Page 1179 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As the Chief Minister noted in his speech, there is already great recognition of the reasons and need behind having set speed limits, particularly around areas used by the community, and 40-kilometre zones already exist in other states and territories. Therefore, the research and thinking have already been done. An Assembly inquiry could serve that purpose, but it is not our view that this is a particularly complex matter of policy. To do so would tie up a committee for some considerable time, as it would be starting from a disadvantage when it comes to familiarity with and expertise over the details.
I have to say that, on reading this motion that has been brought by the Chief Minister, it seems very clear that the transport office within the department seems to have a very strong understanding of most of the issues covered. The only matter that has not been included in the list of matters to be considered is safety. It could be that the minister and the department are already convinced that the safety benefits of this speed limit reduction are well established and unarguable, and in the Chief Minister’s speech he outlined the reasons behind that. Nonetheless, I think it would be a good idea to formally consider them.
My point is that issues such as the location of traffic calming devices, choices about the hours of application, the streets to which it would apply and the definition of appropriate facilities reflect the sort of expertise that we would see in an office of transport. It is for that reason I have circulated an amendment to the motion which calls on the government to take up this responsibility itself. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move both of the amendments circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MS BRESNAN: I move:
(1) omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) calls on the ACT Government to consult on reducing speed zones around shopping and community facilities, and to report back to the Assembly with a plan of action by the end of June 2010. Matters specifically considered for the plan of action to include, but not be limited to:”; and
(2) add:
“(g) the impact on pedestrian and cyclist safety.”.
These amendments simply change the focus from an Assembly committee to the government itself. They retain all the specific topics for investigation which I imagine would be par for the course in an exercise of this nature, and add a specific reference to the safety benefits in the interest of completion.
I appreciate that the motion does not specify for the government how it will consult, and I expect there would be expertise within the department to identify interested parties and relevant experts. I would like to make one specific suggestion, however.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .