HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

HEAVY VEHICLE NATIONAL LAW (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 June 2013.)

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:52): I rise to resume my contribution to this national transport bill. Something that I did not touch on in my last contribution is what the heavy transport industry means to South Australia. In 2010 in South Australia the transport and logistics industry had a turnover of $8.4 billion, representing about 6.9 per cent of gross state product, it employed 29,000 people, about 31,000 full-time equivalents, and paid an estimated $355 million in direct taxes. This makes the transport and logistics industry 40 per cent larger than the wine industry, 40 per cent bigger than the motor vehicle industry, and 70 per cent of the size of the agricultural and mining sectors.

The economic multiplier effects add an additional $5.5 billion to the economic impact of the industry. In 2010 in South Australia the road transport sector had a turnover of almost $3.9 billion, including generating $1.7 billion of value-add, and employed over 19,000 FTEs, and the road sector paid an estimated $100 million in direct taxes. All of these statistics are from 2010. I am advised that the transport sector has increased by 4.5 per cent from that date to the current date.

Quickly touching on the registration issue, a very recent example of the effect red tape is having on registration in South Australia is the cost, the regulations, the inspections. Transport companies that are wishing to register their trucks are saying that they are choosing to register their vehicles—their trailers—interstate, not in South Australia. That is of considerable concern to not only the opposition but it must be a considerable concern for the government to have a large amount of money vested in other states, when we have got transport operators using our roads, using our infrastructure.

The reason they are going interstate is because of the regulations that are put on them, the irregularities with vehicle inspections and the cost. As I said, it is a deterrent for transport operators to register here in South Australia, and that must be of concern to the minister. I have spoken to many truck operators—many large, national truck operators—and they have all told me the same story; that is, it is cheaper to do business elsewhere. So, that is something that I think the government needs to take account of because this national law will not change that.

Just as an example, one of the larger transport businesses that I have spoken to has spent about $700,000 a year just on registrations of trucks, and, of that $700,000, $500,000 goes to registering their trucks in Victoria. What is that telling us, when looking at the South Australian economy? That money is going to the Victorian economy. That money is going towards repairing Victorian roads, it is going towards repairing Victorian infrastructure, so we need to have a look at that and make sure that South Australia is the beneficiary of all the transport operators here in South Australia.

One area that I have real concern with is the current process for heavy vehicle registration through Service SA outlets. I have had constant feedback from constituents in my electorate alone that a trip to Service SA is not a pleasant experience, to the extent that companies are completely avoiding registering their vehicles at these outlets. They are choosing to go interstate.

Inspections are another issue that I do not think the national regulatory body will supersede, and it is inconsistent that we are seeing too many token defects on reasonably new trucks. We are talking minor defects. We are talking a hole in a mudguard. We are talking mudflaps that are 20 millimetres too low or too high. We are talking about these token defects that, once detected, are then taken to the inspection stations where they are then referred to as a major defect, and then that truck is given a full going over. That is time off the road, that is more cost and it is affecting the viability of a business here in South Australia.

One of the solutions that could be a part of that is that we have inspection stations that are open temporarily. We have inspection stations that are open one day a week, one day a fortnight or one day a month, in some cases—that is not good enough. As we all know, heavy vehicles in transport industries are a 24/7 business. Everyone needs to have those vehicles up and running.

So, we need to have an inspection regime that is basically looking at a model like they have in Victoria. In Victoria, they do not have inspection stations as such: they have accredited service centres that are open seven days a week, during all business hours, so that trucks can book in and go straight there. They do not have to book a truck in with a week's wait. They do not have to make a trip, say, from the Riverland down to Adelaide. What they can do is just go to that accredited service centre and have that compliance looked at and sorted out.

What I would hope is that the ultimate beneficiaries from this national law will be the small and medium businesses and the family-run businesses. My hope is that this bill will reduce currently excessive regulation in the industry, which, no doubt, will come as a relief to more than 4,000 small businesses, particularly in Chaffey, many of whom have a connection with heavy vehicles because we do not have the rail network to help our industry. We grow a particularly large amount of produce that is all taken to export markets, to port, and is logistically moved around the state by heavy vehicles. So, again, I think that is something that needs to be addressed. In finishing, I have outlined my concerns and issues with the heavy vehicle transport industry, but given my support to the heavy vehicle national law, which I think is a step in the right direction.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:00): Very briefly, I rise to support this bill, but I certainly have some reservations about it. I do declare that I am the owner of trucks and that, in retirement, I will probably end up driving trucks because it is a very pleasant pastime and a good way to see the country. I have always supported, right through my career, getting uniform laws of the country together with other states to make sure that there is no inconsistencies between states, so I do welcome the principle behind this.

However, it annoys me greatly to see that there are exceptions to this, and the South Australian exceptions are listed. In other words, we are going to go along with all of the national standards, but we are not going to change the rules we have in relation to possession of a device to tamper with a speed limiter, with a penalty of $10,00 to $50,000. That is ridiculous because what is a device? Is it a spanner in the vehicle or truck? This whole area is very contentious and open. I think that is over the top. Why are we going to leave that exception there when the national standard does not pick it up? I would like the minister to address that.

Also, another exception is selling a vehicle subject to a defect notice, with a penalty of $3,000. I do not understand why the national standard has not picked that up. I believe that a national standard is just that: a national standard. Why have exceptions? It does conflict. South Australia will continue with its existing laws that are not included in this model legislation, and I say why?

There is the power to enter premises to determine whether a vehicle is a defective heavy vehicle. I have a huge opposition to this. I do not believe that anybody has the right to go on to a private property just to see whether or not a vehicle is defective. The vehicle could have been parked there; it might have been there for weeks on end. It might be undergoing repairs. Yet an officer can come onto the property to see whether or not it is defective. I cannot believe how the powers that be allow that power to be there. I think that it is quite unbelievable. You have to be kidding! The industry generally is very supportive of this. I cannot understand why the industry would support these things. I cannot believe it. If the members of their industry could see this, I am sure that they would not approve of it, and I will certainly be confronting the organisations representing the trucking industry.

Also, there is the authority to use force against a person or property to exercise functions. They have this attitude of, 'I will do this because I can.' I cannot believe that we should leave that there. Then there is the authority to amend or withdraw a vehicle defect notice from another state and authority to seize vehicles or things—in other words, to seize a vehicle or a truck. Then there is power to move an unattended vehicle if causing danger or obstruction. That is common sense, I believe. I do not know why that is not in the national standard; it ought to be. If a vehicle is unattended and it is causing a problem, they should have the power to move it. So, I question why that is not in the national standard.

South Australia will also continue to allow four offences to be expiable. There is, under section 183, liability of an employer for breach of mass, etc. requirements. Then there is the liability of employer for driver's breach of work/rest requirements. I cannot believe that we have made laws like this. As an employer, you supply the best of equipment to your truck drivers, but it is up to them, because you are not there when they load the truck and you are not there when they drive the truck. As long as the employer can prove that he supplied the goods in good order, that he has instructed his drivers and that he has given his drivers enough time to get to the job and to return and, if the driver then decides to detour and then run himself late and get into trouble, why should the employer be responsible for that, particularly with the overloading thing?

We often see that a carrier comes into our paddock to load up out of one of our field bins and he overloads it, or if my own driver overloads our truck, I am responsible because I am the owner of that grain. I think it is an absolutely ridiculous law. I cannot believe that the national truck research centre and these others would support these measures, particularly the Australian Trucking Association and the South Australian Road Transport Association. Do they support these measures? I cannot believe that they have not seized the opportunity to use this bill, the nationalisation of standards, to say, 'Hang on, we support this, we want you to get rid of these objectionable exceptions that we do not like.' I cannot believe they have just fallen over, and I think it is totally ridiculous.

Regarding the liability for record keeping, it is again the liability of the employer to keep the record keeping of the driver. If the driver does not fill out his log book or whatever, wherever he is—and many drivers leave home for four or five days in a week—how can their boss be responsible for whether or not he has filled out his log book? The drivers know what the law is and, if they do not do that, why should it be on the employer? The fines, as we know, are pretty heavy.

With regard to failure to comply with authorised officers' requirement to offer reasonable help, that is very wide and open to any interpretation in that one. So I cannot understand why this opportunity was not taken by the industry to say, 'Yes, we go along with the national standards, to standardise road laws across Australia and to get rid of these ridiculous laws that South Australia seems to have.' I do not know whether the minister can tell me in a minute, given that we have gone on to the national standard, why do we have these ridiculous South Australia exceptions?

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:06): I want to make contribution in regard to the Heavy Vehicle National Law Bill 2013. This bill was developed from a COAG agreement to establish a national system for heavy vehicle regulation governed by one national law. This follows a commitment for legislation for rail and marine vessels as well, and I note that the transport industry is generally supportive of this. I think there are probably some improvements that can be made down the track as we see the impact of this national law, but certainly for the major transport operators in my area, and from other areas of the state that I have talked to, they are keen to get this underway.

There is a whole range of things that are different with vehicle legislation nationally—whether it is in respect of wide loads and escort vehicles or different relationships when you cross the border. Many farmers speak to me about the different rules and regulations. If you have a wide load coming in from Victoria or New South Wales or you are going the other way into those states, there are different escort arrangements. For instance, an escort vehicle might not be needed in one state but might have to travel up to 500 or 1,000 kilometres to do the job for the vehicle that needs to be escorted.

In respect of the legislation, most operators are keen to get on board, but I think there is always room for improvement, especially in regard to transport. A lot of people, in light of whether there are B-doubles or if trucks are travelling north out of Port Adelaide with the road trains and the different rules—especially in regard to speeding legislation between South Australia and the Northern Territory—that causes angst for operators.

As much as we have the success of the Adelaide to Darwin railway, a lot of operators in the early days—and I think it has got a bit better since—put a lot of freight on the Ghan. The trouble was there are some patches up near Tennant Creek, from memory, that cause a lot of vibration in the trucks. They would go and unbox the cartons and all of the labels were torn to bits from vibration, and there were some very big major carriers who had contracted to put all of their freight on the train heading north to Darwin.

With regard to the national law, in August 2012 the national law was passed by Queensland, a board and a chief executive were appointed at the end of 2012 and the national regulator commenced business on 21 January 2013. Obviously, with any national law, it cannot commence until all the states have passed their laws. New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria initially expected operation by 1 July 2013—obviously, we will not have gazettal by then.

With regard to the Northern Territory, which I was just speaking about, and the Australian Capital Territory, they are requiring more time but will follow on at a later date. I note that in the Northern Territory they are not including fatigue management model law in their legislation. It is interesting to note that, even though this is supposed national legislation, Western Australia is not a signatory to the agreement. So, I guess that makes it a little bit farcical in relation to national law when you have probably 35 per cent of the country's land mass not being involved, especially in light of the massive amounts of freight that go between the Eastern States and Western Australia.

During the recent drought, well over one million sheep and many thousands of cattle came to South Australia. On one of my trips to the west, I witnessed transport operators changing loads at Border Village. Trucks were backing up to each other and changing loads so that the Western Australian driver could head back and get another load and the South Australian driver could head this way. It was an interesting time because the trucks that were going to source this stock out of Western Australia at the time were going empty all the way over to the wheat belt and some of the northern country of Western Australia or down to the south-west, and they could justify going empty, so that they could rescue these stock from starvation, essentially, and get them over to South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales where there was better feed availability.

With respect to this bill, it establishes the national system. Essentially, the reform provides for national consistency, with the claims that it will reduce costs and increase efficiency. In particular, it is claimed to provide a more productive and safer industry. The exceptions with regard to South Australian legislation that are in place and that South Australia is going to continue are: possession of a device to tamper with a speed limiter is a $10,000 or $50,000 fine; and sell a vehicle subject to a defect notice is a $3,000 fine.

South Australia also seeks to continue existing powers that are not included in the model legislation. Some people would think that some of those powers are a bit onerous. I will go through the list: the power to enter premises to determine if a vehicle is a defective heavy vehicle; the authority to use force against a person or property to exercise functions; the authority to amend or withdraw a vehicle defect notice from another state; the authority to seize vehicles or things; and the power to move an unattended vehicle if causing danger or obstruction.

Certainly, in light of defective vehicles, we do not want them on the road, but I must say that it has been my experience, and from stories relayed to me, that there have been some brand new trucks being brought over to Adelaide from the Eastern States that have been defected en route on the Dukes Highway. Work that out. Brand new trucks. So, either there is a significant problem with how these trucks are set up for delivery or there is an overzealous inspector or police officer (one of the two). When some of these vehicles are up in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, you have to wonder at what is going on.

I note that South Australia will continue to allow some offences to be expiable: clause 183, liability of employer etc. for breach of mass, dimension or loading requirement; clause 261, liability of employer etc. for driver's breach of work rest requirement; clause 324, liability for record keeping; and clause 579, failure to comply with authorised officers' power to require reasonable help. Certainly with regard to the liability of employers for breach of mass requirements—and this is related partly to the chain of responsibility legislation in this state—it does make sure that anyone who is in charge of sending freight is responsible for those loads.

With regard to mass management legislation, where there is an increase in allowance so long as the trucks are governed under a scheme of reporting and inspection for roadworthiness, it certainly can work very well for all parties concerned. The only issue—and it was brought to my attention only the other day—with mass management is that the trucks need to have a monthly weight check so that they can see that everything fits within specification, with what they have on their paperwork with regard to their mass management limit and the way the truck is set up.

I had a constituent who carts a lot of potatoes—and we grow 80 per cent of the potatoes of the country out of the Mallee. The issue is that a lot of this work is done after hours. The trucks are loaded at night and then the trucks go into Adelaide, and they are struggling to find a weighbridge where they can do this compliance for their mass management arrangements. I know one of the operators concerned did contact the department about potentially using places like the Monteith weighbridge, but I can understand that there would be some issues with that, because it would be another matter of self-compliance.

You could set up a system where you would have the weight that the truck driver could visualise through a window perhaps, and have it shielded with some protective bars or mesh so that the machine could not get damaged. I can recall in past years that you could get access to either Viterra or Glencore sites with regard to bulk handling. Back in the days when they were Barley Board or South Australian Cooperative Bulk Handling sites, you would make arrangements with your local agent to leave the weighbridge on so you could check a load if you were going to be there after hours. That was part of the community service that used to go on with regard to people being able to check weights and it certainly worked very well.

Now we are seeing—and I can understand partly why it is happening, because of the issues around liability, etc.—that farmers, hay contractors and other people cannot access these weighbridges, so you have communities like the Karoonda area. I know the Karoonda district council are looking at a proposal to install a weighbridge and they are preparing to put up $200,000, but they are still in the feasibility stage. They are looking at how they can manage it, because they figure that it certainly will not be cost neutral and it will be something that will be a cost to the council and obviously the ratepayers.

We want to have loads on the road that are safe and within the limits, yet we seem to be having less and less chance to make sure that the trucks are validated as far as their weight is concerned. I think the member for Schubert was talking about sending loads of grain out of the paddock and you are not too sure—even with pressure gauges on the side of the truck, you only have to be on a bit of an angle and you can have a truck several tonne out either way with regard to the weight specification.

Certainly, in regard to mass management, I think there needs to be a way for people to self-assess. It might take a bit of imagination within the department because, these days, the weighbridges seem to be used only for blitzes. They could somehow work out a system so that places like Monteith could be used by the industry for everyone's benefit so that people who are operating out of normal business hours, as many truck operators do, have an opportunity to check their weights. As I said, it would take a bit of imagination and enterprise by the department to set that up, but I certainly do not think it is impossible and I think it is something definitely worth looking at.

There are other issues around the liability of employers. The drivers' breach of work/rest requirements is very important. Too many times, especially where I live on the Dukes Highway, you see the results of trucks where drivers have gone to sleep and a lot of times fatalities are caused. Sometimes they are single-vehicle accidents and other times there are terrible impacts where two heavy transports have come together, and I can tell members that it is ugly, especially when innocent people have been killed or badly injured in the process.

A new feature in this bill is the internal-external review provisions. For example, currently, if a local council refuses access to a road, DPTI attempts to negotiate an outcome but will not act to override the decision of the council. The new process will allow a review by the department and then the minister, but requires approval of the regulator to proceed. There is still no appeal from this process to the District Court and this formalises current arrangements, but it makes it more cumbersome.

We need to have some better planning outcomes for road access to transport, especially B-double routes in this state. The grain handling industry select committee had discussions, both here and also in Western Australia, about how we could make access to B-double routes far better. The issue is that the grain has to come out and come in and the farmers do not want it sitting around. Many operators do operate B-doubles but, obviously, not all roads are gazetted.

I know, certainly in the electorates of the members for Flinders and Giles, some councils are keen to have full gazettal, and probably speed limited. There is probably an argument about what we limit them to—whether it is 80 km/h, and there might be differently graded roads for that as well—but the simple fact is that I imagine there are trucks that are getting a load when they need to (when the farmer is on the phone saying, 'We have got to get this load out') and the truck goes up the road, anyway, whether it is gazetted or not.

That is the wrong thing to do, but I think we need to make access a lot better. Certainly, in relation to what used to be called 'the first mile, last mile', now 'the first kilometre, last kilometre' in access to sites, especially in grain handling, you get a ridiculous provision where, in some cases, the trucks cannot tow the B-double for 30 metres off the main road into the site legally. They have to unhook and tow half in and then come back and get the back trailer. This kills productivity, quite frankly, and needs to be addressed.

I think a lot of improvements can be made in that area for B-double access because, let's be real, these trucks are heavily managed under mass management or under normal weight management regulation. I think that moving to a process, as they have been trying to do or have done in Western Australia—I know they have certainly been looking at it in Western Australia—where pretty well all the roads can be gazetted would be a far better outcome; but perhaps a speed restriction could be used so that we do not get the damage on the roads. I certainly know that the trucks are not going to get smaller, and there are some big rigs in operation throughout the country.

Under the regulation, heavy transport will be dealt with under the model law, and accordingly the Road Traffic Act will be amended to only cover light vehicles. However, drink and drug driving, careless and dangerous driving, excessive speed and Australian road rule requirements will continue to apply to heavy vehicles as well as light vehicles under the Road Traffic Act, and enforcement obviously will generally continue to be enforced by the South Australian Police Force and 20 to 30 enforcement officers from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

I note that we received on this side of the house submissions from the National Truck Research Centre, Australian Logistics Council, Australian Trucking Association and the South Australian Road Transport Association. I know the deputy leader has raised some questions in her debate, and there will be some questions raised during the debate about this heavy vehicle national law.

We do support the passing of this national law, but we want to see real outcomes for transport operators. It is a vital part of our economy. As I live on the Dukes Highway, I can hear those 600-horsepower trucks going past all night long. They are a vital asset to our economy in delivering loads east and west, and other freight operators north and south. We have to be careful, in the regulation regime that we preside over here, that we also make it fair and equitable for our truck operators to operate.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (16:26): I rise to speak on this very important bill. It is extremely important for my electorate of Mount Gambier. We have a very large transport industry, and I certainly support the concept of national rules and protocols for the transport industry. It is probably very pertinent in Mount Gambier, where you can load a truck, go 20 kilometres down the road, go across the border and have a different set of rules, then go into New South Wales and have another set of rules. It is quite awkward for our operators.

I believe that one of the conditions that we must have is that our South Australian industry has representation on the Five Star Rating Review Committee and the Chain of Responsibility Review Committee. Both of these committees come under the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator so that the interests of our small to medium transport operators are taken into consideration. There must be a withdrawal process in place if it all goes pear-shaped. I believe that the minister should report to parliament three months and six months after the implementation of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator as to its progress and performance.

I am advised that the South Australian Road Transport Association (SARTA) Board has held a lengthy and, at times, tense phone hook-up to consider whether or not to withdraw its long-standing support for the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator concept and the South Australian enabling legislation. This came about because of the incredible (literally) machinations that have been associated with the lead-up to and the events since the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure decision on 10 May, when a stitch-up deal was done between the federal and New South Wales ministers, with other ministers seemingly acquiescing to refer the nonsensical five star proposal to the NHVR, along with a $6 million budget to develop and pilot the scheme.

A letter was sent to SCOTI ministers, including the South Australian minister, prior to the 10 May meeting, signed by 16 prominent operators, including the presidents of three peak body state associations, two past chairmen of the Australian Trucking Association, the managing director of one of Australia's largest truck operators, and a range of other prominent operators and small operators from all sectors of the industry, ranging from furniture removal to livestock to general freight. The letter reads:

Dear Ministers,

We understand that SCOTI will consider at its May meeting a proposal from New South Wales regarding the broad concept of proposals known as Five Star accreditation for the trucking industry.

We have taken the unusual step of writing an open letter to all Ministers who comprise SCOTI to ensure that you each have the opportunity to be fully aware of the broader views of the trucking industry regarding the Five Star concept when you consider that proposal.

At the outset, we stress that we and the vast bulk of the industry, including the representative bodies of which we are members, are fully committed to safe and compliant truck operations. We also accept and support the need to keep the regulatory regime including enforcement strategies and accreditation schemes, under review and for appropriate enhancements and reforms to be implemented to deliver demonstrable safety gains.

Indeed the industry has, as we are sure you are aware, made substantial gains in safety over the past few decades and we continue to pursue the safety agenda as a top priority. Moreover we are eager to see governments collectively lift their performance in the effective implementation of the vital Chain of Responsibility laws throughout the chain and in particular we believe that governments need to do far more in enforcing compliance with these laws by the other parties in the Chain such as consignors and consignees as well as maintaining an appropriate focus on the truck operators and drivers. This has been a weakness in the implementation of the Chain of Responsibility concept to date.

The one thing which we all are however utterly opposed to and reject as ineffective and unjustifiable is any proposal for the introduction of a new and extra level of accreditation as there are already enough, if not too many, such regimes.

Five Star trucking, as presently framed and as presented, would be just such an extra and unjustifiable scheme. In our experienced judgement, as people firmly committed to and with proven records of safety in trucking, the Five Star scheme would not add any safety gains in and of itself.

Secondly, proposals for a rating scheme, such as the Five Star proposal raise a number of serious and counter-productive consequences that would seriously threaten the effectiveness and equity of the scheme and in our view any assertion that such scheme would be 'voluntary' displays a fundamental lack of understanding, or denial, of the commercial reality.

We consider that the best approach for government and industry to continue to progress safety and compliance improvements throughout the chain of responsibility would be to assess the progress and lessons since the introduction of Chain of Responsibility laws some 6 years ago and identify:

1. What has worked well

2. What hasn't

3. Opportunities for improvement in safety and compliance; and

4. What changes/reforms to existing regimes, including accreditation schemes, would help deliver those improvements.

Accordingly, we and the vast bulk of the industry would be utterly opposed to any suggestion that the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) should undertake any project aimed at developing and implementing the Five Star proposal per se.

We would however support a broader project by the NHVR that is aimed at reviewing the CoR experience to date, as outlined above, including the performance of accreditation regimes such as NHVAS, WA Main Roads and Truck Safe in delivering safe and compliant truck operations with a view to recommending reforms and strategies to improve the overall safety and compliance levels of the trucking industry and all other parties through the entire Chain of Responsibility.

Any such project must be fully inclusive of the trucking industry from across the country throughout the project, if it is to enlist the wide support and subsequent participation of the industry and avoid the many pitfalls that inevitably arise from reforms developed in the absence of the key and representative participants.

The letter ends there. Having failed despite the support and involvement of the broad majority of the industry, to stop SCOTI from doing this, SARTA then shifted its focus to ensuring that the five star concept is considered by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator properly, namely through an inclusive and transparent process, and in the context of a proper assessment of the experience to date of the existing chain of responsibility laws and regimes, including fatigue, mass and maintenance management, and accreditation schemes since their inception over the past five years.

This is critical as the industry and SARTA, from our national body and the ATA down, is of the firm view that there is no need or room for an extra layer of accreditation, especially one like five star, which even its proponents are unable to say would add any new or improved safety standards. The strong preference of industry, and the most practical approach is first to assess what improvements or reforms of the existing regimes could and should be implemented to deliver tangible safety gains before any serious consideration is given to the five star concept. Five star, as proposed by its proponents, would merely add costs for truck operators.

As proposed, it would not have any impact on one of the major remaining sources of compliance issues and safety concerns within the industry—the clients and especially the large corporate clients, including some supermarkets, for example. It would not cost them anything as all they would do is opt or not opt for truck operators with five stars whilst not being required by the scheme to do anything themselves to reduce or eradicate the fatigue problems they cause for truck drivers through inappropriate and often unlawful queuing and/or imposing unrealistic deadlines or other logistical problems.

SARTA has been pressing extraordinarily hard to secure what should have been a simple and reasonable thing: written commitment from the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to establish committees or working groups to pursue a review of the chain of responsibility, experience and lessons since the laws were introduced five years ago as a first step in responding to the SCOTI decision of 10 May.

SARTA has been assured by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, but only ever informally and in somewhat hushed tones, that this would be the case, but they have been unable to secure written commitments to the open and transparent industry-wide consultative approach despite numerous attempts and promises. I am informed that SARTA has been seeking a meeting with minister Koutsantonis since 22 May to discuss their concerns on this, and they finally met with him last Friday.

I think the main point for all of us is: what is the government going to do to ensure that South Australian truck operators are not disadvantaged through this scheme? The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator must operate with a broadly inclusive approach and consult with the industry widely and nationally. We must ensure that South Australia and its needs are not dismissed by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. The minister must ensure that in future the industry's concerns are responded to appropriately. Other questions I have are:

1. Given that the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator is a watershed reform, what action is the government taking to ensure that all enforcement officers within SAPOL, DPTI, and all DPTI personnel are all fully trained on the new national laws and their administration?

2. Has the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator delivered the national training program and, if not, when will it be delivered?

3. Can the government guarantee the trucking industry that effective training of government personnel will be implemented by the commencement date of 1 September 2013?

4. If there is insufficient time for the general duties police to be trained, will the government restrict enforcement of the new laws to specialist police with the highway patrol and heavy vehicle task force units?

5. What action will the government take to work with trucking industries and bodies, like SARTA, to ensure that an effective industry-wide education program is implemented?

6. If the minister is of the view that changes for the South Australian truck operators are minimal, can the minister provide a list of those changes and will the minister ensure that the industry, including SARTA, is provided with that information in a timely manner?

If these training issues are not resolved, there will be significant problems that will impact adversely on the industry, adding costs to operators through unintended breaches and fines under the new rules and procedural requirements. As recently as last week, officials advised me that they had not received the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator training program and guidelines for the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator.

I can support this bill, provided that our South Australian industry has representation on the five-star rating review committee and the chain of responsibility review committee, which both come under the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, so that the interests of our small to medium transport operators are taken into consideration. I repeat that there must be a withdrawal process in place if it all goes wrong. I believe that the minister should report to parliament three months and six months after the implementation of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator as to its progress and performance.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:40): I rise to make a relatively brief contribution before I hand back to our shadow minister, who is keen to get this into committee as, no doubt, the minister is as well. As has been mentioned by many of the regional MPs, heavy vehicle transport is so critical to our various electorates. The freight task that confronts our electorates, our state and the nation more broadly each and every day is significant. I understand the member for Chaffey had some figures as to the value of the industry itself. It made many other significant industries pale into insignificance when compared with the freight task that confronts this nation each and every day.

My understanding is that this bill has been developed out of a COAG agreement to establish a national system for heavy vehicle regulation that would be governed by one national law. I understand the terminology for this is 'harmonisation', which can only be a good thing. It follows a commitment to and legislation for both rail and marine vessels, which we have already debated in this place. Harmonisation of laws governing these sectors can only be a good thing because much of our transport task is interstate as well as intrastate. So, to have the same obligations and legal requirements right across each and every state can only be a good thing.

Full operation of the national law cannot commence until the states have passed their laws. My understanding is that New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria expect to pass their laws and commence operation by 1 July. We are almost there. Despite the best efforts of the parliament, we have not been able to quite manage it. The Northern Territory and the ACT will require more time but will follow. Western Australia is not a signatory to this agreement, which is somewhat concerning given that the full operation of the national law—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: They don't sign any agreements.

Mr TRELOAR: No, that's probably true, minister.

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: If I could ask the Deputy Speaker to call some order in the house, please.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure you are good enough to protect yourself.

Mr TRELOAR: Essentially, the reform provides for national consistency—apart from the Western Australians who, of course, have not yet signed—but it is about reducing costs and increasing efficiency and is this not the main driver for all of our industries? I sincerely hope that this legislation is able to achieve this. The claim in support of the legislation is that will provide a more productive and safer industry.

I have talked about the reliance upon heavy vehicles in the nation's transport. It is a huge industry. It must be competitive and it must be productive. Often we forget that our transport industry does not just need to be competitive and productive within the nation itself but, as a nation of exporters, we also need to be competitive against other nations who are competing in the same marketplace—that global marketplace that we compete in with our agricultural products, all our primary industries and mineral exports.

They all need to be competitive because many of the other nations have just as good a product and do it just as efficiently and more cheaply than we are able to do. The global marketplace is a very competitive place, and for us to survive, with a strong economy, we need to compete in that marketplace.

The regulations on our trucking industry are significant, and as regulators in this place, we take our responsibilities very seriously. My concern often is that we regulate many industries far too much, and maybe we are on the verge of that or maybe we have already passed that point with regard to the heavy vehicle industry. We need to be conscious, I think, as regulators that, in discussions and debates such as this, we do not be prohibitive in what we impose on our various industries. I think that the trucking industry has seen all too many regulations that have made their industry less flexible, let's say, than it has been in the past.

It is a very safe industry. There are relatively few safety issues around the nation. For the number of trucks that are on the road each and every day, it is an incredibly safe industry—and fear not, when there is an incident or an accident the press are only too keen to report it very quickly and what it might bring.

It is also about compliance. Obviously, the cost of compliance is as significant as well. It is important for all truckies and truck operators to comply with the regulations and to deal with the red tape that is imposed upon them. There have been a few concerns raised about the five-star accreditation rating that will be imposed as a result of this bill. My concern is particularly around small operators and whether they will have the capacity to be able to meet the accreditation standards that are needed on this. It is always much easier for a big company or a big industry to address and absorb the costs of accreditation and regulation.

The member for Hammond mentioned the gazettal of roads. What I have seen in my electorate (the electorate of Flinders) and more broadly across the whole of Eyre Peninsula is that, more and more, the road train configuration is being used to transport particularly the grain harvest but the freight task generally. I think that we all need to recognise that the trend is going to continue towards bigger trucks in a quest for efficiency and productivity. The freight task confronted, particularly at harvest time, by individual farm operators and also the trucking companies that transport the harvest not just to the local silos but also the export ports, is daunting to say the least, and it needs to be squeezed in—often two and three million tonnes are transported within a few weeks of the year.

The gazettal of roads is important, it is vital. It has not been a smooth process. Often councils and the department have a different approach, a different concept, about what roads should be gazetted and how that might be achieved. Certainly, truck drivers would like to see more roads gazetted. Personally, I, too, would like to see more gazettal of roads. 'The last mile, first mile' discussion still is very prevalent. By that I mean that particular point in the route where the road train leaves the farm gate, and there is often a distance on a road before it reaches a gazetted major road, where there is a difficulty with regard to legalities—and the same exists at the other end often when approaching the local depot.

We have four major highways in the electorate of Flinders. There is the Tod Highway, which I have spoken about often and the difficulty that trucks have operating on that highway, given the narrowness of the road carriageway and the number of bends that are involved. Then there is also the Eyre Highway and the Flinders Highway. These highways carry much of the freight task for us. I think that it is important that common sense comes into the enforcement of some of the rules we are putting in place. I would ask that the offer of timely inspection and affordable inspection be given to truck operators and also that the enforcement of such regulations is carried out in a diligent, but not too enthusiastic manner, because I have no doubt that all operators are trying to do their best.

Certainly some questions will need to be asked in committee about the burden of proof on the chain of responsibility. Of course, the chain of responsibility is becoming more elaborate and more expensive as we speak. Often, operators right through the chain are not necessarily aware of their responsibilities. I understand some of this burden of proof is being negotiated at the moment. That may come out further in the committee stage, but generally, I think we are supportive.

I know we are supportive of the intent of the bill. I just urge a word of caution for this parliament and other jurisdictions into the future to be conscious of the amount of regulation we put on an industry that is already very efficient and productive so that we can remain efficient and productive in a global economy which is paramount to the profitability and opportunity that our economy might have in the future.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:51): I am very grateful to have the chance to speak about the Heavy Vehicle National Law Bill 2013. As the member for Flinders said, transport is absolutely vital to most industries in South Australia and throughout Australia and, whether that is from the supply or the demand side; the cost of freight is absolutely critical. This bill is about trying to harmonise laws across states so that ideally costs can come down, and we in the opposition support that wholeheartedly.

The member for Flinders also said that he has some concerns about whether we are already overregulated—and I share some of those concerns—but I do not think that harmonising laws necessarily means that that is going to increase the burden of regulation. Harmonising the laws means that essentially we are trying to have consistent laws across the states, and that is a very positive thing. In addition to that, there may be an argument to actually reduce or remove some of those laws, or scale them down, or reduce some of the regulation, which I think would also be a positive thing.

The cost of freight is absolutely vital, so anything that goes to making our freight industry more efficient is a positive move. In the electorate of Stuart that I represent, there are thousands upon thousands of freight movements every day and, as the shadow minister for police, I have a particular interest in this issue as well.

I can also say very clearly that the vast majority of truck drivers and the vast majority of transport companies operate in a very responsible and very positive fashion, and they should be commended for that. Just as we have laws prohibiting people from committing murder—and it is only because we need that for the tiny percentage of people who might ever consider it—a lot of these laws are the same when it comes to the transport industry. The majority of operators are trying to do the right thing and are prepared to fit in.

In terms of harmonising the laws and trying to reduce the cost, as I have said, that is very positive, but that does not guarantee the harmonisation of costs across states. An issue that has come to me very regularly is the cost of registering heavy transport vehicles in South Australia compared to the cost of doing so interstate. This is essentially a national industry, and it is a national industry because so many of our freight operators are working across state borders.

It is a national industry because the freight operators that only ever work within any of our states are typically doing exactly the same thing within their states. There are not too many examples of unique styles of transport. There are certain types of cranes that might be on the road somewhere—I can think of the AB-doubles which is essentially a double road train with a B-double road train all in one vehicle. They go up and down the Stuart Highway and there are some of them operating in WA.

I can think of some quite unique vehicles in WA. There are side tippers, so a B-double plus a double road train that has a bladder in it. They run out to the mines, they take the fuel in the bladder inside the tipping unit of the truck out to the mines, then roll the bladders up, transport them back on the roofs of the trucks and bring ore back from the mines to the port. So, there are certainly some examples, but the vast majority of what happens in freight is happening consistently across our nation, which is a good reason to have harmonised laws and a good reason to have very consistent registration costs as well.

The people in my electorate who are being penalised by the cost of registering prime movers and various trailers in our state do not understand, and I do not understand, why it is that we have these extra costs. So, I hope that by the opposition supporting this legislation we can take a step towards flattening out the costs that we have between states. I can think of an example brought to me very recently by a constituent, who is actually a trainer for heavy vehicle drivers. That is how he makes his living. He is a responsible person running a responsible business. The vehicles that he has to register cost more in South Australia to register than anywhere else.

He has also come to me, which is very concerning, with an issue whereby the description of vehicles within the DPTI computers can even cause different levels of registration costs. He has one vehicle which, if you look at it one way, technically has the capacity to tow more than he ever would so his registration cost is significantly high. The reality is though that he does not actually have the towing equipment attached to that vehicle to ever do that towing. So, he is going through a very difficult time at the moment, and I am doing everything I can to help him try to explain that he is paying more registration within the state for that vehicle than he actually needs to.

So, there are issues which I hope this legislation will sort out. Certainly, the very standard basic things like common speeds and common weight restrictions should be very straightforward to sort out. Grain carting, which I know the members for Hammond and Flinders have mentioned, is absolutely vital to this. This is an industry which sometimes goes across states, but whether it is in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia or South Australia, it is typically the same type of work going on all over the place so it makes good sense to have the same type of laws.

I have a fear for our industry in South Australia, and other places as well, that outside of the laws that state governments apply, life is going to get very hard for the small end of grain growing and grain carting. Some of the rules imposed by the receival sites—not the government, but the receival sites—will make it very difficult for small vehicles to come in. I am particularly concerned at some of the rules and regulations being imposed within receival sites using health and safety as the reason for their imposition, and while that may certainly be true they are being pursued quite vigorously because the receivers of the grain have a desire to only receive larger trailers into their receival sites because that would make their business far more efficient.

If they can only bring in larger trailers instead of smaller trailers, there is the same amount of paperwork, the same amount of checking, the same amount of drivers coming in and out, and all that sort of thing. I understand why, for their own commercial purposes, they would like to do that, but it is going to make it exceptionally hard for the small farmers who might have their own small trucks and do not actually pay a contract carter to come in. So, there is a lot of pressure on the transport industry and there is a lot of pressure on drivers, transporters and growers who do their own transport and in many cases do not even grow enough, they do not sell enough of the grain to warrant a large professional carting company coming in with a large truck. So there is a lot of pressure and I hope that some of these harmonisation laws will ease some of the pressure on grain growers.

There is also an issue in this legislation with regard to the impounding of vehicles. Again, I wholeheartedly support the fact that laws should be the same across the board. I had a constituent come to me because his truck was impounded because his driver had seemingly broken the law, and I certainly understand that you cannot have irresponsible drivers out there. However, once it was all absolutely clear that there was nothing wrong with the truck, the trucking company, the behaviour of the organisation or the owner of the trucking company and it was clearly to do with the driver himself, the truck stayed impounded for a long time, and that is an enormous imposition on a small to medium-sized business.

I hope that a lot of those impositions can be sorted out by this legislation as well, because certainly if the transport company is dodgy then hold them up, impound their vehicle and do everything that we need to do. Whether they are carting things that they should not be carting, tampering with speed regulators or are unsafe or inappropriate in any other way, certainly sort that out. However, once it is clearly established that it is not the vehicle and it is not the transport company but it is only the driver and his way of going about his driving, totally separate of the transport company and in no way condoned by the transport company, the vehicle has to be released from impoundment as far as I am concerned.

Following on from some comments from the member for Flinders, I also hope that this legislation might help free up access to gazettal of B-double routes and also double road train routes in my electorate, particularly in grain carting season. That is a very big issue, particularly with B-doubles, but live cattle transport is also a big issue. The most recent issue that has been brought to my attention is the desire of local graziers and transporters to have the Jamestown to Hallett Road gazetted for B-doubles. I have a query over whether the corner of the Jamestown-Whyte Yarcowie Road (the Cockburn Road), where the Road from Hallett intersects with that, is quite appropriate, but it might well be possible to make some modifications there.

These are issues that go a long way to making our industries more broadly more efficient. If we can get a double road train carting cattle instead of a single or a B-double then all of a sudden the operations of every single grazier and beef producer who requires transport on that road or through that part of the state becomes much more efficient. That is a very important issue in the electorate of Stuart, which I represent, and no doubt in many other places across the state.

Crane registration is another area that has been brought to my attention, which I hope the harmonisation of these laws can help. There are different requirements in different states for crane registration. Cranes are fairly unique vehicles: big cranes that go out on the main roads with rubber tyres. You can have one crane that is a certain length and does not require an escort in one state, but another crane of a shorter length might require an escort in another state. That causes a lot of difficulty for operators, because the people who operate these large cranes are very often going interstate, particularly between South Australia and Western Australia, in my experience in the electorate of Stuart. Again, I hope that is another area that can be sorted out.

I will conclude by saying that I have not gone through every aspect of the legislation, because I know our shadow minister, the member for Bragg, has dealt with and will continue to deal with that very forthrightly, professionally and in great detail. However, I did want to put on the record some of the issues that come to me as a local member in this area. I will finish by saying again that it is important that we all recognise that the vast majority of heavy vehicle transport operators and heavy vehicle transport companies do do the right thing, and they should be acknowledged for that. I hope that this legislation will enable them to make their businesses more efficient so that every other business that requires heavy vehicle transport can become more efficient, whether that is a supplier or a receiver of goods meeting demand.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (17:04): I want to thank members for their contributions to the debate, especially the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Her contribution was extensive and covered many of the issues facing heavy vehicles. The fact is that the bill is strongly supported by the transport industry and has the potential to drive innovation and efficiencies in the road transport industry and to improve heavy vehicle driver safety and broader road safety outcomes across the country.

The bill implements a significant national reform that is part of the COAG agreement to deliver a seamless national economy. A national regulator overseeing a national law for heavy vehicles will reduce duplication and allow efficiencies of scale. A national regime will enable innovations in the regulation of heavy vehicles in one jurisdiction to be applied across the nation to the benefit of the entire transport industry and, most importantly, our economy.

The national law brings together into one legislation a number of national model laws developed over the last two decades. Most obligations are not new in South Australia because we implemented the reforms as they were approved, for example, heavy vehicle driver fatigue and the chain of responsibility (which places duties on off-road parties to take reasonable steps to ensure they do not cause drivers to commit offences). Some new elements have been included at the request of industry, for example, a formal system for internal and external review of decisions, including review of access decisions.

The industry was involved in the development of both the national law and the associated national regulations. Industry representatives were involved in joint workshops with state and territory transport officers to develop the regulations and had the opportunity to comment on successive iterations late last year. The national regulations were approved by transport ministers in February this year, made by the Queensland Governor on 30 May and then published on the New South Wales government's legislation website on 31 May as required.

Before I go into all these details, I want to answer one question by the members for Schubert and Hammond that concerned me about the access to private property. I want to be very clear about this and I want to read this into the record. All jurisdictions have notified a small number of instances where they will change or vary the national law in response to justice or enforcement agencies safety or infrastructure considerations. It has been agreed that jurisdictions will ensure industry and the national regulator are aware of the differences and will consider whether the variations continue to be necessary.

This state notified the ministerial council in August 2012, as required under the intergovernmental agreement, that, at SAPOL's request, I am advised, it would diverge from the national law in a small number of minor ways in order to retain existing enforcement powers for some current offences. Inconsistencies can cause unnecessary regulatory burden for interstate operators. It is considered that South Australia's divergences and supplementary provisions will have minimal impact on the heavy vehicle industry, as they only affect enforcement powers or maintain existing offences for non-compliant behaviours. As such, they will contribute to making a level playing field for law-abiding operators but providing more tools to be used against those in the industry who cut costs by breaking rules. SAPOL is of the view that retaining these existing powers—not new powers—and offences supports their role.

The idea that we will have enforcement officers kicking down people's front doors to search their garages and issue defect notices is not accurate, I am advised. I am advised that it is only if vehicles are for sale, and the powers are there for, basically, I am advised, caryards and lots where trucks are for sale. It is not for the examples the member for Schubert gave, where he talked about officers entering private properties unannounced at any time of the day or week to inspect vehicles for roadworthiness. That is just if there is a for sale sign on the truck or it is advertised for sale. I am also advised that those inspections would only occur during office hours. I think, while people are right to have concerns about their rights on private property, it is also important to be informed in the debate about what the parliament is told.

So, rather than go through all these very important points the department have prepared for me, I think we had best get into committee and get the questions answered for the opposition and try to conclude this bill as quickly as possible. In advance, I would like to thank the officers for all the hard work that they have done, the briefings that they have made, the preparation of the bill and the long work that they have done. This bill began well before I became minister, so thank you in advance for all your hard work and efforts, and I am sure that the opposition have enjoyed the briefings that they have received. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: On clause 1, I will ask some general questions in respect of the preparedness for the new legislation. Perhaps before doing so, I also place on the record my appreciation for the advisers of the minister's department in assisting with the research and background on this matter. I did formally confirm our appreciation during the debate, but that has been ongoing and I appreciate the same. Consistent with that also is that of some stakeholders who have continued to correspond. Mr Steve Shearer, who is well known to this house, is the Chief Executive of the South Australian Road Transport Association.

The minister, I am sure, would have been aware that when the Australian Transport Association met recently in Queensland, our very own President of SARTA, Ms Sharon Middleton, was recognised with a national award as a Woman of the Year in the trucking industry. Her contribution has been outstanding and we thank her for her continued service in that role as she ably represents so many in her industry.

Minister, given that the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator legislation is a watershed reform, what action is the government taking to ensure that all enforcement officers within SAPOL and/or DPTI administration personnel are fully trained on the new national laws and their administration, which we understand will now attempt to be put into place as of 1 September?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there will be two training sessions held between DPTI and SAPOL on 19 and 24 July. SAPOL will have 15 of its trainers in attendance to receive the briefings. They will then disperse and, I assume, train officers. Ultimately, that is the responsibility of SAPOL. The DPTI officers will be trained at those same two sessions by the national regulator, I am advised, and we will have as many operators as the department thinks is required to enforce the national regulations.

I will get more details to the member between houses. A total of 20 trainers will be attending the sessions, 15 from SAPOL, and five from DPTI. If that is incorrect, I will get you some more details. I think the scenario here is that the national regulator does the training, trains up our trainers, and our trainers then go forth and do their work with their respective officers.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is a two day training session by the sound of it for each of the groups, both in SAPOL and DPTI, and I note that that is obviously fairly imminent, but is that going to be sufficient, minister? Are you satisfied that the trucking industry can be reassured that that will be sufficient and effective training to be able to implement this on 1 September?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, if it is not, we will conduct more, and that is the first thing to say. The second thing is that, in my experience, the associations that deal with the movement of freight throughout South Australia, indeed, the nation, are always concerned about implementation of regulations on their operators and in their vehicles, and sometimes we get it right and sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes we need to have a more gentle touch, especially in the early implementation of new national regulations. I hope that the department knows that the parliament would expect that the regulations, as being implemented through a national process, would be given a relatively light touch.

I can say that of my officers. I cannot say that of SAPOL. SAPOL operates under general orders from its commissioner. The commissioner is the one who advises his officers on how to interact with the public and enforce the laws, not the government—we simply set them. I hope that there is a very high level of understanding from the regulators especially in the early months, if not the first year of operation of this new national law, because there are going to be teething problems.

I do not think it is going to be seamless. I think there are going to be mistakes made. It happens with any implementation of any new policy. Hopefully we get it right. If more needs to be done, we will do it. It is too important not to get it right. So, we will wait and see, but if feedback comes back from the industry that the regulations are being enforced in a very onerous way, then I will obviously instruct the department to conduct further education programs in regional South Australia, and I think that the department is aware of that.

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister has identified that the police training will be under the supervision of the Commissioner of Police and I accept that. There is a special squad, I suppose, in the police force, that deals with this. I think there are 15 or 20 people still left in that group who are the heavy vehicle specialist team, if I can give them that status, in the road transport authority, is it, within the police department?

Mr Whetstone: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Chaffey ably assisted me there. As I understand the answer, your understanding is that the police commissioner will in this training session ensure that the specialised squad will be trained up, and if there needs to be extra work done for the police personnel generally who might be involved in road traffic management, that will be a matter that will be attended to on the basis of requirement. Is that right?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Absolutely. The first thing I will say is that SAPOL have their own operations, which answer to the commissioner. I am also advised that all sworn officers can implement these laws, so a level of training would need to be delivered across the state to all SAPOL officers, especially those in rural and regional communities. If there are problems outside of that special squad—I do not like using the term 'special squad'—if there are issues amongst general sworn officers about how this law is going to be implemented, we will communicate that with the commissioner, if there are errors being made in the enforcement of the regulations. I assume that SAPOL will be doing that. SAPOL's trainers will be trained by the national regulator at these two sessions, and then it will be their responsibility to train general sworn officers as well as the special heavy vehicle group within SAPOL; but if more needs to be done, we will do it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Aside from the enforcement training, in respect of general education for the industry, whether that is through its representative bodies or otherwise, can the minister outline what program is proposed and what the scheduling of that is for education in relation to the new national law?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that it will be the responsibility of a national heavy regulator to conduct their information sessions. I am also advised that they will be making information available through their website (nhvr.gov.au). I am also advised that there will be a call centre that operators can call to get information. I do not have that number with me, but I will get that number for the opposition so that they can disseminate that to their constituents. I am also advised that, through the general channels that we currently have to consult with industry in South Australia, through DPTI, those consultation groups will be actively spreading information about how the new regulations affect South Australian-based companies and the impacts of those regulations.

Ms CHAPMAN: If it is the view of the minister that overall the changes for truck operators in South Australia will be minimal, is it proposed that there will be any kind of summary list of amendments that are new as result of the national law prepared and available for the industry? I appreciate that we are going to have a whole new national model law. We have our own maintenance of provisions, but there are some new things that will apply now to South Australian drivers and operators that did not before.

If there is going to be a summary of amendments, that would be helpful. Obviously everyone is going to take some time to get used to the whole new scheme—who is going to be handling it and who are the new people to contact, and all those things—but as this is apparently not a wholesale change to what we currently have, it would be helpful if that could be indicated.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that we have not prepared differences between the current state laws—the state laws that we are retaining—and what will be different with the new national laws. I suppose the assumption is that we are moving to a national scheme. It was not really contemplated that we would do that but, to be helpful to the opposition, we are happy to do that for the industry and prepare a list of what you can currently do and currently cannot do and, under the new legislation, what you will be required to do.

Again, I will say that that is really the role of the national regulator. It is no good, in my opinion, creating this national body to oversee a new series of national laws to govern the movement of freight, then having each jurisdiction coming up with its own series of what you should be doing—that has got to be uniform. I suppose, because it is a once off and it is new, you may want to do that but, again, I think that is something the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator should be compiling themselves.

I think what I will instruct the department to do is to work with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to do that. After the bill travels to the upper house, if it is successful, I will speak to other ministers about whether we should have a fact sheet on the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator website. The call centre number is 1300 MYNHVR (My National Heavy Vehicle Regulator)—how convenient. So, I think it is a good idea and I think it is something we should do across the board for all the jurisdictions. It is a good idea.

Ms CHAPMAN: During the course of the contribution made by me and touched on by other members, various comments were made on the issue of the use of the defect power. To be relieved of the defect is quite an onerous process in South Australia, relative to accessibility to independent operators, for example, just over the border. I gave some examples. Is it the situation that, irrespective of where the vehicles are registered, there is an opportunity so, if there is a defect notice issued on a truck in South Australia, under the national regime, they will be able to get relief of it from an independent service facility over the border, say, in Mildura?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There are a number of issues with this that I want to make clear to the house. First and foremost, SAPOL retains the discretion on defects when issuing defect notices, and that is something that I cannot interfere with. So, what that means is there are requirements that SAPOL have about officers who issue defects and about how they are cleared.

Under the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator—the new national law—if you have an interstate registered vehicle that is operating under the national law and the South Australia Police issue a defect notice, you may have that removed in your home jurisdiction, and vice versa. If you are a South Australian operator and you get the work done, and the issuing officer, or the closest police station, I am advised, sees that the work has been done, they can give you an extension on the time required to get the defect cleared, if the work has been proceeded with.

Now, where we come into difficulty is with the discretion of the officer. The discretion of the officer is the grey area throughout the entire country with how we issue this. I cannot direct the police commissioner to allow privately certified repairs to be an acceptable outcome for a defect.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No; police have been very specific about retaining their discretion, based on attitude and based on the circumstances of the defect being issued. The thinking nationally is that commissioners of police across the country have wanted to maintain a lot of that discretion for road safety benefits. If you like, between the houses, I can ask the commissioner to give you a briefing about that discretion that they wish to maintain.

I know that it is frustrating for a lot of operators, especially people who are issued defects in rural and remote areas and who are being forced to come into the CBD or Regency to have their defects removed. It is very expensive, it is very onerous; I understand that. It is not ideal. I would like to find a solution that can solve the issues that both the commissioner and SAPOL have and also our issues about regional certification, with perhaps an accreditation of selected people throughout regional areas. But sometimes it is not about the work, it is about a change in behaviour, and that is something that no piece of legislation can deal with. It is hard for me to put into words, but I think that what the commissioner is attempting to do is to use this process to alter behaviour.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, that is exactly why we are here. This very parliament exists for the purposes of identifying areas where we want to change the law or make new laws to make provision in relation to issues. Whilst I appreciate and the opposition is supportive of their being retention of a lot of extra powers and a lot of extra processes that will both accommodate the requests of the police commissioner, we think, on balance, they are serving South Australians well. So, it is not a matter for the police commissioner to dictate what he or she wants in the course of enforcement: it is a matter for this parliament.

I accept that the government has acceded to the wishes of the police commissioner in this tranche of legislation being preserved for the purposes of this. But be under no allusion, the opposition does not accept your assertion that this is a matter of the police commissioner requiring this and therefore retaining that discretion is something that is in his or her purview: it is a matter for this parliament.

Other states seem to be able to work, inconsistent, I think, with what you have said in suggesting that this is around the nation. Victoria works on the system that they do not require the release of the defect to be at the discretion of a police officer, that power being there pending a review by Regency or authorised facility. In Victoria, this question of police discretion for extensions, etc., is not the issue.

In relation to what can happen interstate, going across to Mildura is a classic example because it happens to be one of the towns over the border, but there are similar situations down in the South-East, if you are a non-South Australian registered operator and you come into South Australia and you fall foul of the provisions, you can go back to your own private certifier, so to speak, and have the matter dealt with. That is not harmonious; that is not the same.

We are happy to leave this discretion with the police, but what we want to be able to do is to have some capacity to be able to allow local people to still utilise a private certifier. That is the difference. It is not a national thing. We are keeping a very peculiar aspect here in South Australia. It is a matter which we do have power to deal with if we want to. I think that you also would have power, minister, as the author of regulations, if you wished. But it is something that we would ask the government to reconsider. It is a major problem for a number of the truck operators in regional South Australia.

One of the extra things that has come to my attention in the last few weeks is that it is not just the time taken to come to Regency or the time and delay in waiting for the appropriate days to open in the Riverland or in any other rural town. What is also a problem, I am told, is that some of the big operators make block bookings. So, they might take a booking scheduled time for half a day or a day to cover any of their trucks that might need to be reviewed and assessed, and then they can cancel them later if they do not need them. If they are big enough, I suppose they enjoy that privilege. But, again, it makes the little operators more alienated from being able to obtain relief in the lawful removal of the defect by assessment. I would ask that that be reviewed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Let us be clear: I am not saying the police commissioner can decide legislation. I understand what your point is, but we have sought his advice and he has given advice back and the government accepts it.

Let us be clear, though; I am advised that the police can clear minor defects, but they may not have the expertise to do it and they can refer it to DPTI. Generally, an amend notice to the vehicle—if repaired—means that it can be driven until it is inspected. Again, there is a discretion in there for officers, and I suppose the grey area here is that discretion given to officers. That discretion is something that the commissioner and police are very keen to maintain and the government supports that view.

Ms CHAPMAN: Still on clause 1, I refer to five-star accreditation. This has come in as a late entry in the issues of concern on this bill and it has come in because the big operators and the big associations at the national level have been squirrelling away on working for this process. It has now been published and now everyone seems to know about it. Not surprisingly, it is a new level of accreditation. It has a level of acquiescence by the big operators, because it is something that if it is going to be introduced they can 'afford' to be able to carry it out, but to the distress of the smaller operators, many of whom operate in South Australia that would find this a cumbersome and unnecessary further level of red/black tape, or whatever you want to call it.

Minister, my understanding is that you oppose the introduction of five-star accreditation. If you do, I would like you to be making that clear and, if you do, would you advise the house as to what action you have taken to put representations to either the national regulator or Mr Baird, as the chair of the board, which covers these matters to ensure that that not be introduced?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is an interesting question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I notice she did not give us her point of view on five-star rating. The government does not support five-star rating. It is a Liberal initiative from New South Wales by roads minister Duncan Gaye. He asked the SCOTI meeting to endorse a pilot program to be held in New South Wales. I could be wrong about this, but I understood, through discussions with colleagues, that he was attempting to have a national trial of the five-star rating across the country. Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland did not accept that, but I understand Queensland was quite interested in it, as was Victoria. We are not—and I call on the opposition to support the government's view on five-star rating.

However, if the South Australian Road Transport Association and other interested groups come to me and say, 'We have looked at the five-star rating, it is actually not as bad as we think it is and we would like you to have a look at it and may be conduct a trial,' then I will look at it. But I am not going to do anything that is going to disadvantage small to medium size enterprises in South Australia for the benefit of the large freight companies on the eastern seaboard. I think that would be detrimental to freight in South Australia.

Like I said, I do not support it in its current form; however, if Mr Shearer and the other associations who are looking at it come to me and say, 'Well actually, we have been involved in its implementation; we have been involved in the trial; we are on the national bodies that are looking at this; we are getting representation; we like the five-star rating; and we think five star-rating could work quite well in South Australia,' then the government will look at it. What I will not do is be surprised at a SCOTI meeting, the night before, by a Liberal minister who says, 'This is a great idea, we should do it nationally.' Let us be very clear about that. I am sure the New South Wales' government thinks it has wonderful benefits, and minister Albanese supported the trial, but I do not think it is right for South Australia in its current form. If the trial comes out and local users in South Australia are happy with it then I will consider it, but in its current form I oppose it, and to this day I still do not know what the opposition's view on it is.

Ms CHAPMAN: The proposed committee structure for continuing the ongoing issues, some of which we have canvassed during the debates on second reading, in particular the chain of responsibility, general accreditation (some of which we have just discussed), enforcement, the first mile last mile issue, these are all outstanding matters which, hopefully, will play out in the new national scheme to operate in a fair and equitable way. There is a committee being established, I think, minister, as you well know, to try to cover these aspects.

There is some concern raised at our state's level as to what representation they will have on the committee structure that sits under the board for the monitoring of the general efficiency of the new national regulator scheme and the issues, as I say, that I have outlined. What action have you taken to ensure that South Australia does have a representative on those committees, and is that a matter that is going to be resolved in the near future, and if so when?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: While the department is looking for the work groups, I met with SARTA and Mr Shearer and Sharon, and I have to congratulate her on her award, it is a great coup for South Australia. In terms of the five star work, Mr Shearer said to me that they were very keen to get onto that advisory panel. When I met with him he said to me that they had not been invited to join. I understand the department made some discreet inquiries of the national regulator and I understand that today SARTA has been invited to join that body of work, although if that is incorrect I will come back to the house and correct it but that is the advice I have just received, that SARTA has been invited—yes, they have.

In terms of the other constituency bodies that are working out, those have not been finalised yet. As it is finalised about who will be represented on all of those work streams, whether it is last mile or whether it is all the other issues that the deputy leader raised, then obviously we would like South Australian representation. Mr Vincent Tremaine is on the board of the regulator. He is a South Australian and a constituent of mine. He will be a fierce advocate on behalf of our state and our freight users, as will DPTI. DPTI is always going to be an advocate for South Australia, as will whoever is the minister for transport in South Australia, whether they are Labor or Liberal or Independent. I think at all SCOTI meetings, states that are west of the New South Wales border advocate quite strongly together.

I know that the new chief minister is very keen to have greater cooperation between South Australia and the NT in terms of national road laws and how they work, so we will be advocating on their behalf. In terms of the five star work, which is what I think you are really getting at, SARTA have been asked to join. I am not sure of the benefit of that for them, given that it is a trial in New South Wales, but it is their choice to be on there. I know that they are very concerned about it, but I think it is about keeping their options open.

As I said earlier, and as Mr Shearer has told me, it could be that five star is something that they would like—it could be, it may be—depending on how this trial goes. They have taken a proactive decision to try to get involved in the trial to see what its implications are and to see what its implications are for smaller users. If they like it, we will sign up and if they do not like it, we will not. I have just been advised that progress is being made, but a formal invitation has not yet been received by SARTA to join that body of work. So, work is in progress to have them receive a formal invite.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 39 passed.

Schedule.

Mr WHETSTONE: In the national law that creates the heavy vehicle regulator, who will be responsible for managing registration, and regulating standards of heavy vehicles, including mass and dimensions and so on? The question is: will the establishment of a national regulator require additional resourcing from the state government?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that registration has been deferred so it will be maintained by the current jurisdictions. For what period, I will get advice and get back to the member. In terms of resources, my most recent memory is that we will be doing it out of existing resources. For our requirement, it will be a budget process so that should not be an issue for us, but I can get more detail on that between the houses.

I think the last part of the question was who will be doing the mass and volume, did you say?

Mr WHETSTONE: Mass and dimensions.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: DPTI will still be managing that, I am advised.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, can you give us assurances, if there are additional resources from the state government, that funding for the national regulator will not be taken out of other regional projects such as road maintenance?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They are separate budget lines. It is not how the budget operates. I want as much money as possible for road maintenance, as much as I can possibly get out of the budget process. The budget process is that the Treasurer allocates to individual lines and, once that money is allocated, I do not then go on and say, 'I will take this money out of road maintenance and put it into the national heavy vehicle regulator.' That money that the budget allocates, which is what the parliament allocates me, is what I use on road maintenance. I do not chop and change through it. It is a budget process.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, moving on to chapter 1, part 2, section 5, it defines key terms in the national legislation, and it provides:

responsible person, for a heavy vehicle, means a person having, at a relevant time, a role or responsibility associated with road transport using the vehicle, and includes—

an owner or an operator of a weighbridge or weighing facility. Under the bill, will the national regulator recognise weighbridge certificates already issued, or will weighbridge owners and operators have to reapply for new certification?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not have that information here. Can I give an undertaking to you that, between houses, I will get that answer to you?

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you. We will move to chapter 2, part 1, section 27, page 90. It outlines the main purpose of chapter 2, which is focused on registration of heavy vehicles. The section states that one of the main purposes is to provide for a system of registration that prevents or minimises safety risks. The primary complaints I am getting from operators is the excessive amount of regulation that they see is strangling the industry. Can the minister point out two specific examples of where this legislation reduces regulation, or red tape, thus making life easier for the businesses and truck operators?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have some answers for your previous question about registration. We are aiming to introduce registration for the regulator by July 2015, so we will be maintaining it for another year and a half, maybe two years. The regulator will be dealing with mass and dimension load restrictions and vehicle standards. DPTI will do the on-road work under a service agreement. If you need more information other than that, I will get some more for you between the houses.

In terms of a national reform, I will give you one: one permit for travelling across the country rather than one for every state you travel through and the one gazettal notice for road trains and B-doubles rather than having to carry gazettal notices from multiple jurisdictions. Australia is unique for a number of reasons. For the purposes of this bill, it is unique because a landmass of this size being one country is unique in the world. The idea that travelling from Brisbane to Perth would require multiple jurisdictional applications for passes, gazettal notices and approvals is madness. Having a nationalised network, which means you can have one approval to carry across one country, makes sense.

That is a very simplistic answer to a very complicated question, because the complexities of that are that Western Australia have very separate views about what they believe they should be doing and what the implications are for their industry about taking up these provisions. The reality is that Western Australia is well served by these reforms because it will make it easier to get fruit and produce to Western Australia and make it easier for their producers to export out of Western Australia. Quite frankly, I think the attitude towards national reforms by some Western Australian politicians on both sides of parliament is a bit parochial and unnecessary and is more about a narrative of who they are rather than about actually getting good bureaucratic outcomes.

We should be able to load tomatoes from Virginia onto a road train and get them to Brisbane or to Perth without having multiple gazettal notices in the glove box. I think it makes a lot of sense to almost everyone, and that is why I would imagine every industry group that you have spoken to overwhelmingly supports the notion of one regulator for one country, but what they are concerned about is the devil in the detail when it comes to how this is actually going to work and whether they will be worse off or if it will be more expensive or more onerous. Trust me, I do not want to make it more onerous. I want to make it as simple as possible.

Ms CHAPMAN: Chapter 2, part 2 is the registration scheme and this of course is to establish the registration scheme that would regulate the eligibility for registration. The question has arisen and I think the member for Chaffey has been advised of this; that is, the differences for truck operators include, for example, in Queensland there is no requirement to pay stamp duty when registering a truck, whereas in Western Australia registration is much cheaper. This whole question of what the registration fees are is another matter, but my question is: will the implementation of this national law across Australia result in similar structures and procedures being used across the borders for the registration scheme?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The nationally agreed registration level is what the state will be charging. The states insisted on keeping their ability to charge their own fees for those rates.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, but Western Australia, for example, have refused to implement these changes, so their registration fees will be cheaper but they will not be getting the benefit of a national scheme, and it is disappointing. My view is that Western Australia will eventually sign up to the national scheme because their industry will compel them to do so. While there may be some short-term benefit in publicity in terms of them getting more registrations in Western Australia than everywhere else, the reality is what will happen is moving freight into those jurisdictions will become more expensive because of red tape and the onerous burden.


[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30]


Ms CHAPMAN: I acknowledge that it is agreed that each of the jurisdictions will maintain, at least for the foreseeable future, their own regime of the cost of registration and the structure to which that will apply. My question actually was, is everything else apart from cost going to be the same, that is, the same rules in respect of the capacity to be able to register, apart from the money amount?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that individual jurisdictions will maintain their current levels. I am advised that individual jurisdictions will retain their individual costs for stamp duty, third party compulsory insurance and registration, but I think it is important to note that the administrative fees for various applications set out under the national regulations are similar to the current South Australian fees. Fees for services provided by the regulator will be based on full cost recovery. In the first year of operation, the fees for service will be the same as under the current jurisdictional laws. Registration fees will continue to be set nationally through the national vehicle charges determination.

The National Transport Commission is currently consulting with stakeholders nationally on a new determination to take up freight from mid-2014. This determination, I am advised, will take into account the costs of heavy vehicle regulation. There may be some small increase in registration fees in the longer term; however, we should see a decrease in real terms, and it should benefit from the increased productivity resulting in improved access and more efficient regulation.

So, as it stands, if you are currently registered in South Australia, you should see no real increase in fees going to the national scheme. If you decide to register your vehicles and move your operation to another state, ultimately you will pay their fees and charges, but someone operating as they would be now out of South Australia, should see no real change and in the long term should see a net decrease. Yes, Western Australia is charging less for its registration because it is not signing up to the national scheme, and I think that is to the detriment of the nation.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will try for the third time, minister. I am not talking about the disparity in fees. It is noted and acknowledged that each of the jurisdictions is going to keep its own regime of fee scale. I ask for the third time: are all the other regulations and rules going to be signed up to be the same under the national code in respect of everything else?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Stamp duty.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is one example I gave, but the registration requirements under part 2, you will see in the new national code, will have a whole lot of rules apply, for example, when a vehicle is being towed, etc. Under the new scheme in part 2, is everything else going to be the same across the country except Western Australia?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If you are excluding the examples you used previously, like stamp duty, because jurisdictions will retain their own stamp duty regimes, then, yes, the national law will be consistent across jurisdictions.

Ms CHAPMAN: Currently, if a truck has federal registration—there are restrictions in South Australia in relation to unloading—how will this bill address the inconsistency of unloading restrictions between the states, or is that because there is some other provision in the other bill that we are yet to have a look at and determine?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that when the bill comes into operation the commonwealth will repeal the first piece of legislation, which will bring into line all jurisdictions for unloading.

Ms CHAPMAN: Still under part 2, the regulator may grant an exemption if they are satisfied that an unregistered vehicle will not pose a significant safety risk, which is one of the provisions here. This is clause 41(1)(b)—Restriction on grant of registration exemption. By what criteria will the regulator determine whether a heavy vehicle poses a significant safety risk?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that, given this chapter has been deferred for later implementation, that standard has not been developed. I imagine that that definition would be in the act once that regulation is implemented.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the minister aware of how many unregistered heavy vehicles are anticipated to qualify for the exemption?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will the current exemptions automatically transfer or will heavy vehicle operators need to reapply to the national regulator for an exemption? If the heavy vehicle operators will need to reapply, can you outline the process by which they will apply for an exemption?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the transitional provisions will be three years for permits and five years for gazettal exemptions, but, if that is not accurate, I will get back to you between the houses.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to part 5—still on the registration scheme—for written off and wrecked heavy vehicles. The registrar is obliged under this proposed law to keep a register of all written off and wrecked heavy vehicles.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry, say that again.

Ms CHAPMAN: The regulator must keep a register of all the written off and wrecked heavy vehicles. Does a register of all written off and wrecked heavy vehicles already exist at state level and, if so, how is that administered? Will the onus lie with the heavy vehicle operator to inform the national regulator if one of their vehicles is written off or wrecked?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In terms of the notification provisions, we anticipate, I am advised, that they will be developed through the regulations. Currently, in South Australia, they are kept through the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. So, for wrecked or written off vehicles, a list, for lack of a better term, is kept by the registrar, but the notification provisions will be developed through the regulations of the national law.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, I refer to chapter 3, under Vehicle operations—standards and safety. Of the national law prescribed standards with which heavy vehicles must comply, those standards can relate to heavy vehicles themselves or components of equipment of heavy vehicles and noncompliance is punishable by fine. Can you outline specific ways in which the national law enhances public safety and amenities?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think the intuitive answer to that question is that, as you develop standards over a period of time through industry consultation and association consultation with regulators, and you harmonise that across the country, what you are going to get are the highest levels of safety. Just one example the officers have given me is towbar couplings. Obviously, when you are hauling very heavy loads at speed across country, some roads may be different to others and you would want to have a certain standard of towbar coupling. By developing a national framework around this, you are going to get improvements in safety from all jurisdictions.

It is usually a race to the top rather than a race to the bottom. So, you usually adopt the best standard, the most common-sense standard, the one that is going to provide the best safety outcomes. What the national law does is give certainty to users across the federation about these national standards, which will improve safety as you travel from Queensland, through the NT, down to South Australia, maybe off to Perth, rather than having to change towbar couplings across every jurisdiction, which is just crazy. So, that is one example of how you would improve it.

If the question is how does a national standard of vehicle safety improve safety across the regulatory framework, having the same standards in Queensland as you have in Adelaide and as you have in Perth means that, as you travel across the country, the level of safety that has been developed throughout, since we have been moving freight around the federation, means you are going to get a very high standard of safety not only for the drivers but for everyone else on the road. I think it is intuitively common sense that you are going to get better outcomes through having one national framework that covers it all.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, this is an example: a road train of over, I think, 23 metres, has to have a bullbar with a certain safety strip under the bullbar—it is a catch strip. If you have a vehicle on a national road that is under 23 metres, it does not have to have a bullbar or the strip. That is the issue that I have. That strip is designed so that a vehicle will not be sucked underneath the heavy vehicle in a head-on accident, for example. If a 23-metre heavy vehicle hits a car, it is going to run over it and squash it flat. This is my concern: any heavy vehicle over 23 metres has to have a bullbar and a strip under the bullbar; what is stopping a vehicle under 23 metres running a car flat to the ground?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When you are developing national laws—I accept your argument that there are inconsistencies in common sense. Whether it is 23 metres or 22.5 metres, the momentum and speed of a vehicle that size is going to do a lot of damage and it makes sense to have consistency across that. What we are doing now is we are taking the first step in harmonisation. We are simply transferring the current standards that we have now—no less and no more—to a national scheme.

I do not expect the national regulations to be frozen in time in 2013 and that they will never evolve. Obviously the very valid point that you make will be something that the national regulator will consider. Whenever you are regulating the movement of any type of freight—whether it is trains, trucks, heavy vehicles, taxis; whatever it is—things evolve and change and you cannot rely on regulations that are frozen in time. If we did not have the national framework, I imagine that we would eventually evolve and come up with what you are talking about, which is making sure that cars cannot be sucked underneath these vehicles, no matter what size they are, and you would develop a state-based framework that would ensure that all vehicles have bullbars that would stop that, as will the national heavy vehicle regulator.

Think of it as a snapshot in time: you take a photocopy of the regulations as they are today and you transfer them over to a national regulator, but the work does not stop; you are continually upgrading. I accept what you are saying: it is common sense. What we are saying is that it should be nationally consistent. I will give you an example of why a national law will be better. Let us say, for example, that you wrote to me about that issue and I said, 'The member for Chaffey is absolutely right. We should immediately regulate to stop what you were just talking about.' If we did not have a national framework, if people are required to have that type of bullbar in South Australia, would that mean that we could stop all freight coming from New South Wales into South Australia that is not compliant?

Even though the suggestion you have made makes a lot of sense, it would be better to have a national heavy vehicle regulator that could do that nationally rather than just a state-based regulator doing it. My short answer is: do not see this as regulations being frozen in time and remaining like this for all time onwards; what we are doing is we are transferring what we have got now to the national vehicle regulator and we expect them to continue to do work to improve the harmonisation and things that you are talking about. I think that is what you are getting at.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, it is. It is something that has been an oversight right around the country. It is an oversight in something that I think should be part of regulation. How will the national regulator determine the period for which an exemption for a category of heavy vehicle will apply?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can you explain?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes. It is still part of chapter 3, part 2. It is a period for which a vehicle standards exemption applies.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think I answered that earlier when I said for a gazettal exemption it is five years, for a permanent exemption it is three years—the transition periods.

Mr WHETSTONE: Exemptions for individual heavy vehicles can be done through an application process to the regulator under chapter 3, part 2, division 3, Exemptions by Permit, where the regulator may grant an individual vehicle standards exemption for a period of no more than three years. How will the national regulator determine the period for which an individual exemption applies?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I am receiving is that if it is a consistent exemption that has been granted multiple times in the past, it is commonplace, we know how it operates and it would generally be for three years. If it is something that is new, something that is being trialled or if it is something that we have not seen before and a particular company is seeking a particular exemption that is not consistent with how we have understood it to operate, it may be a shorter period. Again, that makes common sense. Generally, the rule is three years if it is just the routine exemption that we tick off regularly. If it is something completely new, then obviously it would be for a shorter period.

Mr WHETSTONE: Once that permit expires, does the heavy vehicle operator have the option for reapplying for a permit?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I am advised you can. Like any exemption it is not that you get one shot in the barrel and that is it; you can apply as many times as you like.

Mr WHETSTONE: What sort of a time frame is expected for the granting, or a denial, of a permit?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not sure I am in a place where I can answer that because that would be a question for the national regulator. I can speculate, and my speculation would be that it would depend on the complexity of the application. If it is something that we have done traditionally and regularly over time, it would be very quick. If it is something that is new and unique and we have not seen before, it could take longer—or it could be specified within the act.

Mr WHETSTONE: What I am trying to explain is that for something like a purpose-built vehicle, something that is customised, there would have to be time frames for granting a permit because of the year of manufacture and the time that it would take to have inspections for a one-off or a purpose-built vehicle.

Chapter 4 discusses vehicle operations under mass, dimension and loading. Including regulating mass, dimension and loading, there are currently a number of arrangements between operators of heavy vehicles and escort pilot-type services. I would be concerned if any of those arrangements changed under the national law. How will the national law affect escort pilot arrangements for wide and heavy loads?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised, member for Chaffey, that the transitional provisions will be that every jurisdiction maintains its current practice, and that there are committees, which obviously involve the associations that deal with this, who are formulating what will be the national harmonised policy. I would be very keen, as you would be, to make sure that there is no change that will be to the detriment of our users. However, there will be a nationally harmonised scheme eventually. Whether that is in three years or 12 months will depend on the body of work done by the committees that are looking at this. My guess is it will be longer rather than shorter, which will mean that our current provisions will remain. I am sorry I do not have a better answer for you.

Mr WHETSTONE: Moving on to restricting road access: the national law allows for road access restrictions, even if heavy vehicles in question comply with the mass and dimension requirements, if it would endanger public safety, damage road infrastructure or adversely affect public amenities. Under chapter 4, part 6, how many roads in South Australia currently have restricted access for heavy vehicles and will change under the national law?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that there will be no changes to the gazetted routes, so there will be no net loss of routes. Whether the national laws allow for greater access to routes, I would have to get back to you between the houses.

Mr WHETSTONE: I guess as an example, minister, some of the roads in South Australia are gazetted for B-triples or road trains and we have other roads that are not. Are you anticipating any trials to be done on roads here in South Australia?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it is fair to say that the industry is always looking for greater access to routes and they are always pushing the department to allow them greater access to routes. That is a good thing, because roads are the arteries of our economy, so we want to free them up and get freight moving. It is a good thing. Obviously, the department has concerns when the industry comes to us and says, 'We think this type of vehicle of this size and this mass can use this type of road.' The department says, 'Well, we don't think so.' Then it becomes a political question where I would instruct the department to conduct a trial.

There are a few issues like that ongoing, but in terms of any specific trials that are underway right now, I am not aware of any. I know that we were conducting a speed limit trial for some heavy vehicles. I am not sure where we are with the remainder of that past Port Augusta, but I can get back to you about that.

Mr WHETSTONE: Obviously for roads to comply to national speed changes or road changes, roads have to be built to a specification, so before you can actually give permission for any heavier road rating to be put onto any of the highways, those highways would have to comply with the heavier axle loading. So, would any of our national highways be able to receive a heavier axle load in trialling bigger configurations of trucks to meet a national standard?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Let us be very clear about this, if there was a national requirement to upgrade roads to take a heavier load than we currently have specification for on national freight routes, we would expect the commonwealth to kick the can. South Australia is the size of France and Germany combined, so if we are going to be improving freight routes from New South Wales to the Western Australian border we would expect, if it is a national requirement, that the commonwealth would kick the can. The advice I have received is that we average out the requirements on our roads and that average is allocated to heavy freight movement.

So, if our roads can take a certain average this is what we allocate to them. If a national regulator came to us and said, 'We want you to take a higher standard, a heavier load', we would then say, 'Well, okay, who's going to pay for it?' You cannot expect a taxpayer base of 1.6 million people to do that. We would require commonwealth assistance. So, I think the commonwealth and a national heavy vehicle regulator would be very keen to try to minimise those impacts and make it consistent, and maybe take an average of the entire nation, something like that.

Mr WHETSTONE: Getting towards the back of the pack here: enforcement. Chapter 9 regulates enforcement of the national law, starting on page 314. I am concerned about the resourcing the state will have to provide and I am interested to know of the burdens that might be placed on our police forces and the department of transport, trade and infrastructure, the chain of responsibility. How will the national law affect the chain of responsibility for law enforcement?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The current chain of responsibility will remain unchanged, so the requirements that are in place now will remain. If I know SAPOL, if it needs more resources it will ask for them.

Mr WHETSTONE: So, will the national regulator be responsible for enforcing penalties against drivers, owners and operators of heavy vehicles?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am advised that the offences that would be prosecuted would be conducted by SAPOL and DPTI officers and they would be done within the Magistrates Court, or higher, if necessary, based on the national law. So, it will not necessarily be the national regulator imposing fines or penalties, it will be the local jurisdictions, based on the national law.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (20:05): As our Kurdish brothers leave the chamber, I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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