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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1553 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

However, to give credit where it is due, the Government has finally come clean over the emergency services levy. Having said last year that it is not a tax, they say in Budget Paper No. 3:

However, after saying that the funds reaped will go to guaranteeing funding for those services, the Government said in the same paragraph:

In 1997-98, these services were provided from the base budget. I repeat, in 1997-98 these services were provided from the base budget. In 1998-99 the emergency services received none of the $10m reaped, and they will get none of it. This Government should stop the furphy of calling it a levy for emergency services and acknowledge that the additional tax - their words - has nothing to do with emergency services.

I note that the Government is taking much credit for initiatives for which it was not responsible. It claimed credit this very morning on 2CC for the roundabout on the Monaro Highway. Was it not done using Federal funding? Why did the Minister not tell the caller that this morning? Because he wanted the credit. What a shame that was.

The same Minister has said that we need speed cameras to reduce road accidents. He says that other jurisdictions have reduced their accidents by 80 per cent. I want to know which jurisdictions have reduced their accidents by this enormous figure. Not just one, Minister, if you are listening; you said "other jurisdictions", a plural description. I note that the ACT has a very good record regarding accidents and road deaths. True, we could do better, but I doubt that this initiative will do anything about the number of accidents here in the future. What the cameras will do is return $2.5m for the investment of $600,000 - a good return, I concede; but be honest, Minister, like your Chief Minister says that you all are, and admit that it is just a revenue raiser. How are you going to explain it to a driver who is in a line of traffic going marginally over the speed limit, driving quite safely, who has always been vigilant and careful but who could cop three speeding infringements in consecutive days, rake up fines of about $450 and lose many points, perhaps a licence, and find out weeks later? The police do a good job here on traffic law enforcement. We do not need yet another draconian measure like that.

I do, however, commend the red-light camera initiative. People run red lights deliberately and they always know that they have done so. I have no sympathy here. If red-light cameras reduce these infringements and the inevitable crashes, well and good.

The reductions in ACTION jobs is, I know, due to the deal struck last year. I have a problem, however, in relation to how the cuts are being made. They are to go from maintenance activities - 34 positions, to be exact - and the provision for driver and passenger safety for this year is to reduce from $3.2m to $2.5m, a reduction of $700,000. Yet the documents all say that there is a commitment to safety. Some commitment!

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