❓ A parliamentary question regarding heavy vehicle permits on wheatbelt shire roads, specifically concerning road inspections, permit approvals, and potential exemptions for road damage. The Minister's response defends the current system and outlines future plans.
AnsweredQoN 136Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
HEAVY VEHICLE PERMITS
I refer to the fact that heavy vehicles, including B-double rigs, require a permit to use local roads. I refer also to the fact that supposedly a process is in place to quickly assess the suitability of roads for heavy loads. (1) How many inspectors are currently involved full-time in the task of assessing roads in Western Australia’s 44 wheatbelt shires? (2) How many permit applications have been lodged for wheatbelt shire roads in the past six weeks; and how many of these have been either approved, rejected or awaiting road inspection? (3) Will the minister allow the issue of permits without road inspection to facilitate the haulage of fertiliser for the oncoming seeding season? (4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
I refer to the fact that heavy vehicles, including B-double rigs, require a permit to use local roads. I refer also to the fact that supposedly a process is in place to quickly assess the suitability of roads for heavy loads. (1) How many inspectors are currently involved full-time in the task of assessing roads in Western Australia’s 44 wheatbelt shires? (2) How many permit applications have been lodged for wheatbelt shire roads in the past six weeks; and how many of these have been either approved, rejected or awaiting road inspection? (3) Will the minister allow the issue of permits without road inspection to facilitate the haulage of fertiliser for the oncoming seeding season? (4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(1) How many inspectors are currently involved full-time in the task of assessing roads in Western Australia’s 44 wheatbelt shires? (2) How many permit applications have been lodged for wheatbelt shire roads in the past six weeks; and how many of these have been either approved, rejected or awaiting road inspection? (3) Will the minister allow the issue of permits without road inspection to facilitate the haulage of fertiliser for the oncoming seeding season? (4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(2) How many permit applications have been lodged for wheatbelt shire roads in the past six weeks; and how many of these have been either approved, rejected or awaiting road inspection? (3) Will the minister allow the issue of permits without road inspection to facilitate the haulage of fertiliser for the oncoming seeding season? (4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(3) Will the minister allow the issue of permits without road inspection to facilitate the haulage of fertiliser for the oncoming seeding season? (4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(1) How many inspectors are currently involved full-time in the task of assessing roads in Western Australia’s 44 wheatbelt shires? (2) How many permit applications have been lodged for wheatbelt shire roads in the past six weeks; and how many of these have been either approved, rejected or awaiting road inspection? (3) Will the minister allow the issue of permits without road inspection to facilitate the haulage of fertiliser for the oncoming seeding season? (4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(2) How many permit applications have been lodged for wheatbelt shire roads in the past six weeks; and how many of these have been either approved, rejected or awaiting road inspection? (3) Will the minister allow the issue of permits without road inspection to facilitate the haulage of fertiliser for the oncoming seeding season? (4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(3) Will the minister allow the issue of permits without road inspection to facilitate the haulage of fertiliser for the oncoming seeding season? (4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(4) Will the minister exempt shires from being responsible for road damage if permits are issued for roads that have not been inspected? (5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(5) Given that more than 40 000 permits are issued each year, is the minister satisfied with Western Australia’s permit system? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
(1)-(5) There is a certain amount of pathology in the National Party’s position on heavy haulage. The National Party opposes any move towards user pays, yet it jumps up and down when it cannot get everything it wants. I thank the member for the question. I want to make this clear, because there is some misunderstanding of what is going on here. There have been no changes to the roads upon which people are able to take a permit vehicle; that is, a B-double, or a pocket road train. Therefore, the existing routes remain in place. There has been no contraction in the road network over which these vehicles have traditionally travelled in both the member’s government’s day and our day. All those roads are still available. They do not need additional assessment. However, we want to move to a new system under which certain roads will be the subject of a notification, and people will not require a permit to take these sorts of vehicles over those roads. This is a fairly new process. However, it will not affect any of the existing routes. In November the Shire of York came up with 246 roads that it wanted to have included in the permit system. Those roads have never previously been available to the farming industry to transport wheat or fertiliser. We want to make sure that those roads are inspected before we allow heavy haulage on those roads. We expect that the member would support us in that. Obviously we will not be in a position to inspect all those roads at the one time. Therefore, we have asked the shires to prioritise the roads that are most important. It is also important to understand that although some of these roads - for example, Top Beverley Road - are ones that some shires want classified as a new type of road, I am told the adjoining shires oppose that. Therefore, there is no easy answer to some of these issues. I am told also that there have been three applications for permits in the past six weeks in the wheatbelt region. None of those applications has been approved or rejected; in fact, two are awaiting road inspection, and the other has had the assessment done and is awaiting shire agreement.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.