To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Transport Legislation Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legislation in Victoria is enacted by the Parliament of Victoria. The Parliament is a bicameral, or two-house, legislature. It comprises the Queen of Australia, the Legislative Assembly or Lower House and the Legislative Council or Upper House. The head of the State Government is the Premier of Victoria.

The Transport Legislation Review is a policy and legislation review project conducted by the Department of Transport in the State of Victoria, Australia between 2004 and late 2010. The aim of the project was review of transport policy and laws and generation of new policy and legislation as a platform for better transport across the State.

The Review was the most extensive project of its kind in transport in Victoria[1] and touched all areas of transport including land and water based transport activities. Proposals were developed by the Review for consideration by the Victorian Government and proceeded initially as policy ideas. Proposals were progressively refined over time using modules and sub projects sometimes in response to stakeholder input. Outputs from Review often proceeded as new State regulatory schemes and laws, commonly in the form of Bills considered by the Victorian Parliament.

The new laws which arose from the Review had regulatory and de-regulatory effects in particular areas.[2] The Review was notable for pursuing principle-based initiatives,[3] introducing performance-based concepts into transport law often in the form of safety duties owed by industry participants to persons using transport services and to other industry participants[4] and suites of new administrative and court sanctions targeted at non compliance. The project also had significant impacts on organisational arrangements in Victorian transport.

The Victorian Government Ministers who oversaw the work of the project at times were Peter Batchelor, Lynne Kosky, Tim Pallas and Martin Pakula.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    905 730
    30 835
  • Progressive Presidents: Crash Course US History #29
  • Explosives Underground -- Handling Explosives in Modern Mines

Transcription

Episode 29: Progressive Presidents Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. History and today we’re going to finish our discussion of Progressivism, and indulge in a bit of “great man” history. Mr. Green, Mr. Green! Great man history, huh? Well I was born on a sunny, summer morning in 197-- Yeah you’re not great, Me from the Past. Also, you’re a boy not a man, and the only historically significant thing you ever participated in was a brilliant senior prank that wasn’t even your idea. However, 39 of our 43 presidents were, at least arguably, great men and today we’ll be talking about three of them. It will be kind of like a Jefferson vs. Hamilton for the 20th century, except not like that at all. But there will be a canal, and TWO people get shot. Intro So, as we saw in CrashCourse World History, national governments were on the rise from the middle of the 19th century until basically now. And in the U.S., Corporations became national and then, by the twentieth century, international. Like, the British East India Company was kind of an international corporation, but it wasn’t the same as Coca-Cola, although they did both deal in narcotics. And this mania for nationalization even affected sports. Like, in baseball, the National league and the American league were formed and in 1903 they played the first inaccurately named World Series. I’m sorry, was Botswana invited? Then it’s not a World Series. Anyway, the rise of a strong, national government was seen as an alternative to people’s lives being controlled by provincial city and state governments or by ever-growing corporations. Like, Herbert Croly, editor of the New Republic, thought that to achieve the Jeffersonian democratic self-determination ideal of individual freedom, the country needed to employ Hamiltonian government intervention in the economy. And he wasn’t the only one who believed that. Okay, so in 1901, 42-year-old Theodore Roosevelt became the youngest American president ever after William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz. Czol--? Czolg--? Czol--? Hold on. “Czolgosz. Polish.” Czolgosz? Czolgosz? His name was Leon Chuckles? Man, Leon Chuckles was a real barrel of laughs for an anarchist. Usually they’re very serious. Right, so Leon Chuckles paved the way for Teddy Roosevelt, who in many ways the model of the 20th century president. He was very engaged in both domestic and foreign policy and he set the political agenda for the whole country. His political program, the Square Deal, aimed to distinguish good corporations that provided useful products and services at fair prices from evil corporations that existed just to make money. That is hilarious. A corporation that doesn’t exist just to make money. That’s fantastic, Teddy. Everybody knows that corporations are just inherently greedy people, but they are people. Roosevelt felt it was the federal government’s responsibility to regulate the economy directly and to break up power of wealthy corporations, and he used the Sherman Act to prosecute bad trusts such as the Northern Securities Company, which was a holding company created by J.P. Morgan that directed three major railroads and monopolized transport. And that did not make J.P. Morgan a happy bunny. Thank you for that, Stan. That’s, that’s wonderful. Shockingly, the legislative and executive branches managed to work together and Congress passed some actual legislation, including the Hepburn Act of 1906, which gave the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to regulate railroad rates and examine their company books. And Roosevelt was also a conservationist. He wanted to preserve the environment from economic exploitation, probably so that there would be plenty of animals for him to hunt with his big stick while he walked softly. Having appointed noted progressive Gifford Pinchot head of the forest service, millions of acres were set aside for new, highly managed national parks reflecting the progressive idea that experts could manage the world. But then in 1908, Teddy Roosevelt decided to go elephant hunting instead of running for re-election and he picked William Howard Taft to be his successor, but the man who became our largest president massively disappointed Roosevelt. When I say “our largest,” by the way, I don’t mean our greatest. I mean our largest. Taft was a pretty hard-core trust-buster who ordered the prosecution that broke up Standard Oil in 1911, but he didn’t see big business as bad unless the corporations stifled competition. He also supported the 16th amendment, allowing Congress to pass an income tax, and that paved the way for the 18th amendment, Prohibition, because with an income tax, the federal government didn’t have to rely on liquor excise taxes. So, why didn’t Roosevelt like Taft? Well, not only was Taft more conservative than most progressives, he also fired Pinchot in 1910. And Roosevelt was so frustrated with Taft that he actually challenged the incumbent president for the Republican nomination in 1912. Which Roosevelt lost, but he didn’t let it drop. He founded his own Progressive Party, called the Bull Moose Party so that he could run again. So, the election of 1912 featured four candidates: Taft; Teddy Roosevelt for the Bull Moose Party; Eugene Debs, for the Socialist Party; and Democrat Woodrow Wilson. It’s worth noting that in contemporary American political discourse, all four of these people would have been seen as somewhere between crazy liberals and actual communists. So Eugene Debs, from right here in my home state of Indiana, did not support the Socialist Party’s goal of abolishing capitalism, but he ran on a platform that included public ownership of railroads and banks, and laws limiting work hours. And running on the socialist ticket, Debs won 6% of the vote, which was, to quote another president, “not bad.” But the election of 1912 turned out to be a contest between Wilson and Roosevelt’s competing views over the dangers of increasing government power and economic concentration. Wilson claimed, “Freedom today is something more than being let alone. The program of government must in these days be positive, not negative merely.” That’s just not good grammar, sir. His program, called New Freedom, was supposed to reinvigorate democracy by restoring market competition and preventing big business from dominating government. It included stronger anti-trust laws and policies to encourage small businesses. Roosevelt’s answer to New Freedom was a program he called New Nationalism, because, of course, in election years all things are new. Roosevelt recognized the inevitability of big business and hoped to use government intervention to stop its abuses. New Nationalism included heavy taxes on personal and corporate fortunes and greater federal regulation of industries. So, the Bull Moose Party platform was in some ways a vision of a modern welfare state, it called for: Women’s suffrage Federal regulation National labor and health legislation for women and children Eight hour days and living wage for all workers National systems of social insurance for health, unemployment, and old age What are we, Canada? God, I wish we were Canada...You weren’t recording that, were you, Stan? Roosevelt thought his party’s platform was one of the most important documents in the history of mankind, and Americans agreed, they supported him and elected him in a landslide. Oh wait, no they didn’t. Instead, he lost. And also, a guy shot him at one of his campaign stops, that’s shooting #2. Roosevelt however survived and even went on to make the speech after being shot. What happened in the election is that Taft and Roosevelt split the Republican vote, leaving Woodrow Wilson president with a mere 42% of the popular vote, giving us our only democratic president between 1896 and 1932. Oh, it’s time for the mystery document? The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the mystery document. If I’m wrong, I get shocked by the shock pen, which many of you insist is fictional, but I promise, it’s not. “The two things we are fighting against, namely, excessive tariffs and almost universal monopoly, are the very things that these two branches of the Republican party both decline to combat. (...) They intend to accept these evils and stagger along under the burden of excessive tariffs and intolerable monopolies as best they can through administrative commissions. I say, therefore, that it is inconceivable that the people of the United States, whose instinct is against special privilege and whose deepest convictions are against monopoly, should turn to either of these parties for relief when these parties do not so much as pretend to offer them relief.” Alright, it’s definitely about the 1912 election. It talks about the Republican party being split into two parts, so it’s by a democrat. Or a socialist, but probably a democrat judging from the Mystery Document itself. You always make it hard, Stan. So it’s not going to be Woodrow Wilson because that would be obvious, but I do not know the names of any other prominent democrats, so I am going to guess Woodrow Wilson. YES? Get in! So, with its stirring anti-tariff, anti-monopoly, do not pass GO, do not collect $200 stance, New Freedom won out, and because the Democrats also controlled Congress, Wilson was able to implement this program. The Underwood Tariff reduced import duties and after the ratification of the 16th amendment, Congress imposed a graduated income tax on the richest 5% of Americans. Other legislation included the Clayton Act of 1914, which exempted unions from antitrust laws and made it easier for them to strike; the Keating-Owen Act, which outlawed child labor in manufacturing; and the Adamson Act which mandated an eight hour workday for railroad workers. If Wilson’s New Freedom sounds a lot like Roosevelt’s New Nationalism, that’s because they ended up being pretty similar. Wilson engaged in less trust busting than expected, and more regulation of the economy. Wilson didn’t institute a national system of health and unemployment insurance, but he did expand the powers of the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and prohibit unfair monopolistic practices. He also supported the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, which gave the government much more control over banks in response to the Panic of 1907 where the U.S. had to be bailed out by J.P. Morgan. Fear not, big banks, the government will bail you out in due time. So, under Roosevelt, and Wilson, and to a lesser extent Taft, Progressivism flourished domestically, but it also became an international phenomenon as presidents expanded national government power outside the country’s border, mostly in the Western Hemisphere. Like, between 1901 and 1920, U.S. marines landed in Caribbean countries over 20 times, usually to create a more friendly environment for American businesses, but sometimes just to hang out on the beach. And this points to an interesting contradiction, Progressive presidents were very concerned about big business as a threat to freedom in the United States, but in Latin America and the Caribbean, they weren’t that concerned about freedom at all. Teddy Roosevelt especially was much more active in international diplomacy than his predecessors. He was the first president to win the Nobel Peace prize, for instance, for helping to negotiate the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo Japanese War in 1905. You may be familiar with his motto, “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” – which essentially meant “the U.S. will intervene in Latin America whenever we want.” And probably the most famous such intervention was the building of the Panama Canal. It featured feats of engineering and succeeding where the French had failed...Stan, these are my favourite things! Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The way we got the 10 mile wide canal zone wasn’t so awesome. In 1903, Panama was part of Colombia but the U.S. encouraged Philippe Bunau-Varilla to lead an uprising. Bunau-Varilla, a representative of the Panama Canal Company, was so grateful after the U.S. sent a gunboat to ensure that the Colombian army couldn’t stop him that he signed a treaty giving the U.S. the right to build and operate the canal and sovereignty over newly independent Panama’s Canal Zone, which we gave up in 2000 after enjoying nearly 100 Years of sovereignty thanks to Carter’s stupid altruism. Roosevelt also added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the 1823 statement that the U.S. would defend independent Latin American states from European intervention. Now, according to Roosevelt, we would wield our big stick like a policeman waving around a nightstick exercising an “international police power” over the western hemisphere. In practice, this meant using American troops to ensure that Latin American countries were stable enough for Americans to invest there. Like, in 1904 we seized the customs house in the Dominican Republic to make sure that they paid their debts to investors, then by “executive agreement” American banks got control of the DR’s finances. Roosevelt also encouraged investment by the United Fruit Company in Honduras and Costa Rica, helping to turn those nations into Banana Republics. No, not the store, Thought Bubble. Yes. Taft, on the other hand, maybe because of his experiences as governor of the Philippines, was less eager to wave America’s Big Stick. He emphasized loans and economic investment as the best way to spread American influence in a policy that came to be known as Dollar Diplomacy. Ultimately, Dollar Diplomacy was probably more effective, but it seemed weak to many people in contrast to Roosevelt’s strategy of SEND ALL THE TROOPS RIGHT NOW. Thanks, Thought Bubble. I wore my Banana Republic shirt just for this occasion. So, we’ve discussed Roosevelt and Taft’s foreign policy. Let’s move on to Wilson, who was, of course, an isolationist. No. Woodrow Wilson. Okay. Woodrow Wilson was not a volleyball. He was the son of a Presbyterian Minister, a former American history professor and once had been governor of New Jersey, so he understood moral indecency. Wilson thought the best way to teach other countries about the greatness of America was to export colossal amounts of American products. Like, in 1916, he instructed a group of businessmen, “Sell goods that will make the world more comfortable and happy, and convert them to the principles of America.” In short, Woodrow Wilson believed correctly that the the essence of democracy is the freedom to choose among hundreds of brightly coloured breakfast cereals. Still, Wilson intervened in Latin America more than any other U.S. President and his greatest moral triumph was in Mexico, where he wanted to teach the Mexicans “to elect good men”. To do this, Wilson sent troops to stop weapons from flowing to the military dictator Victoriano Huerta but the Americans, who landed at Veracruz were not welcomed with open arms, and 100 Mexicans and 19 Americans were killed. And then in 1916, having learned his lesson (just kidding), Wilson sent 10,000 troops into northern Mexico to chase after revolutionary bandit Pancho Villa. Villa had killed 17 Americans in New Mexico. And everyone knows that the proper response to such a criminal act is to send 10,000 troops into a foreign country. Pershing’s expedition was a smashing success fortunately…except that he actually did not capture Pancho Villa. But all of that was a prelude to Wilson’s leading America to our first international moral crusade, our involvement in the Great War. So, this period of American history is important because Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson oversaw the expansion of the power of the federal government both at home and abroad, and in doing so they became the first modern American presidents. I mean, these days, we may talk about small government and large government, but really, we’re always talking about large government. Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson recognized that the national government was going to have to deal with big business, and that it would have to get big to do that. And also that it had a role to play in ensuring that Americans would retain some freedom in this new industrial era. And they also built neo-imperialistic foreign policies around the idea that the safer the world was for American business, the better it was for Americans. As our old friend Eric Foner wrote: “The presidents who spoke the most about freedom were likely to intervene most frequently in the affairs of other countries.” Sometimes for good and sometimes for ill, we’ll see an extreme and ambiguous case of that next week when we look at America in World War I. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. Our show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week, there’s a new caption for the libertage. If you’d like to suggest one, you can do so in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome.

Scope

The work of the Transport Legislation Review was described in a 2009 paper released by the Department of Transport:

A comprehensive review of Victoria’s transport policy and legislation has been underway since 2004. Its aim has been to modernise transport policy, legislation and regulatory practices, drawing on developments in regulatory theory and approaches in other industry sectors and in other jurisdictions.[5]

The explanatory memorandum to the Transport Legislation Amendment (Compliance, Enforcement and Regulation) Bill 2010 also observed that:

"...major renewal is underway across the transport portfolios through the Government's Transport Legislation Review. This project is ...generating an entire new legislative framework for the State along best practice lines."[6]

Context

The Transport Legislation Review arose from concerns about the poor state of Victoria's transport laws. In particular, most transport legislation was thought to be complex, unnecessarily detailed and generally based on old policy.[7] The Victorian Government was also troubled that areas of the laws did not reflect regulatory advances in other industries and were not sufficiently informed by overseas reforms.

Pearce and Shepherd observed that it "...was a timely point to commence the review, given it had been 20 years since the State's central transport statute, the Transport Act 1983, was first enacted....[8] They went on to say that the -

"...Transport Act had become the largest statute in Victoria with over 700 pages of dense and prescriptive provisions in accordance with the prevailing legislative style. A number of other transport related Acts (and amendments to the Transport Act) had also been created to respond to different transport policies of successive governments over time. Most of these were examples of either facilitative or coercive legislative approaches. Importantly, however, there was no overarching framework for transport policy reflected in the State's legislation. In other words, transport legislation did not have aspirational elements. More specifically:
  • there was no clear vision for the transport system
  • bodies (such as VicRoads and the Director of Public Transport) were established with different (and potentially competing) objectives
  • there was no overarching framework to express broader policy objectives for transport as a whole
  • the legislation contained minimal reference to social policy objectives and no reference to environmental objectives
  • linkages with related areas (such as planning and local government) were not clear or not recognised."[9]

Plan and approach

The Review aimed to complete a wholesale revision of the State's transport policies and legislation. The project was guided by a target legislative framework diagram showing the final desired state of transport legislation in Victoria after completion of work. The diagram was headed by an overarching portfolio-based statute intended to provide long term symbolic and aspirational direction, the Transport Integration Act, supported by a range of transport modal and subject-specific statutes. Diagrams showing the current and former legislative structures were also used.[10]

The Review was policy-driven and proceeded on a modular basis.[11] This approach "...sought to more clearly delineate between overarching institutional elements and more detailed regulatory, operational, project and service delivery elements. It also sought to explicitly identify linkages within the transport portfolio (road, rail, tram, bus, taxi, hire car, tow trucks) and interfaces with other portolios (local government authorities and planning portfolios)."[12]

The majority of the new statutes which emerged from the work of the Review were preceded by extensive policy and stakeholder processes. This typically involved the public release of documents outlining issues in the relevant transport sector and later circulation of draft proposals which signalled the intended direction of change. The conduct of industry and public consultation forums and the receipt of public submissions was a feature of this activity.[13]

New laws generated

The Review concentrated on long, medium and short term measures. Global sector or scheme reviews typically resulted in the creation of suites of new contemporary regulatory policy which led in most instances to new Acts of Parliament which repealed existing Acts.[14] These are called principal statutes and typically take two years or more to fully complete. Smaller or mid range reforms, on the other hand, were pursued through Acts which amended existing principal statutes.[15]

Principal statutes

Many of the major proposals originated by the Transport Legislation Review were developed using workshops or meetings with key stakeholders who were informed by the release of comprehensive discussion papers. The process for developing the Marine Safety Act 2010, for example, involved the holding of 26 public sessions throughout Victoria.

The work of the Transport Legislation Review led to the development and enactment of seven major principal statutes between early 2006 and late 2010. The centrepiece of the Review and now the prime transport statute in Victoria is the Transport Integration Act 2010 which came into effect on 1 July 2010. The Act "....locates the development of a policy framework for integrated and sustainable transport in Victoria within global and international debates regarding sustainable development. This has resulted in the inclusion of a vision, set of objectives and decision making principles for transport in the (transport Integration Act) reflecting an integration and sustainability policy framework."[16]

In addition to the Transport Integration Act, the six principal statutes generated by the Review were:

Other statutes

A wide range of amending statutes was also generated. While generally smaller than most principal statutes, the amending Acts often dealt with significant "big picture" changes and were routinely used to pursue discrete, urgent and priority regulatory reforms.

Some of these statutes developed by the Review included:

  • the Transport Legislation (Amendment) Act 2004
  • the Transport Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2004
  • the Transport Legislation (Further Amendment) Act 2005
  • the Transport Legislation (Further Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2005
  • the Transport Legislation (Safety Investigations) Act 2006[23]
  • the Transport Legislation (Further Amendment) Act 2006
  • the Transport (Taxi-cab Accreditation and Other Amendments) Act 2006[24]
  • the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2007[25]
  • the Transport Legislation Amendment (Driver and Industry Standards) Act 2008
  • the Transport Legislation Amendment (Hoon Boating and Other Amendments) Act 2009[26]
  • the Transport Legislation General Amendments Act 2009
  • the Transport Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Act 2009
  • the Transport Legislation Amendment (Compliance, Enforcement and Regulation) Act 2010[27]
  • the Transport Legislation Amendment (Ports Integration) Act 2010.

Regulations

A range of new regulations was also generated by the Review. In the majority of cases, the regulations were advertised publicly in draft form accompanied by regulatory impact statements, and made available for comment by individuals, the community and affected industries.[28]

Principal regulations

Examples of new principal regulations developed by the Review included:

  • the Transport (Tow Truck) Regulations 2005
  • the Transport (Ticketing and Conduct Regulations) 2005
  • the Transport (Conduct) Regulations 2005[29]
  • the Transport (Taxi-cabs) Regulations 2005
  • the Transport (Passenger Vehicles) Regulations 2005
  • the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006[30]
  • the Marine Infringements Regulations 2005
  • the Rail Safety Regulations 2006
  • the Accident Towing Services Regulations 2008
  • the Marine Regulations 2009
  • the Transport (Infringements) Regulations 2010[31]
  • the Road Safety (Driver Instructors) Regulations 2010
  • the Port Management (Port of Melbourne Safety and Property) Regulations 2010
  • the Bus Safety Regulations 2010.

Other regulations

Examples of other regulations developed by the Review included:

  • the Transport (Alcohol Measurement) Regulations 2004
  • the Transport (Infringements)(Tow Truck) Regulations 2005
  • the Transport (Alcohol Controls) Regulations 2005
  • the Public Transport Competition (Fees) Regulations 2005
  • the Transport (Taxi-cab Licences – Trading) Regulations 2005
  • the Transport (Taxi-cab Licences – Market and Trading) Regulations 2005
  • the Transport (Taxi-cab Network Service Provider Accreditation – Exemptions) Regulations 2007
  • the Transport (Taxi-cab Industry Accreditation) Regulations 2007.

Organisational impacts

The work of the Transport Legislation Review had significant impacts on governance arrangements in the Victorian Transport portfolio. These effects can be summarised as follows:

Legislative structure impacts

The Review had major impacts on Victoria's transport legislation suite. Before the Review, Victoria's suite of legislation was divided into land-based and water-based groupings. The land-based group covering rail and road statutes and associated activities was headed by the Transport Act 1983. By contrast, the water-based grouping regulating the ports and marine sectors had no central coordinating statute. Both groupings were characterised by old and inconsistent underlying policy frameworks.

The Transport Integration Act was developed by the Review to provide a central statute to facilitate integration and co-ordination of the whole transport portfolio through the introduction of a modern policy framework and re-establishment of agencies with consistent charters which were tied bound by the framework. The development of the Transport Integration Act also ultimately led to the subordination and renaming of the Transport Act as the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983.

Further complex and discrete structural changes were driven by the Review through policy reviews and the development of new individual statutory schemes. For example, the work of the Review led to Victoria's first ever stand alone statutory schemes for rail and bus safety (the Rail Safety Act and Bus Safety Act), vehicle towing regulation (the Accident Towing Services Act), reduction of red tape in respect of approval and delivery of major transport projects (the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act), tourist railways regulation (the Tourist and Heritage Railways Act) and public transport ticketing requirements (the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations).

Incomplete or pending reviews

The work of the Transport Legislation Review concluded in late 2010. Major areas signalled for overhaul before the conclusion of the project[33] included policy reviews and new statutes in the following areas:

Taxi industry reform was taken up as a major issue by the Victorian Government when the Review concluded. The Government established a Taxi Industry Inquiry in May 2011 under a new agency, the Taxi Services Commission. The Inquiry ultimately recommended major changes to policy and legislation to reform the taxi and small commercial passenger vehicles sector. The recommendations are currently being implemented.

Support and criticism

The Transport Legislation Review project and its policy and legislation projects were well supported during the term of the project. Most Acts and regulations generated by the project were passed or made with broad support and little or no opposition from affected parties. In the six years of the project, no Act or regulation failed to be passed by the Victorian Parliament even when the Government of the day did not control Parliamentary numbers. The overwhelming majority of Act products, for example, were passed by Parliament with all party support.

While the Review was not subject to public criticism, some individual policy and legislative proposals arising from it were criticised. For example, the Rail Safety Act 2006 was opposed on a reasoned basis in the Victorian Parliament by Liberal and National party members of Parliament. However, the Bill was ultimately passed.[34] Several policy proposals developed by the project including in 2009 during a review of the Marine Act 1988 were abandoned and not included in the subsequent Marine Safety Act 2010 due to widespread opposition.

The Bill for the Transport Integration Act was criticised by Liberal and National party members during its passage through Parliament[35] but was not opposed. Finally, a proposal to add port authorities to the Transport Integration Act organisational framework was opposed and eventually defeated in the Legislative Council by the Liberal, National and Green parties.[36] However, the Bill was later passed by the Victorian Parliament due to use of a dispute resolution process.[37]

See also

References

  1. ^ A review between 1982 and 1988 produced the following major statutes – the Transport Act 1983, the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Marine Act 1988. A major proposal for a Victorian Ports Authority Act was defeated in Parliament in 1985. The period 1995-1999 was also a major period of policy and legislative activity although not on a portfolio-wide scale. Review work and outputs in that period were mainly confined to statutes relating to reorganisation of rail services in the state and initial new safety regulation schemes in the rail and bus sectors.
  2. ^ The Accident Towing Services Act 2007 provides an example of a de-regulatory initiative. The Act repealed provisions which regulated the towing industry in the former Transport Act 1983. While some provisions were re-enacted in a modified form in the new statute, provisions regulating trade towing were not continued therefore removing economic regulation controls from that sector.
  3. ^ See, for example, the policy framework reflected in the Transport Integration Act 2010.
  4. ^ See the safety duties contained in the Rail Safety Act 2006, the Bus Safety Act 2009 and the Marine Safety Act 2010.
  5. ^ Improving Marine Safety in Victoria – Review of the Marine Act 1988, Discussion Paper, July 2009. Foreword, Page 1. Paper available at the Department of Transport website.
  6. ^ Explanatory memorandum, page 1, Transport Legislation (Compliance, Enforcement and Regulation) Bill 2010, from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  7. ^ For example, see the Minister's second reading speech in support of the Rail Safety Act 2006 which contained numerous criticisms of the style and substance of the former legislation. Another example can be found in the explanatory memorandum for the Tourist and Heritage Railways Bill 2010 which observes that, "Tourist and heritage railways were previously governed by the Transport Act 1983, under which the Governor in Council was empowered to make Orders in Council granting persons the right to occupy, operate and maintain tourist railway services. Importantly, this regulatory scheme only covered a narrow range of matters affecting the sector and did not provide sufficient clarity or make appropriate provision for the occupation and use of Victorian railways and railway infrastructure."
  8. ^ Robert Pearce and Ian Shepherd, The Transport Integration Act 2010: driving integrated and sustainable transport outcomes through legislation, Urban Transport XVII, page 356.
  9. ^ Robert Pearce and Ian Shepherd, The Transport Integration Act 2010: driving integrated and sustainable transport outcomes through legislation, Urban Transport XVII, page 356-7.
  10. ^ Current, future and past legislative structure diagrams are available online at the relevant pages on the Department of Transport web site.
  11. ^ Robert Pearce and Ian Shepherd, The Transport Integration Act 2010: driving integrated and sustainable transport outcomes through legislation, Urban Transport XVII, page 357.
  12. ^ Robert Pearce and Ian Shepherd, The Transport Integration Act 2010: driving integrated and sustainable transport outcomes through legislation, Urban Transport XVII, page 357.
  13. ^ The Rail Safety Act, the Accident Towing Services Act, the Bus Safety Act, the Transport Integration Act, the Marine Safety Act and the Tourist and Heritage Railways Act all involved such processes. Copies of papers from these reviews can be located at the Department of Transport web site at www.transport.vic.gov.au.
  14. ^ See Principal statutes section below.
  15. ^ See Other statutes section below.
  16. ^ Robert Pearce and Ian Shepherd, The Transport Integration Act 2010: driving integrated and sustainable transport outcomes through legislation, Urban Transport XVII, page 355.
  17. ^ Copy of the Rail Safety Act from the official Victorian Government Legislation site.
  18. ^ Copy of the Accident Towing Services Act from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  19. ^ Copy of the Bus Safety Act from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  20. ^ Copy of the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  21. ^ Copy of the Marine Safety Act from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  22. ^ Copy of the Tourist and Heritage Railways Act from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  23. ^ Copy of the Transport Legislation (Safety Investigations) Act from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  24. ^ Copy of the Transport (Taxi-cab Accreditation and Other Amendments) Act from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  25. ^ Copy of the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2007 available at the official Victorian Government legislation web site.
  26. ^ Copy of the Transport Legislation Amendment (Hoon Boating and Other Amendments) Act 2009 taken from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  27. ^ Copy of the Transport Legislation Amendment (Compliance, Enforcement and Regulation) Act 2010 available at the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  28. ^ For example, the Transport (Conduct) Regulations 2005 and the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006 were both subject to such processes. Copies of regulatory impact statements for these regulations are available from the website of the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission – www.vcec.vic.gov.au.
  29. ^ Copy of the Transport (Conduct) Regulations available at the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  30. ^ Copy of the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations available at the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  31. ^ Copy of the Transport (Infringements) Regulations available at the Victorian Government legislation site.
  32. ^ As amended by the Transport Legislation Amendment (Ports Integration) Act 2010.
  33. ^ See, for example, the second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum for the Transport Integration Bill. Copies of documents sourced from the official Victorian Government legislation site.
  34. ^ A reasoned amendment calling for the withdrawal of the Bill was defeated in the Victorian Parliament on 1 March 2006.
  35. ^ See Hansard in the Legislative Assembly on 4 February 2010
  36. ^ See Hansard for the Legislative Council proceedings on 22 June 2010.
  37. ^ The Legislative Assembly returned the Bill to the Legislative Council for its agreement as recommended in the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Parliament on 27 July 2010. The Bill was subsequently passed by the Legislative Council on 12 August 2010.

External links

This page was last edited on 7 May 2023, at 08:31
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.