Page 3740 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2013

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

In summary, I am generally happy to support Ms Lawder’s motion. As I said, Roads ACT is already looking at McBryde Crescent and considering improvements to make there. It will consult with the school and any affected residents before it makes any traffic improvements. I am happy to report back to the Assembly on the progress of this matter by the end of the year, and my amendment seeks to reflect this. I believe it embodies the spirit of Ms Lawder’s motion. It removes the requirement that Roads ACT install a pedestrian crossing.

To be clear, preliminary discussions indicate that the result of Roads ACT’s examination could well be the recommendation that there is a pedestrian crossing installed. I just do not think it is appropriate at this point to pass a motion in this place declaring what the most appropriate engineering treatment should be before the agency has finished its assessment. I think it is far more prudent to wait for that assessment because, as I have touched on in my speech today, there are a number of possible engineering responses to this as well as other measures that may be discussed with the school. I do not think it is warranted for the 17 members of the Assembly to stand here today and say, “Oh, it has to be a pedestrian crossing.”

My amendment speaks very clearly to the fact—and I have outlined it in my speech in some detail today—that TAMS recognises that this is an issue, that work is being undertaken, that consultation with the school is being undertaken, and that I will report back to the Assembly before the end of the year. Given the sitting calendar, that is just on five weeks from now. I think that is quite a responsive turnaround, and I commend my amendment to the Assembly on that basis. It is certainly not a fobbing off; it is a clear path of action that I have outlined today, and members can have confidence knowing that they will be able to hold me and Roads ACT to account on an answer to this within the five-week time frame that is currently anticipated for the undertaking of this study. I now move the amendment circulated in my name:

Omit paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b), substitute:

“(2) (a) update the Assembly by the last sitting day of 2013 on appropriate traffic safety measures to take on McBryde Crescent.”.

MS BURCH (Brindabella—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Disability, Children and Young People, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Women, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Racing and Gaming) (4.48): This is an important motion about safety and all of us in this place would recognise the importance of safety around our schools. Mr Rattenbury has spoken about a number of investigations into safety around Trinity and other areas. School communities and local residents at times contact the Education and Training Directorate and, I have no doubt, Roads ACT around local issues. It has always been a partnership approach to solutions. There is also a key element here about a community responsibility to be safe around where children are in our community.

We will support Mr Rattenbury’s amendment. It is about a sensible partnership into working with the local schools and local communities around a solution. I think a five-week time frame is reasonable for Roads ACT to undertake the work.

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