Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) and (6) and (7) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 17), after paragraph (a) of the definition of approved funding recipient, insert:

  (aa) a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project;

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 26), after paragraph (a) of the definition of approved purposes, insert:

  (aa) a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project;

(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 15), after item 7, insert:

7A Subsection 4(1)

  Insert:

  Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project has the meaning given by section 86A.

(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (after line 16), after paragraph (a) of the definition of project approval instrument, insert:

  (aa) in relation to a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project—the instrument approving the project under subsection 86B(1); and

(6) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 29), after item 38, insert:

38A After Part 7

  Insert:

Part 7A—Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

Division 1—Approval of Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

86A What is a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project?

  A Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project is a project for which an approval by the Minister under subsection 86B(1) is in force.

86B Approval of Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

(1) The Minister may, in writing, approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project if, and only if:

  (a) the Minister is satisfied that the project is eligible for approval (see section 86C); and

  (b) the Minister considers that it is appropriate to approve the project (see section 86D).

(2) An instrument approving a project is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

86C What projects are eligible for approval?

     A project is eligible for approval as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project if:

  (a) the project aims to reduce the number of road accidents involving heavy vehicles by targeting driver fatigue; or

  (b) the project aims to increase heavy vehicle productivity by enhancing the capacity of existing roads.

86D Is it appropriate to approve a project?

     The matters to which the Minister may have regard in deciding whether it is appropriate to approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project include, but are not limited to, the following matters:

  (a) the results of any assessment of the safety benefits, or the productivity benefits, and the costs of the project;

  (b) the results of any research conducted in relation to the project;

  (c) the extent to which persons other than the Commonwealth propose to contribute funding to the project.

86E Submission of particulars of projects

(1) The Minister may invite the submission of particulars of projects for consideration for approval as Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects.

(2) An invitation may be given:

  (a) to such States or authorities of a State as the Minister considers appropriate; and

  (b) by any method that the Minister considers appropriate.

(3) Subject to section 86B, the Minister may approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, whether or not particulars of the project were submitted in response to an invitation.

(4) The Minister is not required to consider a project for approval as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project unless such particulars of the project as the Minister requires have been submitted to the Minister.

86F Matters specified in project approval instrument

(1) The project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project must:

  (a) identify the project; and

  (b) specify the maximum funding amount that the Commonwealth may contribute to the project; and

  (c) identify the eligible funding recipient, being a State or authority of a State, to which funding may be paid; and

  (d) if the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into with the eligible funding recipient—contain a statement to that effect.

(2) The project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project may exclude one or more specified purposes from being purposes on which funding may be expended.

86G Requirements with which funding agreements must comply

     If the project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project states that the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into with the approved funding recipient:

  (a) the total amount of funding that the agreement provides for must not exceed the maximum funding amount specified in the project approval instrument; and

  (b) the agreement must comply with any other requirements (for example, requirements relating to the inclusion of conditions) specified in the project approval instrument.

86H Variation or revocation of project approval instrument

(1) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke the project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project.

(2) A variation may be of a matter dealt with in the project approval instrument before the variation, or to include a new matter in the project approval instrument. The instrument as varied must be consistent with section 86F.

Note: For example, the project approval instrument may be varied to change the eligible funding recipient to which funding will be paid, or to specify a purpose that is excluded from the purposes on which funding may be expended.

(3) If there is a funding agreement with the approved funding recipient, the powers given by subsection (1) must be exercised in accordance with any relevant provisions of the funding agreement.

(4) An instrument varying or revoking the project approval instrument is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Division 2—Provision of Commonwealth funding

86J Commonwealth funding for Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

(1) Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project may be provided to the approved funding recipient:

  (a) in accordance with section 86K; or

  (b) if the project approval instrument for the project states that the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into—in accordance with a funding agreement, entered into with the approved funding recipient, that satisfies the requirements of section 86G.

(2) The payments of funding are to be made out of money appropriated by the Parliament.

86K Approval of provision of Commonwealth funding if no funding agreement

(1) The Minister may, in writing, approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project to the approved funding recipient. The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke the approval.

(2) The funding is to be provided in one or more instalments paid to the approved funding recipient. Subject to subsection (3), the amount and timing of an instalment are as determined by the Minister.

(3) The total amount of funding provided for the project to the approved funding recipient must not exceed the maximum funding amount specified in the project approval instrument.

(4) An instrument:

  (a) approving the provision of Commonwealth funding, or varying or revoking such an approval; or

  (b) determining the amount or timing of an instalment of funding;

is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Division 3—Conditions that apply to Commonwealth funding

Subdivision A—Sources of conditions

86L Sources of conditions

(1) The conditions that apply to a payment (the funding payment) of Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project (the funded project) to an eligible funding recipient (the funding recipient) are:

  (a) the mandatory conditions (see Subdivision B); and

  (b) either:

     (i) if the funding payment is provided in accordance with section 86K—the conditions (if any) determined under Subdivision C; or

     (ii) if the funding payment is provided in accordance with a funding agreement—the conditions specified in the funding agreement.

(2) A funding agreement may specify a condition by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.

Subdivision B—The mandatory conditions

86M This Subdivision sets out the mandatory conditions

     The mandatory conditions are as set out in this Subdivision.

86N Funding payment must be expended on the funded project

     The funding payment must be wholly expended on approved purposes in relation to the funded project.

86P Funding recipient must give Minister audited financial statements

     For each financial year in which the funding recipient spends or retains any of the funding payment, the funding recipient must give to the Minister as soon as practicable, and in any event within 6 months, after the end of that year:

  (a) a written statement as to:

     (i) the amount spent by the funding recipient during that year out of the funding payment; and

     (ii) the amount retained by the funding recipient out of the funding payment as at the end of that year; and

(b) a report in writing and signed by the appropriate auditor stating whether, in the auditor's opinion:

     (i) the statement is based on proper accounts and records; and

     (ii) the statement is in agreement with the accounts and records; and

     (iii) the expenditure referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) has been on the funded project.

86Q Funding recipient must allow inspections by authorised persons

     The funding recipient must, at all reasonable times, permit a person authorised by the Minister:

  (a) to inspect any work involved in the carrying out of the funded project; and

  (b) to inspect and make copies of any documents relating to the funded project.

84R Funding recipient must maintain records

(1) The funding recipient must:

  (a) if the funded project targets driver fatigue in an area—maintain records relating to the nature and frequency of road accidents involving heavy vehicles and death or personal injury in the area; or

  (b) if the project aims to increase heavy vehicle productivity by enhancing the capacity of existing roads—maintain records relating to how that outcome has achieved.

(2) The funding recipient must maintain the records required by subsection (1) for a period of 5 years, commencing on the receipt of the funding payment.

(3) The funding recipient must, at all reasonable times, permit a person authorised by the Minister to inspect any records maintained by the funding recipient as required by subsection (1).

86S Amount repayable on breach of condition

(1) If the Minister notifies the funding recipient in writing that the Minister is satisfied that the funding recipient has failed to fulfil any condition that applies to the funding payment (whether that condition is specified in this Subdivision, in a funding agreement or in a determinationunder Subdivision C) then the funding recipient must repay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to so much of the funding payment as the Minister specifies in the notice.

(2) The Minister may, by notice in writing, vary or revoke a notice given under subsection (1).

(3) If there is a funding agreement with the funding recipient, the powers given to the Minister by subsections (1) and (2) must be exercised in accordance with any relevant provisions of the funding agreement.

(4) A notice under subsection (1), or an instrument varying or revoking such a notice, is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Subdivision C—Determination of other conditions if no funding agreement

86T Determination of other conditions if no funding agreement

(1) The Minister may, in writing, determine other conditions that apply to the provision of funding in accordance with section 86K.

(2) The Minister may determine different conditions to apply in different classes of situations.

(3) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke conditions determined under subsection (1).

(4) An instrument determining, varying or revoking conditions is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, but neither section 42 nor Part 6 of that Act applies to the instrument.

(5) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, an instrument determining or varying conditions may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.

(7) Schedule 1, item 46, page 13 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item, substitute:

46 Section 94

  Omit "6, 7", substitute "7, 7A".

These amendments go to what I believe is the inadequate drafting of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 that is before the parliament this afternoon. The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program is an initiative that we established under the existing nation building program act in 2009. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, as you would be familiar because your electorate in Maranoa was a big beneficiary, it was aimed at improving safety and productivity outcomes of heavy vehicle operations across Australia. It was very clear after representation from organisations, including the Australian Trucking Association and the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association, and individual trucking companies and operators that there was a gap to be filled in terms of the program so the former government established the first Commonwealth dedicated program of its kind. Given the nature of this new legislation that is providing a framework for infrastructure and transport funding moving forward, I think it would be appropriate to include it in the act at this time.

The former government allocated some $70 million in the period 2008-09 to 2011-12. In the 2012 and 2013 budgets the former Labor government provided a further $250 million to extend this program. Total spending on the program became $320 million. It is a very significant program particularly aimed at road safety. When it comes to road safety we know that an extraordinary percentage of fatal accidents involve heavy vehicles. That is a problem for people who dedicate their very hardworking lives to driving on our highways to deliver products to market. It is also a problem for every driver because we all share the road with those heavy vehicles. Already there are 294 projects in total, including some 236 projects that have been completed, along with over 140 new or upgraded rest areas and 46 new or upgraded parking and decoupling bays.

Round 3 project criteria included funding the states and territories under six categories: rest area projects, which were about improving the provision of heavy vehicle rest areas on key interstate routes; parking and decoupling bay projects, which went to providing heavy vehicle parking and decoupling areas and facilities in outer urban and regional communities; and technology trial projects, which included the trial technologies to improve heavy vehicle safety and/or productivity. We know that this has reaped dividends in the past. Then there is the area of 'improving undercarriage'. There are considerable fatalities where literally heavy vehicles go over the top of passenger motor vehicles. This new technology ensures that that does not occur. New technology can also be designed to ensure that notification is given to a heavy vehicle driver who goes out of their lane. New technology can also provide for automated braking if a heavy vehicle gets too close to the vehicle in front of it. That automatic braking system has been advocated by people, including Lindsay Fox and others in the transport industry. This is an area that has seen extraordinary progress in saving lives and is one of the reasons why I think we as a parliament can be proud of the difference we have made in recent years to reduce the fatality rate on our roads. (Extension of time granted)

The fourth area is road enhancement projects. This can enhance the capacity and/or safety of roads, including bridges, to allow access by high-productivity vehicles to more of the road network. This again is a common-sense initiative. You should not have bottlenecks because bridges cannot take the weight of a heavy vehicle and therefore the driver has to, literally, spend many additional hours on the road with the consequential cost to the driver and the consequential cost to those who share the road with that driver, as well as the increased emissions and increased costs at the end of the day to the consumer who has to pay those flow-through costs. So this was a very sensible initiative.

The fifth is demonstration projects to facilitate innovation to improve heavy-vehicle safety and productivity projects. Again, working with the industry itself—to get that feedback and to make sure that the government is responsive to the needs of industry and of those people who work on the frontline in this industry.

The last was particularly important, and came from very specific representations from ALRTA, the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters' Association. It is livestock transport industry projects which improve heavy-vehicle safety and productivity for specific livestock transport operations. The former member for New England was a big champion of this particular area. In terms of the assistance given, when you look at the website you see projects from right around the country—particularly in Queensland, which is not surprising given the nature of the state there—to have improvements which make an enormous difference to safety and to the working lives of those people who work in that industry. For heavy-vehicle safety, I believe this is particularly important.

Of course, it was consistent with our initiative in introducing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. That arose out of the landmark report of the House of Representatives committee supported by, and including, the former member for Hinkler, Paul Neville. He was a big champion of this reform, which essentially introduced Safe Rates and acknowledged that the power in the marketplace between an individual driver and a big company is not even, and that that pressure could lead to practices which cost lives. We know that is the case. No-one could not be moved if they spoke to one of the wives or family of people who have lost their lives because of the pressure that was placed on these people on our roads.

That is why the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was enacted by the former government. I believe that it was an absolutely critical reform. We were given a reminder of it recently by the Four Corners program, which outlined very clearly, in practical terms, why this issue should not be one of ideology and of partisan political debate. This should be something that is above party politics and should be an issue which is supported by all in this chamber—particularly by representatives from regional Australia. It is in regional Australia that most of the incidences involving heavy vehicles which cause fatalities occur.

These are sensible reforms, putting in place a framework which stops the undue exercise of pressure on drivers to drive what are sometimes extraordinary hours have been indicated. In Australia, people driving for more than 24 hours straight should not occur. There needs to be a framework around that. (Extension of time granted)This is critical and we established the Safe Rates Remuneration Tribunal. It commenced operation in July. 2012. The object of the act is to promote safety and fairness in the road transport industry. The tribunal's role in this area primarily relates to addressing the relationship between remuneration and safety in the industry by ensuring, amongst other things, that road transport drivers do not have remuneration related incentives to work in an unsafe manner and removing remuneration -related incentives, pressures and practices that contribute to unsafe work practices.

I am disappointed that the coalition government has flagged its intention to eliminate this tribunal even before its first order comes into effect on May 1 of this year. It has commissioned an inquiry into the tribunal before it has had a chance to prove its worth as an additional tool to deliver road safety. It is particularly insulting to the families of hard-working truck drivers to describe this tribunal as 'red tape'. This is a tribunal that is aimed very fairly and squarely at saving lives.

The first four of the items listed in the amendment which I have moved add the Heavy vehicle Safety productivity program to definitions in the act in a manner consistent with the existing programs: Item (1) inserts the heavy vehicle safety productivity program into the act's definition of an eligible funding recipient. Item (2) inserts the program into the act's definition of approved purposes. Item (3) inserts a definition reference to the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program. Item (4) inserts a reference to the project approval instrument for the program. Item (6) inserts a new part 7 to the act that outlines the essential elements of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program in a manner that is consistent with other programs under the act. The provisions relating to approval of projects, provision of funding and conditions that apply to funding are the same as for other projects such as black spots.

I might leave my comments there and give the minister an opportunity to respond to these amendments. I must indicate that I contacted the minister last Friday morning and indicated very clearly that I was prepared to have discussions about the amendments we are moving to this bill today. I believe it is important that these amendments be considered on their merits. They clearly have merit. The same arguments that the minister has put with regard to areas such as the Roads to Recovery Program was of course included in the budget in 2013. We extended the program out through the forward estimates, but it does make a common-sense reform to include it in the act, which is the legislation that we have before us today. Just as that makes sense, it also makes sense to include the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, which is why we are moving this amendment today.

I have two further points to make. The key clauses to note in the amendments are clause 86C, which prescribes eligible heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects as being projects that reduce accidents by reducing driver fatigue or projects that increase productivity by enhancing capacity on existing roads—those are the current project criteria for the minister to note; and clause 86R, which says that records relating to measuring the outcomes of the investment are required to be kept for five years—which is, again, consistent with the way that, in general, the act applies. For the benefit of the House, amendment (7) is simply a consequential amendment, if you like, relating to renumbering. I commend the amendments to the House.

See this speech in context