COMMENT: There’s something foul in the air when an ex-police officer criticises an enforcement procedure.
I’ve had a very interesting communication from a concerned reader last week. He expressed his disgust (his word, not mine) that a police officer would write up Dan Roe up for accidently failing to tick his BFM box on one day. As he has explained and those of us on this side of the law understand, it is a simple matter to flip over a few pages. Dan’s error would have been apparent as a mistake and, of course, ensuring the fatigue program being claimed is actually valid.
These comments, ladies and gentlemen, come from a now retired very high-ranking police task force officer. He comments that he couldn’t imagine this type of trivial administrative breach getting to court. I did explain in return conversation that the RMS explicitly rule out administrative errors as being grounds for discarding the breach.
There is further significant comment in the letter. He expressed concern at drivers not recording a change of activity, such as loading and unloading being recorded as rest, and the fatigue safety implications of such.
“Any new regulation should require the enforcement officer to stipulate a degree of aggravation which would cause the administrative breach to have a safety implication. Example! There has to be evidence of a sinister motive with supporting information,” he wrote.
My correspondent also expressed dissatisfaction with importing people from overseas who might well be licensed there but who are not required to engage in training to our standards. The failure to have a level playing field is another concern. Primary industry registration is a classic instance.
Political correctness
From time to time, my friend Chris Roe and I partake in phone discussions. Chris has been at pains to explain to me that the current board of the National Road Freighters Association (NRFA) is very keen to develop a positive public profile. This conversation followed my urging to have as many politicians as possible attend the NRFA’s February conference. My attitude is that it is a waste of time pandering to bureaucracy if the NRFA is serious in talking about truckies working for truckies.
In a report delivered to NatRoad by Castalia from a study done some 13 years ago, it stated, “Border crossings are a high stress node in the transport network”. (Castalia, Securing a national approach to heavy vehicle regulation – report to the National Road Transport Association [NatRoad] February 2009, page 22.) According to industry sources, drivers who cross borders experience considerable compliance stress with attendant health risks. So where has NatRoad’s concerns gone? And is the board of NRFA also more concerned with warm and fuzzy feelings than attacking real issues? This report was in response to industry calling for regulation uniformity nationwide. My view is that associations are a tool to advance the conditions under which the industry functions – not forums for fellowship.
In Queensland’s Courier Mail, Tuesday, November 1 under the heading of ‘Audit Office slams public service, it read, “Queensland’s public service is unwilling to learn from mistakes and has to be forced into action to improve according to the Auditor General in his latest scathing spray”. Meanwhile, industry associations are pandering to the politically correct mantra in their dealings with our bureaucracy.
I have been critical of the lack of progress in nationalising Australia’s road transport law. The nation needs uniformity in regulation for the economic imperatives. We’re already so far out of economic touch with the rest of the world’s economies that it is well past being a joke. Our very security is considerably compromised. The nation needs regulation uniformity because, as Castalia reported, crossing borders with the current mismatch of laws causes stress and consequently health risks.
RELATED ARTICLE: Naming the offender
It is no secret that stress is a major contributor to poor health. If, as a bureaucracy, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator is having difficulty in driving progress towards national uniformity, than how does industry get results? The only option is to use members elected by society to work in the interests of our society – politicians.
The article in the Courier Mail states that bureaucracy targets outputs rather than outcomes. Performance-based standards for instance? Is the failure of the National Transport Commission to develop laws that have less stress impact and better economic potential further evidence of bureaucracy failing to put in place relevant, measurable and achievable performance measurements?
This month I’m reading The Mighty Krait by Ian McPhedran. I’ve said it before, I don’t advocate the material I select because I’m a warmonger. They are stories from our very troubled past where mostly young Aussies gave their all to ensure our future – yours and mine. Sadly, that attitude of selflessness for the betterment of all Australians is a thing of the past.
|
|
KEN WILKIE has been an owner-driver since 1974, after first getting behind the wheel at 11. He’s on his eighth truck, and is a long-time Owner//Driver contributor. He covers Rockhampton to Adelaide and any point in between. His current ambition is to see the world, and to see more respect for the nation’s truckies. Contact Ken at ken@rwstransport.com.au