Chapter 2 - Transport and Regional Services Portfolio


Chapter 2 - Transport and Regional Services Portfolio

Department of Transport and Regional Services

2.1        The committee heard evidence from the department on Monday 22 May and Tuesday 23 May 2006. The hearing was conducted in the following order:

  • Corporate Services
  • Portfolio Strategic Policy and Projects
  • AusLink
  • Maritime and Land Transport
  • Australian Transport Safety Bureau
  • Australian Maritime Safety Authority
  • Aviation and Airports
  • Civil Aviation Safety Authority
  • Inspector of Transport Security
  • Office of Transport Security
  • Airservices Australia
  • Regional Services
  • Territories and Local Government
  • National Capital Authority

Secretary's overview

2.2        Proceedings began with a brief opening statement from the Acting Secretary of the department, Mr Mike Mrdak. He conveyed the apologies of the Secretary, Mr Michael Taylor, who was attending a meeting of the Transportation Working Group of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in Vietnam. Mr Mrdak went on to outline various staff changes which had taken place within the department.

2.3        The committee was also told that a temporary branch had been created within AusLink to manage the implementation of the Roads to Recovery strategic program. The branch will operate until the end of 2006, in order to assess the numerous applications received for the program.

Corporate Services

2.4        The committee again raised the issue of answers to questions on notice from the February additional estimates, as 56 answers remained outstanding at the due date of 6 April 2006. The Acting Secretary explained that measures had been instituted within the department to address this issue, and noted that their performance in this regard had improved since the previous round of estimates. The committee spent some time trying to establish whether the delay occurred in the department or in the minister's office, and the evidence given by the department was that a substantial number of questions required redrafting after they had been sent to the minister's office, causing some delay.[3]

2.5        The committee queried whether the government's new workplace legislation had any impact on the department's dealings with new and existing staff. The department explained that their collective agreement was being modified to ensure that it complies with the new legislation and assured the committee that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is being consulted throughout the process.

2.6        The committee sought an update on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) East Kimberly Indigenous trial. They asked whether the Secretary visited the trial site as he indicated he would at the previous round of estimates. The department stated that Mr Taylor had visited the trial site on 9 and 10 March this year, where he participated in a meeting of the COAG trial regional reference group, along with representatives of each of the communities.

2.7        The committee asked which key performance indicators were being used to measure the outcomes of the East Kimberly trial. The department explained that the trial is being measured against the objectives of the COAG Indigenous trials in total.[4]

2.8        The committee also asked about expenditure on the trial, particularly the expected increase in expenditure on projects. The department gave a breakdown of expenditure to date on three different projects, and undertook to provide information on the expenditure of the additional funds on notice.[5]

2.9        The committee queried the appropriation of $6 million for an unspecified purpose in the current budget. The department, supported by the minister (Senator the Hon Ian Campbell) explained that these funds are a contingency for decisions the government has taken, but has yet to announce.[6]

2.10      Other matters raised by the committee included:

  • The Secretary's remuneration arrangements, particularly with respect to his accommodation, hospitality and travel allowances (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, pp. 5–6).
  • Departmental staffing and entitlements, particularly of Indigenous staff and the support provided to them (pp. 6–7 and 11–12).
  • The work and operation of the department's governance centre (pp. 8–9).
  • The Secretary's participation in the Australian Government Secretaries Group, and his attendance at meetings (p. 11).
  • Additional funding provided to assist the implementation of actions agreed on at the 10 February COAG meeting (p. 12).
  • Necessity of funding for 'National security—strengthening air cargo security arrangements' (p. 13).
  • The Office of Transport Security's involvement with the Australian Government Transport Security Policy Committee and membership of the committee (p. 13).
  • Increase in staffing of the Office of Transport Security division and its internal budget (pp. 13–14).
  • Departmental travel: travel contract with American Express and best fare of the day policy (pp. 15–17).
  • The budget and schedule for the refurbishment of the national office (p. 17).
  • Fleet procurement and car use policy of the department (pp. 26-29).
  • The department's actions with regard to media leaks (pp. 29-31).
  • Absence of the minister at the memorial service for the victims of the Lockhart River air disaster (p. 31).
  • Media monitoring arrangements of the department (p. 31).

Portfolio Strategic Policy and Projects

2.11      The committee raised the issue of national highways and the difficulties that arise in projects because of the incongruity between state ownership of the roads and the Commonwealth's funding responsibility for them. It was asked whether the department is looking into better ways of managing the national highways to overcome these problems. The Acting Secretary responded that these issues were the driving force behind the creation of AusLink, which allows the department more involvement with project selection. He also stated that AusLink is seeking a contribution from states to the maintenance of the national highways. Consequently, under bilateral agreements the Commonwealth will provide $300 million annually for maintenance of the networks, while the states have accepted that they are required to maintain the networks "to a fit-for-purpose standard".[7]

2.12      The committee requested an update on various projects undertaken by the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE), including:

  • Freight measurement and modelling in Australia. The Executive Director of BTRE announced that the report had recently been released, and provided a copy to the committee (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, p. 40).
  • Analysis of Tasmania's economic turnaround (p. 40).
  • Research on the cost of road crashes (p. 40).

2.13      The committee also discussed matters relating to:

  • Mr Roger Fisher's work with Telstra (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, pp. 36–37).
  • National regulatory approaches to rail safety and operations, including the development of a single national piece of legislation and a single national regulator (pp. 37–38).
  • The budget and staffing of the division, including an increase in funding for BTRE to accommodate the Strategic Transport Policy Development Unit, which was transferred from the Maritime and Land Transport division (pp. 38–39).
  • Work undertaken by BTRE that is not publicly available (pp.39–40).
  • BTRE's program of projects for the coming financial year (p.41).

AusLink

2.14      The committee asked about funding provided for a number of specific roads and the allocation of that funding to related projects, namely:

  • The Bruce Highway and the Tully to Murray flood immunity project (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, pp. 42–44 and 55–56).
  • The Ipswich Motorway and the Toowoomba Bypass (pp. 42–44).
  • The Gold Coast Highway and the Tugun Bypass (pp. 42–44).
  • The Hume Highway and the Bypasses at Tarcutta, Holbrook and Woomargama (pp. 50–52).
  • The Pacific Highway and its duplication (pp. 51–52).
  • The Sturt Highway and the upgrade between Gawler and Nuriootpa (pp.53–54).
  • The East Tamar Highway and the upgrade between Launceston and Bell Bay (pp. 54-55).
  • The Ipswich-Logan Motorway, the Interchange and the Wacol to Darra section upgrade (pp. 71–72).

2.15      The department provided the committee with an overview of how the AusLink program is managed. They explained that states advise the department how much they believe they can expend on approved projects within the AusLink program. AusLink then negotiate an agreement on how the funds will be programmed with each state road authority, based on what they believe the government would be willing to make available in the budget. This results in a realistic estimate of what can be spent on each project during the year. The department further explained that payments are made to each state on a monthly basis, founded on their actual progress on projects, and what they expect to spend in the coming months.

2.16      The committee asked if work on the four pilot corridor strategies had been completed. The department responded that the studies were "in good final draft" and were awaiting endorsement by the Australian Transport Council.[8] Following this they will be presented to COAG. The department informed the committee that work is continuing on another 12 corridor strategies, and the remaining studies will be started by the end of 2006.[9]

2.17      The committee sought updates on the following AusLink road projects:

  • Bateman's Bay Bypass (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, p. 77)
  • The TransApex tunnel prefeasibility study (p. 74).
  • The extension of the night-time toll-free trial for trucks using the Logan Gateway Motorway (pp. 74–75).
  • Funding for the Perth to Bunbury Highway (aka the Peel deviation extension of the Kwinana Highway) (pp. 75-76).

2.18      The committee also heard evidence about:

  • Various reclassifications between appropriations made to ensure that the department could make payments properly (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, pp. 49–50).
  • Memoranda of understanding being discussed with each state government. Funding for the states' respective highways is conditional upon signing these memoranda (pp. 50–56, see also paragraph 2.11).
  • Preliminary investigations by the department into financing options for roads, including tolling (pp. 52–53).
  • The decision-making process which led to the selection of the particular roads funded in this year's budget (pp. 56–58 and 72–74).
  • Guidelines used to determine the eligibility of projects under the Roads to Recovery program (pp.62–63).
  • Inspection and auditing processes of the department, and the Australian National Audit Office's (ANAO) performance audit of the Roads to Recovery program (pp. 64–66).
  • Staffing of the Roads to Recovery program (pp. 66–67).
  • The Strathbogie Shire bridge program, which was criticised in the ANAO performance audit report (pp. 67–69).
  • Funding for resleepering projects to improve the national rail track between Melbourne and Queensland (pp. 69–70).
  • The rescue package for Tasmanian freight rail services (pp. 79–80).
  • Allocation of Black Spot Program funding (pp. 81–82).

Maritime and Land Transport

2.19      The committee asked about compensation claims made to the Commonwealth by Albany Port. The department stated that this is not an issue they have been dealing with, and further noted that it is a matter of legal dispute between the Department of Defence and the Port of Albany. On this basis the department considered it inappropriate to comment.[10]

2.20      The committee showed considerable interest in the Australian Design Rules for vehicles, particularly those governing speedometers. The committee questioned why speedometers display speeds 170 kilometres an hour faster that the legal speed limit. The department replied that they are attempting to ensure that all Australian vehicles are in line with the international United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) regulations. They further indicated that changing the speedometer may have implications for how Australian vehicles are received in international markets, and may affect manufacturers' decisions to import vehicles into the Australian marketplace. It was also pointed out that there is no evidence that changing the calibration of a speedometer would benefit Australian society or the economy.[11]

2.21      The committee asked further whether any consideration had been given to making seatbelts mandatory in all new buses. The Acting Secretary advised that while consideration has been given to the issue, jurisdictions have taken an approach which is risk specific to certain routes, due to the "higher risk profile" of those routes.[12] The department informed the committee that a requirement for seatbelts in buses would involve not only additional costs, but a significant increase in the number of buses to ensure that all passengers are belted.[13]

2.22      The committee also inquired whether the department had carried out any research into the effectiveness of day running lights. The department responded that although they had not undertaken such research, similar studies have been completed both overseas and by the Australian Road Research Board for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The department is awaiting the outcome of international consideration on the issue in terms of the UN ECE regulations. Should this be adopted as an ECE regulation, the department would begin to consider implementing it as an Australian Design Rule.[14]

2.23      The committee also discussed:

  • Work by the National Transport Commission (NTC) on heavy vehicle fatigue and the department's response (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, pp. 83–84).
  • Reasons for the rejection of the NTC's proposed third heavy vehicle charges determination (pp. 84–85).
  • The Productivity Commission's review of road and rail pricing (pp. 85).
  • Federal Interstate Registration Scheme registration fees (pp. 85–86).
  • The national skills crisis in the transport industry, particularly the work of the Transport and Logistics Centre and programs run through the Department of Education, Science and Training (pp. 87–89).
  • Standards and approvals for motorised scooters and motorised wheelchairs (pp. 94–95).

Australian Transport Safety Bureau

2.24      The committee asked why the post-licence driver education program had not progressed past the developmental stage. The department explained that delays had occurred for a variety of reasons, including concerns about the sufficiency of funding due to a series of unknown variables associated with such a large scale trial. The main hold-up however, had been the length of time taken by Victoria to consent to the legal agreements. The department was pleased to inform the committee that this consent had recently been obtained, and the program has resumed its progress forward.[15]

2.25      Other matters raised included:

  • Reasons for the Commonwealth's limited involvement with the Australian New Car Assessment Program (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, pp. 95–98).
  • Progress of the National Road Safety Strategy and initiatives in the budget to help reduce the national road toll (pp. 98–102).
  • Shipping accidents involving flag of convenience vessels, including those of the Probo Bear and the Aristagoras (pp. 105–108).
  • Progress on the final report into the Lockhart River air tragedy (p. 108).

Australian Maritime Safety Authority

2.26      The committee inquired about Australian Maritime Safety Authority's (AMSA) inspection of the following vessels:

  • The Alexandros T, which subsequently sank with a loss of 26 lives (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, pp. 108–109).
  • The Immacolata (pp.109–110).
  • The Jian Seng, an abandoned vessel (pp. 112–115 and 120–121).

2.27      The committee thanked the department for the detailed information they provided on notice relating to the Thor Hawk. They queried why AMSA did not discover that the cranes being operated by the Thor Hawk were not certified. The department explained to the committee that the responsibility for checking gear and ensuring it is operational lies with the person in charge of cargo handling, usually the stevedore. The department has since undertaken to reinforce specific responsibilities with port stevedores.[16]

2.28      The committee also discussed matters relating to:

  • Progress of work on emergency towage arrangements (Estimates Hansard, 22 May 2006, pp. 110–111).
  • The sinking of the Malu Sara, particularly the letter of survey issued to the vessel by AMSA (pp. 115–120).

Aviation and Airports

2.29      The committee followed up on the Perth airport lease agreement with Westralia Airports Corporation, particularly in relation to rate equivalent payments. It was established that prospective lessees were informed about their obligation to make rate equivalent payments. The department advised the committee that it would be meeting with the City of Belmont for discussions once the minister has considered the advice he has been given.[17]

2.30      Other issues raised by the committee included:

  • Adelaide and Sydney airport noise amelioration programs (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 3–4).
  • Development of a new airservices agreement with United Arab Emirates (p. 4).
  • Canberra airport planning regime and runway strengthening project (pp. 11–17).
  • Proposal to build a brickworks on the Perth airport site (pp. 18–20).

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

2.31      The committee raised further concerns about the failure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) audit of TransAir prior to the Lockhart River air tragedy. The committee questioned why CASA did not establish that load sheets were often not left at Bamaga. The department explained that audits are a sampling exercise, so only certain sectors and certain aspects of the operation were looked at, as is general practice. Mr Byron went on to assure the committee that

...if there had been any examples during those flights that were observed of people not leaving a load sheet then it would have been identified immediately.[18]

2.32      The committee was also concerned that despite the fact that human factors training was mandated in the company's operations manual, it was not included in the audit of TransAir pilots. The department stated that although companies are supposed to abide by their operations manuals, CASA does not enforce compliance. This is due to their concern that prosecuting operators for breaching the manual would be counterproductive, and may risk operators removing certain safety enhancements that are above the minimum safety requirements from their manuals.[19] The committee expressed significant concern that safety elements in operations manuals are not enforced, and asked the department to provide a list of un-enforced safety enhancements. The department undertook to provide this information on notice.[20]

2.33      The committee sought information on alcohol and drug testing for airline pilots. The department informed the committee that, at the request of the minister, they are developing a set of draft regulations to ensure that selective testing for pilots and other "safety sensitive people" is mandatory.[21] It is expected that these will be implemented by the end of 2007.[22]

2.34      The committee also discussed the following matters:

  • CASA's independence as a statutory authority and its relationship with the minister and the government, particularly in relation to the National Airspace System (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 20–25).
  • CASA's restructure, the subsequent redeployment of staff and the effect of the government's new industrial relations legislation on this process (pp. 25–28).
  • The effect of the 'acceptable means of compliance' principle on CASA procedures (p. 28).
  • Implementation of extra checks on regular public transport (RPT) operators (p. 29).
  • Appointment of Mr Arthur White as the Industry Complaints Commissioner (pp. 29–30).
  • Progress on the development of an operator risk model (pp.30–31).
  • Issue of Aviation Security Identity Cards (ASIC) (pp. 31–33).
  • The employment of, and work undertaken by, Mr Ian Harvey QC (p. 39).
  • CASA's surveillance of the operator involved in the Mount Hotham crash (pp.40–41).
  • CASA's relationship with Polar Aviation and the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (pp. 41–44).
  • Safety of carry-on baggage (pp. 45–46).
  • Air safety and cabin air quality reference group (pp. 46–47).
  • Mr Byron's overseas trip in 2005 (pp. 47–48).

Inspector of Transport Security

2.35      The committee had a brief discussion with officers from the Office of the Inspector of Transport Security (IOTS) on the following:

  • Mr Palmer's contract (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 49-50).
  • IOTS's internal budget (pp. 50–51).
  • Mr Palmer's overseas travel, and the nature of his work on these trips (pp. 50–52).
  • Progress on the drafting of legislation for the division (p. 52).

Office of Transport Security

2.36      The committee discussed various issues with officers from the Office of Transport Security, including:

  • Administration of single and continuing voyage permits (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 52–53).
  • Identification of vessels operating under flags of convenience (pp. 53-54).
  • The department's actions in relation to permit-breaches by various vessels (p. 54).
  • The ministerial guidelines for granting licences and permits to vessels (pp. 54–56).
  • Regulations governing unattended baggage at airports (pp. 58–59).
  • Concerns that the new trend towards quick check-in facilities at airports allows passengers to board domestic flights without having to show photo identification (p. 60).
  • Application processes for ASICs, and the rejection of applications (pp. 60–63).
  • Issues surrounding the implementation of the Maritime Security Identity Card (pp. 63–69).

Airservices Australia

2.37      The committee sought an update on Airservices Australia's international activities. The department pointed out that Australia has an international reputation as a good air navigation service provider. Airservices is making an effort to ensure that civil aviation in countries in our region is safe. They are currently working with Indonesia to improve training standards for air traffic controllers, and are also helping Papua New Guinea rebuild their civil aviation capacity.[23]

2.38      Other matters raised by the committee included:

  • The restructure of the organisation (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 69–71).
  • The rescue and fire service at Avalon (pp. 71-72).
  • Project Genesis (pp. 73–75).
  • The new terminal at Adelaide airport, and replacement of the control tower (pp. 75–76).

Regional Services

2.39      The committee showed interest in the review of Area Consultative Committees (ACC) boundaries, and asked the department for information on the review. The department outlined that the review was looking at whether the current boundaries were appropriate, as there have been issues in the past with some of the metropolitan ACC's absorbing more funding overall, resulting in a lesser number of Regional Projects. The minister is currently consulting with ACCs, and once this is completed, the government will make a decision regarding the review.[24]

2.40      The committee requested an update on the progress of the government response to the Senate committee inquiry into Regional Partnerships. The department claimed that this was a matter for government and that they could not comment on when the response might be tabled.[25]

2.41      The department informed the committee that only two out of the 37 Regional Partnerships projects promised in the last federal election were waiting to have funding agreements signed. The committee showed interest in the number of jobs created by the Regional Partnerships program to date, and the department undertook to provide this figure on notice.[26]

2.42      The committee asked about the progress of a number of projects, including:

  • Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, p. 85 and 88)
  • Bank@Post (p. 85).
  • RM Williams centre (pp. 86–87).
  • Mackay Science and Technology precinct (p. 87).
  • Buchanan Park Rodeo (p. 87).
  • Dalby showgrounds (pp. 87–88).
  • Tamworth Equine Centre (p. 88).
  • Bert Hinkler Hall of Aviation (pp. 88–89).
  • Jimbour amphitheatre (p. 89).
  • Primary energy grant (pp. 89–90).
  • Newman town centre (p. 90).
  • Collocation facilities in Hopetoun, Western Australia

2.43      The committee also discussed the following issues:

  • Regional Service's internal budget (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 76–78).
  • Funding for ACCs (pp. 78–82).
  • Progress of the single assessment process for Regional Partnership applications, and the development of new guidelines for project approval (pp. 82–83)
  • The Sustainable Regions Program (pp. 83–84).
  • The failure of the Coonawarra Gold Facilities project (pp. 90–91).

Territories and Local Government

Norfolk Island

2.44      The department outlined details of the High Court challenge to the validity of the Norfolk Island Amendment Act 2004. The committee asked whether there had been any expense to the Commonwealth due to these proceedings, and the department assured senators that there had not. The committee further asked if the Norfolk Islands government had been indemnified by a private citizen in this case. The department undertook to provide this information on notice.[27]

2.45      The committee showed considerable interest in the financial management of Norfolk Island. A series of questions about the Norfolk Sustainability Levy, a one per cent levy on goods and services recently passed by the Norfolk Island government. The department abstained from answering a number of questions about the governance and financial accountability of Norfolk Island on the grounds that they were matters for the Norfolk Island government.[28]

2.46      Other issues raised by the committee in relation to Norfolk Island included:

  • The work of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the island (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 92–95).
  • Challenges to the accuracy of the Acumen report (pp. 95–96).
  • Norfolk Island public servants and their employment conditions (pp. 98–101).
  • Commonwealth public servants on secondment with the Norfolk Island Government (pp. 98–99).
  • Procedures for, and participation in, Australian federal elections (pp. 102–103).

Christmas Island

2.47      The committee again raised the issue of the broken tower crane on Christmas Island. The department stated that the crane is expected to be fully operational during July this year, after being out of service for six months.[29] The committee asked a series of questions about the maintenance regime and schedule of the crane, as well as the maintenance reports and other reports relating to the crane's failure. The department undertook to supply the requested information on notice.[30]

2.48      The committee also attempted to ascertain where responsibility lay for the contract relating to the crane. The department took those questions on notice.[31]

2.49      The committee pursued the following additional matters in relation to the Christmas Island crane:

  • Legal advice sought by the department (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 107–108).
  • The timeliness of the department's action schedule (pp. 108–109).
  • The impact of the crane's failure on the community and actions taken by the department to ease this (pp. 109–110).

2.50      Other issues the committee raised regarding Christmas Island included:

  • The failure of the funding agreement for the space base (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 110-111).
  • Funding for the island's infrastructure (pp. 111–112).
  • The condition of the Christmas Island Resort and the lease of the resort (pp. 112–113).
  • The lease of land for the Linkwater Road upgrade and for the related water infrastructure (p. 113).

National Capital Authority

2.51      The committee raised the following matters with officers from the National Capital Authority (NCA):

  • The funding for, and envisaged stages of, The Griffin Legacy, a project for the development of the central capital area of Canberra (Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2006, pp. 113–115).
  • Plans for Constitution Avenue, and implications for parking (pp. 115-116).
  • Proposed redevelopment around the National Library, and the development process, including consultation. The related issues of consequential tree removal and car access to the foreshore area were also discussed (pp. 117–122).
  • Removal of the land of the Canberra International Airport from the requirements of the National Capital Plan (pp. 122–123, see also paragraph 2.30).
  • Progress on plans for State Circle (p. 123).
  • The Pierces Creek redevelopment (pp. 123–125).
  • Funding, consultancies and tenders for activities to promote the National Capital (pp. 125–126).
  • Parliament House child-care centre (pp.126–127).
  • Feasibility study for a 2,000-metre rowing course (p. 127).
  • Impact of the Uhrig review on the NCA (pp. 127–128).
  • Changes to the board of the NCA (pp. 128–129).

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page