❓ Hon Ken Travers questions the Minister for Transport, Hon Simon O'Brien, regarding the funding and timeline commitments for the 'Towards Zero' road safety strategy. The Minister acknowledges the strategy's importance and bipartisan nature, but avoids a direct commitment, highlighting the strategy's hypothetical scenarios and broader approach beyond fines.
AnsweredQoN 267Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY — TOWARDS ZERO
I refer to the Towards Zero road safety strategy, which was made public today by the Minister for Road Safety. My question is to the minister in his role as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. (1) Is he aware that the recommendations of the Independent Road Safety Council included an implementation separation strategy with indicative funding and a time line setting out target dates for completion? (2) Can the minister explain why no funding commitment was made, nor the time line endorsed, by the minister? (3) Does the minister agree that, without a firm promise to provide funding, the potential to save more than 11 000 lives and serious injuries over the next 12 years is seriously jeopardised? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
I refer to the Towards Zero road safety strategy, which was made public today by the Minister for Road Safety. My question is to the minister in his role as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. (1) Is he aware that the recommendations of the Independent Road Safety Council included an implementation separation strategy with indicative funding and a time line setting out target dates for completion? (2) Can the minister explain why no funding commitment was made, nor the time line endorsed, by the minister? (3) Does the minister agree that, without a firm promise to provide funding, the potential to save more than 11 000 lives and serious injuries over the next 12 years is seriously jeopardised? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
AnswerView source ↗
I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
(1) Is he aware that the recommendations of the Independent Road Safety Council included an implementation separation strategy with indicative funding and a time line setting out target dates for completion? (2) Can the minister explain why no funding commitment was made, nor the time line endorsed, by the minister? (3) Does the minister agree that, without a firm promise to provide funding, the potential to save more than 11 000 lives and serious injuries over the next 12 years is seriously jeopardised? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
(2) Can the minister explain why no funding commitment was made, nor the time line endorsed, by the minister? (3) Does the minister agree that, without a firm promise to provide funding, the potential to save more than 11 000 lives and serious injuries over the next 12 years is seriously jeopardised? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
(3) Does the minister agree that, without a firm promise to provide funding, the potential to save more than 11 000 lives and serious injuries over the next 12 years is seriously jeopardised? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
(1) Is he aware that the recommendations of the Independent Road Safety Council included an implementation separation strategy with indicative funding and a time line setting out target dates for completion? (2) Can the minister explain why no funding commitment was made, nor the time line endorsed, by the minister? (3) Does the minister agree that, without a firm promise to provide funding, the potential to save more than 11 000 lives and serious injuries over the next 12 years is seriously jeopardised? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
(2) Can the minister explain why no funding commitment was made, nor the time line endorsed, by the minister? (3) Does the minister agree that, without a firm promise to provide funding, the potential to save more than 11 000 lives and serious injuries over the next 12 years is seriously jeopardised? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
(3) Does the minister agree that, without a firm promise to provide funding, the potential to save more than 11 000 lives and serious injuries over the next 12 years is seriously jeopardised? The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Is this a question asked of the minister representing the Minister for Road Safety? Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
Hon Ken Travers : No, it’s to the Minister for Transport as a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
I will be delighted to address the question. Can I have a copy; there is quite a bit of detail in it? (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question and for his interest in the Towards Zero road safety strategy. One of the good things about the strategy is that, if there is one policy document in the whole state of Western Australia that ought to have bipartisan support, it is this one. It was developed in an attitude of bipartisanship for better or for worse. I think the honourable member will be well aware of that. Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
Hon Ken Travers : Are you suggesting my question is not bipartisan? The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon Ken Travers asked a question. The Minister for Transport is answering the question. If Hon Ken Travers does not wish the minister to answer the question, he may continue to interject, but he should do so only once more. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : In fact, I think elements, if not the totality, of the safety strategy were about to be announced by then Minister Kobelke on 7 August, but it got no publicity at all because the then Premier decided that same day to go to Government House and call a snap election. I have no doubt that this policy clearly should have bipartisan support. I hope that there will not be any trivialisation of the issue by trying to pick over words or points. The strategy and the recommendations contained therein provide a number of hypothetical scenarios. The reader is invited to contemplate that if a certain level of, say, expenditure or other activity were applied in a particular area, a reduction in road trauma of a certain amount could be expected; and, conversely, if a different level of expenditure or activity were applied in that same area, a reduction in road trauma of some other amount could be expected. Those are the key themes in what is a very substantial document. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the question is: yes, there is an implementation strategy with indicative funding and time lines. However, it is not as though there is just one recommendation with those elements and that if we do not accept it immediately, we are not dinkum about road safety. I hope that is not where the member might have been going with his question. In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
In answer to the second part of the question, I do not know what the nature of Minister Johnson’s announcement was, as I was not there to see it. I cannot pretend to know what was in his mind, so I cannot address that part of the question, but notice can be given if an answer is required. In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
In answer to the third part of the question, I do not think there is any question that we, as a government and, indeed, collectively as a legislature, have to pull together to make sure that we minimise the level of road trauma on our roads. I invite members to examine the Towards Zero strategy and note that a lot of it is about a change of attitude by government to provide a more forgiving road environment and to provide safer vehicles, rather than just the old tried, true and, to some extent, failed approach of just whacking people with fines and demerit points. I commend the Towards Zero strategy to members and the house. I thank the honourable member for his interest.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.