Page 3264 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think what it comes down to is that the Liberal Party has put it forward and therefore the Labor Party and the Greens feel that they have to oppose it. I think there is a time and a place to occasionally just say, “Well done; we agree,” and move on, instead of opposing everything that is put forward by the opposite number. And that is what we are seeing here from the Greens and the Labor Party.
They have different, ridiculous reasons, I would hasten to add, but ridiculous reasons nonetheless, none of which is backed by evidence; whereas, as Mr Coe has pointed out, he has the evidence on his side. His policy has the evidence on its side. The road safety experts back it. The school groups back it. It is sensible policy and it makes sense because we all know that there are times when people lose concentration.
Ms Le Couteur asserted that it was about stopping people getting fines. It is not about stopping people getting fines. It is about slowing people down. If that means there are fewer fines, good. That is not the purpose. The purpose is to slow people down so that our kids remain safer than they are at the moment around school zones.
I commend the motion. I find it quite extraordinary that it will not be supported, that the Labor Party and the Greens are today voting against school safety. They are voting against flashing lights around our school zones. I guess it will be just one more point of difference as we lead into the election. It will be just another example of the Liberal Party getting on with the job of good local services, making sure we deliver those local services for our communities and the Labor Party and the Greens focusing on far less important issues.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (8.55): Of course it is very disappointing that the government and the crossbench will not be supporting the motion put forward by me today. And it is a letdown to all the families who have loved ones at schools across the ACT, because flashing lights in school zones will make them safer. There is no doubt about that. All the evidence suggests that flashing lights slow down motorists.
It is all very well for Ms Le Couteur to come into this place and say, in effect: “We are not road engineers. Therefore we cannot talk about road safety.” She is not an environmental scientist; yet Ms Le Couteur regularly talks about climate change issues. Does that mean we should be banned from talking about anything? What is the point in having an Assembly if we are not meant to assess information, analyse it, make decisions and implement them? What is the point of this place if we are not meant to act on the advice and our own research? All the research suggests that flashing lights slow down motorists. I ask Ms Le Couteur or anybody in this place to point to any evidence whatsoever which says that flashing lights outside a school zone do not slow down motorists.
In fact, a Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety report presented to the New South Wales parliament included this statement:
The Committee also recognises that flashing light technology constitutes the most effective warning system for alerting motorists to the presence and operational times of school zones and recommends that Roads and Maritime
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video