Page 1755 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
SCRUTINY OF BILLS AND SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION -
STANDING COMMITTEE
Reports and Statement
MRS GRASSBY: I present reports Nos 9 and 10 of the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation. I ask for leave to make a brief statement on these reports.
Leave granted.
MRS GRASSBY: Report No. 9, which I have presented, was circulated when the Assembly was not sitting, on 2 July 1992, pursuant to the resolution of appointment of 27 March 1992. Report No. 10 contains the committee's comments on four Bills, 70 pieces of subordinate legislation, and six government responses. I commend the reports to the Assembly.
MOTOR TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1992
Debate resumed from 25 June 1992, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR WESTENDE (4.13): Madam Speaker, this is one of the Bills we have had a reasonable time to examine, and we will not oppose it. In fact, we are in agreement with the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill 1992. It is appropriate to tidy up any loose ends or ambiguities concerning the very important matter of road safety.
In terms of the first amendment, concerning the traffic priorities applying to slip lanes, I am always pleased to see a move to national uniformity of the road rules. It is important for safety reasons and to make our roads in Canberra more friendly for tourists. Canberra does have a reputation for the difficulty that tourists have in finding their way around and contending with the incompatibility of some road rules with other States' rules.
In terms of the slip lane that enables traffic to build up the same speed as traffic with which it merges, the right of way must surely be given to the vehicle in front. We therefore commend to the Minister that, where the slip lane merges with an existing road, he should look at getting some signs up: "Care - Merging Traffic". That is a recommendation only, but we believe that the Minister ought to take it on board.
Another small problem we have is with the illustrations accompanying the explanations. We have no problem with illustrations Nos 1 and 2, but example No. 3 has me somewhat confused. Maybe the Minister could explain example No. 3. Examples Nos 1 and 2 are very straightforward and we accept them, but is example No. 3 a slip lane or is it just that the road suddenly has widened? If it is still a slip lane, then surely when those two roads merge into one there should be a give-way sign, or you should give way to traffic on the right. I raise the matter only for clarification. It would seem that No. 3 is unnecessary.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .