Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

The government is introducing 64 amendments to this bill before the House. These amendments were only made available to the opposition late yesterday, even though I understand they were approved by caucus a couple of weeks ago. I have no doubt as well that they have been developed following extensive consultation with the trade unions. Industry also was made aware of these amendments, 64 of them, only yesterday. That is hardly a good start for this proposed consultation process that surrounds this legislation. Indeed, this has been typical of the way in which the government has handled this bill right from the very beginning.

It arose out of a report in 2008 but we saw little subsequently from it until it was rushed into the parliament. The House of Representatives committee had only two hours of hearings. The minister rightly reported that the majority of the committee recommended that the bill be passed. However, he neglected to mention that there was a significant minority report which raised serious concerns about this legislation and its intent.

This bill was introduced by the minister for transport on the basis that it was about road safety. It has now been transferred to the minister for industrial relations, which shatters any pretence that this bill ever had anything to do with road safety. It is all about industrial relations and union power. So the minister is introducing, for the unions, these 64 amendments that further intrude into the commercial arrangements in the trucking industry and add to the pervasive nature of this legislation. It leaves every person in this country who ever drives a truck uncertain about how they will be able to work in the future. The new tribunal that is being established will have the capacity to intervene in almost any element of industry where a truck is involved. I am not saying they will always do it, but they will have the capacity to do it, because this legislation is so broad ranging.

Turning to some of the major amendments first. The minister acknowledged in his comments that the majority of the amendments were about part III. There are a number of amendments that correct drafting errors. It is a bit surprising that there would be drafting errors in a bill that has been under preparation since 2008, but it seems that has happened. I will concentrate mainly on matters of substance.

The government's amendment in section 33(6) says:

Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, a road transport collective agreement has no effect unless it is an approved road transport collective agreement.

A road transport collective agreement is defined under section 33(1) as an agreement between contractor drivers and a hirer that specifies remuneration and related conditions for the driver who provides the applicable service to the participating driver. A contract driver is defined in the amendments as 'an independent contractor'. The effect of the amendment is that any contract between a group of independent contractors, or owner-drivers, and a hirer must be approved by the road safety remuneration tribunal.

Section 33 in the original bill states that the tribunal 'may grant a safe remuneration approval for a road transport collective agreement' where certain conditions are met. This is entirely different to the amendment and warrants further consideration and consultation with industry. On the face of it there are a number of problems with this amendment. Firstly, the amendment would have the effect that all current agreements, except those made under existing state regulatory regimes, between groups of owner-drivers and hirers would be null and void as they are not approved road transport collective agreements. They would have to be immediately renegotiated and that would put hirers and owner-drivers who are parties to these agreements in a precarious situations. Additionally, this immediately undermines the sanctity of the commercial contracts between the two companies involved in contract drivers. How, for example, will it affect the commercial agreements between, say, Holden and those companies that transport their cars? Are these agreements now valid, are they void, are they unlawful or are they just unenforceable?

Secondly, the bill erodes the concept of the independent contractor. This amendment takes this erosion one step further by reducing their ability to negotiate terms and conditions that they believe to be adequate. (Time expired)

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

The bill will centralise contracts for groups of independent contractors and in doing so it will limit their opportunity. It has the potential to hamper competition and remove flexibilities. In this way the bill has the potential to make it less attractive to hire groups of owner-drivers. Additionally, the tribunal will be ill equipped to deal with the potential volume of contracts that it will be required to approve. The bill was touted as a road safety measure but we have been told that the tribunal it establishes will issue orders to make sure that drivers have remuneration and related conditions designed to ensure that they will drive safely. However, the amendment goes much further than that. It give the tribunal the power and the responsibility to approve agreements between groups of owner drivers and hirers. It just goes to show that this is not about road safety. It is about industrial relations and, of course, the great payback to the Transport Workers Union.

Turning to section 33(1), the government amendments define a 'road transport collective agreement' as an agreement that 'specifies remuneration or related conditions (or both)' for groups of owner drivers who make an agreement for 'the provision of specified road transport services'. The important distinction between the amendment and the original definition of a road transport collective agreement is the deletion of the word 'and' and the insertion of the word 'or'. That amendment relates to contracts for remuneration and related conditions where the amendment relates to contracts for 'remuneration or related conditions (or both)'. This broadens the scope of the tribunal's requirement to approve collective agreements between groups of owner operates and their hirer. It was argued by some submitters to the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications that the matters on which the tribunal could make a road safety remuneration order were too broad. Now, there is scope for it to be even wider. They did not heed the advice given to the committee and in effect have made the bill worse. The amendment broadens the scope of the sort of conditions and matters that a group of independent contractors can seek an approved agreement on. Importantly, it goes far beyond matters within the original intent of the bill that would have to be approved by the tribunal before taking effect.

In section 33(3) the government's amendment inserts the following:

The regulations may prescribe a code of conduct in relation to collective bargaining for road transport collective agreements.

The government's amendments insert section 34(c), which says that in order to grant approval for a road transport collective agreement the tribunal must be satisfied that:

… the participating hirer and the participating drivers have conducted themselves in accordance with any code of conduct prescribed under subsection 33(3) …

Not only is it unusual for the minister to be issuing guidelines to the industry and the tribunal that control how bargaining in the trucking industry occurs, but the provisions of the bill are due to come into effect on 1 July this year. When will we see these regulations? When will we see the code of conduct the government is proposing? What is its scope? What matters will it cover? There has been no consultation by the government about these issues with the industry.

The only guidance in the bill is section 33(5), which says:

A code of conduct prescribed under subsection (3) must have as its object the facilitation of effective and efficient collective bargaining for road transport collective agreements.

This is supposed to be about road safety, but this clause makes clear it is far more about collective bargaining than about safety.

What does all this really mean? What will be the scope for the code of conduct? The government's amendments insert clause 33(4), which states:

Before the Governor-General makes a regulation under subsection (3)—

to stipulate a code of conduct—

the Minister must consult with industry and the Tribunal.

But the government have shown no willingness to discuss these issues with industry over the last few years. Their discussions are exclusively with the union movement, yet this legislation is going to affect not only trade union members; every person who ever wants to drive a truck could be affected. The farmer who delivers his grain to the depot in his own truck may suddenly become subject to rulings by this new tribunal. The man who transports his mower from one factory to another to mow lawns could be picked up by this because he is undertaking a transport task. All of this is included within the definitions in this bill. It certainly massively extends powers to the trade union movement to dominate this sector even further. That is what this is all about. We know the Transport Workers Union has been very good to the Labor Party over the years and now they are getting some of their reward. The reality is that this particular industry— (Time expired)

See this speech in context