HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-04-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC SPEED ANALYSERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 March 2012.)

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:04): The government is opposing this bill.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Surprise, surprise! Police state.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister has the call.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, sir. South Australian police use a range of radar, laser and camera technologies to detect speeding motorists, and current—

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fisher, you will have a chance to respond. Minister, you have the floor.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you. Current equipment includes dozens of fixed cameras in metropolitan regional areas, 18 mobile safety cameras and around 1,000 hand-held laser and mobile radar units. The SAPOL Radio and Technical Support Unit maintains a rigorous maintenance and testing regime to ensure public safety and protect the integrity of any information produced or recorded by these devices. As requested in this bill, these processes already include a minimum requirement for annual testing of traffic speed analysers, and I can assure the house that SAPOL is continuously seeking to improve its processes.

Improvements in recent years include the centralisation of data collection and storage within the Radio and Technical Support Unit rather than relying on local service areas to improve the quality and accountability of the testing and calibrations processes. When a test is complete, I understand that a seal is placed on the unit confirming the date of the test so that an officer using a device can quickly and easily determine whether it complies with quality standards. An additional layer of security, I am advised, is that police officers are required to record the device serial number and most recent calibration date on the form submitted to the Expiation Notice Branch.

If this information is not included or is incorrect the Expiation Notice Branch may cancel the notice. I am further advised that the next print run of expiation notice pads will include a space for the device serial number and testing date on the section given to the alleged offender. SAPOL has provided detailed briefings to some members of this house on testing and quality control procedures, and I am sure they would be happy to extend the same courtesy to any other interested members.

This bill seeks to do two things: reverse the burden of proof in court proceedings resulting from the use of traffic speed analysers; and legislate an order of precedence for standards and regulations relating to traffic speed analysers. In response to the first matter, the Road Traffic Act currently allows police to provide a certificate to the court that confirms that a traffic speed analyser was operating correctly. In the absence of proof to the contrary, this certificate is accepted as evidence.

As an example, the court certificate for the UltraLyte 100LR laser speed gun—one of SAPOL's handheld laser devices—confirms the date of testing before the disputed date of use, the date of testing after the disputed date of use and on each date it complied with Australian Standard 4691.1-2003. These certificates are more than a mere formality. Before the certificate is issued I understand that the Radio and Technical Support Unit completes an internal process that checks that information was recorded on the correct forms, that seals on the lasers were in good order, that tests on the display and scope were conducted correctly and that a valid calibration certificate has been produced.

I am advised that the Radio and Technical Support Unit is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) and uses procedures underpinned by the National Measurement Act. This bill seeks to remove SAPOL's capacity to provide these certificates to the court and may require SAPOL for each and every disputed offence to prove that the device complied with the requirements set out in this bill.

This change would result in a significant impact on police resources. Technical staff whose job it is to test and calibrate devices may be required to attend court to testify about the minute detail of each and every interaction they had with the disputed device. It may also require representatives from manufacturers who conduct tests on some devices to attend court and give evidence. The proposal will also increase the workload of police prosecutors and extend court hearings due to increased evidentiary proceedings and delay court outcomes.

It may also increase the number of court cases—currently around 1,000 per year—for police-issued speeding offences as alleged offenders seek to avoid responsibility based on technicalities rather than substance. Police may also be prevented from confidently pursuing prosecutions for speeding offences in the absence of a common law precedent based on the model proposed in this bill. Depending on a court decision, police may find the use of traffic speed analysers becomes unworkable and unenforceable. Any benefits to the community from this proposal are simply not balanced by the many associated costs.

The second aim of this bill is to set an order of precedence for standards relating to traffic speed analysers: first, national standards; second, manufacturers recommendations; and, third, commissioner's orders. At first glance, this may seem a logical proposal, but there is a significant risk in locking an order of precedence that includes standards that are not designed specifically in relation to South Australia's legal or operating environment.

In the case of recommendations from a manufacturer, these may be from a private business operating from and selling primarily to markets in the US, Asia or Europe. Manufacturer information is often generic and does not take into account operational concerns such as occupational health and safety. I understand that South Australia already has certain provisions, including the positioning of a device, that are more stringent than national standards or manufacturers' recommendations. As we see around the world, there are many circumstances where laws or national standards lag behind technological advances.

To legislate compliance with these standards may preclude or limit the use of new techniques and equipment. The road traffic regulations recognise 12 different traffic speed analysers that use a variety of technologies, such as digital photography, radar, infra-red, laser and induction loops. This bill does not differentiate between them and, as such, provides a set outcome rather than an optimal outcome with regard to standards, recommendations and orders. The member for Fisher's second reading speech referred specifically to hand-held lasers, but this bill does not.

