Page 2684 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Are you repaired to table it?
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I have no difficulty; I have just read out the figures. There is no objection from me tabling this document at all. I do not have any objection. Therefore, I officially table the document.
Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, if that is the case, we also need tabled the speeding data—the document which contained the speeding data—which he was also reading from.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I have already indicated those figures verbally for the Hansard.
Roads—speed and red light cameras
MR SESELJA: My question is to the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services. Minister, in August 1999, in relation to speed cameras, you said:
We want this revenue to be spent on improving our roads and on introducing new driver behaviour schemes. We will be watching the Government to ensure that the windfall from these cameras actually has an impact on enhancing our road safety.
In 1999, you regarded revenue from fixed speed cameras as “windfall” that would be hypothecated in order to improve our roads. Minister, what do you expect the windfall gain from speed cameras will be now, and do you stand by what you said with regard to the revenue being used strictly for roads based expenditure?
MR HARGREAVES: I will possibly stand corrected, but I do not recall using the word “windfall”. I do recall saying that this was a voluntary tax. People do not have to contribute to this. Because they do, that just shows they have particularly poor driving behaviour. As it turns out, the money goes into consolidated revenue, and the Stanhope government has an incredibly good record on investing money in its road infrastructure. And where does it get the money from? It gets it out of consolidated revenue, and that is supplemented by the voluntary tax paid by people who go through speed cameras. I refer, for example, to the airport road—$15 million. Thank you very much to the Treasurer for being able to do that. I refer to Lanyon Drive; and we actually have the money to do the Athllon Drive extension. We have money to do the feasibility study for Tharwa Drive.
Mr Pratt can come up with various sites. He made the point about Long Gully Road, and I take his point. I think it is probably a reasonably good idea to stick a fixed camera in that particular locality. In fact, when and if the Treasurer sees fit to give me enough money to install another camera, I will take you up on your policy, Mr Pratt, and I will put it there.
Mr Seselja: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know Mr Hargreaves would like to answer the last question, but I asked him about a windfall gain from speed cameras. It has nothing to do with the previous question from Mr Pratt.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .