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

by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1)-(64), as circulated, together:

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 4), omit "33(2)", substitute "33(1)".

(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 4), after the definition of applicable services, insert:

approval - pending: see subsection 37A(5).

(3) Clause 4, page 3, after the proposed definition of approval-pending, insert:

approved road transport collective agreement means a road transport collective agreement for which an approval under Part 3 is in effect.

(4) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 28), after the definition of constitutional trade or commerce, insert:

contractor driver means a road transport driver who is an independent contractor.

(5) Clause 4, page 4 (line 10), omit "a safe remuneration approval", substitute "an approved road transport collective agreement".

(6) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 24), after the definition of immediate family, insert:

independent contractor is not confined to an individual.

(7) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 30), after the definition of inspector, insert:

lawyer means a person who is admitted to the legal profession by a Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

(8) Clause 4, page 5 (line 8), omit "33(3)", substitute "33(1)".

(9) Clause 4, page 5 (line 9), omit "33(2)", substitute "33(1)".

(10) Clause 4, page 5 (line 23), omit "subsection 33(2)", substitute "subsections 33(1) and (2)".

(11) Clause 4, page 6 (lines 16 and 17), omit the definition of safe remuneration approval.

(12) Clause 8, page 9 (lines 13 and 14), omit "road transport driver who is an independent contractor", substitute "contractor driver".

(13) Clause 13, page 13 (line 18), omit "road transport driver who is an independent contractor", substitute "contractor driver".

(14) Clause 19, page 17 (lines 18 to 20), omit paragraph (3)(d), substitute:

(d) an organisation that is entitled to represent the interests of a road transport driver or employer to whom the order will apply;

(15) Clause 19, page 17 (line 21), after "association", insert "(other than an organisation)".

(16) Clause 27, page 22 (lines 15 and 16), omit "road transport drivers who are independent contractors", substitute "contractor drivers".

(17) Clause 27, page 23 (line 6), after "date", insert ", or if there is a series of commencement dates, after the earliest of those dates".

(18) Clause 31, page 24 (line 8), omit "revoke the order and".

(19) Clause 31, page 24 (line 14), omit "not", substitute "decide not to".

(20) Clause 32, page 25 (lines 8 to 10), omit paragraph (2)(c), substitute:

(c) an organisation that is entitled to represent the interests of a road transport driver or employer to whom the order applies;

(21) Clause 32, page 25 (line 11), after "association", insert "(other than an organisation)".

(22) Heading to Part 3, page 26 (lines 1 to 3), omit the heading, substitute:

Part 3—Approval of certain collective agreements involving contractor drivers

(23) Page 26 (before line 5), before clause 33, insert:

32A Power to approve road transport collective agreements

(1) The Tribunal may approve a road transport collective agreement under this Part.

(2) In deciding whether to approve a road transport collective agreement, the Tribunal may have regard to whether the benefit of approving the agreement would outweigh the detriment to the public constituted by any lessening of competition that would result, or be likely to result, if the Tribunal approved the agreement.

(24) Clause 33, page 26 (lines 5 to 25), omit the clause, substitute:

33 Road transport collective agreements

(1) A road transport collective agreement is an agreement:

(a) between:

  (i) contractor drivers (the participating drivers) with whom a hirer or potential hirer proposes to contract for the provision of specified road transport services (the applicable services); and

  (ii) the hirer or potential hirer of the drivers (the participating hirer); and

(b) that specifies:

  (i) who the participating hirer is; and

  (ii) who the participating drivers are; and

  (iii) the basis on which the participating drivers became part of that group of drivers; and

(c) that specifies remuneration or related conditions (or both) for participating drivers who provide applicable services to the participating hirer.

Note:   If the Tribunal approves the agreement, its effect is not limited to participating drivers: see section 36.

(2) However, an agreement made under any of the following laws is not a road transport collective agreement:

(a) Chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 of New South Wales (and any other provision of that Act to the extent that it relates to, or has effect for the purposes of, a provision of Chapter 6);

(b) the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005 of Victoria;

(c) the Owner-Drivers (Contracts and Disputes) Act 2007 of Western Australia;

(d) a law of a State or Territory that is specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph, to the extent that the law is so specified.

(3) The regulations may prescribe a code of conduct in relation to collective bargaining for road transport collective agreements.

(4) Before the Governor-General makes a regulation under subsection (3), the Minister must consult with industry and the Tribunal.

(5) A code of conduct prescribed under subsection (3) must have as its object the facilitation of effective and efficient collective bargaining for road transport collective agreements.

(6) Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, a road transport collective agreement has no effect unless it is an approved road transport collective agreement.

Note:   Subsection (6) does not affect agreements made under any of the laws mentioned in subsection (2), as they are not road transport collective agreements.

(25) Clause 34, page 26 (line 27), omit "grant a safe remuneration approval for", substitute "approve".

(26) Clause 34, page 27 (after line 5), after paragraph 34(c), insert:

(ca) the participating hirer and the participating drivers have conducted themselves in accordance with any code of conduct prescribed under subsection 33(3); and

(27) Heading to clause 35, page 27 (line 9), omit the heading, substitute:

35 Approval of road transport collective agreements

(28) Clause 35, page 27 (line 10), omit "decides to grant a safe remuneration approval for", substitute "approves".

(29) Clause 35, page 27 (lines 13 and 14), omit "road transport drivers", substitute "contractor drivers".

(30) Clause 35, page 27 (line 16), omit "In addition to the statement in subsection (1), the approval must", substitute "The statement under subsection (1) must also".

(31) Clause 35, page 27 (lines 23 and 24), omit "road transport driver", substitute "contractor driver".

(32) Clause 35, page 27 (line 29), omit "approval", substitute "statement".

(33) Clause 35, page 27 (line 31), omit "approval", substitute "statement".

(34) Heading to clause 36, page 28 (line 1), omit the heading, substitute:

36 Effect of approval

(35) Clause 36, page 28 (lines 2 to 6), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) The participating hirer in relation to an approved road transport collective agreement must not provide remuneration or related conditions, to a contractor driver who is providing applicable services to the participating hirer, that are less beneficial than the remuneration or related conditions specified in the agreement.

(36) Clause 36, page 28 (line 8), omit "road transport driver", substitute "contractor driver".

(37) Clause 36, page 28 (line 10), omit "to which the approval relates".

(38) Clause 37, page 28 (lines 13 and 14), omit "grants a safe remuneration approval has no effect in relation to a road transport driver", substitute "approves a road transport collective agreement has no effect in relation to a contractor driver".

(39) Clause 37, page 28 (lines 16 to 22), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) If a road safety remuneration order takes effect after the Tribunal approves a road transport collective agreement, the agreement ceases to have effect in relation to a contractor driver to the extent that the remuneration or related conditions specified in the agreement are less beneficial to the driver than a term of the order that applies to the driver.

(40) Page 28 (after line 22), after clause 37, insert:

37A Authorisation of conduct for the purposes of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010

Conduct in accordance with approved road transport collective agreement

(1) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, anything done in accordance with an approved road transport collective agreement by:

(a) the participating hirer; or

(b) a contractor driver who is providing applicable services to the participating hirer; or

(c) a person representing a person or persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);

is specified in and specifically authorised by this Act.

Entry into approval-pending road transport collective agreement

(2) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, entry into an approval-pending road transport collective agreement by:

(a) a hirer or potential hirer of contractor drivers; and

(b) contractor drivers;

is specified in and specifically authorised by this Act.

Conduct in preparation for or incidental to entry into or obtaining approval of approval-pending road transport collective agreement

(3) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, anything:

(a) done by:

  (i) a hirer or potential hirer of contractor drivers; or

  (ii) a contractor driver; or

  (iii) a person representing a person or persons referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii); and

(b) done in preparation for, or incidental to, entry into, or seeking approval of, an approval-pending road transport collective agreement;

is specified in and specifically authorised by this Act.

Certain conduct not protected

(4) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), conduct referred to in those subsections is not specified in or specifically authorised by this Act if the conduct is:

(a) making a contract or arrangement, or arriving at an understanding, that is or contains an exclusionary provision within the meaning of section 4D of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010; or

(b) conduct that is boycott conduct within the meaning of subsection 87AA(2) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Meaning of approval-pending

(5) A road transport collective agreement is approval-pending if:

(a) approval of the agreement under this Part is intended to be or has been sought; and

(b) the Tribunal has neither approved nor refused to approve the agreement.

(41) Heading to clause 38, page 28 (line 23), omit "safe remuneration".

(42) Clause 38, page 28 (line 24), omit "A safe remuneration approval", substitute "The approval of a road transport collective agreement".

(43) Clause 38, page 28 (line 25), omit "in", substitute "for".

(44) Heading to clause 39, page 28 (lines 26 and 27), omit the heading, substitute:

39 Approvals to be given by dual FWA member or Full Bench

(45) Clause 39, page 28 (line 28), omit "granting safe remuneration approvals", substitute "approving road transport collective agreements".

(46) Clause 40, page 29 (line 13), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; and (c) if subsection 41(2) or 42(2) applies to the dispute—the application is made before the end of the relevant period under section 40A.

(47) Page 29 (after line 16), after clause 40, insert:

40A Time limit for certain applications

(1) For the purposes of paragraph 40(1)(c), an application must be made before the end of:

(a) the period of:

  (i) if subsection 41(2) applies—14 days after the dismissal took effect; or

  (ii) if subsection 42(2) applies—28 days after the termination took effect; or

(b) if the Tribunal allows a further period under subsection (2)—the further period allowed by the Tribunal.

(2) The Tribunal may allow a further period for the application to be made if the Tribunal is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:

(a) the reason for the delay; and

(b) whether the road transport driver first became aware of the dismissal or termination after it had taken effect; and

(c) any action taken by the driver to dispute the dismissal or termination; and

(d) prejudice to the employer or hirer of the driver (including prejudice caused by the delay); and

(e) the merits of the application; and

(f) fairness as between the driver and other drivers in a similar position.

(48) Heading to clause 42, page 30 (line 15), omit the heading, substitute:

42 Disputes involving contractor drivers

(49) Heading to subclause 42(1), page 30 (line 16), omit the heading, substitute:

Dispute between contractor driver and hirer

(50) Clause 42, page 30 (lines 17 and 18), omit "road transport driver who is an independent contractor", substitute "contractor driver".

(51) Heading to subclause 42(2), page 30 (line 23), omit the heading, substitute:

Dispute between contractor driver and former hirer

(52) Clause 42, page 30 (lines 24 and 25), omit "road transport driver who is an independent contractor", substitute "contractor driver".

(53) Clause 46, page 33 (table item 1, column 2), omit "a registered employee association", substitute "an organisation".

(54) Clause 46, page 34 (table item 2, column 2), omit "a registered employee association", substitute "an organisation".

(55) Clause 46, page 34 (table item 3, column 2), omit "a registered employee association", substitute "an organisation".

(56) Clause 46, page 34 (table item 5, column 2), omit "a registered employee association", substitute "an organisation".

(57) Clause 47, page 35 (line 6), omit "A registered employee association", substitute "An organisation".

(58) Clause 47, page 35 (line 11), omit "association", substitute "organisation".

(59) Clause 47, page 35 (line 13), after "association", insert "(other than an organisation)".

(60) Clause 61, page 41 (lines 4 and 5), omit "in relation to safe remuneration approvals", substitute "of approved road transport collective agreements".

(61) Clause 80, page 53 (line 19), omit "grant safe remuneration approvals in relation to", substitute "approve".

(62) Clause 80, page 53 (lines 26 and 27), omit paragraph 80(e), substitute:

(e) any other functions prescribed by the regulations;

(f) any other functions conferred on the Tribunal by another law of the Commonwealth.

(63) Clause 92, page 59 (lines 29 and 30), omit "to grant, or refuse to grant, a safe remuneration approval in relation to", substitute "to approve, or refuse to approve,".

(64) Clause 117, page 71 (line 28), omit "granted", substitute "approved".

The government has moved amendments to the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011. The amendments the government is proposing today were developed in response to feedback received through submissions made by industry stakeholders to the parliamentary inquiry into the bills to align rules regarding exemptions from competition law for bargaining with those currently in operation in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia and to make consequential amendments and fix minor drafting errors. I would like to thank the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, chaired by the member for Cunningham, for conducting the parliamentary inquiry into the bills. I note that the committee recommended that the House should pass its legislation.

The amendments proposed by the government to the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 are designed to clarify the tribunal's role in approving road transport collective agreements consistent with the concurrent operation of laws regulating owner-drivers in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, to make clear that collective agreements entered into by contract drivers under these state laws are not road transport agreements for the purposes of part 3 of the bill and to allow certain conduct by contract drivers and their hirers to be exempt from the operation of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The effect of these amendments will be to enable contract drivers and hirers to collectively bargain and enter into approved collective agreements without breaching the Competition and Consumer Act. In addition, these amendments would ensure the same standing for registered employer organisations as it does for registered employee organisations under the legislation, provide time limits for when applications can be made to deal with a dispute arising from a dismissal or contract termination and make minor technical amendments to correct editorial errors or minor omissions.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is introducing 64 amendments to this bill before the House. These amendments were only made available to the opposition late yesterday, even though I understand they were approved by caucus a couple of weeks ago. I have no doubt as well that they have been developed following extensive consultation with the trade unions. Industry also was made aware of these amendments, 64 of them, only yesterday. That is hardly a good start for this proposed consultation process that surrounds this legislation. Indeed, this has been typical of the way in which the government has handled this bill right from the very beginning.

It arose out of a report in 2008 but we saw little subsequently from it until it was rushed into the parliament. The House of Representatives committee had only two hours of hearings. The minister rightly reported that the majority of the committee recommended that the bill be passed. However, he neglected to mention that there was a significant minority report which raised serious concerns about this legislation and its intent.

This bill was introduced by the minister for transport on the basis that it was about road safety. It has now been transferred to the minister for industrial relations, which shatters any pretence that this bill ever had anything to do with road safety. It is all about industrial relations and union power. So the minister is introducing, for the unions, these 64 amendments that further intrude into the commercial arrangements in the trucking industry and add to the pervasive nature of this legislation. It leaves every person in this country who ever drives a truck uncertain about how they will be able to work in the future. The new tribunal that is being established will have the capacity to intervene in almost any element of industry where a truck is involved. I am not saying they will always do it, but they will have the capacity to do it, because this legislation is so broad ranging.

Turning to some of the major amendments first. The minister acknowledged in his comments that the majority of the amendments were about part III. There are a number of amendments that correct drafting errors. It is a bit surprising that there would be drafting errors in a bill that has been under preparation since 2008, but it seems that has happened. I will concentrate mainly on matters of substance.

The government's amendment in section 33(6) says:

Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, a road transport collective agreement has no effect unless it is an approved road transport collective agreement.

A road transport collective agreement is defined under section 33(1) as an agreement between contractor drivers and a hirer that specifies remuneration and related conditions for the driver who provides the applicable service to the participating driver. A contract driver is defined in the amendments as 'an independent contractor'. The effect of the amendment is that any contract between a group of independent contractors, or owner-drivers, and a hirer must be approved by the road safety remuneration tribunal.

Section 33 in the original bill states that the tribunal 'may grant a safe remuneration approval for a road transport collective agreement' where certain conditions are met. This is entirely different to the amendment and warrants further consideration and consultation with industry. On the face of it there are a number of problems with this amendment. Firstly, the amendment would have the effect that all current agreements, except those made under existing state regulatory regimes, between groups of owner-drivers and hirers would be null and void as they are not approved road transport collective agreements. They would have to be immediately renegotiated and that would put hirers and owner-drivers who are parties to these agreements in a precarious situations. Additionally, this immediately undermines the sanctity of the commercial contracts between the two companies involved in contract drivers. How, for example, will it affect the commercial agreements between, say, Holden and those companies that transport their cars? Are these agreements now valid, are they void, are they unlawful or are they just unenforceable?

Secondly, the bill erodes the concept of the independent contractor. This amendment takes this erosion one step further by reducing their ability to negotiate terms and conditions that they believe to be adequate. (Time expired)

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

The bill will centralise contracts for groups of independent contractors and in doing so it will limit their opportunity. It has the potential to hamper competition and remove flexibilities. In this way the bill has the potential to make it less attractive to hire groups of owner-drivers. Additionally, the tribunal will be ill equipped to deal with the potential volume of contracts that it will be required to approve. The bill was touted as a road safety measure but we have been told that the tribunal it establishes will issue orders to make sure that drivers have remuneration and related conditions designed to ensure that they will drive safely. However, the amendment goes much further than that. It give the tribunal the power and the responsibility to approve agreements between groups of owner drivers and hirers. It just goes to show that this is not about road safety. It is about industrial relations and, of course, the great payback to the Transport Workers Union.

Turning to section 33(1), the government amendments define a 'road transport collective agreement' as an agreement that 'specifies remuneration or related conditions (or both)' for groups of owner drivers who make an agreement for 'the provision of specified road transport services'. The important distinction between the amendment and the original definition of a road transport collective agreement is the deletion of the word 'and' and the insertion of the word 'or'. That amendment relates to contracts for remuneration and related conditions where the amendment relates to contracts for 'remuneration or related conditions (or both)'. This broadens the scope of the tribunal's requirement to approve collective agreements between groups of owner operates and their hirer. It was argued by some submitters to the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications that the matters on which the tribunal could make a road safety remuneration order were too broad. Now, there is scope for it to be even wider. They did not heed the advice given to the committee and in effect have made the bill worse. The amendment broadens the scope of the sort of conditions and matters that a group of independent contractors can seek an approved agreement on. Importantly, it goes far beyond matters within the original intent of the bill that would have to be approved by the tribunal before taking effect.

In section 33(3) the government's amendment inserts the following:

The regulations may prescribe a code of conduct in relation to collective bargaining for road transport collective agreements.

The government's amendments insert section 34(c), which says that in order to grant approval for a road transport collective agreement the tribunal must be satisfied that:

… the participating hirer and the participating drivers have conducted themselves in accordance with any code of conduct prescribed under subsection 33(3) …

Not only is it unusual for the minister to be issuing guidelines to the industry and the tribunal that control how bargaining in the trucking industry occurs, but the provisions of the bill are due to come into effect on 1 July this year. When will we see these regulations? When will we see the code of conduct the government is proposing? What is its scope? What matters will it cover? There has been no consultation by the government about these issues with the industry.

The only guidance in the bill is section 33(5), which says:

A code of conduct prescribed under subsection (3) must have as its object the facilitation of effective and efficient collective bargaining for road transport collective agreements.

This is supposed to be about road safety, but this clause makes clear it is far more about collective bargaining than about safety.

What does all this really mean? What will be the scope for the code of conduct? The government's amendments insert clause 33(4), which states:

Before the Governor-General makes a regulation under subsection (3)—

to stipulate a code of conduct—

the Minister must consult with industry and the Tribunal.

But the government have shown no willingness to discuss these issues with industry over the last few years. Their discussions are exclusively with the union movement, yet this legislation is going to affect not only trade union members; every person who ever wants to drive a truck could be affected. The farmer who delivers his grain to the depot in his own truck may suddenly become subject to rulings by this new tribunal. The man who transports his mower from one factory to another to mow lawns could be picked up by this because he is undertaking a transport task. All of this is included within the definitions in this bill. It certainly massively extends powers to the trade union movement to dominate this sector even further. That is what this is all about. We know the Transport Workers Union has been very good to the Labor Party over the years and now they are getting some of their reward. The reality is that this particular industry— (Time expired)

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too want to make a contribution in relation to the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the amendments that have just been proposed—all 64 of them. The electorate of Murray has one of the highest number of truck registrations of any regional area in Australia. I see those representatives of the trucking industry regularly in my office. They are small owner-operators, big intergenerational family businesses and big national operators, and not one of them has once said to me that their drivers will be any safer, or if they themselves are drivers that they will be any safer, as a result of a difference in pay.

Their problems with safety are to do with the lack of harmonisation of road transport rules across Australia, the lack of adequate driver courtesy on the roads where they have to tangle with local mum and dad type traffic, the skills shortage, the ageing workforce and the number of hours they have to drive. Their safety issues are also to do with the often unconscionable behaviour of their biggest employers, the two big supermarkets—Coles and Woolworths, the owners of 80 per cent-plus of retail in the supermarket sector—that put undue pressure on them in terms of the time frames in which they must pick up and deliver their cargo.

There is a whole range of problems with our transport industry and perhaps one of the biggest for small owner-operators, who are always close to being financially unsustainable, is that they will always need a lot of supports. But they are not going to get any supports through this Road Safety Remuneration Bill. With these amendments, it is extraordinary that there is a suggestion that the capacity to collude and come up with contracts whereby people have been able to collectively bargain will lead to greater road safety. That is just nonsense. We all know that collective bargaining has been suggested and approved, for example, for dairy farmers and tomato growers. But in the Australian context, you are faced with the huge duopolies, who are very apt to retaliate should you raise your head above the parapet and demand better remuneration for your effort. In that situation, to suggest that collective agreements are going to work for the small contractor, or even collections of bigger road transport operators, is just unrealistic and naive in the extreme.

We do need a great deal of attention paid to our road transport sector. We depend so much on the freight task around Australia because our rail and our shipping is not viable as an alternative in many areas. We do have a crisis because of our skills shortage and the ageing population of our transport operators. We do have problems with the small owner-operator who has one or two trucks having to slash their prices to a point where they cannot be profitable for very long because they are competing at the margins. Yet here we have a bill which falsely implies that there is a relationship between salaries paid and safety on the road. Again, it is naive and it is nonsense. I think it is an insult to the hard-working transport sector.

As our shadow minister made the point, there may be a lot of very perverse outcomes as a consequence of this bill, because it is about the trade union's power and their capacity to fund the Labor Party into the future. It is not about the industry sector. It is not about the rank and file transport operators. They were not consulted. In my part of the world, where we have the highest number of transport registrations of anywhere in rural Australia, they were not closely consulted about these changes. They are terrified of what this new tribunal might do. They certainly do not think collective bargaining is going to give them any greater advantage in becoming more viable in the future.

Let us look at the real problems facing our transport sector. Let us make sure that we have better harmonised road rules. Let us ensure that the transport industry is treated with respect and in a way that it can be sustainable in the future. Let us make sure, for example, that we can safely put enhanced B-doubles on the road. Let us have more inland ports. Let us have less congestion in places like the ports where trucks have to wait hour upon hour, sometimes days, to offload their contracted cargo. This bill is a nonsense and I cannot support it.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on this extensive list of amendments which has been put to the House by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations at very short notice and to ask whether the process that is being pursued here in relation to this very substantial change in the regulatory scheme embodied in this bill is one that the House ought to agree to when the effort that has been made to explain the policy rationale for it is threadbare. There is naturally a suspicion in the case of this minister that he is dancing to the tune of his union masters. There is naturally a suspicion that the primary motive for this amendment is to address the legislative and regulatory ambitions and agenda of the union movement. That suspicion can only be enhanced by the shocking process which has been demonstrated in the way that these detailed amendments have been put before the House, because these amendments fundamentally change the regulatory and legislative scheme that the House is considering. They are a fundamental change to what has been put to the House as a measure about road safety. Objective observers have doubted whether that is a fair claim, and those doubts are now revealed to be absolutely valid based upon the fundamental change in the scope and breadth and the reach of the work of this new tribunal.

What we now learn is that this is a tribunal which is going to have a very substantive industrial relations agenda and a very broad reach. What we are now told is that no collective agreement in this sector will be valid or will be legal unless it is approved by this tribunal. All of the pretence that this has something to do with road safety has now gone out of the window. We now learn at very short notice—although these amendments, we understand, have been available to the government for a considerable period of time, they have been dumped on the chamber at very short notice—is that their affect and their intention is to greatly broaden the reach of this tribunal, greatly broaden the breadth of the matters not only in which it has a right to engage itself but also over which it has the right to exercise a veto. That is the fundamental point here in the provisions that the House is being asked to consider as we weigh up the merits of the amendments which have just been tabled by the minister.

We then asked, amongst other things, to consider whether it is good policy for this tribunal to have a right of veto over any so-called road transport collective agreement, having regard particularly to the very expansive definition of 'road transport collective agreement'. This is an exercise in the expansion of the reach of government and the reach of the industrial supervisory mechanism and administration for which this government has such fondness, based no doubt upon the background of almost every member of this government, emerging as they do from deep within the industrial relations machine which has for so long been a powerful part of our nation, in many ways to its detriment.

The provisions which have been put before the House this afternoon should only be supported if the government can discharge the burden of proof that these new arrangements, giving this tribunal an expansive power to veto any collective agreement in the road transport sector, achieve in some way an objective of road safety. As with the substantive bill, they have not been able to discharge that burden—they have not even sought to. On that basis I will not be supporting these amendments. (Time expired)

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These amendments do for me create further concerns about this bill and how this is now trying to establish what looks to be a new and different process to existing ones rather than investing well in the existing ones to improve safety on our roads. There is no question that every member of this chamber would support safer roads, safer behaviour from drivers and better conditions for owner-drivers as well as for those who work for larger trucking companies. However, there are established processes that we should invest in. There are laws that have already been passed by the chamber, such as the Fair Work Act and the Independent Contractors Act. We should also acknowledge all the various state authorities—whether they are police or weight-of-load groups—and local government authorities involved in trying to make roads and conditions as safe as possible.

These amendments that have come in over the last 24 hours—and this bill more generally—look to be establishing a new and different process to the very good existing ones which I would hope everyone continues to invest in. Enforcement is frustrating for all involved—for families on the road and for drivers. It is frustrating working through these existing processes. But that is where the hard grind of getting safer roads will occur.

I do not accept the argument that there is a very simple magic bullet answer of increasing wages by legislation, which I thought was Work Choices and the argument around Work Choices, and that that directly links to more safety on our roads. I think safety on our roads is a much more complex issue to deal with. So I would hope, even if this legislation with amendments does pass, that we do not give up on the hard grind of using the existing processes that are already in place. That is really where the heavy lifting on road safety and better conditions for drivers is occurring.

I say that not only as a member of parliament but also because one of my first jobs was to work for the Road Transport Forum, which was an organisation that worked closely with drivers in the trucking industry. One of my first jobs was to work on a men's health program, with 200 companies in the trucking industry. As a very young 20-year-old, I sat at the Marulan truckstop talking to drivers about the food they were eating, the drugs they were taking and the lifestyle they were leading. That has a lot to do with safety on our roads, as well as wages and conditions.

Safety is a complex story and we need to see much greater investment from both Commonwealth and state authorities, but not necessarily through adding new layers, new bodies and new processes. Rather, it requires investing heavily in the existing ones where good work has been done in the past and good work needs to be done in the future. These amendments only add to my concerns and to why I continue not to support this. That is not a statement to say that I do not think drivers and families on the road do not have a case about safety. They do, but there are existing processes and existing laws in place that I hope we can use better to achieve the safety and conditions outcomes that we want.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the bill before the House and to follow the member for Lyne. The member for Lyne and I do not always see eye to eye but this is one occasion when we are firmly on the same page. His comments relating particularly to the need to invest in the existing approach to road safety were very valid. He also made a very good comment that the hard grind of safer roads is something that is not going to be overcome by some sort of magic bullet or the Holy Grail that this safe roads legislation is put up to be in the broader community. He raises a very important point that it would be wrong to suggest in any way that there is any member in this place who has not already personally invested in the issue of safer roads or who has tried to find ways to deal with these issues involving the heavy transport industry.

I was a supplementary member of the committee which conducted the inquiry. I am just not convinced on the evidence that has been presented to me that the government has made a case. The comments by the member for Lyne, particularly in relation to investing in the existing approach, sit very well with the dissenting report that was put forward by the minority group—the coalition members. The members who made that dissenting report did so in very good faith. There was no sense of a party political nature or any animosity at all to that dissenting report. It was all about putting forward what we thought was a very valid argument, that there was existing activity being undertaken within the heavy vehicle transport industry which needed to be given time to be bedded down. I refer particularly to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. We felt that the evidence we received during that inquiry reinforced that position.

The coalition members of the committee were also conscious of the incredible complexity of rules and regulations which already exist in relation to the heavy vehicle transport industry. What we see here today will not only add to that complexity, but also it will present an issue of duplication which could be a factor causing even more uncertainty in the industry. We are concerned that this extra layer of bureaucracy will not improve safety outcomes. It will lead to increased costs for the industry and consumers and then almost become self-defeating. It has been argued to us that there is an economic imperative facing these safety issues. We are concerned that we are going to end up with a situation where the extra costs will be self-defeating by putting more pressure on the transport industry.

It was with those thoughts in mind that the dissenting report was put into the inquiry process. I was disappointed that no opportunity was given for the committee's report to be tabled in the parliament before we started debating this legislation. I made those points during the earlier debate. Again, we see a process here where we have 64 amendments being presented to the House, with very little opportunity for members to assess them and get an understanding of where the government is going with this issue. I am concerned at the whole process, from the moment the government decided to bring on this debate without even respecting the committee process. The committee was chaired by the member for Cunningham, who did an excellent job in that role. As I said earlier, all members participated in that inquiry in good faith and it was disappointing for them to have the legislation brought on for debate before other members had the chance to even assess the committee's report. I thought this was disappointing on behalf of the government members.

On the issue of tinkering, if you like, with the commercial arrangements in this industry, it is something that is becoming of greater concern to the transport operators in my electorate. I have had the opportunity to speak to many of them about this issue. They are concerned at the unintended consequences—the perverse consequences—which may occur when you start having regulatory bodies—the tribunal in this case—effectively setting pay rates. They are concerned at the impact that that is going to have on the transport industry. There is a complex matrix of decisions that are made in relation to how the heavy transport industry sets its rates.

A classic example that one of the transport operators pointed out to me was the case of travelling between Melbourne and Adelaide. A transport operator working the Melbourne-Adelaide route will make his or her money on the route to Adelaide. On the backload from Adelaide they are prepared to accept a much lower rate because they have to get back to Melbourne to load up and make their money again going to Adelaide—if that makes sense. So the backhaul rate from Adelaide will be a lower amount. I am not sure how this tribunal will be able to deal with the commercial reality of a market force at work. This is a very complex issue that needs to be worked out. I am not sure that the tribunal will not end up in all sorts of trouble by tinkering with a commercial reality. That is one of the biggest issues facing this piece of legislation—the tribunal's work in interfering with the market. (Time expired)

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add my support for the member for Lyne with his position of strengthening the existing powers of compliance and also to address the 64 amendments that have been put before the House as we speak. With reference to this legislation, I come from a transport background in Queensland so I have tried in all faith to meticulously go through the bill and, at very short notice, the amendments. On election to this place I gave a commitment to the people of Wright that I would stand up and be the voice of the silent majority. I commenced my investigations into this issue with the 29 submissions that were received in the lead-up to the inquiry. I was overwhelmed by the government's position, given the evidence to the inquiry, because only nine of the 29 submissions received were supportive of it. When you go through and digest those submissions, you find that predominantly, with the exception of three academics, the remaining organisations that were supportive had the word 'union' in their title. When you look at the remaining 20 who were not supportive of it, they predominantly had the word 'transport' in their title. The list is publicly available for everyone to look at. I thought: that is the overwhelming will of the transport industry. The list of submissions is available for you to have a quick look at. When I spoke with members who gave submissions to the committee, their issue was that there was another layer of compliance, and they raised genuine concerns about it. I trust that in the minister's response he will allay those concerns.

In addition to that, the process by which this bill should come through the House should have been open and transparent, but that was somewhat perverted as well. I believe the bill was introduced into the House before the recommendations of the committee had been tabled. As a new member, I would not suggest that that is the common practice of the House. So I have concerns that full and frank debate was not available. When you couple that with the time frame in which these amendments have hit this place, there just seems to be—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question before the chair is that we are taking the bill as a whole. I think we should be speaking to the bill. The member is dealing with the processes. I ask the honourable member to come back to the bill.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are speaking to the amendments, aren't we, at the moment?

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

You're not. We'd need to send out a tracker dog to find them.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, come on!

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a fair enough point. I can talk to the amendments with clarity, but in getting to those points it is very important to understand the mood of the industry and their position when, overwhelmingly, 75 per cent of the members of transport organisations are not supportive of this process, and rightfully so. Let us look at some of the amendments, in particular subclause 33, where it speaks to collective agreements and enterprise bargaining. Let us take the hypothetical of two truck drivers—an independent operator and someone who buys their truck from Kenworth in their local township. They are loading up at a dock from someone who buys their truck directly from the manufacturers in Europe, who, potentially, before they leave the dock, have a $50,000 advantage. Let us look at their biggest expense—fuel. One operator has the capacity to buy fuel directly from the terminals at a price cheaper than the independent guy can buy it from the service station. So, when setting these rates in the tribunals, which are spoken to in the amendments of this bill, how are they calculated? It is a win-win for one of those parties on the principle that, if it is $1,000 to do a Sydney-Melbourne run— (Time expired)

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to talk to these amendments and more broadly to the bill itself. But before doing so, I congratulate Nick Champion, the member for Wakefield, on his elevation to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, which I have served on since I entered the parliament. It is a very good committee. I wish him well and, as his deputy, I will cooperate very well with him.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm the young apprentice.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the sorcerer's apprentice! The member for Gippsland in his contribution to this debate put his finger on it when he said that in coming to these amendments we need to know the background of what the coalition members had to say about the bill. The four of us on the committee did not get together in a coalition cabal. We felt that the report fairly reflected the evidence that was given; but, when we came to delineating the issues, we did not think the case had been made for a second tribunal. After all, we have got Fair Work Australia. Why do we need this second tribunal?

The shadow minister at the table has just said that one of these amendments puts a very heavy onus on this new road safety remuneration tribunal insofar as, if you have a contract between a group of independent contractors—perhaps an owner-driver and an employer or a directing company—it must be approved, not maybe approved, by the tribunal.

Many things can affect the livelihoods of long-haul truck drivers. Twelve years ago the committee I just referred to did a seminal study over many months on fatigue in transport. We went into all the things that the member for Lyne talked about—the quality of food, the rest periods, the time of day that truck drivers drove, their circadian rhythms, their slotting at their loading docks and their slotting at supermarket docks and the like. All those add to the pressures. It is not just simply a matter of pay. There is an argument that if pay were increased it may not lead to any less stressful attention to drivers but rather it may lead to some rogue employers pushing their drivers even harder on the one hand and, on the other, some of the greedy drivers, who should be taking it a bit easier, to go for more money by doing even more work. So for all sorts of reasons I do not think that is going to solve the problem. The minister at the table has asked us to debate this in the very purest sense of the word, but really, Minister, to give your coalition colleagues less than 24 hours notice of these amendments—

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

That's just not true.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They wouldn't make it available to us.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is as maybe.

Opposition members interjecting—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Hinkler has the call.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have had the members for Wide Bay and Wright tell us that they had trouble getting access to the amendments.

I have a good relationship with the TWU, as Tony Sheldon will tell you. He has been a good supporter of the work I have done on transport over the years. He said, on 11 July last year:

Under the carbon tax, drivers will be forced to do longer hours, sweat their trucks further, have less maintenance, and that means more deaths.

That is saying that there are factors other than remuneration. That was quite a sobering quote. On the Nine Network on the same night, he said:

How are we going to meet the extra $100 to $200 a week when this tax starts smacking truck drivers right in the teeth?

It is a very worrying thing. It is not as simplistic as the government want us to believe. Along with the shadow minister at the table, I oppose these amendments.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak further about the amendments which have been put before the House today. The process by which these amendments have been brought forward is, on any view, lamentable. It is disgraceful. It shows a contempt for the democratic processes in the people's House. I am sorry to say that it is entirely consistent with the consistent contempt for process—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will debate the amendments that are before the House, not the process.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, the basis on which the amendments arrived before the House is absolutely a matter the House should be considering in assessing the merits of passing the amendments. If sufficient time has not been provided to consider very complex changes then that—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The parliament is discussing the Road Safety and Remuneration Bill 2011 and there are 64 amendments. The member will address the amendments as a whole and will not discuss matters outside that tight area which is before the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go to the differences between the definition of 'road transport collective agreement', which appears in clause 33(2) of the bill, and clause 33, which appears in the amendments. There are some significant differences—differences which I think the House ought to consider very carefully before it is prepared to agree to this amendment.

One of the questions that strikes me as an obvious one, when you look at the wording of proposed clause 33, is the question of whether individual drivers need to be aware that there are other drivers who have also contracted with the hiring party. On my review of the term 'road transport collective agreement' as it is contained in clause 33, it strikes me as entirely possible that you might have a situation in which a hiring party issues a tender calling for parties wishing to drive under a contract for the hiring organisation. They accept the terms which are issued but, because there is more than one driver who has accepted those terms, it automatically becomes a road transport collective agreement, even though there is no collective intention or state of mind between the individual drivers.

I invite the minister to respond and explain to me whether that interpretation is correct or not and, if it is not, to give me assurances as to why it is not. If that interpretation is correct we have here the long hand of the extensive and growing, intrusive industrial relations governance apparatus of this Rudd-Gillard government reaching into yet another area of economic activity, where hitherto individual business entities—people such as truck drivers—have been free to carry out their businesses without the unnecessary overweening bureaucratic supervision of yet another instrumentality of this collectivist and interventionist government. By virtue of the drafting of proposed clause 33 we now have the extension of the scope of the activities of this tribunal into commercial arrangements which may very well be made, as far as an individual driver is concerned, on an individual basis with a hiring party, but, because of the drafting, he or she suddenly finds that they are caught up, quite to their surprise, in what is deemed to be a road transport collective agreement, and then that agreement cannot proceed unless it has been compulsorily considered by this tribunal.

That is a very serious matter of public policy. It is a significant interference in the freedom of contract, and the House ought to consider that very carefully.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to continue my contribution in relation to these matters. I congratulate the member for Bradfield on the point that he has just raised. I think it is a valid argument.

I would also like to expand on the points that were made a few moments ago by the member for Hinkler and others. My comment relates to the complexity already in the industry given its current arrangements, particularly in the way rates are agreed to. It is something that I touched on before when I referred to the issue of a transport operator working, for example, the Melbourne to Adelaide route. My concern is that once governments—in this case, the tribunal—start interfering in this sort of marketplace there will be some perverse outcomes. I am not one who argues that there should be no government involvement in markets when it is justified. But I think we must proceed with caution in this case and ensure that we do not end up causing more problems when we are clumsily trying to provide answers for the industry, particularly when we are talking about an issue as important as safety. A point that my local transport industry operators raise with me regularly in our discussions is that they already have so many other regulations in this industry and there are extensive provisions already in place to deal with any transport operators or individual drivers who flout the existing laws. If anything, there was a concern expressed to me from those within the transport industry that the drivers themselves can pay a very heavy economic price for what are fairly minor breaches. The point I am making is that, if the TWU is right and those opposite are right that there are economic pressures or commercial pressures which are systemic as they relate to the safety issue, then we also need to look at some of the issues relating to the enforcement provisions and the degree of fines being paid by truck drivers for very minor or innocent breaches or mistakes. So I think that is an issue that we need to examine more closely.

The member for Lyons talked before about the existing provisions in place and having to invest in a whole range of other safety efforts, and I think he is right in that regard. State and federal governments have not been quiet on this issue. They have been working very hard, and there has been some level of success. We only need to look at the accident statistics in recent years to see that there has been a reduction. I am not for one second suggesting that we give up our efforts in that regard, but there has been a reduction in the accident fatality rates in recent years and I think we should be giving time for some existing efforts to be fully implemented.

That matter of the commercial issues in the transport industry and the impact that they have on safety is something that the TWU has argued strongly about. The member for Hinkler referred to some comments made by the TWU representative, Mr Tony Sheldon, in relation to the carbon tax. It is relevant to this debate, when we are talking about so-called 'safe rates', that we have the TWU pointing out that the carbon tax is going to force drivers to find an extra $100 to $200 a week, so it is almost counterproductive—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. We are debating the amendments to this bill. We are not debating the carbon tax. I call the honourable member for Gippsland.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not seeking to argue your point but the point that I was referring to is this: we are going down a path where in the submission that was made to the inquiry the TWU strongly argued the case that there are systemic commercial and economic pressures which are resulting in poor safety outcomes, but at the same time we are introducing other bits of legislation which are going to put more commercial pressures on the transport industry. It is almost counterproductive to be doing one thing while you are doing the other thing. So that is the point I was trying to make, Mr Deputy Speaker, without wishing to argue about your ruling.

The Leader of the Nationals, in his contribution, also referred to the fact that this bill erodes the concept of independent contractors, and the amendments that we are discussing take this erosion of the status of independent contractors one step further by reducing their ability to negotiate terms and conditions that they believe are adequate. This bill and the amendments we are talking about will centralise contracts for groups of independent contractors and, in doing so, limit their opportunity to bargain. They have the potential to hamper competition and may remove the flexibility which is so important for industry. So in this way I believe the bill has the potential to make hiring groups of owner-drivers less attractive. The point I am making is that I believe that in going down this path and in tampering with an industry we run the risk of creating unintended consequences and ending up, in terms of this very important issue of safety, having some perverse outcomes and not actually achieving what we set out to achieve in the first place.

As many members on this side have indicated, while this bill has been touted as a road safety measure, we are concerned that it is more about industrial relations. We believe that existing safety efforts should be given the chance to be bedded down and that safety is a very complex issue. I do not disagree at all that fatigue undoubtedly plays a part in it, but I think that by focusing on this issue alone we might be diverting attention from the more holistic approach, which is what the dissenting report indicated, a view which was supported by the coalition members during the inquiry process.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make an additional contribution on the merits or otherwise of the 64 amendments in relation to the Road Safety Remuneration Bill which have been put before the House at very short notice. I want to consider the amendments against the backdrop of the short title of the bill, being:

A Bill for an Act to make provision in relation to remuneration-related matters to improve safety in the road transport industry, and for related purposes

Against that backdrop I want to ask this question: why do the new provisions which are being put before the House for consideration this afternoon make very little reference to safety and do not even attempt to maintain the merest fiction that they have something to do with safety? Say we look, for example, at new clause 32A, which is proposed to be added to the bill. Clause32A(1) says 'the tribunal may approve a road transport collective agreement'. Clause 32A(2) says:

… In deciding whether to approve a road transport collective agreement, the Tribunal may have regard to whether the benefit of approving the agreement would outweigh the detriment to the public constituted by any lessening of competition …

I particularly direct your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the fact that nowhere in clause 32A(2) does the word 'safety' appear. Nowhere in clause 32A(2) is any attempt made to frame the considerations which the tribunal must have regard to such that they are limited to safety or such that safety is defined to be the primary consideration which the tribunal must bring to bear as it weighs up the benefit it finds in the agreement against such detriment as it identifies. I think that is very significant because it demonstrates that in this set of amendments, particularly including proposed clause 32A, any pretence that this is about safety has been thrown out the window because of the enthusiasm with which this minister is rushing to urge the parliament to extend the reach and scope of the extensive industrial regulatory apparatus which this government has so enthusiastically expanded. It is interesting, too, to look at clause 36 in amendment (35) of the 64 amendments which have been put before the House at such short notice. It reads:

The participating hirer in relation to an approved road transport collective agreement must not provide remuneration or related conditions, to a contractor driver who is providing applicable services to the participating hirer, that are less beneficial than the remuneration or related conditions specified in the agreement.

