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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4886 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

frequently, because we are not convinced that the return is in proportion to the cost of doing so. But, for the time being, I submit that there is no evidence, statistical or otherwise, to support reverting to the system that we had in the past. I repeat: This amendment was rejected only three months ago. I do not think the circumstances have changed. I presume that the people who voted against this amendment three months ago will do so again today. I would exhort them to do so.

MR MOORE (6.02): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be opposing this amendment and will continue to oppose it. For quite some time I have felt that the need to have a vehicle testing station has not been proven. I know that Mr Whitecross raised safety issues and so on; but the reality is that, in regard to safety, we do a cost-benefit analysis. On a cost-benefit analysis, one of the things that come out worst in all of the expenditure on safety measures is vehicle testing. That is the main reason why I will continue to resist any expansion of vehicle testing.

I think that the responsibility for vehicle safety belongs with the owner, and that is how we should keep it. I know that the argument is that it would make sure that we do not have shonky brakes and all these things, and we can always find business people who will come out and say, "Yes, I have found a vehicle with terrible brakes since we have not had testing". But there were vehicles with terrible brakes before, when we had testing. Of course, it is in their own interests. They have a vested interest in ensuring that they get more business. I have been in a situation myself where I have been told that I need new brake pads, and I have said, "Okay, proceed with them; but I would like to have the old ones". When the old ones have come back to me, it has been a very embarrassed garage. So it ought to have been embarrassed, because they did not need replacing. Needless to say, it was not necessary to pay for that particular job.

But it seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in most cases people do not operate in that way. They operate, as most businesses operate in Canberra, on the basis of honesty. What we do need to ensure is that we work on the most cost-effective ways of improving our safety, and this is not one of them.

MS HORODNY (6.04): Madam Deputy Speaker, we will be supporting Mr Whitecross's amendment, as we did last time. We have never agreed with random inspections. I believe that there are a number of problems with random inspections. An example is that in random testing there is no opportunity to test emissions. Also, you obviously cannot test brakes, although we have been told that inspectors do have the capacity when they can track people down - or I suppose that they can stop people as they are driving along - to test brakes to some extent. But I have not been convinced that that can be done properly. I believe that, in the interests of safety, we do need more regular testing of our vehicles and we need all our vehicles tested. I believe that under the current system of random testing there are a number of vehicles that could actually get by for a very long time without ever being inspected.

I am glad to hear that Mr Kaine has made a commitment to review the current practice. Indeed, if after a number of years we see that random testing is producing a fleet of cars in the ACT that are less roadworthy than they should be in the interests of public safety, I hope that the Assembly will have a willingness then to go back to a system of testing at testing stations.

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