Page 4242 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This legislation, like the mass, dimensions and loading act, takes a chain of responsibility approach, making drivers, loaders, consignors and the prime contractors variously responsible for the safe handling of dangerous goods on our roads. As with an emerging raft of regulatory regimes, a legal burden is imposed on defendants where they have particular responsibilities. They can be required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable care. The whole regime of the ACT in regard to work safety and dangerous substances hinges on that approach
The flip side of the safety duty approach is that the legislation is enforced through a raft of fairly low level administrative offences and penalties. I feel for the staff and the members of the scrutiny of bills committee when these bills come before them. There are so many offences, many of which are reasonably strict liability offences, all of which need to be looked at very closely.
I appreciate the work that has gone into the explanatory statement in signalling the rationale behind some of those offences and, indeed, the long discussion on the topic at the front end of the statement. I was reminded by my staff again, and so remind the Assembly, that the legal affairs committee conducted an inquiry into strict liability offences and how they are handled in the ACT legislation a few years ago. I think it is time that the ACT government responded to that report. I note that the government has picked up on and accepted a number of the concerns raised by the scrutiny committee and the Greens will be supporting those amendments.
It is interesting to note that this bill does not capture rail transport, which will be updated later in partnership with New South Wales, which runs the rail service in the ACT. The explanatory statement also makes the point that rail carries significantly less freight than road. That does give us some cause to reflect, however. Just the other day there was a dangerous chemical spill on the Federal Highway. The roads in and out of Canberra are busy and fairly easily blocked.
Shell oil’s decision to shift its fuel transporting activities from rail to road across New South Wales and into the ACT is disappointing. We have been advised that rail is 19 times safer than any other form of land transport and so, while updating the regime that governs the transport of dangerous goods on our roads is desirable, it would actually be better for people and the planet if we used the roads less and used rail more. I thank the department and minister’s staff for the briefing and assistance for this bill.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (5.35), in reply: The bill before the Assembly has its origins in intergovernmental agreements entered into with the commonwealth, the states and the territories as far back as 1991. The agreements committed each of the nine jurisdictions to work together in the interests of reforming road transport for the operation of both heavy and light vehicles. The principles endorsed by the parties to the agreements are that there should be improvements to both road safety and transport efficiency, reductions in the cost of administration of road transport and improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of compliance arrangements.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .