reckonable offence -- a move intended to reduce the courts' workload.

Introducing the 1992 Traffic Offences Procedure Amendment Act to the Upper House, Parliamentary Secretary for Transportation Sen. Pamela Gordon said the law would help lighten the load on Magistrates' Court, which handles about 5,000 speeding cases a year, 75 percent of which involve speeds below 55 kph.

The new law will allow Police officers to impose instant fines on those caught speeding below 55 kph.

Under the present system, people caught speeding are brought before the court where, if they plead guilty, they are ordered to pay a set fine. If they deny the offence, they are either asked to return to court for identification by the Police officer involved or a trial date is set.

Those caught speeding at 54 kph or less can be fined up to $500 and are taken off the road for three to six months for a second offence in the space of two years.

In practice, speeders are usually fined between $75 and $85 for speeds up to about 50 kph, and about $100 for speeds of 51 to 54 kph.

Under the new law, which comes into effect on August 1, speeders will be fined $100 for speeding up to, and including, 50 kph, and $150 for speeds from 51 kph to 54 kph, but they won't have to appear in court.

Those caught speeding at 55 kph or higher will still have to go to court, as will drivers who do not have their licences when they are caught speeding at any speed.

"This is a very welcome Act because it decriminalises a lot of the procedure that was in place,'' Sen. Gordon said. "And it will ease up the system tremendously.'' She said the automatic fine system will not require more personnel or resources. And it is expected to increase Government's revenue from speeding fines by $181,000.

Sen. Wendell Hollis , (UBP), who spent 11 years as an acting Magistrate, said there was nothing worse for a magistrate than to spend 50 to 70 percent of his time on speeding offences when he or she knows there are more serious matters to hear.

"I think you will find there will be a substantial reduction in workload for the courts. More importantly, there will be an improvement in morale and performance of magistrates,'' he said.

While Independent and Opposition senators supported the Bill, several questions and concerns, particularly about the ticket to be issued to speeders, were raised.

Independent Sen. Joe Johnson asked why it was not acceptable for a speeder without his licence on him to just pay the fine within seven days as people do for other traffic tickets.

He also said he was unclear on whether previous convictions would be taken into account if such a person ended up in court and whether the magistrate would be able to suspend the person's licence.

Sen. Ira Philip (PLP) said while the party supports the Bill which will "hopefully streamline the enforcement of our laws and make our roads safer,'' he was concerned about the revenue Government hoped to raise through this system.

"That's a lot of speeders you hope to catch,'' he said. "I wonder whether a quota system will be put in place for Police officers and whether or not this is going to cause some other problem.'' Sen. Trevor Woolridge (PLP) asked whether a person who wanted to contest the speeding ticket could indicate this without waiting to be summoned for not paying the fine, as is now the case.

"I would hate to think as result of information on the form we may increase clerical and other work for our courts,'' he said.

And Opposition Senate Leader Sen. Alex Scott said the legislation appeared to be rushed through for "whatever'' reason by Government and still had grey areas.

"The streamlining of procedure should be taken beyond these one-shot deals,'' he said. "It is somewhat superfluous to have us back here in the next six months to tinker with something else which should have been done now.'' Sen. Scott said he was concerned that the law would have the effect of "softening the feeling people have about the black box.'' He said those who could afford the fines would not worry about speeding since they do not have to appear before a judge.

He said Government should not try to satisfy the public at the expense of public safety.

Independent Sen. Dr. Norma Astwood said while there were good reasons for changing the procedure, issues such as repeat speeders and the right of the accused to be aware of what he or she was signing needed to be taken into account.

Sen. Hollis explained that four-copy tickets would be used just as tickets used for "ticketable'' offences such as failing to stop at a stop sign.

He said the front side of each of the four copies was similar, with the top copy going to Magistrates' Court; the second going to the offender; the third kept in court records; and the fourth for the Police.

He said the backside of the top copy would be filled out by the magistrate hearing the case; the backside of the second had information relevant to the offender's rights; the back of the third copy was identical to the first; and the back of the last copy was where the officer in the matter could make notes about the offence.

Sen. Hollis stressed that the Police officer's notes were "purely for prosecution'' and only to be used in the event of a case to jog his or her memory.

He said it was up to the magistrate to decide whether such notes could be used as evidence.

Sen. Hollis also stressed that by signing the ticket, the person was not admitting the offence, merely acknowledging receipt of the document.

He pointed out signing a ticket could be particularly beneficial in the common occurrence of people giving false names.