Page 2257 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What happened here is that documentation which ought to have been prepared for my signature was not prepared; or we think it was prepared by the police legal affairs unit, was sent to the Attorney-General's Department for checking, was subject to some changes and was sent back to the legal affairs area but not then sent on to me. The consequences of that are that certain criminal charges brought before courts may be suspect because the evidence of the speed detecting devices would not be valid because these machines were not gazetted.
The bulk of people who are detected speeding are given administrative notices under the infringement notice system, which is not a criminal conviction process, not a court process, and they pay those expiation notices administratively. The preliminary advice is that people who have paid would not have any action to recover, although we are checking that. The potential loss to revenue if that is not so, if this would undermine the on-the-spot notices, could range in the order of up to $1m. I have asked my advisers to urgently present me with the range of options, which will include the possibility of the Government moving legislation in this Assembly to retrospectively validate these matters so that the Government does not potentially have to sign a lot of cheques and give away a lot of government money to people who were detected speeding through school zones, for example.
The issue goes to the evidential value of the radar. It may not actually impact upon people who paid on-the-spot fines, but we are having that checked. I will certainly be reporting to the Assembly what the consequences of the oversight have been as soon as I am advised.
Mr Humphries: So you will not resign?
MR CONNOLLY: No.
MR MOORE: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for such a broad answer to my rather specific question. I wonder what you will do now to avoid similar situations occurring in the future.
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, as Mr Moore and members could imagine, I have expressed to senior departmental officials my less than pleasure at these circumstances. One would hope that it would be unlikely that this would occur again. This is not uncommon in Australian administration. I understand that a similar thing once happened in the ACT in relation to breathalysers. There was a failure to gazette. These sorts of things do happen. I do not think there is any point in taking drastic action against officers concerned - - -
Mr Kaine: Was that under your administration too?
MR CONNOLLY: No, under, I think, a previous Commonwealth administration. The individuals concerned will have to ensure that these things do not recur and, across a whole range of agencies, Ministers will have to ensure that people who are charged with the responsibility of preparing notices actually do that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .