National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Industry Forum

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Industry Forum"

Transcription

1 National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Industry Forum Presented by the Project Board and Project Office Newcastle 16 September 2010

2 Perspectives from the Chair National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Project Board Australian Livestock Transporters Association and Livestock and Rural Transporters Association of WA Presented by Menno Henneveld Managing Director Main Roads

3 KEY DISCUSSIONS POINTS Productivity, efficiency and safety improvements. Consistency while retaining existing productivity schemes. Responsive to industry. Existing productivity permits & arrangements remain Seeking industry engagement

4 GOVERNANCE

5 PLATFORM FOR REFORM Single set of laws remove red tape obstacles for business Retain Local Productivity Initiatives Consistent approach to making regulatory decisions Expand productivity schemes nationally where appropriate Improved government and industry partnerships for safety

6 ADDRESSING PRIORITY CONCERNS Laws harmonisation engagement prior to RIS Address problems with model fatigue laws Independent Expert Panel Further engagement with industry and analysis to follow Jurisdictions retain access decision rights, but; Improved and transparent decision making rules. Nationally consistent rules and performance review. Not adding an overhead (Menno this goes to your point about addressing industry concerns about paying for another layer)

7 COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT Commitment to two way communication Success of NHVR will depend on determining and meeting industry needs Several stages of consultation for NHV laws Extensive and continuing communication, consultation and engagement.

8 National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Industry Forum Delivering an effective National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Presented by Angus Draheim Newcastle 16 September 2010

9 GOVERNANCE OF THE PROJECT July 2009 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to the establishment of a National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) by 1 January The NHVR will be headquartered in Brisbane but with national focus. A Project Board composed of several of the nation s senior transport and road officials has been established to drive the project. A Project Office responsible for delivery of the NHVR has also been established in Brisbane.

10 OBJECTIVES OF THE NHVR Improve productivity and safety. Reduce the compliance burden on business. Improve our competitiveness. Make it easier for business across State and Territory borders.

11 COVERAGE The NHVR will administer heavy vehicle laws covering: - Registration - Mass and loading - Fatigue - Compliance and enforcement. The NHVR laws will not cover heavy vehicle licensing. The NHVR laws are being built from existing law and are not subject to policy reconsideration unless necessary for unifying approach.

12 HOW WILL THE LAWS WORK NHVR laws are being drafted by the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. They will first be passed in Queensland. Each of the other jurisdictions will then pass the laws applying them locally. The laws will be supported by a head agreement between jurisdictions.

13 TIMEFRAMES Initial NHVR industry engagement August 2010 February NHVR laws RIS released early February Governments consider laws mid Qld introduces laws to Parliament mid to late Other jurisdictions introduce laws to their Parliaments mid 2012.

14 HOW WILL THE NHVR WORK The NHVR will be an independent body under statutory authority established in Queensland and recognised nationally. Although based in Brisbane the NHVR will work with all jurisdictions to ensure a coordinated and consistent service delivery including compliance and enforcement. All levels of government are working together to develop intergovernmental agreements that will support the operation of the NHVR.

15 CONSULTATION and ENGAGEMENT Broad consultation and strong engagement is critical to success: - Not just on laws, also - Inform our design of an effective system. An Industry Advisory Group is being formed. This is not all. We want to engage widely including all associations, small and regional operators. Other communications will include face to face meetings and forums. Newsletter, website etc.

16 Question Session. DELIVERING AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL HEAVY VEHICLE REGULATOR

17 National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Industry Forum Recognising the Importance of Productivity and Efficiency Presented by Lyn O Connell Newcastle 16 September 2010

18 PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY Transport sector - 5% of GDP and employs 500,000 Australians - Heavy vehicle sector significant Productivity growth has reduced to 0.7 per cent percent average over last decade percent in the 90 s Three pronged approach to productivity reform - Planning and governance - Infrastructure investment - Regulation and micro-economic reform

19 PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY OPPORTUNITIES Cutting regulation red tape replace 9 sets of laws with a single set of national laws. Services locally, national approach, e.g. registration renewal (a one-stop shop ). Local productivity arrangements. Industry collaboration.

