Page 3263 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is no doubt that it is good policy. It is backed by experts across the board. It is noted in the motion that the Australian Road Research Board found that flashing lights in school zones were effective in reducing vehicle speed outside schools during the operation of the 40-kilometre an hour school speed zone. The NRMA stated that motorists’ awareness of school zones and ability to comply with the speed limit had been significantly improved where flashing lights had been installed, with positive implications for road safety. It has got the backing of the New South Wales Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales.
What we have here is evidence-based policy and what we heard in response to it was a mishmash of ridiculous assertions backed by nothing other than a hunch, particularly from the Greens. We have two different positions from the Labor Party and the Greens in opposing better safety around our schools through flashing school lights. We have the Labor Party saying, through their education minister, that it is a bizarre policy. He thinks that a policy endorsed by numerous road safety experts rolled out across the country, which protects our children in school zones, is bizarre. This was what the education minister said, and that is clearly why it is being opposed by the Labor Party. Clearly Katy Gallagher shares the view that the experts are wrong and that this is a bizarre policy. We do not think that protecting our children by alerting drivers in a much clearer way is in any way bizarre, is anything other than responsible and a responsible use of taxpayers’ money.
We heard a mishmash of concerns from Ms Le Couteur, none of which made any sense. The overarching theme from Ms Le Couteur was that if we cannot have everything, we are just not going to agree with anything. She said, “There are other things you can also do.” Do them. Suggest them. Do not oppose this policy on the basis that there are other policies you could do on top of it. We have never suggested this is the only way of keeping kids safe around schools but it is one very important way. Based on that, you would not even implement 40-kilometre zones around schools, you would not bother, until you can do every other conceivable thing to slow cars down around schools. It is this classic extreme view of the world that we are seeing from the Greens, both nationally and locally, which is that if they cannot get it all, they will vote against anything, if it is not their perfect solution. This is an important part of the safety mix.
We heard concerns about financing. This is a Labor-Greens government that seems to take great pleasure in rolling out twisted pieces of metal on the side of the road at about half a million dollars a pop, yet when it comes to protecting our kids it is too expensive. This is a party that is saying to us now, “What about the greenhouse gas implications?” The Greens are putting the safety of our kids behind the fact that, God forbid, we should actually use some electricity in doing this.
Mr Coe: Solar powered, mostly.
MR SESELJA: And much of it would be solar powered. But the point is that if I had a choice between using electricity and making our kids safer or not doing it at all because of the Greens’ concern, I know which way I would go. I would go for school safety. I would go for the safety of our children. These are ridiculous assertions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video