<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2009-07-16" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>3</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3565" />
  <endPage num="3644" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Speed Cameras</name>
      <text id="20090716640464631e5c469ea0000468">
        <heading>SPEED CAMERAS</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="562" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. G.M. GUNN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Stuart</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2009-07-16">
            <name>SPEED CAMERAS</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2009-07-16T14:21:00" />
        <text id="20090716640464631e5c469ea0000469">
          <timeStamp time="2009-07-16T14:21:00" />
          <by role="member" id="562">The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (14:21):</by>  My question is to the Minister for Police. Will yesterday's snap decision to remove speed camera signs result in increased speeding on our roads? Did the minister consider any alternative action to address the concerns and safety of mobile camera operators?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="interjection">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. Foley</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <page num="3599" />
        <text id="20090716640464631e5c469ea0000470">
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. Foley:</by>  Gunny, you wanted unrestricted speed limits up in your electorate.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="562" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. G.M. GUNN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20090716640464631e5c469ea0000471">
          <by role="member" id="562">The Hon. G.M. GUNN:</by>  I am happy, Mr Speaker, to debate that issue with the Deputy Premier any time he wants—particularly during the next election up in Stuart. It has taken me all morning to work myself up to asking this question and now you have put me off.</text>
        <text id="20090716640464631e5c469ea0000472">It has been the government's position that signs advertising that motorists have just passed a mobile speed camera are safety measures because they have the effect of slowing motorists down. In 2004, the officer in charge of the Road Traffic Branch, Superintendent Roger Zuener, told <term>The Advertiser</term> that the signs are needed to educate the public. Can the minister further assure the house that this decision will not add to the impression of many motorists in the public that these cameras are nothing more than revenue-raising matters for the Treasury?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="636" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Lee</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Police</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Emergency Services</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Recreation</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <startTime time="2009-07-16T14:22:00" />
        <text id="20090716640464631e5c469ea0000473">
          <timeStamp time="2009-07-16T14:22:00" />
          <by role="member" id="636">The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Police, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:22):</by>  I thank the member for his question. The member would be aware that this is an operational matter—a matter for the police commissioner. The police commissioner has taken this decision because of the health and safety issues for government employees. Two decisions were taken yesterday by the commissioner: one, that they are going to take steps to install protective film on the windows of the cars; and two, to remove the placement of signs after mobile camera operating sites. I was informed of this by the commissioner yesterday and, as I said, the reason he took this decision was because of health and safety issues.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>