Page 1181 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
answered his mobile phone during the planning committee hearing when he appeared before the committee. He answered his mobile phone during the committee hearing, when he was appearing before the committee. I find it absolutely amazing that this person can then claim today that he is the champion of the Assembly’s rights.
If monitoring speed limits around shopping centres is not core business for Roads ACT then I do not know what is. Roads ACT should be able to do this easily. This should be their bread and butter. The minister, by wanting to offload this to the planning, public works and territory and municipal services committee, is in effect admitting that Roads ACT either cannot do this or they simply cannot consult. I might have to guess that perhaps that is actually right, that perhaps both are in fact right. This is an acknowledgement that Roads ACT and his department cannot actually consult.
That said, I would like to see how they go, and I would like to see them get on to this and to do it this year. I look forward to the government’s report by the end of the year and to the implementation of appropriate responses for speed zones around shopping centres and community facilities. In conclusion, I move the amendment circulated in my name:
Omit “end of June 2010”, substitute “last sitting day of 2009”.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.45): I would like first to support the comments made by Ms Bresnan. The substantive motion which Mr Coe’s motion seeks to amend is based, as Mr Stanhope said, on one aspect of the Greens-Labor agreement. The Labor government agreed with the Greens that it would undertake consultation on implementing the 40-kilometre-per-hour speed limits around shopping and community centres. The Greens believe it is appropriate that the government use the expertise and resources in its department to fulfil this part of the agreement rather than deferring the issue to the committee. I fairly much echo the sentiments of my fellow member of the planning committee Mr Coe. Brilliant though the planning committee is, the department probably has considerably more resources than we have to deal with this issue.
I am very pleased that the government would like to see a tripartisan approach on this issue and I think this is still possible while using the government’s resources. I expect that the government will be informing the Greens and the Liberals of its consultation strategy and that it will share with us the results and recommendations of the process. I was very pleased to hear Mr Stanhope’s positive remarks about this process, and particularly about the roundtable which he envisages with the NRMA and that this would be part of the agenda. The Greens do acknowledge that motorists’ safety, as the NRMA would acknowledge, is a major part of road safety.
In the rest of my speech I will talk more about the road safety issues that relate to the 40-kilometre speed zones and which are related not so much to motorists, which is what Mr Stanhope covered, but to pedestrians and cyclists. I would urge the government to see pedestrians and cyclists as an important part of this consultation. Cyclists and pedestrians make an important contribution to society in a range of areas. These include an improved natural environment, improved health—I am a regular
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .