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

EXPIATION OF OFFENCES (SPEEDING OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:40): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Expiation of Offences Act 1996. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is also, I believe, a necessary reform. I do not know whether members appreciate the system, but currently if a police officer issues a motorist with an expiation notice for speeding they do not get the complete notice. What they get is a top tear-off slip, which indicates the alleged offence, a general description of where it happened (it could be, like, South Road) and the penalty.

The real nitty-gritty is in the rest of that expiation notice, which you do not get unless and until you go to court. In my case it was seven months after the alleged offence that I got the information which tells you where the officer is and the amount of traffic. That is absurd because, within the space of a couple of weeks, you have to indicate whether or not you want to be prosecuted in court or whether you want to pay the expiation, yet you do not have the information that is on the expiation notice to take into account when making that decision.

What this bill does—and I have spoken to several motorcycle police, and they do not see any difficulty with doing this—is to ensure that the motorist gets the complete expiation notice at the time of the alleged offence, and that makes sense to me, not only for the reasons I have just indicated but I think in terms of fairness to the motorist and also to the police officer.

I have spoken to some senior police and they say, 'Well, look, we don't give people details of other more serious crimes unless and until they go to court under the process of discovery.' But this is about people who are alleged to have been speeding. This is not about murder, rape or bank robbery. I think that, just as you can apply to get a photograph for an alleged speed camera offence, you should also get the relevant information if you are handed an expiation notice, and that is what this bill does. I do not believe that it is anything excessive in terms of the officer filling it out. They have to fill it out. They are supposed to fill it out there and then. I think that it is very dangerous if they fill it out later from memory because then you will get the problems that occurred to me in my case.

The other aspect of this bill—and it is already done in New South Wales, and, I believe, the Liberal Party here had a proposal in the lead-up to the election, which was somewhat in accordance with that—is that if you wish to challenge an expiation notice, it does not go back to the police, it goes to a different body. What this bill is suggesting is that the review of the disputed expiation comprise a justice of the peace (or someone similar), a police officer with extensive experience in the enforcement of laws relating to driving vehicles and a person with technical expertise, which is similar to the system in New South Wales. Here, if you dispute an expiation it goes back to the police who naturally say, 'Yes, we got it right the first time.' It should go back to an independent body. I am suggesting that if you want to take up that option you pay $50, and if your challenge is upheld by that independent group you get your money back, obviously, and you do not pay the fine. I think that is a sensible, reasonable option.

As I said, I believe that it is part of Liberal Party policy. It is not called a committee; I think they are calling it some sort of ombudsman or something like that. It would not only save the police a lot of time and effort, but it would also save our courts from being clogged up with people contesting traffic matters which should and could be considered by this independent group of three people. It is not only a step on the road towards justice, but it is also a cost-effective measure.

This bill, I believe, is a reform measure. I think it is sound and sensible, and the police on the ground who are the ones who hand these out—and as I say, I have spoken to several of them—see no problem with giving the motorist the copy of the expiation notice at the time. The notice could and should indicate whether or not the person viewed the laser or whatever the instrument was, and they can see what comments, if any, have been written on that expiation notice. I think it is a step in the right direction in terms of ensuring that our traffic enforcement system has a high degree of integrity, so 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