Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I will. I will draw the attention of the House to proposed clause 33, road transport collective agreements. The question arises: how effective are these agreements going to be in actually delivering real improvements in safety outcomes. The provision says:

(1) A road transport collective agreement is an agreement:

(a) between:

  (i) contractor drivers (the participating drivers) with whom a hirer or potential hirer proposes to contract for the provision of specified road transport services (the applicable services); and

  (ii) the hirer or potential hirer of the drivers (the participating hirer); and

(b) that specifies:

  (i) who the participating hirer is; and

  (ii) who the participating drivers are; and

  (iii) the basis on which the participating drivers became part of that group of drivers; and

(c) that specifies remuneration or related conditions (or both) for participating drivers who provide applicable services to the participating hirer.

Agreements such as this will ultimately result in a certain rate being struck. The question arises: if the rates that are a result of such agreements result in increased costs, is that going to provide for improved safety? That is what is not clear.

There is no evidence that this provision, proposed clause 33, is in any material way going to contribute to improved safety on our roads—and that is what the people that I represent are most interested in. The question people are asking is: are the 64 amendments going to actually result in a real outcome for people who use the Pacific Highway, for instance, or our other major highways or is it merely pandering to an industrial agenda? Certainly proposed clause 33 on road transport collective agreements and the relationship between the contract drivers and the hirers does not show the ways in which there is going to be an improved safety outcome. The people I represent who deal with heavy vehicles travelling through the main streets of their towns want to ensure that these vehicles travel safely and that the drivers are not overly fatigued.

The issue is: will these amendments result in less fatigue for drivers and in safer driving practices? We have no evidence of this. On this side of the House we believe that amendments brought to this House should be evidence based and not industrially driven, as these amendments seem to be. There seems to be a lack of reference in these amendments to safety, yet the government maintains that that is what these amendments are all about.

See this speech in context