The current arrangements provide a robust quality assurance process and the flexibility to adapt to legal and technical changes. Rather than applying a blanket approach that does not guarantee better outcomes, the government would be happy to discuss specific concerns held by the member for Fisher or any other person, and to address these on a case-by-case basis.

In closing, I would like to respond to comments made in previous second reading speeches. The member for Fisher raised the case of a motorist who was detected doing 45 kilometres over the speed limit, and voiced concern that a margin of error of two kilometres may have been the difference between the driver losing or keeping their licence. I would like to thank the officer involved for apprehending someone who was presenting such a significant risk to themselves and other road users.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: There is no excuse, whether it was 47 or 43, to be speeding by that amount. As we approach—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left with get a chance to respond.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —the Easter long weekend, I implore all motorists to slow down and be safe on our roads. In the opposition's response to the bill, the member for Morphett raised the issue of SAPOL suspending its NATA accreditation; he asked why. On 13 September a media release was put out by SAPOL which detailed exactly the circumstances. The member for Morphett went on to say:

South Australia Police does have NATA accreditation now, but why was it the case that, for a while, its NATA accreditation was suspended? I am not aware of any technical problems, any logistical problems, moving offices, moving laboratories—

Time expired.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:15): I would like to concentrate on the quote that the minister was reading:

I am not aware of any technical problems, any logistical problems, moving officers, moving laboratories or not having the right people in the right places certified. I understand that it does now have technicians who are certified by NATA to do the testing within its laboratory. So, it is all there, it is in place now. That fact is very pleasing to me, and it gives me some more confidence that, if drivers are pulled over, the speed that has been recorded by the radar or camera is going to be as accurate as you can possibly get.

SAPOL voluntarily suspended membership because they were relocating to a new laboratory. The new laboratory was inspected by NATA on 26 June 2007 and SAPOL has provided an assurance that all Australian standards and relevant federal legislation will follow during this relocation period. I am not aware of any suspensions since this time.

The member for Morphett also stated that he does not 'believe this is going to make any more work for the South Australian police.' This is in direct contradiction of the advice provided to the minister by SAPOL. If the opposition's support for this bill is based on a NATA suspension from five years ago and a discredited assertion that it will create no extra work for police, then I expect they will support the government in opposing this bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Florey, who was speaking in support of the minister's comments.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:17): I want to make a couple of points in relation to this legislation that the member for Fisher has brought to the house. I guess this is a revised piece of legislation that had been before the house before the proroguing of parliament. As the then shadow minister for road safety, I had the responsibility on this side of the house for looking into that legislation that the member for Fisher had at the time.

To give some background, the original bill was quite broad in some of its provisions and quite a number of clauses wanted to further regulate and legislate the manner in which the police operated the handheld speeding devices (aka laser guns). But in consultation with the member for Fisher, he has removed those proposals from that original bill and compressed the issue into this one specific matter—and that is, that it be a legislative requirement that the testing be carried out, ensuring the accuracy of these handheld speeding devices.

Previously the opposition had some issues with the original bill; we thought it was too broad, too prescriptive and increased the burden on police. Through negotiations with the member for Fisher, I like to think we had some influence on the outcome that has brought us to the current piece of legislation before the house. I join with my colleague, the now shadow minister for road safety, the member for Morphett, in supporting this because this is what the opposition really wanted of the bill.

My understanding is that the member for Fisher is calling it a legislative requirement that the testing be carried out. At the moment, the advice I have received from the member for Fisher—and I heard what the minister said in her quite comprehensive explanation to the house. It was a briefing from the department and SAPOL and so on, and that is always at the right hand of a ministerial office that they have ready access to that information to assist them in their work.

Unlike the members opposite we have to do our own work and scratch around, and we do not have the resources, obviously, that a ministerial office has. We seek briefings on these issues and we are appreciative of the briefings, but the information we get from the briefings is not anything that the government does not want to tell us. We do not get any information apart from our own investigations through FOIs and people we know in the department who are happy to speak to us on a one-to-one basis. The information we get via briefings is what I would regard as sanitised.

Be that as it may, that is the way the government operates. At any briefing we attend there is always a ministerial officer taking notes of everything that the shadow minister says; anything that the opposition member says is recorded.

Members interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I see them. I see them writing down everything I say—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my right!

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Chuck them out, Mr Deputy Speaker; give them 10 minutes!

