HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROAD TRAFFIC (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 June 2009. Page 2432.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:20): I rise to support the bill. Family First is and always will be a strong proponent of any initiative that any government brings to the table to reduce our terrible road toll and ensure compliance with our road rules. I understand that the road toll is currently at 64 this year, after such a promisingly low road toll last year, and Family First will support any reasonable measures to further reduce that number in future. The question raised by the opposition in this place is whether the bill goes beyond what is reasonable in imposing red tape and extra costs on trucking businesses—costs beyond which some trucking companies potentially can afford, rather than what are true safety and compliance initiatives.

This bill makes several changes to the Road Traffic Act 1961, with the major initiative in the amendments being the introduction of the so-called intelligent access program. To briefly cover some of the less prominent aspects of the bill, clause 4 appears to remove the power in section 53A(2) of the act to vary or revoke the approval of traffic speed analyser devices. I would appreciate the minister explaining in committee why we are removing that power, which I assume is used from time to time.

Clause 5 allows unrestricted use of photographic detection devices to show evidence of both red light and speeding-related offences arising from the same incident. The current provision requires specific cameras to be specified by the government. The new provision seems to be appropriate, and Family First certainly supports that measure. I know that the offence of speeding through a red light camera can carry with it three demerit points for the speeding offence in addition to the three demerit points for the red light camera offence, and it is a hefty total of some six demerit points. It is a significant penalty for someone who could have been caught inadvertently (not that we encourage that). All of us on occasion have been caught by a millisecond or so going through when the orange light turns to red. I do not condone fast driving, and that should not be misinterpreted from what I am saying, but it is a hefty penalty.

In the general community there is a recognised difference between a driver intentionally driving fast and recklessly speeding through a light that has been red for some time and a driver who either speeds up marginally to catch an orange light and just misses out or feels that they do not have time to brake, which most of us would have experienced at one time or another.

The first instance, reckless speeding, definitely calls for six demerit points and possibly more, but it is debatable whether the second instance does. I think in that instance the person is not being reckless—perhaps a little unlucky, is a way of putting it. Clause 6 contains a very wide power for the government to make any regulations it sees fit regarding the management of speeding by drivers of heavy vehicles. We have concerns that this clause is very broad. I wonder whether the South Australian Road Transport Association (SARTA) is aware that this clause would give the government power to make regulations as it sees fit regarding any schemes 'for the management of speeding by drivers of heavy vehicles'—any schemes.

The term 'heavy vehicle', according to section 5 of the act, means any motor vehicle or trailer with a maximum load mass of greater than 4.5 tonnes. Potentially, many vehicles fall within the ambit of that definition. The government has named the National Transport Commission (Model Act on Heavy Speeding Compliance) Regulations 2007 as the regulations it intends to implement via this section, and, of course, we accept that. Nevertheless, the wording of clause 6 is very broad. The model regulations include a number of positive provisions as outlined by the minister, including the introduction of obligations on all parties in the transport chain to take positive steps to prevent breaches of speed limits, and indeed this is a positive initiative.

The chain parties identified in the legislation are the employer, the prime contractor, operator, scheduler, consignor, consignee and loading manager. Importantly, it will be illegal for companies to enter into contracts that actually result in speeding due to unreasonable schedules or deadlines. This is all very reasonable, indeed. Family First supports this code, which has been through a great deal of consultation with industry. We believe that it will work positively towards building a safe driving culture within our trucking industry.

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of this bill is the Intelligent Access Program, which is also dealt with in clause 6. The opposition in the other place supported the program, as I understand it, but in this place it has taken the position of opposing this program. That occurred after members opposite spoke with the Road Transport Association. We have also spoken with Steve Shearer from SARTA, who has expressed concern if the program is made mandatory. We have looked at the implementation of the scheme interstate, and the key word that seems to come up regarding this scheme in many other instances is 'voluntary'.

The Austroads report calls it a 'voluntary' system, Main Roads WA calls it 'voluntary', ADT Security (which installs the systems) also calls it 'voluntary' in its brochures, Queensland has it listed as a voluntary program, and so on. However, in South Australia it seems that we are envisaging a mandatory program and SARTA opposes that. A further concern raised by the Freight Council is whether this system may in future be used to target trucking companies for carbon emissions. This concern is about so-called green tape on top of the potential red tape that this program will be for business.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Brown tape!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Brown tape; that is right. Most significantly from our perspective would be the $3,000 to $4,000 cost per vehicle to install the IAP devices, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. I remind members that this fee would be on top of the recent doubling of ordinary registration costs for large trucks, B doubles, and the like, from about $7,000 to some $14,000 per year. These continual fee increases are tremendously hard on small trucking companies and the families they employ. When diesel prices were recently high we had the deplorable situation of five or six trucking firms going broke each week, according to reports made to Family First. Certainly we will not allow that to continue.

I indicate Family First support for the second reading of the bill. Family First does not want to see any more trucking companies go broke in these hard economic times, either thanks to red tape or so-called green tape. For that reason we have concerns about the mandatory rollout of the IAP scheme. A voluntary scheme would certainly be more favourable to Family First.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:26): I did advise that I would make a few brief comments. I support what my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood said. I want to talk about the IAP area. I have real concerns—as does the Hon. Dennis Hood and Family First—with respect to the implementation requirements and the possible retrospectivity of this. I am fundamentally against retrospectivity in any case but particularly at a time like this. I know that ministers are under pressure when they go to ministerial council meetings. A lot of this work is done behind the scenes by senior officer groups. It is very hard, in fairness to a minister, to get their head around all this.

I am sure that some of this is driven with the right intention, but sometimes it is driven at far too fast a speed through the national process network of senior officer groups and departments. I just want to highlight to the council that, in recent years, recent months and right at this very time, enormous demands are being put on the transport industry at a time when we are in a very difficult economic situation. Let us remember that the state of South Australia, apart from Western Australia and Queensland, must rely more on transport than any other state in this nation. The livestock industry is an example where all these other imposts will be put on drivers and owner operators, many of whom, I might add, are family owned and operated.

Their families miss out on a lot while their husbands and sometimes wives are out driving these big B doubles, triaxle semis and often road trains. All these other imposts are being put on them at the moment and I think that, at times, you do have to say, 'Enough is enough.' Until we can get some clearer direction and a stronger economy, we should be focusing on a more general law enforcement presence. We are not seeing that out on our rural and regional roads. We have been requesting that the transport industry upgrade its fleets at enormous cost to industry. It costs about $300,000 just for a prime mover these days.

However, the positive side of that is that these prime movers are so much safer than they used to be that the investment focus has to be around those areas at the moment. As my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood said, to expect truck drivers to be able to put in $3,000 and $4,000 pieces of technology—which I am advised have fundamental flaws in terms of how they will be managed as well as how they can at this stage potentially be breached—is not the right way to go about it.

Let us give the transport industry in South Australia some breathing space and remove the intelligent access program section from the bill and perhaps bring it back in, as my colleague has said, on a voluntary basis or when people are upgrading their fleet. Some of these companies will be looking at an investment of over $100,000. That is a massive amount of money, and they just cannot afford it at the moment.

If government and senior bureaucrats go down this path of continually placing more and more demands on the transport industry, unfortunately, at the end of the day, they will either go broke, as my colleague has highlighted, or they will have to increase the cost of freight. Guess what happens then? That hits the hip pockets of the families concerned at a time when they just cannot afford it. Food and other commodity prices are high enough now without other input costs with respect to the transport industry.

I have had a lot to do with the South Australian Transport Association and Mr Steve Shearer over many years, and also the Livestock Transporters Association of South Australia. They have done a lot to clean up their act and have worked cooperatively with government, but this is a time when the parliament needs to support the industry, which is generally proactive in supporting government with respect to good safety and other initiatives. They have cleared out most of the cowboys from the industry. Times are tough at the moment. Let us give the transport industry and the families involved a fair go. For that reason, I strongly support the Hon. Dennis Hood in saying that we have major concerns about the implementation and support of the intelligent access program section of this bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:31): I rise today to speak in support of a bill that has the same significance for me as did the Road Traffic (Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatigue) Amendment Bill, on which I spoke last year. As a longstanding member of the Federal Council of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, I have been directly involved in many initiatives intended to promote and enhance safety for drivers of heavy vehicles. Very often at the federal council, when it came to issues such as wage campaigns and occupational health and safety, occupational health and safety always took priority over wage campaigns because of our concern for our drivers.

I have already spoken about the appalling results of heavy vehicle crashes on drivers and others using our roads and referred to a variety of research highlighting the impact of driver fatigue on such events. Sadly, the number of fatal crashes in South Australia in which heavy vehicles (including rigid trucks and buses) are involved is increasing. There were 12 in 2007 and 19 in 2008, and in the first quarter of this year there have already been two fatalities involving articulated trucks, two involving rigid trucks and one involving a bus.

Speed is undoubtedly a major contributor to these crashes, as well as fatigue. The lasting effects of these tragedies on the relations, friends and colleagues of those involved are devastating. Road safety is a concern to us all and a matter of the greatest importance to the government. I am pleased to express my strong support for the measures that I am about to discuss.

However, I would first like to reflect on the huge scale and the extraordinary complexities of the transport sector in the 21st century. The transport task in a global economy, where operations take place 24/7, is extraordinary. Movements are faster, their scale is bigger and loads are bigger. Costs are minimised at every level due to financial imperatives. With customer demands and the speedy provision of goods and services, heavy vehicle drivers are pressured to perform for more hours with less rest.

The sector is expected to grow exponentially, with the transport task anticipated to double in the period leading up to 2020. Let us just think about it. More and more frenetic transport events mean more and more opportunities for close shaves, accidents and even fatalities. The stage is well and truly set, therefore, for increased speeding to meet time deadlines and get the next assignment loaded and the next run started. It is in the context of this 21st century global trading environment that I turn to the bill before us at present.

The bill complements and extends the earlier piece of legislation by conferring regulation making powers to enable the introduction of two Australia-wide regulated heavy vehicle initiatives. These relate to motor vehicles or trailer combinations of a gross vehicle mass greater than 4.5 tonnes.

The initiatives are, first, the intelligent access program (IAP) and, secondly, heavy vehicle speeding compliance. The model IAP was developed by the National Transport Commission (comprising employers, government and unions) in consultation with state and territory authorities responsible for transport enforcement and, of course, with the road transport industry. Late in 2007, the Australian Transport Council approved the package.

The implementation of specific intergovernmental agreements between the Australian Transport Council and the Council of Australian Governments is mandatory. So, this bill makes South Australia's commitment to the agreement tangible by providing the necessary power for the making of appropriate regulations. The IAP will allow GPS monitoring, coupled with the installation of in-vehicle technology to measure speed. This will ensure the compliance of individual heavy vehicles, particularly restricted access vehicles, with existing speed limit and, importantly, road access regimes. These innovations will dramatically improve the detection of non-compliant behaviours. They will improve road safety and they will help to alleviate wear on the road network.

How will this be achieved? A chain of responsibility will be established so that all parties—from the loading manager to the consignee, the consignor to the scheduler, the operator to the contractor and right up to the employer—will be obliged to take positive steps to prevent speed limit breaches. They will need to consider their actions in light of that duty of care. It is clear, therefore, that the legislation captures off-road parties, not heavy vehicle drivers, for whom an existing legislation regime already exists.

While the duties of care of each of these off-road parties vary, the absolute obligation is common to all. They must take all reasonable steps to make sure that the party's directions will not cause, contribute to causing or encourage drivers to travel at a speed outside current constraints. This supplements and enhances both the chain of responsibility framework already in place with regard to mass, dimension and load restraint, and the existing driver fatigue compliance protocols. That is why I become a bit miffed when some members of this chamber start talking about voluntary and not mandatory introduction.

Most trucking companies are very responsible and do the right thing. With this legislation, we want to catch those people who are out there undercutting rates, putting in very cheap rates to do the job and, once they get the contract, putting unrealistic speed conditions on their drivers. This is what causes accidents. If trucking companies can survive only by undercutting rates and pushing their drivers to drive at unsafe levels they do not deserve to be in the industry. There are plenty of responsible companies out there to take up that position. I find it staggering that anyone can advocate voluntary introduction when the ones who will not put them in are the very companies we are trying to get.

I also bring to the attention of this council that both the National Transport Commission and the state transport industry have accepted and endorsed this package. I do not know who the opposition is representing or who it claims to represent. Is it representing the shysters who are happy to have their drivers speeding on the road with unrealistic schedules? Is that who you are protecting? It sounds like you are protecting them, otherwise you would support this legislation in order to make this industry safe.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I have a point of order, sir. The honourable member has been here long enough to know that he should direct his remarks through the chair. I was not aware that the chair had any particular position on this bill—or any other bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): The chair has no position on any particular bill, as the honourable member well understands. There is no point of order, but the council would be assisted by the Leader of the Opposition not interjecting, otherwise we will be here all night.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Thank you, Mr Acting President. An industry code of practice, registered with the applicable road authority and appropriately maintained, will ensure that parties in the chain of responsibility are able to demonstrate that they have taken all such reasonable steps. If a company enters a contract with the result being that speeding ensues, due to schedules or deadlines that are not reasonable, entry into the contractual arrangement will be illegal. Compliance and enforcement protocols will be applied and strengthened. I note that New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have now implemented their model IAP legislation, and it is anticipated that the remaining jurisdictions will follow suit in the course of this year.

Improved heavy vehicle speeding compliance is the second limb of the new scheme. The bill envisages the approval by regulation of speed analysers and photographic detection apparatus. This will negate the present requirement for gazettal of locations where both devices are installed. The presumption of accuracy (as far as these devices are concerned) will be extended from six days following testing to 27 days following testing.

Experience and evidence available to SAPOL indicates that the induction loops of speed detection devices are stable and that monthly testing is now appropriate. This is commensurate with testing protocols in other Australian jurisdictions. Finally, two minor amendments go to the presumption of accuracy under certain specified circumstances.

I am proud of the bill before us. Its provisions will protect and enhance the safety and the productivity of our heavy vehicle industry. It will promote departmental efficiencies and occupational health and safety for workers. It will help to keep our roads safe and in good repair for all users. I commend the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (16:41): I thank all members for their second reading contributions to this important bill. In response, I will seek to address some of the questions and concerns raised by members. The Hon. David Ridgway indicated his party's support for the bill with one exception; that is, the provision to allow the introduction of a national heavy vehicle initiative, the Intelligence Access Program. I thank the honourable member for his support for the majority of the bill.

The Liberal Party's opposition to IAP is based on concerns raised by the South Australian Road Transport Association (SARTA). I should emphasise that SARTA has stated that it supports IAP in principle. It is not opposed to the IAP legislation per se but, rather, the policy around when the legislative scheme would be applied. SARTA supports IAP where it is used to facilitate new access or operational conditions and where the industry has assessed that there is a genuine net business benefit. This is entirely consistent with the government's approach to the application of IAP.

I will address the issues raised on behalf of the transport industry, after the following preliminary remarks. I remind members that IAP is a scheme whereby restricted access vehicle operators can obtain increased access to the road network in return for being monitored by in-vehicle units that send information about the vehicle's location via satellite to independent certified IAP service providers that pass on that information, particularly about non-compliance with the access conditions, to the road authority. That is where the information goes.

The access conditions contemplated by the model legislation are about travel on particular routes, the time of day and the speed. Monitoring for mass or for vehicle configuration are under development and will require amendments to the model legislation. Restricted access vehicles are longer than 19 metres and have a combined mass of greater than 42.5 tonnes—such as road trains, B-doubles and mobile cranes.

They can operate only on roads that have been assessed as suitable for their length and mass, and they must have specific approval from the minister to do so, either by a permit for an individual vehicle or by a notice published in the Government Gazette for a class of vehicle, and fees are attached to some of those permits.

The IAP scheme was developed nationally and approved unanimously by transport ministers in December 2005. The model legislation has already been implemented in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

It is important for South Australia to have the capacity to participate in this national scheme so that we can match the access conditions that the jurisdictions with IAP can offer their operators. For example, currently, there are South Australian transport operators who operate under IAP in New South Wales but cannot be allowed the same condition here and are required to carry route compliance certificates for their journeys in this state. Some of those transport operators already have the IAP infrastructure, if you like, in place in their vehicles because they are required to comply with other states' requirements. However, as I stated, they possibly cannot be used here. They cross over the border to South Australia and have to switch it off, then buy a permit to proceed.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway raised a concern that IAP will be applied where the industry's assessment is that the additional access does not justify the cost of IAP. It is intended that DTEI will consult with the industry on each proposed application of IAP and will not impose IAP unless it is cost neutral or provides additional benefits to the industry sector. The fear mongering that this will cost the industry huge amounts of money is simply misleading because we have given a commitment that we will not impose IAP unless it is cost neutral or provides additional benefits to the industry.

However, the risk of road infrastructure damage from these high mass vehicles is such that DTEI may not be able to grant additional access without IAP monitoring. So, in South Australia, it is likely that initial applications will be to over-width low loaders to provide extended night travel, for instance, which would be a good thing. As to higher mass limit (HML) vehicles, there is no requirement to carry a route compliance certificate which will be of particular use to operators already involved in IAP in New South Wales or Queensland, as I have already pointed out. Many have to comply already.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway raised the concern that IAP will be applied retrospectively as a further requirement of existing access conditions. The government's position is that it will apply IAP as a condition of access only in consultation with the industry sector involved and where it is cost neutral or provides additional benefits to the sector. We have given that commitment and we are on record with that commitment.

When providing additional access to the type of heavy vehicle with the agreement of the industry sector, it may be necessary to require all vehicles of a particular type to have IAP, whether or not every vehicle of that type takes advantage of the additional access. This would be done to prevent non-IAP monitored operators using the additional access illegally and to ensure a level playing field between all operators of these vehicles. For example, an in-principle agreement has recently been reached with the Civil Contractors Federation for the future application of IAP to over-width low loaders in relation to non-daylight hours operation.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway raised the issue of the cost of IAP. This cost will be borne by the industry participants and can be offset against the benefits of the additional access gained. Operators will pay IAP service providers a market-based fee for the monitoring equipment and services. Operators should be able to recover the costs of these services relatively quickly. A number of other honourable members raised the issue of cost as well, not just the Hon. David Ridgway.

The Hon. David Ridgway mentioned that all current telematic monitoring systems used by the transport industry for their own business reasons are not recognised by the IAP scheme. There are now four certified IAP service providers. They offer a variety of business services in addition to the monitoring required by the IAP. The certification body, Transport Certification Australia, continues to work with the telematics industry to have more participants certified. It has actively encouraged transport operators and their telematic providers to discuss having their existing systems approved for the purpose of IAP.

Certification provides an assurance that the systems used conform to a standard required for prosecutorial purposes, particularly that they are secure from interference along the entire transmission path. In the end, it is a commercial decision for the telematics provider whether or not to become an IAP service provider. One IAP service provider contacted recently gave an estimate of $2,800 for equipment and installation and a monthly monitoring fee ranging from $80 for 24 months to $140 for 12 months.

The Hon. David Ridgway raised a concern that IAP will be an impost—a default enforcement tool—across all operators, including those who comply, in order to prove their compliance. I believe that some other members raised this issue as well. In response, DTEI advises that, while there are operators at each end of the spectrum who will comply with or disregard laws, regardless of the enforcement regime in place, the majority of operators comply because there is some enforcement. IAP is another tool to ensure compliance with access conditions where the risk of infrastructure damage from unauthorised extra heavy vehicles or loads is high. Such technological solutions are increasingly necessary as the freight task increases.

Decreased road safety and damage to roads can result in indirect costs for both the transport industry and the community in general. As stated previously, DTEI will not impose IAP on operators without consultation. The impact of infrastructure damage from non-compliance by even a small percentage of high mass restricted access vehicles is large enough to warrant monitoring by IAP in return for additional access where that provides benefits that offset the cost of participation in the scheme.

The Hon. David Ridgway queried whether the implementation and management of IAP technology will enable false declarations through the use of self reporting of mass; for example, whether a vehicle is under the higher mass limit threshold so that it can travel the prescribed route for such vehicles. IAP is a compliance tool that works in conjunction with on-road enforcement. IAP monitoring generates noncompliance reports that can be assessed for possible prosecutions.

IAP also provides intelligence about particular activities so that police and DTEI safety compliance officers can more effectively direct on-road activities. On-road enforcement can be focused on locations where drivers are likely to go off route and falsely declare that they have offloaded and are carrying less mass. Mass breaches detected on roads carry heavy penalties for drivers and chain of responsibility parties. The self reporting function also benefits the operator by being able to report legitimate incidents where a vehicle is unable to comply with access conditions, thereby being able to mitigate any further unnecessary noncompliance investigations.

Currently, operators and drivers are required to determine the correct operating configuration of their vehicle and ensure that they carry the appropriate documentation and route maps. Similarly, with IAP, prior to commencing the journey, the driver, through a self declaration device fitted in the cab or by communication from the transport operator's office, must advise the IAP service provider of the operating configuration, which then enables the IAP service provider to monitor the vehicle against the correct route and access conditions. Only when there is a change of configuration or mass is the driver or operator required to notify the IAP service provider to enable monitoring against the revised conditions, thus preventing unnecessary noncompliance reports from being forwarded to the road authority. A change is recorded and submitted by the IAP service provider to the road authority.

The model legislation requires both vehicle operators and vehicle drivers to report malfunctions of IAP equipment fitted to the vehicle to DTEI and the operator respectively. A malfunction includes situations where the system operates only intermittently. The maximum penalty for failure to report a malfunction is a $6,000 fine. Reporting a malfunction will protect the driver and operator when a noncompliance report is generated because it appears the IAP equipment is not working.

The road authority will investigate noncompliance reports to determine whether they represent a breach of road law or have a technical cause; for example, it is well known that a signal has been lost when a vehicle travels through a tunnel. Tampering is an offence for which the maximum penalty in South Australia will be $10,000 for an individual and $20,000 for a corporation. The offence of tampering is committed by altering the system, its installation or its use with the intention of causing the system to fail to collect, store or report IAP information; so, there has to be a matter of intent associated with it.

SARTA would like to see IAPs made mandatory for serious and repeat offenders. The national model legislation does not include requirements for the ways in which IAP can be applied. The Road Traffic Act already provides for a court to apply IAP-type systems to systematic or persistent offenders. Once the IAP legislation is in place, this sanction is one that prosecutors could be encouraged to request in appropriate circumstances.

In conclusion, IAP has road safety benefits and enables the mitigation of infrastructure damage risk associated with providing the transport industry with improved or extended access to the road network, which in turn enables higher productivity in supporting the rapidly increasing freight task and the use of larger and heavier vehicles. Without IAP and the intelligence gained from noncompliance reports, the government will have to rely solely on road enforcement methods that will be under increasing pressure to cope with fast growing road freight tasks.

If the government is unable to appropriately manage increased risks associated with providing improved or extended access, there will be situations where access cannot be safely granted to the detriment of the productivity of South Australia.

The bill before parliament allows the introduction of the IAP scheme. IAP is a tool that can be applied to many different situations. The government will work with industry on each proposed application of IAP to ensure that there is a benefit from the extended access.

I would like to thank honourable members for their valuable contributions to the debate. I look forward to the committee stage. For those honourable members who made second reading contributions today and asked specific questions that have not been addressed by these particular answers, I will be happy to provide those during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

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