Page 4478 - Week 14 - Thursday, 28 November 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
These harmonised laws have been evolving between states for decades, so I think congratulations are in order for the officials that have been working on it, including in the ACT government. It has certainly been a big task. The most recent impetus was the 2009 COAG decision to establish a National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to administer a single set of heavy vehicle rules. The regulator is based in Queensland. We are adopting the schedule to the Queensland legislation, which includes the model rules. Most of the new rules should begin next year with some elements, such as registration, delayed in an anticipation of further work, such as the development of a national registration system. The explanatory statement effectively outlines the areas that are regulated by the new model laws. Essentially these are the registration of heavy vehicles, standards for using heavy vehicles on the road, operational requirements such as mass and size limits, secure loading and road access, speeding controls, fatigue management and duties and obligations on operators, drivers and other responsible persons.
Harmonisation of laws between jurisdictions is an interesting issue. Certainly it can be problematic when the various states and territories have a hodgepodge of different rules and regulations. It is often difficult for industry, and it can be costly and inefficient on various levels. But, on the other hand, we always have to be careful that harmonisation does not water down the progress that might have been made in a particular jurisdiction. I would not want the ACT to suffer a policy regression in order to fit into a less progressive national scheme. Of course, national schemes often settle for the lowest common denominator as they try to get everyone to agree.
That was one of the Greens’ concerns with another recent national harmonisation effort in work health and safety. While we supported that scheme overall, we were concerned about some of the good aspects of the ACT system potentially being lost, and some of them, in fact, were. One of those was the ability for unions to progress prosecutions under the act. We unsuccessfully moved an amendment to protect that right. This was an issue I was alive to as I reviewed the proposed heavy vehicle laws. Despite the benefits of harmonising this regulatory complex area, I do not want the ACT locked into something that is deficient and which may prevent us doing something better in the future or adopting something which might have a negative impact on the ACT environment.
Firstly, I had some concern that the proposed changes allowed for the regulator to approve exceptions to size and loading standards, as well as exceptions to the usual allowed heavy vehicle routes. But I am satisfied that this arrangement affords the ACT the appropriate level of participation in these decisions.
Naturally, I had some concern that the arrangement might mean that B-triple trucks, or potentially even bigger, could be rumbling through Canberra’s streets at the whim of a decision-maker in Queensland. But these decisions can only be made if agreed to by the local jurisdiction’s delegate—in this case the ACT’s Road Transport Authority. It is important that the ACT is not ceding away its power to a national regulator. We still need to be able to make decisions in our local interest. Members may have heard me comment on the B-triple issue last year. I am not keen to see them in the ACT, at least not before we have done further and careful investigation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video