Universal income -- Dħul universali

This last year has seen renewed interest in an idea that had been heard half a century ago, that of universal income, for which the revered Martin Luther King had agitated, when declaring “We must create full employment, or we must create incomes”.1

 

For those for whom the concept is unfamiliar, universal income (a.k.a. basic income) is a payment from government, or from its established entity, to all citizens, without exception, irrespective of whether in employment or otherwise.  One could consider it as social assistance that ties together all other assistence, including for unemployment, with the difference that this is provided to everyone.

 

You will ask, what is the advantage of this, or what problem is it trying to solve?

 

Firstly, it simplifies the complex web of social assistance that exists in many countries, which need to be regulated and policed, and its difficult administrtion where each application needs to be scrutinised to determine whether one is eligible, before receiving the assistance.  Today a person may be eligible for several schemes.  With universal income, there is one scheme, for which everyone is eligible, period.

 

To give you an idea of the cost of administration of social services today, in Australia it's been reported that the country spends $3 billion a year, simply to administer the existing schemes of social services.  It's unknown what a unversal income scheme would cost to adminsister - it's clearly not nothing, but certainly much less than that today.

 

There is also the potential to eliminate poverty in the country.

 

One criticism that is laid at such a scheme is that today, more assistance can be provided to who needs it more, because one can be eligible for more than one scheme.  With universal income, there is one scheme for everybody.

 

Another criticism is that if someone has income without the need to work, this reduces the incentive to look for work.  On the other hand, as universal income does not stop when one does work, the disincentive existing today of no longer being eligible for this assistance on assuming work would not longer exist.

 

Of course, the money needs to come from somewhere.  The first parameter that needs to be considered is what level of payment are we talking about.  There are proposals for this payment to be accompanied by the removal of the lowest income tax band, which is usually 0%.  Naturally we're not considering people becoming rich out of this scheme.  For example in Australia, if the payment was of $10k annually for every one of the 19 million adults in the country, the cost of the scheme would be $190 billion a year, almost exactly the aount of social services (excluding Medicare) which today cost $170 billion a year.2

 

There is interest around the world on this subject.  Pilot projects have just started in Finland and Canada.  On the other hand, a referendum in Switzerland on the subject showed that three quarters of voters were against the proposal.

 

I think that this interest will increase, not decrease.  When one considers the rapid advance of technology, one cannot not ask how far are we from a new industrial revolution, with a large number of people being made redundant.  This has already happened in the past after the invention of machines, and the effect of the computer has only just started to be felt.

 

Today there are a number of technologies being tested which have the potential to throw millions of people out of work, all at once.  I can mention just a few: autonomous vehicles, which are able to put so many drivers out of work, for example taxi drivers and even those of new services such as Uber3; package delivery into homes with drones, which are being tested by Amazon4, which affects postal workers that are left; 3D printers, which have already proved capable of building (rather, printing) whole houses5, which has the potential to kill off so much engineering work.

 

I can see the potential for masses of people ending up without income.  Normally, when technology threatens livelihoods, authorities insist that one learns new skills and try another industry.

 

The problem is that technology is advancing so quickly and in a wide range of industries, and is automating so many different manual tasks, that few traditional workplaces will be left.  I fear that when government assumes that those losing their job can simply look for and find another, if only they would get off their arse, this will be less and less feasible for many people without work, and I think we're not far off from seeing this happen in front of our eyes.

 

Therefore, a system for basic income, financed more and more by those enterprises that have benefited by getting rid of their workers, might help those that are without work, or don't have sufficient work and income to maintain themselves and their families, would be able to live at least out of poverty.

 

In Australia, after the reform of centralisation of income tax, originally intended to finance the second world war6, followed by the huge industrial and political fights over GST towards the end of the twentieth century, a can smell another fistfight coming in future years, over universal income!

 

--------------------

 

Matul din l-aħħar sena, kien hemm interess ġdid f'idea li kienet instemgħet xi nofs seklu ilu, dik ta' dħul universali, li kien tħabat għaliha l-mibki Martin Luther King, meta kien stqarr “irridu nikkreaw xogħol għal kulħadd, jew inkella dħul”.1

 

Għal min ma semax biha, id-dħul universali (ukoll imsejjaħ dħul bażiku) huwa pagament mill-gvern, jew minn entità stabbilita minnu, liċ-ċittadini kollha, mingħajr eċċezzjoni, irrispettivament jekk jaħdmux jew le.  Tista' tqisha bħala għajnuna soċjali li tgħaqqad flimkien l-għajnuniet l-oħra kollha, inkluża dik għal nies qiegħda, bid-differenza li tkun mogħtija lil kulħadd.

