National Regulator ‘Lite’

For two years now, industry and all levels of government have been in the throes of negotiating a legislative package to support the establishment of a National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR). With the deadline looming, it’s time to take stock of what has been achieved and what we should expect from the regulator on 1 January 2013.

The original aim of the initiative was to eliminate the inconsistencies between state and territory transport laws and to establish a regulator with the reach and resources to administer new laws on a national basis. The regulatory impact statement released in February 2010 estimated that there would be a net benefit of around $12.4 billion over 20 years, mostly attributable to industry as productivity gains.

Of course, realising these benefits depends entirely on the states and territories reaching agreement on the new laws and implementing them in each jurisdiction on time and without variation. At the moment there is as much chance of this happening as Parramatta winning the premiership this year.

As it stands, legislation has not yet been passed in any of the jurisdictions and there is no consensus on the final form the legislation should take.  

To be fair, a bill was introduced into the Queensland Parliament in November 2011.  However, stakeholders had collectively identified over 1000 problems with this bill and it subsequently lapsed when the 24 March 2012 election was called. 

The newly elected Newman Government has committed to reintroduce the bill in its current form as a priority order of business and it now appears likely that it will be passed around the middle of this year.

It has been agreed by all parties that a second amending bill will be required to rectify the problems contained in bill 1. It will be a tough ask to negotiate, introduce, debate and pass a second bill in Queensland by the end of the year, let alone repeat this process in all other jurisdictions by 1 January 2013.

Assuming that laws are in place, at least in the regulator’s home jurisdiction of Queensland, there is still the mammoth task of preparing the regulator for operational commencement. The regulator will require a governing board, staff, premises, working capital and service agreements still to be negotiated with each of the jurisdictions. The lights might be on but it remains uncertain whether or not anyone will be home. 

Nonetheless, stakeholders remain committed and are continuing to negotiate in good faith to reach agreement on the outstanding technical and policy matters. 

Some of these issues are proving difficult to resolve with differing opinions even amongst the state and territory governments on fundamental matters such as chain of responsibility, powers of inspectors and the consideration of an operator’s infringement history.

Some issues have simply proven intractable. State and local governments have shown little appetite for eroding their decision-making capacity or increasing transparency as evidenced by their entrenched positions on independent external review of access decisions, the non-binding nature of proposed decision-making guidelines and their general position on the presumption of innocence. There have also been some major departures from the original intent of national consistency.  For instance, there is no agreement on uniform laws of higher mass limits and Western Australia has declared that it will be a non-participating jurisdiction on fatigue.

This is where I for one get frustrated and feel like banging my head into a brick wall.  When are these states and councils going to realise that they are just going to have to offer some give? We are talking about an initiative in the national interest. They need to look at the big picture rather than selfishly protecting their own patch.

I don’t mean to sound overly negative. There is no doubt that national regulation is desperately needed in the heavy vehicle sector and I remain a cautiously optimistic supporter. Trucks and their cargo cross our state and territory borders many thousands of times every day and it simply doesn’t make sense to have differing laws applicable when the basic aims of protecting safety, amenity and infrastructure are exactly the same in all jurisdictions. 

But with so much to do and so little time to do it, it is looking increasingly likely that we will only get NHVR ‘lite’ on 1 January 2013 – if anything at all.

Like many in the industry I believe that this is a once in a generation opportunity and failure is not an option. Given that the negotiation process involves all levels of government, various industry sectors and the community, stalling for a perfect outcome is also unrealistic. In essence, a compromise solution is the only solution. 

From an industry perspective, we can accept a less than ideal outcome, provided that we are not going backwards and that we establish a solid platform for continuing reform. If key initiatives such as a national registration scheme are delayed, we will require commitment to an ongoing work program and an agreed timetable for eventual implementation. 

An international search is currently underway for an experienced, enthusiastic and inspirational person to become Australia’s first National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. With the right person in place and with enduring bi-partisan political commitment, it should be expected that the regulator will progressively increase in jurisdictional coverage, service capacity and influence.

At the end of the day, the long-term goal is the most important and we must maintain momentum until it is achieved. Australia needs a National Heavy Vehicle Regulator not just in name, but also in practice.

Geoff Crouch
President

Leave a Reply

Send this to a friend