VSCCS part 3 - transitional arrangements

As part of the process of implementing VSCCS, the RTA propose that every applicant for a license would have to go though an interview process. To date, the extent of that process relative to the range of vehicle types and areas of vehicle that the applicant proposes to be licensed to certify is completely undefined. Nobody knows whether it would be an hour interview or several weeks of creating a presentation then going through multiple interviews over several days.

Two points that seem to be very controversial in the eyes of many existing signatories are that:

• every existing signatory will have to apply from scratch to do what they are already doing, and
  
• the RTA have declared that participants in the scheme, who are arguably the most qualified people to assess the competence of applicants, will be ineligible to sit on the assessment panel because to do so would be a conflict of interest.

Several signatories have stated that they see the first point as insulting and unprofessional, suggesting that the RTA is implicitly assuming that professional engineers with decades of experience may not be competent to do what they are currently doing.

All existing signatories will automatically be granted an interim license. This means that they would have to immediately start issuing certificates using the online system, but would have a period of a few months during which to go through the interview process to obtain a full license. The uncertainty of how involved that process would be is leading some to leave prior to the commencement of the new scheme. Signatories are generally small business operators and many of those who remain are concerned the interview process will be disruptive to some (as yet unknown) degree, and question whether it will be worth being there at all.

This proposal to process applications and interview all existing signatories as well as new applicants also appears to imply a significant amount of work to be carried out by whoever is to carry out those assessments and interviews. Several signatories have expressed concern at the potential cost of this process to the taxpayers as well as to applicants.

The second point led to an interesting discussion between a small number of engineers, in which it was observed that, in every profession, it is a panel of qualified practitioners that make an assessment of whether a person is competent to practice independently. This applies to fields such as medicine, architecture and engineering, and, along with peer review, is considered by some people to be a fundamental foundation of modern civilisation. The RTA decision is therefore looked upon with considerable consternation by some of the existing signatories and many of their clients.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the entire VSCCS proposal, which is implicit to the two points above, is that there appears to be an us and them attitude built into the scheme. In spite of being described as a partnership scheme, the design of the scheme comes across as adversarial, and this is reflected in many of the details such as the concentration on penalty clauses.

I believe that a partnership scheme should involve assisting members to identify and correct mistakes and to prevent them recurring. I believe that it should also start with the assumption that existing signatories are fundamentally competent and that they believe that they are acting in the best interests of the wider community. As such, I believe that, as with the 1994 scheme change, existing signatories should not be required to go through an application process. I also believe that the interview panel for new applicants to the scheme should include scheme members.

Hence, here's another question in regards to the proposed VSCCS scheme, which I believe needs to be answered by the NSW Minister for Roads, The Hon. David Borger, MP:

• Can the minister advise what if any consideration has been given to the impact of the proposed scheme on the existing small business operators and professional engineers who will, at best, have to go through a disruptive process of as yet undefined scope and impact on their businesses, to demonstrate their competency to continue carrying out work that they have been carrying out for years or decades, or at worst close down their businesses?