 

Tgħiduli, x'inhu l-vantaġġ tagħha, jew x'problema qed tipprova ssolvi?

 

L-ewwel ħaġa, tissimplifika s-sistemi kkumplikati ta' għajnuna soċjali li jeżistu f'diversi pajjiżi, li jridu jiġu rregolati u mgħassa, u l-amministrazzjoni diffiċli tagħhom fejn applikazzjoni trid tiġi miflija sabiex jiġi aċċertat jekk dak li jkun hux eliġibbli, qabel jingħata l-għajnuna.  Persuna llum jista' jkun eliġibbli għal diversi skemi.  Id-dħul universali hija skema waħda, li għaliha kulħadd eliġibbli, punt.

 

Biex intikom idea tal-ispiża ta' amministrazzjoni tas-servizzi soċjali illum, fl-Awstralja, huwa rrappurtat li l-pajjiż jonfoq $3 biljun fis-sena, sempliċement biex jamministra l-iskemi eżistenti ta' għajnuniet soċjali li jeżistu llum.  Mhux magħruf kemm sistema sempliċi ta' dħul universali tqum biex tiġi amministrata - żgur mhux xejn, imma żgur ħafna inqas minn dik tal-lum.

 

Hemm ukoll il-potenzjal li jiġi eliminat il-faqar fil-pajjiż.

 

Il-kritika li ssir għal sistema bħal din hija li illum tista' tingħata iktar għajnuna lil min għandu bżonn iktar, peress li wieħed jista' jkun eliġibbli għal iktar minn skema waħda.  Bid-dħul universali, hemm biss skema waħda għal kulħadd.

 

Kritika oħra hi li jekk wieħed ikollu dħul mingħajr il-bżonn li jaħdem, inaqqas l-inċentiv li jfittex ix-xogħol.  Mill-banda l-oħra, peress li d-dħul universali ma jitwaqqafx meta wieħed jaħdem, m'hemmx id-diżinċentiv li jeżisti llum fejn ħafna mill-għajnuna soċjali ma tibqax eliġibbli għaliha malli tibda' taħdem.

 

Naturalment il-flus iridu jiġu minn x'imkien.  L-ewwel parametru li jrid jiġi kkunsidrat huwa x'inhu l-livell ta' pagament li qed jissemma.  Hemm proposti dan isir flimkien mat-tneħħija tal-ewwel faxxa ta' taxxa fuq id-dħul, li s-soltu tkun ta' 0%.  Naturalment m'aħniex qed nitkellmu fuq nies li jsiru sinjuri.  Per eżempju fl-Awstralja, kieku l-pagament ikun ta' $10k fis-sena għal kull wieħed mid-dsatax-il miljun adult fil-pajjiż, il-piż ikun ta' $190 biljun fis-sena, kważi eżattament daqs il-piż tas-servizzi soċjali (apparti l-Medicare) tal-lum li jiswew $170 biljun fis-sena.2

 

Hemm interess madwar id-dinja f'dan is-suġġett.  Proġetti pilota għadhom kif bdew fil-Fillandja u l-Canada.  Mill-banda l-oħra, referendum fl-Isvizzera wera li tliet kwarti tal-votanti kienu kontra l-proposta.

 

Jien naħseb li dan l-interess se jiżdied, mhux jonqos.  Meta wieħed jikkunsidra l-iżvilupp mgħaġġel tat-teknoloġija, wieħed ma jistax ma jistaqsix kemm aħna 'l bogħod minn rivoluzzjoni ġdida industrijali, b'numru kbir ta' nies li mistennija jispiċċaw bla xogħol.  Dan diġà ġara fil-passat wara l-invenzjoni tal-magni, u tal-kompjuter li l-effetti tiegħu għadu biss jibda jinħass.

 

Illum hemm diversi teknoloġiji taħt testijiet li għandhom il-potenzjal li jitfgħu miljuni ta' nies bla xogħol, u kollha f'salt.  Nista nsemmi lill-vetturi awtomatizzati, li kapaċi jwaqqfu mix-xogħol lil tant xufiera, per eżempju tat-taksi u anke ta' servizzi ġodda bħall-Uber3; it-twassil tal-pakketti fid-djar minn vetturi li jtiru (drones), li qed jiġu ttestjati mill-kumpannija Amazon4, li taffettwa dawk il-ħaddiema postali li baqa'; il-printers ta' tliet dimensjonijiet, fejn diġà rajna anke djar sħaħ5 mibnija, jew aħjar ipprintjati, li għandu l-potenzjali li joqtol tant u tant xogħol ta' inġinerija.

 

Jien nara l-potenzjali li mases ta' nies se jispiċċaw mingħajr dħul.  Normalment, meta t-teknoloġija thedded l-impjiegi tan-nies, l-awtoritajiet jinsistu fuq li wieħed jitgħallem ħiliet ġodda u jipprova industrija oħra.

 

Il-problema hi li t-teknoloġija tant qed tavvanza malajr u f'firxa wiesgħa ta' industriji, u li tant qed tawtomatizza xogħolijiet manwali, li qajla se jibqa' postijiet tradizzjonali tax-xogħol.  Wisq nibża' li meta l-gvern jassumi li min jitlef xogħol jista' jfittex u jsib ieħor, basta jqum naqra fuq tiegħu, din il-ħaġa se tkun inqas u inqas fattibbli għal ħafna nies bla xogħol, u dan naħseb li mhux se jdum biex iseħħ.

 

Għalhekk, sistema ta' dħul bażiku, li tkun iffinanzjata iktar u iktar minn dawk l-intrapriżi li bbenefikaw milli ħelsu mill-impjegati tagħhom, tista' tgħin sabiex dawk in-nies li jkunu bla xogħol, jew li m'għandhomx biżżejjed xogħol u dħul biex imantnu lilhom innifishom u l-familji tagħhom, ikunu jistgħu jgħixu tal-inqas barra mill-faqar.

 

Fl-Awstralja, wara r-riforma biċ-ċentralizzazzjoni tat-taxxa fuq id-dħul (income tax) li bdiet biex tiffinanzja t-tieni gwerra dinjija6, imbagħad il-ġlidiet il-kbar industrijali u politiċi dik fuq il-GST lejn tmiem is-seklu għoxrin, qed inxomm ġlieda kbira ġejja fis-snin li ġejjin, fuq id-dħul universali!

 

 

1“Where do we go from here?”; Martin Luther King, Jr; 11th Annual SCLC Convention, Atlanta, Ga; 16/8/1967

2http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-27/is-universal-basic-income-dangerous-idea-of-2016/8149398, retrieved 23/1/2017

3http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/uber-launches-groundbreaking-driverless-car-service-in-us/7845820; retrieved 23/1/2017

4https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011, retrieved 23/1/2017

5http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/worlds-first-3d-printed-house-is-completed-after-just-45-days-in-china/news-story/05c819dfc0dc6bf7ec0fd2abfed23edd, retrieved 23/1/2017

6http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/1156/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=01_Brief_History.asp, retrieved 23/1/2017

1“Where do we go from here?”; Martin Luther King, Jr; 11th Annual SCLC Convention, Atlanta, Ga; 16/8/1967

2http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-27/is-universal-basic-income-dangerous-idea-of-2016/8149398, retrieved 23/1/2017

3http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/uber-launches-groundbreaking-driverless-car-service-in-us/7845820; retrieved 23/1/2017

4https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011, retrieved 23/1/2017

5http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/worlds-first-3d-printed-house-is-completed-after-just-45-days-in-china/news-story/05c819dfc0dc6bf7ec0fd2abfed23edd, retrieved 23/1/2017

6http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/1156/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=01_Brief_History.asp, retrieved 23/1/2017

Car insurance in Australia -- L-assigurazzjoni tal-karozzi fl-Awstralja

 

I often mention elements of life noticed to be different between Australia and Malta.  One of the first of these I had noticed was car insurance.

 

I remember after buying a car, I had done some research on the three products I was familiar with in Malta - third party insurance (insurance to cover health and property of third persons, which did not include the driver taking up the insurance); third party fire & theft (which added to the previous one insurance against fire and theft of the insurance buyer) and comprehensive (which added to the previous complete coverage of the vehicle of the insurance buyer).

 

The first surprise was that in Australia, insurance of the health and property of third parties is separated: so-called compulsory third party (CTP), which includes only the health of third parties and does not include property, and third party property (which covers property).  The first has to be purchased in any case, if one wants to register a vehicle in Australia.  One can change third party property with a comprehensive policy to add insurance.

 

In other words, someone used in Malta just to buy a comprehensive policy, in Australia need to buy two policies: CTP and comprehensive.

 

Anyway after I thought I knew enough about the subject, I chose a company I thought had good conditions, and during a work pause went to make a quick errand in one of their offices close by.  I quickly discovered a second difference - not all companies offered insurance to everybody!  In Malta I was used to having to pay a bit more if under 25 years of age, but this company asked me what car type I owned, and as soon as this was identified, informed me that that car was uninsured - they only insured 'classic' cars!  Goody.

 

I quickly found other companies of which I chose another, and then discovered the third difference: the price, which I thought was very high when compared to Malta, especially when adding the two insurance types, mentioned previously, together.

 

After a year, and then yearly thereafter, when I went to renew, I discovered a fourth difference, and this is particular to NSW.  In the case of comprehensive insurance, the price remains approximately the same year after year even when the value of the car declines every year and the other parameters, such as excess, are kept the same.

 

In the case of CTP, whose price does not depend on the car's value, each year's price is higher than the previous one, so much so that in 2016 I paid above $700 which is more than double what I had paid ten years previously.

 

This state has particular circumstances that have resulted in NSW being the most expensive state to purchase CTP insurance, with prices double those in Tasmania, Queensland and West Australia.1  I'll mention just a few.

 

Firstly, for an injured person to request a benefit under the scheme, it needs to prove that another diver was at fault (tort), and this process often takes 2-5 years, with various professionals involved.  When the at fault vehicle is not insured, the claim can still be made.

 

There are also exceptions of some benefits that are paid even without fault being determined, or for children under 16 years of age.

Benefits include medical expensies, both past and future, rehabilitation, even loss of earnings and others.  Payments are usually of a lump sum nature except for medical expenses.

 

Companies providing this type of insurance increase their yearly fees in order to remain in front.  And it seems they are way in front!

 

In fact, only around 45% of fees paid yearly by drivers for their CTP insurance are paid as benefits.  Legal and investigative fees take 18% of fees, company expenses add up to 15%, the scheme administration costs 3% and last but certainly not least, insurance company profits add up to 19% of fees2 - in other words, insurance company profits are higher than their own expenses!

 

Not only this, but this profit is double even that estimated by the insurance companies themselves!3  Apart from taking the mickey (and the nickel) out of consumers, they're doing the same to government, which is responsible for regulating this industry.

 

The NSW government has undertaken a consultation (ended in April 2016) on how the CTP industry can be reformed, and another (ended in November 2016) on the profits of CTP insurance companies.  I'm waiting to see what decisions are taken by government.

 

But no hurry, mate, take it easy.

 

Now where is my credit card?  Well, I do need to renew my car's registration, what can I do?  Could I wait perhaps?

 

-----------------

 

Spiss nitkellem fuq xi aspett tal-ħajja li nnutajtha differenti bejn l-Awstralja u Malta.  Waħda mill-ewwel li nnutajt kienet il-qasam tal-assigurazzjoni tal-karozzi.

 

Niftakar li wara li xtrajt karozza, kont għamilt ftit tiftix fuq it-tliet prodotti li kont familjari magħhom f'Malta - third party (assigurazzjoni fuq is-saħħa ta' terzi persuni u l-proprjetà tagħhom, li ma tinkludi xejn lis-sewwieq li qed jieħu l-assigurazzjoni), third party fire and theft (li ma' ta' qabel iżżid assigurazzjoni kontra ħsara mill-ħruq u s-serq tal-karozza tal-inxurjattas-sewwieq) u comprehensive (li ma' ta' qabel iżżid assigurazzjoni kompluta tal-vettura tal-inxurjat).

 

L-ewwel sorpriża kienet li fl-Awstralja, l-assigurazzjoni fuq is-saħħa u l-proprjetà ta' terzi persuni hija mifruda:  cumpulsory third party, li jinkludi biss assigurazzjoni fuq is-saħħa ta' terzi persuni, u li ma jinkludix proprjetà, u third party property (assigurazzjoni fuq il-proprjetà ta' terzi persuni).  L-ewwel waħda hija ta' bilfors, trid tinxtara dejjem, jekk wieħed irid jirreġistra vettura fl-Awstralja.  Wieħed jista' jibdel third party property ma' polza comprehensive li żżid magħha assigurazzjoni fuq il-vettura tas-sewwieq.

 

Fi kliem ieħor, persuna li f'Malta imdorri jixtri polza comprehensive, fl-Awstralja jrid jixtri żewġ poloz, waħda compulsory third party (CTP) u l-oħra comprehensive.

 

Insomma wara li ħsibt li naf biżżejjed fuq is-suq, għażilt kumpannija li ħsibt li kellha kundizzjonjiet tajbin, u waqt waqfa mix-xogħol mort biex nagħmel qadja ta' malajr f'uffiċċju tagħhom li kien qrib.  Malajr skoprejt it-tieni differenza - mhux il-kumpannija kollha joffru assigurazzjoni lil kulħadd!  Jien f'Malta kont imdorri li jekk tkun taħt il-25 sena, trid tħallas daqsxejn iktar, imma din il-kumpannija staqsietni x'karozza kelli, u malli identifikajtha, qaluli li dik il-karozza ma jinxjurjawhiex, għax huma jispeċjalizzaw biss f'karozzi klassiċi!  Tajjeb ukoll!

 

Malajr sibt kumpanniji oħra li għażilt waħda minnhom, imma hawnhekk skoprejt it-tielet differenza - il-prezz, li rajtu għoli mmens meta mqabbel ma' Malta, u speċjalment meta tgħodd iż-żewġ tipi ta' assigurazzjoni flimkien.  

 

Wara sena, u sena wara sena, meta mort biex inġedded, skoprejt ir-raba' differenza, u din hija partikulari għal NSW.   Fil-każ tal-assigurazzjoni comprehensive, il-prezz bejn wieħed u ieħor dejjem jibqa' l-istess sena wara sena anke jekk il-valur tal-vettura jonqos kull sena u l-parametri l-oħra, bħall-eċċess li jitħallas ma' talba għal benefiċċju, jinżammu l-istess.  Fil-każ tas-CTP, li l-prezz tiegħu ma jiddependix fuq il-valur tal-vettura, il-ħlas ta' kull sena dejjem jitla', tant li fl-2016, ħallast fuq $700 li hu iktar mid-doppju ta' dak li kont ħallast għaxar snin qabel.

 

Dan l-istat għandu ċirkustanzi partikulari li wassluh li jkun l-iktar stat għali fejn wieħed jixtri s-CTP insurance, bi prezzijiet id-doppju ta' dawk f'Tasmania, Queensland u West Australia.1  Ħa nsemmi biss xi wħud.

 

L-ewwel ħaġa, biex persuna li weġġgħet tkun tista' tagħmel talba għal benefiċċju mill-iskema, trid tipprova li kien hemm sewwieq ieħor li kellu tort, u dan proċess li spiss idum bejn 2 sa 5 snin b'diversi professjonisti involuti.  Fejn vettura li tkun ikkawżat l-inċident ma' tkunx assigurata, it-talba xorta tkun tista' ssir.

 

Hemm ukoll eċċezzjonijiet ta' xi benefiċċji li jitħallsu anke fejn m'hemmx tort, jew għal tfal taħt is-sittax-il sena.

 

Il-benefiċċji jinkludu spejjeż mediċi tal-passat u tal-futur, rijabilitazzjoni, u anke nuqqas ta' dħul u oħrajn.  Il-ħlas ġeneralment ikun ta' darba (lump sum) ħlief dawk mediċi u servizzi relatati.

 

Il-kumpanniji li joffru dan it-tip ta' assigurazzjoni jżidu l-ħlasijiet ta' kull sena biex ma joħorġux minn taħt.  U minn taħt jidher ċar li mhux qed joħorġu.

 

Fil-fatt, madwar 45% biss tal-ħlasijiet ta' kull sena mis-sewwieqa għax-xiri tal-assigurazzjoni CTP jitħallsu bħala benefiċċji.  Spejjeż legali u investigattivi jitilgħu għal madwar 18% tal-ħlasijiet, l-ispejjeż tal-kumpanniji tal-assigurazzjoni jlaħħqu 15%, amministrazzjoni tal-iskema tieħu 3%, u fl-aħħar imma ċertament mhux l-inqas, il-profitt tal-kumpanniji tal-assigurazzjoni jieħdu 19%2 - fi kliem ieħor, il-profitt għall-kumpanniji tal-assigurazzjoni huwa iktar għoli mill-ispejjeż tagħhom!

 

Mhux hekk biss, imma dan il-profitt huwa d-doppju ta' dak mistenni mill-kumpanniji nfushom!3  Apparti milli qed jgħaddu passata lill-konsumaturi, qed jgħaddu passata wkoll lill-gvern, li huwa responsabbli mir-regolamenti li jgħaddi fuq l-industriji.

 

Il-gvern ta' NSW ħareġ konsultazzjoni (li waqfet f'April 2016) fuq kif tista' tiġi riformata l-industrija tas-CTP, u oħra (li waqfet f'Novembru 2016) fuq il-profitt tal-kumpanniji tal-assigurazzjoni tas-CTP. Bħalissa qed nistenna biex nara x'deċiżjonijiet se jieħu l-gvern.

Imma m'hemmx għaġġla, tafx.  X'hemm bżonn?

 

Issa fejn marret il-kredit kard?  Ħeqq, għandi bżonn inġedded ir-reġistrazzjoni tal-karozza, x'tagħmel?  Tgħid nistenna?

