Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4567 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

safety blueprint for future development works and refurbishment. We have given realisation to this function by revising a range of public place management guidelines, and development and planning guidelines, so that they include crime prevention and safety principles. These are outlined in the Implementation Report.

While stressing the overall value of the report we need to be aware that full support cannot be given to all of the recommendations because of other competing priorities. For example:

. A set of recommendations proposes that level pedestrian crossings replace underpasses and overpasses, the rationale being that the latter are predictors of pedestrian flow, which provide less informal surveillance and, therefore, are potentially areas which offenders may target. However, a competing policy is to promote their use as they offer substantially safer alternatives for crossing roads, particularly in the case of children and elderly pedestrians.

. Another example relates to the continuing debate as to levels of lighting to meet safety needs, as opposed to the type of lighting which meets aesthetic needs, wherein different levels of light and shade are prerequisite. No doubt we can strike a balance, but we need to understand that the installation in urban settings of whole scale lighting at levels which are the equivalent of daylight levels, may destroy the ambience of a night time setting.

I need to add just one further word of caution. The report represents the ideal, but at the moment, in economic terms, we do not live in an ideal world. We cannot implement all of the recommendations as the capital cost would be overwhelming. Prohibitive costs in certain areas (and

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .