ALRTA Weekly Update: Oct 24

Australia’s Trusted Partner for Transport Innovation

Welcome everyone to the weekly news,

Speed limits must not be lowered to mask poor road funding

The Department of Infrastructure’s current Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) proposes reducing default open-road speed limits outside built-up areas - from 100 km/h to as low as 70 km/h on sealed and unsealed rural roads.
At face value, it sounds like a safety measure. But the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association (ALRTA) has made it clear: reducing default speeds will harm productivity, compromise animal welfare, and disguise the real issue - chronic under-investment in rural roads.

Impact on rural freight and livestock transport
For regional operators, speed limits directly shape fatigue management, delivery windows, and daily productivity.
Even a modest reduction of 7 km/h equates to an additional 45–60 minutes on a typical full-day run — enough to push drivers into mandated rest breaks or late-night driving under the Heavy Vehicle National Law.
That means:

• More time spent resting in unsuitable metropolitan zones;
• Greater fatigue exposure during high-risk dusk/night hours; and
• Increased costs and scheduling disruption with no measurable safety gain.
  

In real terms, a driver moving livestock from Dubbo to Melbourne or Brisbane could lose almost an hour in transit, eroding valuable time for unloading and returning to regional rest areas.

Animal welfare and weather exposure
For livestock transporters, an “extra hour” on the road carries serious welfare implications.
Exposure to sub-zero overnight cold can cause chilling stress, while 40 °C daytime heat rapidly increases dehydration risk.
The Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Land Transport of Livestock (2012) require journeys to be planned to minimise exposure to extreme weather and ensure contingency arrangements for affected stock.

The RSPCA also directs transporters to take reasonable steps to reduce the impact of heat or cold during transport, while Agriculture Victoria advises that if maximum time off water is likely to be exceeded, stock must be spelled or journeys rescheduled.

An additional hour, particularly in peak summer or winter conditions, is not just a cost to business — it is a genuine animal welfare risk.

The wrong tool for the Job
Reducing default open-road speeds does nothing to fix the underlying cause of rural road trauma — poor road condition and underfunded maintenance.
Rural operators already face deteriorating pavements, narrow shoulders, and limited overtaking lanes.

Instead of slowing down the very operators keeping regional Australia supplied, governments should be investing in practical safety improvements:

• Sealed shoulders and improved drainage,
  
• Better line marking,
  
• More overtaking opportunities.
  

These measures deliver genuine safety outcomes without undermining productivity or welfare.

ALRTA’s Position
ALRTA supports evidence-based, risk-targeted interventions based upon individual road conditions — not blanket default reductions.
We urge governments to:

• Retain the current 100 km/h sealed-road default and avoid a new unsealed-road national limit
• Focus on engineering upgrades and local risk management, not paper-based modelling
• Measure success by reduced fatigue incidents linked to improved road surfaces - not lower speed limits based upon desktop research.

LRTWA President, Benno Sutherland: Transition funding must reflect reality

LRTWA President Ben Sutherland has called for urgent attention to the transition funding arrangements linked to the federal government’s decision to phase out live sheep exports.

“The transition package has been promoted as a safety net for affected communities - but in practice, the eligibility rules and match-funding requirements make it inaccessible for many in regional Western Australia,” Ben said.
“Rural carriers, small producers and service providers have already lost a core income stream. For many, the live export trade represented 30–40 percent of their annual turnover. Expecting these same operators to now find matching funds to qualify for
assistance - at the very moment their revenue has been cut - simply isn’t realistic.”

Ben explained that the administrative burden and cash-flow constraints are compounding the problem.
“Operators who want to diversify or reinvest in their business are stuck. They can’t afford to front up a matching contribution, and in many cases they lack the grant-writing capacity or financial guarantees that larger agribusinesses can provide. The transition program unintentionally favours those least affected and leaves the hardest-hit family operations behind.”

He added that for remote and pastoral carriers, the lack of immediate liquidity means some will not survive long enough to see the benefits of any medium-term transition plan. This has long been the language both ALRTA and LRTAWA have advocated from.
“We need a model that recognises the real cost pressures on small, regional businesses. Without more flexible funding and simplified access, this transition will end up hollowing out rural freight capacity across WA rather than rebuilding it.”
Ben’s comments reflect growing frustration that while the live export debate dominates headlines, the economic survival of rural transporters - the very people who connect producers to markets - is being overlooked in the design of the support package.

In closing
Rural Australia deserves real safety investment, not symbolic regulation.
Lowering default speed limits is not a safety strategy; it’s a budget substitute for not fixing the roads.
If policymakers want safer outcomes, they must fund the infrastructure, not punish the operators who depend on it.
If they cancel live export, then they must support rural businesses to transition properly.

Until next week — stay safe.

Anthony

Together, we are stronger.

Our Trusted Partners