Hansard debates
Search Hansard|
Search help
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ROAD SAFETY AMENDMENT BILL 2014
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
26 June 2014
Second Reading
GUY
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
ROAD SAFETY AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Second reading
Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard on motion of
Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning).
Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) -- I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Incorporated speech as follows:
Victoria continues to lead the way in road safety
Victoria is an international leader in road safety. We have taken great
strides in reducing deaths from 1000 per year in the 1970s to less than 250
now, but more can and is being done. Reductions in serious injuries lag behind
reductions in deaths. Serious injuries are estimated to cost the Victorian
community $2.4 billion per year.
Page 2173
Through Victoria's road safety strategy 2013 to 2022 the government has
committed to reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads
by 30 per cent.
Reducing drink driving and drug driving is a major priority in Victoria's Road
Safety Action Plan 2013-2016. Drink drivers are responsible for 25 to 30 per
cent of deaths and 11 per cent of serious injuries on Victoria's roads.
Illicit drugs are a factor in 20 per cent of driver deaths.
This bill helps to achieve the government's targets by expanding the reach of
alcohol interlocks and vehicle impoundment for drink drivers, preventing
reoffending and protecting other road users.
The bill also introduces a new offence with tough penalties for drivers under
the combined influence of alcohol and illicit drugs; and it extends zero blood
or breath alcohol concentration limits applying to motorcycle riders to enable
the introduction of stage 1 of the government's commitment to the new
motorcycle graduated licensing system.
Expansion of the alcohol interlock program
The government is responding to community views and the ongoing need to fight
drink driving by expanding the alcohol interlock program from only drivers
with repeat and high blood or breath alcohol concentration (BAC) readings to
all convicted drink drivers. Interlocks are a vital tool in addressing drink
driving. Research shows interlocks reduce repeat offending by around 60 per
cent when offenders are required to use them.
Alcohol interlocks are devices fitted to motor vehicles that require drivers
to provide a breath sample prior to starting the vehicle and at random times
during a journey. If there is alcohol present the vehicle will not start. If
alcohol is later detected or a retest is not completed while the vehicle is
being driven, a violation is recorded and the vehicle lights and horn may
activate.
Currently interlock fitment ranges from six months for a first offence to four
years or more for serious and repeat offences. Offenders must return to court
at the end of the fitment period for the interlock condition to be removed.
More than 35 000 interlocks have been installed in Victoria since the program
commenced in 2002, preventing driving under the influence of alcohol more than
a quarter of a million times. Interlocks are currently mandatory for:
all offences with a BAC of 0.15 or more;
most repeat offences;
first offences by young drivers with a BAC of 0.07 or more;
refusing a breath test or driving under the influence of alcohol; and
other serious offences under the Sentencing Act 1991, such as culpable
driving involving alcohol.
Other offenders may be required to fit interlocks at magistrates' discretion.
The changes are being introduced in two stages, to allow swift implementation
for higher risk drink drivers.
This bill addresses stage 1 and will make interlocks mandatory for:
every first offender who has a probationary licence or learner permit;
other drivers who have a BAC of 0.07 to 0.15;
drivers with a BAC under 0.07 whose licences are cancelled, including
professional drivers of buses and taxis, as well as first-year motorcycle
riders who are subject to a zero BAC limit;
all repeat offenders with a BAC reading under 0.07; and
serious alcohol-related vehicle offences under the Sentencing Act 1991,
including first offences.
The bill will make licence cancellation mandatory for learner and probationary
drivers with a first offence below 0.07 BAC and all repeat offenders with a
BAC below 0.07. The minimum licence cancellation for a first offence under
0.05 BAC will be three months.
The minimum interlock period for first offences will be six months, consistent
with current provisions. As now, a driver relicensed with an interlock
condition on his or her licence will also have a zero BAC licence condition,
which lasts at least three years.
A bill to enact stage 2 will make interlocks mandatory for all remaining drink
drivers not captured by stage 1. This bill will be prepared after further work
is undertaken on how best to manage this group, which includes offenders with
a BAC under 0.07 who are not subject to mandatory licence cancellation.
The first stage of the expanded interlock program will commence from October
2014.
Expanding the interlock program to include first offences and low-level BAC
offences is expected to result in an increase in the number of drivers
required to have an interlock, from 5400 to 10 700 per year.
To ensure that courts are not overloaded with additional cases, VicRoads will
establish a new administrative process to manage first-time drink-driving
offenders with a BAC below 0.10. This is expected to reduce offences managed
at court by up to 1600 to 2000 per year.
In all cases, the alcohol interlock condition will not be removed until the
mandatory minimum period has passed and the offender can show he or she has
successfully separated drinking from driving.
Assessment will be based on interlock data including alcohol breath test
readings when attempting to start the vehicle, confirmation of driving with
the interlock fitted and evidence of tampering.
Interlocks that can take photos of whoever tries to start the vehicle or that
can otherwise identify the driver will become mandatory. This will assist
VicRoads, courts and offenders to resolve who is responsible for attempting to
start a vehicle with alcohol present.
Affordability for offenders has been considered. Offenders pay interlock
suppliers to install, maintain and remove
Page 2174
interlocks. The current legislation provides concessions for health-care card
holders. Concessions will also be made available to holders of a pensioner
concession card or Department of Veterans' Affairs gold card through supporting
regulations.
All offenders will pay for the costs of establishing and operating the
expanded alcohol interlock program. The cost recovery fee is expected to be
$40 per month. A 50 per cent concession on this fee is proposed for the
abovementioned card holders. Again, this will be addressed in supporting
regulations.
VicRoads will monitor alcohol interlock fitment rates to ensure compliance
with the requirement remains at a high level. If fitment declines, VicRoads
will work to identify potential improvements to the program.
Immediate impoundment for BAC of 0.10 or more
Around 70 per cent of drink drivers killed in crashes have a BAC of 0.10 or
more, and police detect a BAC reading at these levels in one-third of the
drink drivers that they stop. For most of these high-level drink drivers, it
is their first drink-driving offence.
Research indicates that vehicle impoundment or immobilisation is an effective
drink-driving countermeasure. Drink-driving offenders with a BAC of 0.10 or
greater already face immediate licence loss on their first offence. Research
shows that a combination of immediate licence loss and vehicle impoundment or
immobilisation significantly reduces drink-driving offending and crashes.
The bill extends the ability of police to impound vehicles of not only second
offenders but also first-time drink drivers with a BAC of 0.10 or higher.
This bill will give police the discretion to impound or immobilise the
vehicles of first-time drink drivers with a BAC of 0.10 or higher for a period
of 30 days consistent with other first offences that attract impoundment.
The existing impoundment provisions for a second drink-drive offence with a
BAC of 0.10 or greater remain at 30 days immediate impoundment by police, plus
additional time applied by the courts. This is consistent with other second
offences that attract impoundment.
An estimated 3800 to 4800 additional vehicles are expected to be impounded in
the first three years after commencement of the bill. The bill includes
measures to assist Victoria Police to manage more efficiently the vehicle
impoundment scheme. Amendments proposed will improve immobilisation, vehicle
abandonment and court hardship application processes.
New combined drink and drug driving offence
There is increasing evidence of driving whilst under the influence of both
alcohol and illicit drugs and its involvement in road trauma. Victorian
Coroners Court data on drivers and motorbike riders killed with alcohol in
their system over a four-year period (2008-2011) showed that 8 per cent also
had at least one illicit drug present.
Research indicates that when drivers combine alcohol and illicit drugs they
are on average 23 times more likely to be killed in a crash compared with
drivers who are drug and alcohol free. Drivers killed with both alcohol and
illicit drugs in their system are also more likely to be responsible for the
crash than those who only have alcohol in their system.
Currently offenders can only be charged separately with drink-driving and
drug-driving offences. This bill creates a new combined drink and drug driving
offence.
The penalties for the new combined offence will reflect the seriousness of the
offending behaviour. Offenders will incur a mandatory minimum 12-month licence
cancellation, with longer periods at higher BACs and for repeat offences. The
maximum fines for the combined offence will be 50 per cent higher than the
maximum fines for drink driving alone.
Under the current transport and work-related injury compensation, a person can
lose some or all of his or her entitlements to particular kinds of
compensation if he or she is convicted or found guilty of a drink-driving
offence or a drug-driving offence related to the accident circumstances.
The bill provides that a person who commits the new combined drink and drug
driving offence will be treated in the same manner and will face the same loss
of entitlements.
Newly licensed motorcycle riders
The government has been working with the motorcycle community and road safety
experts towards implementing a new graduated licensing system for
motorcyclists in Victoria. The high crash risk of inexperienced riders has
highlighted the need to update licence conditions applied to novice riders.
The bill provides that, for inexperienced motorcycle licence holders, the
rider will be subject to a zero BAC requirement for three years rather than
the current 12 months. This requirement will apply whether or not the person
already held a car driver licence.
The motorcycle rider will also be subject to a mandatory licence carriage
requirement for that three-year period.
Recovering costs of vehicle removal
The bill amends the Road Safety Act 1986 to ensure that where police are
forced to enter and remove vehicles which are unlawfully parked, or causing an
obstruction, danger or traffic congestion, they can recover the costs of doing
so from the registered operator of the vehicle. Currently they are only able
to recover these costs for the owner of the vehicle, who may be different from
the registered operator.
Access arrangements under the Rail Management Act 1996
The bill amends the Rail Management Act 1996 to enable the access arrangements
to continue beyond their expiration date in May 2015. Access arrangements set
out the terms and conditions on which the transport service providers provide
access to the service, including the price for access and the standards to
which infrastructure must be maintained.
All declared rail transport services require access arrangements to be
approved by the Essential Services Commission. Allowing access arrangements to
continue beyond their expiration date in May 2015 will allow time for a
complete review of the Victorian rail access regime, which is currently being
undertaken by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure,
to be finalised.
Page 2175
This bill is a significant step toward addressing the unacceptably high level
of drink and drug driving related deaths and serious injuries on Victorian
roads.
The measures contained in this legislation will send a strong message to the
community that drink driving and drug driving will not be tolerated.
I commend the bill to the house.
Mr LENDERS (Southern Metropolitan) -- In speaking on this bill I will firstly say that the Labor Party will not be opposing the bill for the reasons outlined by my colleague Mr Donnellan, the member for Narre Warren North in the Assembly. My colleague Mr Melhem will also contribute to the debate today. I wish to speak primarily about the process used to introduce this bill into this place, the speed with which it got here and why it is here today. The bill contains important public policy. However, the government has treated this place with remarkable contempt. I choose my terms very deliberately. At this point I will do something unusual, and that is actually praise Ms Lovell. Ms Lovell has been thoroughly courteous in her dealings with non-government parties in this place by trying to keep us in the loop about the urgency of this bill and relaying to us the information she has had available to her. My comments are not a reflection on her. I will reflect on the process that got the bill here. This bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly three sitting weeks ago -- and with much fanfare, I might add, about the bill and how this dynamic government was saving the inner solar system from a whole range of evils and from years of Labor neglect. It told us about all these things that were going to be done and, basically, how important it was that the grown-ups were in charge. That was three weeks ago. At no stage was this bill deemed to be urgent. At no stage was it something that required the urgent attention of the Parliament. When you look at the bill, as we did, you see its start-up date is 1 October, so one would think there is no particular urgency in getting that bill through. That all happened three sitting weeks ago. The government had the ability to say the bill was urgent when it introduced it in the Legislative Assembly. It could have asked that it be considered in less than the normal two weeks. There was an option to again consider the bill and have it dealt with urgently during the second week it was in the Assembly. During its third week in the Assembly the bill was actually debated on the Tuesday night and adjourned to be dealt with as part of the guillotine on Thursday. Only then was the opposition told that this was an urgent bill and it needed to get through both houses. We are not opposing this bill, because we agree with it. Our shadow cabinet and our caucus agreed to support the bill based on the provisions in front of us. I want to make two comments on this bill. These comments might sound gratuitous and government members might not like them, but I will make them anyway. The first comment is: by all means come to the opposition and seek its support for urgent bills. We did that on numerous occasions while in government. It is not rocket science. It is not one side of politics only that makes mistakes. However, there are a couple of things I will say about this. If the government does seek the cooperation of the opposition, it should not then as soon as the bill is passed gloat about how the opposition did not give the legislation enough attention, which has happened with the budget; read things into the opposition's cooperation that are not there, which has happened with the budget; or mock the opposition for being weak, disorganised or whatever because it actually cooperated -- as a series of members of the government, from the Premier down, have done. That is an important point to make. We are cooperating today. We understand mistakes have been made and -- heaven forbid -- we understand that the government has been distracted in the Parliament in the last few weeks. However, when the government asks for favours, it should show a bit of respect. This is a robust chamber. We expect to be dealt with politically harshly for things we do -- do not get me wrong on that -- but let me be so bold and condescending as to say that it is not smart for the government to ask for a favour on a bill and then as soon as it is granted kick the living daylights out of the other side about how weak, pathetic and hopeless it is and say that it did a whole lot of other things and then come back a few days later and say it needs another favour. That is the first point I make. That is gratuitous advice. The second comment is that I ask the government not to preach to us about how Liberals manage things well and Labor does not. If three people are to provide the interlockers and the government is worried that, if a bill does not get through until early August, these people will not have time to manufacture the interlockers in time for the legislation to come into operation on 1 October, then it is not rocket science and it is something that would have been known some weeks if not months ago through the government process. I would have thought someone would have planned for that and put it on the legislative agenda. It has not happened -- mistakes are made -- but please do not
Page 2176
tell us that Liberals can manage well and Labor cannot. The government has not done so on this occasion, as Labor has often not managed well either. I am not pretending we are the repository of good management. However, the government should give us a break from preaching about it for a few days when it is asking for a favour. That is the second thing I advise. I am glad Mr David O'Brien and Mr Somyurek are in the chamber, because yesterday during general business the Labor Party moved a motion on the steel industry. Mr O'Brien yesterday and Mr Finn two or three weeks ago took unbelievable delight in filibustering for an hour or an hour and a quarter, and their colleagues were thinking how clever and smart it was that the filibusters went for so long. I say, again gratuitously, if a filibuster is funny, detailed or organised, then it is not even bad listening to it, but these were not even that good. The point I make again is that we have a memory that goes beyond the last 5 minutes. We are not pretending we are pure -- we have done a lot of crazy things in our time -- but I am saying that there are shades of grey and that on this occasion people have crossed the line in the shades of grey. It would be easy for us to say, 'Let's make the Parliament come back tomorrow or next week if it is so urgent for the government', but why would we do that? We would be adding expense, and it would not change the way we vote. We are seeking to make the point today that it requires cooperation. No-one has completely clean hands in this, but the government has crossed a line. If when we cooperate people mock us for being weak et cetera, that does not help. It is interesting that this is Mr Tunnecliffe's last day. Yet again we have a bill that has not darkened the notice paper. The government has come into the house today and sought support for the bill to be introduced. If anyone is a student of history and looks at the notice papers, they will ask, 'Where did this bill come from?'. It never appeared; it never darkened our notice paper. We understand that. We do not oppose the bill, and we do not think there is anything tricky. I will conclude my remarks. The Labor Party does not oppose this bill. We understand that mistakes are made, but we ask the government to provide us with a bit more respect. If it does so, it will get a much better outcome on these issues, and more and more of them will come. I urge the house to support the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Ondarchie) -- Order! Thank you, Ms Hartland. Our thoughts go to that family.
Mr D. R. J. O'BRIEN (Western Victoria) -- It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Road Safety Amendment Bill 2014, which is an important bill. I note it will not be opposed by the Labor Party, and the Greens have made their comments about the clause they have indicated they will oppose. I will respond briefly to Mr Lenders's contribution, which related more to the process than to the content of the bill itself -- I think he indicated he would leave that to Mr Melhem. I firstly thank the members of the Labor Party for their cooperation in enabling the bill to be brought in and debated forthwith in Parliament and in this house today. I thank them for the reason that this is an important bill that is designed to reduce road trauma and to make our roads safer and hopefully therefore save lives. In relation to drink driving and the interlock devices, it is hard to estimate these things, but there has been reference to around 20 to 30 lives a year being potentially saved. We know that 25 to 30 per cent of deaths and 11 per cent of serious injuries on our roads are the fault of drink drivers, and repeat drink drivers make up 20 per cent. That is a significant number of victims who have suffered the trauma, and I acknowledge the victim that Ms Hartland mentioned in her contribution -- and I join you, Acting President, in sending my condolences to that family. Unfortunately there are many other victims, and still there will be many more, as we know. The reason this bill is being debated with a level of urgency is the desire to prevent further road trauma, be it death or injury, as a result of the type of behaviour this bill will hopefully reduce by
Page 2178
the extensions that are provided, and I will turn to those shortly. I am forced to briefly respond to some of the other suggestions Mr Lenders made in his contribution, particularly those directed at me, in relation to a motion moved yesterday. We do not wish to beat up Labor any more than we have to in relation to its mismanagement of the economy or its budgets when it was in government. I note that Mr Lenders raised in his contribution that the Labor Party is unable to seriously debate any problems with the current budget, be it in speeches on the budget or indeed in question time. We understand there have been very few questions from the Labor Party in either this place or the Assembly on the budget. Mr Leane interjected. Mr D. R. J. O'BRIEN -- My comments are directed to Mr Lenders. He seemed also to express some objection to my contribution yesterday -- again, this is away from the bill, but I am compelled to respond to it because he referred to me personally -- saying that somehow the contribution I made on the manufacturing motion that Mr Somyurek moved was not a worthy contribution. It is a subject I feel very passionate about; jobs are very important to my electorate. Mr Koch interjected. Mr D. R. J. O'BRIEN -- I have read the Hansard record and, as Mr Koch kindly says by interjection -- and it is hard to be humble in this place -- but speaking humbly, it was one of my better contributions because I canvassed a number of issues that I had been wishing to canvass. Relevantly, Mr Lenders raised the concept that somehow that contribution of mine had prevented this sort of bill being debated. I note that my contribution yesterday was made on a motion raised during opposition business, so there is no way that contribution, whether it was short, long, good or bad, could have affected the passage of an important bill like this on government business day. Having made those comments, I do not wish to otherwise respond to the allegations that Mr Lenders made about me, so I will not try to elevate my defence higher than his criticism. I return to expressing my thanks to the opposition for its support of this bill. I will return to the important features of this bill, but it should be borne in mind that the bill will benefit people on our roads who could have been victims. It is important to go back to the overall objective of this bill, which expands the use of mandatory alcohol interlocks upon relicensing to a broader group of drink drivers; establishes a combined drink and drug driving offence; extends the discretionary powers of Victoria Police to impound the vehicles of drivers with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .10 or more; extends the zero BAC requirements; introduces a mandatory carriage of licence requirements for novice motorcyclists subject to a restricted licence; and makes a number of other minor amendments. Picking up on Ms Hartland's contribution to the debate, I agree with her that the introduction under this bill of camera technology, whereby camera-activated ignition interlocking devices will be used by offenders, is an important innovation. It has been a concern -- and I do not know how extensive the practice has been -- that without the camera a potential drink driver could have another person blow into the interlock device thereby giving a false negative reading and allowing another person to drive that vehicle under the influence of alcohol. This is an example of technology that will combine with legislative force to ensure that the intention of the interlocking regime is implemented. I should say that my knowledge of the interlock regime is that it is a good regime that has proved to be very successful in preventing drink drivers from getting behind the wheel, thereby altering the habits and practices of persons who have previously been drink drivers and who are otherwise offenders. That is very much in keeping with this government's philosophy of doing whatever it can as a legislature to ensure that the Victorian community is protected, because protection of the community is a paramount consideration in much of the legislative activity of this government. Under this bill the use of alcohol interlocks will be extended to become mandatory upon licensing for, firstly, all repeat offenders with a BAC under .07; secondly, serious offences involving alcohol under the Sentencing Act 1991 -- for example, those with a culpable driving conviction for an offence which was committed whilst under the influence of alcohol; all probationary and learner first offenders at all BAC levels; first offenders with a BAC of .07 to .15; and first offenders with a BAC under .07 whose licences are cancelled. Another reason for the urgent need to deal with this bill at this point of the legislative cycle is that today is the last sitting day before the suspension of Parliament for the so-called winter recess. With 1 October being the commencement date for amendments relating to alcohol interlocks and motorcyclists, it is important that this last day for government business is used to pass important legislation such as this, which is not opposed
Page 2179
by the other parties except for the clause that Ms Hartland has indicated she will oppose for the same reasons that the Greens have opposed other provisions in other bills. Given that the bill is going to the committee stage, I will probably leave that debate for the minister to respond to. Apart from that, this bill is not opposed. It is important that this effective prevention device is implemented. It is part of a two-stage process, and this is stage 1. That was identified when the bill was put on the notice paper on 27 May. This first stage will allow, as the second-reading speech suggests, the swift implementation of these changes for high-risk drink drivers. The structure of the amendments has been carefully considered so that the worst offenders, the high-risk drink drivers whom we need to tackle with as much urgency as possible, will be captured with the urgent passage of this bill. It is not opposed, and that is a reason to get on with the implementation of these important reforms. I know Mr Dalla-Riva was formerly a policeman and has for a long time campaigned for measures such as this and for a greater awareness of these matters. Briefly, other provisions in the bill relate to additional measures that provide for a new combined drink and drug driving offence. This has also proved to be a matter of increasing concern. The ice scourge that has plagued a large part of Victoria, particularly regional Victoria, has for some time meant that people are driving who are not only affected by alcohol but also by crystal methamphetamine, also known as ice, and other drugs, and it can be the case that they are also severely sleep deprived when they get behind the wheel and may be in an aggressive state. Ensuring as much as possible that this new combined drink and drug driving offence will prevent those people from driving, or at least provide an appropriate penalty were they to be caught, is a significant part of the bill. It also introduces immediate 30-day impoundment or immobilisation for first offenders with a BAC of .10 or more, not just second offenders, and extends the zero BAC requirement from one to three years. The bill also introduces a mandatory carriage of licence requirement for motorcyclists subject to a restricted licence. As the first stage of those reforms, it is an important piece of legislation. I too will pick up something that Mr Ondarchie in his capacity as a member for Northern Metropolitan Region often says: as we go into the winter recess I urge all road users and all Victorians to take as much care as they can to ensure as much as possible that the road toll is kept down. We thank the Labor Party and the Greens for their support of this bill. All Victorians and indeed the entire Parliament support the important message of talking the toll down. I commend the bill to the house.
Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) -- The opposition supports measures designed to address road safety and reduce the road toll and serious injury. As Mr Lenders has indicated, we will not be opposing this bill. As previous speakers in the debate have said, the bill creates a new offence of drink driving and drug driving, expands when an alcohol interlock condition may be applied, allows for new interlock technology, provides for the immediate impoundment of vehicles for drivers with a BAC of .10 or more and introduces safety measures for newly licensed motorcycle riders. An alcohol interlock is a device fitted to motor vehicles that requires drivers to provide a breath sample prior to starting the vehicle and at random times during a journey. If alcohol is detected while the vehicle is being driven, the vehicle lights and horn may be triggered. Laws imposing an interlock condition on drink drivers were first introduced in 2002 by the Labor government. Currently only disqualified drivers found to be over .15 or repeat offenders or those under the age of 26 who record .07 are required to have the devices fitted to their vehicle in order to regain their drivers licence after serving the disqualification period. In February 2013 the government announced it would toughen laws so any driver caught over the legal limit would be required to have an interlock, except in exceptional circumstances. The government has said it expects that interlocks could eventually become standard in all new vehicles. As Mr Lenders suggested, production of such vehicles may have already started, prompting the urgent introduction of this legislation. Drug testing of drivers was introduced in Victoria 2004. The bill amends the Road Safety Act 1986 to create a new combined drink and drug driving offence. Presently they are two separate offences. The offence is made out when a driver is tested and is shown to exceed the prescribed concentration of alcohol and/or the prescribed concentration of a prescribed drug -- for example, cannabis. The penalty for the offence will be a mandatory minimum 12-month licence cancellation and a fine of up to $4500 for a first offence and a more serious penalty for repeat offenders. The bill also amends the Transport Accident Act 1986 to include the new offence as an offence that can result in a reduction of compensation, which Ms Hartland referred to. Currently the alcohol interlock program applies to drivers with repeat and high BAC readings. The government plans to expand this to all convicted drink
Page 2180
drivers in two stages. Stage 1 is in this bill and will make interlocks mandatory for first-time offenders who blow .07 or above and probationary and professional drivers and those caught driving on a cancelled licence who blow between .05 and .07. Stage 1 will commence in October 2014. Stage 2 will apply to all remaining drink drivers, meeting the government's 2013 promise, but this will be subject to further work, and another bill will be introduced in 2016, according to the minister. It is estimated this will mean around 17 000 interlocks will be installed each year. The current figure for these devices is, I understand, around 6500 per annum. There are currently three approved suppliers of interlock devices in Victoria. They are required to install and monitor the devices and keep records, including the number of times offenders have tried to start their car while under the influence of alcohol. All interlocks are installed, maintained and recovered on a cost-recovery basis. The bill allows for the approval of a type of alcohol interlock. From 2015 interlocks that can take photos of whoever tries to start the vehicle will be mandatory, which is not a bad system to have in place. The bill also expands the circumstances where a person will be subject to a mandatory driver licence cancellation, including all repeat offenders regardless of their BAC. The bill establishes a new administrative process whereby first-time drink-driving offenders who have a BAC below .1 and are subject to an interlock condition can apply directly to VicRoads to get their drivers licence back after the period of disqualification, replacing the need to obtain an eligibility order from the Magistrates Court prior to applying to VicRoads. The offender can also apply direct to VicRoads to have the interlock removed without a court order. The bill also gives police the discretion to impound or immobilise vehicles of drink-driving offenders with a BAC of .10 or more. The discretion is necessary to manage storage limitations. A new graduated licensing system for motorcyclists will be introduced in October. The bill provides for a zero BAC requirement for motorcycle riders, which will apply for three years -- up from one year currently -- as well as mandatory carriage of licences for those three years. Any measures designed to address road safety, cut the road toll and reduce road trauma are supported by the opposition. No-one can argue against measures like this that reduce trauma, injuries and deaths on the roads. We want to spare countless families the pain, grief and suffering of road trauma. Drink drivers are a danger on our roads, and severe penalties, including interlocks, are an acceptable response. Some 30 per cent of fatalities in Victoria had alcohol in their system, showing how much of an effect it has on road fatalities. Obviously taking illicit drugs is illegal and is discouraged, but driving under the influence of drugs is the height of foolishness. Some of the common effects of drug taking can include reduced peripheral vision, meaning tunnel vision, dizziness, blurred vision and loss of concentration. There is also often a false sense of alertness, which can lead to overconfidence and the inability to make quick and good decisions. The advice is for someone to allow a minimum of 48 hours after taking drugs before getting behind the wheel. Driving whilst on illicit drugs is currently detected using a saliva sample, and testing takes about 5 minutes. Drivers who return a positive roadside screening test will have their sample confirmed by laboratory testing before any enforcement action can be taken. It must be said that this is not a foolproof system. Some drugs are not tested for, including cocaine and heroin, due to the inaccuracy of tests, and there have been instances of drivers returning a positive saliva test that has then been proved to be incorrect via a blood test. A Road Safety Victoria study last year showed that 83 per cent of respondents favour increasing the use of interlock devices. The report claimed that if alcohol interlocks were a standard feature in cars sold in Victoria last year, around 50 deaths out of 282 and 500 serious injuries out of somewhere around 5500 would be prevented each year. I want to quote now from an editorial in the Herald Sun of 25 February. It reads: The Herald Sun supports what it regards as life-saving legislation. Lives lost to drink-driving demand changes to the law. This is not a law banning alcohol, but a sensible and common-sense approach to road deaths and the injuries that are the mostly hidden cost of accidents. Last year a sobering 282 people died in accidents on Victorian roads. Alcohol was involved in too many of those accidents. If some social drinkers find they are forced to suffer the embarrassment of having an interlock fitted to their car because they have had one too many, so be it. Better a red face than a dead face. Better one drink less on a night out than causing a lifetime of grief for others. I wholeheartedly agree with these comments, and I think every Victorian would support them. The introduction of this bill is a welcome development that will make our roads safer.
Page 2181
In concluding, I just want to make a few comments about the other side of this debate. While this legislation is worthy, the Napthine government's inconsistencies on road safety must not be forgotten. I want to talk about a number of things. One is the cutting of more than 500 staff from VicRoads in the last year or so. This includes the removal of over 1000 years of engineering experience, as Professionals Australia has pointed out. In addition, most recently $16 million has been cut from upgrading the VicRoads IT system -- and the list goes on. Cuts have also been made to road funding. There is funding for some of the major projects government members have been talking about, but I am talking about existing roads. The most important aspect of ensuring better road safety is having safe roads to drive on. Unfortunately, cuts by the Napthine government to road funding and road resurfacing targets have resulted in more Victorians driving on unsafe roads. Over $100 million was cut from the roads management budget in 2012, delaying and backlogging much needed safety upgrades across the state. Funding is yet to return to previous levels. Over 8 per cent of roads across Victoria are now listed as being in a distressed state. Hopefully the Napthine government will start investing to make sure that existing roads are up to scratch, up to standard and safer to drive on. I think it is very important that parties on both sides of politics support safer roads for Victorian drivers. I commend the bill to the house. Motion agreed to. Read second time. Committed. Committee Clauses 1 to 56 agreed to. Clause 57
Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) -- I will be very brief. The Greens do not need to ask any questions of the minister. This is a position we have taken on a number of bills around the issue of workers compensation. We do not believe this clause is necessary. In previous times we have spoken about the fact that we believe provisions like this are at odds with the no-fault principle of workers compensation. This clause forms a relationship that does not actually exist between whether the person had a drink-driving or drug-driving offence and a workplace injury. It also has the effect of punishing the worker twice, because if a person had committed a drink-driving or drug-driving offence, they would be dealt with under the Road Safety Act 1986 and this should not affect their ability to be compensated or rehabilitated under the WorkCover scheme. It is for these reasons that the Greens will be voting against clause 57. We have been quite consistent over the eight years we have been in Parliament in voting against clauses like this one in a number of different bills.
Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) -- First of all, I thank those who have
participated in the second-reading debate. I think there have been some very
positive contributions.
The government does not support the Greens in seeking to omit clause 57.
Our view is that if the clause is not passed, a person who commits a combined
drink and drug driving offence will not face the same consequences in terms of
the impact upon their compensation entitlements that they would if they were
separately charged with a drink-driving or drug-driving offence. This clause
adds the new offence of combined drink and drug driving to the existing
Transport Accident Act 1986 outside the workplace injury laws, and we believe it
is an essential part of the bill. I respect the points that Ms Hartland makes,
but the government will not be supporting her in this. We believe it is
important that the bill is passed as it stands for the law to operate in the way
the government intends.
Committee divided on clause:
Ayes, 33
Atkinson, Mr Mikakos, Ms
Coote, Mrs Millar, Mrs
Dalla-Riva, Mr O'Brien, Mr D. D.
Davis, Mr D. O'Brien, Mr D. R. J.
Drum, Mr O'Donohue, Mr
Eideh, Mr Ondarchie, Mr
Elasmar, Mr Peulich, Mrs
Elsbury, Mr (Teller) Pulford, Ms
Finn, Mr Ramsay, Mr
Guy, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr
Jennings, Mr Ronalds, Mr
Koch, Mr Scheffer, Mr
Leane, Mr Somyurek, Mr (Teller)
Lenders, Mr Tarlamis, Mr
Lewis, Ms Tee, Mr
Lovell, Ms Tierney, Ms
Melhem, Mr
Noes, 2
Barber, Mr (Teller) Hartland, Ms (Teller)
Pairs
Darveniza, Ms Pennicuik, Ms
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 64 agreed to.
Page 2182
Reported to house without amendment.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
FINES REFORM BILL 2014
Second reading
Debate resumed from 12 June; motion of Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Assistant
Treasurer).
Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) -- I rise today to speak on the Fines
Reform Bill 2014, and I outline from the outset that the Labor opposition will
not oppose this bill. Whilst the vast majority of people do the right thing,
acknowledge they made a mistake and pay their fines on time, it is entirely
appropriate that the system be fair but firm with those who do not. There are
some individuals and companies who consistently ignore their responsibilities
and continue to accrue fines, hoping their responsibility to repay will go away.
We do not condone that behaviour, and we believe in those circumstances the
judicial response should be firm. Under this government fees, fines and charges
are being jacked up year on year, yet there is still around $110 million in
outstanding revenue that has not been collected because of cutbacks and
understaffing. Last year the Ombudsman pointed out the deficiencies in the
Sheriff's office, so we believe that reform is overdue. These issues highlighted
by the Ombudsman come on the back of $48.6 million being cut from the Department
of Justice in last year's state budget. The total figure cut from the justice
department is in excess of $455 million.
I turn to the bill itself. The bill provides for the establishment of the
position of the director, Fines Victoria, within the Department of Justice and
confers powers on the director to collect unpaid fines. It also makes amendments
to the Infringements Act 2006, the Sheriff Act 2009 and the Magistrates Courts'
Act 1989 as well as consequential amendments to many other acts.
The bill creates a new model of collecting and enforcing all legal debts,
whether they arise from infringement fines, unpaid court fines, civil judgement
debts or victims compensation orders, and it consolidates and streamlines the
current system into one common enforcement system. The second-reading speech
states that the focus of these reforms is on the total amount of fines owed by
any one individual as opposed to the current transaction-based approach.
There are no changes to the procedures of agencies to issue fines and
infringements. The physical appearance of all fines will become more consistent,
and there will be shorter time lines for notification of payment or the
commencement of a payment plan and enforcement.
Part 2 of the bill provides for the creation of the position of director, Fines
Victoria, and in doing so abolishes the Infringements Court.
If an individual does not pay the fine or infringement with the relevant issuer,
it will be registered with this new central administrative body, Fines Victoria,
within the Department of Justice. Fines Victoria will provide a single point of
entry for the public and provide consistent payment options and methods.
Part 3 of the bill proposes that people who have multiple infringements from
different enforcement agencies, registered court fines and fines at various
stages will have their fines consolidated into a single account and managed by
Fines Victoria. They may have these fines dealt with by way of a payment plan.
I note that fines issued to children will continue to be dealt with by the
Children's Court under the children and young persons infringement notice system
rather than by the director, Fines Victoria. The management and enforcement of
fines imposed on a child by a court will also continue to be under part 5.3 of
the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.
It is important to recognise that some vulnerable people accumulate multiple
infringement fines due to disability, mental illness or homelessness. The bill
proposes a new work and development permit scheme to be provided in conjunction
with approved community organisations -- for example, the Salvation Army and
health practitioners. This will mean that vulnerable people with special
circumstances or in acute financial hardship may enter into an arrangement to
clear their infringement and fine debt by agreeing to participate in an approved
plan of activity or treatment.
As set out in part 17 of the bill, these plans could include unpaid work,
medical or mental health treatment, drug or alcohol treatment or financial
counselling or courses. For young people aged under 25 years a plan could also
include participating in youth mentoring programs.
I thought this was particularly interesting in light of the fact that this
government has done away with the dedicated former funding that existed for
youth mentoring programs during its term of office, so I am concerned about how
young people will be able to participate in these opportunities.
The bill also incorporates all of the existing sanctions applicable to fine
defaulters and, as the second-reading speech indicates, makes some changes to
'enhance their effectiveness'.
Page 2184
There are many driver and vehicle sanctions already in existence -- for example,
suspending a drivers licence or car registration and wheel clamping -- but the
bill adds a new power to the sheriff to remove numberplates. The second-reading
speech refers to these powers as becoming 'more automated'.
The bill also removes the requirement to personally serve a driver with a
seven-day notice before a fine is issued and a drivers licence or car
registration is suspended. The Magistrates Court can currently order an
attachment of earnings order requiring the debtor's employer to deduct
instalments from the debtor's wages, but it cannot make such an order if the
debtor receives Centrelink benefits or if the debtor is self-employed.
The bill gives the director power to make an attachment order unless the order
would cause financial hardship or their fine default as earnings falls below the
prescribed level of income.
The director will also have broad information-gathering powers to obtain
financial information about people who have unpaid fines.
The statement of compatibility refers to these powers under clause 59 of the
bill. Part 15 of the bill -- in particular clauses 174 and 175 -- enables the
director or the sheriff to request address information from specified agencies,
including public sector bodies and councils. Clause 178 goes further by
referring to other information other than address information. Clause 177 gives
a new power to authorise a credit reporting body to disclose identification
information to the director or sheriff in response to a written request.
The bill also repeals section 161A of the Infringements Act and removes the
capacity for prisoners to apply to the court to serve a term of imprisonment in
lieu of paying outstanding fines. I know that the Federation of Community Legal
Centres has raised some concerns around this provision of the bill.
The bill also reduces the time periods for enforcing infringements, taking the
total time -- that is, for service, time to pay, reminder notice and final
demand -- involved from 168 days to just 77 days.
The bill also amends the Infringements Act in respect of internal reviews and
removes the default-to-court mechanism that currently exists. This instead will
place an onus on enforcement agencies to take an active decision to prosecute so
that only matters that should be prosecuted in the courts enter the courts. This
means that vulnerable people may be identified before receiving a notice to
attend court. The bill provides that enforcement agencies will be required to
report to the director on their infringement activities and internal reviews to
enable oversight and monitoring.
Finally, the bill waives some sheriff warrant fees relating to the execution of
civil warrants to enforce compensation orders.
In conclusion, this is quite a lengthy bill, which runs to 238 pages. It is
quite a considerable bill. We on the opposition side have a number of questions
relating to how this new bill will operate in practice, so I will be seeking to
take this bill into the committee stage to enable some further issues to be
explored and to get some further information and clarity around how this bill
will operate in practice. Rather than going through all of those issues in the
course of my second-reading contribution and doing so again in the committee
stage, I think it is best to save that for the committee stage itself. However,
I indicate to the house that the opposition has a number of questions about how
this bill will operate in practice, because it is a significant rewrite of how
the fines regime will operate in Victoria in the future.
I do point out, however, that the default commencement provision in this bill is
not until, if I recall, 30 June 2016, so there is some considerable period of
time for all relevant agencies to get this right.
Given that this has the potential to impact a great number of people, including
very vulnerable people, it is important that the government gets this right. For
that reason I wish to explore some of these issues during the committee stage.
With those words, I conclude my contribution.
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) -- The Greens certainly concur with the last few remarks made by the spokesperson from the opposition. It is for those reasons -- the wide-ranging nature of the bill, its complexity, the sensitivity of the reforms and their impact on some of our most vulnerable groups -- that the Greens believe the Fines Reform Bill 2014 could do with some further scrutiny. Apparently it zipped through the lower house with very little scrutiny, but our suggestion is that a bill of this nature, which, as Ms Mikakos pointed out, is not due to enter into force until next year anyway, could be scrutinised by the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee. We have a referral motion to that effect. This is a complex bill with significant provisions tightening up the enforcement side of the infringement system, which itself is quite complicated. This is a matter I have spoken on in Parliament before, in relation to the tens of thousands of fines that are handed out for fare evasion on public transport, along with the many thousands of those that are subsequently quashed
Page 2185
or overturned or for which people for some reason are given a pass. There are ads on TV saying there is no excuse, but it turns out that, if you know the right words to use, there are many excuses that can be given that allow you to get off your fare evasion fine, although they are not documented by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure. We know there are situations where people who might be homeless or suffering from mental illness can accrue massive numbers of fines effectively for the same action or the same group of actions. There is no real prospect of those fines ever being collected, but they nevertheless push a person who is living on the fringes of society into an even more difficult situation. An example is a person who is homeless and living in their car starting to get parking fines. That person is never going to pay those fines; they are eventually going to end up in jail. Most parties in this Parliament have said for a long time that there need to be some changes made to the way the fines system operates. There are some internal bureaucratic measures that are sometimes used -- a codification, if you like, of how discretion might be used. It is not clear how an officer issuing a fine would use their discretion, but nevertheless this issue has been debated for some time. There are a number of stakeholder groups that regularly work with these sorts of vulnerable people and have them as clients. As Ms Mikakos indicated, these groups have some concerns about what is being proposed in this bill. There has been some consultation on this year's Sentencing Advisory Council (SAC) report entitled Imposition and Enforcement of Court Fines and Infringement Penalties in Victoria, but not on the bill itself. One would think good practice is to consult broadly on the issues, produce an exposure draft of the legislation, put that around to the same interested parties and then bring it to this Parliament, at which point the ground should be pretty clearly laid out and most members would have a very clear view as to how they should be voting on particular provisions. But the government has for some reason short-circuited that process, and that means that, if the Greens motion to refer this bill to the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee is unsuccessful, we are going to have to spend some time today as a committee of the whole going through the bill clause by clause. The bill overhauls the current infringement system and introduces a new model for the collection and enforcement of fines in Victoria. There are some good moves in it, but they generally do not go far enough or are not as effective as they could be. There are also quite a few concerning provisions with little or no rationale except to collect fines -- that is, revenue. It is a detailed bill, and that is why we think the referral to the committee is appropriate. While there are some good reforms, there are quite a few concerns, and the bill suffers from not establishing a truly independent central agency and not making the good bits come into play earlier. That might be at the time of the initial infringement, when someone is deciding whether to issue a fine or not, and not the enforcement stage. We are concerned as to whether this bill is more bad than good. In submissions to the SAC report, stakeholders said the system is overwhelmingly complex and therefore difficult to navigate, particularly for people with multiple fines. The infringements working group of the Federation of Community Legal Centres in its submission to the SAC fines project pointed to issues that arise from the number of infringement matters heard in open court, including: The disproportionate impact of the current system on people experiencing poverty -- people who can afford to deal with their infringements by payment can avoid the stress of going to court, contesting an infringement and potentially receiving a criminal record. People experiencing poverty cannot afford to exit the system ... Then I suppose there is a third group of people with so much money that they just do not care, or they live interstate. The submission goes on to say: People with special circumstances are pleading guilty to offences where they did not have control over the behaviour that resulted in the fine; the system imposes a significant resource burden on services, courts and enforcement agencies; officers who issue fines are not supported to use their discretion to issue warnings rather than fines; applications for internal review on the basis of special circumstances frequently result in the matter being referred to open court; victims of domestic violence struggle to deal with fines incurred by violent partners; people have significant difficulty consolidating matters at different stages and are often required to attend multiple court hearings ... The Sentencing Advisory Council hopes that a centralised system will assist to ensure that people can address their infringements earlier and, where appropriate, exit the system. The government says in the second-reading speech that the current mechanisms available to enforce legal debts in Victoria are costly, inconsistent and outdated. There are a range of legal debts commonly incurred by individuals, including fines, victim compensation
Page 2186
orders and civil judgement debts, each of which are owed either to the community on account of breaches of the law or to other individuals in recompense for wrongs done or to satisfy liabilities incurred. The complexity and inefficiencies of existing enforcement mechanisms mean that recovery of these legal debts can be costly and uncertain -- in other words, the government and the Greens are agreeing, but we are pointing to it from different perspectives. Hon. R. A. Dalla-Riva interjected. Mr BARBER -- It might make Mr Dalla-Riva worried if it keeps happening! The government says that the new model introduced by this bill makes it clear to people who seek to avoid their responsibilities that payment of legal debts is an obligation, not an option. It also says that the model will provide 'options for vulnerable people to prevent them from accumulating spiralling debts'. That is from the Attorney-General's press release. The government says that the reforms are supported by $34.6 million in capital and recurrent funding over four years to upgrade IT systems and increase enforcement capacity. In summary, the changes include the creation of the position of director, Fines Victoria; the Infringements Court attached to the Magistrates Court being replaced with the director, Fines Victoria; and the Department of Justice overseeing the state's fines system. In principle that is a good reform, though ideally the central agency would deal with fines at the initial infringement stage, as in New South Wales, instead of different agencies still being able to deal with them at this stage. The new Fines Victoria will deal with them only at the enforcement stage, though in some cases individuals can get a consolidated payment plan registered. I am also a bit concerned that Fines Victoria will be part of the Department of Justice, not an independent agency. The oversight and review role of Fines Victoria will involve reviewing decisions of enforcement agencies, developing guidelines to ensure consistency for enforcement agencies that are conducting internal reviews and monitoring and reporting of the fines process. When we read the Ombudsman's report into transport infringement fines we learnt that there was just one officer dealing with thousands of internal reviews, to the point where the Ombudsman calculated that there could only be a few seconds devoted to each individual fine and determining whether or not it should be upheld or reviewed. That illustrates some of the problems we have here in addressing this issue. A single integrated system to track and collect fines is a good reform. Shorter time lines and notifications for collection and enforcement of fines could help in some cases, but it would be certainly difficult in others. For example, shorter time frames may assist a special-circumstance application to be resolved much sooner; on the other hand, shorter time frames for someone trying to pay a fine makes it harder for them to pay. That is a real concern. The bill provides for the consolidation of fines into a single account, focusing on the total amount owed by individuals rather than on the separate debts for each fine or infringement. Fines will be consolidated into a single account. This is supported by stakeholders, but with some qualifications. The provision no longer allowing prisoners to serve a term of imprisonment in lieu of paying outstanding infringement fines is a repeal of section 161A of the Infringements Act 2006. That is referred to in the second-reading speech, which notes that in many cases the term of imprisonment ordered for the unpaid fines is served concurrently with the prisoner's existing sentence and that the law currently gives the option to apply for an order in the Magistrates Court to serve a term of imprisonment in lieu of paying infringement fines. The government says the introduction of a work and development permit scheme will provide more options for vulnerable people and people in acute financial hardship to clear their financial debts through approved activities, financial counselling, drug and alcohol treatment and, for persons under the age of 25, mentoring. It is a good scheme but will be available only at the enforcement stage. The Department of Justice informed stakeholders that it will eventually apply at the infringement stage. This is essential, particularly for persons who are experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness, as often due to their special circumstances they may not be able to deal with a fine issue or seek legal assistance until the enforcement stage. In respect of court fines or infringement fines the bill provides for registrars of the Magistrates Court to issue, recall and cancel enforcement warrants. Fines and infringements imposed on or issued to children will be enforced under the current legislative regimes; they will continue to be enforced by the Children's Court and the young person's infringement notice system rather than the director. The bill waives certain fees relating to the execution of civil warrants to enforce victim compensation orders. This makes it easier for victims to enforce compensation orders.
Page 2187
With regard to civil warrant enforcement, the hours during which the sheriff may use reasonable force to execute civil warrants at residential premises are extended to between the hours of 7.00 a.m. and 9.30 p.m. Further, the bill provides that where a sheriff executes a criminal warrant outside the hours of 7.00 a.m. to 9.30 p.m., the sheriff may also execute a property seizure warrant at those residential premises. The expansion of the use of sanctions available to enforce compliance with the law includes wheel clamping. I refer to my earlier comments about a homeless person living in their car. The ability to make a direction to suspend a licence or vehicle registration and similar dealings between fine defaulters and VicRoads are enforcement tools available in the bill, and they will become more automated to facilitate their broader use. The bill also provides the sheriff with the power to remove numberplates, which will be used where wheel clamping is not possible. That might be useful for the guy who drives a Lamborghini and has thousands of dollars worth of fines he is not worried about, but it is a different situation where a homeless person -- almost 50 per cent of those being women, often with children -- has taken to living in their car, possibly because they are escaping from domestic violence. As I have said so far, the bill itself seems to have missed some major opportunities to actually make this aspect of our fines system a lot better for the most vulnerable whilst also dealing with those people you would simply call scofflaws -- people who do not care about fines. Hon. R. A. Dalla-Riva -- What do you call them? Mr BARBER -- Scofflaws. It is an American term -- people who scoff at the law. I note that sanctions also include debt attachments, which currently exist, but now banks will be required to protect debt amounts in bank accounts, and the director will be given powers to deal with banks through provisions that are not under the current Infringement Act. On internal review, the bill establishes a new administrative process called enforcement review to replace the revocation process where individuals at the enforcement stage had the right to apply to a registrar of the infringements court to have an enforcement order revoked. An enforcement review is supposed to mirror internal review and will require enforcement agencies to opt in. Stakeholders say the reforms in this area provide a more consistent and flexible approach to internal review. They welcome that, and they also welcome the introduction of better and more flexible options for people if an internal review application is refused. The enforcement review process is also favoured by stakeholders. In summary, the problems with the bill -- in addition to the problems with the new model for Fines Victoria itself -- include the shorter time frames for notification and payment of fines and in particular certain clauses that reduce the time frame for notification from 14 days to 7 days and reduce the time frame for payment from 28 days to 21 days; clause 240(2), which repeals the section of the Infringements Act that allows prisoners to serve sentences in lieu of paying fines; the prospect of sheriffs executing warrants at times of the day when people, including children or anybody else in the home, might be sound asleep; the expanded use of sanctions, in particular those concerned with debt attachment provisions in relation to banks; and clauses 95 to 102, which allow charges over land, as they do not limit this to cases where licence suspension has not been successful. Then there are a number of missed opportunities -- things that the bill should do but does not -- including amending the definition of 'special circumstances' to include circumstances that contribute to the offending behaviour, rather than requiring the offence to be a result of the special circumstances, and also to include being a victim of family violence as a special circumstance, as well as allowing for concession-based fines. Fines should be in proportion to what a person can afford, as was recommended by stakeholders to the Sentencing Advisory Council's fines project and supported in the council's report. I am sure that a lawyer like Mr O'Donohue would be familiar with the code of Hammurabi, which as far as we know was the first-ever system of written laws. It was carved on a stone tablet that survives to this day. It is the origin of the expression 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth', which I do not necessarily agree with. That code laid out different fines for different people according to their incomes. I point out to the minister that this is from back in the BC era. If the principle was understood even then that to punish a rich person and a poor person with the same fine is actually to punish them differently -- that is, to punish the poor person more harshly -- then why not, as the code said in its wisdom, set up a differential schedule of fines according to a person's circumstances? The bill does not allow for a central agency to deal with fines right from the very beginning -- at the infringement stage -- like the New South Wales system does. It is not clear to us why that is the case. It
Page 2188
does not allow for the work and development permit scheme to apply at the infringement stage -- that is, to allow someone to work off their fine after receiving it. It does not abolish imprisonment for non-payment of fines. Stakeholders say New South Wales does not allow for imprisonment, and there is no evidence to date to suggest that that has interfered with fine collection. Should we have people in prison for non-payment of fines? I am sure the minister, who is also responsible for prisons, would be perfectly happy to see a few prisoners who perhaps just have a collection of parking fines released from prison -- at some saving to the community -- to make way for much more hardened criminals who ought to be kept in jail. But perhaps he lost the argument with the Attorney-General on this bill. I give credit to those public servants who may have had to argue on behalf of both ministers against each other in cabinet. We will never know, but -- -- Hon. E. J. O'Donohue interjected. Mr BARBER -- Back in the good old days there was one minister for one department; now there are these super departments with all these different groups of ministers responsible for different things. I would have thought that tipped the balance against the ministers. In the alternative, prison should be made strictly a last resort for matters such as these. The Sentencing Advisory Council report noted this, and it was also advocated for by PILCH Homeless Persons Legal Clinic. Clauses 79 and 82 deal with the involvement of banks. I am talking about clauses we will not be supporting, but I may save this for when we go through the bill clause by clause in the committee stage, speaking briefly to each clause. I know some members already have one eye out the door and are thinking about what they can get home to. The Nationals might have to help with the milking or something. An honourable member interjected. Mr BARBER -- None present, okay. Hon. R. A. Dalla-Riva -- Better than a soy latte on Brunswick Street. Mr BARBER -- Those soy lattes are not going to drink themselves, Mr Dalla-Riva, so that is where we come in. I commenced my speech by saying this is a set of reforms that it seems almost everybody agrees have been necessary for a very long time. The bill had not been scrutinised by stakeholders and those with expertise in the system until it arrived in the Parliament. The system does not come into force any time this year; it will be into the next electoral cycle -- and who knows, possibly even a new government -- before such provisions can be enacted. That is why it is the Greens position that the deal should be referred to the Legal and Social Issues Legislation Committee. If that is unsuccessful, I would suggest that the Greens would vote against the second reading of the bill.
Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) -- I am conscious of the time and of the contributions made by Ms Mikakos and Mr Barber, although I understand that Mr Barber made his contribution on behalf of Ms Pennicuik, who often deals with this type of legislation. I have to say that the Fines Reform Bill is one fine reform bill because what we have here is a situation in which the system was dysfunctional, and now we have the Attorney-General, the Honourable Robert Clark, working tirelessly to deliver what I would say is pretty significant reform to an area that has been a frustration for law enforcement not only in recent times but probably for decades. I can only draw from my previous experience working in the warrants and fines office in the then Broadmeadows constabulary. We would go out and, as Mr Barber rightly pointed out, work with people who had received fines but were unable to pay them, and we would negotiate for them to come and serve time in the police jail. That was a waste of time for the police. Other uniformed police officers and I would be assigned to that task, wasting time driving back and forth, visiting people who had unpaid court and interstate fines and outstanding warrants. There was also the use of the watch-house and of the police cars that could have otherwise been out on the road. There was a whole range of impositions. We all had to serve at some point, so when you were in the divvy van for a while they would give you a stint on warrants and fines. I remember the freedom of not having to do night shifts, and the freedom of having a car to get around and basically be your own boss. However, it did always strike me that it was a waste of police time and resources. It also struck me -- and I am pleased that this legislation changes this -- that a significant number of outstanding fines would be wiped. If somebody who was convicted of an offence and was doing some time in Pentridge had outstanding fines, they would be able to have their fines wiped
Page 2189
while serving their sentence. All their fines would be expunged. Mr Barber -- Is that good? Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- Mr Barber asks if that is good. From a police perspective, we did not want to be involved in getting rid of fines. This is great legislation for a system that was very confusing and involved a whole range of different agencies. I do take Mr Barber's point that this legislation does not address the issues of the vulnerable. I am sure the minister will go into more detail, but I think it is important in the confines of this debate to note that there will be a capacity for the director of Fines Victoria, which will be a newly created role as part of the $34.6 million overhaul, to remove driver and vehicle sanctions at their discretion when hardship is established, thereby reducing the potential for a sanction to have a disproportionate impact on a vulnerable person. Mr Barber gave the example of a female with children who was dealing with a domestic violence issue. I would suggest that that would clearly be an area where discretion would be used to remove driver and vehicle sanctions. I understand that the Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria and the Financial & Consumer Rights Council are both supportive of the introduction of a work and development permit scheme in Victoria, but both have been critical of the restriction of the scheme to the pre-enforcement stage for infringement fines. I think the issue Mr Barber raised was valid. However, that is the reason there is a long-term start process. When you introduce a significant piece of legislation that reforms the way in which fines have been collected in this state for decades, there needs to be a long lead time. The other important thing is -- and I want to put this on the record to balance the concerns of Mr Barber -- that confinement of the scheme's initial operation will enable the required operational and information technology solutions to be developed, and then further consideration -- -- Mr Barber interjected. Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- I will take up the huff from Mr Barber because I love the way the Greens think they can see into the future. It is almost their being able to see a drought in the future 10 years ago. Remember that? I take up the interjection because Mr Barber is not a mind-reader. The Greens always profess that they can see the future. I was going to be a mind-reader once, but I could not see a future in it! That took me a while; I have been waiting 12 years to get that one in. I think it is important to note that there will be further consideration given to the development of the scheme. So the issue that Mr Barber legitimately raised about ensuring the pre-enforcement stage for infringement fines can be dealt with through counselling or by identifying the triggers and drivers of infringements. It may be similar to the discussion we had yesterday in terms of the gambling bill whereby a gambling addiction is creating a certain level of fines. I think that type of analysis needs to be worked out. We should not assume within the confines of the Parliament that we know it all. Mr Barber wants to have legislation which codifies every potential event, activity or action that may occur and lead to a fine. I have worked in the real world, and I have experienced people in very vulnerable areas who have received fines. I have gone to their homes and tried to work with them. I worked in Broadmeadows for three years. Mr Barber interjected. Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- There we go. Mr Barber has worked in a legal centre; therefore he has the wealth of all knowledge. Do not get a copper talking about solicitors, because the two never agree. Let us be blunt. The ideal world of a solicitor in the confines of a courtroom has no bearing on what happens in the real world. A fine might be issued by a court, and then poor old Mr Plod has to go out there and deal with it. Mr Barber expresses his view that solicitors know it all and therefore everyone else in society is irrelevant. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge and shows why it is difficult for the Greens to gain credibility. They always argue about the same issue on a Thursday afternoon, expressing their point of view on a piece of legislation, but they do not understand real-world experiences. Spending 3 hours in a solicitor's office may be Mr Barber's experience of dealing with hardship, but he should be out there day in, day out walking the streets and seeing the real issues with vulnerable people. He might then understand what I am getting at. We have had these discussions before. I do not want to get all feisty about it, but it staggers me that Mr Barber continues to talk as if he knows it all. For the record, he does not. I will let Mr Barber in on a secret -- even I do not. There might be other people in this chamber who also do not know it all, but the realities are that as a Parliament we have to work together to come to a solution. The Attorney-General has a very clear, methodical approach. You could not meet a person who is more methodical than Mr Clark, the Attorney-General. I am sure he would have thought about this. I am sure the
Page 2190
minister in the committee of the whole would also have discussed this. I think this is the right approach, because it is through this process that we are able to work out what the issues relating to the pre-enforcement stage will be. That is what I was saying earlier. I did not need the huff from the Greens. I am agreeing with Mr Barber, and I am agreeing with the Greens. Mr Barber interjected. Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- Mr Barber is arguing that he knows it all and that he is going to codify every potential event, activity or action that could cause a fine. It does not work that way. In the committee stage I would love Mr Barber to be cross-examined about what he is proposing. He thinks it would be easy for him to stand there and receive the questions, but he would not have the answers, because he does not know. Mr Barber -- Make me Attorney-General and see how I go. Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- There is the agenda: 'Make me the Attorney-General', he interjects. That is what it is about. At the end of the day, even the Greens want the big white car. He would probably have a V8. An honourable member -- They want to keep petrol taxes low. Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- They want to keep petrol taxes low. I will finish by saying that the staged approach to the establishment of the scheme in Victoria was outlined to key stakeholders by the department in a series of three workshops with the infringements standing advisory committee in late 2013, and broad support was provided for a staged approach. That is very clear. Mr Barber -- According to the government. Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- 'According to the government' -- I love it. Somebody should have picked up Mr Barber in a limousine and brought him along, thrown the rose petals down as he walked in, given him a full audition so he understood exactly what was going on and then as he left given him the flower petals again, put him back in the limousine and driven him back home with champagne on ice so that he actually understood the legislation. Sorry, back to the solicitor's office. I have to be careful, because I am surrounded by solicitors. Ms Mikakos, with due respect, is a solicitor, as is Mr Barber -- even the minister is. Mr Ronalds is not a solicitor. Mr Ronalds -- I studied economics. Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- I am thankful for that. I am only surrounded by three solicitors. Mr Barber -- Biological science at La Trobe University. Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- Biological science! Mr Barber -- Followed by an MBA. No LLB over here. Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA -- No LLB? You learn something every day. I thought he was a professor of everything. That being said, we support the bill and look forward to its speedy passage. House divided on motion: Ayes, 32 Atkinson, Mr Mikakos, Ms Coote, Mrs Millar, Mrs Dalla-Riva, Mr O'Brien, Mr D. D. Davis, Mr D. O'Brien, Mr D. R. J. Drum, Mr O'Donohue, Mr Eideh, Mr (Teller) Ondarchie, Mr Elasmar, Mr Peulich, Mrs Elsbury, Mr Pulford, Ms Finn, Mr Ramsay, Mr Guy, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Jennings, Mr Ronalds, Mr Koch, Mr (Teller) Scheffer, Mr Leane, Mr Somyurek, Mr Lewis, Ms Tarlamis, Mr Lovell, Ms Tee, Mr Melhem, Mr Tierney, Ms Noes, 2 Barber, Mr (Teller) Hartland, Ms (Teller) Pairs Pennicuik, Ms Kronberg, Mrs Motion agreed to. Read second time. Referral to committee