Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have always taken the opportunity to speak out in support of bills that affect the transport industry, and today’s debate on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2010 affords me another such opportunity. The trucking industry is the most deadly industry in this country, with five times more fatalities than its closest rival. What a dreadful statistic that is.

Australia is facing a massive growth in the demand for freight transport services, with the total freight estimated to almost double by the year 2020. Currently, heavy vehicles operate across our country from state to state, transporting almost two million tonnes of freight. In fact, 75 per cent of that freight is carried by road. In urban areas, with their shops, warehouses and distribution centres, 90 per cent of all freight is moved by heavy vehicles.

As many as 370,000 heavy vehicles operate in Australia, and in my electorate, which has the Hume Highway running through it, we see a significant portion of the heavy transport that operates between Sydney and Melbourne. The Hume Highway is the main road corridor, and a significant proportion of freight is moved between Sydney and Melbourne via the Hume Highway. It is certainly one of our busiest interstate corridors. It is estimated that 20 million tonnes of freight are moved via the Hume Highway each year.

On the corridor of the Hume Highway that lies within the bounds of my electorate of Werriwa there are 6,000 heavy transport movements per day—I happen to know the statistics because we had some discussions with the previous, coalition government about getting funding approved to widen the Hume Highway in my electorate—and it is for this reason that it is so critical that the Hume Highway be widened, particularly with the bottlenecks that occur between Ingleburn and Campbelltown.

I have urged this House to widen the Hume Highway on many occasions and took every opportunity when in opposition to raise the matter with the then Minister for Transport and Regional Affairs. I tried to get undertakings not for political reasons but because of the need; however, the undertakings were not forthcoming. So I was very happy when I was able to make the case to and persuade those holding the purse strings of the Labor Party as we entered the 2007 election. They saw merit in this $140 million project. They committed to the undertaking of that project and that is precisely what has occurred.

The federal government has committed $112 million, I think it is, to the widening of the Hume Highway in the very sensitive section of the highway in and about my electorate. It is fascinating that, every time I drive down it, work is proceeding. It is about six months ahead of schedule. It is one of those things that I think is very much a success story both for the trucking and heavy transport industry and for the other road users. This is a commitment that has been delivered upon. It was not matched by the other side of politics, but it will leave a long-term, positive legacy for our transport routes.

I would like to pay credit to George Kypreos, Managing Director of NACE Civil Engineering, which is a local company based at Prestons—again, in my electorate. His company won the contract for widening the road. His workers are out there working on that. They are working for a local company, doing the engineering, construction and asphalting of that road. The company is also employing many local people in a range of trades. Whilst that was not provided to us as part of the stimulus package, I know what the work that is being undertaken there is injecting into my local economy. I am confident that once this project is completed it will bring considerable benefits to our community and very significant benefits to all road users.

Sadly, the latest road fatality statistics are in. As I said, the trucking industry is the most dangerous industry. Twenty per cent of workplace deaths occur in the trucking industry. Horrifically, four to six people on average lose their lives in trucking related incidents each week in this country. That is in the vicinity of 280 to 300 people each year. That is someone’s son, daughter, brother, sister, mother or father ripped away in sudden, dramatic and tragic circumstances. It is not just the workers driving the trucks; it is the carnage that occurs as a consequence of those accidents. Those figures are extraordinary. Apart from the pain, suffering, loss and grief burdened by the family members concerned, I also have feelings for members of the emergency services—the ambos and the police—who have to attend those horrific accidents. Bear in mind, there is also a very real and significant economic cost as a consequence.

I know that truck driving is pretty punishing work. As the member for Werriwa, I am aware of a large southern-bound truck stop on the Hume Highway—oddly enough, called Uncle Leo’s. I have been encouraged to drop in there, which I do, and talk to the drivers between 5.30 in the morning until eight o’clock at night. I know how punishing the work is, because they take the time to talk to me about it. For the ones who do not, you can still see the apprehension and the anxiety in their body language. Fatigue in that instance really does its own talking.

The shadow transport minister talked about developments in trucking. To that extent he was right, and there will be a lot more. He mentioned logistics and on-time delivery. That is something that has occurred and it has changed the face of trucking in this country. When I talk to the fellows at Uncle Leo’s in the mornings, they talk to me about the ‘just on-time delivery’. They are parked there not because they are resting but because they have been given slot times, like at an airport. They have been given slot times as to when they can arrive at their destination and offload. They are, on an unpaid basis, manning these mobile storage facilities. There is a lot of frustration for those people. Particularly the owner-drivers do not like the system where they and their vehicles are being used in such a way. They are not just complying with the regulatory requirements in terms of rest breaks; this is added on top of that—when they can go, stop et cetera. That is one of the frustrations that these people have. It is no wonder that some of that plays out on their physical and mental condition when they are driving these heavy vehicles on our roads.

When I go out there, I am normally in the company of people from the Transport Workers Union. I have to say—and this is probably not the right place for it because this is not a debate on workplace relations—that as an organisation they have been tireless in making a positive contribution to the development of health and safety in their industry, and that should not go unrecognised. In particular I would like to acknowledge Tony Sheldon, the national secretary of the union, who on many of those occasions, because he actually lives not far from me, has turned up at those meetings at that truck stop. I see what they do and I see the efforts they put in to ensure that drivers see their work as professional, do not take shortcuts, and put health and safety first and foremost when they go about their business. I commend the efforts of Tony and the Transport Workers Union in leading the way in that respect in their industry.

This commitment to prevent road fatalities and serious injury is obviously shared by everybody. By way of background, the Council of Australian Governments agreed in February 2008 that heavy vehicle charges should be adjusted to maintain cost recovery. This links in to the standard of our roads, which has a direct correlation to the accidents involving heavy vehicles, and the resulting fatalities that occur. In raw terms, it is about ensuring that there is an appropriate charge applied against every heavy vehicle movement and is aimed at recovery against infrastructure with respect to our roads. Essentially, it is about ensuring that heavy vehicles pay their fair share for the impact they have on our roads.

This agreement that was struck with COAG was given effect through an automatic adjustment formula in the Interstate Road Transport Charge Regulations 2009 and adjustments in the heavy vehicle registration charge. They are highly dependent on the changes in the levels of spending on roads, bridges and the entire infrastructure associated with our main transport corridors. The previous speaker, Warren Truss, expressed a view that the government should spend more, but I get really irked when I hear that coming from people who were in government for 12 long years and failed to spend the money and give the matter the necessary priority when they had the opportunity. You cannot keep putting this down to the 13th year. They stand up and lecture us—‘You should do more’—but the truth of the matter is that we have done a lot. I have seen what has been done in my own electorate and the spending that is going into roads. On a broader scale, the spending that is taking place on the upgrading of our roads, bridgework and transport infrastructure is making our roads safer and, as a consequence, having an effect on the charges occurring in the heavy transport industry.

The purpose of the bill before us today is to amend the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985, which imposes registration charges on 20,500 vehicles registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. The passage of this bill will ensure that from 1 July 2010 owners of trucks and trailers registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme will pay a registration increase of only 4.2 per cent as opposed to the pre-adjusted figure, which was 9.7 per cent. As I stated, the adjustments to the heavy vehicle registration charge are highly dependent on changes in the levels of spending on and usage of the roads, bridgework and transport based infrastructure which heavy vehicles traverse. It is only fair to make this adjustment, given that spending across all levels of government has increased significantly in recent years and that an unexpected and substantial growth in the number of large vehicles would result in a potential over-recovery of $116 million in the 2010-11 period if this adjustment was not made.

It should be known that all governments have agreed through their transport ministers to amend their respective charges and regulations to modify the annual adjustment formula to maintain cost recovery and therefore enable the 4.2 per cent adjustment to be made for 2010-11. It is only fair that the charges reflect these changes. It is a sound decision and, whilst I know the industry acknowledge the need to pay their fair share for road usage, this adjustment is a preferable outcome. What we want to see, with our roads being further improved, is a consequent adjustment in the safety of heavy transport fleets as they operate across this country. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context