(Blog home)

Brave new order for Vic?

I’m reluctant to focus on my own state’s motorcycle policies in a national publication, but ask you bear with me. It does contain some cautionary tales for other states.

Victoria’s state government has released a new motorcycle strategy, covering the next several years. Though filled with motherhood statements, it’s well worth a read and has a number of features which sound worthy.

The gist of it (see the links below), for the less patient among you, is this:

More research of motorcycling and crash factors;

Promotion and research for safety gear such as helmets and protective clothing;

Ditto for motorcycle features such as ABS;

A review of enforcement measures, including for ‘unriders’ (unlicensed riders/unregistered bikes -- who make a major contribution to the stats);

A review of rider training;

A review of graduated licensing;

Promotion of safer road building practices (which is laughable, given VicRoads own recent and very patchy record).

There is also talk at the moment of a review of the state’s advisory bodies, including VMAC (Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Council), though so far no hint of where that’s going and what the end result is likely to be.

There are two areas which concern me most of all at the moment:

1. The somewhat opaque operation of VMAC;

2. The even more opaque operation of the slush fund built up by the now $60-plus annual motorcycle tax, called a safety levy.

Let’s begin with VMAC. While there’s an argument that we’d all be happier if the government just left us alone, if we must have the constant worrying and nagging we’ve so far tolerated a consultative group is a fine thing. If it’s consulted.

And there’s the rub. VMAC has been a passenger on some key decisions over time, finding itself in the embarrassing position of providing a veneer of consultation that serves a political, rather than practical, purpose.

It is also too secretive. Certainly the chair, Neil O’Keefe, is making available public reports via favoured channels and you can see the most recent one linked below. They need to be distributed far more widely.

My real beef is that every time a committee member has the temerity to talk to the media direct (which a number have over the years), they are threatened with dismissal from the group. Why? VMAC is not discussing matters of national security. There may occasionally be the potential for some minor political embarrassment or (shock horror) public debate over issues, but so be it.

A brilliant example was the proposal to use funds from the ‘safety levy’ to buy Vic police unmarked motorcycles. Much of the committee struggled to see how this might be perceived in public and, when the story broke, attacked the messengers rather than the people who just got it plain wrong.

VMAC needs two things: 1. To be treated as a consultative body even when it’s inconvenient; 2. Live with operating far more publicly, even if this entails some uncomfortable debate.

Okay, let’s move on to the $60-plus (and constantly rising) levy. My concern when it was introduced was that it would become a honey pot for every dodgy scheme that could somehow be shoehorned into the labels of safety or research. The loon idea of buying police unmarked motorcycles so they could book motorcyclists more easily is a case in point. Yes, I know it had other things attached to it, but if it walks like a duck…

(Here's something which might get your attention: A very rough calculation suggests over $6 million per year is being collected. There are around 150,000 registered motorcycles in Vic, though some escape the tax. Unfortunately, the full numbers seem to be a matter of national security...)

Let me give you another questionable use of the money. Vic Roads is terribly proud of the fact it introduced the learner approved motorcycle scheme in this state, albeit incredibly slowly. My information is that somehow it managed to screw a substantial amount out of the ‘safety fund’ to help pay for it – over a mil. This is rich, because it was Vic Roads which brought in the 250 restriction 20 years ago, and it was told by all sorts of people way back then that it was a bad idea. So the safety fund is paying the organisation to fix its own screw-up? Is my info wrong? Let's hope so.

What I’m pointing to here is the central issue that the operation of the fund is too secretive. Vic Roads registration renewals (which includes the TAC third party injury premium and the bike tax) mention the levy but don’t say how much it is – this is insulting camouflage. If you think it's a good idea, stop trying to hide it. It’s accompanied by a nice little brochure saying what sorts of things some of the money is being spent on, but does not say how much is collected, or provide any link to information on a complete record of what’s been spent, on what, and what’s left over. Again, this is just plain sneaky.

I don’t for a moment doubt that some of the money has been spent well. I do question how it is administrated and the secrecy surrounding it. (It’s also way too much, but that’s another argument for another day.)

Should you wish to get annoyed about any of this, it’s worth noting that in the prelude in the latest motorcycle strategy document, that the standard threat is issued, should anyone start raising questions over money. Here it is: “The TAC insurance premium, with the levy included, does not cover even the most conservative estimate of the injury costs associated with motorcycle crashes.” The implication is of course that we should be paying more for our third party injury cover – never mind the levy. Really? Prove it.

What is forgotten by TAC, Vic Roads and all who sail in them is that the vast majority of motorcyclists are also car owners, so they’re paying double. And more in the case of the huge number who own several bikes. Every time TAC and Vic Roads have been asked to cough up the relevant info, they have stonewalled.

I sincerely hope the new strategy leads to an improved and more open environment. History suggests you can paint the duck a different colour, but it’s still a duck. Hopefully I’m wrong.

Links

VMAC via VicRoads

VMAC via MRA

Vic strategy

(Blog home) (Guido email)