E-mobility – Delegating Flexibility and Safety

The Queensland E-mobility inquiry, followed by the proposed bill, has attracted significant attention.  Even within members of the committee reviewing the bill there is conflict on what it is delivering, and how well it fits. There are calls within E-Bike industry to scrap the bill and start over, and members of the opposition who already seem to be framing this as a failure.

Despite the negative commentary, there is little in the way of clear proposals being presented on where to go from here, and how to build that pathway toward the future, in a way that addresses what the people have asked for, while also passing critical aspects of the bill into law by the 1 July 2026 starting date.

A mediator's approach here could be to explore the interests of the various perspectives and seek approaches that align those interests, including the bill's overall intent, while aligning with the best possible future that addresses concerns in as balanced a way as imperfect progress allows.

Remember the purpose

First of all, it’s worth refreshing that the bill's core purpose is to enhance safety around the use of these devices. The bill's title itself includes managing use and protecting our communities.

How is it standing up to community feedback?

Several valid concerns have been raised, some of which have been addressed in the committee recommendations for the bill. Many people seem to believe that the sector has its problems, and enforcement of the rules is a major shortcoming.

The prospect of starting over is not aligned with safety concerns and is unlikely to help reduce hospitalisations or injury rates. It will delay any change and should only be considered if the inadvertent consequences of this bill would be worse for society overall than the gains it targets.  I’ve not seen any clear indication that is the case. The pathway forward should focus on improvements that balance safety considerations and the community's needs.

What about the recommendations the committee have made?

The committee have introduced nine recommendations, the first of which is that the bill should be passed. There are sensible suggestions for footpath speed limits, including that shared pathways should not be included unless signed otherwise. They also discuss an exemption framework for users with disabilities and propose geographic exemptions that may cover locations like mountain bike parks.

The committee recommends support for shared operators and hire companies, but no specific pathway is outlined to support tourism when a family has an underage or unlicensed rider in their group, a point that received significant attention in earlier submissions and feedback.

If these rules are about safety, should there be any exemptions?

The submission process established that tourism operators have a large market, and the community will feel the cost, with entire family groups being lost when under-16-year-olds are unable to participate in hire and tourism-related activities.

General feedback on the licensing identified benefits for the police, including administrative efficiency, enabling them to rapidly confirm the identities and details of licence holders. Licence requirements also indicate a basic understanding of road rules and aim to improve the safety statistics of the younger cohort.

What if we could address the safety education, training and identification administration issues within this cohort, in very specific circumstances?  If we can address the needs of both sides in a way that limits the administrative overhead for authorities and shifts this burden to operators who seek to cater to this market.

Can we make an exemption, without eroding safety, and maintaining similar benefits to the police?

This type of thing has been done before, with CASA delegating the power to approve specific activities and exclusions from standard rules to remote pilot licence holders operating under an operator's certificate.  The operator creates a comprehensive brief on how they operate, how they ensure safety and compliance, and issues approvals to a pilot under that operator's certificate and manual.

The operator creates an operational manual, containing practices and procedures. For a tourism operator, this might outline the pathway to be used, the educational processes included, the supervision offered, and the circumstances under which a younger or unlicensed rider may be eligible to participate in the tourism-related venture. They may provide the rider a time-bound permit for the tourism event under exactly those conditions.

The beauty is that the operator manages safety, identification, and permit issuance under that authority. They document how they will achieve all this and request approval to operate under those circumstances. If or when the Department of Transport and Main Roads considers that document a suitable proposal for safe operations, they may grant the operator permission to issue temporary permits, keeping tourism operations ticking over safely and compliantly.

There are areas where some exceptions would be relatively safe, but what is missing is a pathway to make those reasonable judgments without future legislative changes.

What would need to change in the bill, to open this pathway?

There would be some effort on behalf of the police and main roads to forge this path; however, it does not need to involve parliament beyond the general authorisation of the capability. The executive departments can establish the conditions under which they will issue any early operator certificates, based on submitted proposals. It allows for flexibility in responding to community needs and supporting appropriate behaviours.

What might change?

A handful of clauses would need to be minimally modified to support the permit under an operator certificate. The bill would also need to include provisions for main roads to issue operators' certificates, though the governance and approval conditions of any permit issued could be delegated to the department.

The concept of an operator certificate could also cater for some instances of disability concession, and some location-specific activities, though for a mountain bike park, a blanket exemption is likely a smoother pathway.

This small change would create significant flexibility, and the process itself could be advanced independently of the acts controlling this bill, while paying attention to safety impacts and addressing community needs where it is safe and sensible to do so.