HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO—PENALTIES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 April 2011.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (15:45): I apologise for not having my speech in the house. I rise to indicate my support for the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio—Penalties) Amendment Bill 2011. The bill increases penalties across three acts, namely, the Road Traffic Act 1961, the Motor Vehicles Act 1959, and the Harbours and Navigation Act 1993, which have through the passage of time lost their deterrent effect and, regarding several of the examples cited, such as the penalty for a first drink-driving offence, have began to fall short of community expectations.

I accept the principle that if penalties are to have a deterrent effect they need to be at a level sufficient to impact on the offender. Further, penalties need to reflect the seriousness of the offending both generally and in relation to other offences which, as I noted in the case of some offences for which the penalties had not been increased in 20 years, had ceased to be the case. For these reasons, I support this bill.

I will also use this opportunity to express my attraction to South Australia embracing the use of penalty units, in which fines are expressed as a multiple of a penalty unit, the value of which is adjusted each year in accordance with increases in the consumer price index, or similar measures of inflation, and prescribed through regulation. As has been noted by the Hon. Dennis Hood, South Australia already has a similar model on its statutes in section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915, which provides a standard scale of both divisional fines and divisional terms of imprisonment.

Inserted by the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Sentencing) Act 1988, from Hansard it is clear that the intention was for all new acts and old acts as they were amended to refer to the divisional penalties. Looking across the statutes, there are numerous examples of this occurring in the early 1990s. One such example is the Whistleblowers Protection Act (which, I add, in my opinion is not worth the paper it is written on), which imposes a division 5 fine or division 5 imprisonment for the offence of making a false disclosure.

While such examples prevent me from saying that South Australia stands alone nationally, there is no doubting that all other jurisdictions have embraced to a greater degree the use of penalty units. I have attempted to find debate in this place, or the other, that explains what surely must have been a conscious decision by this parliament to abandon the divisional penalties set out in the Acts Interpretation Act 1915; however, I have been unable to do so. This may well be because the debate was had prior to 1993, with Hansard prior to this not being able to be electronically searched. However, that said, the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 was passed in this period, and division penalties were clearly still in vogue then.

South Australia pioneered expiation fees as an alternative to prosecution, and we then seemingly sought to pioneer the use of penalty units, even if it was in a less refined form. However, for a reason left seemingly unexplained, this parliament abandoned this first failed attempt and turned its back on this potentially positive reform. I believe this is regrettable.

I make clear that I support only the use of penalty units for fines, or even just expiation fines, while retaining the current practice of fixing the maximum term of imprisonment for a particular offence and then displaying this penalty directly beneath the offence where it appears in the statute, rather than referring the reader to the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 to find that the division 1 term of imprisonment for robbery is 15 years.

Additionally, this would create classes of offences, and hence classes of offenders. I do not feel that would be helpful. However, these arguments do not translate to the use of penalty units for expiation fees and court-imposed fines. With that said, I support the bill and I hope that this government will give due consideration to the use of penalty units so that we do not find ourselves in this position again.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (15:50): I thank honourable members for their contributions. 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 in the regulations under the Road Traffic Act and Motor Vehicles Act and also increases the maximum expiation fee that can be set by regulation for offences under these acts and their regulations.

These changes are necessary in order to maintain the deterrent effect of penalties by increasing them to keep in touch with inflation. Many of the penalties have not been increased for over 10 years. Expiation fees under the Road Traffic Act and Motor Vehicles Act are reviewed annually to ensure they keep pace with the cost of living. As expiation fees levels increase, periodic review of court-imposed penalties is also necessary, and I will respond to two of the matters that have been raised.

The Hon. David Ridgway has flagged that during the committee stage he has a number of questions in relation to actual expiation fees and the level of them. In anticipation of these questions, I would like to put on the record that the current expiation fees can be found in schedule 9 of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 1999 and schedule 5 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 2010. As indicated in last year's budget, on 1 July 2011 these expiation fees will be increased by $20 where the expiation fee is under $100, and by $50 where the fee is $100 or more.

The annual indexation amount for 2011-12 will be added at this time, and it is not possible to say what the indexation amount is prior to the 2011-12 budget announcement of 9 June 2011. I can say that the annual indexation amount for the last six years has been between 2.9 per cent and 5.2 per cent. The exact increases were: in 2005-06, 2.9 per cent; in 2006-07, 3.8 per cent; in 2007-08, 4.2 per cent; in 2008-09, 3.5 per cent; in 2009-10, 4.2 per cent; and in 2010-11, 3.3 per cent.

The Hon. Dennis Hood made some useful comments about the use of penalty or division units that could be updated globally and consistently to keep pace with inflation. In fact, there is an existing scheme for divisional penalties in section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915. This act is committed to the Attorney-General and therefore it is for him to consider the Hon. Mr Hood's suggestion, and I will ensure that this matter is brought to his attention. With those few words of summary, I look forward to the committee stage being dealt with expeditiously.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (15:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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