20 PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY BENEFITS Access permits coordinated through a single NHVR contact point. Improve efficiency - streamlined processes and services. Mutual recognition of products and services. Same requirements of operators. Transactions not limited to home state.

21 PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY OPPORTUNITIES NHVR provides a platform to encourage productivity reform - Shared knowledge on what works - Same starting point makes future productivity initiatives easier to introduce

22 RECOGNISING THE IMPORTANCE OF PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY What are the priorities for industry? Panel Session:

23 National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Industry Forum The NHVR and a National Focus on Safety Presented by Alan Tesch Newcastle 16 September 2010

24 SAFETY COMMITMENT Government commitment to promote safety outcomes through this reform - Key part aspect of intergovernmental agreements - Industry equally committed to improving safety through NHVR. Safety record of industry improving, but the impact still large road fatalities involving trucks nationally during 2009 (4.5 tonne+) - This represents 14.5% of all road fatalities - Average of 241 road fatalities per year over last five years (4.5 tonne+).

25 THE NHVR AND A NATIONAL FOCUS ON SAFETY Productivity and safety not a trade-off - Quality system generally help both safety and productivity - Safety approach an enabler - Need to demonstrate addressed safety concerns, manage community safety expectations NHVR as a platform for - Best practice & evidence based approaches - Government & industry partnership on safety - Cross liaison light vehicle policy & police approaches. Consistent risk management focus - Guiding thinking for harmonising laws, including expert panel, - In approach to operational policy and decision making.

26 INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS Education and cultural aspects (working with industry). National approach to compliance & enforcement look to getting balance right. Greater national coordination and leverage for Chain Of Responsibility. Better use of industry codes and schemes.

27 OTHER AREAS FOR FOCUS Effective enforcement (technology), operational practices, training national approach. Vehicle and road systems/dynamics safe system philosophy. Exploring the value of deterrents & role of judiciary.

28 What are the industry priorities? INDUSTRY PRIORITIES

29 NATIONAL INDUSTRY FORUM National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Nick Dimopoulos Chief Executive, National Transport Commission 16 September 2010

30 What is the National Heavy Vehicle Law? The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will administer a new body of national laws The National Heavy Vehicle Law is a consolidation of existing model legislation developed by NTC and its predecessor NRTC The National Heavy Vehicle Law will focus on harmonising existing state / territory laws

31 Achieving consistency 364 variations have been identified from existing model legislation State and territory governments working to address inconsistencies through drafting The issues vary in complexity Most issues are minor amendments to clarify/improve model legislation 11 issues referred to the Independent Expert Panel 51 issues referred to High Level Reference Group

32 Key expert panel issues Fatigue Chain of responsibility Compliance Registration

33 Consultation Stakeholder engagement is critical No final determination can be made until consultation occurs Exposure Draft Regulatory Impact Statement will be released early next year and include a ten week consultation period

34 How will the law be established Queensland will pass legislation to establish the regulator and law Other state and territories will pass laws to apply the Queensland law All legislation across Australia to be completed before 1 January 2013 Any amendments to the law or new regulations to require ATC approval

35 Key upcoming milestones

36 Questions?

37 National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Industry Forum To provide evidence-based advice on standards for inclusion in the national law on specified unresolved policy issues. Initial report to ATC second half of 2010 and final report in mid Presented by Bruce Wilson

38 PANEL MEMBERS Drew Dawson Director, Centre for Sleep Research, University of South Australia David Anderson Chair of the Performance Based Standards Review Panel and ex-ceo of VicRoads Ann Williamson Professor, University of NSW Injury Risk Management Research Centre Luke Fraser former Executive Director of Australian Livestock Transporters Association Bruce Wilson Panel Convenor and former Director-General of Queensland Transport

39 WHAT HAVE WE BEEN ASKED TO ADVISE ON? (i) Fatigue management -outer limit for driving/working hours under Advanced Fatigue Management (AFM). (ii) Fatigue Management - the use of short and split rest breaks. (iii) Fatigue Management - completion of work diaries (distance from base). (iv) Fatigue Management -the management of fatigue and driving hours through OH&S legislation (in lieu of Transport Law).

40 WHAT HAVE WE BEEN ASKED TO ADVISE ON? cont (v) Compliance and Enforcement -the application of licence and registration sanctions for non-severe breaches of Mass, Dimension, or Loading (MDL) regs. (vi) Compliance and Enforcement -the application of the Three Strikes policy for speeding offences. (vii) Compliance and Enforcement the detention of non-compliant vehicles for MDL breaches. (viii) Compliance and Enforcement the application of a reasonable steps defence within the CoR to prevent driving while fatigued.

41 WHAT HAVE WE BEEN ASKED TO ADVISE ON? cont (ix) Compliance and Enforcement right to enter property of vehicles seen on a road. (x) Registration the effectiveness of annual roadworthy inspections for heavy vehicles, or alternatively, the identification of any special risks that may require an annual inspection.

42 CURRENT STATUS Adopted principles (risk based approach plus..). Considered the we are unique claims. Studied legislation. Sought info from jurisdictions : why are you different? Informal discussions with some stakeholders. Studied research evidence. Reached consensus. Discussion with SCOT.

43 OUR NEXT STEPS Feedback from NHVR forum in September. Initial report to the next ATC meeting. Further consultation, including jurisdictions regarding variations from the Model Law. Final report to April 2011 ATC.

44 (i) 15 OR 16 HOURS? WE NEED A BETTER AFM SYSTEM Currently - High cost of entry - Uncertainty regarding approvals - Long wait times for decisions - Operators, regulators dissatisfied hence policy variations - High safety risk inadequate risk management systems The Panel s conclusions - Insufficient work has been done in this risk management arena - We strongly propose a modified approach to AFM

45 (i) FATIGUE MANAGEMENT SHOULD 15 OR 16 HRS BE THE MAXIMUM HOURS FOR WORK/DRIVING?

46 A MODIFIED APPROACH TO RISK MANAGEMENT Base-line level of acceptable risk = standard hours. An AFM which results in no net increase in risk. Simple process for assessing risk and risk offsets (a scorecard if you wish). Day or night driving - Prior rest - Post rest - Breaks (single, split) - Training, fitness and sleep disorder checks, data loggers.

47 MORE ABOUT THE MODIFIED APPROACH.. A Fatigue Expert Group established by the NTC - Assigning risk scores (+ve and ve) for AFM elements based on the most up to date research evidence - Assessing AFM proposals - Communication by - Need to meet once per annum. NTC to promulgate standardised values for common elements and common models across industry - Via the web - Free of charge. SCOT to consider cross modal knowledge sharing.

48 THE NEW AFM MODEL - ADVANTAGES.. Public library of conforming risk management recipes to give industry strong guidance and confidence about approval. State and Territory bureaucracies and Ministers provided with a defensible position. Little or no preparation cost to industry. Much lower risk (back to standard hours risk).

49 (ii) SPLIT OR SHORT REST BREAKS DEFENCES? Currently - Some jurisdictions allow these and some don t (the model law allows). The Panel s conclusions - No driver seems to have used these defences - Therefore no evidence to justify excluding them - Short and split rest breaks need to be eventually taken into account in the type of risk model described previously.

50 Currently (iii) COMPLETION OF WORK DIARIES (DISTANCE FROM BASE) - Model Law and most J s require work diary if more than 100km from base, NSW and Tas 0km, Queensland 200km. The Panel s Conclusions - Not aware of any evidence linking work diaries to crash rates - Fatigue for short haul drivers results from different causes to that for long haul; standard work diaries not so effective - Prefer to maintain a uniform 100km as per the Model Law - Note that OH&S laws may provide an avenue to pick up any specific risks by type of operation.

51 (iv) OH&S OR TRANSPORT LAW? Currently - WA standards for fatigue management are covered by OH&S Law and not Transport Law. The Panel s Conclusions - Comparison of the two regimes shows many similarities but some differences - Operating limit less restrictive in WA - Accreditation mandatory for all drivers under WA OH&S, but only AFM and BFM in NTC model law - Transport has specialised enforcement systems and better compliance - Stick with ATC/NTC regime but develop risk management systems (ref previous comments) that are compatible with the best aspects of OH&S.

52 (v) LICENCE AND REGISTRATION SANCTIONS FOR MINOR M,D,L BREACHES? Currently - Model law allows licence sanctions for only major M,D,L breaches - Some jurisdictions vary from this - All have their own licensing legislation. The Panel s Conclusions - See no reason to change legal structure - Would like to consider registration breaches further.

53 (vi) THREE STRIKES FOR SPEEDING OFFENCES? Currently - Three J s received NTC approval to apply this - One has rescinded the provisions, one would like to, one prefers to retain. The Panel s Conclusions - No evidence that Three Strikes policy reduces crashes - Seems difficult to administer without technology - NTC Model Act on Heavy Vehicle Speeding Compliance introduced CoR which all J s support: seems to have superseded three strikes and is effective for all strikes.

54 (vii) DETENTION OF VEHICLES FOR M,D,L BREACHES? Currently - NSW legislation seems to allow detention of a vehicle in breach of M,D,L beyond the point at which the breach has been addressed - Model Law allows for a vehicle to be stopped and/or removed to a safe place, but does not allow detention once a breach has been rectified. The Panel s Conclusions - We see no additional community benefit from further retention, and question whether restraint of trade or unnecessary loss of productivity results - We support retention of the Model Law as is.

55 Currently (viii) REASONABLE STEPS DEFENCE FOR COR DUTY? - The Model Law requires all those in a CoR to take reasonable steps to ensure that a driver is not fatigued. It is not specific about how to do this - NSW Law requires an additional duty to annually identify and assess risk management practices. The Panel s Conclusions - It is up to the courts to assess reasonable steps - The NSW prescriptive duty may limit the options of individuals to comply with the law - The Panel understands the NSW concerns and suggests that further risk management work (ref item (i)) may assist.

56 (ix) ENFORCEMENT TO APPLY TO VEHICLES SEEN ON A ROAD Currently - In NSW compliance and enforcement powers extend to any vehicle seen on a road. Other J s have adopted the Model law, which is otherwise the same as NSW law. The Panel s Conclusions - There appears to be other parts of the NSW Law which conflict with this extended power - The Panel will have further discussions with NSW about this - We are also seeking comment from all J s on privacy issues.

57 (x) ANNUAL ROADWORTHY INSPECTIONS? Currently - There is considerable variation among J s regarding roadworthy testing regimes. Some depend on triggers such as transfer of registration, some on Police reporting only and some are annually regardless. In some cases there are specific programs for buses. The Panel s Conclusions - No evidence can be found linking regular inspections to crash risk - There is some evidence that regular inspections reduce the incidence of vehicle defects - It is virtually impossible to compare programs because testing standards and criteria vary widely.

58 ROADWORTHINESS TESTING - CONTINUED - No firm evidence that crash risk would be reduced by annual testing programs. - There would be great merit in SCOT developing a standard risk based testing standard and protocol (specifying the components, what constitutes fail etc) This will allow for reliable comparisons of approach and eventually a means of developing risk based assessments of any national program. NSW is working towards a risk based approach. - In the meantime roadworthiness testing should remain a matter for each jurisdiction.

59 To provide evidence-based advice on standards for inclusion in the national law on specified unresolved policy issues. Initial report to ATC second half of 2010 and final report in mid Any reactions please?