Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on such an important piece of legislation as the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011, which will have the effect of establishing a new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. We on this side know that this is an important move towards establishing safer roads both for those who work regularly on the roads as truck drivers and transporters and for the general public. I should say that my electorate of La Trobe in particular is one where electors will be particularly pleased to see the results of this bill. Because of its position on the outer fringes of Melbourne it is serviced by a number of significant arterial roads, and heavy road usage inevitably means that it faces significant road safety issues. Indeed, the heavy usage of roads within my electorate has meant that one of the municipalities, Casey, has one of the highest numbers of road fatalities in the state of Victoria. Across the four municipalities in my electorate in 2008, 29 people lost their lives. Last year there were four fatalities involving heavy trucks. With over 120,000 residents, La Trobe also has over 3,000 local people who are working within the transport sector. So I know that this bill and the initiatives that it implements will be of tremendous interest to them.

The bill is extremely significant because it reflects the government's commitment to address the underlying economic factors that create unsafe road practices. The bill will encourage drivers to drive safely, manage their hours and maintain their vehicles. We all know that making our roads safer is vital. The road transport industry is a major part of our economy, but truck driving is also sadly a very dangerous occupation. Truck driving has the highest incidence of fatal injuries, with 25 deaths per 100,000 in 2008-09. That is 10 times higher than the average for all industries.

In this debate we have heard much from those opposite about there being no meaningful correlation between rates of pay of truck drivers and safety on the roads. It is important to respond to that, because it was a particular focus of the Leader of the Nationals in his contribution to this debate. A number of people have spoken of the correlation between rates of remuneration for truck drivers and safety on our roads. Indeed, Professor Michael Belzer, who is an internationally recognised expert on the trucking industry, had quite a bit to say on this issue in 2006. He stated:

Every 10% more that drivers earn in pay rate is associated with an 18.7% lower probability of crash, and for every 10% more paid days off the probability of driver crashes declines 6.3%.

Those are extraordinary figures and tell of the real correlation between appropriate rates of remuneration and the propensity of drivers to be involved in serious accidents. Professor Belzer went on to say:

Higher pay produces superior safety performance for firms and drivers.

Professor Belzer is by no means the only person or organisation to speak about the correlation between rates of remuneration and safety on our roads. Indeed, the 2008 independent National Transport Commission report Safe Payments: addressing the underlying causes of unsafe practices in the roads transport industry confirmed that existing remuneration arrangements in the industry 'have a significant influence' on safety. So we hear regularly in the course of this debate and through the debate which is occurring in the community in general around the campaign for safer rates of pay for transport users. While we hear from those opposite that there is no connection between those two issues, there is very clearly a connection which has been drawn upon both by experts and by the commission report itself and which would surely be recognised by most reasonable people in our community as being a significant issue affecting safety on our roads.

This government recognises that owner-drivers play a very important role in the road transport industry, comprising some 60 per cent of the sector. Yet we know that they struggle to be remunerated appropriately. Almost 30 per cent are paid below the award rate, with many unable to cover their costs. At the bottom of the supply chain, they have little commercial ability to demand the rates that would enable them to work both safely and legally. We know that they have to cope with long working hours and unpaid queuing time. According to the National Road Transport Operators Association, distribution centres regularly require drivers to wait unpaid for up to 10 hours before loading and unloading. This has an impact both on their income and necessarily on fatigue management.

The National Transport Commission report recommended that eliminating these incentives for unsafe driving and poor safety in the remuneration and conditions of Australia's road transport drivers be achieved through regulatory intervention, and this is what we are responding to in the bill before us today. This government accepts that a regulatory approach will more effectively address current unacceptable levels of safety and potential market failures than merely a voluntary approach. The exploitation of drivers is totally inconsistent with this government's commitment to fairness, so we respond to these issues very meaningfully through the bill today. The measures in this bill are an extremely important step in creating the right environment to encourage safe roads and safer workplaces for Australian drivers. This government has a track record of having committed itself to improving safety and fairness in industries right across Australia since coming to office.

The bill also complements the existing federal legislation such as the Fair Work Act and the Independent Contractors Act, current state based schemes dealing with owner-driver contracts and the national heavy vehicle regulator laws. It recognises this government's intention to provide a framework that promotes safety by ensuring that road transport drivers do not have pay related incentives to work in an unsafe manner, such as encouraging speeding and excessive work hours. It is something that will encourage road transport drivers to be paid for their work, including loading, reloading and waiting times—something that is not necessarily the case currently. The bill will develop and apply reasonable and enforceable standards throughout the road transport industry supply chain to ensure the safety of road transport drivers. And it will ensure that hirers of drivers and others in the supply chain take responsibility for implementing and maintaining those standards.

I know that those opposite have remarked about the potential for the industry and for businesses to feel the regulatory effects of this bill and to be inconvenienced by this bill. I note that this bill has had wide support across the industry. I refer particularly to some of the comments by Mr Paul Ryan of the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation. Members might know that this is an organisation that represents small and medium sized enterprises, which shift around 80 per cent of Australia's freight. It supports the bill. As the organisation's representative, Mr Ryan has stated:

Will it improve safety? Yes, because it will ensure that those customers (of transport companies and operators) are held accountable for their conduct before an independent tribunal. Yes, because it would give small and medium sized enterprises and mum and dad businesses a vehicle to be heard, particularly through their associations. Yes, because contract allocation and payment terms will not be used as a penalty or incentive.

So, despite all those comments from the other side about small business being disadvantaged through the measures contemplated in this bill, we have seen that some of the strongest advocates for those parties have resoundingly indicated that they support the bill and the reasonable measures which are contemplated in it.

The bill establishes an independent tribunal which will be able to inquire into the road transport industry and, where appropriate, determine minimum rates of pay and related conditions for both employed and self-employed drivers. The tribunal will also be able to consider other matters, for example safety issues, that impact both on employees and owner-drivers, such as addressing waiting times, as I have mentioned earlier. These determinations, which will be known as road safety remuneration orders, will be in addition to any existing rights employed drivers may have under industrial instruments and existing rights that owner-drivers may have under their contracts for services. The tribunal's approach will be evidence based having regard to applying reasonable and enforceable standards to ensure safety and fair treatment of road transport drivers.

I particularly note that during the debate we have heard from those opposite about the concerns of business and that they say there is no correlation between safety and safe remuneration rates. We have also heard in this place, during the very many debates we have had, about the influence of large retailers such as Coles and Woolworths. We hear regularly from, in particular, members of the National Party about their concern that there is an unfair market advantage available to large retailers such as Coles and Woolworths. I say to that that this bill is a perfect opportunity to stand up for the little guy in relation to organisations such as Coles and Woolworths. As members would no doubt be aware, around 30 per cent of road transporters are carrying goods for Coles and Woolworths. Given those members' oft expressed concern at abuse of market power and its impact on their electorates, I really hope that they will turn around and ultimately support this bill and support the protections for their communities.

I am sure that members opposite will be interested to know what the industry thinks on this particular point. I note that the publication entitled the Australasian Transport News has stated in its January editorial on these issues:

What cannot be disputed is that in many cases freight users have been getting a free ride, and have been big enough and ugly enough to keep it that way. They have no price signal for reform or increased efficiency at the interface between the truck hire and their warehouse, and that cost has been borne by those with least power.

So this is a perfect opportunity, particularly for members of the National Party, to stand up for the little guy and give effect to the things they have been saying in so very many debates about the market power of organisations such as Coles and Woolworths—to do so for all those ordinary Australians working on the roads as drivers. I hope that National Party members will reflect on that during this debate.

This bill represents the government's response to the 2008 National Transport Commission report. While transport safety outcomes have improved over the years, there are still far too many truck accidents and deaths. That is why lasting reform is absolutely needed to redress the specific problems of the industry. Truck drivers should not have to speed, they should not have to overload their trucks and they should not have to drive excessive hours or cut back on vehicle maintenance just so they can make a decent living. Ultimately that is what this bill is entirely about. They expect government to act—and so we are acting. This bill will help make our roads safer for drivers and for the general driving public. That is why I am particularly proud to support it.

I would like to acknowledge the significant campaign by drivers around the country to raise awareness of this very important issue. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the work of Tony Sheldon and Michael Kane, whose Safe Rates campaign has raised awareness of this very important issue among politicians and across the community. I am pleased to stand here and support it.

We have heard, during the discussions about this bill, from truck drivers themselves. I refer to the evidence of Mr Freyer and Mr Black, both truck drivers, to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications. They reported the extreme time and financial pressures put on them and on their employers. They reported increases in loading waiting times, they reported pressure to cut into driver break times and they reported pressure to break logbook legal requirements. This important evidence was provided to the standing committee and it reflects the reality of so many drivers right around the country. We are grateful for this evidence being put onto the public record by Mr Freyer and Mr Black.

I join with those who have been supporting the Safe Rates campaign to ensure that we have appropriate safety measures, to ensure that the general driving public, including the driving public in my electorate, is better protected on the roads and to ensure that unreasonable requests being made of drivers does not make driving on our roads a hazard for everyone. I commend this bill to the House.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011. Members of the government are fond of coming into this place and telling us they are in touch with their electorates. I do not think they can be talking to everyone in their electorates because, if they were, they would know that small businesses in Australia are on the ropes—on the ropes in a major way. They are drowning in red tape, compliance, obligation and penalty. Yet, when we come to this place to make the laws for Australia, we find a government intent on piling more red tape, compliance, obligation and penalty on those businesses.

It is not as if transport companies do not already have a plethora of laws to comply with and regulatory bodies to deal with—and that is before the establishment of this Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. But we are not going back to those current compliance measures. We are not going back to that current raft of legislation and regulation controlling the industry. We are not to have an updated body or a revamped body or a review of the bodies that exist. Instead, let us have a new body—and this new one is not just a mickey mouse body; it has sweeping powers. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will be able to make orders. Those orders may contain minimum remuneration and employment conditions additional to those contained in the award, they may address industry practices such as loading and unloading and they may address waiting times, working hours and load limits. Load limits—as if there were not already enough laws in Australia dealing with load limits! But still this new tribunal will be dealing with load limits.

They will interfere. They will have the ability to make orders in relation to payment methods and periods and they can reduce and remove remuneration related incentives, pressures and practices that contribute to unsafe work practices, for example speeding and excessive working hours. I do not know why they do not put in there that they will get the person in the company to order the rubber bands as well, because that is about all that will be left for the company to decide upon.

Transport companies in Australia are already dealing with mass limits, length limits, combination limits and roadworthiness tests. We must have roadworthy trucks, but I will relate a little tale here. Just last year I was speaking to a person I know in the business. He operates around 80 trailers and about 40 prime movers—so it is a medium sized trucking business. One of his truckies was pulled up on the road and the highway patrolman went over to the him and said, 'Your mudflaps are 20 millimetres too short.' The highway patrol directed that the mudflaps be changed before they would let that truck—and the rest of this operator's fleet—back on the road. So he went away, bought a new pallet full of mudflaps and, a couple of days work later, had them all fitted to all the trucks. Too short by 20 millimetres—you would have to wonder about the common-sense rules in all that. Companies are directed to follow only certain road routes. They have directions on work and pay standards, and fatigue management laws. They deal with the police, highway patrols and local councils on a daily basis. They have to deal with line of responsibility loading legislation. Just as an aside, a number of farmer contractors came to me last year and said that they had arrived at the local silo overloaded. They should not be overloaded, but it is a little difficult to judge sometimes; it happens from time to time. Under the current legislation, the bulk-handling operator cannot unload the trucks and cannot allow them to leave the site either. No wonder people think the law is an ass.

What do we need? We need another body, another raft of regulation! This new body will be staffed by people from Fair Work Australia. It is worth looking at Fair Work, because only last week new appointments were made to Fair Work. I had a look through the list of appointments. You would hope there was a good spread of appointments from across business and the community but just about all of them, with the exception of one, came with a union background. Steve Knott, the AMMA chief, this week criticised 'the endless tribe of union appointments'. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that the appointments would 'add to the standing of the tribunal and should garner the confidence of business and employer associations'. We would hope so, but I am not sure that is the case. Fair Work Australia is to have a strong hand in this new body, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, and in industry appointments. Given the track record of Fair Work, we would have to wonder just what that list is going to look like.

This brings us to what the basis is for assuming that more money means a safer road? The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics reported that in the three years to June 2011 there has been an average decrease of 3.5 per cent per year in trucking accidents for articulated trucks and an average decrease of 14.7 per cent per year for heavy rigid trucks. NatRoad tell us that 69 per cent of the fatal crashes involving heavy vehicles are not the fault of the truckies. But they are to wear the brunt of yet another attack on their industry.

I come from a regional electorate. I have a heavy truck licence. I have driven a few in my time. I have a number of friends who are employed and who employ within the industry, so I thought I would get on the phone and get an understanding from them of what is going down in South Australia. I was told that exclusively truck operators in South Australia already operate on hourly rates. So why on earth am I upset about this legislation? Is it because they think this probably will not affect them directly? They pay on hourly rates because truckies are in short supply and if you do not pay properly, you do not get them and you will not get good people. They are paying hourly rates and any losses that are incurred at the site of loading or unloading are worn by the company. As I say, you might wonder why I am upset. It is because they are upset because they will have to face an unknown amount of compliance burden. Surely once this new tribunal is established, they will want reports and pay sheets from the companies, logbooks from the drivers and check-in and check-out times to make sure that the company is not doing the wrong thing. The small truckies will have to supply that information to the tribunal.

One of the operators told me that he had just signed a significant five-year freight contract. He said: 'How will all this affect the five-year contract? Am I going to be faced with a compliance burden? Am I going to be faced with higher costs?' You can be absolutely sure there are no rise and fall clauses within that contract which he will be able to access. As I said, they already have the load and fatigue management laws and workplace health and safety laws to deal with.

We have a body called COAG, and I am sure members of the government are aware that COAG are working on getting these laws in place and ensuring cohesion across Australia. I commend them for that work because the laws across Australia should be uniform. But if those laws do not work, we should fix them. We should not put in place a new body. The government's regulatory impact statement on the bill says:

Speed and fatigue are often identified as the primary cause for a crash but it is a much harder task to prove that drivers were speeding because of the manner of the quantum of their remuneration.

That is what the report says, so one has to wonder where the drive for this is coming from. The whole world always wants to beat up on truckies. Truckies are the root of all evil if you ask the average suburban person. I drive 90,000 kilometres a year and I find the truckies are some of the best drivers on the road; it is the blokes in the cars that I would like to get off the road. Intelligent people have come up to me and said, 'Those road trains are terribly dangerous things. You should get them off the road.' I said, 'Do you know what they weigh?' 'No, a lot.' I said: 'Yes, about 80 tonnes. That is what a road train would weigh, perhaps a bit more. Do you know what a six-wheeler weighs?' 'No, I don't know what that weighs.' I said: 'They are about 22 or 23 tonnes, mate. What would you rather be hit by? Seventy-eight tonnes or 23? It won't make any difference to you. You will get the same result. If you put six-wheelers back on the road, you will have six times as many of them.' That is when the accidents will really start to ramp up.

The truckies have to wear this uneducated invective that comes from a certain section of the public. Debates like this and moves like this only vilify the truckies further. We should be working in concert with them, because it is governments that make them drive on substandard roads. Much of the accident statistics can be explained by the poor network of roads, and deteriorating, in many cases, that we have across Australia. Last week, for instance, there were articles in the New South Wales press in particular about a New South Wales company called Lennon's. It was alleged they had been altering speed limiters. This is very serious stuff. If that is what they have been doing, Lennon's should have everything that is coming to them. I would broach no defence of altering speed limiters on trucks. But guess what? To paraphrase a former Prime Minister: it is already illegal! And there are plenty of ways of dealing with Lennon's in the courts and making sure that they comply with the current road rules.

There are a couple of other things. There are some quotes here. The Australian Industry Group said:

If a casual connection between remuneration and unsafe practices is presumed to exist, it does not follow that the established higher minimum rates, or prohibiting certain methods of payment will result in drivers changing their unsafe practices.

Additionally, the link between road safety remuneration rates and conditions for truck drivers assumes that the overwhelming majority of the road accidents are the fault of the heavy vehicle driver.

As I said with those earlier figures, it is clear that that is not the case.

So, I do stand opposed to this bill. I stand opposed to the bill because I think I understand a bit about the trucking industry. I know enough people in the trucking industry that give me good advice. They are good people, they are good operators, and their backs are against the wall. It is not just the transport operators either but the businesses that rely on them. Businesses across Australia have their backs against the wall. Every week we are hearing about new manufactures closing up business in Australia. One of the reasons is the cost burden. This is just a small thing but it is another brick in the wall, another straw on the camel's back.

I am constantly approached by people saying: 'You've got to get rid of some of this red tape, you've got to get rid of some of the compliance. We can't survive. We spend half our time dealing with compliance.' I do not oppose all regulatory and compliance measures, because there are times when we have to stand up and be counted so the general public is protected. But, in general, when these bills come before us, we should examine exactly what they are trying to do and why they are trying to do it. In this case I think it comes from the Labor Party's deep-seated mistrust and misunderstanding of small business, and their preference for big business. They like big business because big business do business with big unions, and big unions support the Labor Party, the government of Australia at the moment. Big business is the Labor Party's preference. As for small businesses: tough luck. And this is just part of the attack on small business around Australia.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The objective of the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011and related bills is to make our roads safer for all Australians. We know that each week four people are killed and another 80 are seriously injured on our roads. We also know that, last year over 1,300 Australians lost their lives on our roads and a further 30,000 were hospitalised. We know that road transport is the Australian industry with the highest incidence of fatal injuries. We know that this is an industry which had 25 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2008-09. That is 10 times higher than the average for all industries. That is right, Mr Deputy Speaker: 10 times higher than the average for all other industries.

The human cost here in terms of lives disrupted and families devastated by tragedy is tremendous. Just this week there was a funeral in Bowral in my electorate of Throsby of a local tow-truck driver Geoff Clark, who had gone to the aid of a young woman whose car had broken down. Both were killed by a passing truck on the Hume Highway. An eerily similar tragedy happened to Albert de Beer and David Tagliaferri. David got a flat tyre on the Old Coast Road near Myalup in Western Australia in February 2011. Seeing David in trouble, Albert, a total stranger to David, played the part of the good Samaritan and stopped to help him. Then tragedy struck. An oncoming truck hit the men and they both lost their lives. David's wife, Lystra, and his sister Lisa; and Albert's wife, Suzanne, and his mother, Johanna Christina de Beer, are here in Canberra today to ask members to support this bill. They are joined by Stella Minos, from Sydney, and her husband, Michael Christou, a truck driver. Stella worries constantly about the pressures the industry puts on her husband and how this will affect his driving. They are joined by other truck drivers from across Australia, proud members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia.

The families of Albert and David have had to learn a lot about the trucking industry since their tragedy. The driver who was involved in that accident was sentenced to five years in January this year for his actions. However, the de Beer and Tagliaferri families see the bigger picture. They are here today, united with truck drivers and the families of truck drivers. Of course drivers should be responsible for their actions but, ultimately, we will not see real change in the industry until every part of the retail supply chain is held responsible for setting industry standards to stop the carnage on our roads that leads to tragedies such as the one suffered by the Tagliaferri and de Beer families.

Today, we are not only talking about a human cost. Let us also talk about the economic cost because, even by that measure, opposition to these bill does not stack up. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics calculates the cost to the Australian economy of this at well over $2.7 billion a year. Clearly, we have a problem. The issue facing us today is: how do we fix it? The challenge for us as parliamentarians is how we respond to these facts. Do we start to support measures that can do something to alleviate this terrible situation? Do we ignore the evidence presented to us by experts? Do we ignore the pleas for action from those facing these dangers every day of their working lives?

Many come to this place saying that the issue is with the quality of our roads. For example, on 14 February this year the member for Cowper, speaking on the state of the Pacific Highway between Warrell Creek and Urunga, said that 'road safety must be the most important consideration when prioritising which projects receive funding'. On 15 June 2010 the member for Gippsland, speaking on the Princess Highway east of Sale, said:

One mistake by a motorist should not end up as a fatality, but on too many sections of the Princess Highway east of Sale we are faced with that situation. We must spend more money on the safety of the road environment.

Labor agrees with these sentiments; road safety should be a priority, and we are acting. Federal Labor has acted to double the roads budget. A record $28 billion is being spent over six years. This is the most comprehensive investment in our nation's highways and roads since the creation of the national highway network almost 40 years ago.

Unfortunately the member for Grey, who made some comments about red tape, is not here, but we have also acted to overhaul the way our nation regulates the transport industry, particularly transport industry safety. We have acted by slashing the number of regulators from 23 to just three. We have acted by replacing the inconsistent state based regulations with one modern, nationwide system that covers maritime, rail and heavy vehicle safety.

These reforms are critical, but alone they are not enough to reduce the horrendous rate of road accidents involving heavy vehicles. The problems are systemic; they stem from the structure of the industry. That is because almost 30 per cent of owner-drivers are paid below the award rate. Many owner-drivers are simply unable to recover the cost of operating their vehicle. It stands to reason: if you incur operating costs of $500 per day and you are earning about $50 per hour then you are going to have to work 10 hours to cover your operating costs before you even make a profit. However, if you are earning only $25 an hour, that turns the number of hours you have to work to cover your costs to a deadly 20 hours per day before you start making a profit. Quite simply, those opposite who seek to deny the link between hourly rates, hours worked and road safety have their heads in a bucket of sand.

While small businesses make up around 60 per cent of the road transport sector they really are small fry in terms of the income they earn within the industry. The terms and conditions for road transport—and I think this is a sentiment the member for Grey would agree with—are dictated by the large retailers. Large retailers are creating the conditions that put hazards on our roads. Coles and Woolworths account for 30 per cent of Australia's national road freight task and, as such, have an enormous impact on the road transport industry.

In 2008 the National Transport Commission's review into remuneration and safety in the Australian heavy vehicle industry found that commercial arrangements between an array of parties to the transport of freight—including load owners, clients and receivers, consignors and brokers, freight forwarders, large and small fleets and owner-drivers—have a significant influence on safety. Drivers are at the bottom of the contracting chain and have little commercial ability to demand rates that would enable them to perform their work safely and legally. In this market, owner-drivers are forced to accept work at the going rate or have no work at all. Not only is remuneration for owner-drivers low, but working hours are dangerously long.

There are other issues that affect the payment systems for owner-drivers and employee drivers and the productivity of the industry. For example, unpaid queuing time was highlighted as a major issue in the transport industry during fatigue related reforms and consultation for the Safe rates, safe roads directions paper. Large retailers put the squeeze on operators and drivers in the road transport industry, just as they notoriously put the squeeze on other parts of the supply chain such as farmers.

A recent study funded by New South Wales WorkCover showed that truck drivers are frequently forced to break driving regulations in order to make a living. The frightening statistics in that report included that 60 per cent of drivers surveyed admitted to 'nodding off' at the wheel over the last 12 months; that drivers are working an average of 68 hours a week, with almost a third breaking all driving laws and doing more than 72 hours a week; that only 25 per cent of drivers are paid during waiting times; and that almost 60 per cent of drivers are not paid for loading or unloading.

There have been numerous inquiries into these facts—coronial findings, reports and investigations into these issues over the past 20 years—which confirm this situation. That is why I stand here gobsmacked that some on the other side of this chamber seek to deny the link. However, some on the other side do get it. That is because they have some expertise. The member for Moore, for example—a medical doctor by profession—had this to say on 27 February this year:

According to research by Professor Drew Dawson, head of the University of South Australia's Centre for Sleep Research, staying awake for 17 hours has the same effect on performance as having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 per cent and after 21 hours awake, people demonstrate the same deterioration as having a blood alcohol content of 0.1 per cent. Many people begin to show signs of mental fatigue later in the working day and tasks seem much more complicated, concentration wavers and mistakes can be made.

The member for Moore goes on to say:

Late nights spent working can cause mental fatigue, making it harder to recollect information and affecting the ability to think clearly.

And he goes on:

No matter how rational and high minded you try to be, you can't make decision after decision without paying a biological price. It's different from ordinary physical fatigue—you're not consciously aware of being tired—but you're on low mental energy. One shortcut is to become reckless: to act impulsively instead of expending energy to think first through the consequences.

This was a speech about the working hours of parliamentarians—not a deadly profession, many might say. But if the member for Moore is right about the impact of sleep deprivation on members of parliament then this must also be true of people driving heavy vehicles up and down our highways.

The overwhelming findings of report after report show that there is a link between safety, rates and structures of remuneration in the road transport industry and the accidents, deaths and injuries on our roads involving these vehicles. The bills before the House today will establish a new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, whose objects are to promote safety and fairness in the road transport industry. The tribunal will be empowered to inquire into sectors, issues and practices within the road transport industry and, where appropriate, determine mandatory minimum rates of pay and related conditions for employed and self-employed drivers. These determinations, to be known as Road Safety Remuneration Orders, or RSROs, will be in addition to any existing rights employed drivers have under industrial instruments or contracts of employment and self-employed or independent contractor drivers have under their contracts for services. RSROs may be made by the tribunal on its own initiative or on application.

The tribunal will also be empowered to grant 'safe remuneration approvals' in relation to the remuneration and remuneration-related conditions contained in a road transport collective agreement between a hirer and self-employed or independent contractor drivers with whom the hirer proposes to contract. The tribunal will be empowered to resolve disputes between drivers, their hirers or employers and participants in the road transport industry supply chain by mediation, conciliation or private arbitration. The tribunal will be made up of a mixture of Fair Work Australia members and expert members with qualifications relevant to the road transport industry. The tribunal secretariat will be provided by the General Manager of FWA.

The bills will also establish a compliance regime for the enforcement of RSROs, safe remuneration approvals and any orders arising out of the arbitration, by consent, of a dispute. These are enforceable instruments. Compliance functions will be performed by the Fair Work Ombudsman. The bills complement existing federal legislation such as the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Independent Contractors Act 2006, current state-based schemes dealing with owner-driver contracts and proposed state-based heavy vehicle laws. The system is scheduled to commence on 1 July 2012.

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to meet with a constituent of mine, a truck driver by the name of Len Hartley. He is a keen advocate of the bills before the House, and I was pleased to give him my pledge that when this legislation came before the House it would have my wholehearted support. I give that support willingly, not only because it is in the interests of the truck drivers of this nation but also because two of Australia's major highways cross through my electorate—the Princes Highway and the Hume Highway. I know that this legislation, together with what we are doing in doubling the Commonwealth's road overhaul spend, will have a big impact on road safety in this country.

I commend the words of the member for Moore. He is right when he draws the link between mental fatigue and safety and the hours worked by parliamentarians. He should be applying the same principle to those people who are charged with taking the nation's freight burden from place to place, from city to city, in sometimes very dangerous conditions. He should show the same sentiment towards their working conditions by voting in favour of this legislation. All of those on the other side of the House— particularly National Party members, who would have many owner-drivers in their constituencies—should support it as well because it is in their interests, in the interests of their families and in the interests of all road users in the country. I commend the bills to the House.

Debate adjourned.