Page 1897 - Week 07 - Thursday, 31 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In my speech during the in principle debate, I mentioned that the Transport Workers Union and the ACT Tippers Association had raised a number of problems with the Bill. Some of those problems were solved after Mr Duby gave an undertaking about the way in which the law would be implemented.
This amendment, which I understand the Government will support, deals with the situation where a driver may have little control over the loading of a vehicle. In the presentation speech I mentioned two examples which I would like to outline in more detail today. I mentioned the case of supermarket delivery trucks. Members may not realise that the Bill provides for a maximum loading on each axle of a vehicle. This means that, depending on the design of a truck, the position of the load can make a difference between overloading or loading within the law. In the case of the supermarket delivery truck, it is usual for the wholesaler supplier to load the truck in order that deliveries may be made as they come up. If half the load consists of toilet tissues and the other half consists of canned food, then it is easy to understand that the position of the load on the truck will determine which particular axle is overloaded.
As it stands, the Bill places all responsibility on the driver and owner of the truck, and it may be very difficult for a driver to refuse to carry an excess load. In this business everybody knows that, if one deliverer will not carry the load, then someone else will.
The other example I gave was that of the mudcarters. On a building site, the contractor will estimate the number of truckloads it will take to remove soil from the site but, if the load includes rocks, clay, or earth that is wet, then there can be a big difference in the weight of the truckload. Of course, the builder does not wish to pay for extra truckloads in order to keep each of them within the weight limit. This is a situation where it can be difficult for the driver even to know what weight is being loaded, let alone stop the overloading.
The idea behind this amendment is to place some responsibility on the people who load the vehicles and their employer. It is not my intention that we should have inspectors running around prosecuting the people who load trucks, but this amendment will mean two things: first, truck drivers will be able to say to whoever is loading their truck that the new law means they, too, must be careful about the load. The drivers will feel more confident about insisting on controlling their loads. I believe the second effect of this amendment will be to make employers more careful about loading practices. I feel that, with the cooperation of the department, it is likely that we will see employers issuing instructions to their staff about not overloading trucks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .