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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4885 ..

motor vehicle or trailer comply with such of the requirements of the Manual as are applicable to the motor vehicle or trailer, was a Roller Brake Testing machine of the kind specified in subsection 26AG(3A).".

The amendments, as I indicated in the in-principle debate, relate to our proposed system of vehicle testing. Madam Deputy Speaker, as long as we are redebating things that we have already debated, I want to reiterate on the record that the Labor Party does not think that the system of vehicle testing by which you inspect vehicles only on change of ownership is a sufficiently regular system of vehicle testing to ensure that vehicles are in a roadworthy condition. If, as it appears from the in-principle debate, the majority in this place believe that licensed motor dealers ought to be given back the power to inspect under this Act - and, as I have said before, I do not have a problem with that - it ought to also be part of a regime where vehicles are inspected more regularly, because that will ensure a more roadworthy fleet. Our other proposals deal with ensuring that the equipment used in testing vehicles is of a high standard. I do not believe that the Government has actually yet issued regulations in relation to the standards for vehicle inspections; but we wanted to prescribe some minimum standards in the Act, particularly in relation to roller brake testing. So, for that reason, we are moving our amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that, if we are to be serious about motor safety, we need to complement our efforts in relation to drink-driving, speeding, and driving without due care and attention. We also need to ensure that vehicles are roadworthy. The current arrangements simply will not do that.

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services) (6.00): The Government does not support this amendment. Reference to the Hansard of only three months ago will show that this very same amendment was rejected by the Assembly then. It was rejected for very sound reasons.

Mr Whitecross: People were changing their minds all over the place. I am just giving them a chance to change their minds on this as well.

MR KAINE: I would hope, having regard to the reasons why it was rejected only three months ago, that people would not change their minds on this matter now. As I said, it was rejected because of very substantive arguments put forward by the Government in terms of capital cost and the like, and the fact that, statistically, only a very low percentage of car accidents in the ACT were attributable to mechanical failure and, when they were so attributable, it was almost invariably because of things like bald tyres. Those things are picked up by the random testing that is in place.

I would say, however, having made that point, that the Government will continue to keep the matter under surveillance and, if there is substantive evidence brought forward over time that there are difficulties occurring, we would want to review the frequency of testing. But we would do that only on the basis of very substantive evidence that it was warranted; and, if we did make a change, it would not necessarily be to go back to the complete system that we have had in the past where vehicles were all inspected

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