 

1On the road to a better CTP scheme; State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA); NSW Government; 2015; p. 9

2Ibid; p. 6

3Ibid; p. 13

1On the road to a better CTP scheme; State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA); NSW Government; 2015; p. 9

2Ibid; p. 6

3Ibid; p. 13

Driving speeds in Australia -- Il-veloċità tas-sewqan fl-Awstralja

I'm referring to driving on the main road arteries in the country, for example those that link the main cities in the different states and territories together.  These have the characteristic of not having traffic lights and are generally of good quality, though probaby not as good as those in Europe.

 

In this Christmas holiday period, I've had plenty of opportunity to think about this subject while on the road between Sydney and Melbourne.  This trip is just under 900km in length, and outside of the two metropolises, one can travel at the maximum, quite frustrating, speed of 110km/h.  This results in a drive of just under 9 hours, apart from stops for personal needs.

 

All the Australian states and territories have this limit for the principal inter-urban routes, except for the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) where the limit is 100km/h and the NT (Northern Territory) where it is 130km/h.

 

I've always been curious as to why this country, which is also a continent similar in size to the whole of Europe, or to the United States, has such a low maximum driving speed for its primary inter-urban routes.

 

I remember many years back, driving at 130km/h on the autoroute in France, and at 140km/h on the Italian autostrada.  These countries are much smaller than Australia; France (650,000km2) is smaller than NSW (800,000km2) and Italy (300,000km2) is just bigger than Victoria (240,000km2).

 

Travel distances in these countries are much shorter than those in Australia.  Therefore why is it that in Australia drivers are expected to just drive at a canter?  Perhaps our roads aren't maintained as well as those in Europe?  Or our cars are falling to pieces, and cannot be trusted to be revved any further, lest they lose a wheel?

 

Is it a good opportunity to fine the hapless driver who loses his patience driving too slowly, frustrated by straight and endless roads?  Or maybe we don't want to ruin the business case of some enterprise eying an investment in a future fast train system?

 

Many times the response received from authorities is that higher speeds mean more incidents and more deaths.

 

In truth this does make sense, however perhaps the situation is not as clear cut as they would have us believe.

 

For example, until last month, there was an experiment in the NT where 200km of road had been marked as without speed limits, a situation that already exists in the autobahn in Germany.  After 3 years, the then government (the Country Liberals) had announced that there had been no death in that stretch of road for which speeding had been the root cause.1  One has to add that today's NT government (the Labor party) turned back the clock to a limit of 130km/h, on the basis of this being an electoral promise and in consultation with doctors and police.  One can see here that these types of decisions are primarily, if not exclusively, political.

 

Perhaps the conditions of that stretch of road in the NT were optimal (e.g. a straight road, good survace, weather usually good etc) and therefore the results of that experiment are not necessarily applicable everywhere.  Nevertheless, this experiment shows that simple statements that an increase in driving speeds leads to more deaths is not necessarily the case universally either.

 

It seems that many governments don't want to touch this subject.  In a recent report, the Victorian government minimised the advantage of more reasonable speed limits.  It said that if this were to increase from 110 to 120km/h, a 200km journey would only take 9 minutes less.2  This is of course true, however when one travels from Sydney to Melbourne on the Hume Highway, the voyage is much longer.  If the limit were 120km/h for 800km of the trip, a driver would save more than 30 minutes, and if the limit were 130km/h as is the case in the NT, one would save more than an hour.  These cannot be deemed to be insignificant.

 

In the federal parliament before the election earlier this year, there had been a Senate inquiry which stopped abruptly due to the election.  The interim report before the inquiry stopped included the information that in regional areas, road deaths are double the national average, and in remote places, the rate increases to four times the national average.3

 

These are serious numbers, however they don't make the distinction between the main thoroughfares between urban centres (such as the Hume Highway I already mentioned between Sydney and Melbourne), which is generally of good quality, and other regional and remote roads, where the road quality is inferior and contributes to these deaths, as acknowledged in the report.4

 

When one remembers that fatigue is one of the factors leading to serious traffic incidents, given that an increase in the speed limit can decrease the excessive time to complete road trips on the long continental roads, paradoxically one can conclude that an increase in the speed limit can even lead to a reduction in accidents.

 

I don't understand why Australia cannot have principal inter-urban roads that are comparable to European ones, which are considered safe enough for driving at the European limit of 130km/h.

 

I know, and appreciate, that even a single death is too much, and every effort should be made to minimise these.  This by no means should be trivialised.

 

Nevertheless I think it's about time we had a dialogue in this country about the balance we want to see between speed and road risks, and it seems that in NSW there is some appetite for this dialogue to occur.5  Vehicle technology is improving all the time, and steps can be taken to make roads safer.

 

I feel that driving speed limits that were decided decades ago, in an age where technology was more basic than today, can legitimately be reviewed.

 

---------------------

 

Qed nirreferi għas-sewqan fuq l-arterji prinċipali tat-toroq fil-pajjiż, per eżempju dawk li jgħaqqdu l-bliet prinċipali fl-istati differenti flimkien.  Għandhom il-karatteristika li m'għandhomx dwal tat-traffiku, u ġeneralment huma ta' kwalità tajba, għalkemm aktarx mhux daqs ta' dawk Ewropej.

 

F'dawn il-ġranet ta' festi tal-Milied, kelli ħafna opportunità biex nikkontempla dan is-suġġett waqt vjaġġ bil-karozza bejn Sydney u Melbourne.  Dan il-vjaġġ huwa ftit inqas minn 900km fit-tul, u barra mill-metropoli taż-żewġt ibliet, tista' tivvjaġġa b'veloċità massima, pjuttost frustranti, ta' 110km fis-siegħa.  Dan jirriżulta f'sewqan ta' ftit inqas minn 9 sigħat, minn barra waqfien għal bżonnijiet personali.

 

L-istati u t-territorji tal-Awstralja kollha għandhom dan il-limitu għat-toroq prinċipali inter-urbani tagħhom, ħlief għall-ACT (Australian Capital Territory) fejn il-limitu huwa ta' 100km fis-siegħa u n-NT (Northern Territory) fejn huwa ta' 130km fis-siegħa.  

 

Dejjem kont kurjuż għaliex f'dan il-pajjiż, li huwa wkoll kontinent kbir bejn wieħed u ieħor daqs l-Ewropa kollha, jew daqs l-Istati Uniti, għandu veloċità massima tant żgħira għat-toroq prinċipali inter-urbani tagħha.

 

Jien niftakarni diversi snin ilu, insuq bil-130km fis-siegħa fl-autoroute ta' Franza, u bil-140km fis-siegħa fl-autostrada tal-Italja.  Dawn il-pajjiżi huma ferm iżgħar mill-Awstralja kollha; Franza (650,000km2) hija iżgħar minn NSW (800,000km2), u l-Italja (300,000km2) hija ftit ikbar minn Victoria (240,000km2).

 

Id-distanzi f'dawn il-pajjiżi huma ħafna iqsar minn dawk fl-Awstralja.  Allura għaliex fl-Awstralja s-sewwieqa iridu bilfors joqogħdu għaddejjin bit-tlikki tlikki?  Forsi t-toroq tagħhna mhumiex miżmuma tajjeb daqs dawk tal-Ewropa?  Jew il-karrozzi t'hawnhekk se jaqgħu biċċiet, u ma nistawx nafdawhom b'veloċità iktar għolja, ma jmorrux jitilfu xi rota?

 

Jew hija opportunità tajba li nimmultaw lis-sewwieq li jixba għaddej bil-mod wisq, frustrat f'toroq dritti u ma jispiċċaw qatt?  Jew forsi ma rridux ingerrxu 'l xi intrapriża li tista' tinvesti f'sistema futura ta' ferroviji veloċi fil-futur?

 

Ħafna drabi r-risposta li nirċievu mill-awtoritajiet hija li veloċitajiet iktar għoljin ifissru iktar inċidenti u iktar imwiet.

 

Dan fil-verità jagħmel sens, imma forsi s-sitwazzjoni mhix daqshekk ċara daqskemm jingħadilna.

 

Per eżempju, sa xahar ilu kien hemm esperiment fin-NT fejn 200km ta' triq kien immarkat li kien mingħajr limitu ta' veloċità, sitwazzjoni li diġà teżisti fl-autobahn tal-Ġermanja.  Wara tliet snin, il-gvern ta' dakinhar (il-Country Liberals) kien ħabbar li ma kien hemm l-ebda mewt f'dik it-triq ikkawżat mill-veloċità.1  Ta' min jgħid li l-gvern tan-NT t'issa (il-Labor) reġġa l-arloġġ lura għal limitu ta' 130km fis-siegħa, abbażi li din kienet fil-programm elettorali tiegħu u f'konsultazzjoni mat-tobba u l-pulizija.  Wieħed jista' jara hawnhekk li deċiżjonijiet bħal dawn huma primarjament, jekk mhux esklussivament, politiċi.

 

Jista' jkun li l-kundizzjonijiet f'dik it-triq ta' NT kienu ottimali (p.e. triq dritta, wiċċ tal-art tajba, temp ġeneralment tajjeb eċċ) u għalhekk mhux neċessarjament li dak l-esperiment huwa applikabbli kullimkien.  Madankollu, dan l-esperiment juri li stqarrija sempliċi li żieda fil-veloċità twassal għal iktar imwiet mhix neċessarjament korretta kullimkien lanqas.

 

Jidher li ħafna gvernijiet ma jridux imissu dan is-suġġett.  F'rapport riċenti, il-gvern ta' Victoria mminimizza l-vantaġġi ta' limitu iktar raġjonevoli tal-veloċità.  Qal li kieku din kellha tiżdied minn 110 għal 120km fis-siegħa, vjaġġ ta' 200km jieħu biss 9 minuti inqas.2  Dan huwa veru, imma meta wieħed jivvjaġġa minn Sydney għal Melbourne fuq il-Hume Highway il-vjaġġ huwa ħafna itwal.  Kieku l-limitu jkun ta' 120km fis-siegħa għal 800km tal-vjaġġ, sewwieq jiffranka iktar minn 30 minuta, u jekk il-limitu jkun ta' 130km fis-siegħa bħal ma hu fin-NT, wieħed jiffranka iktar minn siegħa.  Dawn ma jistawx jitqiesu li mhumiex sinjifikanti.

 

Fil-parlament federali ta' qabel l-elezzjoni ta' din is-sena, kien hemm inkjesta tas-Senat li waqfet ħesrem minħabba l-elezzjoni.  Ir-rapport interim ta' qabel ma waqfet l-inkjesta inkluda l-informazzjoni li f'partijiet reġjonali, imwiet fit-toroq huma d-doppju tal-medja nazzjonali, u f'partijiet imwarrba ir-rata titla' għal erba' darbiet il-medja nazzjonali.3

 

Dawn huma figuri serji, imma jgħattu d-distinzjoni bejn toroq prinċipali tal-pajjiż bejn iċ-ċentri urbani (bħall-Hume Highway li semmejt bejn Sydney u Melbourne), li hija ġeneralment ta' kwalità tajba, u toroq oħra reġjonali u mwarrba, fejn il-kwalità tat-toroq hija inferjuri u tikkontribwixxi għal dawn l-imwiet, li hija rikonoxxuta fir-rapport.4

 

Meta wieħed jiftakar li l-għejja hija waħda mill-fatturi li jwasslu għal inċidenti serji tat-traffiku, peress li żieda fil-limitu tal-veloċita tnaqqas it-tul esaġerat ta' sewqan fuq meded twal ta' toroq fil-kontinent, paradossalment wieħed jista' jikkonkludi li żieda fil-limitu tista' twassal ukoll għal tnaqqis ta' inċidenti.

 

Jien ma nistax nifhem għaliex l-Awstralja ma jistax ikollha toroq prinċipali inter-urbani li jħabbtuha ma dawk li jinsabu fl-Ewropa, u li huma meqjusa żguri biżżejjed għal sewqan madwar il-limitu Europew ta' 130km fis-siegħa.  

 

Jien naf, u napprezza, li anke mewt wieħed hija żejda, u għandu jsir kull sforz biex dawn ikunu minimizzati.  Dan bl-ebda mod ma jrid ikun trivjalizzat.

 

Madankollu jien naħseb li wasal iż-żmien li jkollna djalogu fil-pajjiż dwar dan il-bilanċ bejn il-veloċità u r-riskji fit-toroq, u jidher li f'NSW hemm xi rieda biex dan id-djalogu jseħħ.5  It-teknoloġija tal-vetturi qed tiġi 'l quddiem kull sena, u passi jistgħu jittieħdu biex it-toroq ikunu iktar żguri.  

Inħoss li limiti tal-veloċità tas-sewqan li ġew deċiżi għexieren ta' snin ilu, fi żmien ta' teknoloġija iktar bażika, huwa leġittimu li jerġgħu jiġu riveduti.

 

 

 

1https://www.motormag.com.au/news/1608/northern-territory-returns-to-speed-limits, retrieved 29/12/2016

22011-2012 Victorian Speed Limit Review; VicRoads; p. 25

3Aspects of Road Safety in Australia - Interim Report; Australian Senate; Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport; May 2016; para 3.3

4Ibid; para 3.8-3.12

5http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-04/nsw-government-considers-increased-speed-limits-highways/6749158, retrieved 29/12/2016

1https://www.motormag.com.au/news/1608/northern-territory-returns-to-speed-limits, retrieved 29/12/2016

22011-2012 Victorian Speed Limit Review; VicRoads; p. 25

3Aspects of Road Safety in Australia - Interim Report; Australian Senate; Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport; May 2016; para 3.3

4Ibid; para 3.8-3.12

5http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-04/nsw-government-considers-increased-speed-limits-highways/6749158, retrieved 29/12/2016