ROAD TRAFFIC (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council’s amendment.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I indicate that we will be opposing the amendment of the Legislative Council. I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment be disagreed to.

I will set out the reasons now. It is, once again, a demonstration of the rabble that is the Liberal opposition that we bring to this chamber a matter of national reform to create a national system for the better management of heavy vehicles. The truth is that, in this country, the lack of uniformity of vehicle regulation—particularly heavy vehicle regulation—is a very sad indictment of the capacity of state governments and the federal government to engage in meaningful reform.

If we look at Europe where a number of countries actually were engaged in war with each other not that long ago, certainly within the bounds of Australian federation, we see greater uniformity in the regulation of heavy vehicles between countries there than there is between the states of Australia. I think that is very sad.

Dealing with this national reform the way the Liberal opposition has done here shows one of the reasons why there have been difficulties with that. I will put on the record that it is extraordinarily difficult to deal with an opposition that supports legislation in the lower house and opposes or amends it in the upper house. It would be easier for me, having carriage of the legislation, if we had a clearer idea of the attitude of the Liberal Party when debating the matter in this chamber and if we did not find out that they do not actually agree among themselves. It is no wonder we cannot get national uniformity when we cannot get an agreed position between the lower house Liberals and the upper house Liberals.

As it stands at the moment, if the upper house Liberals insist upon their amendments, this bill must fail, because it is not open to me to make an agreement for a national approach and then amend it as a result of changes from the Legislative Council. The reason that the Liberals in the Legislative Council have suggested they are doing this—although I would put on the record that I believe it is more attention seeking than any good work—is that the South Australian Road Transport Authority did not agree with it. It is sad, because these national approaches are created through very extensive negotiation and consultation with industry. It is impossible for a regulator to do everything that industry wants, but these national approaches are brought about after extensive consultation.

We have a regular Heavy Vehicle Industry Forum, and we have discussed this matter at a recent forum, which included representatives from SARTA. We have given indications to SARTA in writing that the IAP regulation-making power will create a regime that would definitely be voluntary. It has been given that assurance. It would apply only to vehicle types on new routes. It would be a commercial decision for the operator and would not be retrospective. In my view, we cannot go much further without rendering pointless the national reform.

We have also indicated to SARTA that it may see the regulations as requested. That would be the approach, because I think it is a national framework set of regulations, in any event. So, the chamber understands that this is about getting access to new routes and protecting the safety of movement, and protecting the pavement in those movements by having a better method of understanding the vehicles that would be using them. Ultimately, if we do not make some progress on national reform, it will be industry that will pay the price. It will still be regulated. It will be regulated in different ways in different places and not as well as is proposed in this measure.

I stress the point that it remains the South Australian Road Transport Authority, as I understand it, that has had difficulties with this. My understanding, having been shown the regulations and told those things, is that the attitude may be different. I invite the other house to talk to Steve Shearer.

I am concerned that there appears to be more a political campaign than a campaign on its merits out of the South Australian Road Transport Authority. I was very surprised to hear the comments of Steve Shearer after the state budget, suggesting that there was no more investment in roads, which is completely wrong. In fact, it is completely contrary to the comments from the Livestock Transport Association, which congratulated the government on being able to maintain strong road investment in light of the global financial crisis. Then I read a newsletter from SARTA, which seems to be celebrating a political campaign against the legislation in conjunction with the Liberals in the upper house.

So, I just place on the record that I do not know that political campaigns by the leadership of SARTA are of much benefit to their membership. I think that anyone who wants to place their future and that of their industry in the hands of the Liberals of the upper house may well inherit the wind, in my view; I do not think it is a wise thing.

I suggest to SARTA that it deals with this issue on its merits, that it deals with it as a result of the assurances given to it by the chief executive of the transport department as a result of the recent heavy vehicle forum and that it supports this national reform, which will ultimately be in the interest of industry. It is sad that this sudden eruption from Steve Shearer of SARTA is inconsistent with what has been a very good relationship between the heavy vehicle industry and the department and promoted by the Heavy Vehicle Industry Forum.

I suggest that this matter go back to the upper house and that SARTA reassess its view and advise the Liberals in the upper house, because this amendment would prevent our embracing a national reform which, ultimately, would be to the benefit of all Australians, particularly the industry. I stress that it would help us as a government if we could actually have the same attitude between Liberals in the upper house and Liberals in the lower house, but I have no doubt that I am about to hear some pathetic explanation as to why its upper house members do not hold the same view as those in here.

I indicate that we are opposed to the amendment of the upper house. This will be a setback but, make no mistake, if the upper house insists upon its amendment, it will simply mean the defeat of a national reform that all other governments have signed up to.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I can tell the committee that nobody wants this bill to fail. The minister said that there is a disagreement between our upper house and lower house members; that is not correct. When I spoke on the second reading of the bill on 29 April, I said that we had contacted the South Australian Road Transport Association to get some feedback but that we had not received any, which was perhaps an indication that the association had no issues with it.

As in life, when facts change often you have to change your opinion, and that happened between the upper house and the lower house. At that time, in my second reading contribution I said many things in support of the IAP, and I still think that there are many things in support of the Intelligent Access Program, and the Road Transport Association has also said that there are many good aspects of the IAP.

However, in a two page document supplied to the Hon. David Ridgway on 9 July by Mr Steve Shearer of the South Australian Road Transport Association, (which I am happy to read, but I am also happy to table), Mr Shearer points out a number of issues the association has with new section 110AC regarding the Intelligent Access Program. In point 2, in relation to discussions with the CEO of the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, he states:

The discussion has NOT resolved many of our concerns and whilst we still support IAP in principle, we remain opposed to its implementation at this juncture because—

and a lot of dot points follow. I am happy to table this document and have it included in Hansard for completeness, or I will read it into Hansard now.

The CHAIR: Is the member seeking to insert information into Hansard? There is no provision for the member to table a document. He can insert information into Hansard only if it is statistical in nature and of no more than one page in length.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Then I will read the comments from Mr Steve Shearer on 9 July to the Hon. David Ridgway into Hansard. The document states:

1. Yesterday we had the regular (4 to 6 monthly) Heavy Vehicle Industry Forum meeting at parliament House with the DTEI CEO and his senior staff. IAP was the major topic and it was discussed for over an hour. The key points were:

a. DTEI tabled a new and public document setting out the proposed Policy for IAP in SA, saying that this would address the issues we'd raised and which the Opposition had pushed in Parliament (copy attached);

b. The industry, unanimously and not just the SARTA reps but all of the 30-odd in attendance, remained concerned despite the assurances;

c. The Department stressed, as set out in the policy paper that:

i. IAP would NOT apply to existing access and other benefits—so if the industry currently has access to Whoop Whoop Street or Higher Mass for B-Doubles on Approved Route X, we kept it without any need for IAP;

ii. IAP will only apply to new benefits where it is justifiable:

1. So if a major new road (Northern Connector) is built, it should be built to Higher Mass Standards and IF SO, IAP would NOT be required.

2. BUT if its not built for HML (because unlike the Northern Connector it's not expected to be used by enough HML trucks to warrant it) then IAP would be required to run HML on that route;

3. If a new short extension is granted to an existing route (eg into one of the many new mines) then IAP MAY be required but maybe not;

4. If one or more operators already have access to a route with restricted vehicles like B-Double, other seeking that same access would NOT have to have IAP (we had to squeeze this out of them and there was dispute between several senior officers at the meeting—so we have real reservations about the reality);

iii. IAP will be Voluntary and not mandatory—meaning that IF you want the benefit that is tied to IAP, then you make the judgment about whether the cost of IAP is warranted by the benefit—fair enough.

2. The discussion has NOT resolved many of our concerns and whilst we still support IAP in principle, we remain opposed to its implementation at this juncture because:

a. Despite the assertions of DTEI, the IAP system and technology remains incomplete and hence can NOT deliver the claimed outcomes as:

i. The technology can NOT yet monitor the on-board mass of the truck and load or the dimensions of the truck and load or the particular truck configuration (semi-trailer versus B-Double etc) and as such:

1. The use of IAP for EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT of Higher Mass operations will be ineffective and they are still proposing to use a singularly naive and ineffective method of getting the driver to 'self-report' the Mass:

a. So the people who need to be managed and targeted—the cheats—will continue to cheat with impunity;

2. In relation to Mass Management (Higher Mass operations) they are offering the operator can do away with the requirement to specify prior to a trip which approved HML route they'll use (which we have been used to doing since Di Laidlaw was Minister) by opting to use IAP instead:

a. Why would anyone do away with a paper system that perhaps costs them hundreds of dollars [per annum] per truck and replace it with an IAP system that will cost them some $3,000 just to set up for each truck and then over $2,000 per truck to run? They won't of course;

3. The use of IAP to manage access by specific configurations (eg B-Double) to routes that are limited will be absolutely ineffective until the system can accurately identify and record the configuration;

4. The same argument applies to dimension of the truck and its load—eg on low-loaders carrying bulldozers, IAP will NOT have the capacity to identify and record the width of the wide load and so the driver will have to self-report and, guess what, those who choose to will simply cheat and miss-report;

5. The failure of the Department to understand the serious impact of cheating is a key issue because:

a. The whole point of the system is to stop cheats from cheating, so they must NOT be given a system that actually facilitates it—self-reporting;

b. If this is not addressed, then once again the responsible operators will cop a substantial cost to their serious competitive disadvantage as the cheats either operate without IAP or use IAP to cheat.

c. So there will be NO SAFETY or INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION GAIN and yet there WILL be a massive cost burden added to the industry;

3. In relation to costs, the Department simply does not have its facts right:

a. They claimed again yesterday that the costs are low and quoted some $1,200 per truck;

b. The fact this, and this is from operators who have sought comprehensive and competitive quotes from the 4 approved IAP suppliers that the costs are:

i. $3,500 per IAP unit in each truck (costs plus installation);

ii. $150 [per annum] per truck to maintain the IAP box;

iii. $150 [per annum] per truck to receive reports from the provider (the provider will report to the Government BUT if the owner actually wants to get the information, they must pay separately for this—DTEI was in complete ignorance of this);

iv. The actual costs to an operator with some 20 trucks would be over $300,000 in the first three years and to meet these costs:

1. The operator must grow their business by $9 million (as we have a mere 3 per cent profit margin) in that time.

Accordingly, SARTA remains opposed to the IAP regime until the above issues are successfully resolved. In addition, as to the legislation, if and when it eventually goes through, if the government is genuine in its stated policy position regarding no retrospectivity and only applying IAP to new genuine benefits etc., then they should not object to the legislation being amended to enshrine these limitations, eg:

1. The minister may make regulations for the implementation of IAP in relation to the application of IAP to the access by the HV industry to operational benefits.

2. Such application of IAP:

a. Must not be in relation to operational benefits that existed prior to the implementation of IAP;

b. Shall relate to operational benefits where the minister is satisfied that the extent of the operational benefits justifies a requirement for IAP; and

c. Implementation of IAP and access to the associated operational benefits shall be on a voluntary basis.

I want to make it very clear that at the time of my second reading contribution on 29 April I was not in possession of those facts. I see no problem with our position having been improved, the information being put out there for everyone to read and understand, and if the government insists on not accepting this amendment then the opposition will continue to oppose the government's position.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I go back to this campaign by SARTA and its political nature. It is peculiar that the shadow minister in another place has a long list of their issues in writing, when they have not gone out of their way to make sure that I have a copy of that. It does make you wonder. I repeat, the very first dot point in the letter sent to people by the chief executive states:

I am now writing to confirm that the DTEI policy for the application for IAP:

will definitely be voluntary—

what is this lengthy argument about the cost of IAP when it is voluntary; I am struggling to understand that—

may be applied to a vehicle type as a condition of new route access, but take-up of IAP and hence the concession by individual operators of that type of vehicle will be voluntary—

again, what is this cost issue; I wonder if it is genuine—

in every case will be a commercial decision for the operator whether the additional benefits outweigh the cost of IAP installation and monitoring; and

will not be retrospective—it will not be required for existing access routes where vehicles are currently able to operate under Gazette notice or Permit.

So, I am struggling to understand the alleged cost. However, I am sure that Mr Shearer and his friends in the Liberal Party upstairs will think of something.

Regarding the issue of cheats, there is on-road compliance for cheats at present; that is not going to stop. I now have a copy, so I am sorry, I will take back at least that criticism. Apparently we do have an email from him which may well be the same as the one read by the Hon. Mr Ridgway. The inference that there will somehow be less, the suggestion that the introduction of IAP will somehow benefit cheats, is a nonsense; the on-road enforcement will continue. Self-declaration is an interim measure until provisions can be made in about two years' time. However, the view of all jurisdictions—not just South Australia—is that an interim measure of self-declaration, but with the continuance of roadside compliance checking and enforcement (I understand that is correct) is an improvement on what applies at present.

It is flagrant nonsense to suggest that it assists cheats to cheat more. If they cheat at present they are the subject of roadside enforcement, and that will continue with the interim measures. It will be a superior system, not an inferior one. We simply have to differ with Steve Shearer. It is a second contribution in recent months, which makes me wonder whether there is some sort of political campaign going out of SARTA. I invite members to look at the press release of SARTA saying that it is the end of the road for road funding when in fact it remains at record levels, as does new investment in roads, when at present we are building one of the biggest new roads the state has ever seen.

We have released a route into the future for the northern interconnector and are doing works on South Road that have never been done before, and we have $500 million from the commonwealth to continue works on South Road. The suggestion that has been made is simply a nonsense and is in stark contrast to the press release of the Australian Livestock Transporters Association congratulating this government on being able to maintain road investment in very difficult times. How two organisations, both responsible for trucks, can look at the same set of facts and come up with completely contrary viewpoints puzzles me.

Make no mistake, the Liberal Party in this state is so hopeless, so bereft, so completely without a policy or point, that it thinks that a good outcome for the opposition is to collude in this strange campaign from the South Australian Road Transport Authority to defeat a national reform that has been the result of national consultation and has been agreed between jurisdictions. Such an outcome would set Australia and South Australia back and would not take it forward. There is no doubt that they can achieve that. What they cannot achieve is to be an intelligent, reasonable opposition, an opposition that can see the pros and the cons. They would have opposed this, I am told, if they had known SARTA did not like it. Of course they asked SARTA—they had not thought of it at that stage (somebody else can explain that to them—I am sure they have some more mealy-mouthed explanations for that)—but the bottom line is that we have an opposition whose only policy as a point of difference is a sports stadium no-one wants to use (apparently it may not have been a policy at all), and its only other approach to get noticed is to oppose things that have been agreed by every jurisdiction for the good of the industry. Congratulations!

Make no mistake, the government will not accept the amendments. We will not be defeating national reform. It will be entirely in the hands of SARTA and their friends in the Liberal Party if that is to occur, and that is a very sad outcome. It says volumes about the blokes in this Liberal Party that they have two women in the lower house who are not retiring and they fought out the leadership. It says a lot about the blokes and their capacity. 'Thank God for the women', they cry over there. Maybe they should preselect a few more.

Mr Pederick: They get where they get on merit.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They get where they get on merit! Apparently there are only two women in the Liberal Party with the merit to be in the lower house. The ones retiring will be replaced by blokes. They get where they get on merit and they have a tough job proving their merits.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On a point of order, Madam Chair: relevance.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is exactly my point: what is the point of this bunch of useless blokes in the Liberal Party? What is their relevance? By an accident of circumstances they finally found a point in being in opposition: they are going to defeat a national reform and that is all they can achieve. No wonder they are more likely to lose than gain seats at the next election.

Dr McFetridge: You wish!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I wish! I must congratulate Duncan McFetridge: they stripped him of almost all his portfolios, but he still moved up to third place on the bench. That is amazing, fantastic! Forgive me for being disparaging of this opposition—

Dr McFetridge: Look at you!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Look at you! You have no point and you have no future. Forgive me for being disparaging to members of the opposition, but one day they may well be the government and, God forbid, they will know the difficulty and the time that is spent in trying to achieve national reform to improve the regulation of heavy vehicles in this country (and all vehicles), in trying to make sure that there is no duplication between jurisdictions and in trying to improve a system that allows people to get access to routes in the best way possible while protecting safety and pavement. It is a very long and tedious process.

We do have a completely unsatisfactory lack of uniformity in regulation in this country, and it will continue that way while we have oppositions that are not prepared to see the state interest and the national interest and are only prepared to get a little attention by knocking off a national reform. Make no mistake, you can achieve it, and I hope that you are all proud of your work.

Motion carried.