ROAD TRAFFIC (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 2726.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Earlier today the minister said that the government had agreement with the Civil Contractors Federation about the future application of IAP in relation to non-daylight hours. I have been advised since we last sat that there is some debate within the civil contractors group as to the level of agreement it has reached with the government. Will the minister clarify exactly what has happened? My understanding is that the department and the civil contractors have had three or four meetings but have not reached agreement at this time.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Indeed, no decision has yet been made. As I indicated, discussions are still occurring. The only agreements that have occurred are those of an in-principle nature. No decisions have been made and discussions will continue.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I want to explore the broader application of IAP. Let us assume that the legislation is supported. Will IAP provide opportunities at some point in time with technology to look at fatigue management—trucks are going, trucks are not, when they are stopped, when the drivers are resting. The industry has raised a range of other issues with me. For example, the freight council wrote to me about greenhouse emissions. Is it likely that at some point in the future—five, 10 or 20 years—the technology will be used to monitor a range of other truck activities?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As previously outlined, included in the model legislation currently is the route compliance, time of day and speed. That is what is in the current model legislation. Work currently under development includes monitoring of mass and monitoring of vehicle configuration. If they were to be incorporated or covered by an IAP, that is, the mass and vehicle configuration, this legislation would require amendment, so currently it would not be able to cover that. In relation to carbon emissions, there is no current intention to use IAP to monitor vehicle carbon emissions and, again, to do so an amendment to the national model legislation would be required.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What about fatigue management?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the NTC is currently working on development of technology to see whether it could be applied to fatigue but, again, if IAP were to accommodate these changes, amendments would have to be passed and agreed to, to be able to accommodate it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I understand that it is obvious the NTC is looking at it but, if you were to incorporate fatigue management then, as standard national legislation, surely you would need to have rest areas and all the other things that are provided by government—not food, but rest areas that provide the opportunities for fatigue management to be able to be used properly and, I assume, to have standardisation across the industry.

I realise this is a little off at a tangent, and the minister may want to take it on notice, but a criticism is that fatigue management has been largely designed for the transport of freight from Adelaide to Melbourne, Melbourne to Sydney and Sydney to Brisbane; it fits those eight to 10 hour routes. There is difficulty going from Adelaide to Brisbane, Adelaide to Darwin and Adelaide to Perth, because they are longer routes, and I am told that when you get to the South Australian and Western Australian border there are different rules. I think it is a 14-hour maximum day in South Australia and 17 hours in Western Australia, so there are some issues when drivers cross the border. I understand it has nothing to do with this legislation, but it is a good opportunity to ask the questions.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Obviously, there are many issues associated with fatigue. No doubt, in the current considerations that the NTC is involved in, these matters are being looked at through that process. I am happy to take the question on notice if I can provide any further detail that would be of assistance. However, the bill in front of us really does not relate to fatigue at this time, as I have qualified.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I understand that, and this is the last question I will ask on fatigue. Is there a standard design for truck rest stops that the department wants to construct and build? One of the criticisms I receive as shadow minister is that there is inadequate provision for rest stops on these major routes. It is only sensible to undertake a proper fatigue management program. I would be interested to know whether there is a standard design, what is the number of truck spaces and how they are put together. I am happy to have you take that on notice.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am happy to take that on notice.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 3, lines 18 to 39, and page 4, lines 1 to 4 [clause 6, inserted section 110AC]—Delete section 110AC.

My amendment has the effect of deleting the IAP program from this piece of legislation. I understand that it is national legislation and a national framework. I have spoken to the industry. It has not had a chance to look at the minister's responses, which I have given to it verbally. If this amendment is successful in this chamber and it is deleted, we would negotiate between the two houses and give the industry a chance to sit down with the department and the minister.

The questions I have been raising on its behalf about its being voluntary, new acts and relating only to new routes are issues that have been raised with me. If the technology to which the minister alluded is under development for monitoring mass and configuration, once that technology is available then the IAP absolutely could be used on the serious and repeat offenders who are breaching the rules all the time, rather than where it appears we are heading now.

There are still unanswered questions. The industry and the opposition in principle support it. We understand that the government wishes to have this through by the end of the financial year. That gives us two weeks and we can deal with it when we come back, which will give the industry, the departmental officials and the minister the chance to sit down and negotiate.

One of the minister's advisers spoke to Mr Steve Shearer from the Road Transport Association at the budget lock-up and was a little surprised that the opposition was moving this amendment but conceded that it was an issue that had been raised by the Road Transport Association for some 18 months and, at the end of the day, they acknowledged that more work needed to be done. In moving that we delete the IAP, I indicate that we are trying to get all parties back to the table to thrash out some of these issues prior to a message coming back from the House of Assembly.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I give notice to the minister that on this occasion Family First will support the opposition amendments. We are not opposed to the concept, and this has nothing to do with the minister in this place, because she is really a messenger for a minister in another place and is merely doing the minister's work here as part of her duties. There are too many imposts on industry at the moment, and the work must be done in consultation, collaboration and cooperation. We are hearing from industry that that has not happened yet. There is a way forward, and Family First would revisit this and look at supporting the government if it goes back to the other place and more work is done with SARTA to give a fair and reasonable outcome. We would look at expediency in supporting the government once the homework has been done. That is our position.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My understanding is that we are looking to have this through by the end of this financial year. We do not sit again until 2 July. I understand that this bill is required to pass both houses by the end of this financial year, and that would not allow us the necessary time to do that. I have outlined in no uncertain terms the importance of this scheme and the fact that it does not create imposts. I cannot believe we have a member still coming back into the chamber after all the debate and clarification I have put on the record and claiming that there is an impost. It is quite bizarre and irresponsible. Nevertheless, we need to proceed.

This is a commitment we have given to try to deliver by the end of this financial year. It is an embarrassment for the opposition and Family First to have accidentally positioned themselves in this way. They will end up being very embarrassed by this. They have failed to understand this legislation and are now desperately looking for a face-saving way out. We need to proceed to a vote.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In response to the minister, it is interesting that it must be through by the end of the financial year, yet we received it only the last sitting week. This is national framework legislation. The minister claimed that it has been implemented in New South Wales; it has not, but it has been passed in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. If it was nationally agreed at COAG and by the ministers, I am dumbfounded why it has taken until late May for it to be introduced at the 11th hour, plus some, in the House of Assembly.

We have tried to do it as quickly as we could in this chamber. We understood a commitment was given, but it is a bit rich to blame the opposition and saying we will be embarrassed, that we are holding up the process and frustrating it, when clearly it has been introduced, passed and dealt with in other states while we are given only a matter of days to do it. The opposition will not be embarrassed; in fact, we are standing up for proper, robust scrutiny of the legislation.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 2 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (7 and 8) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.