Proposed law to reduce speed limit to 30kmh
Unsafe roads are forcing parents to drive children less than 1km to school, say safety advocates pushing for lower speed limits.
Restricting cars and trucks to 30kmh would be the norm for neighbourhood streets under proposed laws being unveiled on Wednesday.
The change comes amid rising fatalities on Australian roads in the face of a national goal to eliminate all road deaths and serious injuries by 2050.
While nine out of ten people die when hit by a vehicle driving at 50kmh, nine in ten people survive when hit at 30kmh, safety advocate Jennifer Kent says.
Inner-city Melbourne and parts of suburban Sydney have adopted the lower limits but Dr Kent views the varied approaches across Australia as unfair for children, parents and the elderly.
"Why should my son be safe walking to school but my cousin who lives in Brisbane is not?" the spokeswoman for advocacy group 30 Please told AAP.
"It's not fair that some people's lives are more important than others, so why wouldn't we do this on a national scale."
Kobi Shetty lives in an inner Sydney area where the speed limit is more than 30kmh.
"I see a lot of neighbours who live near me drive their kids to school less than a kilometre," she told AAP.
"They drive their kids to school because they don't feel safe letting them walk or cycle."
That perspective has helped push the NSW Greens MP to introduce a bill to enact a statewide 30kmh limit on residential roads.
She says it's the "most impactful" way to protect motorists, cyclists and pedestrians from road accidents as drivers will be forced to travel slower in high traffic areas.
If adopted, NSW would follow Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK in lowering limits to such levels.
In those areas, communities have seen a 40-per-cent reduction in fatalities on roads that have these limits, Ms Shetty said.
The cost to motorists was meanwhile between 30 seconds to one minute for each journey, research suggested.
"Most people would understand that it's worth spending an extra 30 seconds sitting in a car and saving a life," Ms Shetty said.
Premier Chris Minns however doubled down on opposition to 30 kmh caps first aired in 2024.
"I think that's too slow," he told reporters on Wednesday
Ms Shetty's bill will be debated at a later date.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Scoop
Cancelling The Ethnic Cleansers: Australia Revokes Simcha Rothman's Visa
It is a curious feeling to see a government, let alone any politician, suddenly find their banished backbones and retired principles. The spine, on being discovered, adds a certain structural integrity to arguments otherwise lacking force and credibility. The recent spat between Israel and Australia suggests that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's often insecure, and often overly cautious administration, is starting to show some muscle and certitude. The cancellation of Simcha Rothman's visa by the Albanese government was something of a minor revelation. Rothman is a member of Mafdal-Religious Zionism, a party led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich that has made its position on Palestinians unmistakably clear. (Smotrich became the subject of sanctions by Australia along with Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom in June for 'inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.') As a certain garden variety shrub of hate he decries countries for not taking in Palestinians as part of an approved ethnic cleansing program, accusing them of 'aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation using them as human shields'. In an interview with Australia's national broadcaster, Rothman made his primary colour position clear: 'I think the government of Australia needs to decide, do they want to be on the side of Hamas, or do they want to be on the side of Israel?' Advertisement - scroll to continue reading The letter of revocation stated that he would be engaged in events that would 'promote his controversial views and ideologies, which may lead to fostering division in the community'. Being in Australia 'would or might be a risk to the good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community, namely, the Islamic population'. Adduced examples of demerit included arguments that Palestinian children were not perishing to hunger in the Gaza Strip, that those children, in any case, were enemies of the Israeli state, along with the notion that the two-state solution had 'poisoned the minds of the entire world'. The nature of such 'inflammatory statements' might, were Rothman to enter Australia licensed by the government, 'encourage others to feel emboldened to voice any anti-Islamic sentiments, if not to take action to give effect to that prejudice'. Far from engaging these reasons, Rothman's enchantingly shrunken worldview was clear in its chiselled simplicity: Australia was behaving undemocratically, its government falsely claiming to argue against 'hate and division' despite permitting protestors 'to shout on the streets calls for genocide of the Jewish people.' Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar was quick in response, revoking the residency visas of Australia's diplomatic representatives responsible for affairs concerning the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. 'I also instructed the Israeli Embassy in Canberra to carefully examine any official Australian visa application for entry to Israel,' Sa'ar fumed on X. In this apoplectic reaction, no one seemed to recall that Australia had already revoked the visa of a former Israeli justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, at the end of October last year over what Australia's Home Minister Tony Burke described as 'concerns she would threaten social cohesion'. Shaked had been slated to attend events organised by the Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC). Admittedly, she was a former politician rather than a sitting member of the Israeli parliament. In an interview with the Erin Molan Show, an otherwise underwhelming program, Sa'ar recapitulated his cranky position. 'This is the opposite of what should be done,' he objected. 'Instead of battling antisemitism in Australia, the Australian government is doing the opposite – they are fuelling it.' The Palestinian Authority surprised nobody in calling the measure to cancel visas 'illegal and in violation of the Geneva Conventions, international law, the United Nations resolutions, which do not grant the occupying power such authority.' The statement went on to stress 'that such actions reflect Israeli arrogance and a state of political imbalance, and will only strengthen Australia's and other countries' determination to uphold international law, the two-state solution, and recognition of the State of Palestine as the path to peace.' Australia's foreign minister, Penny Wong, also thought this all a bit much. Calling the decision to cancel the visas of Australia's diplomats in the West Bank an 'unjustified reaction' to Canberra's decision to recognise Palestine, Wong felt confident enough to retort that the Israeli decision had been foolish. 'At a time when dialogue and diplomacy are needed more than ever, the Netanyahu Government is isolating Israel and undermining international efforts towards peace and a two-state solution.' This messiness was appropriately crowned by that grand figure of demagoguery himself, the Israeli Prime Minister. 'History will remember Albanese for what he is: A weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews,' came the scornful blast from the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli PM is certainly not wrong about Albanese being weak but mistaken about what he has been weak about. Most intriguingly, Albanese has found some courage on this front, albeit the sort of courage fortified by allies. But that's something.
The Spinoff
20 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Secondary teachers walk off the job as government digs in
Teachers say an offer of 1% a year is an insult. Ministers say they should be at the negotiating table, not on the picket line, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. A full-day walkout Secondary teachers are off the job today, with classes around the country cancelled as members of the Post Primary Teachers' Association stage a one-day strike. As Lyric Waiwiri-Smith explains in The Spinoff this morning, the action follows teachers' rejection of the government's offer of a 1% annual pay rise over three years – an increase the union described as 'the lowest in a generation'. Teachers had sought a 4% yearly rise to cover inflation and stem the loss of staff overseas. Today's walkout is just the beginning: rolling strikes are scheduled for mid-September, when teachers will refuse to teach particular year levels on successive days. Meanwhile, primary teachers are holding paid union meetings this week to consider their next steps, after also voting to reject the 1% offer. Teachers say they're worth more For many teachers, the issue is about more than headline figures. In a widely shared essay for The Spinoff, Auckland teacher Connor Murphy describes the government's offer as 'an insult disguised as an offer', pointing out that 'teachers entered into these negotiations with a set of very reasonable demands. Instead of making a reasonable counteroffer, the government ignored our requests and crafted an offer seemingly purpose-built to make things worse.' Teachers argue their pay has fallen far behind comparable professions, with Australian starting salaries now up to $31,000 higher than New Zealand's. Murphy says that while prime minister Christopher Luxon has talked about keeping New Zealanders at home with good, well-paying jobs, the government hasn't followed the rhetoric with action, and teachers are instead eyeing better pay across the Tasman. Ministers dig in Education minister Erica Stanford has urged the union to return to negotiations, calling today's strike 'premeditated' and 'deeply unfair' for parents and students. Public service minister Judith Collins went further, labelling the walkout a 'political stunt' and accusing unions of having 'little tantrums' and using children 'like their shuttle boards' [sic]. The government has tried to highlight what it says is a strong deal: public service commissioner Sir Brian Roche said the latest offer came 'on top of a further 3.9% to 7.7% in pay increases already built-in for each of the next three years' and that the package would deliver pay rises of between $2,500 and $7,000 a year, when annual progression is included. But Collins herself was forced into a rare backtrack yesterday after she wrongly claimed that teachers with 10 years' experience earned $147,000 a year. As Stuff's Bridie Witton and Glenn McConnell report, she later admitted she had 'mixed up [her] messages', clarifying that only a small number of senior deputy principals in large schools would reach that figure. The gaffe further inflamed teachers already sceptical about the government's grasp of their pay and conditions. What teachers actually earn So what do teachers really take home? As Nik Dirga writes in a comprehensive explainer for RNZ, the base salary for a newly qualified teacher begins at just over $61,000, rising step by step each year to $103,000 at the top of the scale. The Ministry of Education puts the average secondary teacher salary at around $101,000. Extra responsibilities – such as running a subject department or serving as deputy principal – attract management units and allowances, which can boost pay into the $110,000–$140,000 range. But only a handful of teachers reach the $147,000 Collins cited, and most are in senior leadership rather than classroom roles. For new teachers, the current offer of 1% a year translates to an increase of less than $12 a week. That, say striking teachers, is why they're on the picket lines today, and why more disruption is on the way unless the government comes back with an offer they can live with.
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Greens go it alone with early policy promises
Analysis: On one level, the new Green Party initiative to protect children could be seen as business as usual – a political play to pressure an opposing government into action. Certainly, launching the party's new 'seven promises to tamariki' by way of an open letter to Children's Minister Karen Chhour of Act and urging the public to sign on to its message online meets that tactic. The petition preamble talks of Chhour 'taking some personal responsibility' for the safety of vulnerable tamariki. And timing it for the anniversary of when a range of community care providers lost state contracts under this Government carries its own message. But the 'For our Children' policy also represents another move by the Greens to set out political priorities and new thinking, out of government, well ahead of next year's election; to get out in front. The party had tried to arrange meetings with Chhour to lobby her directly for attention to its seven goals for child care and protection, but her schedule did not allow it. So, 14 months out from a likely election date, it made its goals into public promises and committed at a launch by co-leader Marama Davidson and children's spokesperson Kahurangi Carter that voters 'can hold us to this'. The Greens did not seek agreement or endorsement from Labour or Te Pāti Māori, its likely governing partners in any future administration, ahead of Friday's launch after months of consulting those in the child welfare sector. Instead, the party has struck out on its own to put the issue of care of tamariki to the front, and near the top, of its policy package for 2026. The seven promises are that: every child's whānau and whakapapa must be centred must be free from poverty must be supported every step of their journey must be heard, respected and placed at the heart of decision making must be protected must have a stable, nurturing home is cared for by a well-supported workforce Few would find much in those commitments to argue with. Who would oppose those standards or sentiments? But on the flip side these are pretty broad and challenging measures to say any politicians or government agency can guarantee to achieve. Promising that children 'must be free from poverty' and 'supported every step of their journey' goes beyond the aspirational. Each of the seven promises is expanded on in the policy package – for example, the first, on centring whānau and whakapapa would be achieved by two changes to the Oranga Tamariki Act and creation of a Māori Transition Authority as recommended in the past by the Waitangi Tribunal. Other specific changes would be to make early intervention and prevention core principles of the OT law, new top-up payments and increased Best Start funding for households, guaranteed and ring-fenced funding and enacting changes recommended by the Royal Commission into abuse in state care. The party's letter to Chhour is blunt. 'Right now, far too many tamariki are being failed by a care system that is under-resourced, disconnected from whakapapa, and lacking a focus on preventing harm before it happens. 'Social workers are overwhelmed, facing dangerously high caseloads. Community providers are dealing with funding cuts and funding uncertainty every year. Independent oversight recommendations are constantly ignored. Far too many children in our care system are not having their fundamental rights met. 'As Minister for Children, you hold responsibility to ensure this system upholds the rights and dignity of every child in Aotearoa. 'That is why we are asking you to commit to a 'Duty of Care'. A set of seven core promises that speak to the fundamental system change required to protect tamariki, put them at the heart of government decision making and deliver a system that truly serves children.' Carter told Newsroom the Greens would make themselves accountable for those seven promises when in government. Better still, it wanted Chhour to recognise their value and adopt them now, ahead of any change of administration. But she wouldn't be holding her breath. 'This Government has put a real focus on punishment rather than prevention, slashing of safety and care organisations' funding and a move away from prevention. We've got to get back to getting support for children, parents and communities.' Carter said the coalition Government had failed to take up numerous recommendations from the commission, and in her view had taken actions against the spirit of the commission report by introducing and continuing boot camps and allowing third parties to use force on young people. Making a big commitment on child protection and poverty is not new in NZ politics. Labour's Jacinda Ardern put these issues at the centre of her government from 2017, taking the child portfolio, setting up the Royal Commission and with Grant Robertson putting child poverty reports into the suite of wellbeing measures in Budgets. Carter says things have gone backwards under this Government and, while it might be debatable if prioritising child protection automatically wins votes for a party at an election, it's important the Greens did the work now. 'What's important is that we're ready to go into our first 100 days with policies that will protect children and keep families together. 'For me, it's about having a mandate from the community and people we are serving to go through and do this work. Polls and votes are important but doing the work and having the foundations is what's behind this campaign.' She acknowledged the seven promises would come with possibly substantial costs – in reducing social worker caseloads, as one example – but said the funding would largely come from re-prioritising other spending, away from this coalition's centralised systems and 'back into the community'. As just one MP, Carter couldn't say if the Greens would make the seven promises a bottom line in governing talks with Labour or Te Pāti Māori. 'But we are going hard on ensuring our kids are safe.' A good response from Chhour to the letter would be to say 'this is awesome, let's see how we can implement the seven promises' and adopt them as their own. On the other hand, if the minister remained silent and ignored the Greens' proposals, that would reject the work of people in the sector who had contributed. 'It's the mandate of the people out there doing the mahi and the kids who have been through the system. They want to see action. 'I think New Zealanders want politicians to work together to put New Zealand first and our children first.'
