Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (10 March) . . Page.. 546 ..
MR HUMPHRIES
(continuing):doing it. Mr Speaker, in making those comments about this legislation, I hope that when we consider the legislation and vote upon it our views will be tempered by extensive discussion with the community about the appropriateness or otherwise of this step.
MR HARGREAVES (4.54): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Urban Services.
Leave granted.
MR HARGREAVES: Thank you. I formally move:
That the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) 1998 be referred to the Standing Committee on Urban Services.
MS TUCKER (4.55): I would like to make a couple of comments. I am interested in the statement of Mr Humphries that he has become more sensitive to amenity on our streets because he has young children. The Greens have come up with this proposal because we have done a lot of work and research on the issue and all the reports are in agreement with each other, basically. It is about basic physics; it is about being able to stop more quickly if you are travelling more slowly. There are significant advantages in terms of injury on our roads if you reduce the speed generally travelled.
There are often arguments that people break the speed limit anyway, but usually do not break it by more than a certain amount. If you reduce the speed limit, they may still break the speed limit, but that would still mean a reduction in the average speed travelled. We believe that there are real benefits in this proposal, even if we do not see a huge increase in resourcing. Of course, driver education is always desirable. I am supportive of its going to a committee, because people here are, obviously, still uncertain about the issue. I do believe that, once they have had an opportunity through a committee process to look at the evidence, they will come out in support of this proposal because it is a really important road safety initiative. Many countries around the world have already introduced it, with benefits. It is about making our city a safer place to live.
MR RUGENDYKE (4.57): Mr Speaker, I would submit that, if this Bill is to be passed on to a committee, it ought to be passed on to the Justice and Community Safety Committee for consideration, because it would be the police who would be endeavouring to enforce this matter if it were to be implemented. Mr Speaker, it is my submission that the Justice and Community Safety Committee is the appropriate one to cover all aspects of this amendment, including how it would be enforced and which streets it ought to be applicable to, although this amendment does not say. It refers to all 60 kilometres per hour streets at the moment. Southern Cross Drive! What rot!
MR CORBELL
(4.57): Mr Speaker, I rise to refute the comments of my colleague on the Urban Services Committee. Quite clearly, the portfolio responsibility for this Bill falls with the Minister for Urban Services, and a majority of this Assembly agreed 18 months ago on the establishment of a portfolio system for committees. I am pretty sure that Mr Rugendyke was one of the members who supported the portfolio system of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .