Page 2203 - Week 06 - Friday, 27 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
bigger places than Canberra which have much better traffic flow than we get on Northbourne Avenue. Of course, the congestion on Northbourne Avenue is driving people into the back areas of Watson and Hackett, and that is not being well received by the community. There must have been 50 people who turned up the other night to a meeting to discuss that issue.
I think we need to get on with the job in relation to the GDE and recognise that there was not enough forward thinking in the way in which that road was built. I remember hearing the stories of the Bolte government in Victoria when they opened the South Eastern Freeway to great acclaim. On day one it was plainly evident that the road was obsolete in terms of its capacity to carry vehicles. Unfortunately, governments are good at announcing the construction of roads, but sometimes they do not get the capacity issues right. Given that we have now got something in the order of 50,000 living in the Gungahlin area, most in my electorate and some in your electorate, Madam Assistant Speaker, I think they rightfully expect that, if they are going to be paying this money for land, the government should be investing adequate amounts in terms of the arterial links into that area.
I will conclude my remarks at this point. This is one of the most important line items we will debate. It is vital that the appearance of Canberra is maintained, and, whilst I recognise the efficiency of the response to issues that are raised, I would like, as I outlined, a more proactive approach to be undertaken in identifying and maintaining municipal infrastructure.
I will just make two other comments following Mr Pratt’s remarks. I do share his view about the need for the legislation to address the matter of drug driving. I am aware that there are potential anomalies. There were anomalies when random breath testing came in, and there were a number of occasions when people were able to avoid conviction because of loopholes or other bizarre circumstances that might have led to their being apprehended. (Second speaking period taken.)
I took up this issue publicly in 1995 or 1996, when it really was not on the agenda. The fact of the matter is that studies in South Australia indicated across the accident and emergency departments in a range of hospitals that a very high percentage of people admitted had illicit substances in their systems. Those drugs were identified and, in fact, 30 per cent of the people in the mid-90s who were admitted to hospital in South Australia’s accident emergency departments had unlawful drugs in their systems.
It is all well and good to say, “Well, how do we know that caused the accident?” Maybe there are people who have been involved in car accidents who have been drunk but that has not been the reason for the accident. I am sure there are many people who have been in motor vehicle accidents who are intoxicated where, in fact, some other factor may have led to it. But the fact is that there are laws, and the overwhelming majority respect those laws and they do not drink and drive.
If we had laws to prohibit the use of illegal substances while driving, there may still be some who continue to defy the law, just as there has been with alcohol. There may be some who, through some strange set of circumstances because of the half life of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .