HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROAD TRAFFIC (HEAVY VEHICLE DRIVER FATIGUE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 April 2008. Page 2737.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:02): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker on this bill; however, first, I seek a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, is it normal procedure for government to announce that laws will come into effect before they have come into the parliament? I have been given a copy of a Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure newsletter, dated February 2008, which states, 'The new heavy vehicle driver fatigue laws will commence on 29 September 2008.' A letter has also been sent to operators, dated 15 April, which states, 'Dear operator, new heavy vehicle driver fatigue laws will commence on 29 September 2008.' I am very concerned about the attitude of the government when it issues this sort of notification when the legislation has not proceeded through this place.

The SPEAKER: I would have to have a close look at the matter, but my initial response is that there is nothing really I can do about it. What the minister chooses to put out by way of publicity, press releases or anything like that I have no jurisdiction over. If the minister is pre-empting a decision of the parliament, he is doing so at his own risk. If the parliament does not give passage to the legislation, the minister will be the one looking rather foolish. At first glance, it is not something I have jurisdiction over. The member for Morphett.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am not aware of what was put out.

Mr WILLIAMS: On a point of order—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: What's your point of order, goose?

Mr WILLIAMS: The shadow minister has the call—that is the point of order.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: He has. He was given the call and asked for a point of clarification.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet and both members will take their seats. The minister can respond in the course of a speech and, if there is something to add that might be of help to me, he can come up to the chair. We will leave it at that, otherwise we will be here all day. That is all I want to say before proceeding with the bill. That is what I have to say initially. If there is something else the member for Morphett wants to raise with me, he can. The member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am the lead speaker on this matter. However, a number of my colleagues will be speaking on the bill and the opposition accepts the thrust of this legislation and it brings us into line with national legislation. However, a number of members have concerns about several issues they will raise in their second reading contribution and there will be questions for the minister in committee. If the questions are not answered satisfactorily, we may amend the bill in another place, so I give the minister fair notice of that. I will not hold up the house long with my contribution as other members wish to raise particular points.

This bill was introduced on 9 April. It is interesting that the first brochure put out by the department was back in February, saying that these laws were coming into effect on 29 September. I find that an arrogant attitude. This place is still part of the democratic process and as such it should be given the respect that it deserves and not just be treated as a place for government policy and legislation to be rubber stamped.

The implementation of the model heavy vehicle driver fatigue legislation will provide a three-tiered approach to the management of fatigue of drivers of regulated heavy vehicles. Regulated heavy vehicles are trucks with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 12 tonnes, and buses seating more than 12 adults, including the driver. Operators can choose standard hours, as set in the legislation, which allows a maximum of 12 hours work time in 24 hours, with minimum rest periods required within set intervals, or choose between basic fatigue management and advanced fatigue management that allows for progressively increased flexibility of work and rest hours for operators with systems and practices to safely manage the risk of driver fatigue. In accordance with fatigue management standards and business rules, there will also be new provision for bus operators and two-up driver teams, developed in conjunction with fatigue experts, which will enable them to meet fatigue management and productivity requirements.

In his second reading explanation, the minister pointed out some of the reasoning behind introducing this legislation, and that is that demands are put on heavy vehicle drivers by some customers, and he said:

The demands and actions of customers and other off-road parties may influence the behaviour of heavy vehicle drivers.

We have all heard anecdotal evidence of large companies putting extraordinary pressure on their drivers to meet deadlines that are hardly able to be met within the law and so put drivers' lives at risk. Once a driver steps into a bus or truck that is his workplace and workplace safety for all of us is paramount. Yesterday I went to the memorial service for people who had died in their workplaces and it was a moving ceremony. It reinforced to me and to other members there the need to make sure we are keeping workers safe in their workplaces, and by introducing this sort of legislation to ensure they are properly rested and can do their job safely, and so that, as was pointed out by the minister in his speech, the estimated $300 million a year damage caused as a result of truck accidents, both fatalities and major crashes, hopefully will be eliminated. It is a vital piece of legislation and essential that we get it right as a number of issues have been raised with the opposition, and certainly my colleagues will raise issues as well.

We have spoken to the South Australian Road Transport Association about this legislation, and the association gave it qualified support. However, it raised some issues about the funding for adequate rest stops around the place. I do not know how accurate the statement made by the association was, but I have great faith in the information that I received from it. The association said that, at the current funding levels, it would take some 400 years to provide the 22,000 rest stops that will be required around Australia.

I would like to know what the South Australian government will do to ensure that there are enough properly equipped rest places where trucks can stop so that the drivers can live up to the obligations that are enshrined in this legislation. It is important that we realise that the trucks cannot just pull over on the side of the road; that is illegal. It is very important that the drivers have a proper rest stop and are able to have a good break.

Some transport owners to whom I have spoken were a little concerned about some of the detail in the bill that was used to described 'work'. The brochure that was distributed in February by the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure defines 'work' under the new HVDF laws—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: It was 1 February 2008.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: Fatigue date; the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. The brochure states that, under the new heavy vehicle driver fatigue laws, 'work' includes all driving and any other tasks related to the operation of a bus or heavy vehicle—for example, loading/unloading, refuelling, supervising, and so on. It is important that we work out whether lining up in a queue at the silos will be a part of rest or a part of work, or what it will be.

It is a concern because, in many cases, truck drivers are farm owners and are under the pump at the moment because of the drought and interest rate rises, and this legislation is now placing more obligations upon them. We need to make sure that there are no areas where an overzealous inspector or police officer can ping these people for unwittingly going about their job because of some new legislation. We know that ignorance is no excuse, but it is very important to make sure that we get this legislation right.

I will ask my colleagues to continue raising their particular issues. Some of them have far more experience than do I. I have a heavy truck driver's licence, but that is limited to driving some school buses and a few CFS fire appliances. I have never driven large road trains or semitrailers, or anything like that, and I realise that that could be quite different. I will leave it to my colleagues who have experience in that area to put some further points of view.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:13): There are several matters that concern me about this legislation. I hope that the member for Enfield will speak on this matter, because he is one of the members who rails against legislation being foisted upon this parliament through COAG meetings and meetings of ministerial councils, and so on, in other places. This parliament, to a large extent, has given up its powers to make law in this state. I happen to dislike that, and I do not think that we should encourage it.

I also dislike the practice of passing legislation that gives head powers to make regulations, particularly when we do not know what is contemplated by a regulation, and when the regulation could be made very readily. I accept that regulations are a disallowable instrument but, by and large, it is quite difficult for a regulation to be disallowed by either house of the parliament. A regulation never receives the sort of scrutiny on the floor of the house as does legislation. The parliament does not have the opportunity to examine a regulation clause by clause and, if a regulation is disallowed, you cannot disallow one clause; the whole lot must be disallowed.

So, for a number of reasons, I have always held the view that I think it is bad legislation when we give governments head powers to make regulations, because too many times I have seen regulations being promulgated which were not contemplated by the parliament and which were not even contemplated by the original legislation. Having said that, I have some issues with the way that this bill is framed. I remind the house about the process of coming through the ministerial councils, and I hope the member for Enfield is listening and will comment on that.

Regarding driving hours, the lead speaker for the opposition made out a very good point. I drive regularly on the Dukes Highway at least between Keith and Tailem Bend and also all the way to Adelaide, in fact. One Monday night going back a couple of years ago—and I imagine that the traffic has become even heavier—on that road between Keith and Tailem Bend, I passed a heavy transport (a semitrailer, or a B-double) going in the opposite direction every minute. That is a little under a two-hour drive; an hour and a half or something.

That gives an idea of the number of trucks that are on that road, and I can only assume there were the same number of trucks travelling in the same direction as I. The lead speaker made the very good point that we just do not have the facilities to allow those trucks to pull off the road and take their rest breaks when necessary. All the facilities that are along that road—or virtually all; there are a couple of places where they can pull off, but the vast majority of the facilities along that road—are provided by private enterprise at fuel stops or roadhouses.

This is one thing that I think that governments right across Australia have to come to terms with and have to do something about it. It is one thing to come in here and say, 'We're going to clamp down, we're going to make trucks stop every few hours,' or whatever, and set regulations of how long they can drive for, but it makes it very difficult for the drivers to do the right thing if we do not provide the facilities to allow them to go about their job in a safe way.

We say that the truck is the operator's workplace. In reality it is the roadway that is the truck driver's workplace, and I would contend that in many cases the roadway is unsafe because we do not have those types of facilities. Some of our roads are downright dangerous just because of the road. I cite the case of the Riddoch Highway going the other way from Keith down to Naracoorte: the road on a dark winter's night, when it is pelting with rain, is quite a challenge to drive up and down, with trucks coming at you and quite poor visibility.

I can assure the house there are not too many passing lanes, and there are not too many parking bays on that particular road to allow trucks to pull off and, as I say, there are very few passing lanes to allow other vehicles that have a higher speed limit to be able to overtake trucks. It is the hallmark of this government that it has tackled almost every issue that comes before it by changing legislation. The reality is that quite often—in most cases, I would argue—you actually have to change more than just the regulation to achieve the outcomes and the ends that you may wish to achieve.

One of the things that this government has seriously failed at is to upgrade our roads, and to upgrade our road networks, particularly those roads upon which we have long haul activity. Quite a bit of money has been spent on the federal roads, but on state roads such as the Riddoch Highway there has been a real paucity of money spent on that particular road, and we are going to see an absolute explosion in the southern end of that road between Penola and Mount Gambier over the next few years as we have a huge increase in the amount of timber harvest occurring in that area. Yet there are no plans to do anything; no plans to upgrade the road, which will put more stress on truck operators.

I was talking to one truck driver carting chips in and out of Portland, a while back in Mount Gambier. He called me over and wanted to have a chat with me, and I was talking about the way he operated. He said he starts at about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning to get most of his work out of the way before the regular daytime traffic starts on the road because he said it was so dangerous to mix heavy vehicles on that road from Mount Gambier down to Portland with the normal everyday traffic, particularly cars. So, there are those sorts of issues that do not seem to be addressed, yet the government is always quite eager to get in here and change the legislation. So, I have some issues with that.

Also, the lead speaker touched on the point of operators in the farming sector who cart grain to silos. Getting the harvest to silos has long been a vexed issue when everyone in the district has the harvester in the paddock trying to keep the grain away from the harvester and deliver it to the silos. There is always a bottleneck. There could be serious adverse effects on the farming community and the state's economy if we have regulations which impact on that and go too far. So, there is an issue there. I would like to know from the minister whether the exemption will continue for heavy vehicle operators operating within a particular distance from their home—and I am not sure whether it is 80 kilometres or 100 kilometres. I thought it was 80 and one of my colleagues suggested it is 100.

Mr Venning: It's 80 kilometres.

Mr WILLIAMS: It is 80. That is one of the significant issues that I have, and it will alleviate much of the concern I have with regard to the delivery of grain from farms, because that will exempt most farmers from those issues. It seems that now everything they do will be counted as driving time. If they are sitting in a queue at the silo or if they are sitting out in the paddock with the auger filling the truck and waiting for half an hour, that will be counted as driving time, and the reality is that they will have very little time left to actually drive the truck. So, I sincerely hope that exemption will continue. That completes my remarks.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (11:22): I have some concerns about this bill. I think it is unfortunate that it does not appear that most of the government backbenchers have even taken the trouble to read it. I would have thought the member for Giles should apply herself to this.

Ms Breuer: I wanted to, but you jumped up before me.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I would happily give way. The honourable member terrifies me when she points her finger at me. I am a timid character, and I would have willingly given way to the honourable member if it has in any way reflected on her. But I do not know whether—

Ms Breuer interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The honourable member protests too much.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: When did you start quoting Shakespeare?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: My knowledge of the arts would be just below the minister's.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: You have some hidden interests.

Mr Pengilly: He is interested in the arts, Patrick.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, spending too much money on them.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Only so you could go. I did you a good turn. Let me come back to the nuts and bolts of this so-called enlightened piece of legislation. There is a number of questions that need to be answered, and let me make one or two things very clear: when bureaucrats get their own way and act unreasonably, other unreasonable acts will be taken. I want to put it so there will be no misunderstanding.

This year I will make it my particular interest to go to the silos with my camera and notebook; and, if my constituents and others are getting harassed by these inspectors, there will be more questions on the Notice Paper and the local television station will get the treatment, because we have had some experience. We know the disgraceful behaviour of a police officer at Gawler attacking the carting of export hay. That was an absolute outrage. What was worse was that, when the constituent complained (which is his right in a democracy), the word came back that this particular copper said, 'I'll throw the book at him next time.' That is well and good if they want to play that game, but I have another example.

The other day, a constituent of mine was booked for using a mobile phone—and this is an example of the attitude of these people. He does not own a mobile phone and has never used one. He would not know how. He is over 70 years of age. He and the deputy mayor came to see me, and I complained most vigorously. I have not finished with it yet. When the approach was made to the bloke concerned, the copper took real exception. Well, okay; if that is what they want, that is what they are going to get. There is a line in the sand and, when bureaucrats step over it, they hit the wrong button. It happened in the UK with these sorts of laws, and it is going to happen here.

The questions I want the minister to answer are very simple. Does the previous 80 km/h rule apply for the carrying of log books from the base? That was an amendment that was made against the wishes of the bureaucrats. It was Norm Petersen who told Frank Blevins, 'Put it in or you will use the cause.' So, he had to agree to it, and the parliament exercised its proper jurisdiction.

This particular circular of February 2008, to which my colleague referred, is a bit arrogant in stating what will happen. How do you know whether the legislation will get through the parliament by September? I would say that, if we do not get some real assurances, this thing is going to get some treatment upstairs.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The question is: does the 80 km/h rule still apply?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I never take you for granted.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I always stick to my word. I may not know much, but I do know a bit about driving trucks; I have a heavy vehicle licence. Some of the people advising the minister could not drive a nail into a pound of butter. I bet they could not back a two-wheel trailer behind a truck, but they are advising—

Ms Breuer interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Why doesn't the honourable member listen? I may not know a lot of things, but I do know a bit about driving trucks and those sorts of thing. I have had a little experience; I really have. Whether or not the honourable likes it, I have been in the real world. I do know what it is like to get a bit of dirt, dust and mud on me, and I have had some experience in these matters.

All I am trying to do is have some common sense applied. I ask the minister whether he can give an assurance that these laws we are considering will not apply to people carting grain from their paddock down to the local silo. I want to know whether that is the case because, otherwise, it will make it impossible. I want to know how many farmers the bureaucrats have talked to about this matter. This notorious document we have in our hands states:

Under the new HDF laws, work includes all driving and any other task related to the operation of a bus or heavy vehicle; for example, loading, unloading, refuelling and supervising.

So, that means that, when you are sitting in the line at the silo for an hour and a half, that is included. You will put people out of business. It is hard enough to get employees now because the mining industry is sucking them up. You will put the average cocky out of business if you enforce these laws. This is a nonsense of the highest order. It is obvious that the people who drew up these laws really do not have any experience in the real world. So, that is the second question.

The next question is: is there an exemption or some flexibility in relation to the carrying of livestock? We had a fight last time. The owner/operators—the small people—have been dudded by that group that Shearer represents. I have absolutely no time for him whatsoever, and you can tell him that. I have told him, and I would tell him again to his face. When I spoke to the carriers—I actually go to the trouble of talking to the truckies at the roadhouses; I actually know a fair few of them—and they tell me that there is not enough flexibility in this.

They were not arguing about the maximum of 72 hours a week, but they said that there needed to be a bit more flexibility and common sense applied. No-one wants to be stuck on the road 100 kilometres from Port Augusta or Coober Pedy, because there is not much out there; it is not a very pleasant spot. The point that has been made in relation to passing lanes on Highway 1 is that it is one of the best things that has happened.

I have had carriers approach me about rest stops. There are a couple on the way to Coober Pedy, as there need to be, but they have to be properly constructed; the truck drivers do not want to pull their vehicle off the road and go down to the axle.

At the end of the day, it always amazes me why people want to make life as difficult as they can. Why do they want to put in place unnecessary bureaucratic procedures? Why not let people fairly and reasonably get on with their lives and do a good job? Why do we want people looking over our shoulder? One of my constituents said to me a couple of years ago at Cadell, 'Every time I see a blue numberplate come in my driveway, I know they're not there to help me', and on this occasion he was absolutely right. This bloke was up on his gantry with his air-operated secateurs, and he said to the inspector, 'I'm pretty good with these, and if you don't get out of my way, you'll find out all about them.' The bloke was wise and he left. I thought that was good, because every time someone in a blue numberplated car came around, they were only there to harass or hinder or to put their hands in your pocket—Sir Humphrey Appleby, one, two and three.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, it's true; I spend most of my time arguing with these people. I note that some of them are not keen on me but, at the end of the day, I must have done something right: my constituents have sent me here 12 times, and I could come back again if I wanted to.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: We like you, Graham.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Minister, I want some answers. If the minister can give us some answers, it will shorten the process here, otherwise we will have a bit of a box-on about this. The transport industry carries the country. The country cannot operate without a well-organised, efficient, productive and profitable transport industry. If we put unreasonable, unfair and unnecessary impediments in its way, it will just put up the costs.

We now have a federal government talking about grocery prices. If unnecessary impediments are put in place, the further people live out of Adelaide, the more they will have to pay to comply with these foolish requirements, as some of them are. It is just like the suggestion that has been floated in the newspaper: that people should carry their driver's licence with them all the time. There is only one thing I will say about that—and there are two or three other issues: it will be an issue at the next election—make no mistake about that—and we will make sure that everyone who is affected is fully aware of it and of what the consequences will be. Sir Humphrey can sit in his isolated office, 10 or 12 storeys above, but we will make sure that those people in the field who have to put up with it know, and they will react accordingly.

In conclusion, I indicate that I will raise a number of these issues in the committee stage, but a number of questions need to be answered before we proceed to committee, otherwise we will have to attempt to change it, either here or in another place. At the end of the day, people—particularly small operators—are the ones who have the most difficulty dealing with these issues. They do not have the time to go through and comply with any more red-tape bureaucracy. They are trying to make a living, and many people in the rural sector are facing very severe economic stress. Hopefully, with the benign influence of the good Lord, the land will receive plenty of rain so that we can have some reasonable crops this year, and so that people can get a return.

The last thing people want when they are trying to get their crops into the silo is to be harassed by some of these unrealistic people who drive around in cars with red and white checks on the side. I always take a particular interest in where they are sitting, and I will have my notebook out. Where they have not hidden off the side of the road, I will take down the numbers, and we will have some questions on notice. I have done this before, and it is interesting that you often get a telephone call from someone asking, 'What have we done to upset you?' I have said, 'You've done plenty. If you want it to stop, play the game sensibly.'

So, minister, I am looking forward to your response. There are fundamental issues in relation to this matter, and we need to have some flexibility and common sense. I mentioned that carting stock is terribly important, particularly in the hot weather The foolishness of the previous legislation in giving those people power to turn back trucks was just absolutely stupid in the highest order.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: It's more flexible than the old legislation.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes; but, you have not said anything in here in relation to farmers, because this is all based on carrying log books. There was an amendment in the legislation in the past that you did not have to carry them with 80 kilometres. If that applies, I am happy; otherwise, I am very unhappy and I will be as difficult as I possibly can for the next two years.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: That is very difficult.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I will be.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms BREUER (Giles) (11:35): I applaud the member for Stuart for his defence and support of his constituents, but, of course, this legislation is about a much bigger picture. It is across Australia; it is not about localised issues, which I know the member for Stuart always brings back. As I said, I applaud him to doing that, but, in this case, we do need to look at the bigger picture. I rise today because I want to pay tribute to truck drivers of Australia. A great majority of them are heavy industry operators.

As members are aware, I have the biggest electorate in the state—bigger than the member for Stuart's electorate—and I travel over some 100,000 kilometres in a year on the roads, in particular in the outback and between here and Whyalla. The great majority of truck drivers do an excellent job. They are responsible, they are courteous at all times, and I think that, in many ways, they make our roads safer because of that. I certainly feel a lot safer on the roads knowing that truck drivers are around, particularly in some of the more remote areas of the state. You know that there are truck drivers, who, if you get into trouble, will stop and help you.

One particular case I was thinking about before was the Falconio case when Joanne Lees was bound and hid all night. It was actually a truck driver who rescued her, and she felt safe with him. They do an excellent job out there. As far as road rules go, they observe them at all times and really set a good example for other drivers. I cannot say the same about other drivers out there. We have some major problems, particularly with tourists out on those roads.

Late yesterday afternoon I came down from Whyalla, and I stopped off at Port Augusta at a very popular truck stop. I have learned to go to servos where there are lots of trucks, because you know the food and service will always be good—they tend to congregate in those areas. I was listening to one guy saying that I would see him in a few days because he was going to Brisbane that day. And I thought, gosh, I am just going to Adelaide! What an incredible drive that fellow has ahead of him. They drive for hours and hours and for hundreds of thousands of kilometres, and they do an excellent job.

I am a little bit concerned at what seems to be an even bigger increase in the number of trucks on the roads, despite the Adelaide to Darwin rail and despite the increase in the number of trains that we see out there—huge freight trains that are travelling north. We still seem to be increasing the number of trucks. This concerns me to some extent, purely from an environmental issue. There must be some more environmentally friendly way that we can get the huge amounts of freight around the country. I think that both state and federal governments should be looking at that issue in the future. Is there some other way that we can do it? However, I do not want to take away from the truck drivers' income and livelihood, but it does concern me that, as our population increases in Australia, we will require more and more trucks on these roads.

I believe that occupational health and safety are very important issues for drivers. I know that, having driven so many long kilometres, fatigue is a real issue for drivers, and also, I think, particularly for truck drivers, there is the issue of isolation. If they are driving along in their trucks on their own between, for example, Port Augusta and Brisbane (as this fellow I was talking about was doing this week), it is a long way to go on your own. We really do need to take very close account of occupational health and safety issues for these drivers. It does not matter how well rested they are, if you are driving 500 or 600 kilometres in a day, it is a long way to go, and you can get very tired and lose concentration.

One of the things that I have tended to do on some of my outback trips in recent times, having recently bought a UHF radio for its safety features, is listen in to the truck drivers from around the place. Some of the conversations are actually quite incredible and quite amusing.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: You do that for other reasons.

Ms BREUER: Well, it's very amusing. Sometimes I get a little bit tired of ABC Radio which we listen to, of course. Sometimes even Peter Goers, who is a wonderful character and very well-loved in the outback, gets a bit much, so I put on the UHF radio. Some of the conversations are extremely interesting, and some of the language is particularly flowery.

It does help them if they are able to talk to colleagues around the place on the radio; that does reduce some of the isolation and the boredom that they may get on those long trips. Animals in our outback regions continue to be a problem. Anybody who believes that there is a scarcity of kangaroos needs to make a trip in the outback and they will find out that really there are—

Members interjecting:

Ms BREUER: I cannot get terribly sentimental about kangaroos and the fact that they are culled because they are an ongoing issue for me. I tend not to see a kangaroo: I see an obstacle and a danger. Slow vehicles are an ongoing concern for me on outback roads, and this is where I think truck drivers are particularly good. I do not believe, as the member for Stuart does, that we should increase our speed limits on outback roads—I think that would be irresponsible—but I do believe that slow drivers are a major cause of accidents. The weekend tourists who head out there and the blue-rinse set who travel all over Australia crawl along the roads. People get stuck behind them, and they get angry and take silly risks passing those drivers. I think that, while we should not increase our speed limits, we should impose a minimum speed limit on some of these roads because it really is quite dangerous.

The other issue, which I noticed yesterday coming down from Whyalla in very overcast conditions, was the use of headlights, and I keep pushing this issue. I believe that we should make it compulsory for people to put on their headlights as soon as they leave town, whatever the weather conditions. It does not matter whether it is a bright, sunny day or an overcast day—people should have their headlights on at all times. I notice that truck drivers now do tend to put their lights on, and I think that that is a really important example for other drivers out there as well.

There is not an issue with headlights dazzling you. If somebody's headlights dazzle you, there is a problem with those headlights but, in the main, they do not. You can see cars in the distance. A couple of times yesterday, I noticed a truck coming towards us with a car in front of it, and it was very difficult to see that car because it did not have its headlights on. The trucks do have them on, and you have absolutely no doubt about what is coming towards you. You know that it is not a big tree in the road ahead or some other obstacle—it is a vehicle of some sort. I think that truck drivers do a particularly good job at putting their lights on in all weather conditions, and that is very important when you are driving on outback and long-distance roads.

I rise to support this legislation because I think that it is very important but also to pay tribute to what I see as a very responsible industry in the main. Our truck drivers do an excellent job, and I think that we should support them with this legislation.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:43): We, on this side of the house, absolutely agree that our roads need to be as safe as they can be. Fatigue, without a doubt, is a problem, not only for trucks but also for cars. I believe that fatigue is one of the most underestimated factors in relation to our ever-increasing road toll. We can never do too much to remind drivers to take a break, particularly car drivers.

Australia is said to ride on the sheep's back. I agree, but I want to add that it also rides on the back of a truck, because it is a huge country and moving equipment, supplies and food from state to state and from the city to the regions is all done by truck. It is certainly very important that, when we discuss legislation like this, we take every opportunity to get it right.

What really pricks my conscience is that this legislation refers to a mass exceeding 12 tonnes, which means that almost all farm trucks will be included in this legislation. Farmers were exempt before, as has been said, with the 80 kilometre exemption zone for a farmer from his or her base.

I am questioning the minister as to whether that 80-kilometre zone is still there, because it does give protection for farmers in that they can operate within it, without having to worry about matters like this. I will ask the minister: particularly during seeding time, will the farmer have to log in the logbook every time he moves the truck? I got caught many years ago when I was farming, before I came here.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I do have my licence back, if members are going to ask that question—I got it back three weeks ago. I had an incident where I crossed the road with a tractor, a farm vehicle–this was before they were registrable. A patrol car was hiding behind the bushes. It must have sat there for some time waiting for me to come out of the gateway. It was hidden. The policeman came out and he went over everything, including the chains. I did not have the implement chained to the tractor, so he did find no safety chains, because I did not know they were required.

However, every now and again you get a very conscientious young constable who wants to prove a point and will go to a fair bit of trouble. He could see I was doing the headlands and finishing in the paddock. He knew I was going to be coming out of the gate within the next half an hour or so and he waited there. That sort of thing can happen with issues like this.

I am very concerned about this, and I hope the minister is going to be able to tell us: is the onus going to be on the farmer (when he is picked up by Mr Conscientious Constable) to prove that, although he has been at work for 12 hours, he has not been driving his truck the whole time? It might have been five minutes here and 10 minutes there; he moved the truck out of the paddock; he changed paddocks; he went home for more seed, and that adds up to 4½ hours. Is that what he is going to have to do? Otherwise, the 80 kilometres zone would—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: It's 100 k.

Mr VENNING: The 100 kilometres is still there. Again, thank you, minister; it is on the record that the 100 kilometres limit is still there.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I will explain it in a moment.

Mr VENNING: I am very pleased, because it is a thing that concerns me. That is what we wanted to hear. Farmers, as I said, will spend very long hours, particularly at seeding and harvest time, as I think the member for Stuart said, sitting in the queue at the silos. Some farmers are working 14 or 15 hours a day, but they are sitting at the silos for a lot of that time. This legislation does discuss the matter. Also, vehicles parked on the side of the road come under this legislation. Hopefully, that will be clarified.

Let us be honest: farmers work long hours because they have to. As the member for Stuart said, this seeding is going to be critical, because we have never had such a shortage of farm labour as we are seeing right now. Even at our own farm we are desperate. It was only pure luck that yesterday a lad drove in off the road, an Englishman from Yorkshire, and asked, 'Any chance of getting some work?' He was instantly grabbed, and my son took him around the farm and we now have a Yorkshireman on the staff, at least for the seeding. It is extremely difficult to get staff, so farmers are going to be pushing the hours to cover for the lack of staff, and they do get tired.

I understand that farmers do drive up and down the road with their seeding equipment and they have to abide by the law; they cannot be driving it when they are tired out of their mind, particularly if somebody gets hurt. We have had accidents on the road with farm machinery, and that is very regrettable, so we have to do the right thing. However, we have to make sure that the legislation is there to enable farmers to do the right thing at all times.

I want to continue the debate in relation to the fines. When I pick up the bill I see that, on page 4, part 3AA, 110AA—Fatigue provides:

(3) The regulations under this section may—

(a) make provision for periods spent by drivers of regulated heavy vehicles driving—

and it goes on. All this is by regulation, you understand. In other words, the minister can change any of this at any time he or she wishes. It continues under (3) to provide:

(e) prescribe and provide for the payment of fees in respect of specified matters.

In other words, the minister can charge what he/she likes for whatever he/she likes. Section 110AA(3)(d) states 'make provisions of a savings or transitional nature'. Paragraphs (e) and (f) are the key ones, as follows:

(e) prescribe penalties, not exceeding $50,000, for offences against the regulations; and

(f) fix expiation fees, not exceeding $750, for alleged offences against the regulations.

These are very open-ended clauses that will all come under regulations. I think it is very dangerous for things like this not only to be setting amounts but also to be setting the conditions as well. It is all by regulation.

I, too, was quite concerned to see this fatigue update document that was circulated and, hopefully, the minister will tell us about this. I doubt whether the minister knew about this. This circular has already gone out saying that the legislation will come into effect on 29 September 2008. I believe that is arrogant in the extreme, Mr Speaker. I am conscious of your ruling a few minutes ago that the minister can do this. Yes, of course he can because he knows he has the numbers. He can do this. It is arrogant in the extreme; it is in contempt of parliament.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Well, there it is. I have it in front of me; I am holding it and reading it. It is in contempt of parliament. I hope that the minister did not know about it. I do not expect ministers to know everything that their department does. Yes, they have the numbers in this place, but what about the other place? I will be interested to hear what the minister's comments are about this.

Also, the following question, which the member for Stuart mentioned, needs to be addressed quite clearly: is there flexibility in relation to livestock carriers? You cannot just stand a truck on the side of the road when it is full of livestock. They jam them in pretty tight, which is the best way to handle them, and they get them to the market quickly. Hopefully, there will be an exemption for livestock carriers or at least a clause that will make it more workable for them. All this comes under the minister's power to change these aspects at any time. I am very concerned about that.

I also question whether this will become another revenue raiser for the government because it seems to be upping the fines pretty heavily. I remind the house that, whether or not it was a wise move, when in government, I brought in registration for farm vehicles. Many times I have regretted that because it is issues like this now that place extra focus on farmers because these vehicles are registered. There has always been some conjecture about which should be registered and which should not be registered, but that is in the next bill that is coming before the house in a few minutes, so we will deal with that then.

I question whether the member for Chaffey will get involved in this debate. She has many constituents who would be as much affected by this as do I. As a member of cabinet (a country member at that) I would have thought she would have been here in this house expressing a point of view on behalf of her constituents. After all, whether you are a shadow minister or a minister, your constituents should always come first, but in this instance she has been silent—we have not heard a sound from her—as has the National Party regarding the current national debate on the single desk for wheat.

The National Party in South Australia has been silent but not so the federal National Party which has been very strong—and I support it for that. I ask the member for Chaffey, if she is listening, to come down and have a say, because she would have a lot of constituents, particularly irrigators and broad acre farmers, who are having a tough time of it. We have had rain and a lot of them will be seeding right now, and they do not need to have this over their heads.

We need to have a framework to enable our trucking industry to provide a safe, efficient and affordable service to all Australians, and we need to be able to provide a service where the trucking companies can make money. I am not worried about their being sued or, subject to the law, being put out of business, because we know what the law is today. We need to legislate for better rigs. I have always said that, under legislation, we have done some stupid things in our time and one of them was that we allowed super-dogs on the road. I believe that the things should never—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: What's a super-dog?

Mr VENNING: A super-dog is a three-axled trailer. When you drive down the road, you know what is in front of you because you can see the super-dog swaying all over the road. It has two axles at the back and one at the front. It is nonsense. It is geometrically wrong and it should never have been allowed. We should have encouraged quad-dogs, which are four-axled trailers with two axles at the front and two at the back, making them symmetrical and geometrically correct. They sit on the road square behind the truck. Why have we not legislated against those? It is too late now, because the law has been enacted; because of the carrying capacity of some trucks, the super-dog is allowed, but the quad-dog is not.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The quad-dog—four. These are industry terms—jargon—not mine; I think the minister knows what I am talking about. These are things that we can get wrong in legislation, and we send the wrong messages out. Indeed, I would never own a super-dog—that is, a three-axle trailer.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: A super is a three-axle trailer, and a quad is a four-axle.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr VENNING: You had a dog and you shot him, well, that's about—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: He got run over—sad. However, I say again, I will await the minister's response to these matters because I think he does understand. I commend the minister for what he has done at Outer Harbor and for farmers; we are generally pretty pleased, if only we could get it finished and get the bridges working. However, I thank this minister for his openness and involvement, because I have been able to get information and have also been able to go on site. Again, I thank the minister for that. I say once more: Australia does ride on the sheep's back, but it also rides on the back of a truck.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:57): I would like to speak in favour of this very important legislation. Although I do not have the geometric or engineering expertise of the member for Schubert in this area I do have some experience—having worked for the Transport Workers Union for many years in their workers compensation and health and safety areas—that allows me to comment on issues concerning drivers of heavy vehicles. In fact, I think it was in about 1993 that I was involved in commissioning a project (with the assistance of WorkCover and Adelaide University, under the leadership of now Professor Drew Dawson) that looked at driver fatigue, because we had a number of members—particularly in the long-distance driving area—who were involved in crashes or who unfortunately suffered very severe health penalties because of, in many cases, taking substances to keep themselves awake. This was done with the full knowledge of their employer; it was part of the culture in the long-distance driving area, and probably still is to a certain extent.

Although that category of driver is not necessarily covered by this legislation, one of the big areas of driver fatigue involved bus drivers, who have responsibility for taking their cargo—that is, people—from one place to another. I recall many issues affecting drivers, particularly those who had the responsibility of driving between Adelaide and Darwin, and the need for changeovers that quite often did not happen (the spare driver was not put in place) and the real difficulties of not getting proper rest times or meal breaks in that area.

A number of long-distance and heavy vehicle drivers are owner-operators and, to a certain extent (and certainly we found that in our project), they were the worst offenders. Whereas there are a number of multinational and national companies that do long-distance driving, and the employers in those organisations need to take responsibility, in many instances the owner-drivers need to take responsibility for themselves.

We live in a culture where everything has sped up. Those of us who are old enough to remember the pre-fax days will recall how things were ordered by telephone or mail and, having worked in the dispatch department of Harris Scarfe Industrial, I remember the orders coming in by phone and letter to get goods and services out to country areas. Even in my time—and this is going back quite a way—in the mid-70s, the culture was that you would communicate by radio, and there would be quite a long lead time (particularly with some of the remoter areas) for people to receive the goods.

I must say that, in returning to the industry in the early nineties as a staffer at the Transport Workers Union, it was interesting to see how things had changed: people could now order by computer, obviously they still ordered by telephone and used fax machines and other ways of ordering their goods, but the change was that everything needed to be there yesterday. I think all of us in this modern age are guilty of expecting things to arrive almost immediately. It is a pity that the Tardis from Dr Who has not been employed, because most of us have that expectation of wanting goods and services immediately. The quick fix, quite often, is to use the poor driver, who has to get those goods (or whatever) to the customer, and who has to be involved in long-distance driving to do that.

The other issue for drivers involved the waiting time. The member for Schubert has mentioned the issue of cabotage and the problem of waiting that has happened with loading and unloading, particularly in the port area. The issue of fatigue goes into a whole lot of other areas as well, including the design of vehicles. As I said, I do not have the expertise that the member for Schubert has in the area of what he called geometrics, but I do remember issues concerning design, particularly with truck drivers and bad backs, and also truck drivers having very difficult sleep patterns because of the expectations that were put on them.

I also would like to pay tribute to truck drivers. Their knowledge of the road and how to get goods transported in a safe and efficient way is certainly commendable, as is also their having knowledge of the cargo. I mentioned bus drivers and their cargo (being people), but I must also say—having spent some time working with the livestock carriers—that the knowledge they must have of the livestock they are carrying is commendable, as also is the knowledge needed by drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods, particularly the drivers who cart flammable goods. The issue of their fatigue is extremely important. I commend the government for—all these years later—finally taking these issues on in a serious way.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:02): I rise to make a few comments on this legislation. First, I would like to read a letter, which I believe the minister was not aware of, that went out from his department three weeks ago regarding the introduction of the new fees under this scheme. It states:

Proposed introduction of mass management and maintenance management fees. As a currently accredited member of the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS) in either mass management and/or maintenance management, we are writing to advise you of the proposed introduction of fees to administer these modules.

From 1 July 2008, operators will be charged $80 per module and $25 per vehicle (upon nomination in mass and/or maintenance). The same fees will be charged to process the renewal of an operator's nomination, at the expiration of each two-year accreditation period.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; read Hansard. Continuing:

The Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure has administered the NHVAS mass management and maintenance management modules without fee, since their introduction in 2000. The new fees will partially recover the costs of administering the scheme in South Australia and are broadly consistent with those charged in other states.

There are many advantages to participating in accreditation for both the heavy vehicle industry and other road users. Austroads' research on the safety benefits of accreditation indicates that participation in accreditation modules not only improves business profitability but also increases substantially the safety of the operator's fleet. Vehicles in NHVAS modules are less likely to be involved in a crash compared to vehicles of non-accredited operators.

Membership in the mass management and maintenance management module of NHVAS helps members manage their business more efficiently and experience less down time associated with breakdowns and annual inspections as a result of documented procedures, ensuring vehicles are regularly maintained.

In addition to the commercial and safety benefits of accreditation, membership in the mass management and maintenance management modules of NHVAS will continue to qualify operators for regulatory concessions in South Australia. This includes enabling members to operate at higher mass limits on approved routes in South Australia. To improve service delivery to the heavy vehicle transport industry DTEI will make a number of significant changes to the application processes and systems that manage the NHVAS modules. These changes are expected to be delivered over the 2008 and 2009 financial years with the new systems fully operational by June 2009.

Membership of NHVAS is not compulsory. The decision to enter into or remain in the scheme will be at the operator's discretion, allowing you to measure the cost of entry against the benefits gained from membership. The fee structure will automatically scale its impact to the size of each operation. As an operator you are required to do very little in regards to the introduction of the fees [apart from pay them]. If currently in mass and/or maintenance the fees will be applied on application for either module from the expiry date of your current accreditation period.

For example, if your mass management accreditation period expires in June 2009 a fee of $80 plus $25 for each nominated vehicle will apply to process re-accreditation on expiry. If you are also in the maintenance management module and the expiry date is August 2009 an $80 application fee will apply at that time, as well as a $25 fee for any additional vehicles that have not already been nominated and paid for in the mass management module. For new entrants to NHVAS the fee will be applied on processing an application to enter either mass management and maintenance management or both modules, with an $80 application fee for each module and a $25 fee for each vehicle whether nominated in mass, maintenance or both.

An important issue that operators may wish to consider at this time is their alignment of the mass management and maintenance management modules. If an operator is in both mass management and maintenance management modules they may wish to take this opportunity to consider aligning the expiry dates of both modules before re-accreditation. This can be done by simply advising DTEI in writing that you wish to align the expiry date of the modules and this will provide the benefit of a common expiry date for your fleet and reduced administrative burden for both you and the DTEI Heavy Vehicle Accreditation and Audit Team.

The letter continues, and this is the crunch:

To enable the fees for administering NHVAS to be introduced in South Australia a new law is to be put before the South Australian parliament shortly. Regulations regarding the fee structure are presently being drafted and will be subject to cabinet and parliamentary processes and approvals. Once the legislation comes into operation it will be made available online. Information about the NHVAS can be accessed from the National Transport Commission's website...or specific information about operation of the scheme in South Australia is available from the DTEI website...

The letter is signed, 'Yours sincerely, Brian Hemming, Director, Transport Safety Regulation', and is dated 7 April 2008. Sending letters such as this to transport operators long before the matter is even debated, let alone knowing whether or not the legislation and regulations will be approved, demonstrates the complete arrogance of this government. It is just outrageous.

These are just more fees that operators will need to pay. One heavy operator who operates 10 prime movers already pays about $80,000 a year in registration costs just for prime movers and trailers and believes that any extra fees are just another tax burden on them. What I will comment upon is the surprising flexibility in the proposed legislation with respect to the three-tiered approach. That does give operators some flexibility—whether they work on standard hours, that is, a 12 hour break in a 24-hour period or they go into basic fatigue management or advanced fatigue management schemes.

As a rural member, I am certainly concerned how will it apply to operators in grain silo line-ups, because I know from experience that, you can arrive at a line-up at 3am or 4am and not be unloaded until to midday. How will that time in the silo line be classified? We do not need any impediment to our rural producers in these tough times, with drought impeding most of the country since 2002. I am also concerned that livestock transport operators receive the appropriate exemptions so that they can continue transporting livestock safely and in an appropriate manner.

I live on the Melbourne to Adelaide route and I am well aware of what goes wrong, whether it is truck drivers or people driving passenger vehicles going to sleep. I have witnessed the impact of a sports car going under the tandem axles of a bogey-drive flat-top truck: it is very tragic to see the results. In relation to that specific case, it was thought that obviously the driver had fallen asleep. I have also seen the result of where it seems apparent that suicides have occurred when people have decided to drive into the front of heavy vehicles, without any thought for the driver of that vehicle and the nightmares that he may have in ensuing years over what happened that day when his truck lit up because someone decided to end their life.

I have also seen the foolishness of some truck drivers. Thousands of trucks travel the Melbourne to Adelaide route in both directions every day and 99.99 per cent of them do the right thing, but I have seen the result of truck drivers falling asleep at the wheel and waking up in a paddock hundreds of metres off the road. I have also witnessed the results of when a truck driver goes to sleep and slams into a B-double, and incinerates the whole truck, driver and all—very tragic.

I think this legislation is commendable. We do need fatigue management, but it does need to be the right management. The right operators need to be able to have exemptions to make it work practically, especially in rural areas. In closing, I refer to remarks made by the member for Giles about the Adelaide to Darwin rail line. National carriers were contracted to that line from the start. They became sick and tired of goods being damaged because parts of the track were uneven and subsequently they have bought fleets of trucks. That is part of the answer for what happened.

There is no point getting goods to the other end when you cannot even read the labels on a tin of fruit because they had been rattled off—and I am not talking about one of Allan Scott's companies.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: He might own it, who knows? As I said previously, I do commend the bill. Hopefully, it does control management. We have to put the right structures in place, but we also need to have flexibility for people who need the exemptions and we also need better facilities for people using the roads. There are good truck parks on both sides of the freeway, but they do not have toilet or bathroom facilities for drivers. I think it would be very appropriate for these facilities to be built.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (12:13): I thank members opposite for their contributions. I will say a couple of things initially, given the pretended chagrin of the lead speaker for the opposition about a pamphlet being circulated. First, I do not believe that our bureaucrats should put out pamphlets saying that something will commence on 29 September prior to parliament dealing with it. In defence of them I will say—and I have another little surprise for the lead speaker later—that that was the view of the National Transport Commission and the industry groups which have discussed this with the National Transport Commission.

This is a matter that has been agreed basically by everyone except, possibly, the opposition here. As a surprise to the lead speaker, it is my understanding that, even if they do vote against something sensible, it will commence on 29 September. They are right. Even though I do not think they should have put it in those terms, it will commence on 29 September: it is just that we will not be in it.

So, just before we beat our chest too much about taking the parliament for granted, it is correct that there will be a national fatigue management scheme on 29 September, but if you people do not support it South Australia will not be in it, and I think that that would be very regrettable.

It was astonishing (although not really astonishing but regrettably predictable) that the entire contribution of the lead speaker for the opposition was to make that point and say that they reserve the right to amend the bill upstairs, but they did not tell us what the problems were. Did people hear the speech of the lead speaker for the opposition? He did not tell us what the issues were he might amend, just that he might seek to amend it—and I think that pretty much sums up his contribution.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am quite happy to go back to Hansard and see what you said. What I will say is this: I take very seriously, however, the contribution of the member for Stuart, the member for Schubert and the member for Hammond. So that people understand the position I take as minister, I say this: the road freight industry is absolutely central to our wealth creation in this state. The logistics chain is a huge amount of gross domestic product. The things we do in this state are underpinned by the movement of freight. Almost every area of our wealth creation has road freight at its heart in making it possible.

For that reason, I assure the member for Stuart that my approach as a minister in this portfolio has been to make sure that, as far as we can, our regulatory impost on industry is only what is necessary and that we have a culture in the department of being in the same game as industry. One of the things we have done, which has been very successful and about which members of the industry have written to me, was to establish a heavy vehicle forum. It meets about every three months, and members of the industry sit down to discuss issues with our senior people in the department and with regulatory people with a view (and, in my mind, this was the reason it was set up) to making sure that our regulation supports industry and does not punish it unnecessarily.

One of the things I would like to do today is invite the member for Stuart to the next forum to raise some of the matters he talked about, as he knows that I have some sympathy with a few of those. I will run through some of the issues raised by the opposition, particularly policing. The member knows that it was my personal view in the introduction of the chain of responsibility legislation that policing should be flexible and not punish people for inadvertent mistakes or for not being as familiar as they should. We have tried to do that.

I am quite happy for the member for Stuart to talk to our people. He has been here for a very long time, and I think there have been very significant changes. I think that people have done a very good job for a long time, but the culture is slightly different and he should talk to them.

I assure the member for Stuart that, as he well knows, in terms of our people, we have an influence but, as minister, I do not interfere with the job the Chief Executive does. I also assure him that, in terms of policing, that influence is much less. None of us ministers tells the police how to do their job, and the member would know that.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I must point out that it is probably safer for you to have a discussion with them than it is for me. I think that I might be in a lot of trouble if I were to suggest to them how they do that.

I say two things to the member for Schubert: first, I do not want to invite the whole caucus to the forum, but it would be good if he came along and perhaps brought some of the views of his rural constituents about truck driving. I think that it is a good forum and that it does a good job. I have to tell you that there are a lot of people there who never voted for us before. A few of your mates out your way never voted for us, but they like the forum.

In terms of some of the questions asked, two primary issues are raised in relation to exemptions. I think that the member for MacKillop's great opposition to these national schemes is a little amusing, given that this is the next step in a national scheme—not a fully national scheme but one created in 1999 by the previous government. I am not criticising it because it was a good idea to do it.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It doesn't make it right, but it is rather funny that you are criticising it, although you may still have been an Independent in 1999. We call you the unsuccessful Independent—the other two have done much better. If you talk to the industry, it wants a consistent approach across state borders—it has been a desire for a long time. I know that the member for Stuart does not believe the industry represents all views, and it probably does not, but this has come from all jurisdictions that deal with major industry representatives coming up with a scheme that they believe is the best one they can achieve.

Some concerns have been raised about it. Can I deal, first, with the issue of exemptions. It is intended that the exemptions under the existing legislation will continue for three years or until another exemption is made. If you look at it, you will find, as I think the member for Hammond pointed out, that there is more flexibility in the current regime than in the past one. So it may be that the exemptions for livestock users do not need to be in the same terms as the previous one, but they will be continued for a term of three years or until new exemptions are made. That is roughly right. In terms of the 100 kilometre boundary, while they will not be exactly the same, there will be very similar provisions, that is, if you are within 100 kilometres of your farm you will have a much lesser regime than that imposed in terms of documentation and recording.

I ask members to take me at my word: I believe regulation should be as easy as possible to live with because the road freight industry is so important to us. We have just set up an interdepartmental group to look at licensing and the provision of truck drivers because we need these people. As the member for Schubert has pointed out, it is difficult to find a labourer these days. Well, try to find good truck drivers also. We are very conscious of that.

In between the houses the officers who can answer your questions in much more detail than I can will be made available to you and you can go through all of that with them. At the end of the day I ask the house to accept that national legislation does have benefit for industry, but it must be something on which everyone has agreed—and I point out that it has the support of the bulk of the industry and unions associated with it.

We will put $10 million into the budget over four years for rest stops. I understand there is some action from the commonwealth, but I cannot say what that is off the top of my head. It is shaped like a lot of other legislation and has reasonable steps defences. There is an element of defence: you cannot stop at a rest stop if you do not have one. That is an obligation on us, and we are spending $10 million over the next four years on that aspect.

I struggle to understand the issue the member for Hammond has raised. We have these accreditation systems at present. For seven or eight years other states have charged fees on a cost recovery basis. This is an entirely voluntary scheme and people will only enter into it if they believe there is a benefit in it. We will have ongoing discussions with industry about whether there should be more benefits out of accreditation. I think that is something that is worthwhile with a national body. It is a national approach and we are only doing what I think other states have done for seven or eight years. And we are probably not even recovering all our costs, because that is what those people do to me all the time.

In terms of the matters that have been raised, a different set of provisions will remain with respect to the 100 kilometres; they will be similar, but not identical. We will try to obtain the details of that. The member for Stuart probably understands more about it than I do. I would like the member to come along to the next one of the heavy vehicle forums, because an awful lot of people come from out his way.

With respect to the exemptions, I think the provision holds them over for livestock handlers, and so on, for three years, until new exemptions are made, and there might be some other aspect of it. However, it is intended that the new flexibility means that the exemptions will not have to be the same as they were in the past. I will give my personal undertaking that, while I remain the minister, I will continue to believe that regulation should be there to protect safety and also to ensure that burdens are not imposed on industry that should not be imposed.

People have to remember (and people on my side of the house as well, because we are intimately in touch with it) that there are a number of pressures on the cost of road freight. Over the last 20 years the road freight industry has consistently passed on its efficiencies to users. With respect to the costs of moving freight by road, in real terms there has been a steady decline, and those benefits have been passed on. We face pressures, in terms of fuel and availability of people.

So, my perspective is that the regulatory system should not impose any more burden on that environment than it has to because, if South Australia is to realise all its economic opportunities in the future, it will do so with the best regulated and best possible road freight industry that we can have. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (12:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:27): The minister's explanations were quite satisfactory for my colleagues. We take the minister at his word, and we assume that there will be full and frank discussions between houses. I look forward to the bill's progressing through both houses. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (12:27): I am happy with the explanation of the minister, and I look forward to the discussions. I accept the minister's invitation to attend one of the forums. My only desire is to see a practical and sensible operation where everyone can get on with their business. As the minister rightly pointed out, Australia and South Australia need a good, effective, well run and profitable road transport system. The country cannot operate without it. There is a different set of criteria for smaller operators—farmers and pastoralists and those sorts of people. It is a completely different arrangement for those people. We are now getting B-triple trucks on the roads, and the trucks are getting better—and, like the member for Giles, I do listen to channel 40, for a number of reasons.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:28): I thank the minister for answering the questions. I also trust the minister. I do not trust all of them, but I trust this one, even though he is rough and tough: he is a man of his word. It will be interesting to see what happens between now and when the bill reaches the other house but, at this stage, I am generally happy.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT