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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3305 ..

MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, Ms Tucker's question is clearly based on a total lack of understanding of what I said yesterday. She might care to listen, instead of interpreting what she thinks she hears. I have made it clear that I have a totally open mind on speed limits, not only in suburban streets but through the rest of Canberra as well. When somebody comes out crusading and suggests that we should make an arbitrary change to suburban streets only, they had better have some reason for suggesting that we do it. All I have said up until now is that, on the face of it, there does not appear to be a valid reason for making the change that Ms Tucker is so vociferously advocating.

I produced the statistics that 70 per cent of fatal accidents in the ACT and 60 per cent of all accidents in the ACT occur not on suburban streets but on arterial highways. That is not to say that there are no accidents on the suburban streets; but it does indicate that, if we were going to change speed limits, perhaps we should start with the arterial highways rather than with the suburban streets. There has been no statistical or other evidence put to me to substantiate the argument that we should arbitrarily change the speed limit in suburban streets. As an added factor, I pointed out that to make the arbitrary change that Ms Tucker is suggesting would cost, as estimated by my officers, $1.5m just to change the street signs. The question in my mind is: Why would you spend $1.5m of public funds to resolve a problem that has not been proven to exist?

Flowing from that proposition I said, and I still maintain, that the sensible thing to do is to wait a short while. The New South Wales Government is conducting some trials into this matter. We should wait until those trials are concluded to see whether they substantiate the argument that Ms Tucker is putting forward. It is not going to take forever. Before we rush blindly into making unsubstantiated change, at a considerable cost, we should know what the ramifications are. That is all I have said, and I stand by that.

For Ms Tucker to put forward a question, as she does in a media release, asking me how much value I place on a human life, is introducing into the debate an emotional element that does not, in my view, warrant serious consideration. As far as I am concerned, you cannot put a value on a human life. That is not to say that I am going to spend public money on a whim emanating from the Greens. They will have to put forward a great deal more substantiation to support their argument before I will undertake to spend the money that flows from that decision. That is my position, but I am open to persuasion that my position is wrong. One of the things that perhaps will change my mind is the New South Wales study, when it is concluded. If it brings forward sufficient evidence to warrant the course of action that Ms Tucker is suggesting, we will look at that in the ACT context, bearing in mind that our streets are far superior to most elsewhere in Australia and perhaps do not present the same degree of hazard as similar streets do elsewhere.

MS TUCKER: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. From your own figures, it is 30 per cent of fatal accidents on the urban residential roads and 40 per cent of road accidents on the non-arterial roads, so there is a significant number of accidents. It certainly is not my whim, Mr Kaine. I hope you get a briefing from the NRMA on this.

MR SPEAKER: What is the question?

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