Opposition questions the legality of traffic monitoring data collection and demands an apology and data removal. Minister deflects, defends the program, and accuses the opposition of hypocrisy, focusing on definitional issues and the benefits of data-driven traffic management.

AnsweredQoN 377Legislative Assembly
Asked
14 June 2023
Portfolio
Transport

QuestionView source ↗

TRAFFIC — MONITORING DEVICES
377. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Minister for Transport:
I
have a supplementary question. Contrary to what the minister just said, the
information was illegally gathered, so will she apologise to the drivers of Western
Australia and remove the stored information from those 180 monitoring stations?

AnswerView source ↗

They started in 2016, so will the
Leader of the Opposition apologise? This is a definition issue about the words ''main
road'' and ''highway'', and we are changing that to ''road''.
Honestly, the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and asks us to upgrade a road.
Okay. What is the evidence? The Leader of the Opposition comes in here and asks
us to upgrade a local road. Local roads and main roads interact very closely in
how we manage traffic flows. Is the whole idea that we should make investment
decisions in the absence of information? Smart freeways is about managing
traffic flows using IT. We have traffic lights that monitor these situations.
We will have a situation in which buses can talk to traffic lights to make sure
that they can move freely throughout the suburbs. I was briefed yesterday. I asked whether there was any evidence
of anyone being tracked. The answer was no. All they are saying is that
the definition is ''highway and main road'' and that needs to be
changed to ''road''. And the rollout of all the sensors was done
in accordance and agreement with all the relevant local authorities.
The SPEAKER : That concludes
question time.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more