MORE INDUSTRY NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
MORE TECHNICAL NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
RELATED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular
COMMENTED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular

main image

By Brad Gardner | November 23, 2009

NSW has launched a review into chain of responsibility laws to determine if they need to be “urgently” strengthened in the wake of the failed Graincorp prosecution.

Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport David Borger says the Road Freight Advisory Council raised concerns last week the Supreme Court ruling in favour of Graincorp could undermine the laws.

The Supreme Court last week dismissed an appeal by the RTA that Graincorp should be held accountable for overloading offences in 2005.

The Government plans to complete the review before Christmas to determine if the laws are tough enough.

“Council has told me that it’s essential that the chain of responsibility laws are not undermined or brought into doubt, and they’ve expressed concern that a recent Supreme Court judgment might be perceived as having that effect,” Borger says.

“We won’t allow that to happen, and I’ve agreed to examine urgently whether chain of responsibility laws in NSW should be further strengthened.”

Borger says the council, which includes respected industry leaders Ron Finemore and Jim Savage, pledged support for the laws and called for them to be tightened.

“Council’s advice is clear: these laws are driving profound improvements in safety culture and compliance in the road freight and logistics sector, particularly amongst freight customers – and these leaders want it to continue,” Borger says.

He says the Government is committed to holding all parties accountable to promote safety and compliance.

Transport specialist law firm King Christopher Pidcock Lawyers say the court ruling will help those bound by chain of responsibility to understand their obligations.

Solicitor David King-Christopher says transport operators have been asking: “just what is required of me to discharge or exhaust my responsibilities under the new chain of responsibility regime?”

Judge Peter Hall ruled Graincorp had no choice but to accept overloaded trucks because turning them away would have exposed the consignor to potential breaches of road laws.

The court also found Graincorp’s policy of written warnings to drivers was an acceptable method of complying with chain of responsibility requirements.

“Thankfully the Supreme Court has provided some assistance in that it has effectively said that a receiver of freight has not breached its statutory duty under the legislation by providing its freight transporters with a directive that they recognise their duties and responsibilities under the chain of responsibility…,” King-Christopher says.

The Road Freight Advisory Council’s call for the laws to be tightened is part of a wider agenda proposed by the members who called for a focus on safety, compliance and economic efficiency in 2010.

Borger says he will work closely with the council to improve freight efficiency and to ensure NSW roads are being used efficiently.

The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has not yet decided if it will appeal the Supreme Court’s decision.


COMMENTS (3)
Comment by 16718989
posted 8 months ago
Notwithstanding the anomilies that exist within the Compliance and Enforcement Law, which includes Chain of Responsibility, it is the law and is a responsible and much needed law because for far to long transport companies and consignors have, as part of their operational procedures, gotten away with dangerous and NOW illegal practices which indanger lives of the public and drivers. The attempt at driving a distinction between the larger companies and smaller ones is ridiclous. Regardless of the size illegal practices and unsafe operations cause damage and death. STOP. These practices must be stopped and if that requires them to be litigated out so be it. Could the RTA be doing a better job? Yes. Are they out of touch with the constant demands and financial pressure business is under? Yes. But here's the thing. If you are willing to run the guantlet and flagrently break the law then dont whine when you get caught. The evidence is compelling. CoR Laws are highlighting to all in the supply chain to either do the right thing, obey the law or get out. You are not wanted or required in the transport industry.
Comment by Unknown
posted 8 months ago
I have watched with great interest the case between Grain Corp and the RTA. When one looks at what the Judge has handed down it makes complete sense that two wrongs don't make a right. Unfortunately there is very little common sense within the RTA with no one accountable for the expenditure in its pursuit of litigation. Sadly the RTA has become a department hell bent on litigation not working with our industry for a better outcome for both sides. The sooner the state government goes to the polls, is dismissed and this department dismantled and put together with the view of working with our industry not against us, the better it will be for all in the transport industry in NSW, Graeme Burke Burkes Transport (Bathurst) Pty Ltd
Comment by Harry
posted 8 months ago
At least the Supreme Court has some common sense. I am fearful of the direction Fox and other fealess leaders are coming from. They are coming from a corporate viewpoint! Lets get this straight, corporations are for corporations; not the individual. You know us!! COR can only be viewed on a case by case basis due to the myriad of surrounding relationships. Cost benefit is vitally important but often overlooked. COR allows controlling oriented agencies (often customers) to reach into other agencies with H,S&E demands prior to consignment (and often post contract); is often used for a sticky beak, (or you will do it as we want you to do it) exercise. Reasonableness must be applied and enacted. Also; most importantly; where is the protection for for small/med business doing the right thing; but subject to influence from large corporations. Where a contract is entered, and then specific action is required post-contract, not specifically initially contractually required, the contract should remain binding provided the SME has reasonable H, S, & E controls. Ian Scagliotti, Townsville.

Add Comment
SUBMIT COMMENT
Sunday, August 01, 2010