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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4490 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

As I think Mr Moore conceded in his remarks, on many suburban streets people already drive at considerably below 60 kilometres an hour. The vast majority of people already drive at considerably below 60 kilometres an hour because they drive according to the conditions of the road and the conditions of the road often do not allow a reasonable person to drive at 60 kilometres an hour. There is already a tendency for people to drive at slower speeds. Equally, there are many roads on which a 60 kilometres an hour speed limit currently applies and people drive at more than 60 kilometres an hour. Some of those roads might be covered by this legislation and some might not.

That really gets me to the heart of my concern about our being forced to vote on this matter today. Nobody in this place and nobody in the community generally really knows what it means. Nobody knows which streets are to be covered by the 50-kilometre limit and which streets are to be covered by the 60-kilometre limit. Nobody knows how the legislation is to be enforced. Ms Tucker, because she is not a member of the Government, is not in a position to provide any funds for education of the community in relation to this matter, and this is an essential thing.

We need to consider all road safety measures - whether it is about changing the culture of speed; whether it is about encouraging people not to drink and drive; whether it is about encouraging people to comply with other road rules; whether it is about encouraging people to take the issue of fatigue seriously or to pay proper attention when driving. A whole range of issues - not least, vehicle roadworthiness, which is a matter that we have had occasion to debate in the past - go to make up the question of road safety and accident rates, and this is one of those issues. Yes, it is an issue that we have to consider, but it is not an issue that I believe we are suitably informed about to make a decision upon today.

I have to say that I part company with Mr Kaine to a certain extent in relation to this matter. I think Mr Kaine tried perhaps a little too hard to make out a case against 50 kilometres an hour speed limits. While he is claiming to be concerned about awaiting the outcome of the trials, he certainly created the impression that he had made up his mind in relation to this matter. I think it is incumbent on Mr Kaine, given that it is part of the current debate about national road rules, to ensure that this Assembly is properly informed about how we would go about implementing a 50 kilometres an hour speed limit, because it may yet be imposed on us as a result of a national agreement on road rules. It may be something that, if it were not imposed on us, we would feel obliged to agree with because we see the funding as being advantageous to us. Of course, under a provision which Mr Moore supported only last night, the Government can accept those fundings from the Commonwealth without ever having to come to the Assembly.

It seems to me that it is incumbent on the Minister, given the national debate, to be keeping us properly informed about how we would go about implementing a 50 kilometres an hour speed limit and what its implications would be for the ACT. But the Minister has not done that. We have not seen the outcome of the trials which are currently going on in New South Wales. The debate at the national level is not concluded. Frankly, I believe that Ms Tucker's action in bringing forward this Bill today is premature.

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