Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on these bills today; although I must say I'm disappointed to do so. In fact what we're seeing here within the parliament and what we saw when this bill was debated in the Senate is actually a failure of implementation and, frankly, a failure of leadership from the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister responsible for these bills. The bill itself, if you just listened to the person at the dispatch box before, is pretty straightforward. The Road Vehicle Standards Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 seeks to amend the commencement provisions of the Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018, which passed through this parliament last year with Labor's support. The package of legislation, in fact, received royal assent and became law on 10 December 2018, yet here is the government now coming into this place with a piece of legislation which has been over a decade in coming and has been consulted on literally to death. I don't know what other consultation the government thinks it is going to be doing over the course of the next two years, but this is a piece of government legislation that passed the Senate, passed the House of Representatives and was given royal assent in December last year, and now the government is saying, 'We need to delay this for two years.'

The reality of what the government has done is that it has failed to invest money in the department for the IT system. This is a failure of implementation from the government and it is a failure of leadership. We in Labor get that this is a tricky issue. We get that there are always going to be stakeholders in this space who are not going to be satisfied that the changes are exactly what they want. After having consulted for five years—and I'll go through some detail as to the level of consultation, the number of Senate inquiries that this piece of legislation has been through—the problem now is: how is the government going to resolve those standing problems? They're not going to get resolved; that is the problem. They are really difficult. There are opposing views on particular and specific issues. As for consultation, what assurances is the minister going to be able to give us that that consultation will resolve those issues which have been longstanding?

The reality is that they won't. The government has to either take the decision to bite the bullet and implement this legislation or say it's all too hard. If they delay it for another two years, I am going to be asking the minister very specifically: 'What investments are you planning to make in the IT system? What is your consultation program and consultation plan? Who are you consulting with? What are the outstanding issues in order to bring this in?' Because right at the heart of it this bill is about road safety. It is about the vehicles that are on Australian roads today and making sure they are the safest vehicles that they can possibly be. At its heart, that is really what this legislation is about.

As I said, the original package of legislation passed the parliament and got royal assent back in December 2018. Commencement of the substantive provisions of the legislation is scheduled to occur on 10 December this year. They had a year to basically get all of this in place but are now saying, 'No, we can't do it.' We're here today to pass a bill which would delay commencement for almost two years—potentially more, I suspect, given the difficulty that the department is going to face in trying to resolve some of these quite intractable issues, simply because the government has not done the work and has not given the department the resources it needs to implement it. It is a significant failure of implementation and, in my view, a significant failure, on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister, of leadership in terms of road safety, an area where this government is failing.

The Road Vehicles Standards Act 2018 replaced the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989. Clearly, we know a lot has changed in road vehicles since the 1980s, when the Motor Vehicle Standards Act came into being. The new road vehicles standards legislation that passed this place in December last year created a new framework to regulate the importation and supply to market of road vehicles and certain road vehicle components. That legislation provided recall powers to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development to recall non-compliant vehicles. The legislation improves access to specialist and enthusiast vehicles and ensures that Australia's vehicle fleet continues to offer world-leading standards in community and environmental safety.

Importantly, the legislation to be delayed that we are now debating will reduce regulatory compliance costs to business. The government tells us that some $68 million will be saved each year as a result of that scheme coming into play. Unfortunately, industry and the Australian public will now need to wait almost two years before they will be in a position to realise the safety and financial benefits that the government claims the new Road Vehicles Standards Act will deliver. The bill before us today seeks to delay commencement of this regulatory regime until July 2021, almost two years later than when some of the provisions of the original act were due to commence in September this year.

Before I talk too much about the detail of the amended bill before us today, I want to take a few minutes to reflect on what's actually happening in road safety, because, as I said, at the core of it that is what this legislation is about: the government taking a decision to delay for two years regulation that will improve road safety. And it's not as though we are doing incredibly well when it comes to road safety in this country. If the government thinks that road safety is all okay, and we can delay the implementation of an important scheme for a couple of years because there won't be any consequences to that, then I'd ask it to reflect on what's actually happening. As legislators there is nothing more important than keeping our people safe on our roads. I had the privilege of serving as Minister for Road Safety in 2013. As a former minister for road safety, I therefore know that safety depends on three things: safe drivers, safe roads and safe vehicles. The Road Vehicles Standards Act sets the regulatory framework for one of these elements, ensuring that the safest possible vehicles are supplied for use on Australia's roads.

Almost 1.2 million cars are sold in Australia every year, in addition to thousands of trucks, caravans, trailers and other road vehicles. There are currently almost 20 million vehicles registered for use on Australian roads. Vehicle technology is, of course, rapidly changing, and over coming years we will see even more rapid uptake of new technology, such as electric and hydrogen, and also more automation in vehicles. We also will see increased automation in the freight sector. As the population grows and as businesses rely more on just-in-time delivery, we will see more freight vehicles, small and large, on our highways, roads and local streets. We will also see the continued growth of the recreational vehicle fleet, such as caravans and campervans, which we know have had such a huge resurgence in recent years. As vehicles become more and more complex, so too does the need to ensure that rigorous certification and approval processes are in place before any new vehicle or component is made available to the Australian market.

We know that every year more than 1,200 people lose their lives on Australian roads. The economic cost to the Australian community as result of road trauma is estimated to be some $30 billion each and every year. But we also know that the social and emotional cost to families, individuals and communities across this country is even greater. After many years of continuous improvement—largely brought about by road safety reforms implemented across Australia, and with the strong commitment of the Australian public, in the 1990s—Australia's road toll, unfortunately, has again begun to turn in the wrong direction. We can't allow that to continue. We need to do something different if we're going to reduce the loss of lives on Australian roads.

Last year, in the lead-up to the election campaign, we committed to establishing a national office of road safety, to give much-needed national leadership in addressing Australia's road toll. It's an important initiative. We believed that the office needed to work strongly with state and territory agencies to better understand the road safety challenges faced around the country, to develop and promote best practice and to undertake much-needed research into the factors affecting safety on our roads. It's how we can develop sensible policy and legislative responses based on evidence and real-time data and research about what is happening on our roads. This research and data collection should be used to help shape the next National Road Safety Strategy, which is due to commence next year. I am very pleased that the government pinched this idea and has now established this office within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development. I certainly call on the government to ensure that the office is well-resourced and able to make a real difference in this important area of public policy. The opposition will continue to monitor the work of the office and to advocate most strongly for its function as part of national leadership in road safety.

But I also want to note that the government has failed in delivering the National Road Safety Strategy in particular. We know that that has been the subject of some concern by the government, as it should be. But we know that, even after nearly seven years—this government is in its third term; it's not a new government—it has been basically sitting on its hands when it comes to national road safety. For example, when it comes to the National Road Safety Strategy, there are eight indicators that the government still can't even measure, including one of the two headline targets: reducing serious injuries by 30 per cent. So, after six years in office—the National Road Safety Strategy has been in place for a while now—this government can't even measure some of the indicators to tell us how it's actually going to be able to reduce serious injuries on our roads. That's what the government has been doing.

It is not just the Labor Party saying that the government is failing on road safety. The government undertook a review into the national road safety governance, which was completed. It was dropped out on a Friday afternoon a few weeks ago. The key finding of this review into the government's capacity and leadership in road safety—the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for this area—was pretty damning. Authored by the Deputy Prime Minister's own department, it found that this government, the Morrison government, has not provided strong leadership, coordination or advocacy on road safety to drive national trauma reductions. And what's government's response? The government's response is to come into this place and delay for yet another two years a really critical component of actually getting safer vehicles on our roads. That's what the government thinks its role is in national road safety.

The review examined whether Australia has the appropriate governance arrangements in place to deliver the commitments made by governments to mainstream road safety in line with what we call the safe systems approach. The recent transport infrastructure ministers meeting in Adelaide signed off on the Commonwealth-led review of national road safety governance. It signed off, basically, on a report that said that the Commonwealth had failed. If that's what the minister thinks leadership is, goodness help us when we come to actually improving road safety.

I note the government now is going around holding some roundtables with industry on where the next National Road Safety Strategy will go. The government has said that it wants a bipartisan approach when it comes to road safety. Well, if you want a bipartisan approach, how about you invite the opposition to the table for a start? That might get you somewhere in terms of getting a bipartisan approach on road safety. If you want to hold roundtables and tell industry that it will be bipartisan, how about you actually invite the opposition to the table in the first place?

As I said, this bill itself is basically saying that the government thinks that we need to have a delay to something that will improve the safety of our vehicles on our roads. That's what this bill is about. Frankly, one death on Australia's roads is one too many. It is why Labor supported the passage of the original Road Vehicle Standards Act and associated legislation back in 2018. We recognised how important it was and still is for the parliament to ensure that the standards applying to the supply of motor vehicles to the Australian market are kept up to date and are actually fit for purpose. Seventeen years have elapsed since the current Motor Vehicle Standards Act and its regulation were last reviewed. The new road vehicle standards legislative package, which passed this parliament last year, puts in place a regulatory regime that is more streamlined and able to respond to changing market conditions. It is true that Labor did have some concerns about the final detail of the legislation. It's complex and there are multiple stakeholders in this area. But we supported the passage of this bill through the parliament last year and we thought it was important, as the government told us then, to get that legislation in place as quickly as possible because it would improve the safety of vehicles and that will improve lives on our roads.

The legislation was developed over more than five years, with work starting on this actual reform back in 2013. The government, frankly, has consulted on this as far as it can. It consulted with industry through many rounds, including a review of the act and regulations in 2013-14, formal consultation sessions with industry in 2016 and 2017, release of an exposure draft of the bill in 2017 and 2018, and a Senate committee inquiry in 2018. These consultation exercises have given the government multiple opportunities to hear from industry not only to refine and finalise the legislation but also to begin working on implementation arrangements. It's had plenty of time.

Five years is a long time—seemingly more than enough time to have worked on an IT system to support the new legislation, seemingly sufficient time to have worked with industry on how to ensure that all parts of the industry could be ready to go with the new regulatory arrangements from the commencement date. Unfortunately, we are now considering a bill which seeks to delay that commencement by almost two years, to July 2021. This delay means that the savings and safety benefits from the new regulatory regime will be delayed by up to two years. It also means that those parts of the industry that have already invested a lot of time and resources in consultation with the government will need to embark on yet more consultation on the finer detail.

What I really want to know from the minister—I'm assuming the Deputy Prime Minister's not coming in, but the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister could help me on this—are the answers to a few questions. I expect that Minister Gee will be able to answer these when it comes to this legislation. What resources is the government now putting into the IT system required for the department to implement this new regulatory regime? What are the areas that the government thinks it must absolutely now consult on? What are the outstanding issues the government thinks it has been unable to resolve in the past five years of this consultation that have led to this point, where it's now starting the clock again and giving itself another two years? What are those issues and how does it propose to resolve them? I don't think it can resolve them, because I think they are issues that are not resolvable; however, the government is now saying it's going to consult more and that it will be fine.

What does the government propose to say to those areas, such as the caravan and camping industry, that are already ready for the implementation of this new regulatory regime? Is there any compensation for those who have already spent a huge amount of money on implementation and are ready to go? What is the consultation process from here? What is the government planning to do to actually resolve these issues? They are questions that the minister, now that we are having a debate on this delay, should be able to answer when he comes to the dispatch box to sum up this legislation.

Now, I do want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that there are a number of sectors within the industry that have advised the opposition that they are ready for implementation now. We know there are some that are not, and there are some reasons for that—some of them have been dragging their feet on this for quite a long period of time; others have got some other reasons—but there are sectors who have invested the time and the resources to get their systems in place. They are disappointed that they are now being asked to wait for another two years to realise any benefits.

The minister wrote to me, in advising me of his intention to bring forward this legislation:

More time is needed for all affected parties to ensure the smooth implementation of the reforms and avoid needless disadvantage to Australian businesses in transitioning to the new legislative arrangements.

In other words, the government is claiming the delay is because the industry is not ready for the new arrangements to commence. But some in the industry tell us that they are ready, and that they just want the government to get on with implementing the new arrangements. We know, for example, the Caravan Industry Association is strongly supportive of the original package of legislative changes. The association has advised me that Australian caravan and trailer manufacturers have invested significant financial resources in ensuring that they are ready for implementation on the date set out in the package of legislation. They are very concerned that the delay will both disadvantage those who are prepared and allow more potentially unsafe products to enter the Australian market, particularly from overseas suppliers.

We have a booming caravan industry in Australia at the moment. It's something that we should be very proud of. I'm the daughter of a former caravan manufacturer. I know caravanning pretty well and, as the daughter of a caravan-manufacturing small-business owner, I've seen the boom and the bust in caravanning. It's really lovely to see that we're experiencing a great boom at the moment, but they are very expensive items. And when you have got local manufacturers competing against imports that potentially may not be as safe as local product, or have local product—there are a lot of people who jump on when an industry is booming. They decide they might be able to make caravans from a smaller manufacturing facility and make a small number of those when the industry is booming like this.

This legislation—the legislation the government passed previously—is actually about making those caravans, and the trailers and chassis that those caravans are built around, as safe as they possibly can be. The caravan industry in Australia is saying: 'Yes, we agree with that. We want them to be safer. We're worried about what's actually happening in our sector.' But this government says, 'No, we're going to wait for another couple of years, if then, to see what's happening.'

Others tell us that the delay is only warranted because much of the detail that the department needed to work on has in fact yet to be finalised. On behalf of the opposition, we don't accept the assertion that the delay has occurred at the request of industry. Instead, it is pretty clear to us—to the opposition—that the delay has come about because the government has failed to give the department the resources that it needs to actually implement this legislation, and that the government is a bit nervous about the stakeholders who continue to say they have concerns about this legislation. This is instead of saying, 'Look, we've consulted and we think we've got it as best we can'—because it's never, ever going to be absolutely perfect, with every stakeholder agreeing to it—and showing some leadership by saying, 'We need to proceed with this now and we've given the department the resources it needs to do the job properly.' That's what's actually happening here.

It would have made sense for planning and implementation arrangements to have been well under development in parallel with drafting of the bills and the passage of the legislation through the parliament. Yet it would appear that neither sufficient direction nor sufficient resources have been provided to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development to upgrade the IT systems needed to support the new regulatory regime or to finalise the implementation rules and policies needed by industry. We know that this is a difficult area, one that's never going to be absolutely perfect in the eyes of every single stakeholder. But, frankly, the government, as I said right at the start, has had a failure of implementation and an absolute and utter failure of leadership when it comes to the minister.

However, as I have said, we are far from satisfied that this bill was in fact even required. That being said, as we did in the Senate, we will support the bill—grudgingly, frankly. But we want some assurances from the minister, and if we can't get them here we will pursue them through other avenues. We want some assurances about what the government actually intends to do over the course of the time that it's given and what extra money it has committed to the department, and, as I asked, what outstanding issues it thinks need to be resolved, what the process is for resolving those and the process for consultation. What is it going to do in relation to potentially compensating or acknowledging those industries that have already spent substantial money in getting this ready?

That being said, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government for its failure to appropriately prepare for the significant reforms introduced by the act, which aim to ensure that Australians are kept safe on our roads".

Further to my amendment, as I said, I call on the minister to assure this House and to assure those members here debating this bill that sufficient resourcing and direction will be made available to the department to ensure that the revised commencement date can be met.

I make it very clear: the opposition will not be in any position to support any further delays beyond July 2020. That means the government had better do what it should have been doing for the last 12 months at least—that is, actually get on with the job. Australians need assurances that we have the safest vehicles we possibly can on our roads. Unfortunately, with a government that has completely dropped the ball when it comes to road safety, the bringing forward of this legislation doesn't give me any confidence, frankly, that it cares about this issue or that it in fact is actually going to be able to do the work to deliver on the real promises that this regulatory regime and the changes to it will make for road safety across the country.

See this speech in context