HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-04-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC SPEED ANALYSERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to not only clarify but reform and rectify a major problem with respect to the Road Traffic Act. This is reinforced by the judgement of His Honour Justice Anderson, where, on appeal from my magistrates hearing, he held:

It is not a prerequisite to the section 175(3)(ba) presumption of accuracy that the Australian standard or police general order be complied with.

We are talking here about the use of handheld lasers (LTI lasers) used by the South Australian police, so what the judge ruled—and I agree with his ruling even though I would have liked a better outcome from that appeal—was that there is no legislative authority or requirement that the police have to maintain or meet the Australian Standards in relation to the use of the lasers or comply with the police commissioner's instructions, which are in the general order.

With speed cameras there are various protocols and standards set out, and the irony of all this is that the South Australian police are on the Australian Standards Committee for lasers, yet they do not have to follow the standard. The judge raised the point as to why the parliament—the legislature—did not put in any requirement for these devices to meet standards. It is even worse than not complying with the Australian Standards: they do not have to comply with any standard—no standard whatsoever.

In my case, at the time I was pulled over, the police were not even in conformity with the National Association of Testing Authorities, because they had been suspended. They should be required to meet that, and that is spelt out in the bill as well. If you are going to have a system of traffic speed enforcement, which I do support, it has to be done properly. It has to be based on proper standards, not some vague and undefined arrangement, because that is just unacceptable. The public out there at the moment do not have the protection of the police having to meet any standards whatsoever.

I met with the police commissioner here last week and I asked him whether he had read the judgement of His Honour Justice Anderson of 2 September 2010, and he said he had not read it. It is a pretty significant judgement where, in effect, Justice Anderson is saying that the police commissioner's orders in relation to the laser do not have to be complied with—that is the essence of it. This bill seeks to remedy that deficiency, and it requires, in the use of lasers, that they meet the Australian Standards.

It also requires that the person or body carrying out the calibration of the laser must hold a current National Association of Testing Authorities' accreditation appropriate to the carrying out of that calibration. Furthermore, the instrument that calibrates the laser must be issued under regulation 13, or be the subject of a certificate issued under regulation 13, of the National Measurement Regulations 1999 of the commonwealth. When I took this matter to the Full Court and they would not allow it to be reviewed, the Crown itself argued about those national requirements and used the word 'hearsay'. In other words, the annual calibration of the laser in accordance with the National Measurement Act in their view is hearsay and has no validity whatsoever in law. It is incredible that you can have a scientific instrument that is not subject to and does not meet requirements under the National Measurement Act.

The National Measurement Act applies to lasers and any instrument that measures distance, volume and so on. Imagine the outcry if you were in a hospital and they said that you need some radiography but that the machine had not been tested and was not subject to any standards. There would be an outcry, yet currently—and they would be out there today—we have police using a device that does not meet any of the relevant standards.

This bill requires proper compliance certificates to show that the instrument has been properly tested and is being used in accordance with the standards. The act also specifies that proper records have to be kept. In my case in the Magistrates Court, the police officer admitted that he had done the afternoon testing at the same time as he had the morning testing. The magistrate indicated that that was not appropriate, but she still ruled in his favour as part of a total package.

I think this bill is a necessary reform. I have given a copy to the Law Society and to other interested parties. I believe it is a necessary reform, and I can see no reason why the parliament should not support it in the interests of maintaining the integrity of the system. Police have admitted to me that the current system relies totally on the integrity of the police officers involved. We know that most of them are people of integrity but, in order to avoid doubt when you go to court or if anyone wants to check the reading on the laser, that should be done in a proper, open and transparent way, and people should have confidence in the system. I commend this bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.F. Evans.

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