Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuation, I will summarise and say that the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 is at best a bandaid solution that will not cure the disease. As Lindsay Fox, the chairman of one of the largest trucking companies in Australia, has come to realise, the problem is actually with the centralisation of market power in our retail sector. Mr Fox said this about our supermarket duopoly:

They are too big … You can't dictate the terms and conditions of what people have got to trade with you. And they are getting to that stage. They are trying to dictate to everyone.

They are expecting everything for nothing. They are going to crucify the farmers, crucify the bread manufacturers …

And they are crucifying our nation's truck drivers. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to the unions of the dangers to unionists that arise from the radical centralisation of powers that has occurred in many areas of our economy over the last 30 years. For, in the past, unions have been roped into supporting failed competition theory—a theory which has encouraged and rewarded the growing centralisation of power within our economy. Under it, there has been this dangerous belief that it would be easier for unions to organise workers after they had been lined up in rows by duopolies or oligopolies.

But there is a tipping point after which a more highly concentrated market is no longer good—not only for our nation's farmers and our nation's small businesses but also for our unionists and our entire nation. The circumstances our nation's truck drivers find themselves in today demonstrate that we are well past this tipping point. If we are going to restore hope, reward and opportunity to our nation's truck drivers, we can only do so by addressing the problem of the centralisation of market power that has occurred, especially in our retail sector. Sadly this is something that the Labor government refuses to even consider.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with great pleasure to speak this morning on the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011. There is so much that goes on in this place every day and sometimes there seems to be an incredible gap between the work we do and what Australians see of the work we do. Sometimes bridging that gap in our discussions here in the chamber can be quite challenging. I believe, however, that the legislation we are considering today is legislation for all those who might be out driving in their car right now listening to this broadcast or for all those who might be sitting at home watching A-PAC. People who move around in our community and who are drivers of ordinary cars and vehicles really do understand the pressure of driving on our roads and they share a concern about the trucks and the truck drivers on the road.

I have just finished 240 hours of driver supervision with my two young daughters. One of the big challenges they faced was overcoming their physical anxiety about being on the road with large trucks. Large trucks are frightening for many new drivers—and, sadly, not every driver is going to make a truck driver's day at work an easy thing either. We all share the roads and it is very important that we manage the way we enable people in the truck-driving industry to do their work in a safe manner. We need to do that to ensure that young drivers, such as my own daughters, can use the roads with a reasonable sense that they can move safely and that the truck drivers they are sharing the road with are not under such time pressures, such health pressures or such economic pressures that they are encouraged to cut corners or to take risks—even to risk losing their lives. I think we need to put on the record the Prime Minister's words:

Australia’s truck drivers work hard to make a living.

They certainly do. She continued:

But they shouldn’t have to die to make a living …

And that is at the heart of why we are here in this chamber today moving this piece of legislation.

What are the facts? Let us not race over these facts as we so often do when we start to talk about statistics. Every year, 330 Australians are killed in truck crashes. That is 330 lives lost and at least 330 families amazingly impacted by that loss. These people in our community—those who have lost family members in truck crashes—know the intricacy of the challenges that face people who work in the trucking industry and know there is every chance that those lives might not have been lost if we in this place had been paying enough attention to providing a framework that was safety oriented. Such a framework might have kept those men and women alive.

When we say 'truck crashes', it is pretty easy for people to think, 'Well, it is truck drivers who died.' But that is not the case. We know that in fact 72 per cent of the people killed when a truck is involved are actually occupants of other vehicles—older drivers, younger drivers, families on holidays, kids crossing a road. We need to do everything in our power, through our legislation, to make sure that truck drivers have every opportunity to move safely and to have the sorts of working conditions that give them the chance of getting home alive to their families at the end of a long day of driving. But it is not just that 330 Australians are killed every year in truck crashes or that 72 per cent of them are people in other vehicles. There are also 5,300 Australians injured every single year in truck crashes.

We know that the deaths and injuries arising from truck crashes are absolutely devastating for families and communities. While you can never put a price on a life and while the loss experienced by those who love the people who die can never be calculated, there is in fact a number to consider. Each year, the cost to taxpayers of these tragic truck related deaths and injuries is $2.7 billion.

One of the other critical issues we need to address for the ordinary people of Australia is the misuse of unfettered commercial power by massive industry clients like Coles. We are seeing evidence all the time that this is the root cause of death and injury. There are trucking industry clients who could care a whole lot less about the 330 lives, clients who care only about the bottom line of their own business, clients who treat truck drivers as disposable units of labour—as if they have no personhood and as if they have no families. Those trucking industry clients are certainly trying to make sure that truck drivers have no rights to have a safe workplace. They are trying to squeeze the industry so hard that drivers are often forced to work far too long and to drive far too fast just so they can make a living for themselves. A critical number of reports have been presented over the years but I think it is fair to say that we have hit a point of crisis, and that is why we are responding with this legislation today. I want to cite one piece of evidence from a coroner. I have great respect for the work of all politicians in this place, who work together in the interests of our nation, but too often we hear people making points just for political gain without paying attention to the facts and the real evidence. There will be 330 people who will die this year if things stay as they are. We need to make a change, and the reason we need to make a change is this sort of statement:

NSW Deputy Coroner Dorelle Pinch expressed the consequence of the heightened 'exposure to risk' that is part of the trucking industry in her 2003 findings regarding the tragic death of employee drivers Anthony Forsythe, Barry Supple and Timothy John Walsh.

Real men, real people who nearly 10 years later have families who still long for their return and who wait, wondering what might have been if they had had safe conditions to work in. The deputy coroner said:

As long as driver payments are based on a (low) rate per kilometre there will always be an incentive for drivers to maximise the hours they drive, not because they are greedy but simply to earn a decent wage.

That is a fact. That is a coroner who has been paying attention to the impact of death and that is the reality that this legislation deals with.

One of the critical reasons that things have advanced to this point is the efforts of the Transport Workers Union. So often in the public debate in this country we hear unions maligned. When people are out doing this work in their trucks, when they are driving around the country and when they are taking these unnecessary risks because of the highly dangerous context they are working in, they need somebody else to be doing the organisation to make sure their stories are told and to make sure that the facts of their challenging existence are recorded somewhere. When things get as bad as they are now in the trucking industry, that is when you absolutely need your union to organise a voice for you.

I really want to pay tribute to Tony Sheldon and the TWU for the work that they do. I know there are some members attending today, and a few are actually in the parliament right now. I am assuming that the men who are sitting here today have all probably spent a bit of time in a cab themselves. The truck drivers I know love their work. You would have to; I could never do that travelling for all those hours every day. They love their work, they want to keep doing their work and they need to do it safely. They want to do that work knowing that somebody has their back, that somebody is looking after them. That is what the TWU is doing and has done. It has brought the evidence to this place so that we can put it on the record and make sure that we empower the legislative capacity of this place to change things once and for all, to give it a fair go so that, at the end of this year, there are not 330 families sitting there waiting for somebody to drive that truck through the gate but finding that they are just not coming home. We cannot allow that to continue.

I also want to put on the record one of the important findings of the Safe Rates Summit 2011. There are a number of things identified that impact on the behaviour of drivers. Low rates of pay I have spoken about. There are also incentive based rates, which are corrupting ordinary healthy behaviours; unpaid working time, where people are called only to have their trucks stand there waiting to be loaded and waiting to be unloaded and not getting paid for that, which is completely unfair; unreasonable demands; poor queuing practices; and, obviously, the imbalance of market power that I have spoken about.

The Safe Rates Summit indicated that those six critical factors lead to some particular behaviours that make it dangerous for you and me, non-truck drivers, on the road and dangerous for the truck drivers. When you have those sorts of working conditions, it is not surprising that fatigue is a part of the problems that cause crashes. Drug use, very sadly, is a part of the life of some truckies. I know that the TWU has been working very hard in long-term education campaigns to interrupt those behaviours and to make sure that people understand that they should not be taking those risks with their bodies. Speeding is obviously one of the critical things, and we do see that on our roads. When people are pushed to the edge, they will take the wrong decision and speed. There is also poor vehicle condition. When you are on a wing and a prayer all the time, when your rate of pay is screwed down to the lowest possible amount, sometimes there is not the money to service the machine in the way that it needs to be serviced. Sometimes there is not the money to replace the tyres, which are not cheap on these big rigs. Big problems are going to happen if we do not attend to the fact that this industry needs significant review and reform.

Tom from the Central Coast is one person who was interviewed at Marulan. I also want to pay credit to the people who did the research. Sitting at a truck stop and taking evidence probably has not been the most salubrious experience for some of the people who undertook to do the research, but that is what a union can enable to happen. They can invest for the whole group in the sorts of resources that we need to produce the evidence to give us a clear picture of what is going on, and Tom could not have been any clearer:

I am doing 24 hours in unpaid waiting times a week. With trailers being pre-loaded by ... I cannot afford to wait another hour or so unpaid while they unload and reload a set of trailers to get the legal weight. I carry overweight regularly and I don't have a choice.

I am sure that Tom is not happy about that from the tone of what he said there, and as a driver who might be sharing the road with Tom I am not happy about it either. That is why we are here in this place putting forward this legislation. It is our goal to make it impossible for these conditions to continue and to give ordinary workers a fair go. In closing, I would like to refer to the main reasons why this government has introduced a safe remuneration system for drivers. We need, through this legislation, to address the root causes of unsafe driving practices. We know that there are underlying economic factors that encourage unsafe on-road practices. We know that the commercial dominance of the transport industry's powerful clients, especially big retailers, is corrupting this workplace and making it dangerous for ordinary men and women who work in this industry and bring all of the goods that we get from our supermarkets, who move all the produce from the country to the processing places, who move all of the things that we require around our country. Our goal in this legislation is very clearly to lead to safer roads for all Australians. We know that the current economic and social cost of unsafe roads is overwhelming for drivers, their families and the general community. We on this side of the House understand the importance of looking after ordinary Australian workers and their families.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we debate the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011. We on this side of the House fully support the introduction of viable methodologies designed to improve road safety, particularly in the road transport industry. In this instance, however, the coalition will be opposing this suite of legislative changes, as this is not anything to do with road safety; it is all about union power.

The legislation would see the establishment of a new tribunal, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, made up of members from the road transport industry and Fair Work Australia. The tribunal would be given broad-ranging powers to investigate and set pay rates and conditions for any segment of the heavy vehicle industry through the issuing of road safety remuneration orders, or RSROs. Additionally, the tribunal would be authorised to deal with disputes on remuneration or related conditions between hirers, or employers, and independent contractors, or employees, where a dispute is not before Fair Work Australia. Resolution can be determined by conciliation and mediation. In the event that an agreement cannot be determined by these mechanisms then arbitration will occur.

The issuing of RSROs by the tribunal may apply minimum remuneration and employment conditions on top of existing relevant awards. Additionally, an RSRO may provide clarity on industry practices such as loading and unloading, waiting times, working hours, load limits and payment methods, as the member for Robertson was just talking about. For example, compensation in terms of remuneration could be provided for delays in unloading of transported goods.

Further, the tribunal may also reduce or remove remuneration incentives which are considered to apply pressure or amount to actions which contribute to unsafe work practices—for example, excessive work hours, speeding and other associated transport risks. It is interesting to note that an RSRO will, if introduced, override an existing Fair Work Australia award or agreement if the RSRO is more beneficial. So is this about road safety or about union control? That is the question we are here to ask.

The tribunal may also grant a safe remuneration approval, a form of collective agreement between specific groups such as independent contractors and hirers. In essence, an SRA is a form of enterprise agreement. This suggests that the legislation is not necessarily about road safety but rather, as I have said, about union control. This legislation and this government assume that remuneration is linked to road safety. This assumption is very difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate.

As I have already stated, the coalition is fully supportive of measures to address road safety concerns, particularly within the road transport sector. However, the impetus behind this particular suite of legislation is not clear. The government's own regulatory impact statement states:

… data at this point in time is limited and being definitive around the causal link between rates and safety is difficult.

To qualify this point further, the report also states:

… 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 or quantum of their remuneration.

We in this House are all fully aware that the bulk of operators in the transport sector are proactive respondents to road safety and measures designed to minimise the impact on drivers and the public of the transporting of goods by road freight. In contrast, we are also fully aware that cowboys exist across all sectors of industry, including the transport industry—not limited to a single contractor but also manifest in the form of companies.

Individual attitudes to risk remain an underlying factor of this debate, one that cannot be simply quantified. It is unclear how the attitudes of drivers to risk will be changed with the intervention of the tribunal and the potential for increased rates of pay. Nor is it possible to determine how much is enough in target earnings before an individual decides they have enough salary.

It is clear that the legislation, although veiled in the premise of being about road safety, is in fact and by definition about industrial relations, particularly as, just before this legislation was brought to the House, it was transferred from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to the minister for unions—I mean, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.

We all know that the Northern Territory is remote from the rest of Australia. No matter how you look at it, to get goods to the Top End, to Darwin and Palmerston in my electorate, we remain very heavily reliant on road transport. The distances are vast, the environment is harsh and, every year, the Stuart Highway, the only road up to the Top End, is subject to the forces of nature, particularly heavy rains—which are happening as I speak—and floods, which more often than not result in substantial delays and down time for drivers. Although most of the Stuart Highway is in Minister Snowdon's electorate of Lingiari, I would not begrudge any expenditure on Territory roads. I just wish the Gillard Labor government would spend some money on Territory roads. So, please, Gillard government, spend some money on Territory roads. That is going to help my drivers be safe. From a road safety perspective the continued introduction of better road management practices, the increase in roadside stops and other fatigue management measures, as well as the tighter monitoring of measures already in place or on the cusp of being introduced to regulate the industry are far better options. Investing in Territory roads by this government would also be welcomed by Territorians, who each year are cut off from the rest of Australia.

In their submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communication, the National Road Transport Operators Association, NatRoad, provided analyses of the higher rates of pay and classic economic theory. Their conclusion indicated that higher rates of remuneration could lead to lower safety outcomes for some of the lowest paid drivers. The rationale behind this theory is that it is generally agreed workers will from time to time increase their labours in response to higher wages. The higher rewards generally increase the incentive to work with further remuneration, against a decrease in the relative attractiveness of leisure time. NatRoad argues in its submission:

... these workers are likely to increase, rather than decrease, their labour availability in response to a Road Safety Remuneration Order (RSRO) which marginally improved remuneration levels for these workers ...

The Australian Industry Group also highlighted this point by suggesting that, even if a connection between remuneration and unsafe practices did exist, it was not a proven response and:

... it does not follow that establishing higher minimum rates or prohibiting certain methods of payment will result in drivers changing their unsafe practices.

Rather, Ai Group suggested that if an individual driver's on-road behaviour is influenced by remuneration it is conceivable that increasing such incentives may increase the instance of behaviours where individuals seek to reap greater reward.

Research from the New South Wales RTA concludes that in 31 per cent of fatal crashes involving heavy vehicles the driver is at fault. If we accept this, then it begs the question: what impact will increased remuneration for transport drivers have on the other 69 per cent of fatal crashes, where the other driver is at fault? I suggest there will be nil impact; these crashes will continue to occur even after this legislation is enacted. Will the addition of a further level of regulation improve the transport industry? The industry is already heavily regulated at both the state and national levels. There is contractor legislation and workplace health and safety legislation, to name just two.

In addition to existing governance, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will commence on 1 January 2013. The development of this regulator has taken years of engagement, consultation and negotiation by successive governments. One important aspect of the NHVR will be the national chain of responsibility provisions, which would make companies directly responsible for the unsafe behaviours of their drivers. On 1 January this year the Workplace Health and Safety Act model laws commenced operation in several states, including in the Northern Territory. One of the underpinning principles of the laws is for business to ensure workplace risk is as low as reasonably practicable. Given that the laws became effective just over three months ago, it seems somewhat pre-emptive and dismissive of the government to now introduce further levels of governance to an industry in circumstances where the new laws have yet to be proven effective or otherwise, nor has the opportunity been provided to industry to implement the new laws and get their house in order.

Based on this premise, I question the motivations for the introduction of this Road Safety Remuneration Bill. Furthermore, where the Workplace Health and Safety Act requires the application of as low as reasonably practicable ALARP principles, which absolutely require the implementation of continuous improvement and best practice philosophies, the introduction of a new level of governance via this legislation package seems an unnecessary and additional burden, particularly when the new model workplace laws have yet to be given time to be bedded down across the industry. I note again that the Ai Group has suggested the new measures being put forward in this bill may undermine the operation of the Fair Work Act to the extent of overriding decisions of the existing industrial tribunal. Does this not then put into question the effectiveness of this Labor government's modern award process in producing effective outcomes? Is it the case that the minister believes the government's Fair Work Act is unable to effectively function in the heavy vehicle industry space? Or, more simply, is this bill a measure to push up the wages of truck drives outside the processes already in place?

Many of the submissions to the House committee inquiry supported the points raised about there being existing laws which apply to wages, conditions, contracting arrangements, road use, vehicle standards, fatigue management, speed, mass, dimensions, loading, substance abuse, record keeping as well as workplace health and safety obligations. It would be fair to say, then, that if this bill is successful it will make an industry already well burdened with administrative red tape less flexible, less able to deal with the fluid nature of pricing conditions—diesel fuel prices, for example. Additionally, road safety remuneration orders have the potential to suffocate any efficiency gains and innovations through the application of standards in force at a particular point in time rather than a philosophy of adaptability and flexibility, as is currently the case.

There are other concerns. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations indicates that, resulting from constitutional limitations, if the bill is passed it will cover over 80 per cent of employees and 60 per cent of owner-drivers within the industry. However the department notes:

... the Government has indicated its intention to expand coverage by exploring the possibility of referrals of power from state governments to enable expansion of the scheme to employees and owner drivers not within Commonwealth legislative power.

The legislation is not supported by either the Queensland or New South Wales governments and therefore renders the notion of expansion as unlikely and a moot point. So who does support this legislation? I bet you will be surprised to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the TWU supports these bills before the House. I wonder if it is because these bills are all about union power and not about safety. These bills are all about the Gillard Labor government looking after its vested interests; it is all about the Gillard Labor government looking after its union mates.

These bills before the House have further deficiencies and broader implications, not just for the sector of the transport industry it was intended to regulate. Focus has been on the long-haul heavy vehicle sector of the transport industry; however, the definition provided within the bill for the road transport industry is extremely broad. I note that I am running out of time, so I think that I would like to remind everyone that this bill is definitely not about road safety, it is about union power. As such, I as a member of the coalition will not be supporting this bill.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with both a sense of pride and a sense of delight to speak in support of the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011. Before I do that, I would like to acknowledge in the gallery above us students from Killester College in Springvale. Welcome to Parliament House, and I really hope that you have a very productive visit today. It is a great thing to be visiting the nation's capital, and I am sure you will enjoy your day here.

I would also like to acknowledge representatives from the Transport Workers Union who are in the gallery as well, led by Michael Kaine, the national federal assistant secretary of the TWU. I also note Senator Glenn Sterle in the gallery, a former TWU official, as of course I am. I raise that in this sense, that it does give me a better understanding, I think, of the particular issues faced by people who are driving on our roads around this country, the dangers that they face and the particular trials and tribulations that they have in their work. It is really that experience that I hope I bring to this chamber in speaking today.

I want to come back to my friends in the gallery in a moment, but I will first take up some of the comments from the member for Solomon. I find them disturbing, though we understand that those on the other side have a natural predilection against regulation and that is fair enough in the context of where they come from, and it is also the case on this side of the House that we as a government too have made enormous inroads to removing red tape and reducing government regulation. Indeed, it would be good if we saw some more national unity around the states with further harmonisation. If we could get some conservative governments on board for that agenda we would really see some red tape being removed. But when you hear a person say, in relation to what is the single most dangerous industry in this country, that their attitude is to ignore regulation, it does strike me that that represents a certain fundamentalist view which is not helpful in the debate and which is not going to see the deaths and injuries which are occurring on our roads today being stopped. If you are talking about the single most dangerous industry in this country, if there is ever a case for regulation that is when you have it. That is why we need to be moving down this path, and that is exactly what the Road Safety Remuneration Bill is all about.

At the risk of singling out any of those from the Transport Workers Union in the gallery today, I do want to mention Rick Burton, and it is great that Senator Sterle is in the gallery as well. Rick is now the assistant secretary of the West Australian branch of the Transport Workers Union. Both Rick and Senator Sterle come from WA and indeed both have been active in the north-west of WA, the region which is representing the extent to which road transport, and particularly long-distance road transport, is increasingly becoming such an important part of our national economy.

Senator Sterle in his life on the road drove trucks—furniture trucks, I think I am right in saying—from Darwin to Perth. He knows all about what it is to drive long hours without particularly good remuneration and about the pressures upon a driver in those circumstances. Rick in his work throughout WA is seeing currently a stream of long-distance trucks making the trip from Perth up to the top of WA because of the wonderful resources boom which is happening in that part of the world, but he is also seeing the incumbent dangers associated with that stream of road transport. Their experience and their presence here, particularly Rick's presence in making the pilgrimage from Western Australia to Canberra, speaks volumes about why it is so necessary that we move to deal with what is a very dangerous industry indeed and one which needs regulation in the form of the Road Safety Remuneration Bill. I would like to say to Rick and to all who have made the trip: thank you for coming here and bringing this issue to Canberra. You have done your membership and also your country an enormous service in raising this issue and making sure that something is done about it in this place, and I know that Senator Sterle will be carrying on good work in the other place to make sure that this does become the law of the land.

Road transport represents 1.7 per cent of our national GDP. It employs 246,000 people. It is an industry, as I have said, which is growing—growing by virtue of the resources boom but also growing by virtue of the increasing connectedness of our economy. It is growing at a rate of about 5.6 per cent per year. It is unquestionably a vitally important part of our national economy. The roads of Australia and the trucks which pass along them are quite literally the arteries which make Australia work. But while being an incredibly important industry, it is an industry which is very dangerous. Somewhere in the order of 1,400 people die on our roads every year. About 250 of those die as a result of an accident involving a truck. More than 1,000 people are injured every year because of accidents associated with trucks. In 2008-09, there were 25 deaths per 100,000 people working in the road transport industry. That figure makes it the single most dangerous industry in our country. It is why we are moving this bill; it is why we need to see some action here; and it is why we have seen the campaign run by the Transport Workers Union.

It has been estimated that the cost to our economy associated with these accidents is $2.7 billion every year. But it is not so much the economic cost—as significant as it is—that tells the story of the cost to our country associated with those injuries and deaths. In recent weeks the TWU has had in this building people, widows, and family members who have experienced firsthand the death of a loved one as a result of a trucking accident. When you talk to those people you understand the sudden, traumatic and total change to their lives these incidents occurring on the roads have caused. As a result of these deaths their lives will never be the same again. They speak much louder than any economic figures, or any statistic, about the need for us to act in this parliament today. Their presence in this building demands a response, and I am very proud to be a part of that response today.

The response to the issue of trying to reduce trucking deaths on our roads, and how we will act to deal with the issue, was articulated by the National Transport Commission in its report titled Remuneration and safety in the Australian heavy vehicle industry, which came out in 2008. What became very clear in the evidence garnered in the report was the link between the rates at which people are paid and the conditions under which people work and the accidents that then ensue on our roads. If any of us were to be honest, no matter what side of the House we stand on, that conclusion is hardly rocket science. It is hardly rocket science to say that, if you need to work long hours and push yourself beyond your extremes in order to earn a living wage, at the end of the day that is what you do.

The state coroner, in his summation of findings in relation to accidents involving Anthony Forsythe, Barry Supple and Timothy John Walsh, in 2003, said—and this was reported in the Remuneration and safety in the Australian heavy vehicle industry report of 2008:

As long as driver payments are based on a (low) rate per kilometre there will always be an incentive for drivers to maximise the hours they drive, not because they are greedy but simply to earn a decent wage.

Back in 2000, this parliament, through the Senate, held an inquiry into the safety of road transport in Australia. The committee's report was entitled Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport. That report included the following observation:

A number of submissions have argued that the 'payment by results' method used in road transport is a major contributor to driver fatigue. This type of payment may encourage drivers to work longer hours to increase their earnings.

The report also stated that it may influence drivers to engage in dangerous practices such as speeding and excessive hours.

Finally, Professor Quinlan, who authored the Remuneration and safety in the Australian heavy vehicle industry report of 2008, perhaps put it the most succinctly when he said:

Customer and consignor requirements on price, schedules and loading/unloading and freight contracts more generally, in conjunction with the atomistic and intensely competitive nature of the industry, encourage problematic tendering practices, unsustainable freight rates and dangerous work practices.

That is the link between the conditions of work on our roads and the behaviour of drivers when they are driving. It is a completely understandable link and it is a completely natural response to the fact of needing to push yourself beyond your limits in order to earn a living wage. But, inevitably, that leads to an unsafe situation on our roads.

That is why we now have before us the Road Safety Remuneration Bill, which seeks to fairly and squarely address this issue by making the matter of safety central to the way in which conditions are set for those working in road transport by making it absolutely clear that safe rates are part of the establishment of rates.

Principally, this legislation establishes a Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. This tribunal will be able to act on its own motion and also can act as a result of an application by any of the parties in the industrial space. The tribunal can do two things. Firstly, it can make road safety remuneration orders, which, if you like, establish a minimum safe rate of pay to ensure that safe behaviours ensue as a result of that rate of pay. This would sit on top of whatever the industrial instruments are within the workplace, be they awards or collective agreements. The first thing, therefore, is to make sure that safe rates orders—that safety as a component of an industrial minimum—can be put in place in the system.

Secondly, the tribunal will give what are described as 'safe remuneration approvals' for an industrial instrument that is sought to be certified within the industrial system. This is to say that, where there is an enterprise agreement or where there is an instrument in relation to owner-drivers or independent contractors within the transport sector, the ability is there to take that to the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to have established upfront that the rates of pay contained in the instrument are 'safe rates'. That will therefore represent a 'safe remuneration approval'.

These two heads of power represent the primary basis on which this new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will operate. It will have the power to resolve disputes amongst the parties. It will be an independent body of government—an independent body of Fair Work Australia—but, having said that, the ability will be there to have dual appointments between members of Fair Work Australia and the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. That is a precedent that we have seen in other areas of industrial regulation within Australia in both the Coal Industry Tribunal and the remuneration tribunal for our armed services. But also, sitting on the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will be industry experts who do understand the particular nature of this industry, and compliance will be a function carried out by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

In concluding, this represents an enormous achievement by the Transport Workers Union. They have been diligent and persistent as they should be in pursuit of this legislation. This is a great example of trade unions acting on behalf of their members and achieving something which is wonderful for them and which is so important for the country. I want to acknowledge the national secretary, Tony Sheldon; the assistant secretary, Michael Kaine; and state secretaries Wayne Forno, Wayne Mader, Peter Biagini, Ray Wyatt and Jim McGiveron. I take my hat off to all of them. They have done a wonderful thing for this country.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011. Before I get to the substance of my speech, I must say that the minister's speech was quite extraordinary in its oversimplification of something that is actually very difficult. He refers to this being the most dangerous industry in Australia. I accept that, but, if you are talking about the most dangerous industry in Australia, you must look at regulations to improve the safety in that industry. In the regulations in this bill, we are not talking about improved roads, we are not talking about improved training and we are not talking about mechanisms or technologies to reduce fatigue. No; it is that drivers need to be paid more and that that is going to fix it. Is that the solution to all of our problems? Is it the case that anywhere we have safety problems we simply increase the pay and that is going to fix the problems?

The bill continues a well-worn path by the Gillard government that involves further regulation, further bureaucracy and further red tape to arbitrarily benefit one sector at the expense of another. This bill seeks to establish a new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which will be afforded broad powers to investigate as well as set pay rates and conditions for any segment of the heavy vehicle industry. It seeks to bring about the imposition of mandatory minimum wages for employed and self-employed truck drivers, with the overarching expectation that this endeavour will result in an improvement in their work performances and, in effect, prevent future road fatalities.

The National Transport Commission report in 2008 concluded that there was a direct correlation between remuneration rates and safety. This conclusion was by default embraced by the government and the Transport Workers Union. Labor then drafted the bill we are now debating. However, critical and independent scrutiny by a number of industry representatives, truck drivers and small-business owners has brought this correlation into question. As members, we are obliged to question the veracity of these claims and the authority of the information upon which this bill is based. With many people in Tangney involved in the transport industry in one way or another, be it directly such as freight firms based in Canning Vale or light industrial businesses around Myaree who rely on the transport industry to ship product intrastate and around the world, this bill is set to significantly impact my electorate. I believe that without bringing the assumptions of this bill under strenuous scrutiny we would be remiss in our duties.

There is no denying that in many instances, across a wide range of professional industries, the more an individual earns the better their performance. This, however, is not the full story. I wish to make three key points. Firstly, the correlation between higher wages and improved performance only remains valid up to a point. If taken too far, it can just as well lead to complacency and lack of performance—exactly the opposite of the intention of this bill. For this reason, many economists tend to be sceptical of the minimum wage. They contend that it seeks to pay certain individuals a greater pay than should otherwise be paid based on skill, time and effort involved in performing certain tasks. Secondly, even if we were to agree that some vague correlation does exist between the quantity of wages and the quality of work in given circumstances, it remains to be proven that this correlation necessarily applies in the context of this bill.

Thirdly, in every other debate we have had in this chamber over the past year—and I note particularly the perennial carbon tax debate—this government has time and again emphasised the importance of getting the research right before deciding what direction to take with government legislation. It was this government that harped on about the evidence and the 'science' throughout the carbon tax debate as its foundation for a clean energy future. All inquiries conducted by committees from both houses, all the so-called experts in the field and all the reports and submissions received from a wide range of sources, organisations and academics apparently told us this was the correct path. So why should this bill be treated any differently?

It is well known that I have never been a fan of postulating arguments that make appeals to authority. While I concede that research may contain subjective elements and hold inherent limitations from the sample data utilised in the process, I agree that inquiries made into particular subjects nonetheless help us broaden our understanding of certain phenomena as well as helping contribute towards our arrival at an informed conclusion. Parliamentary debate must be based on empirical evidence to support all claims and assertions. Policy, bills and motions ought to be judged on the basis of their soundness of evidence, not simply by virtue of who devised them.

I wish to take a leaf out of the government's carbon tax book in relation to this bill and pay close attention to what the majority of experts are saying on this issue of road safety and remuneration. An inquiry by the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications into the bill referred on 24 November 2011 received 29 submissions. Only nine of these were supportive of the bill, of which three were academics and the other six—surprise, surprise!—were from individuals and organisations with union affiliations.

Whilst the correlation between the quantity of wages and quality of performance may not be as ubiquitous as it has been made out to be by the proponents of this bill, the correlation between unionist philosophies and the perennial demand for higher wages is far more compelling. The great irony is that the government's own regulatory impact statement on the bill questions the veracity of this correlation. I refer to page 4 of the statement:

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 or quantum of their remuneration.

It continues:

Data at this point in time is limited and being definitive around the causal link between rates and safety is difficult.

In their submissions to the House committee the Australian Logistics Council and the Australian Industry Group also indicate their scepticism of the correlation between road safety and remuneration. The same stance is held by the Independent Contractors Association; the National Road Transport Operators Association, NatRoad; and Toll Group.

Interestingly, in their submissions on the analysis of the impact of higher rates of pay and conditions, NatRoad arrive at the conclusion that increased pay may actually result in decreased safety outcomes for the lowest paid drivers. Their submission explains that it is generally agreed that workers will for a time increase their labour availability in response to higher wages because the higher rewards will generally increase their incentive to work. NatRoad argue that this is particularly true for the lowest paid workers:

These workers are likely to increase, rather than decrease, their labour availability in response to a Road Safety Remuneration Order which marginally improved remuneration levels for these workers …

However, after a time, this behaviour will change, as the Ai Group confirms:

Even if a causal connection between remuneration and unsafe practices is presumed to exist it does not follow that establishing higher minimum rates or prohibiting certain methods of payment will result in drivers changing their unsafe practices. Rather, if it is accepted that an individual's on road behaviour is influenced by the quantum of their remuneration it is conceivable that increased rates may further incentivise individuals to engage in behaviour such as the working of excessive hours in order to reap greater rewards.

It is evident that the link between road safety and remuneration rates and conditions for truck drivers assumes that the overwhelming majority of road accidents are the fault of the heavy vehicle driver. NatRoad reference research by the New South Wales road transport authority that concludes heavy vehicle drivers are at fault in only 31 per cent of fatal crashes involving a heavy vehicle. They go on to state:

It cannot be expected that driver remuneration will have any bearing on the remaining 69% of fatal heavy vehicle crashes.

The coalition believes that this bill has limitations and will do nothing to address the causes of crashes caused by 'the other road user'.

There is little doubt that this bill is another instance of ideological welfare manifested as a concerted effort on the part of the Labor Party to legislate further bureaucracy and red tape for the business sector. The assumed correlation between the quantity of wages and quality of performance assumes that the limitations of the sample data acquired by the research conducted by the government somehow adequately represent the majority of cases. We cannot be certain of this at all.

Another emerging problem is the way the road transport industry has been defined within the context of this debate. Reports conducted by the National Transport Commission and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations dealt closely with issues facing long-haul heavy vehicle transit and argued in favour of improving conditions in this part of the heavy vehicle industry. However, this bill defines the road transport industry in incredibly broad terms. The bill captures independent contractors and employees in long-haul and short-haul industry, couriers, the cash-in-transit industry and the waste management industry. Much of this coverage was not contemplated when developing this bill. The Post Office Agents Association in their submission to the House inquiry stated:

It seems unlikely that the Bill would improve road safety for Mail Contractors.

The consultation process leading up to the introduction of the bill did not allow scope to seek representation on this expanded definition of road transport industry or give the tribunal the power to deal with postal contractors, as well as long-haul drivers, as well as waste management drivers.

Similarly, concerns have been raised about the scope of the tribunal. In particular the bill allows for the tribunal to make an order with respect to a participant in the supply chain and also with respect to 'remuneration and other related conditions'. The Civil Contractors Federation have raised concerns that civil contractors could incur responsibilities to third parties they do not directly hire, such as drivers acquired through a pool operator, or over whom they have no direct control. They believe this situation is highly unsatisfactory and as such should not be supported. The Australian Logistics Council opposes the bill but believes an amendment should be accepted to limit the scope of the tribunal's orders purely to remuneration. The tribunal is given very broad powers to determine how a truck should be loaded or unloaded as well as other areas intended to be covered by the NHVR.

The coalition is in favour of a multifaceted, holistic approach to improving road safety in the heavy vehicle industry. This will include better roads, awareness programs, education initiatives, industry codes of conduct, the construction of more rest stops and passing lanes, and looking at ways to use new technologies to improve road safety. The coalition does not believe this bill meets these ideals.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and Road Safety (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011. All Australians are concerned by the significant number of fatalities on our roads and the serious injuries that result from car and truck crashes on our roads. We all drive on our nation's roads and we want to see such injuries and fatalities reduced. We can all agree that we want safer roads, but we are being asked by the government to believe that this legislation is going to achieve that objective.

The government put 'safety' in the title of the Road Safety Remuneration Bill, suggesting that somehow this bill will lead to safer roads. But simply having the word 'safety' in the bill's title does not mean that the bill is in fact substantially about road safety, or that it will achieve the objectives of greater safety on our nation's roads. If this bill was really about the safety of workers in the transport industry you would have a very realistic and reasonable expectation that the bill would be brought forward by the relevant minister—Minister Albanese, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. But this bill has not been brought forward by that minister. Instead, it has been brought forward by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, Mr Shorten—the minister who has been dubbed by my colleague, the member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs, as the 'minister for mates'.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member would assist the House by withdrawing that reflection on the minister.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. This is an IR bill dressed up as a bill about safety. This is a bill that has been drawn up by the minister's mates in the union movement—Tony Sheldon, secretary of the Transport Workers Union, along with colleagues in the Australian Council of Trade Unions—to increase union power and dominance in the industry. We know that the transport industry is substantially made up of independent contractors who are not covered by the government's Fair Work Act or by the union movement. This bill is an attempt to change that under the guise that it is being moved to achieve greater road safety.

It is my view that it is a very cynical thing indeed to exploit the tragedies on our roads as a political power play. Yet the government has made no secret of its continued battle against independent contractors. It wants independent contractors to be considered as employees and it wants those employees to be union members who will pay dues to union secretaries who will then continue to donate to Labor Party campaigns.

I will address three fundamental problems with this bill. Firstly, this bill establishes a new tribunal with very broad powers, powers which do not relate to road safety. Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that increased pay will result in safer roads. Thirdly, there are already existing tools to achieve the objective of greater road safety that will be more effective and will actually address the substantive issue of achieving safer roads in Australia. The broad powers of the tribunal that will be established relate to remuneration, conditions and industry practices. The tribunal will have significant power to make orders on any one or all of these things. It will have the power to do this without even a referral. It will be able to initiate its own referrals. It will have the power to determine such things as working hours, load limits, payment methods, waiting times, loading and unloading practices—the list goes on and on.

Most importantly, the tribunal will be able to make orders and determinations on these things without any regard for the safety standards or the safety outcomes. It has full discretion to make these orders. Parties such as, say, the union movement, can make application to the tribunal under the bill for such orders on these very broad powers. We are told in this place to take it as a matter of trust that when the tribunal sets wages it will apparently do so with regard to safety and that when it sets industry practices it will do so with regard to safety. We are told to take it on trust that when it determines payment methods it will do so with regard to safety but, yet, there is nothing in this bill that requires the tribunal to have regard to safety when making such orders. As I said, it has very broad discretion.

The tribunal, as well, is not bound by the rules of evidence and procedure. It has very broad powers to conduct itself and inform itself in a way that it sees fit. More than this, it has significant powers with respect to penalty orders. Criminal penalties of six months imprisonment can be issued for failing to attend a hearing before the tribunal or refusing to answer questions required by the tribunal.

Who will make up this tribunal? We are told that there will be a maximum number of nine people on the tribunal with at least five coming from Fair Work Australia and the others chosen by the government who have experience in the road transport industry. We know exactly who the government will appoint to such a tribunal. It has a very significant record on this. It will be no surprise to those on this side of the chamber when the government appoints to this tribunal union mates who have already campaigned for the government on such issues.

Why is the government bringing forward this new set of employment arrangements outside of the Fair Work Act? Why is it bringing forward a tribunal? Is it a sign that the government has problems with its Fair Work Act? Has there been a failure that the government is now acknowledging? Does it mean that the government has reconsidered its position on the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which it opposed on the basis that there should not be sector-specific or industry-specific laws or two laws in contrast to Fair Work Australia? That is one of the issues that concern us on this side of the chamber—the very broad powers that the tribunal will have to make these orders, penalties and determinations.

The second concern that we have is around whether in fact increased remuneration has anything to do with better safety outcomes. The government has asserted that it does, yet the evidence to date has suggested that there is no causal link. In all of the submissions that were provided to the committee that looked into this bill, there was no evidence to suggest that increased pay will lead to increased safety outcomes. In fact, the government's own regulatory impact statement says that the data is limited and that there is no causal link between rates of safety and remuneration. So we could in fact have a rather perverse outcome here where, if there are higher rates of pay, it may well incentivise some drivers to work longer hours, which is, we are told by the government, entirely contrary to the objectives of the bill that it has brought before this place. The government and the unions are very much alone in actually supporting this bill. Not even the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh—not even the Labor government of Queensland—supports this bill. They see no causal link between the two things.

We believe that there are better ways to achieve safety outcomes. I note the very good work that was done by my colleagues who issued a dissenting report in relation to this bill, where they said:

… the Coalition members support further efforts to improve occupational health and safety outcomes, particularly fatigue reduction measures, for the transport industry …

They recognise the fact that there are many elements that relate to road safety, many elements indeed, and that those elements combined together will help us achieve safer roads for all Australians. They understand that it is important that we have strong road and traffic laws and strong enforcement of those laws, that there are proper fatigue management regulations, that there are chain-of-responsibility regulations, that we improve our highways and road conditions, that we improve the frequency of rest-stop facilities, that we improve health and safety legislation and that we also work through the COAG process, where there is already good work being done in this regard. We believe that speeding laws need to be very much enforced and that there should be suitable industry codes of practice and that these are much more effective ways to deliver enhanced safety and fairness across the road transport industry.

The government are moving an IR bill—be in no doubt about that. This is an IR bill designed to increase the reach of the union movement over independent contractors. It is a philosophical cause for the government. It is one that they have pursued mercilessly. Under the guise of a road safety bill they are seeking to implement this. They are seeking to do that by cynically exploiting the terrible and awful tragedies that have taken place on our roads to date. They plan to give a tribunal increased powers. They plan to give this tribunal increased discretion to make orders—orders that do not relate in any way to safety. There are better ways, as I have outlined, that we can improve road safety in Australia on our roads.

We do not believe that this bill is worth supporting. We believe this bill is misplaced. We empathise with those people who have lost loved ones on our nation's roads and we understand their very real concern to see increased safety. We do not believe though that this bill will achieve that, so we on this side of the House oppose the government's IR bill.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with tremendous personal pride that I get up to speak in support of the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011. We have heard from the coalition a lot of terrible vitriol and invective. Every time they open their mouths it is to condemn unions, to condemn working people, in fact. It truly offends me, because the history of this country has been based on the rights of workers being established through their ability to organise and seek true representation, proper representation. I am very proud to say that my great-grandfather was a key member of the building of that tradition.

Benjamin George Kelly, my great-grandfather, began life in Bega on our dairy farm and went on to become a teacher. Not long after that he moved into the transport business. He operated vehicles down near the Nimmitabel area, transporting workers for the construction of the railways down to Bombala. He then moved up to this area, the Queanbeyan-Canberra area, where he was involved in the local bus industry. That was in 1923. He was a man who had strong values based in the labour movement. He became involved in the establishment of the ACT branch of the Labor Party and also the Trades and Labour Council and was president and secretary of both those bodies. In 1928 he was proudly a founding father of the Amalgamated Road Transport Workers Union, which became federally registered in 1928. He laboured long and hard for the rights of those workers and I am extremely proud of the things he did during that time, during the really tough years of the Depression; he in fact led a march of the unemployed on federal parliament in 1935. His experience of seeing the circumstances of workers—both the transport workers he represented and workers more broadly—suffering from the effects of the depression led him to run for the seat of Eden-Monaro in 1940. Unfortunately, he was unsuccessful in that bid, but I am proud to have been able to realise his ambition and to be able to speak today in support of this legislation. He would have been so proud and pleased at what we are seeking to achieve on behalf of transport workers with this legislation.

Transport is a key factor in my region. All through this region we have a large volume of traffic daily from long-haulers associated with the extensive logging industry, with the dairy industry—Bega Cheese, of course, is a major industry in the Bega area and there is a lot of traffic associated with it—with cattle and sheep and also with resupplying quarrying. The risks and consequences associated with that traffic on the roads in the region have come out of the way the industry has been managed up until now. Of course, it was in this very industry that we saw from 1979 onwards the development of the independent contractor mechanism, which began life primarily as a means of undermining the organisation of workers—the unions—in this country and of undermining workers' pay and conditions, including conditions in the workplace. Ever since, we have been trying to catch up with the establishment of the independent contractor model and to redress the wrongs these workers have suffered. We have heard reference to the fact that this is the most dangerous industry in Australia: 10 time more fatalities occur in this industry than in other sectors of the Australian economy. Around 250 people are killed and more than 1,000 people suffer serious injury on our roads each year.

What really gets me is that those on the other side allege that they represent better the interests of rural and regional Australia. Nothing could be more laughable. Every step of the way, the coalition has opposed reforms that would benefit rural and regional Australians. Not only has it opposed the NBN, which my region and other rural and regional areas so keenly seek; it has opposed our health and education reforms, which have had such a great impact on rural and regional areas, and now it opposes this legislation, which will have such benefits for road safety in rural and regional areas. Most of these accidents occur on country roads and involve country people.

One thing that pleases me so much about this legislation is that it is evidence based policy at its best. The birth of this legislation came through the work of the National Transport Commission leading to its 2008 report entitled Safe Payments: Addressing the underlying causes of unsafe practices in the transport industry. The commission established beyond question that there is a link between payment rates and methods for owner-drivers and employees and unsafe driving practices. It is established that those methods created an economic incentive to drive unsafely, resulting in fatalities and poor safety outcomes on our roads. So in that review there was a direct link between economic factors and the issues of speeding, working long hours and the use of illicit substances by many truck drivers in order to try to remain awake and able to perform their tasks. The commission's recommendations were very clear. It said that this link should be addressed through regulatory intervention at the national level and by the establishment of a tribunal.

This legislation establishes the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, whose object, ambition and reason for being is to promote safety and fairness in the road transport industry. The tribunal will comprise members from Fair Work Australia and expert members with qualifications relevant to the road transport industry. It will not be a case of jobs for the boys. It will not be the sort of knee-jerk anecdotal stuff that we so often see from the coalition. This is legislation and reform that is based on evidence and that will be operated by experts from the industry. The tribunal will determine whether a sector in the industry has poor safety outcomes as a result of low remuneration and will be able to make road safety remuneration orders to improve the on-road safety outcomes for drivers operating in sectors it examines. This will be a tribunal and a mechanism by which the specifics, procedures and issues can be examined regularly, gradual improvements can be rendered and conditions under which transport workers operate can be addressed and removed as a safety issue. It will be efficient and effective.

The member for Higgins talked about the lack of rules of evidence and the lack of procedure. That is exactly what we want to avoid with this process. We do not want a cumbersome, legalistic approach; we want a practical, effective, efficient method that will deal with issues and promote productivity. We do not want further jobs for lawyers, which the member for Higgins might like; we want outcomes. We want outcomes based approaches, outcomes for the transport workers, outcomes for the safety of our rural and regional areas and outcomes for productivity in the transport industry. I reject entirely the concerns of the member for Higgins.

The concerns of those opposite are not concerns about the economy, the industry or the way this body will operate. For them, as we have heard time and time again in this debate, it is all about union bashing. It is all about the philosophy of this coalition, which is to make the worker carry the burden for every economic improvement and every productivity gain. It always has to come out of the hide of the worker. Whenever we hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about writing pledges in blood, we know that he wants to write those pledges in the worker's blood. Every action he takes, every measure he opposes or supports, is founded on his approach of making the worker pay.

Those opposite may have abandoned the terminology of Work Choices but they have adopted the new terminology of flexibility. And what does 'flexibility' mean to the coalition? To the coalition flexibility means: 'We don't invest in infrastructure, we don't invest in innovation, we don't invest in skills. What we do is make the workers take a hit. We make the workers lose pay and conditions. We make the workers work longer. We make the workers suffer.' That is why it is so offensive—so obscene—when we see the Leader of the Opposition don his hard hat or his high-vis vest and go and visit workplaces across this country, pretending to be a friend of the worker, when everything he does is about sacrificing jobs in this country, destroying our manufacturing sector and eroding the safety and work conditions of workers across the nation. This is incredibly obscene, and the workers of this nation will not be fooled by it.

In fact, we saw one worker who tried to exercise his right of free speech recently when the Leader of the Opposition visited his work site. He pointed out the deficiencies of the Leader of the Opposition and lost his job as a result. As that worker said, not only did he lose his job as a result of the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to that work site but this points to a future in which, if the Leader of the Opposition became Prime Minister, he would wonder how many more jobs would be lost across the nation—and we know they would be in the thousands. The Leader of the Opposition pulls the plug on support of the manufacturing industry. He cuts a swathe of destruction through jobs in this region through the sacrifice of all of those vital Public Service functions that support our community across the country and would send this region, in particular, into a recession, as the coalition did in 1996. This is an illustration of the attitude of the coalition. It is all about making the worker pay, about inflicting pain on the workers, and in this instance it is pain on the transport workers.

We are talking about saving lives, lest we forget. There was one accident in our own region in 2009 that I think illustrates this perfectly. It was a tragic incident involving a fuel-tanker truck. The 36-year-old driver was working to the limits to perform in relation to the incentives issue we have been talking about. Unfortunately, a horrendous crash occurred on 29 December 2009 near Pebbly Beach. This driver's Kenworth prime mover was travelling south with a tank of diesel fuel. The collision involved striking a Subaru, a Honda Accord and a Toyota RAV4—so there were three other vehicles involved—and they were all turned into flaming balls of fire. The truck driver himself was killed, and the family of the driver of the Subaru was devastated. That driver, David Bridge, was killed. Tragically, his two beautiful daughters, Jordon and Makeely, aged 13 and 11, were also killed in the accident. His wife, Debbie, suffered horrendous injuries and, unfortunately, died recently. The family were from Ulladulla and were well-loved and respected in our region.

These are the specifics—the personal details, the tragedies—that are involved. This is not about statistics; it is about real people. It is about real people who are living in rural and regional Australia in particular. If the members opposite were interested in productivity gains, were interested in safety, were interested in the interests of Australians, of working people, and their pay and conditions, then they would get behind this legislation. So for the coalition it is not about those issues. It is about maintaining their pattern of negativity, maintaining their assault on the workers of this country, maintaining their philosophy of Work Choices through to the implementation of new regimes of flexibility that would hurt Australian people, hurt jobs and hurt workers.

My great-grandfather, Benjamin George Kelly, did so much to fight for the rights of workers in those early days when conditions were horrendous—when jobs were sacrificed on the economic altar of free rein for employers—with the Great Depression, the tragedies and the tremendous cost to workers of that era. They were the early days of establishing the Transport Workers Union, which has done such a wonderful job of looking after the interests of its 90,000 members. My great-grandfather would be very proud today that this Labor government—the Labor Party he worked so hard to establish—has delivered on a wonderful outcome for these workers.

Lest we forget, we have people out there right now who are working under these terrible conditions, working under these terrible disincentives to road safety. Their sacrifices are commemorated through road markers all around this land. I would urge members of the coalition to have a look at those road markers next time they are out there driving around rural and regional Australia, to think about their vote in relation to this legislation and to stop vilifying the 90,000 members of this union and the two million fellow Australians of theirs who are in unions across this country. They are not demons; they are not evil. They are decent men and women seeking to do the best for their families and for themselves in a country that prides itself on providing opportunity for people to better themselves. That is what this party is about. It is about improving conditions for these people, giving them jobs and giving them the opportunity to better themselves.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome and strongly support the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011. Recently I put out a statement at home in which I said a number of things, and I will repeat some of them here. I said that the Road Safety Remuneration Bill will save lives by ensuring that truck drivers are paid reasonably for the work they do and will get rid of the economic incentive for truck drivers to take unacceptable risks on our roads. I have been a strong supporter of the Transport Workers Union campaign for safe rates in the trucking industry and also strongly supportive of the efforts the government has made to deliver this.

We know that around 250 people are killed and that more than 1,000 suffer serious injuries on our roads each year in accidents involving trucks. In the region where I live, the Northern Rivers region, we know all too well the high toll of accidents involving trucks on our roads. In 2008 the National Transport Commission's review into payment methods in the industry found a link between rates of pay and safety outcomes for truck drivers. The TWU and industry representatives were on the government's Safe Rates Advisory Committee and have been consulted every step of the way about this legislation.

Truck drivers, whether employees or owners—they are still truck drivers—should not have to speed, overload their trucks or drive excessive hours to earn a decent living. Truck drivers work hard enough to make a living and the government wants to support measures which ensure pay rates that encourage drivers to drive safely, manage their hours and maintain their vehicle. That is reasonable.

There is a TWU campaign, Safe Rates, which has gone on for some years. I have participated in a lot of the campaign activities which have been held in my electorate of Page. We have received great support from people in the community, from the public, because they all know that truck drivers have to be on the road and they all want those truck drivers to drive safely. We have to have a system, a framework and laws, where they are necessary, to make sure that can happen. That is what these bills provide.

The booklet Safe Rates Summit 2011 quotes from evidence given by a former driver, Andrew Villis, to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission:

When I was required to perform excessive hours I would sometimes experience a state of mind that I can only describe as hallucinations, which I considered to be due to sleep deprivation. I would 'see' trees turning into machinery, which would lift my truck off the road. I 'saw' myself run over motorcycles, cars and people. On one occasion I held up the highway in Grafton—

Grafton is in my seat of Page—

while waiting for a truck which was not there to do a three point turn (I was radioed by drivers behind me asking why I had stopped). I estimate that I had experiences like these roughly every second day. They were not an uncommon thing for me.

We have an obligation to make sure that no truck driver is ever put in a situation like that.

Australian Magazines Trade quotes from a letter from Trish Freyer, of the Freyer family of Maryborough in Queensland, to her local MP. Among other things, the letter said:

We don't want to be millionaires; we just want to be able to make a decent living safely.

That is repeated over and over by many different people in the truck-driving industry.

Safe R ates S ummit 2011 quotes a study by Anne Williamson and Rena Friswell which says:

A study, funded by NSW WorkCover, shows that truck drivers are frequently forced to break driving regulations in order to make a living. It showed drivers are working an average of 68 hours a week, while almost a third are breaking all driving laws and doing more than 72 hours a week. Only 25 per cent of drivers were paid waiting times, and almost 60 per cent of drivers surveyed were not paid for loading or unloading. 60 per cent of drivers admitted to “nodding off ” at the wheel over the last 12 months.

The same publication, Safe Rates Summit 2011, quotes from the judgment by Justice Graham in Regina v Randall John Harm, 2005. The judgment said, in part:

… truck drivers are still placed under what is, clearly, intolerable pressure in order to get produce to the markets or goods to their destination within a time fixed, not by any rational consideration of the risks involved in too tight a timetable, but by the dictates of the marketplace. Or, to put it bluntly, sheer greed on the part of the end users of these transport services.

The publication goes on to quote Bob Carr, speaking at the Safe Rates Summit of 2009:

It was certainly an issue during my time in NSW politics because we were very conscious that far too many truck drivers and members of the public die on our roads in crashes that are preventable.

It also quotes Warren Truss, the Leader of the Nationals, saying on 23 October 2008:

… quite clearly someone has to stand up for the ordinary truck drivers who work long hours on our highways.

Safe R ates S ummit 2011 includes a further statement attributed to the honourable member for Wide Bay. Mr Truss is quoted as having said in October 2011:

I understand that there are cost recovery pressures for drivers.

The honourable member has the opportunity to stand up for those truck drivers today by voting for this legislation.

I stood here and listened to the honourable member for Higgins talk about the TWU, which represents over 90,000 members. She talked about the TWU as though, somehow, because it is involved and because it lobbied to make conditions safer for truck drivers, whether TWU members or not, it is not relevant—that it is not right and proper that the TWU pursues safety and decent pay rates for truck drivers. Thank goodness we do have organisations and unions like the TWU which are concerned about safety for their members and for members of the public. That is what they do and it is such an important role.

I listened to coalition members tick off what they think is wrong, but they offered very little by way of solutions. I have quoted the honourable member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the Nationals, saying we have to stand up for truck drivers. How do we stand up for them if we do not do things like endorsing safe pay rates and a mechanism that can actually bring those safe pay rates into operation? There is no fine piece of legislation we could draw up here that, of itself, could do that. We need a system; we need a framework. That is what this bill is about and we have to get it implemented.

The government recognises the important role that owner-drivers play in the road transport industry. Truck driving continues to be the industry with the highest incidence of fatal injuries. The estimated cost to the community of truck crashes is $2.7 billion, but that is only the monetary cost. There is also the human cost of these tragedies—the fatalities and the people left with catastrophic injuries. Research has also found that improving remuneration leads to increased safety outcomes. In addition, there is evidence showing that many accidents in the industry result from speeding or fatigue. We have had evidence and evidence and evidence over many years that shows that, so it really is time to act. There have been a lot of inquiries and they show the same thing, so we do need to act today and get this legislation passed.

The government is clearly committed to improving safety outcomes for truck drivers while ensuring the long-term viability of the road transport industry. The circumstances of owner-drivers have long been recognised through regulation in a number of states; it is one of the issues that is raised. As far back as 1979, inquiries have recommended that there be particular regulation for owner-drivers, so it is not something that is new. There are existing regulatory arrangements covering owner-drivers in my state of New South Wales and in Victoria and Western Australia. Those drivers are no less deserving of coming home safely to their families than any other drivers are. Whether they are owner-drivers or drivers they are all truck drivers, and that is the point we have to stay focused on.

In commending these bills I say to the ministers who have been responsible in getting us to the stage we are at today: well done! And well done to the TWU for a persistent and sensible campaign that will bring us what we call safe pay rates but also safety on the roads, for truck drivers, for their families and for all of us.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to close the debate on the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential and Related Provisions) Bill 2011. Safe rates, as this bill has been termed more informally, are about safe roads, so it is important that our parliament supports the passage of these much-needed laws to make our roads and our families safer. I thank the Leader of the House for the considerable contribution he made to the development of this legislation. Some opposite have claimed that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations leading these bills through the debate in this place is some form of grand industrial conspiracy. They ought to stop looking under their beds and start looking under the roads of Australia.

Let me be clear: this legislation is about safety in a unique workplace. Every one of us on this side of the House and throughout the broader community shares a strong resolve to improve road safety for truck drivers, their families and all Australian road users. It is a very stark contrast to compare our desire to act in this cause with the disappointing state of affairs opposite, where coalition members have argued that there is no link between safe rates and safe roads. I know that not all of those opposite are entirely happy with the position being adopted by the coalition.

The Leader of the House in his role as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and my predecessors in the workplace relations portfolio have worked collaboratively with key stakeholders in the industry to bring about these important reforms for the road transport industry. I also take this opportunity to thank the other members who have contributed significantly over the years to progress this important and long-overdue national issue, particularly the committee members responsible for the parliamentary report Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, which recently reported on the road safety remuneration bills. In particular, I wish to thank the member for Hinkler, who was involved in both inquiries and said during the recent inquiry into the bills:

We have had a series of inquiries going back 10 or 11 years now, one of which I chaired, where we felt that the limits had already at that time been pushed to a point where drivers were not receiving fair reward … Just to say that you do not think there has been any evidence and that there has been a small decrease in the number of heavy vehicle road fatalities—I do not think that establishes anything.

Last, but certainly not least, it is important to recognise the members of the community who have advocated so strongly for these reforms. Last week, organised through the Transport Workers Union of Australia, I met with wives and mothers and friends and families, the bereaved of truck drivers and bystanders who have lost their lives as a result of the overwhelming demand to drive further and faster to make ends meet. That is the purpose of these bills: to keep truck drivers safe and to keep our roads safe for all Australians so that everyone can get home safely to their families at the end of their shift.

Road accidents involving heavy vehicles cost our economy an estimated $2.7 billion annually. That is important, but we cannot begin to measure the painful cost carried by the victims' loved ones. It is immeasurable. The bills should be understood as achieving two things. They are a measured and informed response to a significant body of Australian and international research that links pay and pay related conditions to safety outcomes for truck drivers. They are the culmination of decades of research, along with substantial government consultation with stakeholders and the general public, which indicates that the road safety remuneration bills will significantly improve safety and fairness for truck drivers.

Specifically, these bills are the government's response to the recommendations made in the National Transport Commission's landmark 2008 report Safe payments: addressing the underlying causes of unsafe practices in the road transport industry and the 2010 'Safe Rates, Safe Roads' directions paper. Our road transport industry employs over 246,000 Australians, and with 25 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2008-09 this industry has a casualty rate 10 times higher than the average for all industries. In addition, around 250 people are killed and more than a thousand suffer serious injuries on our roads each year in accidents involving trucks. Australian truck drivers have been pushed to the limit. Some have been pressured to cut corners on safety and maintenance, some to speed in order to make unfair and unrealistic deadlines, sometimes even taking illicit substances to keep them awake to get to destinations on time, putting their lives and the lives of other Australian road users on the line just to make a decent living and repay their debts and make ends meet. These bills will help reduce these illegal and unsafe practices.

Despite the significant contribution that the road transport industry makes to the Australian economy, a national approach to safety issues that addresses conditions in the industry, particularly for owner-drivers, has not been taken into account to date. As I have said, our transport industry is an integral part of the Australian economy, accounting for over 1.7 per cent of Australia's total gross domestic product. It is an industry that keeps Australia moving, making sure that supermarket shelves and petrol bowsers are filled and that building products are on site. And it is an industry that is growing. The road freight task is increasing at an annual rate of 5.6 per cent and is forecast to continue growing.

Our Gillard government is committed to doing all that is necessary to sustain the long-term viability of the road transport industry, but we do not believe that productivity has to be at the expense of ensuring that truck drivers, whether employees or self-employed, have a safe and fair workplace. We believe this legislation will help reduce the high turnover of truckies out of the industry, and more experienced drivers are typically safer drivers.

This government also recognises the important role played in the economy by small businesses, particularly owner-drivers, who make up 60 per cent of the road transport industry. We respect owner-drivers who choose to be independent contractors and operate as small businesses. We understand that owner-drivers and small fleets provide flexibility for businesses to meet the increasing demand for the delivery of goods, particularly in rural and regional areas. Yet we also know that almost 30 in every 100 owner-drivers are paid below award rates, with many unable to recover the cost of operating their vehicle. These bills establish a system that will assist road transport industry small businesses, while ensuring that owner-drivers maintain their status as independent contractors.

To those who have raised concerns that these bills will increase the regulatory burden for all those involved in the road transport industry, let me be very clear. This legislation has been carefully developed to reinforce the benefits of other reforms, including those achieved by both industry and governments. These reforms include fatigue, chain of responsibility and work health and safety laws and complementing the role of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. Let me be clear. There is no way this new approach will ever cost the transport industry anything approaching the cost of the current carnage in lives.

Under these bills, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will be tasked 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 rates will ensure that truck drivers do not need to meet gruelling schedules just to make ends meet and will allow for safer driving practices by these drivers.

The government acknowledges that unpaid waiting times are a particular problem for both employees and owner-drivers in the road transport industry. The tribunal will therefore also have the power to investigate unpaid waiting times and intervene where the issue is found to affect safety outcomes. Road safety remuneration orders made by the tribunal will be in addition to any existing rights employed drivers have under other industrial instruments and owner-drivers have under their contracts for service.

To industry members who have expressed concern over the powers of the tribunal, let me assure you that the tribunal's approach will be evidence based and research focused. No orders will be made unless there is an identifiable link between pay or pay related conditions and on-road safety outcomes for that sector or sectors of the industry. If a road safety remuneration order would not result in safer driving, the tribunal does not have to make a determination for that sector, but, if it would make a difference, action can be taken.

With the approach taken by this government, the tribunal might have regard to a number of issues, which include the need to apply fair, reasonable and enforceable standards in the road transport industry to ensure the safety and fair treatment of road transport drivers; the likely impact of any order on the viability of business involved in the road transport industry; the special circumstances of areas that are particularly reliant on the road transport industry, such as rural, regional and other isolated areas; the likely impact of any order on the national economy and the movement of freight across the nation; and the need to minimise the compliance burden on the road transport industry.

Australia's road transport industry is not a single, monolithic entity, and our legislation is not designed to be a one-size-fits-all regulation. We have drivers who are couriers and drivers who drive short distances and long distances as well as drivers who transport livestock around our country. I am indebted to the member for New England for his advice on these next few paragraphs. These drivers have a general and specific regulation governing operations. Livestock transporters are subject to strict regulation on fatigue management and the welfare of the animals that they are transporting. For example, they may be required to make stops to unload and spell animals which might be stressed, ill or agitated. Heavy penalties apply to operators who operate outside these rules.

We respect those members of the road transport industry who drive safely, operate fairly and take care of other drivers on the road. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will have regard to the requirements of particular sectors of the industry. The transport of live animals is completely different from the courier sector and would require a different, distinct approach. Our key policy intent here is to ensure that there are sector-appropriate terms and conditions determined by the tribunal to enhance safety outcomes for drivers and safety outcomes for all of us who use Australia's roads.

Orders can only be made after the tribunal considers a range of factors, which include the likely impact of any order on the viability of the relevant businesses. No order will be made without the opportunity for stakeholders to be heard about their particular needs and operations. For example, in relation to the transport of livestock, a driver's ability to stick to a strict schedule may be impacted by things like, and not limited to, the vast distances travelled in the larger states, such as in outback New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, which may require one or two spellings for the drivers to comply with existing laws to manage driver fatigue and to preserve the welfare of the animals—which is considered, appropriately, to be of paramount importance—or the location of saleyards mainly in major rural centres and the indispensable role they play in allowing livestock to be unloaded safely for the welfare of the travelling stock.

However, of course these are not matters which would be relevant to an order for waste management drivers or courier drivers. Our bills do not conflate these matters and force parties into arrangements that are unrelated to their operations. The tribunal will be empowered to resolve disputes between drivers, their hirers or employers, and participants in the road transport industry supply chain about remuneration and related conditions, insofar as they provide incentives to work in an unsafe manner. The tribunal will deal with a dispute as it considers appropriate, including either by mediation or conciliation or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion—or indeed it could be with arbitration, with the consent of the parties.

I foreshadow that I will move some amendments to this bill on behalf of the government. In the main, these amendments will clarify the tribunal's role in approving collective agreements under part 3 of the bill and ensuring that conduct by drivers and their hirers when negotiating giving effect to these agreements will not breach competition laws.

It is important to remember that owner-drivers are often forced to accept work at the going rate or to have no work at all. Drivers are often at the bottom of a long contracting chain and have little commercial ability, little commercial bargaining power, to demand rates or set work schedules that enable them to perform their work safely and legally. The Gillard government, this government, firmly believes that these bills will improve the safety of truck drivers, bystanders, all of us and our families—all of us who use Australia's roads.

I thank all the members who have participated in this debate. I thank the House for support for this important legislation, which I commend to the House.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that this bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.