WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Date Introduced: 2 April 1998
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Transport and Regional Development
Commencement: On Royal Assent.
Purpose
To amend the Interstate Road Transport Act
1985 (the Principal Act), following the granting of
self-government to the ACT, to cause the ACT to be treated on equal
terms with other States under the legislation. The amendments would
provide the ACT with the power to appoint its own enforcement
officers, since the Commonwealth can no longer do this in the
self-governing Territory. The Bill also amends the Principal Act to
convert the existing monetary penalties to equivalent penalty units
and inserts appropriate references to provisions of the Crimes
Act 1914.
Background
The application of cost recovery policies to the
interstate road freight industry has been a complex issue. In the
landmark Hughes and Vale (No. 2) decision in
1955, the High Court found that the only charge which could be
levied upon interstate operators had to be related to wear and tear
on roads caused by such operators.(1) Any higher charge imposed by
a State would be seen as a restraint of free interstate trade and
commerce and thus be in contravention of s.92 of the Constitution.
Various States thus imposed so-called road maintenance charges, at
a reasonably low rate, on heavy vehicles, including interstate
carriers. Following a major truck blockade in 1979, these charges
were subsequently abolished.(2)
In 1985, the Commonwealth established the
Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) under the
Interstate Road Transport Act 1985. This Scheme had two
main objectives. Firstly, the Scheme enabled the Commonwealth to
impose a uniform Federal interstate registration charge which would
not face constitutional obstacles, the proceeds of which would be
refunded to the States to assist with road cost recovery. This
charge is imposed by the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act
1985. Secondly, the Scheme enabled the Commonwealth to
regulate aspects of the road transport industry when agreement with
the States could not be reached on particular issues.
Several examples of such regulation can be
quoted. Following the Review of Road Vehicle Limits in 1984, the
Commonwealth argued that certain efficiencies could be achieved by
raising the gross vehicle mass (GVM) limit to 42.5 tonnes before a
vehicle would require a permit to operate. Since a number of States
disagreed with this position, the Commonwealth allowed FIRS
registered vehicles to operate up to 42.5 tonnes GVM free of
permits. In the case of FIRS registered B-doubles (large
articulated vehicles with a GVM of up to 60 tonnes) the
Commonwealth granted permits for such vehicles to operate on
designated routes.
A significant number of operators chose to
register their vehicles under FIRS rather than State registries to
gain the advantage of higher GVM limits. Furthermore, the
Commonwealth, unlike the States, does not impose stamp duty on its
vehicle registrations. However, the States and Territories
administer the Scheme on behalf of the Commonwealth. As mentioned
previously, funds raised from FIRS registration fees are not
retained by the Commonwealth but are refunded to the States. It is
estimated that, in 1997-98, around $15.3 million will be
refunded.
The importance of FIRS is declining somewhat.
The 1988 decision of the High Court in the matter of Cole v
Whitfield had implications for road cost recovery.(3) The
Court ruled that an action by a State would not contravene s.92 of
the Constitution if that action did not discriminate between
interstate and intrastate trade and commerce. This has left the way
open for the States to impose their own road user charges on
vehicles (including interstate carriers). Furthermore, the States
and the Commonwealth have moved, by mutual agreement, towards more
nationally uniform charges and regulations. In this environment,
one of the few benefits to an owner of registering a vehicle under
FIRS is simply the avoidance of State stamp duty.
It might be argued that the existence of FIRS
simply adds another layer onto the fabric of State and Territory
vehicle charging and regulation. Where the Commonwealth and the
States agree to new regulations (traffic fine structures,
registration charges, etc), consequential amendments to the
Principal Acts must be passed by the Federal Parliament. The
problem of Commonwealth-State co-ordination is illustrated by the
current Bill Following the granting of self government to the ACT,
the Commonwealth can no longer appoint enforcement officers in the
ACT. This Bill ensures that the word 'State' encompasses the ACT
and thus permits that Territory to appoint inspectors.
Main
Provisions
Item 3 of the Schedule to the
Bill amends sub-section 3(1) of the Principal Act to include the
Australian Capital Territory in the definition of a 'State'.
Items 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23,
24, 25, 34 and 37 amend the Principal Act
as a consequence of the inclusion of the Australian Capital
Territory in the definition of a 'State'. These items remove
specific references to the Australian Capital Territory from the
legislation.
Item 1 inserts into subsection
3(1) of the Principal Act a new definition of the term 'carriage of
passengers or goods between prescribed places' to mean interstate
carriage, including the carriage of passengers or goods between a
State and the Australian Capital Territory.
Items 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 26 to 33 and
38 to 41 revise the way in which the legislation specifies
fines and penalties.
Concluding Comments
The Federal Interstate Registration Scheme has
played an important role in the achievement of more rational cost
recovery in the interstate road freight industry and has been
instrumental in bringing about nationally uniform regulations.
However, the significance and rationale of the Scheme would appear
to have diminished somewhat in recent years.
Endnotes
- (1955) 93 CLR 127.
- However, a number of States responded to the abolition of road
maintenance charges by imposing fuel franchise fees.
- (1988) 165 CLR 360.
Denis James
7 May 1998
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with
Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 1998
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
1998.
Back to top