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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3035 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

inspection system, either at the inspection station at Dickson or through the authorised private sector providers. That, I believe, is a very comprehensive inspection program. It will have better results than the 100 per cent inspection system that we used to have before. As Mr Moore points out, you will not have to go up to Dickson and park on the street for three hours to get your vehicle inspected. Some of us can remember those days, too. If Mr Whitecross thinks that is a good idea, I do not think he will get much support from people in Canberra.

What Mr Whitecross is proposing in these amendments is to go back to that full annual inspection. In fact, he is proposing more than that. I have been told by my public servants that picking up the inspections as he has described here would not merely result in 180,000 inspections a year, which is the size of the fleet approximately; it would result in 250,000 inspections a year. So, it would not be just a matter of reopening the Phillip station. There would be a strong probability that we would have to open up a third station. Some people have indicated to me already that, if there were inspection stations at Dickson and Phillip, there would be some pressure to put one in Belconnen as well.

The estimated cost of going back to or introducing the system that Mr Whitecross is advocating is $14m. I do not know where he is going to get $14m from, but I do not have it in my budget. On top of the initial investment of $14m - to go back to that - we would have to employ, I am told, up to an additional 36 inspectors. Just calculate the annual wage bill of that. But, of course, we know that, if the Labor Party gets back into government in February, it is going to have money rolling out of its ears. It is going to be able to produce $14m out of the air, is it not? No, it is not, and Mr Whitecross knows that it is not going to be able to.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I believe that the system that the Government is proposing is eminently suitable; it is effective; it will be acceptable to the community; and Mr Whitecross is in cloud-cuckoo-land, frankly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 5

MR WHITECROSS (10.46): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I move:

Page 2, line 24, add the following proposed subsection:

"(3) The Manual is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 10 of the Subordinate Laws Act 1989.".

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