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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4429 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

We should first, I submit, evaluate the costs and benefits of the trials in New South Wales. They started on 1 October. There is a three-month trial. We will soon know whether there is any empirical evidence to support the notion that reducing the speed limits in our suburban streets will have a significant beneficial effect. So why should we rush in today, about a month before the trial concludes, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, and try to anticipate the outcome of that pilot study?

While better results are needed, we are addressing several aspects of road safety which I believe will be beneficial, and we have no direct evidence supporting the opinion that a 50 kilometres an hour limit will see an improvement, although I concede that it might well do so. If governments acted on the basis of whim and opinion we would spend an awful lot of money and see no worthwhile product from it. I repeat that we have trials to determine whether such a limit is effective currently in place in New South Wales. We need wait only a short time to be able to assess, on the basis of empirical evidence, the effectiveness of such limits. I submit that spending $11/2m, with the prospect of finding ourselves out of step with New South Wales at the end of the day, seems to be unwise. It is only a pilot study and New South Wales may well consider that it is not worth it and not proceed with it.

Mr Speaker, I think logic would dictate that it would be imprudent, unwise and perhaps unproductive to step into the arena one month before the New South Wales trial is over and make an arbitrary decision - I mean arbitrary in terms of a reduction to 50 kilometres an hour in our suburban streets - because we do not know what the likely outcome of that would be. We can speculate, but we do not know. We do know that it will cost us $11/2m to do it and we do know that - - -

Ms Tucker: We do know that accidents cost $11m now.

MR KAINE: I listened very carefully to what you had to say and I think you have a duty to listen to what I have to say too. We do know that the Government is already implementing a number of programs to encourage drivers to drive more safely. We have introduced some punitive measures for those who do not, and I expect that we will see significant improvement over the next year or so anyway. I repeat that I do have an open mind on the subject, but I would like some evidence to support the proposal that Ms Tucker is making before I would willingly go along with it. For those reasons, the Government does not support this proposal to arbitrarily amend the Motor Traffic Act to impose a 50 kilometres an hour limit in the suburbs. I think we need to wait until the results are in on the trials that are currently ongoing, before we take that step.

Debate interrupted.

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