Page 3627 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 16 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I want today to focus particularly on safety, and my colleagues will direct their attention to other areas. I am sorry that Mr Humphries has shown a lack of concern. I do not think he is an unsympathetic or hard-hearted person, but I think he is neglecting some of the responsibilities that he has as Minister for Education. In the Estimates Committee he said in response to our questions that the changes will entail some risks to children; they will be, potentially, less safe. That is certainly the case. The record of the ACT was well explained, Mr Jensen, by John Gilchrist who presented a paper to the P and C council on 2 July. I think you were there at the O'Connell Education Centre.
Mr Jensen: I just wanted to know where you got that other quote from; that is all.
MR WOOD: It is from there. The record shows that we have saved considerably because we do not injure our children on our roads. The design of our suburbs brings safety. For those of you on the other side whose only interest is money, if I could impress upon you that accidents cost money, that may be the way to convince you. This is not my argument, particularly. My argument focuses simply on the welfare of children.
In his paper Mr Gilchrist made comparisons based on records of old and new suburbs in Canberra and Canberra's record in relation to the rest of Australia. He pointed out that we can clearly compare the rate of accidents in our suburbs, the old suburbs, the pre-1960s suburbs, as against the newer suburbs. The rate of accidents in our newer suburbs - and this concerns predominantly children - is much lower, simply because of the careful planning that you know about - all the bike paths and the way the traffic is routed around the suburb. That concept, so carefully done, makes our suburbs safe for our children. Canberra's record is better than anywhere else in Australia, and this is something that we are going to give away in the interests of some sort of false economy - an economy that thinks that accidents do not cost money in hard cash terms, forgetting about the emotional turmoil.
Mr Gilchrist concluded in this address, and I will quote:
Given the impressive safety record and high degree of resident satisfaction with the neighbourhood unit in Canberra it is astonishing that any Government would wish to dismantle it by cutting out the Primary School. Closures will inevitably mean putting children travelling outside their suburb at increased risk to death and injury through road accidents.
That is, undeniably, the case. Children are now required, or will be required when these closures proceed, if they ever do, to cross major roads in varying degrees of size -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .