Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [7.30 p.m.]: Before I continue my remarks on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 I refer to the contribution of the member for Dubbo in which she said that truck drivers were of lower intelligence. I take offence at that comment. Truck drivers in my electorate are hardworking and intelligent individuals who try to do the right thing both on the roads and in our local community. I do not think people's intelligence can be classified according to their occupation, and I take particular offence at the member's comment.

Returning to the bill, I note that in February 2007 the Australian Transport Council endorsed the adoption by Australian jurisdictions of model speeding compliance provisions. That is fine, and I am the first to support that model. However, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it has taken the State Government more than 15 months to react and introduce the necessary legislation. The issue is particularly relevant in my electorate of Tweed, which borders on the sixth largest city in Australia and experiences large numbers of interstate transport movements on its roads on a regular basis. As I said before, I recently attended the opening of the Tugan bypass. Four kilometres of that seven-kilometre, $500-million road are in New South Wales. Recently an intelligent road management system was installed on the road—the New South Wales Government did not contribute any funds towards it—that continually monitors the road surface, weather and traffic flows and makes adjustments to the permitted speed limits accordingly. That is a great plus. As this bill is endeavouring to improve road safety, I call on the Government, and particularly the Minister for Roads, to look at installing a similar intelligent road management system on Sextons Hill, which is one of the State's worst black spots.

Schedule 4.1 [5] to the bill inserts proposed section 154A into the principal Act. The proposed section enables authorised officers to direct drivers who have committed fatigue-related offences to take rests and to work for specified periods, and to give other directions. It will be an offence to contravene a direction. I support that measure, but I ask: Who will train officers to identify a "fatigue-related offence"? What standard will be applied in this regard? What form will those offences take? Road surface is an important safety issue, although the bill does not mention it as a factor in road accidents. I draw the attention of the House to the experience of an interstate truck driver from the Tweed electorate. Carmela Falzon, who has an unblemished driving record, unfortunately had an accident on Sextons Hill. She said that she was driving under the speed limit when her car slipped on the road and went into a spin. Only her defensive driving skills gained as an interstate truck driver saved her life and those of her son and his friend. The subsequent issuing of a negligent driving fine was the ultimate insult. Ms Falzon said of the Roads and Traffic Authority, "We could have been killed due to their negligence." Ms Falzon has taken the incident personally and will join other angry road users in launching a class action against the Roads and Traffic Authority, similar to the Princes Highway case that was recently settled out of court.

Schedule 4.1 [6] to the bill amends section 180 of the principal Act so as to enable a Local Court to impose the maximum penalty permitted to be imposed under proposed section 11B, which is 250 penalty units. That is a positive move. Tweed magistrate Jeff Linden is on record on several occasions as criticising the lack of penalties able to be imposed on those who break our road laws. Unfortunately, there have been several fatalities on Sextons Hill and Highway 1, a number of which have involved drivers from interstate. We should strengthen magistrates' powers and increase the number of police officers patrolling our roads. That will certainly be a deterrent to would-be offenders. In 1988 the Tweed Local Area Command, which serves Byron Bay and Tweed Heads, had 13 officers. Last year the command was boosted by the addition of two officers. There are 60,000 vehicle movements daily on Sextons Hill, and a large percentage of them are B-doubles. While some parts of the bill support road safety, I am concerned about other parts of it, such as schedule 4.1 [5] relating to fatigue-related offences.

Magistrate Jeff Linden recently overturned a large number of speeding fines that were issued on the basis of readings from the speed camera on St Helena Hill near Byron Bay in the electorate of the member for Ballina because there was insufficient evidence that the camera was working correctly. That has caused a great deal of angst in the community. As I said earlier, the speed camera on Sextons Hill has been switched off because of differing speed zones. I do not oppose the bill. We should do everything we can to stop the carnage on our roads, particularly accidents involving heavy vehicles. However, certain parts of the bill should be thought through and explained. The bill is a knee-jerk reaction to a major problem on our roads. In the past week there have been two fatalities in our region: a 21-year-old lady and a motorcyclist lost their lives.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [7.38 p.m.]: The Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 makes a number of amendments. The bill amends the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998, the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 and the Roads Act 1993. I will not go into detail as the Parliamentary Secretary and shadow Minister have spelt out the intention of this bill. but I will focus on a small number of issues. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 June referred to three drivers who hit ridiculous speeds on the State's roads, including one who reached up to 217 kilometres an hour, and who have had their licences suspended. Police also caught a learner driver and two P-plate drivers, all under 25 years of age, in separate incidents on the Hume Highway south of Sydney.

The article stated that at about 2.00 p.m. police say they clocked a Holden Commodore at 217 kilometres on the highway at Jugiong—which is in the electorate of the member for Burrinjuck; the highway dissects the electorate of Wagga Wagga—including a spell at 146 kilometres through an 80 kilometre roadwork zone. A 17-year-old male from Tahmoor was charged with speeding and failing to display his P-plates. His licence was suspended, and he will face Gundagai Local Court on 4 August. Just after midday a 24-year-old learner driver was caught doing 146 kilometres on the Hume Highway near Mittagong. Police suspended his licence and he was fined for driving 45 kilometres over the speed limit, and for driving unaccompanied. A short time earlier police stopped a 20-year-old P-plater from Shalvey after she allegedly reached 161 kilometres on the Hume Highway at Mittagong.

I have put that on the record because paragraphs (a) and (b) in the overview of the bill address those issues. I cannot understand the mindsets of individuals who use a motor vehicle as a lethal weapon on a highway and put at risk not only themselves and their passengers but also the travelling public. For the life of me I cannot imagine why someone would act so irresponsibly and commit crimes against humanity. On Monday in the Staysafe committee hearing I said that I was perplexed by their mindset. This legislation will address that matter, although a lot more work needs to be done. As a member of the Staysafe committee, a road user and the father of young adults who use the road, I welcome this legislation, which will also be welcomed by the police and the judiciary. We need to ascertain why these people disregard the road rules and take other people's lives into their hands when they act so irresponsibly.

It is a privilege to be a member of the Staysafe committee—a privilege that not many members get. I note that the member for Wollongong said she is also a member of Staysafe, which I had forgotten, no doubt because she has had other things to contend with. Staysafe is an important committee. As part of its work, under the chairmanship of the member for Blacktown, Staysafe dealt with heavy vehicle driver fatigue management and safe driving plans for the New South Wales road trucking industry. Many members have referred to heavy vehicle driver fatigue. Fatigue is a major factor in crashes involving heavy vehicle drivers. According to the National Transport Commission of 2006, between 20 per cent and 60 per cent of heavy vehicle fatalities involve fatigue. Moreover, approximately 330 people are killed nationally each year in crashes involving a heavy vehicle. Tarcutta has a memorial for the trucking industry, and sadly the number of fatalities grows every year. Initiatives to encourage safe driving need to be addressed and implemented, and that is why this legislation has been introduced in this place. The Australian trucking industry is working with the Council of Australian Governments.

Crashes are estimated to represent $2 billion a year of the $15 billion cost of all road crashes. Additionally, the number of heavy vehicle casualties resulting in hospitalisation is three times the number involving fatalities, according to the Australian Transport Council 2003. The New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Long Distance Truck Driver Fatigue) Regulation 2005, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, for the first time requires employers, head carriers and large consignors and consignees to assess the risk of harm from fatigue. It also mandates that Driver Fatigue Management Plans be in place for drivers, while consignors and consignees with more than 200 employees have the additional responsibility of ensuring that they do not impose unreasonable deadlines for freight deliveries. A briefing paper was prepared by the current secretary of the Staysafe committee, Bjarne Nordin, which I would recommend all members read as a background to this legislation. In relation to the sufficient provision of rest areas for heavy vehicles, the paper states:

Another issue which may impact on the ability of affected parties to fully comply with the provisions of the Award is the insufficient supply of rest areas for heavy vehicles. The lack of rest facilities for truck drivers has been identified by the Road Transport Association, specifically on the Pacific Highway and the Port Botany area. According to the Australian Trucking Association, there are currently 196 rest areas in NSW compared to 420 in Victoria. Based on National Transport Commission guidelines for the provision of rest areas, the Association states that 22,000 rest areas are required nationally.

That demonstrates that the trucking industry faces a number of challenges. The Government needs to invest in rest areas. The challenge is that the trucking industry must abide by the regulations and laws. Those issues should be raised with the Council of Australian Governments but they are not being addressed quickly enough because the trucking industry is being severely impinged upon. For example, the management of weight load varies from State to State with different regulations, which comes at a cost to the industry. The paper continues:

State and Territory Transport Ministers have noted the importance of this issue in their consideration of the Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatigue Package and have made a commitment to the construction of adequate rest areas to national standards. The Council of Australian Governments has required an audit of rest areas by 30 June 2007.

I note that the member for Wollongong mentioned an audit that was supposed to be conducted by the Roads and Traffic Authority. However, it is now 2008. The question has to be asked: What happened to the audit that the Council of Australian Governments required to be completed by 2007? Did the Roads and Traffic Authority do the audit? Was it completed? Was it submitted to the Council of Australian Governments, or is the RTA dragging the chain on this assessment, as was suggested, I believe, by the member for Wollongong when she mentioned that the audit was currently underway?

I refer to the Road Safety 2010 Strategy, which was a report of an inquiry into actions undertaken by the WorkCover Authority to address the road safety situation in New South Wales in 2000-05. It is a very lengthy report and I recommend it to members who want an understanding and a background of the Staysafe committee's work and, importantly, the issues that were raised, whether by the people responsible for WorkCover, the trucking industry or the owner operators that traverse our roads daily and bring goods and services to us throughout the State and indeed the country. We implement legislation in this place and talk about the issues we believe are good for the industry, but the Government has let the industry down by making demands on it.

WorkCover itself made demands—I am not saying that the demands were unreasonable—to ensure that drivers had reasonable timetables and deadlines and that there was time to rest and the trips were planned. A number of requirements were implemented that companies now have to abide by. We need to understand how the logistics of Australian transport work. Many of these requirements are unobtainable or unachievable because, although the Government is big on rhetoric and legislation, it has failed to provide the fundamentals such as investment in appropriate roadside areas that can accommodate truck drivers who need and are required by law to have rest periods, fill out their log books and comply with the onerous legislation that we pass in this place.

I put it to the House that the people who draft this legislation have probably never been behind the wheel of a truck. In fact, they have probably never ridden in the cabin of a truck; nor could they drive one. They could not understand the difficult and onerous conditions that owner operators and the trucking industry have to comply with. Fuel costs are rocketing under Kevin Rudd. I can recall Kevin Rudd saying that he would place downward pressure on diesel costs to help every Australian and he would put downward pressure on food costs and all those things. None of those things has come to fruition. What is happening now is that truck drivers, owner operators and companies are parking their trucks—members on this side will understand—because of the skyrocketing costs being incurred by the industry. When one adds to that the other costs the industry has to meet, such as insurance and registration, one finds that the industry is operating on very slim margins.

Many documents support that contention. I can refer to several, one of which is Working Paper 60, which is an overview of the Australian road transport industry. Again I recommend that document to members who want to get a good background on the costs and challenges facing the industry. The NRMA has produced audits of highways; in its report where it refers to the Sturt Highway, the NRMA again says that rest areas should be increased from the current number of 10—that is on average one every 60 kilometres. It says that the 140 kilometres between the Hume Highway and the Newell Highway have only two rest areas. I rest my case. More needs to be done. If the Government is going to bring legislation before this place it needs to follow it up with appropriate funding to implement it and enable drivers to comply with the rules.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [7.54 p.m.]: The Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 creates a new penalty regime for novice drivers who commit certain driving offences, improves the enforcement processes when drivers fail to pay a toll when using a motorway, and introduces a nationally agreed regime to manage heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speeding compliance. Most speakers in this debate have addressed the issues relating to heavy vehicle drivers reducing fatigue and the provision of appropriate rest breaks and shorter working hours. I think we all endorse those proposals. They are sensible, they are nationally applied and they are likely to reduce some of those terrible accidents that we have all read about or maybe even seen. Certainly it is a sensible provision to reduce the hours that drivers have to drive and to ensure that they get adequate rest and are not hyped up to the eyeballs on speed or amphetamines.

I listened with interest to what the member for Wagga Wagga had to say about that issue. If the Government is not providing an adequate number of truck parking places where drivers can rest in New South Wales, the legislation is doomed to failure. That is an issue I encourage the Government to take on board. The case that the member for Wagga Wagga made out on that issue was very compelling. I want to address another couple of issues in the bill. The first relates to learner or P-plate drivers. The bill will enable police to suspend and confiscate the licences of learner or P-plate drivers who speed at more than 30 kilometres an hour above the limit. The member for Baulkham Hills, who represents an electorate in the same area as I do, will be very cognisant of the fact that there are an enormous number of speeding drivers in our area. They seem to congregate on the back streets of Baulkham Hills shire and Hornsby shire on Friday and Saturday nights.

One reason for this is that we do not have sufficient police to patrol the back streets. They are forced to concentrate on the main roads because of the small number of traffic officers at Castle Hill Police Station. Speeding on the back roads, therefore, has assumed almost epidemic proportions. Only a few weeks ago I was awoken at one o'clock on a Saturday morning by the sound of screeching tyres and a thud. I went to our bathroom window and looked out and saw two cars with P-plates—there was a P plate among the debris left at the accident site—that clearly had been speeding and racing each other down Oratava Avenue. I think the car on the inside had applied its brakes and swerved and both cars had hit the kerb and a couple of trees on the other side of the road, and then miraculously managed to drive away. As if that was not enough, only two weeks later at about the same time, half past one, and in the same place—a different make of car that is all; I know because the debris was from a Ford and the previous accident involved a Holden Commodore—there were screeching tyres and a bang. The driver hit a couple of poles and knocked over a bus stop and a speed sign on the left-hand side of the road this time, and again miraculously managed to drive away.

I think the case for having more traffic officers in The Hills local area is well made. While we are talking about picking up motorists who are driving more than 30 kilometres above the limit, I mentioned in this place a short while ago that I was out mowing my lawn when a car went down Oratava Avenue—I live about 100 metres away in Bellbird Drive—at an estimated 150 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometres an hour zone. That is 100 kilometres an hour over the speed limit. I know from talking to local residents that there was a group of young drivers in our area who were competing with one another to see who could hit the highest speed down Highs Road. They were reaching speeds of 150 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometres an hour zone. The only way you are going to stop these young idiots, quite frankly, is to get more police on the road.

The bill also provides for automatic disqualification for three months of learners detected driving unsupervised, and the courts can disqualify the driver for any other period up to 12 months. I was shocked to hear in the agreement in principle speech that the number of learners who have been detected driving unaccompanied has increased sharply in recent years, with 5,178 offences recorded this year. I wonder whether one of the reasons for this is the need for learners to do 120 hours of driving before they get a licence. Only a few weeks ago I heard a father complaining about this fairly onerous responsibility because he is the father of triplets, all of whom had got to the stage of getting their permit. He was supposed to sit with them for 360 hours to make sure that they did the right thing and completed their logbooks.

Mr Thomas George: There should be a special exemption.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I agree. Any sensible government would take into account the special circumstances surrounding a family with triplets. The other matter I want to address is tolling. The bill amends the definition of "approved toll camera" from one designed to take a photograph of a vehicle that is driven in contravention of a requirement to pay a toll to a camera that takes a photograph of a vehicle as it is driven past a toll point. The Parliamentary Secretary in his agreement in principle speech said:

The usual practice of the tollway operator is to send a notice requiring payment for a vehicle that has been detected by a toll camera as having not paid the required toll. Operators may also write a second reminder notice offering time to pay the toll. If there is no response or payment, a penalty notice may be issued.

The bill also extends the period in which criminal proceedings for a toll offence may be commenced from 6 months to 12 months.

Giving motorists the opportunity and time to pay a toll ensures that legitimate errors can be rectified, for example, the motorist's e-tag may not have been working. The toll offence provisions of the Roads (General) Regulation provide that the driver of the vehicle passing the toll collection point is liable for failure to pay a toll. However, unless the actual driver is nominated, the regulation provides that the owner of the vehicle is deemed to be the person responsible. In some cases, for example, commercial passenger and goods vehicles, several nominations may be made because many people regularly drive the vehicle. Each time a different driver is nominated there is a time delay. Extending the time to prosecute from 6 months to 12 months reduces the opportunity for toll evaders to avoid prosecution.

The new provision makes the timeframe consistent with other camera-detected road transport offences. That is a sensible change. Further changes provide for reduced costs and complexity in prosecuting a toll offence. I wonder why the issue of motorcyclists and e-tags has not been considered in this debate. The group of road users most discriminated against would have to be motorcyclists. Some people might disagree; some might say it is cyclists, but they are not subject to the same restrictions relating to the use of e-tags. This discrimination was sheeted home to me rather forcibly at the end of last year when I rode my motorcycle down the M2 to visit my daughter, who had recently moved from West Pennant Hills to a flat in Neutral Bay. I went through the 80 kilometres per hour tollgate on the M2 and did not hear the e-tag beep, but with a full-face helmet on and the amount of noise coming from the motorbike I did not pay that too much attention. A few weeks later I received a notice from the tag operator telling me to pay up or else, and threatening dire reprisals—all of which are outlined in this bill—and wanting to fine me an extra $37, I think the amount was, because I had not paid the toll. I rang the company and explained the situation and the fellow at the other end said he would sort it out. I gave him my e-tag number, as he requested, and he said he would take the money out of my e-tag account.

Only a few weeks ago I received another notice from the e-tag operator, again saying there would be dire reprisals, and I think this time the penalty provision had increased from $37 to over $100. At this stage I was, I think you could understand, getting a bit annoyed about the whole thing. I rang the company and was told that there was another number that I should have been asked for previously. One really should not have to go through this sort of nonsense because one rides a motorbike on a toll road. You might ask why I put the e-tag in the breast pocket of my jacket and not somewhere on the motorbike. The e-tag is designed only to be put on the windscreen of motor vehicles, cars and trucks. There is nowhere that you can safely put an e-tag on a motorcycle. If it gets wet it is useless and you have to buy another e-tag. This is an issue that I know that the Australian Motorcycle Council has been very hot under the collar about for a long time.

Melbourne's EastLink is going to open in a few days time. Tolling for motorcyclists on it is going to be by trip pass or by a casual account number plate recognition method used on CityLink. Melbourne is way ahead of where we are in Sydney. EastLink call it a non-tag account. All you have to do is set up an account with an initial balance of $40 credit. If you have a car and a motorcycle you will be able to have a tag account with one tag for your car and link the number plate details of your motorcycle to the same tag account. Normally there is a video-image processing fee so that if you have a tag and it is linked to another card there will be a 23˘ charge associated with your using that other car and not having the tag in the car. That is usually charged in addition to the toll for each non-tag trip on EastLink. That will be waived in the case of motorcycles.

In New South Wales you can set up a tag account with Roam, but it is applicable on the M7 only. On all other motorways—the bridge, the Lane Cove tunnel, the M2, the M5, the Cross City Tunnel and the Eastern Distributor—there is a vehicle-matching fee of 75˘. This means that if you ride a motorcycle from my electorate into town and back again it will cost $3.75 on top of the already exorbitant tolls of more than $17: there is a surcharge of 22 per cent for the privilege of traversing the tollways on a vehicle weighing a seventh or an eighth of the weight of a standard car. You might ask why this is an issue. Thirty years ago I used to commute by motorbike. The cost of going over the bridge was 5˘ for a motorbike and 20˘ for a car.

The toll for a motorbike was one-quarter the toll for a car. That was entirely sensible. Lest you think that a reduction in the toll is something that has been done away with everywhere, on EastLink in Melbourne motorcycle tolls will be half car tolls. And in Melbourne motorcyclists are complaining because they say those tolls are too high. I would have thought that a government that has been under fire in recent days about traffic congestion and petrol usage would have been very keen to encourage commuting by motorcycle. Motorcyclists can use bus lanes, which are probably underutilised at the moment. There is a real opportunity to do something about traffic congestion and fuel consumption as well, but it is in the too-hard basket for the Government and for motorcyclists.

Today when I was researching this contribution I learned that over the past three years a company called MerCane has developed a waterproof E-tag bag for motorcyclists that attaches to the motorcycle's tank with a magnet or is mounted in a handlebar clamp. I understand that the Roads and Traffic Authority has bought 2,500 of these, while E-Way has requested 5,000. The product is not available at the moment, but it will be available in the middle of next month. I believe that it will be provided free to motorcyclists opening E-Way or Roads and Traffic Authority e-tag accounts. I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary could confirm that that is going to take place. After a very long time it looks as though there may be a fair go for motorcyclists in the offing, but it still does not get over the basic issue of toll costs. It is absolutely outrageous that motorcyclists or someone riding a scooter, for example, a student who does not have much money, has to pay $17 to travel from my electorate into town and back again—even more perhaps if they were going to university at Kensington. I would really like the Government to take the issue on board. There is an opportunity for it to do something for a much put upon section of the community, to do something for the environment, and to do something about fuel consumption and traffic congestion.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [8.09 p.m.]: I will make a brief contribution to debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. It is hard to argue against the sensible amendments proposed in this legislation, in particular, those relating to the disqualification penalties for learner drivers and the suspension of learner provisional licences for those exceeding a speed limit by between 30 and 45 kilometres. It is difficult to weigh up the concerns that Opposition members have about road transport provisions for heavy vehicles versus these other sensible measures. We are concerned about the lack of consultation with small transport businesses and they are concerned about the regulations.

I have received a lot of feedback from small transport operators in the Bega electorate who are concerned about what those regulations might or might not mean for their businesses. Schedule 4.1 to the bill provides for regulations but it would be nice to know what those regulations are. No doubt the member for Coffs Harbour and shadow spokesperson on road safety will consult more broadly on that issue. How workable will this legislation be in relation to rest breaks and driver fatigue, given the major shortage of suitable facilities for drivers? Livestock carriers experience difficulties when parking their vehicles in truck stops because the noise of the livestock disrupts the rest of other truck drivers.

Kay Rogers, who has been lobbying the Minister for Roads on this issue, brought the matter to my attention. The Minister for Roads is renowned for not responding, or for being slow to respond, to his correspondence, which is unacceptable given the many issues confronting drivers in this State. Kay Rogers wrote to the Deputy Coroner, Carl Milovanovich, about this issue during the Princes Highway coronial inquest. It is important to put her correspondence to the Deputy Coroner on the record. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary responds to these issues. The letter of 12 July 2007 states:

It is my understanding that you are conducting an enquiry next April into RTA roads, Princes Highway in particular and the accidents that occur on these roads. It is often said that some of these accidents are caused by fatigue and in my opinion—it is no wonder.

As my family and I conduct a small Transport business together with a farming business, have been greatly concerned over the years of lack of infrastructure on particularly the Princes Highway of pull offs for rest and safe stopping areas for buying food and toilet requirements. This is continually being brought to my attention by my sons—who drive our trucks.

I have attended many trucking conferences and brought up my concerns, which are wholeheartedly supported by members of the Livestock and Bulk Carriers Association.

Also, I have written to members of Parliament and also the Road Safety Dept of the RTA, Ms Trish McClure.

From Nowra in particular to the Victorian border, there are NO suitable/adequate stopping areas to purchase food and drinks. This is a dangerous situation for all drivers.

As for resting stops—these are totally inadequate and what are available are often taken up by the "grey nomads" who are ever increasing and many of them stop in the truck stops because it is safe. There is also the problem of transporting livestock—other truck drivers DO NOT like these trucks pulling up in the pulloff areas because of the noise factor—when they are trying to sleep. This is totally understandable—but does not help the Livestock drivers problems of where to stop?

I have made an offer to the RTA officer to travel in our truck to understand the problem, first hand. So far I have not had a response. This offer still stands.

I hope that this information will help you to understand that the problem of transporting goods safely on our Highways is something we would like to be solved.

There is no doubt in the world that that is what everybody wants. However, this legislation, coupled with the regulations that we are yet to see, will be unworkable if infrastructure such as truck stops and the like are not in place, as Kay Rogers states in her correspondence to the Deputy Coroner. I hope that the Government performs an audit in some of these areas, in particular, the Princes Highway, where there are inadequate truck stops. I urge the State Government to address these issues because, frankly, the regulations will be unworkable. As I said, this legislation is difficult to oppose but Opposition members are concerned about the impact of the regulations on small operators in particular, who will not be consulted by this Government—typical behaviour by a Government that is out of touch with the needs of small businesses.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [8.15 p.m.]: In speaking on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, I thank both operators of heavy vehicles who work for transport companies and owner-operators. There are many operators in the Burrinjuck electorate—great drivers such as Brett Bush of Yass—and I thank them for the work that they do in transporting goods and food around the nation. In the 1980s truckies used an old slogan, "Truckies carry this country", which is as true today as it was 20 years ago. However, speeding is a significant issue. Accidents resulting from speeding heavy vehicles often have disastrous consequences.

I regularly travel on the Hume Highway. Cowboys in the industry gave the highway the nickname of Sesame Street. Thankfully, the vast majority of truck drivers are responsible and cautious. This morning, as I travelled to Parliament along the Hume Highway, I narrowly avoided another accident with a B-double. There are far too many accidents on this road. While I was travelling in the left lane in an area in which roadwork was being carried out I was wedged between concrete bollards and I had a coal truck behind me. A B-double came flying up and into my lane and almost caused an accident. There are far too many close calls on that highway. Heavy vehicles can be threatening and incidents such as I experienced this morning are scary. Commuters often have such occurrences on the Hume Highway.

Just a few cowboys in the industry cause many of the accidents on our major highways. I recognise and commend Budgie, a truck driver who was killed on the Hume Highway earlier this year. An inquiry into his death will be held later in the year. Cowboys can wreck a company's reputation. A couple of years ago Geoff Robertson of Roadmaster and Harker Transport made a statement relating to an unfortunate incident featured in a 60 Minutes program.

The former chairman of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, Harold Scruby of the Pedestrian Council, and I participated in the panel on that 60 Minutes program, which aired on Sunday 10 April 2005. Back then the panel focused on the chain of responsibility, referred to an incident that occurred, and concentrated on how important safety was and how companies should handle incidents. I refer to what Geoff Robertson from Roadmaster and Harker Transport said:

This incident occurred when one of our drivers ignored company safety procedures and undertook a trip in 24 rather than the allowed 36 hours. Prior to leaving Brisbane, the driver was advised of the trip schedule, including the requirement to take a rest break at Mackay and he "signed off" on this schedule prior to departing Brisbane (as is required of all drivers prior to departing from our depot). Our trip schedule allowed 36 hours for the trip to be completed (legal trip time 32 hours), unfortunately, however the driver completed the trip in 24 hours.

It is important that this side of the story is put on the record because far too often when we hear of what truck drivers do we blame the company for putting pressure on them to perform in a certain way. In the interest of fairness it is important that those facts are in the Hansard. Geoff Robertson from Roadmaster and Harker Transport continued:

The companies do not and will not condone this type of safety breach and acted quickly to seek the driver's explanation and also review of the incident. The driver was flown back to Brisbane on Friday 1^st April 2005 and a Registered Private Investigation firm appointed to conduct an investigation into the incident.

The driver was interviewed as part of the investigation and provided a witnessed statement detailing that he had been provided with a legal transit scheduled to complete the trip. He also stated that he had not in any way been instructed or encouraged by any other person to complete the trip in the manner or timeframe he did.

As a consequence of this investigation and the driver's written statement [the company] terminated his services, effective immediately.

the companies view extremely seriously any breach of National Driving Laws by its drivers or other employees.

The Chain of Responsibility legislation aims to manage driver fatigue, and ensure that drivers are in fit and healthy state to drive heavy vehicles. Not only does the legislation require that drivers ensure that they do not drive in excess of maximum driving times, it also places strict obligations on others within the transport chain.

We, as employers, must not ask, direct or require, the driver of a heavy vehicle, to drive a heavy vehicle in circumstances where we know, or ought to know, that by driving the vehicle in accordance with our instructions, the driver would, or would be likely to commit:

(a) a core driving hours offence (maximum driving and work times and minimum rest times);
(b) a driving record offence; or
(c) a speeding offence.

Nor can we allow employed drivers to drive a heavy vehicle where we know, or reasonably ought to know, that by driving the vehicle the driver would, or would be likely to, commit a core driving hours offence. That contribution from Roadmaster and Harker Transport contains other paragraphs, but I believe I have made my point. The purpose of this legislation is to amend various Acts to introduce licence disqualification penalties for learner drivers who drive unsupervised, suspend learner provisional licence holders if they exceed the speed limit by between 30 kilometres an hour and 45 kilometres an hour, improve enforcement processes when drivers fail to pay tolls on motorways, and implement a scheme to manage heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speed compliance. The bill represents significant deviations from current policy as police powers are being extended to control speeding by novice drivers. Heavy vehicle driver fatigue legislation and speed compliance will bring New South Wales into line with recommendations of the National Transport Commission. I have outlined some detail of the commission's policy legislation.

Police powers will be strengthened to suspend and confiscate learner and provisional driver licences when the drivers speed in excess of 45 kilometres an hour over the limit. Learner drivers will have their licences automatically suspended for three months if caught driving without supervision—or for a maximum of 12 months if the matter is heard by the courts. The offence of driving unsupervised no longer will attract demerit points. Changes to the Roads Act will extend the period in which criminal proceedings for toll offences may be commenced from 6 months to 12 months, reducing the time for toll evaders to avoid prosecution from processing delays. Fatigue and speed compliance will have chain of responsibility legislation applied to all parties involved where heavy vehicles are concerned. Off-road parties will need to take steps to prevent the occurrence of offences. Shorter working hours and longer, frequent rest breaks will be legislated under this national model. Regulations will be made to ensure that off-road parties, such as employers and schedulers, take responsibility for ensuring that drivers are not encouraged or required to speed.

The problem in providing suitable facilities for drivers to take breaks or perform changeover operations will render the legislation difficult to adhere to. Chain of responsibility changes will not work if the Government will not provide additional rest stops. Those of us who reside in the country deal with country operators who day in and day out support our local Rural Fire Service and State Emergency Services at existing truck stops with programs such as Driver Reviver. We talk to truckies and know the problems they face. The member for Lismore put it succinctly, as did other members on this side of the House: We have problems finding suitable rest places for livestock carriers to stop so they will not disrupt other tired drivers. Livestock noise is not just from one or two sheep; it is from many dozens of animals all making noise. They do not sleep when humans sleep; they keep making noise, particularly when they are in a restricted environment. They can be extremely noisy, as can refrigerated vehicles.

Obviously, refrigerated vehicles cannot be switched off, otherwise the milk that is being carried will turn sour, the goods will go off or the freezers will defrost. Refrigerated trucks are very noisy and the drivers do not want to disrupt the sleep of other drivers, who have as much right to be on the road as they have. This legislation does not address that issue at all. Highway safety is every citizen's responsibility. I understand where the Government is coming from in relation to the road safety provisions referred to in this bill, but those provisions and regulations must be practical and workable on the ground. More thought should be given to providing appropriate and sufficient facilities for these legislative provisions to be enforced; otherwise they will not work.

In my electorate Mundoonen rest area is quite significant, but it is one of only a few. This magnificent rest area with two separate areas is situated between Gunning and Yass, but it is a fair distance to the next rest stop. If the Government is to be sensible about this proposal, more rest areas have to be provided. The member for Lismore referred to the grey nomads in Winnebagos parking in truck stops. Although I am not exactly a grey nomad, I must confess to being a motor home owner. Those drivers also need places to stop and rest after travelling long distances. Precious few opportunities and rest areas are provided for motor home owners.

Last year I chaired a forum of representatives of the transport, cropping and mushroom industries in Cowra for heavy vehicle operators. Many frustrations and challenges were raised. The forum moved for the introduction of a little flexibility for the transportation of heavy loads. I called the forum after receiving many complaints by transporters who said they were being heavily penalised by overzealous Roads and Traffic Authority officers for minor weight or oversize transgressions. These same transporters also need additional rest areas, which this bill fails to address. At that meeting were representatives of GrainCorp, the Grain Growers Association, the Australian Road Train Association, Natroads, Cowra Shire Council, the Australian Mushroom Growers Association, New South Wales Farmers, truck owner-operators, and the Roads and Traffic Authority. [Extension of time agreed to.]

At the outset of the meeting I stated that safety must remain the absolute priority. Industry leaders and transport operators alike expressed concern about the lack of practicality in complying with State legislation. One example given was that transport operators are being found in breach for load violations for carrying standard size, baled straw in a manner shown by Federal road transport studies to be the safest possible and which remains within the allowable overall load envelope. Other operators have received substantial fines because they had to load grain in a wet paddock using portable axle scales and were then found to be marginally overweight at the multimillion-dollar weigh station at Marulan, which is an excellent facility. Perhaps the most ridiculous occurrence was when the driver of a truck loaded with sheep was fined because the fleece on the animals had retained water from a rainstorm through which the truck had driven. Heavy vehicles are driven by thoughtful operators; it is not always cowboys behind the wheels of rigs—just a couple of bad apples spoil the crop. The following motions were passed at the Cowra meeting:

1. That the meeting calls for the introduction of a:
a. Five per cent rolling average over the last ten loads for heavy vehicles; and
b. Ten per cent tolerance for an average of seven and a half per cent increase on the current legal weight, similar to the system enforced in Queensland.

2. That the meeting calls on the NSW Government and RTA to accept that a Bill of Lading for containerised cargoes loaded to Australian standards by overseas companies is an acceptable defence of the containerised load is found to be overweight by RTA inspection.

3. That the meeting supports the Roads and Traffic Authority's policy of heavy penalties for flagrant breaches of loads in return for greater consideration being made for transport operators who have a proven record of compliance with loading regulations.

4. That the meeting calls on the NSW Government to allow a transportation framework that allows commercial outcomes for industry as long as safety standards are maintained.

5. That this meeting calls on the Roads and Traffic Authority and the NSW Government to abandon its drive to retrospectively collect fines for offences that occurred more than 30 days prior.

Honourable members must realise that there are thoughtful operators and that not everyone behind the wheel is a cowboy. Just a fraction of heavy vehicles are being driven by people who should not be on the road—examples of which I see all too often. I live in Yass and travel regularly between Sydney and Yass and regularly past Gundagai and beyond. The Hume Highway is one of the busiest roads in the State. Many heavy vehicles necessarily transport livestock, refrigerated goods, foods, and other products that people use every day. Families use those products and every day anticipate, if not expect, that they will be available on supermarket shelves. If they are not on the supermarket shelves, people kick up a fuss and say, "Why isn't this product here?"

I can tell people who makes sure the product to the supermarket shelf—the truck drivers. They deliver products to country and city supermarkets throughout the State. They should be praised and we should be trumpeting the wonderful job they do from the rooftops. But, as we have also heard during this debate, far too many accidents and fatalities occur, far too many lives are lost, and far too many families have been broken by a few who continue to flout the law and put their crazy ideas of speeding and driving recklessly ahead of consideration for others. They threaten the lives of other people, and they stand condemned. I recognise that the legislation is fundamentally a road safety measure, but until rest stops are organised and created, I fear that this legislation will not work.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [8.31 p.m.]: I join in debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and state at the outset that, although the Coalition does not agree with all aspects of the bill, we will not oppose it. Part of the bill amends the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 and the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 to provide for a penalty of driver licence disqualification for the offence of learners driving unaccompanied by a supervising driver, with an automatic disqualification period of 3 months and a court being able to disqualify for any other period up to a maximum of 12 months. The bill also amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 to enable the immediate suspension of a driver licence by police for a speeding offence committed by a learner or provisional driver that involves exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour, which is a reduction from the current 45 kilometres an hour, or for an offence of a learner driving unaccompanied by a supervising driver.

As well, the bill amends the Roads Act 1993 to extend the period in which criminal proceedings may commence from 6 months to 12 months and also to redefine an "approved toll camera" to better align the terms of the definition with the practical demands upon toll operators in a free-flow toll collection environment. That all sounds very nice and most country and city drivers would understand all of it, but I know that members who represent country electorates, particularly the member for Dubbo, receive complaints from older drivers who drive to Sydney on rare occasions for medical appointments and the like, as I do. My older driver constituents become totally confused by the tollways that operate in Sydney. They do not have e-tags because they infrequently travel to Sydney. Recently a constituent of mine visited my electorate office and told me in a determined fashion that he was organised and that he would arrange payment by phoning the telephone number displayed at each toll that applies to people who do not have a tag.

He phoned three times, but apparently he missed one toll because he became confused when he had to go from one toll operator to another. Unbeknown to him, he had breached the regulations, and he received a penalty notice from one of the toll operators which involved a fee plus the toll. That totally confused and demoralised him. He thought he had done the right thing and he had done his very best. His experience serves to illustrate the point that older drivers, especially those who travel to Sydney infrequently, are too busy watching the road to carefully read all the signs. Something must be done. I know that recently the Government took some steps to address this issue, and I will be interested to see whether its action works. The Government has gone part of the way to resolving the problem, but I do not believe the measures have gone as far as recognising the difficulties faced by country drivers who infrequently visit Sydney.

As I stated earlier, the bill amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 and the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 to enable regulations to be made with respect to the prevention and management of driver fatigue and speeding compliance in relation to heavy vehicles and heavy vehicle combinations. Quite a few members of the House who participated in this debate, especially members representing country electorates who understand issues associated with heavy vehicles, raised concerns. I believe all governments have a responsibility to build and maintain a network of roads, highways, freeways and tollways to ensure that our road transport system allows transporters to haul freight safely and efficiently while not endangering either the truck driver or other motorists. As the member for Orange, I am fully aware that our whole way of life in regional areas would stop if it were not for our modern freight transportation system that operates right throughout New South Wales.

In Orange we have a number of large operators, such as Smiths Transport, Whites Westran and Ferguson's, and Dubbo has an operator that has a very important role, of which the member for Dubbo would be aware, Rod Pilon Transport and also Thompsons Transport. All of those trucking companies regularly travel through Orange on their way down to what I have often referred to in this House as the goat track—the Great Western Highway—where they meet a very inefficient road system. The Government refuses to recognise that it is impossible for heavy vehicles to travel through speed zones, shopping centres and suburban areas without endangering the life of the truck driver, other motorists and pedestrians, especially children who attend schools along that main road. As I have said, the Great Western Highway is a highway in name only.

The types of vehicles that travel along the Great Western Highway include standard rigid trucks that transport fruit, wool and all sorts of products to Sydney from country areas. Those trucks are usually operated by small business people or one-truck operators. Other types of vehicles include semitrailers and A-doubles, but not B-doubles. Apart from the Great Western Highway, right throughout New South Wales B-doubles are recognised as a modern method of moving freight. In some areas in New South Wales and Victoria people are talking about B-triples, but we cannot have a B-double travelling along the Great Western Highway because the highway is so deficient. Even the truckies acknowledge that there are certain areas, such as Victoria Pass and River Lett Hill, that are too dangerous for B-doubles, especially during winter when patches of black ice form on the road.

I take this opportunity to again call on the Government to recognise the deficiencies of the Great Western Highway and support the Bells Line Expressway Group, local councils and everyone who lives west of the highway, including the member for Dubbo, in their quest for a decent four-lane divided highway over the Blue Mountains. We recognise that Bells Line is the most likely and efficient route for a new highway. I call on the Government to support the Bells Line Expressway Group which wants stage one, commencing at Tunnel Hill and terminating at Bell, to be constructed instead of some $500 million being spent by the Government to bypass Victoria Pass, Hartley Village and River Lett Hill.

That is an alternative route. In the first stage of the Bell's Line expressway the highway could continue from Bell, with an upgrade at Darling Causeway and go on to Mount Victoria. Several members have spoken about the new heavy freight regulations and the number of rest stops. Rest stops are absolutely vital in encouraging truckies and motorists to stop, revive and survive. They are most important for our heavy vehicle drivers. Under the new guidelines, heavy vehicle drivers must spend a certain period on the road and then they must stop. There must be adequate rest stops. If one truck stop is full, drivers must have sufficient time to reach the next one.

Truck drivers are vital to our economy. The vast majority of them—probably 98 per cent—are totally responsible. But they are under enormous pressure from freight rates, their employers and time schedules. I am a strong supporter of the trucking industry. Whenever there is an accident involving a truck and a motor vehicle the general public and media automatically assume that the truckie was at fault. But most of the time the accident is caused by the motorist attempting to overtake the truck and perhaps losing control on a deficient road surface. There are all sorts of reasons why the truck driver is usually not at fault. We must have more highways of a good standard upon which trucks and cars can travel safely.

I believe truckies are overregulated and over-taxed. We are reaching the point in New South Wales where we will not have enough truck operators and drivers who are prepared to wade through myriad regulations, never knowing whether they will be operating illegally. We run the risk of freight services, especially in country areas, grinding to a halt. That would be devastating for those areas that rely totally on road freight. I acknowledge that more and more freight is being moved long distances by rail. There is a place for moving full loads long distances by rail but trucks play an absolutely essential role in moving freight short distances. Other members talked about truckies being responsible for the weight of their load. Truckies who leave farms where there are no weighbridges must guess whether their load is the correct weight, and they are often fined for having overweight vehicles. Truckies are being hounded over the speed at which they travel and the number of hours they can drive. The chain of responsibility requirements involve the truckies, the freight companies and everyone else involved in the process. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The Nationals support the majority of the amendments in the bill but we want the Government to note that we have some serious concerns about the overregulation of our trucking industry. As I said before, truckies must be aware of speed, load weights, driving hours and chain of responsibility requirements. They must contend with deficient roads and increasing fuel costs. Some trucking operators are finding it difficult to pass on the horrendous increase in fuel charges. The trucking industry is vital to New South Wales. We support the bill, but we acknowledge that the amendments will make it even harder for truck operators to make a living.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [8.45 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which deals with a number of matters relating to road transport and the driving of vehicles—heavy, light and otherwise—on public roads in New South Wales. In essence, the object of the bill is to amend the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 and the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 to provide for a penalty of driver licence disqualification for the offence of learner driver driving unaccompanied by a supervising driver. The bill also amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 to enable the immediate suspension of a driver licence by police for a speeding offence by a learner or provisional driver that involves exceeding a speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour but not more than 45 kilometres an hour, or for an offence of learner driver driving unaccompanied by a supervising driver.

The bill also amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 and the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 to enable regulations to be made with respect to the prevention and management of driver fatigue and speeding compliance in relation to heavy vehicles and heavy combinations. The bill amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 with respect to the relationship between obligations under certain road laws and obligations under occupational health and safety legislation. It amends the Roads Act 1993 to clarify that a camera designed to photograph a vehicle as it is driven past a toll point may be an approved toll camera for the purposes of that Act whether or not it photographs all such vehicles or only those driven in contravention of a requirement to pay a toll, to extend the time within which proceedings may be brought for an alleged toll offence under that Act from six months to 12 months, and to provide for the issue of evidentiary certificates with respect to various matters.

The roads in New South Wales, and indeed throughout the whole of Australia, are used for a multitude of purposes. Some very old cars travel our roads. For example, on Sunday afternoons people drive vintage and veteran cars at speeds that some would regard not to be commensurate with those attained by modern motor vehicles. Nevertheless, as motorists of licensed vehicles they are entitled to do that. There are normal passenger cars, four-wheel drive vehicles, delivery vans and other vans that seem to occupy many of our roads, particularly on working days, trucks both light and heavy—the bill deals specifically with heavy vehicles—buses, camper vans and motor homes. There are young drivers, middle-aged drivers and old drivers. There are truckies who drive very heavy rigs and who must often meet very tight deadlines. All these people drive on different types of roads in variable weather conditions. It is a cocktail of situations and it is difficult to draft legislation that pleases everyone. People have differing needs and different vehicles have different problems. Some vehicles are easy to drive and some are hard. I have never driven a truck but I have driven other vehicles that are difficult to drive. I have nothing but admiration for those who control the heavy trucks engaged in the transport industry.

I often stop at a roadhouse in the central west and see the truck drivers come in to have their dinner at 11 or 12 o'clock at night. It usually consists of half a dozen sausages, three eggs and four slices of bacon. It is hardly a healthy lifestyle: it is what I would call a cholesterol topper upper. From overhearing their conversations I concluded that they are decent, fair dinkum people who are anxious to earn a living in a very competitive and difficult industry. They talked about when they will get home—some in three nights, others the next morning—

Mr Paul Pearce: A bit like us.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: It is a bit like that. I hope the member for Coogee does not have the six sausages, three eggs and four slices of bacon.

Mr Michael Daley: He drives a hard argument.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: Yes, the member for Coogee might drive a hard argument. Drivers say they will only be home for a night and then they have to go to Melbourne, Adelaide or wherever. The life of a heavy motor vehicle and transport driver is a very hard one. The fatigue, pressure and stress under which they work makes it more onerous for them and their responsibility is certainly great. As other members have said, trucking is the backbone of the Australian transport industry because rail does not service as many areas as it used to. People from the suburbs of Sydney generally who have an early café latte or look for groceries on the shelf know that they have been delivered by people who work during the night.

This legislation introduces concepts that I understand have not been used before. The bill talks about a chain of responsibility that affects heavy vehicle drivers but could also be extended to the manager and owner of a business, and to people working in the yard, any one of whom could be held responsible for traffic incidents. This legislation has great ramifications for the industry. As the member for Burrinjuck said, unfortunately a minority of truck drivers are cowboys who do not see fit to comply with the traffic laws and regulations. We have a responsibility to ensure that they understand their responsibilities. I do not know whether the chain of responsibility goes too far. Truck drivers are not the only ones who are said to cause distress on the roads. As the member for Castle Hill said, many young people find it stimulating at 7.00 p.m. on a Friday or Saturday night to surprise residents of the areas in which they live by racing on the roads and often placing many innocent people at great risk of being injured or losing their lives.

This bill is not opposed by the Opposition, but it asks the Government to look at the issue of fatigue fairly. The Government should not only ask people to stop at the side of the road and rest but should also provide adequate rest stops to encourage truck drivers to pull up. A heavy vehicle parked at the side of narrow roads at night is extremely dangerous. Whilst the Government is asking the trucking industry to put its house in order it should clearly look at its responsibility as a provider of roads in New South Wales. It is not unreasonable for the Roads and Traffic Authority to examine that matter. The roads have to be shared by all people who have a responsibility to obey the law, whether they drive an old or new car or whatever. At the end of the day, everyone's life and safety is at risk.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.55 p.m.]: I thank the many members who have contributed to debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. We all share in this place a desire to see our roads become increasingly a safer place. We share a desire to see that drivers of heavy and small vehicles can use our highways with safety. We all share a desire to see our young people slow down. As many speakers have said, we all share a respect and admiration for our truckies, who day and night move the goods upon which we rely for life. That is why the Government is moving ahead with this legislation in a cooperative and consultative way to make the roads safer for truck drivers. I was somewhat bemused during the debate to hear criticism, principally from the member for Albury, of my agreement in principle speech. He said he quoted my agreement in principle speech, as follows:

The main purpose of the bill is to introduce a new penalty regime in respect of heavy vehicle users.

That is not what I said, and if the member would have read the legislation in greater detail or my agreement in principle speech he would have seen that those introductory remarks in relation to a new penalty regime apply for novice drivers. This Government makes no apology whatsoever for wanting to slow down our young people because they are far too often overrepresented in accidents, particularly fatal accidents. There is no excuse for an L-plate driver who is not sufficiently skilled in the art of driving a motor vehicle to be driving unaccompanied. We make no apology for wanting those people off the road. There is no excuse for an L-plate or P-plate driver, whether or not accompanied, to be exceeding the speed limit by 30 kilometres or more an hour, and we make no apology for wanting those people sidelined. I commend the legislation in that regard.

Concerning criticisms of the legislation relating to consultation with industry, particularly in relation to heavy vehicles, the preparation and consultation that has underpinned this legislation with industry regarding these laws has been extensive. The Roads and Traffic Authority has worked closely with the National Transport Commission during this process. In total, members might be surprised to know that the consultation process has run for seven years, from 2000 to 2007. Clearly, in the life of any Government there comes a time when a decision must be made and we have decided we will now take the requisite decisions that are embodied in this legislation. The quality of these new laws is evidenced by the fact that every transport Minister and every roads Minister in Australia has endorsed the introduction of these laws. I note that one of those Ministers is the former Federal Minister for Transport, the Hon. Mark Vaile.

Some of the other unfounded criticism of the legislation related to the communications strategies that are planned so that the trucking industry is aware of and ready for the legislation. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] is currently conducting up to 35 information sessions across New South Wales. This is an awareness raising exercise to promote and provide general information about the legislation. The RTA will hold a second round of information sessions later in the year to provide detailed information about the legislation and how to apply for the accreditation schemes. Approximately 50 additional information sessions are planned for New South Wales. The RTA is also developing a communication and marketing campaign to ensure that all parties in the chain of responsibility are provided with all relevant information required to plan for commencement of the new legislation. Information resources such as brochures, newsletters, information bulletins and a DVD will be developed for distribution to operators and drivers prior to the commencement of the new legislation. The RTA website will have information regarding the new legislation. Radio and print advertisements will also be used to promote the legislation.

It may be the case that some parts of the trucking industry will not be ready to implement the legislation. How will the RTA and the Government address this? The answer is that the RTA will apply a grace period during which drivers will be educated regarding the new legislation following its proclamation. As with other major legislative initiatives, the RTA may apply warning periods and cautions and take a careful and considered approach to the legislation.

The member for Coffs Harbour raised the issue of auditors under the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme. His concerns are misplaced. The transfer and appointment of auditors under the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme is being actioned by national bodies. To contribute to the adequacy of the supply of auditors, in the past year the RTA has begun training a select group of its inspectors as nationally recognised auditors. The inspectors will be available to assist industry, as the RTA has said. It should be noted that the role of an auditor under this scheme has nothing to do with on-road enforcement. Rather, an auditor's job is to examine the management of a trucking company to see if the management has implemented, or plans to implement, good systems for managing fatigue using the recognised national standards.

Finally, in relation to the question of e-tags on motorcycles, which is scarcely relevant to the bill but which I will address anyway, the RTA is currently in discussions with a range of companies in relation to procuring products that may safely hold e-tags for motorcyclists. The Minister for Roads will update the Parliament on that in due course. Once again I thank all members for their contributions. I thank the Opposition for its support of this legislation. In summary, the purpose of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is to amend the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 and the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 to extend the on-the-spot licence suspension regime to include certain driving offences committed by novice drivers, and to introduce a new regime of increased penalties for a learner driver driving while unaccompanied by a supervising driver.

The bill also amends the Roads Act 1993 in a minor way in relation to the definition of an "approved toll camera", to extend the certificate evidence provisions of the Act to provide for certificate evidence of non-controversial matters in prosecutions, and to extend the time to initiate proceedings for a toll offence to 12 months, consistent with the limitation period for other camera-detected road transport offences. Further amendments to the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 and the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 will allow regulations to be made to enable New South Wales to adopt national model legislation for heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speed compliance, and clarify the application of occupational health and safety legislation in relation to road law. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 181 applied.

Question declared resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.


Bill declared passed and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment.