HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROAD TRAFFIC (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I had put some questions on the record and the minister has responded. I am a bit intrigued with some of the responses. To start with the cost, we are talking about IAP and the cost of putting the unit in a truck or vehicle and the cost of monitoring. The minister indicated an estimate of $2,800 for equipment and installation, and a monthly monitoring fee of about $80 for 24 months or $140 for 12 months. That seems to be per month and not per annum, so we are looking at perhaps $1,600 per annum per truck and installation of $2,800. Does the minister or her advisers have any idea of what this will cost? I think that is the key for the industry, which is struggling at the moment. What will it cost per vehicle, what is the monitoring cost and who will bear it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The figures that I gave to the honourable member are correct and his interpretation is correct; that is, they are monthly amounts. I am advised that four providers are currently providing these sorts of services. They all operate commercially and they all set their fees slightly differently. So, the example that I gave, to which the leader just referred, is indicative only of the sorts of costs that are being charged on the market today.

I think I have put on the record previously that we believe that, as the IAP system expands, it is likely to reduce overall costs for those states using it and across Australia generally. So, we believe that costs are likely to reduce rather than increase. However, obviously, that is speculative.

The real issue around costs is that we have put on the record quite clearly that, if it is only those truck companies or providers that have assessed this to be to their overall benefit, in terms of cost and efficiency, they would then seek to go down this pathway. We have put on the record quite clearly that, with respect to any extension of this measure to the low-loaders and other vehicles about which we are currently engaged in discussion with the industry, we have given a commitment that we will consult and involve them, and it is only where they deem there to be net overall benefits to them, including cost efficiencies, that they would go down this path. So, it is an indicative cost, and it will only be where the transport organisations deem it to be in their interests that we are likely to pursue more work in those areas.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: One of the reasons why the opposition is opposing the clause with respect to the IAP is, indeed, the cost. The minister said that there will be benefits and some efficiencies. Where does she see them as being? Certainly, members of the industry are telling me that if they do not get new access there will be no benefit to them.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Some of the efficiencies include things such as participating in the IAP system would enable vehicles to travel with greater mass because more protections are included. There are some conditions where vehicles would have greater use—for instance, currently, over-width low-loaders can be on the road only during daylight hours. This system would offer the potential for those vehicles to be able to travel at night. So, a vehicle would be able to go to its destination and turn around and come home the same day.

Those are the sorts of things in which we are engaging directly with members of the industry to ensure that they can understand and have an opportunity to weigh up the benefits and cost imposts and determine whether, in their view, there are overall benefits for them to go down that path.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My reading of the legislation is that at this stage the government is only talking about low-loaders and those sorts of vehicles using this. However, in her comments the minister said:

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.

To me, that is saying. 'We are going to put it on every vehicle. As an operator, whether or not you use it is up to you, but we are still going to make sure that you comply and it will be mandatory.'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Those comments were made particularly in relation to the context of the over-width low-loaders. We have had discussions with representatives of the peak industry group that represents low-loaders, the Civil Contractors Federation, and it was they who suggested that this system would only work if it was determined that it was in the industry's overall interest to apply IAP. It was their suggestion that it would only work if it was then applied across that part of the sector to ensure that a level playing field occurred. They did not believe that you could require only some to have it and not others because of the access routes that would become available to those people who did not have IAP. I will have to seek clarification on that last comment, but I certainly believe that the first lot of comments are correct.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I know the minister will not have this information at her fingertips, but my understanding is that the legislation will actually give the government the authority to require all higher mass vehicles that currently have restricted access to certain routes—so B-doubles, etc.—to participate in IAP across the state. The concern of the industry is that they are operating on those roads—and I suspect that most of the industry are adhering to the rules and not breaking them—but what I want to know is how many vehicles are registered or have permits for those particular routes that are being used in South Australia at present.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: How many vehicles are participating now with higher mass under the existing permit system that would be replaced with IAP?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that in relation to higher mass vehicles we have a gazetted network of routes that these trucks can operate on, if they comply with the conditions outlined. No permits are required for that. I have been advised that it is estimated that there are about 2,000 HML operators. I need to clarify that this is the group of vehicles that would be entering into the IAP scheme only in a truly voluntary way. So, none of these vehicles that I have just referred to will be required by the bill before us to adopt the IAP system. These are truly voluntary participants.

These individuals, or their companies, will make an assessment; for instance, as to whether or not they operate interstate. Some of these will already have IAP systems in place because they operate interstate and they are required to have the hardware, if you like, on their trucks to be able to travel through New South Wales, and wherever else, and they are, basically, turning off the system when they cross back over the South Australian border.

It will be quite cheap and easy for some of these operators, and within their interests, to adopt the IAP system here in South Australia. Those who do not want to will continue to operate on this gazetted network where a permit is not required, under certain conditions.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: One of the sticking points has been this question of whether it is voluntary or mandatory. I have not read anywhere in the legislation that this is voluntary. It seems to me, from the industry's perspective, that it will be the thin end of the wedge—that the legislative framework will be in place. You might like to comment on New South Wales, minister.

You said that it was developed nationally, approved unanimously by transport ministers in December 2005 and the model legislation has been implemented in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. My understanding is that New South Wales is yet to implement the IAP; it just has a pre-commit enrolment form, concerning which 80 per cent of operators have indicated that they will probably withdraw when and if New South Wales actually implements an IAP because the cost benefit is not there.

Could you clarify your statements about the other states? Are they actually operating, or is what has happened what you are hoping will happen here, namely, that the legislation will pass but it will sit there and the industry has not yet taken it up?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: First, the IAP is model legislation which provides a framework. It does not describe when it should be applied; that is a matter of policy. In New South Wales—you are right—there has been a pre-registration period, and I have been advised that they plan to commence on 1 July. It is too early to say what the rate of pickup will be with respect to that. Queensland plans to commence on 1 July, and I have been advised that Victoria commenced on 30 April. In Victoria, it involves only heavy mobile cranes and concrete pumps.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In the minister's comments, at the paragraph entitled, 'Decreased road safety and damage to roads can result in direct costs for both the transport industry and the community in general', she states:

As stated previously, DTEI will not impose IAP on operators without consultation.

Again, the industry is quite concerned about consultation. It is perhaps no fault of yours, minister, but this government has had a poor track record on consultation. It is a little like, 'We'll tell you what's good for you and then we're going to do it.' The comments that I have had from the industry—

The CHAIRMAN: The member should stick to clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am sticking to the clause, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: There is nothing about consultation or the government in any of the clauses.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, consultation is a very important thing, Mr Chairman. Is there any consideration of a formal agreement between the industry and the department, rather than just consultation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think I have already put the answer to this particular question on the record. In relation to issues around IAP applying to the higher mass vehicles, I have already put on the record that that is a truly voluntary system. So, those operators will need to determine whether or not it is in their business interests to incorporate IAP. We are not imposing that on them.

In relation to issues concerning over-width low loaders, we have indeed been in quite extensive and intensive consultation with the Civil Contractors Federation and we have, in fact, been listening to its issues of concern and listening to its suggestions and proposals for going forward. I have already put some examples of that on the record in terms of whether or not things are applied industry wide to that particular part of the sector. So, clearly, we have consulted and, clearly, we are listening and taking into account the matters raised. I am advised that the government also has a Heavy Vehicles Forum that we regularly participate in.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I asked the minister to qualify an earlier answer, but I do not think she has actually answered it satisfactorily. I think the minister has indicated that it is just a simple matter of an operator of a vehicle self-reporting when conditions change: that they have unloaded the heavy mass or uncoupled the trailer, or that the equipment is in the prime mover and not on the trailer, or they have taken the trailer off and are going somewhere else. That does not solve the issue of cheats in the industry, and I know that they are the people the government is trying to catch.

All of us here are sympathetic to making sure that people who put our community at risk and who break the rules are held to account, but I am not sure how this system traps those people. If they are sneaky and devious they could self-report to say that they had done certain things—uncoupled trailers, removed loads—and the system would not know any different.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member is correct. Unfortunately there are cheats and people who are prepared to do the wrong thing in any industry sector, but we know that most operators in this sector do the right thing. However, we expect that false declarations may be made from time to time, and the bill outlines enforceable penalties associated with that. We will be able to receive non-compliance reports on such activity, and those reports will be used to direct on-road enforcement.

I also reiterate that this group of operators, with the issues of mass changes and when loads are and are not offloaded, will be participating in the IAP scheme only in a voluntary way; no-one will require them to participate in the scheme. They are voluntary participants, and we believe that we have a set of checks and balances within that to catch and penalise any who might seek to deliberately breach these conditions.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If it is a purely voluntary scheme, why not impose a mandatory scheme for those who are repeat and serious offenders and not have this legislation at all?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think SARTA would like to see IAPs made mandatory for serious and repeat offenders, and the advice I have received is that the national model legislation does not include requirements for the ways in which IAPs can be applied. The Road Traffic Act currently provides for a court to apply IAP-type systems to systematic and persistent offenders so, once the IAP legislation is in place, prosecutors could be encouraged to request this sanction in appropriate circumstances.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am intrigued. I know this is national legislation, but if it is to be a purely voluntary system, and we have a gazetted network of roads now (and I am sure similar systems operate in other states), what rationale did the transport ministers use to sign off on it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There could be some situations where, for instance, an operator might want to increase the mass beyond a particular standard or have a longer vehicle. They might want access to a route where the risk to the integrity of the road would be so great that the view would be, 'Yes, you can carry that extra load or have that extra length of vehicle but, because the risks are greater, you are required to have an IAP attached to your vehicle so that we can monitor you and assure ourselves that you are travelling on the same route, because the risk of going off route is so great.'

The issue for that operator is that it is their choice. If they want to maintain the current standards according to the gazetted road route, that is available at the moment without a permit being required, but there might be other circumstances, and well within their business interest, in which they might want other considerations. The IAP would allow increased access to operators under certain circumstances.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister is talking about increased access, so I assume this is not about the really big loads where there is a police escort and all those things. It is about an existing operator who has higher mass accreditation. What you are saying, minister, is that if you are operating now under the gazetted system of roads, and you are an accredited operator, this offers the potential, if you participate in the IAP, to carry higher masses and have longer vehicles.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is correct.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What increase in mass are we talking about? It always comes down to cost, minister, and you are looking at $1,600 a vehicle per year. What extra mass are you looking at? I do not think the industry has been aware of that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that two applications are currently being considered and discussed with the industry: one is the use of a higher mass and the other is the use of over-width vehicles. We have been engaged with the industry in considering those for some time, so it is aware of it. In terms of how much mass or what length of over-width vehicle, those details have not yet been decided, but we are in discussions.

I qualify that, when all the discussions have been undertaken and the parameters established, it will be a matter for these operators to decide whether there is a strong business case for them to incur the impost of the IAP versus the offset of the business benefit for carrying a higher mass or having a longer load. Again, their loads, which other states they travel in, etc., will have a different cost impost for different operators, so they will have to make that assessment for themselves; however, access to the gazetted roads under the current conditions remains available to them. So, they will invest in the IAP only if there are benefits for them.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Can the minister explain why the industry is concerned about this being a mandatory scheme? The minister says that it is only voluntary, but my understanding is that the industry is particularly concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge; that, effectively, will have to participate in the IAP; and that the gazetted system will disappear and it must participate in the IAP.

Of course, its concern is that it has to pay the cost of the equipment, and I assume that the operating costs will be borne by the operator, although the minister can correct me on that. So, for no extra access—it still has access to the same gazetted routes and the same system—there will be no benefit unless it has wider loads. I find that hard to understand. Given the width of our roadways, I would not have thought that width came into it, although length might.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I can only say—and I did put on the record—that SARTA did agree in principle with IAP, and I met with howls of laughter in interjections from the opposition when I read that into the record in my second reading summary. In fact, it does support it in principle. It has raised with us concerns about some particular elements, which we are working through, but generally it supports this in principle, because it does get it. It does get that there is a component that would be voluntary and that, with respect to the low loaders and the work we are doing with the Civil Contractors Federation, in the longer term there could be some mandatory components to that, but that is still undecided, and those negotiations are still taking place.

SARTA certainly gets it, and the Civil Contractors Federation gets it. It is not a simple, straightforward construct, I have to say; it took me a little while to get my head around the briefings. It is not straightforward; we cannot get up and categorically say that, yes, it is this or it is that. It will have different implications to different operators. Nevertheless, I have put squarely on the record those conditions where it will operate as a voluntary scheme and those conditions where there may be some potential at a future date for applications to be made industry-wide to certain sections of the industry.

These are really about, as I said, trying to improve the access of vehicles to improve businesses so they have other options and choices in the way they can operate, and that gives them the opportunity to improve their businesses and, in terms of the South Australian government, it enables us to protect our assets better.

In terms of the ongoing monitoring and the fees paid for that, the honourable member is correct: a component of the IAP fee will be to install equipment—the infrastructure component—and then there is an ongoing monitoring cost. I have provided indicative amounts for both of those and have said that there are currently four commercial operators and we would hope that with time their costs will continue to come down. I also want to put on the record that none of these fees come into state government hands. No fees are required to be paid to the South Australian government, so it is simply a service provider, providing a service to an operator.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, what the minister is saying is that access as we know it today will not be affected by IAP, because it is a voluntary system. So, every accredited operator can go about their business as they do today, unaffected by this; it is only when an operator would like to carry a higher mass, on a different route, of a different width or on a longer vehicle.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, yes, that is the correct interpretation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There is one other comment I would like to make. It is not actually a question of the minister. For the purpose of the record, I noted where the Hon. Russell Wortley spoke, referring to the industry group I referred to, wanting to know whether I was representing 'shysters who are happy to have their drivers speeding on unrealistic schedules'. The Hon. Mr Wortley is not here at present.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Does he know what a shyster is?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am not sure whether the Hon. Mr Wortley knows what a shyster is, but I am sure he deals with them on a regular basis. The South Australian Road Transport Association is offended that I have been in here representing its views, and the Hon. Russell Wortley has referred to it as a mob of shysters. I ask the Hon. Russell Wortley to consider correcting the record when he has an opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN: As I indicated in committee last night, we intend to stick to the clauses.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We are on clause 1, and I am asking a range of questions.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see anything about shysters in clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I realise there is nothing about shysters in clause 1, but I did think it was inappropriate of the Hon. Russell Wortley, and I am concerned. I would like the Hon. Russell Wortley at some point, if he is able, to correct the record and apologise to the Road Transport Association.

At this point, given that the minister has given us a commitment that this is a voluntary system, that access as we know it today will not be affected, that it is only for increased new access and that it is not the intention to impose that on anybody else, I would seek to report progress. I have been in contact with the Road Transport Association and would like to seek its views on it, because that is certainly a point it has made. It does support it in principle; it does think it is appropriate for serious and repeat offenders who are a risk to the community, and it certainly does not support that. If what the minister has said is correct and that it is purely for new access and there will no retrospectivity to it, I need to speak to the Road Transport Association. The minister may like to respond, otherwise I am happy to report progress.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: You are absolutely right in your paraphrasing the things I have put on the record. Again, that needs to be clarified in the context of the work that we have also been doing with the Civil Contractors Federation. So, there are two, and that is a separate one. To say there are no changes for anyone, that has to be clarified in relation to the work we have been doing with them. In terms of the gazetted road routes, higher mass vehicles and over-width vehicles, you are absolutely correct. I would welcome an opportunity for the honourable member to have a chance to withdraw his amendments.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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