Members interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Give them 10.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You'll get 20 in a minute!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That's alright, I've got a cup of coffee going cold up in my office.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It will be frozen by the time you come back!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I can go and get a new one, they're not very expensive. So we have the ministerial advisers writing everything down that the opposition members say and they go back and say, 'Guess what Goldie said? He said this and that and whatever.' So the whole process is sanitised and we don't get any information that they don't want to tell us. They can operate like that but I cannot see any real reason to.

I listened to the minister give the government's explanation but I still cannot really understand the argument against what the member for Fisher is proposing: that there is a legislative requirement that the handheld speed detection equipment is tested and the proof of that testing is provided to any person who challenges a speeding offence through the courts.

The minister said there is a certificate available that states that equipment has been tested, and I wrote some notes down as the minister was providing that information to the house. In her contribution the minister said that she did not think that the legislation was specifically referring to laser guns (handheld speeding detection devices). I do not know, but the member for Fisher might take that on board, go back and review the bill, and bring back some amendments if that is a concern of the government and the minister. This is what we sometimes call a moving feast; the process evolves. We have seen this bill evolve from what it was initially, prior to proroguing parliament, to the current piece of legislation we now have, so it is an evolving process.

I know the member for Fisher as a member who is willing to listen, consult and review his position on issues. He is a good member and I understand he is well respected in his constituency. That is why, for some reason, he is re-elected time after time!

The Hon. R.B. Such: It could be my good looks!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Maybe! The member for Fisher is a member who is open to advice, ideas and suggestions, so I put that to the government minister: to consult with the member for Fisher to see if there can be further refinement and enhancement of the legislation to address the concerns that the government has. I invite the minister to do that and we will see where it goes—probably not. This government seems to be so intransigent on a whole range of issues that I doubt whether that will take place.

I have had a little bit to do with this minister and, in my time of dealing with this particular minister, I think that we have had a reasonable relationship on the issues we have dealt with, even though we have not always agreed with everything the government has proposed. We have met at the ministerial office around in Pirie Street, and we have had cake and all sorts of nice things.

An honourable member: Cake!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We have had cake! I tell you what, when you go to a ministerial office, you see how the other half lives.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kavel, can you please keep your comments relevant to the debate before us?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, I was; I thought it was relevant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not sure how cake is relevant.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It is really highlighting the hospitable nature of the minister and how the minister deals with members of the opposition when they go to their ministerial suite. When you see the ministerial suite, you see how the other half lives. It is quite an eye-opener, I can tell you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kavel, you have nothing else to add to this debate?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The time is winding down; I have one minute to go, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may lose your time in a second.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: In conclusion, we support the bill before the parliament. If they have issues on that side of the house, I encourage the minister to consult further with the member for Fisher and, hopefully, we can find a resolution to this that meets the needs of the opposition, the member for Fisher and the government.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:27): The government's attitude, which is just speaking on behalf of the police, is hardly surprising. This bill simply provides that traffic speed analysers, which are lasers, 'must comply with prescribed standards'. I do not see a problem with that. The police are very careful in their wording, and they say, ' We meet the standards.' They do not have to meet the standards: that is the whole point. Legally, they are not obliged to meet any standards. The judge, the Hon. Timothy Anderson, said that in the Supreme Court. He said that they do not have to meet any standards. They do not even have to comply with the commissioner's instructions in the use of hand-held lasers. I do not believe that is good enough because the fixed cameras have to meet very strict standards.

I do not condone people speeding. I made the point, in relation to that person, that the manufacturer's manuals, which I have, say that, even if the machine is calibrated perfectly, there is an error margin of plus or minus 2 km/h. If that person is not breaking the law, they should not get the penalty that applies if you break the law. If the person is 45 over the limit—it is irresponsible and stupid (and I do not condone that)—but is under by the margin of error in the machine, they should not lose their licence and cop a hefty fine, and often they lose their job. That is the only point I am making.

The point about the use of these things is that they have been, in my view, misused over time because there have not been standards. The police laboratory was told that either it voluntarily suspend or it would be suspended by the National Association of Testing Authorities. We know the person running the workshop had a nervous breakdown, and that is sad and unfortunate, but the police were not meeting the standards, and they do not have to legally. That is the whole purpose of this bill; that is, not to make it difficult for the police but to make sure that, when they are using equipment to detect speeding, they are meeting the Australian standards. They are on the committee of the Australian standards for lasers. Why wouldn't they be required by law to meet them, as is the case elsewhere? I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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