Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, I know you have a passion for cars, but, with your indulgence, I am just going to acknowledge the many truck drivers that made the journey to Canberra for this Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill discussion, and also those that might be listening on the radio—although, I think, if you are doing a long-distance haul, listening to parliament might actually be a dangerous thing to do, because it could make you doze off! Thank you to those who have taken the time to be involved in this political process.

It is a privilege to serve my constituents of Moreton in this House, and I do take that privilege very seriously. There are sometimes debates in this House that are so important to the everyday lives of people in Moreton and around Australia that I wonder who the people on the other side of the debate are really representing. This is one of those debates. The safety of our roads affects every one of my constituents. It is an issue that crosses all socioeconomic divides, cultures and age groups.

Moreton, in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, is a transport hub. We have the Acacia Ridge goods yard, with the standard gauge rail line going all the way through to Perth, and trucks converge on that node. We also have at Tennyson the goods yard there, which is the beginning of the train line transporting goods all the way up to Cairns, all the way north. Next door to that, at Rocklea, we have the Brisbane Markets, where trucks come in from all around Queensland and Australia and then go out, taking the fruits and vegetables. I have 18,000 businesses in my electorate, many of them connected to trucking businesses and/or using transportation involving trucks. Transport businesses, like MiniMovers, are even based in my electorate of Moreton.

As the stickers say, Australia relies on trucks. It is interesting that Australia has a similar land mass to that of the United States, yet only about half or a third of our goods are actually carried by rail. That is not a topic for this debate, but it is important to note. I grew up in a small country town out in western Queensland, and we used to say it was the biggest town in Australia not on the train line. In fact, St George was serviced by the train lines at Thallon or Dirranbandi. I grew up across the road from a trucking business. I have had trucks in my life for many years.

It is sad to hear the statistic that 25 people died on our roads last month as a result of heavy vehicle accidents. We know that it is a dangerous business. We know that people who drive trucks also know that and have to be alert all of the time. They are in charge of big pieces of equipment, often with tight time frames and tight budgets. Just yesterday, four people were killed in a horrific crash between a car and a truck. We know that fatalities for the trucking industry are 12 times the national average.

That is why, when Labor were in government, we did something about trying to make roads safer for all Australians, and the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was introduced. We knew that there was a problem, so, in consultation with the trucking industry, the union movement and stakeholders, we did what we could to fix it. Labor established this tribunal specifically to stop these accidents which cause so much death and injury.

I have been lobbied by people in truck stops in my electorate. Just down the road from my house, I have the truck stop that sells more diesel than any other service station in Australia. I went in there once and I remember being lobbied by a bloke who was not connected with the TWU but who was upset because one of his friends in the trucking industry had died. So I know that this issue is personal in the place that I represent.

The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal does good things. I know that those opposite are doing their best to politicise this. We had one speaker refer to the tribunal as doing 'evil' work. We have seen the Prime Minister try to politicise the process whereby he is trying to destroy this tribunal. Why? Because it made a ruling that the member for Wentworth did not like. So what does he do, rather than say, 'All right, let's hope the next decision'—like in a game of footy—'goes our way'? He wants to kill the tribunal. He takes out the umpire because he did not like the call the umpire made. When I played footy, I might have got upset with the referee, but I did not sack the referee if I lost a footy match because of their decision. In a court of law, if you do not like the decision, you can appeal it, and an independent arbiter or a higher court will review it. When you have the judgement from the highest court, that is the final decision. You do not dismantle the courts, and cloak it in populism, because you do not like a decision. That is a step down the road towards fascism.

This is a worrying decision by the Turnbull government here today. It does not bode well for future determinations by other bodies, under the Turnbull reign. There are many determinations that we could expect from other independent bodies which may not accord with the ideals of this Liberal-National party government. One that springs to mind is a decision to increase the minimum wage. We can easily see how the Turnbull government might be opposed to that determination. What about a decision by the Fair Work Commission on penalty rates? We know how this government abhors penalty rates. We have heard so many speeches against penalty rates being paid to low-paid workers, who give up their weekends to work. What decision would be safe if the government are prepared to just trash the body making it when they do not agree with the decision? Some toff from Point Piper, his money parked in the Caymans, attacking a minimum wage increase for truck drivers does not pass the pub test at the pubs in my electorate where the truck drivers go to have a drink—an appropriate drink, obviously.

This particular decision of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is very important to all of us. It will make our roads safer. There is an enormous body of empirical evidence, not political evidence, that links pay rates and safety on our roads, the roads that I drive on, the roads that the people in Moreton Drive on. PwC, in their 2016 report, recognised that the road safety in relation orders will result in a 10 per cent to 18 per cent reduction in the number of crashes. That is good for business, that is good for lives but it is also good for the nation. PwC is not exactly a radical left-wing entity, I would stress. An academic paper in 2006 based on a survey of 300 long-haul truck drivers found that owner drivers and drivers working for smaller firms reported more injuries than those employed by larger firms. The same academic paper found that owner drivers had a slightly higher crash rate.

This bill, brought on urgently by the Turnbull government, is nonsensical. I guess there are not a lot of long-haul truck drivers living in Point Piper who had a chance to lobby their local member. Not only is this a reckless and dangerous decision by the member for Wentworth, it flies in the face of what he said just a week ago. Just last week the Prime Minister said that he would abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal if he was re-elected. A week later, we are debating a bill to abolish it. There was no mention of this in his letter to the Governor-General in terms of proroguing the parliament. We should not be surprised that the member for Wentworth's position has changed. This Prime Minister changes his position almost on a daily basis. He stands for nothing but political expediency. We thought that captains calls were a thing of the past with the member for Warringah but they are continuing in this divided government. To quote from my favourite political show, Veep:

This is a government of continuity with no change.

Deputy Prime Minister Joyce said in 2012 about the introduction of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal:

Without labouring the point, we are not emphatically opposed to this. We oppose it but we are not going to town on it. We understand and have strong sympathies with owner-drivers. We understand the complexities and the discrepancies and the corruption and the mechanisms by which they should be paid a fair rate for what they do.

He also said in his speech today, rather bizarrely I thought, 'Owner-drivers treat their trucks better than those employed by trucking companies.' I do not know where he got that information from. Maybe it is because this is a guy who, when he was given a taxpayer funded $80,000 Land Cruiser, drove it into the water and wrecked it. Maybe that was his basis for that statement. It was a bizarre statement and I think he should apologise to employee truck drivers.

Senator Williams, one of those opposite who was a truck driver, said in his speech on the introduction of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal:

I back up what my leader, Senator Joyce, said. We are not overly concerned about this legislation. Even though we are not voting for it, it is one of the things I am certainly not going to die in a ditch over. Let us talk about road safety. We are talking about safe rates and we are talking about what truckies are paid, especially the contractors when they are unloaded at Coles and Woolworths. I do not have a problem with what you are proposing.

That was from one of the few people opposite who actually knows how to drive a truck. The former LNP member for Hinkler, who is also a National Party member, Paul Neville, is very well loved by both sides of the chamber. He chaired the committee which reported in October 2000 on a lot of these issues.

He said in his report:

When you get to a point where no-one is responding properly to these manifest inefficiencies in the transport industry, you can understand why a section of the industry is asking for a tribunal—so that at least someone independent can say what is a fair thing.

There seem to be a lot of prospective and hopeful attitudes put forward, but they do not improve the lot of the young guy behind the wheel of a truck—

Peter Biagini from the Transport Workers Union in Queensland said today when my office spoke to him that the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has already made a difference to the safety on our roads. I contrast this with the contribution by the member for Hughes, who said that the tribunal 'does evil work'. Let's look at some of the things that they have done.

The 2014 order implemented three important rulings: a mandatory drug and alcohol testing policy—how can that be evil work; all drivers trained in workplace health and safety; all drivers must have a safe driving plan before embarking on a trip. How can this be bad? The orders from this tribunal, the independent watchdog, have more substance than a desperate, whimsical 'captain's pick'. The full bench of the tribunal in its recent decision said:

The making of the 2016 RSRO has followed an extensive process that has been outlined in this decision. The decision to make the 2016 RSRO, and the terms set out in it, has been based upon comprehensive consultations, research, evidence, submissions, comments and hearings.

After a proper process of consultation, research, consideration of evidence, submissions and hearings, the tribunal has come up with an order. With the polls collapsing around him, the member for Wentworth decided to make a politically motivated captain's call to try to ram this surprise legislation through. Good government consults with the affected parties—the employers, workers, unions, owner operators. That is the opposite of what the member for Wentworth has done.

We were told more than a year ago now that 'good government starts today'. We are still waiting. If the LNP gets its way, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal—I say that deliberately; I am not going to say 'RSRT' because those opposite have been told not to say the full title—will be abolished and the roads will be less safe for all of us—for the truck drivers, for other road users, for pedestrians and for the people of Moreton going about their daily business.

The government might be happy compromising on road safety to save a buck but Labor believes that safety on our roads is paramount. Labor believes that it is unacceptable to have people dying on our roads because our truck drivers are overworked. Labor is happy to have discussions with the government about a sensible compromise around the pace at which the new minimum conditions are rolled out. The member for Gorton has already stated that. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? That is not a decision of a sensible, consultative government. The Prime Minister might be participating in great photo ops with truck drivers and their rigs but he really does not, I believe, fundamentally care about truck drivers or about what their remuneration is. He is doing what he thinks is the politically best option for himself. Just like his photo series on public transport—I think it was called 'selfies near poor people'—he is taking advantage of a political situation. This week we are seeing the real Malcolm Turnbull, a bloke prepared to spend taxpayers' money to recall parliament to debate legislation that a week ago he said he would deal with after the election. Now he says it is of 'great importance'. It is of such great importance that Mr Turnbull and his government, just a few weeks ago, voted against debating one of them, and the other, which has already been rejected three times by the Senate, was no longer even in the parliament.

The only thing the member for Wentworth values is power. We have seen that. He took power from the democratically elected member for Warringah, and now he is doing all he can to manage and control this divided party opposite. The member for Wentworth has shown this week that he will do and say whatever it takes to make that happen to cling to power, even if it means that it puts people who are using our roads at risk.

I ask those opposite to try and remove the politics from the situation. We know that this floor—F-L-O-O-R—can be well below the enterprise bargaining rates. Let us remember that. It is a complicated process, but sometimes it is above the award rate and sometimes it is below the award rate, depending on the distance being travelled. Do not listen to the political spin coming from those opposite. This is an attempt to abolish an independent umpire, rather than sitting down, dealing with stakeholders and doing the right thing by this nation.

See this speech in context