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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3017 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

Finally, I want to pay tribute to the inquiry secretary, Mr Mat Gable, who was seconded from the Department of Urban Services. He proved to be a very capable and able officer who brought a fresh mind and an active intellect to the inquiry. His contribution was invaluable. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the minister, Mr Smyth, for agreeing to make Mat available. I also thank the chief executive of Urban Services, Mr Alan Thompson, for making available an officer with such expertise. I commend the report to the house.

MR CORBELL (4.31): I am pleased to join my colleague Mr Hird in commending this unanimous report to the Assembly. This report is the outcome of a fairly intense period of examination by the Planning and Urban Services Committee and I think the balance that has been struck in the report is the right one.

It is very clear to me from the examinations that the committee undertook that there are considerable benefits open to the ACT if we adopt a 50-kilometre an hour default speed limit. The ACT is in a good position to learn from the experience of other states that have led the way in introducing a 50-kilometre an hour urban speed limit. I think perhaps some of those lessons are worth elaborating upon.

The first is the lesson from New South Wales. Because NSW chose not to make 50 kilometres an hour the default limit, they had to signpost ever single street to which the 50-kilometre an hour limit applied. This obviously is an extremely costly option. Also, it is aesthetically quite distracting to have a 50-kilometre an hour speed sign at the entrance to every single street to which that speed limit applies.

This is not what the committee has recommended in its report. Indeed, what the committee has recommended is the approach taken by all of south-east Queensland, including Brisbane, and the other metropolitan areas in Queensland. They have adopted a default 50-kilometre an hour speed limit. This means that the only signs you need to implement this limit are the signs that indicate where the speed limit is not 50. So you only need signs to indicate that the speed limits are 40, 60, 80, 90, 100 or 110 kilometres an hour because all other streets have a 50-kilometre an hour default limit. That obviously means that very few signs will need to go up in the ACT if the government hopefully adopts the committee's recommendation. The only new signs that will be needed are those that indicate to people entering the territory that a 50-kilometre an hour default limit applies. We are talking about around half a dozen signs on all the entrance roads into the ACT. So there will not be a substantial cost to government.

There will be a cost to government in the public education program, which is referred to in recommendation No 5. Public education is absolutely crucial to make this sort of initiative work. Indeed, this government has already conducted similar public education programs. The education program that was put in place for the introduction of speed cameras in the ACT involved the comprehensive delivery of information to householders as well as electronic and print advertising. The committee recommends that we need to have a similar mechanism in respect of the introduction of a 50-kilometre an hour speed limit in the ACT. This will come at a cost but I would have to say that I and my colleagues on the committee are convinced that that cost is worth while. It is worth while because the number of accidents that occur on local and feeder streets is not insignificant-and I think that point needs to be remembered. Also, the number of injuries that occur is not insignificant.

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