Mr DEAN ( Windermere - Motion) - Madam President, I move -

That the report of the Auditor-General, Special Report No. 85, speed-detection devices, be considered and noted.

Madam President, regarding speed-detection devices, I think it is fairly important for us to closely examine reports that are provided from the office of the Auditor-General and particularly those reports that deal with matters of extreme public interest and where there has been a lot of public debate and a lot of public discussion, and this is one of those reports. There has been a lot of discussion around speed camera devices, probably ever since they commenced operation in this State - and I think that was back in the early 1990s or thereabouts. There has been a lot of consternation about why they are being used and whether they are really making our roads safer.

The report is reasonably succinct and it really goes into some of the data behind speed cameras; one area in particular which the Auditor-General discusses in that report and one that I will look at fairly closely is speed camera placement. I think in doing so, if you look at the objectives that are set out on page 11 of the report and as the Auditor-General points out, speed cameras - and this is what I will refer to them as; I think we all understand what I am talking about - were introduced to make our roads safer by reducing the incidents of collisions and slowing down traffic. Initially they were for black-spot funding and there may be other members in this House of course who were here when this legislation commenced and might want to talk a little bit more about that.

There is not a great deal of reference in the report in relation to quotas, Madam President, on the quantity of speed camera infringements. In my opinion, quotas do absolutely nothing to achieve this goal of improved road safety in the way they are currently used and what I am asking is: what will 102 500 speeding bookings achieve this financial year, other than a considerable boosting of the Government's coffers? It is absolutely absurd, in my opinion, that we have gone down this path for so long, that is, looking specifically at quantity rather than quality. That is outlined within this report and, as I said, the Auditor-General really hones in on that part of speed camera placement. All this does, as I said, and inferred from my contributions in questioning during the Budget and Estimates processes, for the last seven years is to cause police to fish where the fish are, simply for the purpose of appeasing those in the top office who set these benchmarks, these quotas. Uniformed police have told me repeatedly that the pressure to achieve their quotas not only causes them, but, in fact, requires them to do speed control work in those areas. They are normally low-speed areas and they are done where they know they are going to get bookings. Where bookings will be plentiful. That does not do a lot, in my opinion, to make our roads safer and to reduce the crashes and the fatalities. It does not do a lot. There is no science behind this type of policing at all and that is what the Auditor-General points out today in this document.

He is saying that the cameras should be utilised to cover the times of most crashes - the police need to get that right - and in the areas where most serious and fatal crashes are occurring. I will explain a little bit more on that in a moment, but it is clearly articulated in this report. If there must be a quota, it needs to be properly thought out. Known data particulars and science, and above all some common sense should be used in determining what should be set to genuinely and effectively target road safety.

I can see merit in using time as a means of measurement for speed control and camera use. In other words, cameras must be in use in particular hot spots, meaning crash-prone areas and high-speed zones for a certain number of hours daily. Further, that they must be in place over and during the periods and days when most crashes are occurring. If there are no bookings, then that would be a fantastic result because it would mean drivers were getting the message. However, while the benchmark would, in my opinion and that of many others, be a meaningful and real road safety strategy, it will not sit comfortably with the Government, perhaps because clearly there would be little revenue in that process.

Mr Parkinson - If you applied that you would not have cameras on the Tasman Bridge.

Mr DEAN - I do not know what the answer is there, and it is a good point, and I had it here to raise at a later stage. They have been in place for many, many years now but people continue to speed across that bridge. When I say speed, it is a 70 kilometre an hour zone across that bridge. I suspect and I would need to look at the returns that probably most are doing about 80, probably 78, 79, 80. Furthermore, I would suspect that those speeders are probably doing that during the low traffic volume times on that bridge. I would need to look at the returns to find out that, but it is an interesting point that you raise.

Mr Parkinson - They are still speeding and they still have accidents.

Mr DEAN - You are right and there are a number of accidents on the bridge and they have a considerable impact on businesses and work and all of those things, and commuter commitment and involvement. The mentality, the culture has always been on quantity and I recall a meeting with senior police where they kept pressuring police on quantity. They kept saying that and indicating the quality really was not an interest to them. It was quantity that they wanted and that was disappointing. I think it has changed quite a lot over a period of time.

It is pointed out in the report that many SCINs - Speed Camera Infringement Notices are referred to as SCINs - are not proceeded with because of an inability to support the camera images in courts and furthermore, that the lower level plans lacked substance. In other words, there was little direction on where, when and how cameras should be utilised. That is brought out in the report. This is a major concern because there has been a longstanding grouch, I suppose, of the public that the cameras have not been used specifically for improving road safety, but rather as a revenue-raising device for the Government and to meet such quotas. I might say here that the Seven Today Tonight program aired on 10 August 2010 did nothing to allay these concerns. I will refer to that a little more in a moment.

The Auditor-General also talks about the tolerance on speed cameras and he concluded that the use of cameras has contributed to achieving road safety goals but that a reduced tolerance and additional enforcement activity would further reduce speeding and consequently the number of serious crashes. That is a pretty big call to make because the tolerance now provided is relatively low. Perhaps we should not know what that tolerance is. The public has often indicated or suggested they probably ought to know what the tolerance is. I do not think they should know what it is and I think it is a matter for the police to determine what any tolerance should be. In my opinion, if it were lowered it would not see any more dangerous, high speeders charged. It would mainly catch responsible drivers who might inadvertently creep over the limit. These people are not dangerous drivers. I doubt if there would be one of us here who has not crept over the speed limit inadvertently, particularly when you use cruise control on your vehicle; you set it, a vehicle on a bit of a downwards slope will sometimes pick up -

Ms Forrest - That's right and it won't hold.

Mr DEAN - Yes. They can pick up two to five kilometres. In my view, if we were to lower the tolerance to what they had in Victoria - I am not quite sure what it is now but it used to be only one, two or three kilometres over and then you were nabbed - I do not think that is a good way to go. As I said, that predominantly would not catch the dangerous drivers on the road; the drivers who are really speeding. It is an interesting word, speeding; if it is a 50 kph zone and you are doing 53 kph or 54 kph you are speeding but when you look at what it really means, is it driving dangerously and is it more likely to cause an accident than when you are travelling at 50 kph? I do not think so, but that is a debatable matter.

I have some concerns about that but the Auditor-General is fairly clear on that in this report. Those who have read through it would see that; he is saying that the tolerance ought to be lowered. Things could have changed since I was there, but we know that cameras are not an exact science. We know that they can be out from time to time and we do know that other things interfere with camera readings. It used to be that cameras could not be set up on corners, they could not be set up near Armco railing, they could not be set up near metal signs and any of those things because they were believed to have an impact on camera readings. So there was strict control on where cameras could be used at one stage; whether that is still the case I am not too sure. I think tolerances are needed. Where that tolerance should be obviously is the arguable matter.

I am not quite sure what is meant in the report when the Auditor-General identifies additional enforcement activity. My view is that the Auditor-General is referring to increased hours of camera operation when he speaks of additional enforcement activity. If that is right, I would argue that unless increased hours focus on crash zone areas and high speed areas it would make no contribution to improved road safety or very little. They would need to be placed in the areas where we know that crashes are occurring and where dangerous driving occurred or is more likely to occur.

Deployment is another area that is referred to in the report and the Auditor-General makes good use of and reference to the available statistical data, relevant crash information and camera use, and deduces from all of the available information that little science is used currently in camera deployment. In essence, what this document is highlighting is that crash sites, times of the day, the day and month when crashes are occurring, have had not a great deal of bearing on where cameras are currently and have been placed in the past. Having said that, I do recall the Acting Commissioner of Police during the Estimates saying that they now were looking more at the data that was available relative to camera placement.

If the Department of Police and Emergency Management and the Government are at all serious about their claim that speed cameras are used specifically for road safety and improving safety, it is difficult to understand why this information has not formed the basis for camera deployment previously. I said 'previously' because the Auditor-General has made a strong recommendation that that be used and the Acting Commissioner of Police agreed that that would be the case.

There are 10 recommendations coming out from the report and I hope that all are implemented. The Acting Commissioner of Police says that they will all be considered and you would expect and require that he do that.

Recommendation 3 is what we have all been talking about, a very important recommendation that I have referred to two or three times today, camera placement in low-speed areas. We are talking about areas like Bridgewater Bridge, Campbell Town and many other similar areas where in most, if not all cases there has never been a crash. But let me say that bookings have been constant in those areas. No doubt the cameras there have gone a long way in allowing police to meet their quotas. That is the reason we used to always see cameras being set in Campbell Town. They got a massive number of bookings there. Placement in high speed zones will I think be acceptable to 99 per cent of drivers and the public.

Recommendation 4 is a commonsense approach to camera placement. It refers to peak crash times. The Auditor-General went right back into all of that detail on where the crashes were occurring, when, the time and under what circumstances. That is a very important recommendation.

In the Federal election survey completed by the Sunday Examiner on 8 August 2010, to a question titled, 'How would you reduce the road toll?' there was strong support for increased police traffic patrols and improved driver training. There was not so much support for increasing penalties and imposing lower speed limits in that survey. It is interesting to note that in British Columbia when they removed all speed cameras and increased police patrols there was a remarkable drop in serious crashes, casualties and fatalities. It is a proven fact throughout the world that more police patrols will have a huge impact on driver behaviour.

Mr Parkinson - I reckon you would have cut a mean figure when you were the Commander moving up and down the Midland Highway.

Mr DEAN - I beg your pardon? When I was Commander of Police? I used to have them -

Ms Thorp - I think he is basically saying he likes a man in uniform.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - Madam President, it is interesting that that should be very evident in the trial completed in British Columbia. They removed all the speed cameras, they put more police out on the road and they had a far greater impact.

Ms Thorp - I would like to read that. Can you get me a copy?

Mr DEAN - I can give you the references and details to it.

Ms Thorp - Thanks.

Mr DEAN - It came up in our select committee inquiry relating to road safety as well. If we were really committed to improving road safety and revenue was not a consideration - and it should not be - we would use the camera budget and put it into more visible police patrolling, wouldn't we?

Ms Thorp - That is why we have the high visibility - anyway, let me get to my bit later.

Mr DEAN - Recommendation 5 refers to fixed cameras, and we have already spoken about that. It is interesting that where people know that cameras are operating, that they are a permanent fixture, you still get people speeding. I would suspect that many of those speed offences occur in the down time, when traffic is reasonably low in that area.

We know that there was a fixed camera at Longford and I am not sure if it still operates there but we do know that it has not been of any great benefit. There have still been serious accidents on the intersection in that area. As I understand it, that camera is going to be removed and there is going to be a roundabout built there instead. It has been demonstrated that the camera did not get the required result so they needed to go one step further. I am not sure how far that has progressed.

Madam President, I think there are places for fixed cameras. I would like to see more fixed cameras and I do not think that the public would have any real concerns about that, provided they are in the right places. I would like to see fixed cameras in some areas of the Brooker Highway and stretches of the Midland Highway, operating 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. It would wonderful if that could be set up. I think it would have a big impact on driver behaviour in some of these very busy crash-zone areas.

At recommendation 7 the Auditor-General talks about the percentage of speed camera infringement notices that will not be proceeded with for numerous reasons, Madam President. We know there is a fairly large drop out, where a person is detected speeding but the matter cannot be proceeded with because of many other issues that apply. The numberplate might be slightly obscured by the ball of a tow bar, for example, so that they cannot get an accurate reading on the numberplate. A lot of people deliberately obscure numberplates and they are the ones, in my view, that should attract a fairly heavy penalty. I am not satisfied that the penalty for obscured numberplates is strong enough to demonstrate the seriousness of the offence. Some people will put a tow ball on their car without any intention of obscuring the numberplate, and that is another reason for not proceeding with a charge. There could be two cars in a photo frame and there could be other issues that come up from time to time. The Auditor-General is saying that really needs looking at and that the police ought to be doing whatever is possible to reduce the number of people who do speed and who are currently getting away with it.

[3.45 p.m.]
Mr DEAN - In the reference to the effectiveness of cameras in reducing speed - and that is contained on page 16 of this report - the graph shown would indicate that cameras have had no impact on reducing speeding cases, Madam President, and that is interesting. In fact the numbers continue to increase each year. So you really do wonder what is happening out there. We have more cameras being used. We have more cameras being used for a greater number of hours, but the number of people speeding continues to increase.

Ms Thorp - Because we are catching more.

Mr DEAN - Well, I would have thought the process was to stop people speeding, get the message through to people that speed limits are set for good reasons, because that is the speed on that particular part of the road -

Ms Thorp - Through you, Madam President - it is inevitable if you go from one camera here to two cameras you are going to catch more people. If you have one camera on one road and you catch, say, five people a week that way, and you put another camera on another road and you catch five people a week that way, you have double the number of people being caught.

Mr Wing - It doesn't sound very ambitious.

Ms Thorp - I was trying to keep my analogy very simple.

Mr DEAN - I understand your philosophy or your position in relation to that, but what I am saying is -

Ms Thorp - I am just saying that logically if you make more effort to catch people doing the wrong thing you will catch more.

Mr DEAN - This is the point I am making. I thought the reason for having speed cameras out there was not to keep catching those offenders who continually speed. I thought the speed cameras were really out there to slow people down, so that people were aware that if they exceed the speed limit they run the risk of getting caught -

Ms Thorp - I was merely referring to the fact that you seemed surprised that more cameras and more deployment were resulting in more charges.

Mr DEAN - Extremely surprised, because what I am saying is, if the strategy were working, one would expect drivers to be getting the message, getting the very strong message that if you speed you will get caught at some stage or another.

Ms Thorp - Maybe that's the hole in your assumption. You are assuming that.

Mr DEAN - This is about slowing traffic down.

Ms Thorp - I agree with you, but you are just assuming that because people know there is the likelihood they will get caught, they will slow down. That will affect some people, but it won't affect all.

Mr DEAN - No, it will not affect all. So what I am saying is that we need other strategies out there, in my opinion, to try to get that strong message through to people. Cameras are doing a job, but I think we need to do a lot more than that. Just the fact that the numbers continually go up year in, year out, I really have difficulty coming to terms with.

Ms Thorp - But if you halved the number of cameras you would catch half the number of people and you couldn't call that necessarily a good result because it wouldn't reflect half the number of people speeding. I think you are drawing too straight a connection between the number of cameras and the number of people being caught. I take your point though.

Mr DEAN - I see exactly what you are saying, and I had the comment made in here that quite obviously, with the way or the culture of a lot of drivers in this State at the present time, the more cameras you have out there, the longer the cameras operate for, the more speeders you are going to pick up. I realise that, and I understand that. That to me is a concern, that to me is a real worry, because you would like to see cameras being used more and the number of speeders dropping off. That is what you would like to see. That is, I think, the measurement of whether or not we are being successful with our road safety strategies.

Ms Thorp - Shouldn't need them, should we, if no-one was speeding?

Mr DEAN - We shouldn't need them at all. But that is an issue I have had concerns about. I think in making that comment, Madam President, people have no problem with paying a fine, and that evidence comes out, and the AG has spoken about this previously. People have no problems with paying a fine, and are quite happy to pay a fine. It is the loss of their licence that most people fear, so perhaps it is time we started looking at increasing the penalties relative to loss of licence. As I said, a fine does not really impact on that many people. It does on some, of course. But it is interesting, Madam President, that some people, to keep their licence, risk all of that by committing a crime, and that has previously been referred to in this Chamber, where they will have somebody else accept their points, and commit a crime which is perverting the course of justice, and that is a pretty serious matter.

The Channel 7 Today Tonight program, Madam President, was an interesting one and for those who watched it, it was a program that featured some very significant people when you start talking about speed cameras and road safety. Some of the people in that interview on that program were Anna Bligh, the Queensland Premier, David Axup, former Victoria Police superintendent, Randolph Wierenga, Police Association of Tasmania, Noel Ashby, former Victoria Police assistant commissioner, Ken Lay, who was a former Victoria Police deputy commissioner and Michael Lane, National Motorists Association. They were all a part of that program. Some interesting issues came out of that and just one of the comments that I wanted to refer to, Madam President, was that of David Axup, the former Victoria Police superintendent - and it really supports what I have been saying for a long time:

'The quotas do not make the road toll lower. Proper traffic enforcement makes the road toll lower.'

This was a comment made by that gentleman and he had a big responsibility, I think, for the introduction of speed cameras into Victoria. It was an interesting program. I do have a transcript of it and it comes out with some very interesting issues.

Madam President, in conclusion, science should be the determining factor. That is, the collected data over a period of time should be analysed and then cameras used where, when and at the time supported by accident and crash figures. The argument or position put by the Auditor-General for responsible use of cameras was a much-discussed point when an amendment was being sought for designated camera deployment areas, and that was in June 1995. So, Madam President, you, yourself, may well have been involved in that debate at the time, when it was being clearly sought to amend the camera legislation to allow cameras, as I understand it, to be placed anywhere that the police saw fit to place them and they did not have to stick to the black spots that it was originally set up to do. There was a very serious debate in relation to that matter. I could have quoted Mr Brookes and some of the others, but I do not think I need do that, but some of the comments and statements they made were very, very interesting.

Mr Wing - Mr George Brookes?

Mr DEAN - Yes, Mr George Brookes - a gentleman who made it clear, when he was talking about this, that he, too, had been booked shortly after the introduction of the cameras. Other members would know more about that than I do, but it came out in this -

Mr Wing - Through you, Madam President - after he indicated he was opposing an amendment before the Chair because, if anybody's speed exceeded the speed limit, they deserved to be punished. It was about three months later that he was booked.

Members laughing.

Ms Forrest - He was punished.

Mr Wing - Then proceeded to complain for three months.

Mr DEAN - Anyway, the point of that was that when initially introduced they were to be placed in known crash areas and, again, the Auditor-General is simply saying that that ought to be - he is not saying they should not be placed anywhere - but what he is saying is that they ought to really concentrate also on those areas where the crashes are occurring.

Madam President, in conclusion, in fairness and ensuring that the proper balance is given to this report, the Auditor-General was quite complimentary of police, and having made those recommendations and those comments as to what they are doing with speed cameras, he said this, and I quote from page 39:

'Based on the audit criteria and for reasons outlined in the remainder of this Report, it is my conclusion DPEM efficiently and effectively maintains the speed-detection device program in Tasmania.

However, my work did result in findings leading to ten recommendations DPEM should consider.'

Having said that, I will obviously watch it fairly closely. I will certainly be looking at those recommendations as I move forward and putting a number of questions to the Acting Commissioner of Police - we will probably have an Acting Commissioner of Police for the next 12 months unless the minister is able to advise us otherwise, but either the Acting Commissioner or the Commissioner - to find out where they are at, whether or not those recommendations were implemented and if not, why not.