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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2966 ..

The last issue I raise in relation to DUS is speed cameras. As far as I can see—and somebody can correct me if I am wrong—the DUS speed cameras are mainly located on the major arterial 80-kilometre zones. There are residential areas with a significant number of 60-kilometre through streets—particularly Outtrim Avenue in Calwell, Jackie Howe Crescent in Macarthur and Macfarland Crescent through Pearce connecting with Chifley; they are the three best examples I came come up with—with many children living there. People constantly complain to me that these streets are speed zones for people who take shortcuts, particularly during peak hour traffic. I would like to see the DUS speed cameras deployed even more often in these streets than on the 80-kilometre zones.

I would like to see them also in the 50-kilometre backstreets. I do not think they are being used to raise revenue but that is the argument that many of the public will proffer. They would be seen to be providing a safer service if they were deployed in these low-kilometre-zone streets where people are doing very high speeds. I hope that this money appropriated for the DUS cameras means that they are deployed more efficiently where they are needed in some of these backstreets where people are living a little more dangerously.

MS TUCKER (10.25): I am not going to speak for very long on this because I made comments in the original budget debate, and I do not see the point in repeating them all.

There was a question on notice regarding the greenhouse spending and the answer points out the problem of confusing reporting. I do not know that there is a particular desire to make it look like there are new programs when there are not. But I just think it would be much better if we had a clearer breakdown, particularly when a question on notice has asked for expenditure. I apologise because in the debate last week I think I said that there had not been an answer to that question and in fact there was. I was just not informed that there was. The government had responded to that. I clarify that for the record.

The only extra point I make is that the staffing issue in the greenhouse unit bears some more work. Their salaries have increased but are still at a relatively low level. If we need intensive work in this area—and we do—then the staffing resources have to be there to do it.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming, and Acting Minister for Planning) (10.26): The government can accept that more work needs to be done in the look of the city; it is an ongoing task. We were once fortunate to take over from the Commonwealth a city in pretty good nick. For many years virtually nothing was done because we could live off the condition we had. That no longer obtains. A fair bit of work is going on around the place. It is unfortunate that some of it is just patchwork. But that will continue.

I respond to something Mr Pratt said. I go past Deakin shops very regularly and they look pretty good to me. If I was putting some money into doing up a shopping centre, Deakin would be down the list a bit. But I understand that the Chief Minister said—as he informs me—not that it will be done but that it is on the list. I think that is the qualification.

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