Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal—as you know, Deputy Speaker—is an independent national body with functions relating to the road transport industry. According to the tribunal, its functions include:

As you also know, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was established in 2012 and commenced operating on 1 July of that year.

It is worth, I think, talking a little bit about the decisions and orders of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal that have attracted some controversy and that have been briefly discussed by some of the speakers in the debate today. In the decision that led to the making of the Contractor Driver Minimum Payments Road Safety Remuneration Order 2016, the tribunal noted that, in 2013, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal had issued an order providing 'certain minimum conditions, but not minimum payments' for contractor drivers, and in that decision the tribunal had 'summarised the various submissions that had been made to it on minimum payments' but had 'declined' to make a minimum payments order at the time, saying that it would do so subsequently after further information had been obtained.

Specifically, what they said at the time of making this decision in late 2015 was that the decision that had been made in 2013 had referred to the research material presented to the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal 'on the relationship between remuneration and safety in the road transport industry and material presented from government-initiated and other inquiries into the road transport industry, as well as the evidence before the RSRT concerning the relationship between remuneration and safety'. They said that, in the proceedings that had preceded this decision in December 2015, there had been some people who had attempted to bring into question—or further question—whether there is any relationship between remuneration and safety or who had otherwise tried to suggest that the material that they had referred to in 2013 was now dated. But the tribunal found that nothing persuasive had been put to them to lead them to conclude that the substance of the material was not relevant to the decision that they then made in 2015.

So it is worth, I think, referring to the 2013 decision and the work that was done in relation to that decision that referred to the links between remuneration and safety. That decision in 2013 was about the 2014 order, which went on to set out requirements regarding payment time within 30 days of received invoice for contractor drivers; written contracts for road transport drivers, which could be in electronic format; contracts between supply chain participants; safe-driving plans for long-distance operations in heavy vehicles; training in work health and safety; drug and alcohol policies; dispute resolution; and adverse conduct protection. As I said, they decided not to deal with rates in that order but to do some work subsequently on rates, which is how we ended up with the decision of December last year.

In that decision in 2013, as I said earlier, there was a lot of work done to canvass the connection between road safety and remuneration. At the time, they said:

Road accident data relevant to the road transport industry was presented to the Tribunal by ARTIO. Research material was also presented by the TWU … This included empirical research reports on remuneration factors and safety-related outcomes including crashes, onroad performance in general, stimulant use and fatigue and speeding.

In saying 'stimulant use', of course, I am talking about illicit drugs as well as legal drugs. They went on to canvass a number of different studies.

Firstly, they were referred to an inquiry initiated by the Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales, which reported in 2001. They went on to cite substantial parts of that inquiry's report from the 2001 inquiry, including:

During its own investigation the Inquiry discovered earlier inquiries, coronial inquests and commissioned research into the road freight industry since the 1980s that identified a strong association between commercial practices and safety.

They also referred to that inquiry's findings that there were a number of tendering practices common in the industry that were not conducive to safe operation—for example, taking little account of how a task was to be completed or other safety related issues and instead quoting an all-in price, which placed cost burdens even for events beyond control or due to customer inefficiency. And they went on to cite further parts of that inquiry from 2001, which ultimately found that there was a combination of commercial and industry practices and structural features that constituted a significant underlying reason for unsafe practices and for the industry's overall poor safety performance. One of the recommendations in that inquiry was to have minimum safety based payments for owner-drivers.

They then went on to canvass an inquiry initiated by the Victorian Minister for Industrial Relations in 2004, which was called Report of inquiry: owner drivers and forestry contractors, which went on to draw connections between the real financial pressures that led to working unduly long hours with consequent fatigue. Of course, for those who are questioning how there could possibly be a link between remuneration and safety, it is fairly obvious that commercial practices are connected with those financial pressures to work unduly long hours with consequent fatigue. In that second inquiry to which reference was made there was substantial information about minimum payments to owner-drivers being a serious issue, since those drivers are under particular pressures, which are referred to in the decision.

Thirdly, they referred to the 2006 decision of the full bench of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission and went on to cite provisions from that. They noted that Professor Quinlan, who had been in the 2001 inquiry, had given evidence before the full bench of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission.

Fourthly, they referred to a 2008 report, prepared for the National Transport Commission, entitled Remuneration and safety in the Australian heavy vehicle industry: a review undertaken for the National Transport Commission. The report, by Professor Quinlan and the Hon. Lance Wright QC, included substantial discussion about connections between remuneration and safety, which are cited at some length in the 2013 decision.

Fifthly, they referred to the 2008 inquiry established by the Australian Transport Council as part of the National Transport Policy Framework. The report of that 2008 NTC inquiry said:

Although considerable work has been undertaken to this point to demonstrate the link between safety outcomes and truck driver pay rates or methods, the new report—

referring to the other 2008 source that they had referred to—

by Professor Michael Quinlan and the Hon Lance Wright QC draws all this information together, and, with the addition of new evidence from stakeholders, conclusively determines the existence of this link.

They helpfully included in the decision—which anyone can get; it is on the internet—a very helpful table showing, in a graphical and diagrammatic way, the consequences for truck drivers of a failure to have appropriate levels of remuneration. They talk about the root causes and economic pressures leading to safety concerns in the trucking industry.

The tribunal also, in their 2013 decision, canvassed the evidence that had been given by several individuals, including Dr Michael Rawling, who outlined some of the research surrounding supply chains in the road transport industry, and Mr Michael Caine of the TWU. They went on to say that they had had research from Mr Paul Clapson, an owner-driver; and Mr Mark Trevillian, a road transport driver. I think they also had, if I remember correctly, Mr Eric Pickering, a road transport driver; Mr Brad Statham, a chartered accountant who advised owner-drivers; Mr Frank Black—someone whom I have met—an owner-driver who gave evidence that most times companies tell him the rate of payment. They were some of the people to whom they made reference in the decision, having canvassed five or six substantive and serious reports in relation to connections between road safety and remuneration.

The 2014 order was made and the 2016 order was made subsequently. It is not the only work of the tribunal, of course. If you have a look at the four annual work programs they have produced to date, you will see that they have been looking at the retail sector, the livestock sector, the bulk grain sector, the interstate long distance sector and intrastate long distance sector. In the current annual work program, for example, which is the fourth annual work program, the tribunal propose to inquire into the road transport and distribution industry; long distance operations in the private transport industry; sectors in the cash in transit industry; the oil, fuel and gas sectors of the road transport industry; the wharf and port sectors of the road transport industry; and sectors in the waste management industry. A bill to abolish the tribunal ought to be considered in the knowledge that the work of the tribunal is serious and significant work that goes to road safety and safety generally across a number of sectors of our economy.

It is not very rare for litigants to be upset about a decision. What is rare is for those same litigants to try to get the entire tribunal abolished because they are not happy with the decision. We say, as you know, Deputy Speaker, that it is important to maintain the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal because of the connection between road safety and remuneration. As you know, trucking is Australia's deadliest profession, with drivers 15 times more likely to die than people working in any other profession. It is a serious and significant issue. You would also be aware that it is an issue that has been debated with some emotion by people across both sides of the House, but some of the arguments have been very unfortunate. The member for Capricornia attempted to draw a link between domestic violence and the order of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, as if to say that somehow domestic violence was caused by minimum rates in an industry. The member for Hughes got up and said, 'Isn't it outrageous! People are expected to comply with summonses and turn up at a tribunal when they are ordered to turn up.' We are here in Canberra this week because people on the other side of this chamber want to debate and enact a bill that will actually remove the right to silence of people in the construction industry, and this same mob are saying it is outrageous that people have to comply with summonses in tribunals. It is just hypocrisy and it ought not to go unremarked.

To go to the very recent decision, it is true to say that participants in the industry have raised concerns about a number of issues. Those issues include backloads, split loads, rise and fall fuel and whether there should be specific exclusions from the order. Of course, the proper way to deal with a tribunal's order with which you are unhappy is to seek to engage, to persuade and to vary that order. That is precisely what is happening. There was an application to vary made recently, and in deciding that application the tribunal took the opportunity to comment on some of the things that have been said about the current order and the tribunal itself. They set forth something of a myth-busting paragraph. Paragraph 2 of the recent decision on the application to vary said the following:

The correct position on the issues covered by the myths is as follows:

As they said:

To the extent any peak body has created and perpetuated myths about the application and operation of the 2016 RSRO, or failed to alert their members as to the opportunity to put submissions regarding the draft RSRO—

which was published—

they have done their members a great disservice.

They went on to say that it is true that some still appear to think it is un-Australian for the order to place restrictions on market practices that are a root cause of death and serious injury on our roads. Here we find the nub of the issue: do you believe that you ought to deal with safety issues by dealing with the root causes, or do you believe that you ought to just wash your hands of it, turn a blind eye and get rid of a tribunal that has been set up for safety purposes?

It has been suggested that the tribunal is somehow a creature of the TWU. Anyone who reads the recent decision on the application to vary will be left in no doubt that the tribunal is very independent. The TWU comes in for some pretty significant criticism throughout the course of that decision. Similarly, if you read that decision you will see the amount of engagement and discussion that the tribunal engaged in with industry. There were 60 days of consultations, conciliation conferences and hearings. It published two reports on those conferences. It published a significant amount of research material. It commissioned a KPMG research project and published it. It implemented a Q and A process. It published the draft order so that people could make submissions. It put a draft payment calculator online. It published numerous statements and considered more than 100 written submissions and comments. Those are not the actions of a tribunal that is somehow not operating in an independent way and is not engaged with the sector and industry.

It is simply the case that the people who are seeking to raise concerns about this ought to engage with the tribunal and continue to press their issues. But, as the tribunal said, the order was made on 18 December and everybody knew that the first date of operations would be 4 April. Yet the Australian Long Distance Owners' and Drivers' Association did not put in any application to vary until 3 March. The Australian Industry Group did not put theirs in until 9 March. We have had people in here complaining that there were hearings over Easter. They did not put their applications in until the beginning of March and the second week of March for an order that was to take effect on 4 April. What do they expect the tribunal to do? Of course they are going to have to continue to engage and afford natural justice to people involved in the sector. It is also worth noting that the decision is very, very clear about a number of the procedural issues. I am very concerned about these attempts to silence the tribunal. (Time expired)

See this speech in context