Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill clarifies the extent of Defence’s exemption from the operation of particular state and territory road transport laws in certain circumstances. It will enable the effective operation of the Defence Road Transport Exemption Framework, recently negotiated between Defence and state and territory road transport authorities. The agreed exemption framework details the exemptions and processes that will be applied uniformly across the states and territories to support the conduct of Australian Defence Force road transport operations. The Australian Transport Council endorsed the exemption framework on 18 November 2005.

This bill and the exemption framework it underpins, reinforces the need for the Australian Defence Force to operate its land vehicle fleet without restrictions imposed by Commonwealth, state and territory road transport laws. Exemptions from these laws enable the Australian Defence Force to move its capabilities effectively and efficiently along the Australian road transport network. Agreement to a national exemption framework further provides the Australian Defence Force with a consistent process in dealing with the requirements of individual state and territory jurisdictions.

Australian Defence Force members currently enjoy a wide immunity from state and territory licensing laws in relation to matters such as road transport under subsection 123(1) of the Defence Act 1903. This bill will better reflect the cooperative approach which underpins the exemption framework. It will limit the Defence exemption from state and territory legislation under section 123 of the Defence Act in this area and, in effect, replace it with the agreed exemption framework. The bill provides an opportunity to address any uncertainty regarding possible gaps in the scope of section 123, as well as providing a clear statement of the Defence intent to work closely with the states and territories in relation to road transport. The new exemption framework will be responsive to the requirements of the states and territories as the owners of the road transport infrastructure and Defence as the user.

The introduction of this bill is consistent with a similar approach adopted in 1998 to limit the immunity contained in the Defence Act and to replace it with a more specific exemption regime. At that time an amendment was made to the National Road Transport Commission Act 1991, providing the Australian Defence Force with a broad exemption for special defence related circumstances.

However these exemptions were never implemented, because the regime prescribed was dependent on the adoption by the states and territories of model road transport legislation, which did not occur. Following the review of the National Road Transport Commission Act by the Department of Transport and Regional Services, it was recommended that the Defence provisions should be carried forward to the replacement legislation. The replacement legislation, the National Transport Commission Act, was passed by parliament in 2003.

An intergovernmental agreement established to oversight the introduction of the National Transport Commission Act provided a mechanism for Defence and the state and territory governments to move forward in developing an appropriate exemption framework. Consequently, the parties, with the assistance of the National Transport Commission, have worked assiduously over the past two years to deliver a workable exemption framework. This result provides an excellent example of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in support of the defence effort.

The exemption framework establishes the specific categories of exemptions that will apply for principal ADF routes used in exercises, operations and day-to-day activities. The exemptions involve specific engineering dimensions relating to the mass, size and width of Australian Defence Force land assets, as well as specific licensing and road rules exemptions for Australian Defence Force personnel. These exemptions will also apply to personnel from visiting foreign defence forces acting in accordance with an arrangement approved by the ADF.

Implementation of the exemption framework will occur over the next six to 12 months. Jurisdictions are expected to implement the exemption framework through their respective administrative processes on a voluntary basis. Defence will concurrently amend as required its Defence Road Transport Instructions to ensure internal compliance with the exemption framework.

Defence will be required to resolve outstanding issues with individual jurisdictions during this period before full implementation can be achieved. These matters will continue to be pursued in a consultative and cooperative manner. The exemption framework will be maintained by the National Transport Commission and will be available for public viewing on the National Transport Commission’s website.

Finally, it should be said that this bill does not impose any requirements on state and territory governments. It simply limits the current Defence immunity under subsection 123(1) of the Defence Act to ensure that the road transport exemptions set out in the exemption framework can operate in the manner that they are intended to.

This bill reflects Defence’s willingness to cooperate and to work with the states and territories on these matters, rather than utilising Commonwealth powers to impose an exemption solution on individual jurisdictions.

I present the explanatory memorandum and urge this chamber to support the bill.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the honourable member for Barton, I remind the chamber that, if any member wishes to rise and question any speaker during their speech in the second reading debate, they are perfectly entitled to do so. It is up to the speaker as to whether they accept the intervention.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset may I congratulate the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on his appointment as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. I know he will do his job in a direct and forthright way because I can confirm that the minister has absolutely no capacity to sidestep!

In addressing the issues raised in the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 the minister, in his second reading speech, obviously summarised the substance of the bill, but it is appropriate for the opposition to record our reasons for supporting the measures.

The Australian Defence Force operates vehicles on the roads of Australia in the exercise of its operational capability as well as in the day-to-day activities in defence of the country. Such activities are conducted in proper recognition of the fact that ownership and administration of the bulk of road transport infrastructure in Australia is vested in the states and territories, and the ADF is using that infrastructure in pursuit of its duties to the Australian people.

Section 123 of the current act provides that members of the ADF have a degree of immunity from the operation of certain state and territory road transport laws, such as licensing. It is appropriate that the extent of such immunity or exemption be clarified for the benefit of the states and territories, as well as the ADF and, importantly, for its members. This bill provides such clarification and limits the immunity by underpinning an exemption framework, which has been developed, as the minister outlined, in a process of consultation between the ADF and the state and territory road transport authorities, with the assistance of the National Transport Commission.

The bill details the exemptions and processes to be applied uniformly across the states and territories. Such exemptions will be implemented by the states and territories in accordance with their respective policies and by the ADF through Defence instructions pertaining to road transport. As I understand the current position, it has been necessary for the Defence Force to obtain a myriad of exemptions from specific routes and, while these routes are frequently common routes and those exemptions are, in effect, standing exemptions, it can be time consuming from the point of view of both the military and local transport authorities.

Importantly, the bill is designed to maintain the operational capabilities of the ADF by detailing Defence requirements in relation to road transport, whilst recognising the unique requirements of the ADF operating environment. It is intended to allow the ADF to perform its critical function of the defence of our nation without restrictions imposed by Commonwealth, state and territory divisions with respect to this important area of road transport laws.

Equally important, the bill ensures the safety of other road and transport users and protects the national road infrastructure and facilities used by the ADF, as well as the environment. The exemptions apply when ADF members, and others specifically authorised, are using vehicles and infrastructure for defence related purposes. The criterion of ‘defence related purpose’ is sufficiently broad to cater for the array of activities in which our defence personnel are likely to be engaged in pursuit of their duties. Such activities include defence and security functions, emergency and disaster management or relief, humanitarian and medical assistance and the provision of support to nationally and internationally significant community activities. Such is the versatility of our defence personnel that such versatility demands an equally unrestrictive operating environment for the logistic support provided by the road transport system.

The close working relationship developed between the ADF and the armed forces of foreign countries is reflected in the bill in that the exemptions also apply to such armed forces and their members, provided that their activities are carried out in accordance with arrangements approved by the ADF. Obviously, that is vitally important in the context of any joint exercises that may occur and which frequently do occur within our country.

The system of accredited driver training provided to ADF members is recognised by the exemption framework by way of certain licence exemptions. Where a requirement exists under state and territory legislation for a special licence, accredited ADF training of a similar standard is recognised as being in compliance with state and territory requirements such that the training is deemed to have occurred. A safeguard exists in terms of licensing in that ADF drivers are required to carry and produce on demand their current defence licence, driver qualification log, vehicle authorisation and task form. In other words, they will not be exempt from being approached by state law enforcement authorities if they are considered to be doing the wrong thing.

A further safeguard exists in that the cancellation or suspension of a member’s civilian licence results in the automatic cancellation or suspension of their defence licence. Again this recognises that defence drivers must, nonetheless, in both their civilian capacity and their military capacity, respect the laws of a particular state or territory within which they are operating. Defence licences will also be suspended if the holder is considered unfit to drive due to their accident or traffic record, medical impairment or physical injury deeming them unfit to drive. The holder is subject to retraining for any disciplinary or bad driving reason or the holder fails to maintain currency requirements.

The ADF’s unique operating environment is recognised in the exemption framework. Drivers and commanders of armoured vehicles and tanks are exempt from the requirement to remain entirely inside the vehicle, obviously due to the nature of the operation of those vehicles. The ADF is also exempt from a prohibition against carrying passengers in the load space of vehicles without an approved means of restraint due to the seating configuration of ADF vehicles, and ADF emergency vehicles are recognised under state and territory provisions pertaining to their own state and territory emergency vehicles.

The unique operating environment is further recognised in terms of signage. The ‘Oversize Load’ signs that typically apply to oversize vehicles are not required for each and every vehicle in a convoy, provided the convoy is not greater than five vehicles, spacing is provided for overtaking opportunities for other road users, radio communications are maintained and lights are illuminated on all convoy vehicles, and pilot vehicles accompany the convoy at the front and rear with the ‘Oversize Convoy’ sign appropriately displayed.

The exemption framework also provides designated ‘defence strategic routes’ across Australia, after consultation with the states and territories. These routes are designed to match vehicle capabilities with the current capacity of roads and bridges. Obviously, some military vehicles can be extremely large and heavy, and the capacity of roads and bridges to carry them has to be worked through.

The framework also imposes mass limits and rules in respect of a range of issues pertaining specifically to ADF vehicles, such as load sizes and maximum load projection. The exemptions and measures established under the exemption framework are clarified in the bill and are necessary in maintaining the operational capacity of the ADF in terms of road based logistics.

The framework recognises the unique operating environment of the ADF as a strategic imperative. This recognition and the resultant exemptions are important measures to allow the ADF to perform its critical function in the defence of this nation. The opposition fully supports the bill.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 is important legislation inasmuch as it will set some exemptions. Primarily, it attempts to harmonise heavy haulage transport circumstances for our defence department and highlights the issue of this government being obliged to come forward and make laws so that our defence forces can operate in a timely and proper maner.

It is a matter that has concerned me for many years. I suffered some embarrassment in this place in complaining to one state transport minister about the differentiation that existed in his state and the state of Western Australia just on simple laws relating to the operation of a truck. I am interested to see that the government has decided to ensure that at least our defence forces have some consistency in the way they might operate and, more particularly, are exempt from certain requirements that, of themselves, are quite reasonable. If you have a series of tanks to transport around the place you cannot take the wheels off to make sure they meet the axle-loading requirements of various states. Configurations have always been an outstanding issue in this regard.

The National Transport Commission gets a mention. It has been another attempt that has failed in these serious issues. It seems much more intent on putting up licence fees and adding to the cost of the road transport industry than it is on addressing other matters that are of importance. It is important, notwithstanding that this particular legislation looks at the national arrangements for road activities, that rail is going to be a significant aspect from time to time for the activities of the defence forces, more particularly now that there is a connection between the major network and Darwin. Darwin is now, quite properly, one of the major areas where the defence forces are located. It will add to their capacity to move their equipment around the place, but they of course cannot operate to the schedules of a rail system and road transport is of extreme importance.

Road transport, as I said, is a vexing factor in my state of Western Australia. Through the efforts of previous governments you can now drive a double transport rig, a B-double, even a two-bottom road train, around the metropolitan area of Perth. Certain parties reckoned at the time that the end of the world would come tomorrow and that pedestrians would get run over and squeezed on a very regular basis. That has been operating now for some time and the simple fact is that none of those things have happened. It is interesting to note that, be it the defence forces or others, if you are able on rural roads and regional roads of a reasonable quality to move a three-trailer rig, you can do so economically at 80 kilometres an hour. Of course, trucks can be engine regulated—in other words, they cannot be driven over a given speed which is 100 kilometres. There is a good question as to whether a three-trailer unit operating at 80 kilometres is a better safety situation than a two-trailer unit or a single-trailer unit doing 100 kilometres.

All roads end up with motorists on them and I find it amazing, I might add, in this circumstance that we often hear that the road transport industry gets preferential treatment over rail because it seems to have roads everywhere. The roads are built for motorists; it is a coincidence that the trucks operate on them and, of course, they are highly competitive with rail. Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I am interested, and I am sure you would be yourself, to discover announcements yesterday that Queensland Rail, a government institution, has purchased the private sector interests in the Australian Railroad Group, and the Australian Railroad Group will consequently have a responsibility associated with these defence arrangements. The Australian Railroad Group was a private sector business that purchased the railway assets particularly in Western Australia, I think under the efforts of the Court government, and the outcome is that they have now been purchased by Queensland Rail. This seems in many respects to be quite a proactive problem.

I read with some interest in the Australian yesterday that the Western Australian Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Alannah MacTiernan, said she could see some positives in the sale but would examine the transaction in detail. She said it was ironic that the Queensland government might now be running the Western Australian railroad after the state government privatised it in 2000. I would think that is a fairly diffident response to this new investment, which also includes Babcock and Brown, a major investment bank, retaining the infrastructure. In other words, Queensland Rail has bought the rolling stock and intends to manage the business and Babcock and Brown are looking at the rail lines. From a defence perspective, an upgrade of the Western Australian rail system—the tracks, the sleepers, the signalling and all those things that go with them—would be very positive. However, I am a bit concerned about this situation.

Queensland Rail were active in Western Australia on a previous occasion. They were a potential bidder for the southern passenger railway system, which eventually was won principally by Leightons. They moved out of the bidding process about halfway through, at some considerable cost. I believe over $1 million was the cost of their investment in that tendering process up until the time they left. The reason they left was that they chose the wrong partner. They were in partnership with the BGC Group, the Buckeridge group, and were told by the Western Australian government that, whilst they retained that arrangement, they would never get the contract. They got kicked out of WA, so I hope they have sorted things out with the CFMEU this time.

The CFMEU runs Queensland Rail in Queensland, so I guess they have a few friends in that regard—it is dominating the Western Australian parliament. The other day, Leightons—because they became a bit cheeky in asking for some more money on the southern railway project—were immediately demoted in terms of a major road tender that is presently around the place.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Spite and vindictiveness.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very vindictive, but I am wondering whether Queensland Rail has gone through the processes of making sure that Alannah MacTiernan, the minister mentioned in this article, is not going to kick them out of Western Australia again. They got kicked out once and it cost them $1 million. They had to pay their partner $1 million just to cover his costs in preparing the tender documents.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask that the honourable member be brought back to the bill in question and that he try to make at least some of his remarks relevant to the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005, which is before the Main Committee today.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I believe the member is roaming considerably, he is discussing the issue of road transport.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The interesting point here is, as I said, that the Department of Defence are significantly interested in legislation that gives them some certainty and uniformity in moving their people and equipment around Australia. The time might come when they have to rely on the rail system as an alternative. We have recently had a lot of floods in WA. Roads have been washed out and some are under water. It just might be that someone has landed on some part of the Australian mainland and the only way to get Defence there might include some activities on the Western Australian rail system. My concern in all this is that the new owner got kicked out of WA once and at the request of the CFMEU. If it were to happen a second time and all of a sudden—let us look back to the Second World War, when certain unions refused to load equipment to assist our own soldiers—if there were some sort of dispute and the roads were not available, nor would the railway system be.

Fundamentally, whilst I have no objection to Queensland Rail operating the Western Australian rail system, I just hope they have cleared themselves with the CFMEU this time and do not get kicked out of town again, as they did as a potential tenderer to construct the southern passenger railway system—which has problems of its own and which I certainly would not attempt to raise here, taking into account the sensitivities of the member for Chisholm on this matter.

I thank the House for giving me an opportunity to make these further remarks. I support the legislation; it is very sensible. I stress that it highlights the deficiencies that still exist in a uniform regulatory regime of road transport throughout Australia in the commercial sector. There are too many differences in legislation and it makes it very difficult to operate. Furthermore, we should always have uniform legislation that allows, as the defence forces require, for sensible carriage of goods on the roads. As I have often said, all too frequently with road and rail—because we do make road services available for the motorists—we end up with a lousy road paralleling a lousy railway. We need to make some judgments about that and about the expenditure of taxpayers’ money to get the best outcome—that is, a much improved road with appropriate passing lanes and all those things that might make it easier for a motorist to pass a convoy of semitrailers carrying tanks. I think we should look at it from the point of view of both defence and the transport sector.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is at the table and I congratulate him on his appointment as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. That has caused me to have a second look at the legislation, because I now know what it is like to be run over by a tank. Actually, I am referring to the minister himself! Earlier this week we had an opportunity to debate the merits of a change to defence legislation that would properly accommodate and establish clear guidelines for the interaction between state and territory police forces and for the involvement of Defence Force personnel in response to events of domestic violence or sudden and extraordinary emergency. That bill sought to clean up a messy and largely unworkable set of rules surrounding the involvement of the ADF in the event of a terrorist attack or other breach of national security on home land. This was an important piece of legislation as it set down guidelines and accountabilities in the event that Defence Force personnel are required to assist and support the activities of either state or territory police in the event of a terrorist attack.

The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 is just as important. Once again, we have a bill before us that seeks to set up a known and consistent framework in which the ADF is able to operate. Members familiar with the ADF know that many of the vehicles that are part of the modern Defence Force are not the types of vehicles that appear daily on suburban streets and roads. They are large, heavy vehicles built for military purposes and have the weight and off-road capacity to match that required by modern defence forces.

Despite the best efforts of the Defence Force in the past to comply with as many of the road regulations as they could, the simple fact of the matter is that these vehicles cannot comply with state road rules and regulations. Of itself, the fact that the vehicles do not comply does not seem all that significant. The Defence Act provides for this by granting immunity from road regulations. Historically, the ADF has made efforts to comply as far as possible with the road regulations, but this is starting to prove cumbersome when dealing across six agencies. I understand that dealing with the six states and enforcing the road rules has posed certain problems. The intention of this bill is to remedy those problems and provide clear compliance behaviour that can be observed by the ADF.

The bill provides for and underpins an exemption framework that has been developed in consultation with the states and territories pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Road, Rail and Intermodal Transport. Naturally, this sort of framework covers various matters, including vehicle mass limits, load sizes, warning signals, licensing and fatigue management. These are all important issues when it comes to the effective and safe management and oversight of our road network. The bill establishes a standard national framework of exemption from road transport laws for members of the ADF, Defence reservists and approved members of any foreign armed contingent in respect of any act or omission in connection with a defence related purpose. Such a regime allows for and accommodates the operation of the defence forces without impinging on their operational capacity. In the same way that it was important to have clear guidelines for the ADF’s involvement in response to breaches of national security, it is equally important that the work of the defence forces is not impeded through a regime of strict adherence to state or territory road regulations.

In essence, this is about making sure that the ADF is adequately equipped to carry out its role, whether that be through the provision of equipment or through the development of a set of guidelines to give effect to efficient operations. Adequately equipping the ADF has been topical of late since it was revealed recently that our defence forces may have been kitted out with substandard clothing and equipment. Improperly equipping the ADF has had a direct impact on its operation, and it is important that the mistakes made by the DMO in failing to provide the right equipment to the ADF are not matched by a failure to develop an effective operational framework that accommodates the needs of the defence forces to move their vehicles throughout this country.

The framework that will be established following the passage of this bill is unlikely to repeat such mistakes as the definition of ‘defence related purpose’ contained in the bill is appropriately broad. Under the provisions of the bill, defence related purposes are considered to be activities in which Defence personnel are likely to be engaged, including: defence and security functions; emergency and disaster management or relief; humanitarian and medical assistance; and the provision of support to nationally and internationally significant community activities. The framework is clear, as it is important that it is well understood by all those who will operate within it.

For instance, the framework makes ADF driver licensing compatible with the state system. Where the states or territories require a special licence, the ADF will be required to provide accredited training to a compatible standard. ADF personnel will be required to carry their licence, logbooks and other necessary documentation and produce them on demand. Should a civilian licence be suspended or cancelled, their ADF licence will also be suspended or cancelled automatically.

The framework contains sensible and practical safeguards which not only reflect the importance of having a known and understood operating environment but also recognise the primacy of the states and territories in regulating road use. The bill allows for the maintenance of the ADF’s operational capability and recognises the need to protect the safety of civilian road users. While the bill itself may be relatively short and the detail primarily contained in the framework, this by no means lessens the importance of the development of a national approach to the ADF’s use of our roads. I will be supporting the bill and I encourage all members to do likewise.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As always, it is good to see you competently occupying the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie. From time to time, during military training or manoeuvres and asset delivery, members of the Australian defence forces have a need to drive on the roads of various states. Convoys of ADF jeeps, Land Rovers and prime movers can be sometimes seen driving up the Bruce Highway through my electorate on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. It is an impressive and encouraging spectacle to see a procession of Australia’s finest en route to their destination.

I think everyone would accept that this road usage is vital in the everyday operations of the defence forces. With it come certain legal privileges for the ADF in that the ADF is by law immune to the requirements of state laws on road use in certain situations. A wide array of immunities is set out in the Defence Act 1903. Quite reasonably, these freedoms are recognised by all states and territories, in that they are aware that the ADF must be able to operate its fleet of land vehicles without obstruction, with the ability to move around quickly and efficiently, suffering no cumbersome restrictions, so that they can basically ensure the defence of our nation.

Having said that, however, the ADF is not about to abuse these privileges and the ADF is dedicated to complying with all of the road rules and continuing its tradition as a respected good corporate citizen. The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 sets out the exemptions that are available to ADF personnel. The exemptions in the bill relate to the size and mass of vehicles and loading instructions. They also include other, more specific guidelines that relate to the drivers of ADF vehicles, their licensing requirements, road rule observation and the like.

I understand that the exemptions have related mostly to the weight of heavy vehicles and off-road capacities and that in these instances it is at all times impossible for the ADF to comply with state legislation. I think we would all accept and understand that this is the nature of the forces, which have to transport heavy tanks and other vehicles as well as other equipment. Believe it or not, attempts were made about a decade ago to specify more accurately the road transport exemptions available to the ADF and its personnel. This was attempted through the National Road Transport Commission Act 1991, but that process never reached completion because it was dependent on the states and territories adopting model road transport legislation and, sadly, that did not eventuate. It was suggested at the time by the Department of Transport and Regional Services that the legislation applicable to the ADF should not, by reason of compatibility, be bundled into the National Road Transport Commission Act 1991 and that all the objectives would be better served with a separate act. This, of course, is the act which will arise from the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 being discussed here today.

The arrival of this bill before the parliament follows a process that began in 2004 when it was agreed that a national schedule of ADF exemption should be drafted. There was a resulting document, entitled The Defence road transport exemption framework. This was finalised last year with the assistance of the National Transport Commission and has been approved by the transport agency chief executive and the Australian Transport Council. This document outlines the more specific exemptions not outlined in the Defence Act. Each state and territory will advise which of the exemptions can be promptly implemented, and it is expected that the guidelines will be fully implemented across Australia by late this year.

Those who have listened to the honourable member for Werriwa would be aware that this is a non-controversial bill. It improves and clarifies the legislative guidelines that govern road usage by the ADF. The bill does not put any undue pressure on the states and territories with respect to road usage legislation, and it simply places the exemptions in the act within this new framework. The ADF is perfectly within its rights to ignore many of the laws that civilian drivers must comply with, but it chooses to meet them as best it can while respecting the sovereignty and self-rule of the various states and territories. I suppose you could say that, in doing this, the Australian Defence Force is endeavouring to be a good corporate citizen.

Ken Ticehurst (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his supportive interjection. The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill will help to further improve the situation, and I commend this bill to the House.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Timing is everything in this business. It is with great pleasure that I come to speak on the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 and to talk about some of the important issues that help to facilitate the defence of our nation and the movement of military vehicles across the broad expanse of the Australian landscape. Where possible we need to facilitate the rapid movement of that equipment. I think one of the most advantageous things that has happened recently in the defence of Australia is the completion of the railway line to Darwin, because for the first time we are able to move very quickly large amounts of very heavy military equipment.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is happening this week.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is happening this week, according to the minister. We are able to move large quantities of defence equipment very quickly from the Far North down to the south when it needs to be repaired and put together and up to the north when it needs to be deployed. For many years when I was in the Northern Territory the problems caused by the difficulties associated with moving equipment backwards and forwards to Darwin and those remote areas was of concern to the military units based in Darwin, and what should happen in the event of the need to rapidly deploy in an emergency situation.

The laws of our country need to be prepared to enable that deployment and to support it. This legislation puts some limits on our immunity from state law when it comes to moving this equipment. I might say that it is not just Australian military equipment that gets moved about our country. We have on occasions the Singapore armed forces undergoing training at the Shoalwater Bay training area, and approximately 300 armoured vehicles of various types can be located on the range at Shoalwater Bay.

The United States armed forces also come and exercise at the Shoalwater Bay training area. They bring their own equipment but, once again, it is very different from ours in some cases, and certainly different from the equipment of the Singaporean armed forces. On the face of it, if you look at any United States armed force unit you find that inevitably they have those Hummers that they buzz around in, and if you compare them in size and shape to your average Land Rover you find that the Hummer is a heck of a lot bigger and heavier. If you put them on a suburban street they do not really fit, and certainly not in an Australian environment. So all kinds of problems can emerge not only when we set about to move large quantities of our own equipment but when it is mixed in with large numbers of Hummers and other types of foreign equipment.

Elsewhere in the Northern Territory is the Delamere weapons range, and we can have on occasion substantial numbers of foreign troops located at RAAF Tindal. Those troops come with their own knowledge of road rules, and it can mean that special efforts have to be made to make sure that they are not offending the traffic rules or the swift and smooth flow of civilian traffic while they are undergoing their training activities.

There are some interesting versions of equipment that we see from time to time in Australia. It is worth just canvassing some of the differences that apply. I have done a bit of digging and, with the help of the Parliamentary Library and other places, I have found some interesting examples. There are tanks such as the M1 Abrams. It is a huge and heavy piece of equipment used by US forces and also soon to be used by our own forces. There is also, in the case of the Singaporean armed forces, the AMX13 light tank.

Armed recovery vehicles, often fitted with cranes and even bulldozer blades, can sometimes be deployed wherever armoured vehicles are used for military training exercises. These are often sent out onto our roads on low-loaders, but it is important that from time to time, when they are required to use the roads, we have a suitable set of arrangements for them to do so.

There are ASLAVs—those wonderful vehicles that you and I travelled in, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, and which we were very much impressed by in their operations in Iraq. They too make excursions onto Australian roads regularly, particularly around their garrison site in Darwin and between there and training areas such as the one out at Mount Bundy on the Kakadu National Park boundary, where I have been many times prior to it being declared a training area. It is very rough and inhospitable country in there, but to get there and back the ASLAVs go up and down the Stuart Highway and out on the Kakadu Highway as well.

As we have seen, ASLAVs come in a range of shapes and sizes. We have even seen them with huge fences on them, used to stop projectiles, to force the projectiles to explode early should they be fired at the ASLAVs. They are very effective. But when they go on those vehicles, that kind of additional equipment massively changes their dimensions. It has a huge impact on the ability of the ASLAVs to operate in traffic. As we ourselves found out in Iraq, the soldiers who are operating those kinds of equipment choose to remove it from time to time to facilitate their flow through the traffic. Obviously, in having them out on Australian roads, we need to consider their physical dimensions.

One of the most important physical dimensions in this debate is the weight of vehicles. I have looked up some bits of equipment. A Leopard 1 main battle tank weighs 42 tonnes and can travel at only 62 kilometres an hour. Its width is 3.37 metres. That is quite a size and shape. An M113 armoured personnel carrier weighs 10.9 tonnes and is 4.86 metres long. It travels at 65 kilometres an hour. The ASLAVs, as we have seen, can go at 100 kilometres an hour, but, as I say, that depends on their size and shape, and just how big their dimensions are depends on whether they have the fences on. We have also seen the Bushmaster. The Bushmaster can travel even faster, but it also has quite a weight. In its combat configuration it weighs 14 tonnes. These are large vehicles and they need to be carefully administered.

I want to mention one of the more exotic types of vehicle I managed to find, with the assistance of the library, going through the types of vehicles produced by Australian Defence Industries in our country. I do not know if many members know this, but there is a vehicle produced which is truly exotic, called the ADI high-speed engineering vehicle. It is basically a backhoe that travels at 100 kilometres an hour. I do not know what I would do if I was confronted by a backhoe doing 100 kilometres an hour down the Ipswich Motorway. I think I would panic. I think there would be a problem. It just shows that military vehicles have other purposes than just their efficacious use in traffic. They can sometimes be extremely exotic. A backhoe like that is something that does need to be carefully operated by the military when they set out to use it on Australian roads.

I said before that one of the most important issues of dimension is weight. One of the reasons we are seeking to limit the exposure or the immunity of the defence forces from state law is that it can be truly damaging if we send out heavy vehicles and they exceed the mass limits on the bridges, for example, that they traverse over. This is an issue that is quite well known to me because at the moment the Ipswich Motorway—a road of great interest to me in my area and that my residents use all the time—contains something like 52 bridges in its 19-kilometre length. It is being traversed by up to 100,000 vehicles a day, and often those vehicles exceed the construction design capabilities of the bridges on the Ipswich Motorway. It is one of the issues that has caused the state government to look at various ways to try and replace the Ipswich Motorway, but at the moment we have vehicles using that road that are theoretically too heavy for the bridges they are using. They are operating under dispensation. I am talking about B-doubles on the Ipswich Motorway.

That is happening in many cases across Australia because the size of our transports are getting bigger and bigger and their weight, their mass, is increasing. Governments have to look at whether they can give dispensation to use bridges that in the past would not have been expected to carry vehicles of that size. I am particularly interested in the Ipswich Motorway question because you get vehicles using that road—and I am not talking military vehicles here; I am talking about thousands of B-doubles using that road every day. While it is important that we limit the immunity of the Defence Force to such things—basically, when you look at some of the field guns that are operated by the Australian Defence Force, when they are connected to a Mack prime mover, as they regularly are, and they are sent out onto the road to be redeployed they can be bigger and longer than a semitrailer. To an average motorist that can be quite distracting; they can be an extremely large unit. But at the moment the same states that would seek us to exempt our army vehicles, to limit our exemption from their rules in relation to weight, are making regular transgressions in relation to a whole lot of other bridges—allowing them to use pieces of road, even though the vehicles are too heavy for the bridges that they are likely to encounter.

Another issue that comes into play here is the various rules that apply to operators seeking to drive their trucks interstate. I have encountered this with one of my local trucking operators—Nolans—which has run into a lot of difficulty with the operation of B-doubles and semitrailers interstate. They are not the only ones; there are a lot of people encountering this difficulty. If you look at a B-double or a semitrailer these days, quite often they will have a refrigeration unit stuck on the front of the trailer, and in some states when they look at the dimensions allowable for semitrailers they will incorporate the refrigeration units and in other states they will not. I know personally, having spoken to Terry Nolan about this, that Nolans Interstate Transport has encountered cases where its trucks have crossed over a border somewhere along a trip between, say, Brisbane and Melbourne, and the next minute some guy jumps out of the bushes and says: ‘Aha! You have transgressed the law. We’ve got you. You have broken the rule in relation to our state because it’s slightly different from that other state you just came from.’

These kinds of differences between states are silly and they continue to develop, in their bureaucratic administration of these kinds of things, more and more hurdles for the operators of transport trying to move our freight backwards and forwards. Down the track surely we need to look at standardisation. It has been said many times. It is the rail gauge debate again and again and again, and we are getting it more and more and more. Even if you go state to state, within the states themselves there are many different rules about roads you can drive on and roads you cannot drive on and roads where, if you are driving a B-double, you have to have a flashing light, but other roads where you do not have to have a flashing light. There are different requirements that apply backwards and forwards.

Our defence forces have to worry not just about going across state boundaries and the differences in laws that apply between states but about such things as what configurations you can drive on the road between Winton and Longreach and whether that rule is different from what might apply further down the track. When you travel from Winton to Longreach and further on down the road into New South Wales, I am sure you will find that a totally different set of rules apply. We obviously need that dispensation, but I would like people to consider the wider ramifications. Surely we can do something to more readily propagate agreement and an outbreak of peace between the states about what the rules should be. We need an end to the flood of paperwork backwards and forwards that drives truck drivers up the wall and really only adds costs for the people who are seeking to ship stuff backwards and forwards. As we consider this, we need to look at that wider question and, where possible, make a bid for standardisation.

I have with me the guidelines for multicombination vehicles in Queensland and the New South Wales RTA vehicle standards information. They are completely different documents and, if you merged them together, there are bound to be tears. They do not quite fit. But the more that can be done to bring those together in the service of commerce in Australia, better traffic flow and reducing the blood pressure of the many hard-working truck drivers who have to deal with this kind of stuff the better. We should be seeking standardisation for those commercial operators, just as we seek greater standardisation and the more sensible flow of data backwards and forwards in support of the flow of our military vehicles.

I strongly support this legislation. It is important that we have traffic flows that readily support our defence forces and get rid of those old problems that used to be a nightmare for commanders in forward bases such as Darwin in respect of the logistics when they needed to press the button to quickly move equipment back and forward. We are overcoming those problems, but more needs to be done. We need to remember that the defence forces provide an essential service to our nation and they need to be facilitated.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005, which has been proposed by the Howard government in this parliament. At the outset, I want to compliment my colleague and friend the member for Blair, who is well known in this parliament, in his electorate and in Queensland more widely for his faith in our defence forces. RAAF Base Amberley is in his electorate and I know that he comes to this parliament with a very real passion for promoting good policy on issues that affect not only the Amberley Air Force base in Blair but the wider defence community.

I have in my electorate Witton Barracks, a small barracks in the suburb of Indooroopilly, where my electorate office is. I am looking forward to more interaction with the new Minister for Defence, the new Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, all of whom are new to their roles. I commend them very strongly on the work they have done in the parliament and are about to do in their new roles. Witton Barracks houses defence transport load vehicles. From time to time I see defence transport vehicles driving in the electorate of Ryan and defence personnel going about their work at Witton Barracks. Therefore, I have an interest in speaking on this bill—although I have no expertise, certainly not compared to my colleague the member for Blair.

This bill provides a legislative basis for the defence road transport exemption framework, which details exemptions from the operation of state and territory road transport laws that will be applied uniformly across Australia. The Defence Act 1903 provides immunity from certain state and territory laws for members of the Australian Defence Force. The relevant section is section 123(1). This bill will play a role in limiting that immunity by establishing a defence road transport exemption framework that outlines exemptions and processes that will be applied nationally across the states and territories to support the work and the conduct of ADF road transport operations.

The exemption framework was negotiated between the ADF and state and territory road transport authorities—a good example of these two tiers of government working well to achieve a sensible outcome. The exemption framework establishes the specific categories of exemptions that will apply for principal ADF routes used in exercises or operations and day-to-day activities. In addition, the exemption framework is intended to ensure the integrity of civilian infrastructure and facilities used by the ADF. As I said, with the Witton Barracks in my electorate, I am keen to know whether this infrastructure, as it stands, is encompassed in this bill. Currently it is under the flag of the Department of Defence. From time to time there is conversation and speculation that these premises, this physical real estate, in the Ryan electorate might turn into civilian infrastructure, given its prime location right on the river banks of Indooroopilly.

The exemption framework matches load limits on vehicles with the current capacity of roads and bridges throughout Australia. It imposes mass limits for ADF vehicles in combinations, including their loads, as well as mass limits for individual tyres, wheels, axles and axle groups. Defence vehicles are very different from civilian vehicles. That is no surprise—they are deliberately different. They serve a different purpose. Therefore, it is important that these types of vehicles fit in with the wider usage of civilian infrastructure. The exemption framework also imposes rules about the size of a load, how far it might project from the vehicle, warning signals for certain projections and securing loads.

The exemption framework also details the specific licensing and road rule exemptions for members of our Defence Force when they engage in defence related activities. The ADF has a certain type of accredited training for its professional drivers. The basic driver course includes training in the carriage of dangerous goods and explosives, and drivers are required to requalify every three years. It is important that those in the Defence Force who have great responsibility in carrying dangerous loads and driving these heavy vehicles are tested every three years on their skills and qualifications. Where state and territory legislation imposes a requirement for a special licence and the ADF trains to a similar standard, then consistent with the state and territory in question those requirements are deemed to occur.

The exemption framework provides that defence members are not required to produce a state or territory licence when driving an authorised defence vehicle on defence related business or activity. However, it should be pointed out that ADF personnel are required to carry and produce on demand their current defence licence, their driver qualification log and the vehicle authorisation and task form. This is part of the important checks and balances that exist in the contract between the defence department and the larger civilian community. It is important for our communities that those who purport to engage in a legitimate activity through the responsibility of driving and carrying loads related to their defence work are able, without any difficulty, to prove that to a legitimate officer. One suspects, of course, that officer would be a member of the state or territory police force in question.

Defence licences are cancelled if the holder’s civilian licence is cancelled in any state or territory, or if the holder’s employment with the defence department is terminated. Equally, a defence licence will be suspended if the holder’s civilian licence is suspended in any state or territory or if the holder fails to maintain currency of their defence licence where particular currency requirements exist. Defence licences are also reviewed when the holder is transferred or moves to another position within the Defence Force where those licences and that qualification will no longer be relevant. It is important to say that these exemptions will also apply to personnel from visiting foreign defence forces acting in accordance with an arrangement approved by the Australian defence forces. As the federal member for Ryan, I just wanted to speak briefly on this bill. In a small way it does have an impact on my community, given that Witton Barracks exist in my electorate and that from time to time we see defence vehicles coming into the electorate and using the bridges, roads and transport infrastructure.

The Australian Defence Force has a budget of some $17.5 billion. I understand that the government will continue to increase it by some three per cent. This is an important reflection on how the government values the Defence Force and how important a place it has in our society. All members on this side of the parliament—and I would like to think all federal opposition members hold the same view—have enormous respect and admiration for our defence personnel. We know that the new minister will have certain challenges ahead. However, he has been appointed to this important position because unquestionably he is one of the most significant figures in the current parliament in terms of his intellectual capacity and dedication to the task that he has.

In comparison to the $17.5 billion that the Australian government will be allocating for defence, it is mind-boggling to find that this year the United States defence budget, which includes the expenditure on Iraq and Afghanistan, will reach in excess of $US500 billion. This does not include, I understand, the war deployments—the Defense Secretary, Mr Rumsfeld, is only asking for a few hundred million more. This puts the position of the two countries in stark contrast. The US is a global player in terms of international economics and strategic affairs. We have an economy of some $800 billion and a national budget of some $220 billion. Of course we are unable realistically to compare ourselves with the US, but this does give a flavour of the expenditure of the two countries in this very important area of national affairs.

In conclusion, I again congratulate the new Minister for Defence, the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and the new Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I know they will carry the flag very strongly and competently. As a colleague in the parliament, I extend to them my best wishes.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I would like to thank the members for O’Connor, Fisher, Blair, Ryan, Barton and Werriwa for their contributions. The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 will underpin the exemption framework which, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, has been developed after extensive consultation with the states and territories. The existing wide immunity from state and territory laws provided to members of the Australian Defence Force under subsection 123(1) of the Defence Act will be limited to ensure that the road transport exemptions set out in the exemption framework can operate in the manner intended. Without this legislation it would be unclear how the existing immunity under the Defence Act operates in relation to the exemption framework developed in consultation with the states and territories and with the assistance of the National Transport Commission.

The Australian Defence Force is required to operate its land vehicle fleet without restrictions imposed by Commonwealth, state and territory road transport laws. Exemptions from particular road transport laws enable the ADF to move its capabilities quickly and efficiently across the Australian road transport network. The scope of exemptions required by the ADF relates to mass, size and loading requirements of its land transport vehicle fleet, and also to specific issues relating to ADF personnel, such as licensing, fatigue management and observation of certain road rules. Drawing on an issue raised by the member for Blair, the exemption framework intends to match load limits on vehicles with the current capacity of roads and bridges. It sets out the specific categories of exemptions that will apply for the principal ADF routes in day-to-day operations, exercises and more specific operations.

The exemption framework has recently been endorsed by the Australian Transport Council. It is a dynamic, collaborative document that will be maintained by the National Transport Commission in accordance with the continuing review process undertaken by the ADF in consultation with state and territory jurisdictions and will be implemented by those jurisdictions on a voluntary basis. The legislation does not impose any requirements on state and territory governments. It simply limits the current defence immunity and, in effect, replaces that immunity with the exemption framework. That exemption framework is an excellent example of state, territory and Commonwealth cooperation, with the governments coming together to achieve a worthwhile, mutually beneficial outcome in the national interest.

The need to establish a road transport exemption framework has been a priority for Defence for several years and its successful negotiation is testament to the dedication of all parties. The identification of key exemption requirements for the ADF capability has been matched by the need to address state and territory concerns about transporting heavy vehicles across their road networks. Furthermore, the cooperative and consultative process used to develop the framework, particularly the coordination role played by the National Transport Commission, can perhaps be used as a benchmark to obtain further road transport reform, as encouraged by the member for Blair during his contribution. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.