The ACT Government has now put the Community Road Safety Grants program on hold. … “Stopping a modest grants program for a full year while evaluation occurs affects the solvency of many effective community groups.”
LAUCHLAN McINTOSH says the public is entitled to ask a simple question: if the government collects more than $1m from a road safety levy, why suspend a $200,000 community road safety grants program that directly supports local prevention work?
One small ACT Government Budget cut deserves more attention: the decision to put the Community Road Safety Grants program on hold and not reinvesting the increasing collection of road safety specific revenue from Canberra motorists.
Lauchlan McIntosh.
The ACT has traditionally recorded strong road safety outcomes compared with many other jurisdictions. That reflects our compact urban geography, good road infrastructure, a relatively modern vehicle fleet and, importantly, a long history of local road safety research, education and community programs. However, we can and should do better and have done so in the past.
For many years, those community programs were supported by the NRMA Road Safety Trust. Those funds were reduced during reforms to make third party motor insurance more “competitive” and the ACT has a small compulsory road safety levy collected through vehicle registration which is to support community-driven projects, research and educational initiatives.
That levy was $3.20 per vehicle last year and is $3.30 this year. With around 340,000 registered vehicles, the increase alone raises about $34,000, on top of an annual collection of just over $1 million.
Yet the ACT Government has now put the Community Road Safety Grants, funded from the Road Safety Community Fund, on hold.
In 2025, the government boasted a $200,000 grants program. It now says the program is paused while it evaluates the effectiveness of the fund from 2020 to 2024 and aligns future distributions with the ACT Road Safety Framework 2026-2031.
Evaluation is reasonable. Stopping a modest grants program for a full year while that evaluation occurs is much harder to justify especially as it also affects the solvency of many effective community groups.
Last year’s grants supported practical, targeted programs across the community: inclusive road safety education for children with disabilities, neurodivergent children and children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; motorcycle safety education; workshops for young drivers and school students; CALD road user education; Kidsafe ACT training and resources for safe transport of children with disability; pre-learner licence resources; road design training for motorcycle-friendly infrastructure; and primary school road safety education.
These are not abstract policy exercises. They are small, local, prevention-focused programs that reach people the mainstream road safety system often misses.
The government has also announced a “strong commitment” to other road safety measures, including suburban safety upgrades, federally supported Black Spot projects, pedestrian safety improvements near schools and transport nodes, and enforcement campaigns using mobile phone and seatbelt detection cameras.
Those investments are welcome. But they do not explain why community grants should be suspended.
The camera program is listed as part of the government’s road safety effort, and I support the technology. This is not an expense for the government, but what is really a regrettably, unfortunate windfall revenue source from a new technology. Somewhat surprisingly, seatbelt non-use and mobile phone distraction remain serious contributors to road trauma, effective enforcement has a legitimate role.
However, the financial picture also matters. The ACT Government does not clearly publish the net revenue benefit from this technology, but it has been reported, and not publicly challenged, that mobile phone and seatbelt detection cameras may raise in the order of $6 million a year.
The public is entitled to ask a simple question. If the government is collecting more than $1 million through a road safety levy, plus significant additional enforcement revenue, why suspend a $200,000 community road safety grants program that is raised to directly support local prevention work?
The issue is not whether road safety infrastructure or enforcement should be funded. Of course they should. The issue is whether community-led road safety work should be the expendable item when dedicated and related road safety revenue continues to flow.
ACT road trauma is not trending down. Every serious crash carries social, economic and human costs that are far greater than the modest value of these grants.
The government should reinstate the 2025–26 Community Road Safety Grants while the evaluation is completed, and it should publish clearly how road safety levy revenue and camera enforcement revenue are being allocated.
Canberra motorists are paying for road safety. The community should be able to see that the money is being used to prevent harm and as legislated, reinvested in road safety related programs, not simply absorbed into the budget.
Lauchlan McIntosh is has been chairman/president of national and international road safety related organisations, including the global Towards Zero Foundation, Australasian and Global NCAP, the Australasian College of Road Safety, Intelligent Transport Australia and was an inaugural director of the International Road Assessment Program.
MIKE WELSH, drivetime announcer at 2CC in 2012, dreamt up a stunt to boost his ratings that may have changed the destiny of Australian politics, for which he apologises.
"It is for the courts to remind the public that they can be trusted, that they are staffed by people of integrity, with honour and commitment to seeking truth," writes HUGH SELBY.
"When community life weakens, the national mood becomes scratchier... More public argument takes place through suspicion rather than trust. Problems that could have been solved around a table are left to harden," writes ANDREW LEIGH.
Leave a Reply