The report may not be the issue, but the report should be the source of information that can be used for learning. But the quality of the report is so poor as to be laughable.
The author could not even figure out that the ATSB's sister department publishes Australian Design Rules which specifies the maximum height of vehicles as 4.3m not 4,6m as published in the report. When you can get basic details like that right, how can you believe anything else? It completely destroys the reports credibility.
Nor did the report figure out or comment that there are no airport warning signs on the road. Which means not only did the ATSB not visit the site, they did not even look at Google Earth.
The report did not calculate the approach gradient that the Chieftan followed based on the truck height. It used either the fallacious 4.6m figure or a 5% (3 degree) gradient.
The actual truck height (3.95m) at a distance of 78m to the threshold (from the report) is 2.9 degrees. Low, but not quite dragging it in on the props.
The Cheiftan was low - but which of us wants to cast a stone? But the truck driver (reportedly) neither saw or felt the aircraft. I would have liked to see a discussion about what role the driver has in being aware of aircraft on final and exercising some judgement and whether it might have made a difference if the road was correctly signed. .