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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3032 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

The same report that the Government was so keen to quote last week talks about the benefits of regular inspection. It refers, for instance, to a before and after study where annual inspections were discontinued in Idaho in the United States. It concludes that brakes, steering, suspension and powertrain components were worse, while body components were about the same. In other words, the superficial things that you see in a car park inspection were about the same; but the important things - brakes, steering, suspension and powertrain components - were worse without regular inspections. After a study of experience in different States, the United States General Accounting Office concluded that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should resume its support for State periodic inspection programs. So, while people elsewhere are concluding that regular inspections do play an important role in vehicle roadworthiness, this Government is going in the opposite direction.

Unlike the Government, we have consulted with industry groups and have thrashed out what we believe is in the best interests of the community. We have not just embarked on a penny-pinching exercise which has resulted in ad hoc policies being implemented on the run. Nor have we tried to selectively quote or misrepresent reports on this matter, as the Government has done in the past and as the Chief Minister did when we first announced our policy in relation to vehicle testing. The bottom line with the Opposition is public safety.

The other area of concern being addressed by the amendments that we will be moving is the issue of brake testing. After consultation with the industry and motoring organisations, the conclusion that we have reached is that there are only two forms of identifying faulty brakes - by "faulty brakes" I mean things like seized wheel cylinders, or calipers or shoes that may be partly operational but could contribute to accidents in the event of an emergency. These are visual inspections and the use of roller brake testers. For that reason, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the ALP has insisted - and I remind members that this is on industry advice - that roller brake testing will be the preferred method of brake evaluation when vehicles are being inspected, because it is more cost-effective. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I urge members to support these amendments in the interests of public safety, and I commend them to the house.

MR MOORE (10.33): I rise to support this piece of legislation and to oppose most of the amendments proposed by Mr Whitecross. First of all, it seems to me that the system that Mr Whitecross proposes in his amendments, particularly with roller brake testing, will actually mean that we will see long lines again, because the only roller testing facilities in Canberra will be ones that the Government owns, which are at the testing stations currently in Phillip and Dickson. Mr Whitecross indicates that that is not the case. I will be interested to hear him tell us where there are other ones.

I think that the principle that underlies this whole notion is that we have, on the one hand, people saying, "This is about safety". But it is not about safety. The real issue is: How many accidents are caused by vehicle failure? Hardly any. Of the small number that are caused by vehicle failure, the vast majority are about tyres. An annual inspection does not help in understanding about tyres, except on a few occasions. You would be far better to ask your parking inspectors around the place to look at tyres and allow people to take responsibility for themselves. Of the minuscule number of accidents caused by vehicle failure, about 90 per cent are to do with tyres anyway. By the way, it is not

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