Page 4398 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The amendment that I move now is one that I think is particularly pertinent, given this new technology, and it is reasonable as well as being something that I think Canberrans would welcome. Given that it is new technology and that the vast majority of Canberrans would probably not be aware that it is being implemented, I think that an amendment providing that a warning notice be given for three months after operation rather than a fine would be a good and reasonable step forward. By doing so, you would be able to convey to offending motorists information about the point-to-point speed cameras, but they would not actually incur a fine or demerit points. I think that is reasonable.
Mr Corbell has written to me and said that, under the current system, it probably would not be possible. To be honest, I have difficulty in believing that. I think they would be able to make it possible if they wanted to. However, there is no desire to do so. I thank Mr Corbell for his commitment to increase the temporary signage around the point-to-point speed cameras to make it easier for drivers to become aware of the point-to-point speed cameras. However, I still believe that a three-month moratorium would be a good way forward.
MR CORBELL: (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (6.18): This is the “okay to speed” amendment, Mr Speaker. Leaving aside the question whether it would be appropriate for the Road Transport Authority to fail to take action where it has evidence that a motorist has exceeded the speed limit, the government cannot support this amendment. There are operational limitations that would prevent the Road Transport Authority being able to issue warning notices in the way required by the proposed amendment.
These operational limitations concern the need to develop system changes to rego.act. That system has been programmed to process infringement notices following adjudication of images by the traffic camera office. The system has no capability to generate or manage warning notices. Developing that capability would be complex and would not be able to be implemented before March next year, if not later. Assuming the Legislative Assembly passes the bill in these sittings, well over three months would have elapsed from the commencement of the legislation before the required system changes could be made. By that time, the statutory time frame for issuing warning notices would have expired and the system changes would be redundant.
I appreciate that the purpose of Mr Coe’s amendment is to provide a period during which motorists who are exceeding the speed limit are warned of this and made aware that the point-to-point cameras will be used in future to detect speeding offences. That is why the government is prepared to suggest an alternative non-legislative means of achieving the same objective. I would be prepared to undertake—and I have indicated to Mr Coe that the government is prepared to undertake—to have variable message signs which are displaying motorists’ speeds placed in both directions of the point-to-point zone on Hindmarsh Drive for a period of three months prior to the commencement of enforcement action being taken.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video