Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of Barker, a vast, proud regional electorate in South Australia. I want to express my strong opposition to the proposal to reduce the default speeds on unsigned rural roads to 70 kilometres an hour. Let me begin with a simple truth: the problem on our regional roads is not the speed limit; the problem is the state of the roads themselves. For years, communities across my electorate have been pleading for the basics: proper sealing of unsealed roads, shoulder upgrades, resurfacing work and potholes filled before they become craters.

Instead of delivering what regional Australians need, this government has had the laziest of proposals—a consultation on slowing everyone down in the name of road safety. It has been called 'lazy' by the Grain Producers SA, who represent hardworking grain growers of South Australia, the largest rural commodity. They have said clearly that reducing speed limits without fixing roads will not make travel safer but it will make rural life harder. Their members are the ones travelling huge distances on poorly maintained roads every single day. They know these roads better than anyone, and they are not alone. This proposal is not just inconvenient; it is economically damaging.

In my electorate, transport is the lifeblood of the economy. Freight operators, farmers, small businesses, service providers and others rely on the efficient transport of goods over long distances. Cutting speed limits by nearly a third on many of these roads will slow down supply chains, increase costs and reduce productivity. The Australian Trucking Association has already warned that slowing freight routes will raise costs for food, fuel and essential goods. Long distance drivers are deeply concerned that spending more time on the road will increase the risk of driver fatigue, one of the most significant risk factors contributing to road accidents in rural Australia, so the government are ignoring one of the most well-documented risks in regional driving. Experts on road safety and rural planning agree that the safest and most effective approach is to actually improve the road, not simply lower speed limits. That means sealing unsealed surfaces, widening shoulders, improving line marking and proper maintenance. The government know this. Their own regulatory analysis acknowledges that most regional roads are in poor condition. But rather than fix it they have gone for the cheap answer—shift the burden onto regional drivers, regional families and regional businesses.

That would be disappointing enough, but I now want to turn to what should be one of the most concerning aspects of this proposal. While government ministers continue to market this as a 'safety measure', the consultation regulatory impact analysis tells a very different story. It is as though they want to tell that story sotto voce. On page 10, the RIA explicitly includes emissions reduction from lower fuel consumption as a calculated benefit of reducing rural speed limits. I thought that must have been a mistake, but on page 56 the document shows that emissions savings are not a side note; they form a material part of the monetised benefits used to justify this policy. And on page 70, so as to reinforce the position, the modelling integrates emissions reduction per vehicle kilometre as a key variable in the cost benefit analysis.

Let's be clear: these are not accidental inclusions; they are deliberate. What we see here is the Albanese Labor government using road safety as a convenient cover for a backdoor net zero agenda, an attempt to reduce emissions through speed productions, not proper energy or climate policy. Regional communities are being slowed down because this government wants to meet their unrealistic emissions reduction targets. But, instead of saying that honestly, they have packaged it up as a safety reform. That's not transparency, it's not good governance, and it's certainly not respect for regional Australians.

The people of my electorate—and indeed all Australians, regional or otherwise—deserve safer roads, not slower ones. They deserve honesty, not hidden agendas; they deserve investment, not excuses. Congratulations to the state Labor government, who has ruled this out as a proposal—presumably because they're in the shadows of an election. I urge the government to withdraw this proposal. And, if you think it's a bad idea as well, sign my petition. It shouldn't be about emissions reduction; it should be about safer roads.