IN last month's budget papers, the state government announced that revenues from fines - most of them levied on the owners of motor vehicles - were set to rise by $137 million this financial year to a record $428 million. A similar increase is predicted for 2011-12, with fine income likely to reach $570 million.
The budget papers say most of the extra money will come from a mobile speed camera program and a 5 per cent increase in the number of speeding fines, which it hopes will encourage safer driving behaviour. The government is so confident that its "road toll response program" will work that it's predicting a $90 million fall in fine revenue between 2012 and 2014.
The real-world implications of this fine program were unveiled to drivers at the weekend with the news that each mobile speed camera will be able to film and fine as many as six vehicles a second.
The sheer number of vehicles being monitored by the fleet of vans is sobering enough but it's another aspect of the program - the Roads and Traffic Authority thinking about halving the fine leeway to just 4km/h over the speed limit - that is generating the most controversy.
Roads Minister David Borger says speed was a factor in nearly half of the state's road deaths last year and he warns motorists that if they "speed by one kilometre over the sped limit they could be caught".
Despite the minister's enthusiasm, this is one area where zero tolerance is not the answer. The only way to avoid unwarranted speeding fines under such a regime would be to drive substantially below the sign-posted maximum.
If this is what the government wants the population to do, then it should lower the speed limits.
Otherwise, it must direct the operators of the camera to maintain the existing leeway at the widely accepted 8km/h.
And if the government is to convince the public that safety and not treasury income is its main concern then motorists should be warned of the presence of mobile speed cameras as they are with stationary cameras.
No doctor in town
THE chronic shortage of doctors in rural and regional Australia appears to be worsening despite steps taken to counter it, with Clarence Town joining the long list of towns having to make do without a GP.
The public record reveals a substantial number of inquiries around Australia over the past decade aimed at arresting the decline in rural practitioners but successes appear to have been few and far between.
The reasons for the shortage are clearly complex and are as much about urban views of rural life - and the supposed disadvantage that goes with it - as they are about the changing nature of medicine. Even so, doctor-less towns like Clarence Town and East Gresford are hardly in the middle of the never-never.
As distasteful as the idea might seem, if asking doctors to work away from the cities does not bear fruit, then a further step - requiring some period of service as a condition of a Medicare licence - might be the eventual outcome.
Email a friend