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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4494 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Kaine also mentioned the ministerial council. I think Mr Whitecross mentioned it as well. The ministerial councils do not dictate the laws that we want to put in place here. I thought the point had been made very clearly in this Assembly that we believe that we do have the right to put in our own legislation. Mr Whitecross seems to be saying that the Greens have a single argument for reducing the speed limit which is based on the braking time. Yes, that is significant in the argument. If we look at the proceedings of the Staysafe committee in New South Wales and the submissions of the groups at that inquiry - the Federal Office of Road Safety, Vicroads, NRMA, RACV, Main Roads of WA, RTA of New South Wales, AUSTROADS, and AITPM - we will find that they are recommending a reduction in the speed limit.

This is not a whim of the Greens; this is a well-researched issue. This is an issue that has been researched in other countries as well as Australia. What we are seeing with the trials right now in New South Wales is political caution. It is the same as we are seeing here. The Staysafe committee recommended a reduced speed limit. The Government was nervous about it; so they said, "Okay, let us put some trials in place. We will suss out the community. We will see how they feel". Mr Whitecross is saying, "We do not have any evidence. We want to see the results of the trials and that will be the evidence". That is not the situation at all. We have the evidence. What the trials are doing is testing the will of the community and the political will to do something that may not be popular, even though there is clear evidence that it reduces the number of accidents and deaths on the road. That has been supported in overseas places where it has occurred as well.

The problem with Mr Whitecross saying that he will see how the trials work is that I will have to see then from Labor and Liberal a very clear analysis of the methodology of the trials, whether they were accompanied by education, how much education occurred, and how the policing was carried out. It would be quite a joke if I heard members of this place say in the next Assembly, "The trial did not work really well in Queanbeyan, so we are not going to do this", unless they also show that there was indeed accompanying education and policing. Obviously, like the drink-drive campaign, anything like this which is addressing the culture of drivers has to be accompanied by an education campaign. Mr Kaine did say that this morning. I am expecting that at least the Liberals would be very much aware of the importance of that in determining the success or otherwise of any trial.

In terms of who will benefit from reducing the speed limit, if we look at the evidence provided to the Staysafe committee and other research we will see that the single most vulnerable pedestrian age group is the under-15 group. Pedal cyclists and aged people are also vulnerable. Children are less traffic aware and older people are less mobile. Children can be less mobile as well. Seventy-three per cent of cycling casualties are of young people on suburban streets. Sixty-five per cent of young pedestrian casualties - that is, zero to 16 years - and 50 per cent of elderly pedestrian casualties are on our suburban streets.

There is a lot more happening in suburban streets and on main roads. There is a lot more activity and information to be managed. Obviously, it is important and useful to have a reduced speed limit, for those reasons. The other question that Mr Kaine asked was:

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