly. I think the minister introduced the bill the Thursday afternoon of our last sitting week and we had a holiday on the Monday, so we had to get onto it fairly quickly.

In the briefing, I specifically asked the question whether this had any impact on the budget or was a budget measure. It was my clear understanding that there was no actual impact on the budget per se and that any revenue generated through the increased fine structure through the courts system went into consolidated revenue and was sort of taken within the justice portfolio.

I checked through the Sustainable Budget Commission report, and I stand corrected if I am wrong, but I could not see where anything specific was mentioned in relation to increasing penalties under the Harbors and Navigation Act, the Motor Vehicles Act or the Road Traffic Act. So, I just want you to clarify to the house what you meant when you said it was a budget measure, given that the information that I thought we received was something different from that.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: My advice is that there are a few things. I will respond generally and then come back to the courts revenue, just for the sake of clarity. The reason this bill came about was because in the 2010 budget there was a measure to increase expiation fees. Expiation fees are set at a certain amount and they rise by CPI every year. Also, separately from that, there are maximum penalties that a court can impose for the same offences.

For instance, and these are just numbers for the sake of the argument, there may be an expiation fee of $100 for speeding by less than 10 km/h over the limit. Now, obviously, it is more than that, but let's say $100. The maximum penalty that can be imposed by a court is, say, $500 and every year, as you increase the $100 expiation fee by CPI, you get closer and closer to the maximum penalty that can be imposed by a court. Courts rarely impose the maximum penalty, so it is a rare thing that you would go into court for speeding by less than 10 km/h and get fined, say, $500. You would, in fact, probably be fined $200 or $250 on the whole.

As the CPI adjustments increase the expiation fee, it becomes more and more likely that the expiation fee will be higher than the fine that you would receive from a court. Therefore, the incentive for people who are caught speeding in this instance is not to pay the fine or the expiation fee, but to go to court, contest it in court knowing you are still going to get convicted, but accept a lesser penalty. So, it is more cost-effective, in a way, to go through the court.

Of course, the effect of that is that the court's time is taken up with very trivial matters where people are merely seeking a lower fine or a lower penalty for breaking the law. So, the reason this bill came about was to increase the maximum fines that can be imposed by a court so that that differential is maintained so that the most likely penalty imposed by a court is still higher than the expiation fee. That is what we are trying to achieve with this bill.

When I say it is a budget measure, that is why it is a budget measure, because the act of putting up the expiation fees in the budget meant that that gap was further closed and that is why we need to increase the maximum penalties that can be imposed by a court, if you understand what I mean.

Mr Goldsworthy: That is the whole intent of the bill.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: That is exactly right, but the reason we need to introduce the bill to do that is because the gap was closing as a result of a budget measure. So, the bill itself, while not actually a budget measure, in effect—we did not say in the budget, 'We are going to increase the maximum penalties.' You are right to pull me up on it, because, in fact, I have to correct the record in that regard because it was probably a little bit—

Mr Goldsworthy: It was wrong.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Yes, it was wrong. Let us be very clear about it, I was wrong. The reason we are here is because of the budget, but the bill itself was not announced in the budget.

You talked about the court-imposed fines and their effect on the budget, and whether or not they are accounted for in the forward estimates. Because we cannot know how many people will go before the courts and because we cannot know what penalties the courts will impose, there are no revenue projections—in fact, there are projections but they are based on historic amounts. So, court-imposed fines are paid into the Consolidated Account and there is a budget line for them under the courts' administered items. The estimates are based on historic amounts and are not adjusted when penalties are increased.

This is because the fines are a maximum and the court uses its discretion to set appropriate lesser amounts according to the circumstances of the case. Because the fines are not necessarily paid in the same year they are imposed, the amounts imposed and the amount paid to consolidated revenue often do not match. So they are balanced over the four-year period, but we are not increasing the estimates because it is not really possible to know what the income will be. We base it on historical records, and it is possible they will be higher and it is possible they will be lower.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you for that explanation. I am pleased that you have admitted you were wrong in your previous comments when closing the second reading debate. The way you described it to me then, minister, is exactly the same as the briefing I received: hence the question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, first, thank you for providing the information in your response as I requested in my second reading contribution. I appreciate the information relating to those who breach the alcohol and drug provisions in a boat and/or refuse to comply with the instructions of an authorised officer.

The minister also mentioned that a police officer is any person authorised to do the test, so the authorised officer can take possession of the vessel and ask the person who is allegedly under the influence of alcohol to submit to a test. Do they have to wait for a police officer to come to do that on the vessel or can they take them ashore? What is your understanding?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: My advice on that matter is that they have powers to direct operators of a vessel to undertake actions and they will use them in the most practical way to get them to where they can have a test done. It may be that there is a police vessel nearby and the quickest way is to call that police vessel and have them come to the boat. It may be that they are concerned enough to direct the vessel to return to shore and test them on returning to shore. But the power is to direct, and they use that power to direct in the most practical way.

Ms CHAPMAN: The budget I have in front of me from 2010 identifies a number of budget measures, and I think now, as the minister has corrected, the increased revenue anticipated from this bill is not a budget measure at all, and that is confirmed by the fact that it is not in the budget initiatives under budget measures. The minister went on to say that there is not provision in the forward estimates for the money to be recovered from an increase in fines or new fines because it is hard to predict how many people are going to be convicted and what the revenue will be.

I just point out to the minister as an example one of the measures in the budget: unroadworthy vehicles, introduced fines. It then identifies in the forward estimates period up to 2013-14 an annual amount that is expected to be recovered. It does seem that in other areas where there are new fines—this is not licensing or others, which is a little easier to judge—that there is some amount in those initiatives, and I am just referring to pages 79 and 80 of the budget measures by portfolio which relate to transport, energy and infrastructure.

It does seem that there is a capacity (and, indeed, several times referred to there) where a new fine is being introduced and the anticipated revenue to be recovered from it. The other matter, then, is that the bill (according to the minister's second reading explanation) states:

This bill is further evidence of this government's commitment to reducing death and injuries on our roads.

I was a little puzzled by that. Does the minister have any data or research that suggests that this increase in fine is actually going to precipitate that? I appreciate that a lot of effort is made in different directions to try to keep the road toll down. We do keep statistics, sadly, of deaths—of injury, that is a little more difficult to be able to keep track of. We seem to have gone through a period where we have increased a number of other measures.

We had a little bit of a dip a couple of years ago, I think, for our annual fatalities, but now I think they have come up a little. Can the minister either present some data to us or provide some information as to how this increase in fines is actually evidence of the government's commitment to reducing death and injury on our roads?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Just on the first point the member for Bragg made about fines and estimates of revenue, I will explain it this way. Where we have increased the value of an expiation fee, or an expiation fine that you get by the side of the road or on a boat as you are on the water, and you choose to pay the expiation fee, we are able to estimate that relatively accurately as much as you can.

We are actually trying to change behaviour, so the ultimate direction over time, with any luck, is actually to reduce the number of fines that are handed out because people are reducing their law-breaking behaviour. It is much easier to estimate that revenue because we have a history of the number of fines that have been handed out; so, that is expiation fees that have been handed out and paid.

Where we are not able to estimate very accurately are those fines that are imposed by a court itself as a result of going to court and disputing the fine or disputing the expiation fee—going to court. For instance, should I get a speeding fine and elect to go to court to defend the charge, the fine that I receive in court as a result of my conviction is entirely at the hands of the judge. He just has a maximum. It is up to him what he allocates in terms of a fine from the minimum of zero to the maximum fine under the law.

Because it is very, very difficult to estimate accurately the number of people who elect to go to court and the fines that the judges will impose in court, it is very difficult to have a reliable forward estimate. We use estimates. Basically, it is an average of past years, and that is factored into the thing. However, where we raise the maximum fee that a court can impose, it is not necessarily true that it is possible to predict the revenue that will result from that because there are so many variables in the equation.

With respect to the data for road safety, if the member likes and if this is acceptable to her, I am happy to provide some specific studies that relate to fines and being caught and their effect on speeding behaviour in general on driver populations. Most recently, some work was cited by Professor Wegman, when he was here as a Thinker in Residence. He talked about the number of times that you get caught as well as the dollar value of the fine, that both are important, but you need to have both. If there is a good chance of you being caught, or if you are caught a number of times, that will affect your behaviour. If you get caught and you get a sizeable fine, that will also affect behaviour. There are numerous studies on it. If it is an insufficient answer, I am happy to provide that at a later time to the member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate, on the latter issue, minister, the provision of information. I think the Thinker in Residence concept of being caught is the critical issue. Getting caught for an offence is usually the greatest deterrent—the fear of being caught rather than the penalty. I would be interested to see any data that suggests the actual increase in these fines will make a scrap of difference.

The issue of suspension or disqualification for holding or obtaining a licence, a boat permit, or whatever, may have some effect in modifying behaviour. Obviously, for a period of time it does because they are taken off the road or off the water. However, as to the fines, I would be very interested to have a look at that data, so I appreciate the minister indicating that they will be made available.

I am still not entirely clear—and we may not be able to cover it today—as to the minister's assessment for the purposes of estimated revenue from fines. I can see that if you have a certain average number in the last few years of people who are paying an expiation fee, that matter is relatively easily calculable. However, if you have a certain number of people who are going through the court system, you would still expect at least to budget for a similar amount, assuming, as you say—if you are right—that judges give less than the maximum in these assessments. You will still be able to look at the annual figures on that.

The other thing that would be a key to that, minister, it would seem to me, is that of each of the offences that we were talking about today—and there are a lot of them and I do not want to go through them individually—if you are given the data for the purposes of assessing whether you proceed with the bill such as this, and you are able to identify that, say, 95 per cent of these cases are dealt with by expiation and 5 per cent of people might go to court, because they think they are innocent or because they think they can get away with it, and they are going pay some hotshot to help them get through with a not guilty plea, that also would give an indication to you, minister, of whether it is necessary to proceed with this bill.

Your explanation, according to your second reading speech—and you have repeated it a few times today—is that the maximum under the expiations, which are increasing under basically an automatic annual CPI increase, is now getting perilously close to the maximum that would be applicable in a court situation. Therefore, there is this incentive for the alleged offender to plead not guilty and try to get away with it.

In that respect, there is a chasm of difference between what I understand is the situation and perhaps what you might have some new data on. If, in fact, as a result of that, you were right, surely we would see a corresponding diminution in people who are going to tick the box and pay the fine and an increase in the number of people who are going to court to challenge it in the hope that they might get some lesser penalty.

The factors, in my experience, that are much more significant to whether somebody ticks the box or whether they go to court to try to get a lesser fine, include the need to take a day off work; the cost of missing out on their work; the interruption to their academic training; the cost of going to see a lawyer, bearing in mind that for this level of fines they are not going to get legal aid to have someone's representation on the day; and the time taken to take the day off work, not just to go to court, but to go and give their counsel instructions, etc. These are a much more powerful disincentives when the person is looking at the expiation notice in front of them as to whether they can tick a box, or not.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, may I just interrupt briefly? This seems to be more of a wide-ranging comment than a question specifically, or even generally, about clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to refer to the second reading reference to it.

The CHAIR: I am sure that there is reference that you can make to it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to get to the point. What I am trying to do, Madam Chair—and obviously I have lost you on the journey, but I think the minister understands—

The CHAIR: I was actually following you on the journey and the journey seemed to be a long and winding journey.

Ms CHAPMAN: Excellent. I think the minister understands where I am coming from. If the reason for bringing this bill in to increase fees is not just to get more money—which, on the face of it, would be the obvious reason—but, in fact, to deal with this dilemma of the closeness of the expiation fee to the maximum available in court (and there is some evidence that that would mean that a number of people would jump across to that option), then I would like to see the data on that. There is a demonstrable diminution in people who are electing to go by expiation and an increase in those who are going to court. For the reasons I have outlined, I would think that would be unusual. However, if you have data on that but do not have it available today, I would appreciate if it could be provided.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: There are a number of points that the member for Bragg makes, and many of them would relate to the way people consider whether or not to contest a fine. They would be valid, in a way, regardless of whether we did this or not. For the purposes of clarity, if I refer to fees, that is what I mean by the speeding ticket that you get on the side of the road, and a fine is something that a court gives you. So, for the purposes of the debate, we will just use those descriptions.

The fees you get by the side of the road increase by CPI every year under a scheme that was introduced in 1996 and has been in place ever since, where CPI ratchets up the value of the fee every year. Inevitably, that brings the value of the fee closer to the maximum fine payable that can be imposed by a court. Even if we agree that the member for Bragg's points are valid and that missing work and other such reasons were more likely to determine the result of whether to contest the fee or not, at some point they are going to run up against the maximum fine anyway because of the CPI increase in fees.

It is fair to argue that there are probably two reasons: coming close to the maximum fine as a result of the CPI adjustment to fees and also to remove any incentive that there might be for people to go to court simply to chance their arm on a lower fine than the fee they might have to pay. This bill just removes that and makes sure that it does not enter into their consideration, because what will happen is that, as with all things in these matters, one or two people will discover it and they will tell a few people, and three or four people will discover it and then you will get a rush on it.

The point about the reasons for avoiding paying a fee and going to court to chance your arm on a fine—about work commitments, and everything else—that the member for Bragg made is valid, but it is no reason not to do this bill. The reason to do this bill is that the chances of it being an incentive to go to court increase as the CPI adjustments are made to the fees. That is one fact. The second fact is that, over time, we can expect that the fees will increase as adjusted by CPI every year until they run up against the maximum fines that can be imposed by a court. So, there are two reasons for it. The suggestions that the member for Bragg makes about the other considerations when you take into account court action are not valid reasons for not undertaking this bill.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am nearly finished on this point, Madam Chair. Minister, I will just read what you actually said in your second reading speech:

The present level of fines within the Motor Vehicles Act therefore no longer act as a deterrent and the diminishing difference between the fines and expiation fees encourages people to have a relatively minor matter dealt with by the court.

You do not say that this is a risk that might happen. You actually say that this is what is happening now. My question is: do you have any data to support that; for example, a reduction in the last year or so as this gap is closing? Otherwise, I accept from your point of view that it might happen in the future.

One way around that, of course, is to simply change the 1996 provisions on expiation fees. If we really go behind this and, in fact, you do not have any demonstrable data on this, what we are left with is purely an increase in fines overall to increase revenue. That may or may not be meritorious, but I am really asking for the justification of what you say the reasons are for doing this.

I say, if the data is not there, then this is really just an increase in revenue. It may well be that former treasurer Foley said, 'I want to know what transport can come up with as extra money,' and they said, 'Well, we haven't reviewed the fines for a while, so let's just whack up the fees.' Essentially, minister, if there is no data to support what you are saying as a justification for this, then let's be honest about it.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: My advice for the member for Bragg is that we do not have that data. We do not keep that data about people's reasons—about why they are there or why they are not—but let me check that and, if there is, I commit to give it to you. Again, I just make the point that it is in many ways a risk management practice to stop it happening.

The whole point of the introduction of a fine system, or an expiation fee system, was to keep people out of court and to free up the court's time and to make sure that relatively mundane issues about whether someone sped or not stayed out of the courts. Invariably such cases became: the policeman said, 'You did,' and the driver said, 'I didn't,' and the court sided with the member of the police force.

The whole point of the system that was set up was to keep people out of the courts. In order to maintain that goal of keeping people out of the courts and just paying expiation fees, we need to keep the system freed up, as it were. There are two issues. The more the chances are that you might get a lower fine in the courts, the greater the chance that you will elect to have a go. Secondly, my advice now is that, when people go to court to contest a fee, the court tends to impose a fine that is relative to the fee or in a similar sort of magnitude to the fee, but that still allows them a varying amount of discretion, one way or the other.

There is a concern, I am told, that as that fee pushes up against the maximum fine, the judge's discretion—while they still have discretion—is constrained somewhat. But as I said, if I can find that data, I am happy to get it to the member for Bragg.

Clause passed.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On behalf of the member for Kavel, I inform the committee that there are no more questions.

Remaining clauses (2 to 42) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Premier with South Australia's Strategic Plan) (17:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In light of the fact that my previous third reading speech has probably disappeared into the ether, I would like to reiterate my thanks to departmental staff for their assistance. They have been very helpful for someone who has just come into the portfolio, and I appreciate that. I would also like to thank the staff in my office who have helped me put this together, because they have been more organised than I; and the opposition, which has contributed to the bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:26): On behalf of our lead contributor on this matter, the member for Kavel, I would like to also place on record his appreciation. He said, I think, that this may have been the minister's first bill as a minister, in which case I say well done. I want to confirm our position. That is, we look forward to receiving data, if it is available, first, on the increased incidence of those rushing to court to try to obtain a reduced penalty for their behaviour; and, secondly, data in support of the reduction of death or injuries on roads as a result of an increase in penalties.

I also urge that in future, in respect of second reading contributions, in the event that the minister wants to present an argument that suggests that there have been changes in behaviour to avoid pleading guilty to these things and going to court to contest—in fact, even going so far as to say that the election of prosecution will lead to all these other expenses—when no demonstrable data has actually been handed to him to support that, that it is reasonable that he ask his advisers what the real reason is, and be in a position to come to the house and tell us that.

Clearly, there is a case for increasing fines on a timely and regular basis that are commensurate with the cost of living, but please do not try to dress this up into something that it is not if that is not supported by the data—and, in fact, that is shown to you in the first instance. That is all I ask. With those few comments, I look forward to the third reading.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT