SPEED LIMITS

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:31): I want to make some comments in relation to the announcement made by the road safety minister on Tuesday—and can I point out: the fifth road safety minister in the last 2½ years—where he announced that speed limits will be reduced to 100km/h on 45 rural road sections within a 100 kilometre radius of Adelaide and on the Yorke Peninsula.

Speed limits should not be reduced on our rural roads to compensate for this government's neglect of our road network. Instead of lowering speeds this government should be addressing the state's $200 million backlog in road maintenance. While the Labor government has shuffled around the road safety portfolio from minister to minister—five times in the last 2½ years—South Australian roads have been deteriorating. On our road maintenance, as I said, the backlog has reached a stunning $200 million.

One of the best ways to improve road safety is to improve the standard of our roads. There is little doubt that the conditions on our local road system contribute to the number of crashes and fatalities. Regional South Australians should not be penalised by reduced speed limits because this Labor government has neglected our road network.

Recent results from some of the local newspapers in those areas, which have been running a poll, show that 92 per cent of respondents to the poll (being run by a local newspaper on the Adelaide Plains, called the Plains Producer) have been answering no to the 100km/h speed zones—92 per cent of respondents are not in support of the government's proposal to lower the speed limits on these rural roads.

That is corroborated by some responses that the RAA have made in relation to this announcement. This is the peak motoring body here in South Australia, and they have warned that 'lowering speed limits is not a substitute for improving roads'.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Can you just share that with us again, previous road safety minister? It's a union for—what did you say? Was that a disparaging comment about the RAA?

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, if you've got something to say, say it so that everybody can hear it. The RAA warns that:

...lowering speed limits is not a substitute for improving roads...changing speed limits is not the [only] one single solution to bring down the road toll. These changes need to be made in conjunction with improving [our] roads.

I had a look at some of the local regional papers just this week in the library and came across an article in The Barossa & Light Herald dated 2 November. The Light Regional Council has stated, and I quote from the article:

Light Regional Council...will object against a State Government plan to reduce speed limits on [the] rural roads in its area.

Continuing the quote, it states:

...Council delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer (who in turn may delegate authority to the General Manager Infrastructure and Works) to formally write to the Minister for Road Safety objecting against the proposal and citing reasons for Council's opposition to the proposed speed limit amendments.

So there you have it: we have the peak motoring body making statements that do not necessarily support the reduction in speed limits.

I have drafted a letter to the road safety minister, and I want to know from the minister and the Premier: in how many of those crashes that occurred over the five years the minister stated were the drivers were travelling at the speed limit, that is, 110 km/h? I also want the police reports from those crashes that state that if those motorists had been travelling at 10 km/h less—that is, from 110 ks to 100 ks—the outcome of those crashes would have been different. There has been some public comment in relation to this, where the causes are likely to be drink-driving, speeding, inattention and not wearing your seatbelt.