Where is the language about safety? Where is the express direction to the tribunal to consider safety? Where is the restriction on the conduct of the participating hirer in relation to safety? It is not there. There is nothing about safety in that particular clause. That clause is a perfectly straightforward, stock-standard piece of industrial regulatory machinery dealing with remuneration and related matters. It again demonstrates that these amendments take this bill even further from its claimed objective, its claimed purpose and its claimed policy intention of dealing with road safety. It puts this bill squarely into the territory of expanding the reach of the industrial regulatory apparatus of this government and squarely into the territory of seeking to limit the freedom of individual businesses to contract, including in the truck-driving sector.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the amendments to the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011. What I find absolutely surprising—it is probably not surprising given the record of this government—is that only yesterday the opposition got notice that the government would move 64 amendments to a bill that they have prepared to bring to this parliament. It is no wonder that this economy is in such a mess when you find that they have to propose 64 amendments to a bill before the parliament in this autumn sitting. After the leadership struggles that they have gone through over the last few weeks, it is not surprising that we have a confused government and that the minister responsible for this is bringing forward 64 amendments with no relationship to safety. I am trying to find the word 'safety' in the amendments. There is a lot about collective agreements, which is about union power. That is the motivation, I believe, for these amendments.

I have an electorate that depends very heavily on the transport sector, not least because of the failure of the state Labor government up there to invest in rail infrastructure. They have let it run down to the point where they are closing railway lines rather than building railway lines.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will come to the amendments before the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I want to make the point that my electorate depends very heavily on the trucking industry, whether it is for the agricultural sector or the mining sector, which is expanding day by day in my electorate and brings heavy machinery, such as mining equipment, into the electorate. Of course, when it comes to the transport of food to supply communities across the electorate of Maranoa, it comes in on trucks, not on trains. So we depend very heavily on the trucking sector.

I have a great deal of respect for those truck operators, whether they are private or part of a large corporation or company, because they work incredibly hard. I have family members involved in the trucking industry. I know them well and I also know how hard they are finding it to be able to secure drivers and compete against the mining sector, which pays very large salaries to people to work in the mining sector.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will come back to the amendments before the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am saying that the truck operators are finding it very difficult to attract drivers. They pay above award rates to attract drivers now because they have to keep their businesses going. If they do not have a driver, they do not have a business. They are competing with the mining sector, in terms of the salaries that the mining sector can pay, to be able to run their businesses.

I find clause 33(6)(a) extraordinary. It says: 'The effect of this amendment is that any contract between a group of independent contractors'—that is, owner-drivers—'and a hirer must be approved by the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal'. Section 33 in the original bill stated that the tribunal may grant approval for the road transport collective agreements where certain conditions are met. I can assure you, Minister, that if I went to the owner-operators and truck operators in my electorate and said, 'If you want to hire a new driver, you must be approved by the road Safety Remuneration Tribunal'—they are desperate to keep their businesses moving ahead; they have to keep the wheels moving or otherwise they do not have a business—I would not like to repeat in this House the language they would use in reply to me. It would have to be approved by the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. How long will that take? Weeks? Months? If you are out in Western Queensland and have to bring livestock in when there is a window of opportunity after the floods—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will come back to the amendments.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am describing the problem.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a general debate. It is a debate about the amendments before the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. What I am concerned about is that I know the truck operators and owner-operators in my electorate would be very concerned about having to get approval from the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal when they want to employ a new driver, particularly in remote areas, quite apart from the fact that those in the more inner areas would object to it as well. I am opposed to these amendments. They demonstrate this government's confusion. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak further about the merits or otherwise of the 64 detailed amendments which have been provided to the House at very short notice and which appear to have the effect of substantially expanding the scope of operations of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and which make it clear that this is really about industrial matters and that all pretence at dealing with safety has been thrown out of the window.

One of the matters which raises very grave concerns from the point of view of public policy is the impact of these arrangements on competition. I am referring particularly to clause 37A of the amendments and of the new bill if the amendments take effect. Clause 37A is headed 'Authorisation of conduct for the purposes of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010'. Let us remind ourselves what the Competition and Consumer Act does. The Competition and Consumer Act, previously known and perhaps still better known as the Trade Practices Act, is intended to ensure that, in the conduct of business in Australia, the interests of consumers are maximised by maximising the force of competition. The whole idea is that you have companies and organisations and individuals in business competing with each other to the most vigorous extent possible with a view to delivering to customers, to end users and to ordinary Australians the lowest prices—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the best quality of service. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is central to the question of the merits of proposed section 37A, 'Authorisation of conduct for the purposes of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010'. As is revealed by the inclusion of this provision in the bill, there is a fundamental tension between allowing the forces of competition to flourish in the interests of customers and end users and the collectivist mentality which underpins this bill.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will return to the matters before the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am discussing quite specifically clause 37A, 'Authorisation of conduct'—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The matters before the House are 64 amendments. The honourable member will address the amendments before the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, clause 37A is amendment (40), and that is specifically and precisely what I am addressing in these remarks. The question—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will take directions from the chair. The honourable member will continue his comments by addressing the amendments before the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am addressing amendment (40), which is headed: 'Clause 37A Authorisation of conduct for the purposes of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010'. The question I am suggesting the House ought consider very carefully as it considers whether or not it is a good idea to pass this amendment is whether it is a good idea to grant such an authorisation. Let us be very clear about this. The effect of such an authorisation is that conduct which would otherwise be illegal under the Competition and Consumer Act as a breach of provisions dealing with, for example, restraint of trade or anti-competitive agreements between competitors is specifically authorised by this provision. The question that that requires the House to consider is whether the detriment to competition, which is clearly admitted by the fact that the government has thought it necessary to include this amendment in the bill, is justified by the claimed benefit, which we are told has something to do with safety but which, upon analysis, is in fact a set of measures designed to extend the reach of the industrial regulatory apparatus which this government has been so enthusiastically expanding, measures which are going to make it harder for ordinary business people to get on and do their job.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the 64 amendments before the House at the moment but specifically proposed subsection 33(6), which, if inserted into the act, would read:

Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, a road transport collective agreement has no effect unless it is an approved road transport collective agreement.

A road transport collective agreement is defined in clause 33(1) as an agreement between the contracted driver and the hirer:

that specifies remuneration or related conditions (or both) for participating drivers who provide applicable services to the participating hirer.

The effect of the amendment is that the contract between the group of the independent contractors, known as the owner-drivers, and a hirer must be approved by the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal.

With that in mind, I take you to the example of two operators sitting on a dock. One, through successful business models, has wonderful vertical integrations and is able to provide a service—for example, from Sydney to Melbourne in a line-haul type environment—several hundred dollars cheaper because of his buying power capacity. When the tribunal under section 33(6) then goes to set those collective agreements referred to in the amendments, how is the independent operator able to find any leverage? It is a win-win scenario for the larger operator and actually a lose-lose scenario for the smaller operator. The example I draw you to is the buying power that the big guy has. If the big bloke can do it at $1,000 and the smaller bloke can only do it at $1,200 and the rate is going to be set at $1,200, which I believe would be the safe rate to look after the smaller bloke, the big fellow is laughing all the way to the bank because he has just picked up a $200 increase, which gives him more market dominance and the capacity with the greater margin to buy more trucks and dominate. I suggest the implication or an unintended consequence of this particular amendment among the 64 amendments before the House is more far reaching than was first considered.

I would also like to draw your attention to proposed subsection 33(1) and the distinction between the original definition of road transport collective agreement' and the effect of the amendment's deletion of the word 'and' and insertion of the word 'or'. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be well aware, that significantly strengthens the original intent, which brings me back to my original point about the concern, which was proven in the submissions before the inquiry, of the greater transport sector as to whether or not this is an appropriate way forward.

I would also draw your attention to the dissenting report of coalition members in that inquiry when they were considering this. The coalition members stated that they fully supported the need for a multifaceted approach to reducing accident rates in the transport industry, so they were fully supportive of trying to get the incident rates down. However, they said it should be noted that there was a gradual improvement in the accident and fatality rate in recent years, despite the increase in the national freight task. The rates of accidents are going down. This bill is about safety and the amendments, even though they are not predominantly about it, do talk about safety. We have the trajectory of fatality rates on a downward slope and, with the increase in government road infrastructure funding, we should see in future even more reductions in road fatalities. So that begs the question of why we need an additional layer of bureaucracy when all the industry is saying to the government is: 'Get your hand out of our pocket. If you are interested in increased freight rates, take some of the costs off us and allow us to get on and be profitable.'

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the 64 amendments to the bill and to reflect on the importance of road safety. Representing, as I do, an area that has a huge amount of truck traffic going through it on the Pacific Highway, I am very focused as a local member on this issue. Our entire community is focused on the importance of safety in the heavy vehicle industry. But the question before us today is: how effective are these 64 amendments going to be in actually producing improvements in safety outcomes on the ground? How effective are these amendments going to be in delivering fewer accidents, delivering safer roads and ensuring that freight is able to travel along our highways in safety? There is great concern in the community that I represent that heavy vehicle accidents are all too frequent. Being on the Pacific Highway, which is currently being duplicated, I can say that those areas that are not duplicated present the highest risk—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will address the amendments.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am coming to that, Deputy Speaker.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will address the amendments before the chair, not have a general debate on transport issues.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am about to get onto—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will address the amendments in detail before the House.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I will. I will draw the attention of the House to proposed clause 33, road transport collective agreements. The question arises: how effective are these agreements going to be in actually delivering real improvements in safety outcomes. The provision says:

(1) A road transport collective agreement is an agreement:

(a) between:

  (i) contractor drivers (the participating drivers) with whom a hirer or potential hirer proposes to contract for the provision of specified road transport services (the applicable services); and

  (ii) the hirer or potential hirer of the drivers (the participating hirer); and

(b) that specifies:

  (i) who the participating hirer is; and

  (ii) who the participating drivers are; and

  (iii) the basis on which the participating drivers became part of that group of drivers; and

(c) that specifies remuneration or related conditions (or both) for participating drivers who provide applicable services to the participating hirer.

Agreements such as this will ultimately result in a certain rate being struck. The question arises: if the rates that are a result of such agreements result in increased costs, is that going to provide for improved safety? That is what is not clear.

There is no evidence that this provision, proposed clause 33, is in any material way going to contribute to improved safety on our roads—and that is what the people that I represent are most interested in. The question people are asking is: are the 64 amendments going to actually result in a real outcome for people who use the Pacific Highway, for instance, or our other major highways or is it merely pandering to an industrial agenda? Certainly proposed clause 33 on road transport collective agreements and the relationship between the contract drivers and the hirers does not show the ways in which there is going to be an improved safety outcome. The people I represent who deal with heavy vehicles travelling through the main streets of their towns want to ensure that these vehicles travel safely and that the drivers are not overly fatigued.

The issue is: will these amendments result in less fatigue for drivers and in safer driving practices? We have no evidence of this. On this side of the House we believe that amendments brought to this House should be evidence based and not industrially driven, as these amendments seem to be. There seems to be a lack of reference in these amendments to safety, yet the government maintains that that is what these amendments are all about.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member is not addressing the detail of the amendments.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that clause 33 here—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member is not addressing the amendments and I ask him to come back to the amendments.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer you again to clause 33 and the relationship—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are now in consideration in detail. We have resolved to deal with it—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the honourable member have a point of order?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is this: as we are in consideration in detail and have agreed to take the bill as a whole, the amendments expand the debate, not limit it. Members are perfectly entitled to debate every clause of the bill as well as the amendments. I would refer you to Practice and you will find it to be true.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will resume her seat. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Hinkler.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to deal with proposed clause 33(3), which states:

The regulations may prescribe a code of conduct in relation to collective bargaining for road transport collective agreements.

Under the road transport collective agreement, the tribunal must be satisfied that, under proposed paragraph 34(ca):

the participating hirer and the participating drivers have conducted themselves in accordance with any code of conduct prescribed under subsection 33(3)—

which I just read. I find it highly unusual that the minister would be issuing guidelines to the tribunal that it had specifically set up to regulate the bargaining that goes on in the industry between the hirers and the drivers. The minister is now going to intervene and set up regulations—I suppose ministers can always do that—but then there is a code of conduct. Proposed clause 33(5) states:

A code of conduct prescribed under subsection (3) must have as its object the facilitation of effective and efficient collective bargaining for road transport collective agreements.

That is why the tribunal itself was set up. So what have we got? We have got the Fair Work organisation, then we have this new tribunal and then we have a minister intervening with regulations and, presumably, laying down a code of conduct. I ask the minister at the table: is that not the very criticism you levelled at Work Choices?

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is a fair comparison, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That is not what the amendments address. I ask the honourable member to come back to the amendments before us.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just saying what that sequence of amendments will lead to. I make the point that it is very interesting indeed that we have a Fair Work organisation that is supposed to be regulating payments, then a tribunal that will double guess them, then a set of regulations on top of that, presumably where the minister will regulate it further, and then within that again a code of conduct which will give the government overbearing control. I would say that it is very similar to Work Choices and leave it at that.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a further contribution in relation to the merits or otherwise of the 64 amendments that have been provided to the House at very short notice by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Again I want to come to the question of the merits of the provisions proposed to be added to the bill dealing with the authorisation of conduct which would otherwise be anticompetitive. I am referring to the provisions of proposed clause 37A. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to take you to proposed clause 32A. You will notice that under clause 32A(2) the tribunal is to weigh up the benefit of the agreement against any 'detriment to the public constituted by any lessening of competition that would result, or be likely to result, if the Tribunal approved the agreement'. So we have the tribunal charged with the task of assessing the impact of a particular agreement on competition.

As you will have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, the language in proposed clause 37A is quite specific. It says:

(2) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, entry into an approval-pending road transport collective agreement … is specified in and specifically authorised by this Act.

The point is that it refers specifically to an approval-pending road transport collective agreement. If you go back to proposed clause 32A, you will recognise immediately that what is referred to here is an agreement that is pending approval by the tribunal. If the tribunal approves the agreement it is automatically authorised by reason of the operation of proposed clause 37A.

This raises a number of serious policy issues. One of them is this: what are the qualifications of members of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to deal with the issue of the impact of a collective agreement on competition? Clause 79 of the bill describes the composition of the tribunal. Clause 79(2) states:

The Tribunal consists of:

(a) the President; and

(b) at least 2 and no more than 4 persons who are experienced in workplace relations matters; and

(c) at least 2 and no more than 4 persons who have knowledge of, or experience in, one or more of the following fields …

None of those fields is competition law. None of those fields is the impact of collective agreements on competition. If the House were to accept these amendments—the 64 amendments moved by the minister at very short notice—and pass them into law a consequence would be that the tribunal would be put in the position of assessing the competition impacts of agreements in the road transport sector without having any expertise regarding such matters.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I need hardly remind you that competition law is specialised. It raises many difficult issues. An entire agency of the Australian government, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, deals with these issues. But it seems that this government has not seen fit to make provision for persons with such expertise to sit on the tribunal, even though the powers of the tribunal have been expanded to weigh up the merits of an agreement against any detrimental consequences to competition that might follow. I might add that taking the overall policy scheme under which road transport collective agreements are specifically authorised outside the operation of the Competition and Consumer Act is very bad policy. It is the kind of policy that we have come to expect from a government that has no commitment to competition. It has white-anted it in telecommunications and it is white-anting it here.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Road safety is a big issue in both the electorates for which I have been the member: Parkes and Calare. Dubbo, which is the centre of Parkes, is one of the big commercial centres for trucking in New South Wales. Orange, in Calare, is fast becoming that. I am talking about road safety, which is a very big issue, in relation to these amendments. The RTA in New South Wales has said that as many trucks, if not more, travel on the Newell Highway, between Parkes and Dubbo, as travel up the Pacific Highway.

I am all for road safety and the coalition is all for road safety, particularly in relation to drivers. I can tell you that in my part of the world the trucking industry prides itself on doing everything it can on road safety. We have any number of owner-drivers in my part of the world. It seems to me that these amendments are very much aimed at groups of owner-drivers or at individual owner-drivers. In Orange we also have some of the biggest privately owned trucking companies in regional New South Wales. There are also some in Dubbo, and the member for Parkes is quite able to speak himself. It is an area that I have great knowledge of.

It seems to me that the Transport Workers Union is being very well represented by these amendments. It seems to me that the Transport Workers Union might almost have written some of them.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will address the amendments.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do that, Deputy Speaker. Proposed clause 33(1) refers to groups of owner-drivers who make an agreement for the provision of specified road transport services. Are these not simply the dreaded AWAs, only sponsored by unions, sponsored by government and sponsored by those who will have the job of signing off on these things? The only difference is that the minister has to agree, as do the union, I assume, and the tribunal itself.

Given that the people I am talking about, the owner-drivers and the large companies, the large privately owned companies in particular, already take every care that they can in relation to driver safety, road safety and the whole gambit of it, I wonder what these amendments are actually aimed at doing, apart from keeping the Transport Workers Union happy and, pretty much, proclaiming the things that it wants rather than those things that are dedicated to road safety.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will address the amendments before the chair.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will go back to proposed clause 33, which, again, refers to groups of owner-drivers who make an agreement for the provision of specified road transport services. It seems that the amendment broadens the scope of the sorts of conditions and matters that a group of independent contractors can seek in an approved agreement. This goes way beyond anything in the original intent of the bill, which would then have to be approved before taking effect. Once again, are these not the dreaded AWAs only approved by the minister, who does seem to have an amazing ability to effect in detail the scope of what happens between drivers and owners, or owner-drivers if it comes to that, on the ground? I honestly do not believe that this matter is about road safety. I believe that this is an industrial relations measure and that it is to do with the TWU.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are several problems with these amendments, which are not evidence based but are industrially driven. For a start, proposed clause 33(6), agreements for drivers, would ensure that all current agreements, except those made between groups of owner-drivers and hirers under existing state regulatory regimes, would be out the window as they are not approved road transport collective agreements. The effect of this amendment is that any contract between a group of independent contractors—owner-drivers—and a hirer must be approved by the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Clause 33 of the original bill stated that the tribunal 'may grant' approval for road transport collective agreement where certain conditions are met. This is completely different to what is stated in the amendment, and demands further consideration and consultation with the heavy vehicle industry. These current agreements, now deemed null and void, would have to be immediately renegotiated. This would put hirers and owner-drivers who are parties to the agreements in a difficult and untenable situation. As well, this instantly undermines commercial contracts established between two companies involving contract drivers. For instance, how will it affect the commercial arrangements between a major car manufacturer and companies that transport their cars? Does it invalidate those particular arrangements? Does it make them now unenforceable? The bill devalues the concept of an independent contractor. This amendment takes this even further by limiting the ability of independent contractors to negotiate terms and conditions they consider appropriate. The bill will centralise contracts for groups of independent contractors and in doing so reduce their opportunity to bargain. It has all the hallmarks of being able to hinder competition and could well remove flexibility. In so doing, the bill could make hiring groups of owner-drivers far less attractive. Further, the tribunal will not be sufficiently equipped to deal with the possible volume of contracts it will be required to approve.

The bill has been lauded as a road safety measure. We have been told that the tribunal it establishes will issue orders to make sure drivers have remuneration and related conditions to ensure they will drive safely. However, this amendment goes much further than that. It empowers the tribunal and gives it the responsibility to approve agreements between groups of owner-drivers and hirers. This underlines the fact that this is not about road safety. It is an industrial relations measure which is payback to the powerful Transport Workers Union.

I am a road safety advocate, as I am sure everybody in this parliament is. It is an issue many people in the Riverina have raised with me time and again. There are far more pressing road safety problems for the heavy vehicle industry than so-called safe rates. Here is a remark from the Transport Workers Union National Secretary, Tony Sheldon himself:

Under the carbon tax, drivers will be forced to do longer hours, sweat their trucks further, have less maintenance, and that means more deaths.

These amendments are not about road safety. They are about empowering unions further, and we do not need that.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in my continuing opposition to the 64 amendments to the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 that are currently before the House. In my electorate I have a number of transport operators and a number of quarries. The predominant transport operations through the middle of my electorate are truck-and-dog operations that will be affected by these amendments. In addition, the majority of my electorate would be perceived as a rural precinct, taking small produce to markets, helping the families and the mums and dads of Australia to keep fresh fruit and veggies and on the table. Every centimetre of the travel involved in getting that produce to market will be affected by these amendments and the legislation currently before the House.

The argument put up by the government with reference to this bill is that of road safety. However, none of the 64 amendments we are currently debating speak to or provide any evidence of a causal link between rates of pay and deaths on the road. In fact, an inquiry recently found that there was a decline—and members of the government have made this point in their presentations—in rates of death on the road; they are downward spiralling. In addition, with the magnificent work done by the government to increase road infrastructure, we should see further reductions in road deaths. The committee also received evidence that supported an increased focus on road improvements, infrastructure and enforcement of existing laws and regulations to achieve safety improvements. It was repeatedly put to the committee that other measures would be more valuable in terms of reducing accident rates. The coalition members supported that approach.

So it is drawing a long bow to come in and say that it is 'no, no, no, no' from the coalition. We do support measures that will reduce deaths on the roads, but we sincerely suggest that these amendments before us are not conducive to reaching those outcomes. One of the amendments, amendment (26), includes:

(ca) the participating hirer and the participating drivers have conducted themselves in accordance with any code of conduct prescribed under subsection 33(3);

So an unintended consequence of the amendments before the House is that if someone were to change their code of conduct that would be superfluous. It would be surplus to the codes of conduct already put in place by the peak bodies and industry groups. One of those is the National Road Freighters Association—which, by pure chance, is opposed to this measure. The association has put its concerns in writing in its submissions to the committee. The Australian Logistics Council, an enormous voice for the transport sector, is also opposed to it. They have their own codes of conduct. The Post Office Agents Association also saw no merit in the bill. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also has a code of conduct, which will be sought to be amended according to subsection 33(3) as a result of the aforementioned amendment. The Australian Trucking Association and the Australian Industry Group also have their own codes of conduct. And the National Road Transport Operators Association and Independent Contractors of Australia are opposed to it. All these people are opposed to it. The list just goes on; it is overwhelming.

If this government is fair dinkum about trying to save lives out on the highways of Australia it should show some evidence of a causal link between pay rates and deaths. If you are serious that that is a cause, do your part as a government by getting your hand out of the pockets of the transport industry—stop increasing their operating costs—and let them get on and make a living.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendments currently before the House. This legislation is vital for road safety. It is vital for those truck drivers who carry our freight between cities and within cities. It is also vital for other road users.

I find it extraordinary, frankly, that the previous speaker said that he could not see a causal link between wage rates and conditions and safety on the road. I ask him to read National road safetyeyes on the road ahead: inquiry into national road safetya June 2004 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, then chaired by the member for Hinkler. This was a bipartisan issue and that committee treated it as such when the Howard government established that inquiry. I was a member of that committee in my first term of parliament.

This is an issue which has the support of not just the Transport Workers Union but significant players in the industry, including, dare I say it, the most significant trucker in this country, Lindsay Fox. This has the support of those businesses which operate in accordance with law and which operate in the interests of their workforce as well as other road users. This has the support of other road users and motoring organisations. This has the support of all those who have been impacted by road deaths involving heavy vehicles. In 2010, fatalities and injuries cost the community $2.7 billion.

Yet what we see before this parliament today is not just opposition from the 'no-alition', but filibustering of the debate and abuse of the processes of this parliament. Opposition members have got up and just tried to take up the time of this parliament.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We only got the amendments this morning.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even the shadow minister did not say that, mate. You were not even here to listen to the shadow minister when he outlined the no-alition's position on it. You were not even here. But the opposition bring people in, one after the other—the member for Bradfield is a serial offender on these issues—to waste time. You can waste time, but it will not change the outcome.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott: prior to the Leader of House coming into the chamber, when a previous person was in the chair, again and again people were asked to return to debate the specific terms of the amendments. The Leader of the House is not doing that.

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

You argued against that.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I was ruled against, so you will be also.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will decide, Member for Mackellar. The Leader of the House is aware of the standing orders and I understand that he is speaking to the amendments as well as closing the debate.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy to be here later today, after five o'clock—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister does not have the call. The minister is aware of the amendments before the chamber. The Leader of the House will address his comments to the amendments we are currently debating.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly doing that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am also referring to the debate, including the comments of the previous speaker, who spoke about the process with respect to the amendments and the process which is occurring here. This process is an abuse of the parliament. The coalition is not attempting to debate the substance of the issues; it is attempting to delay a vote.

Truck drivers have waited a long time for justice on this issue. When I spoke to Alan Jones this morning—another big supporter of this reform—he was certainly conscious of that fact. So are many other people who are in touch with truck drivers—Ray Hadley and other advocates in the media who know what the impact of these issues has been. That is why the amendments should be supported and why the legislation should be supported. (Extension of time granted)I am pleased to see that those opposite have run out of steam on these issues. These amendments clarify the legislation before the House, legislation which addresses an issue which has been debated since I arrived in this chamber in 1996. Sixteen years has been a long time to wait for this legislation and for these amendments.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I refer you to page 366 of House of Representatives Practice where it says, about consideration in detail:

When a bill is considered, by leave, as a whole, the debate is widened to include any part of the bill. However, discussion must relate to the clauses of the bill, and it is not in order to make a general second reading speech.

It also says in Practice that the rules of debate with regard to debating amendments and the bill as a whole are the same. Therefore I ask you to ask the Leader of the House to return to the subject of the amendments.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar has made her point of order and has pointed out the relevant standing orders.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We see again why the member for Mackellar, with her lack of knowledge of the standing orders and the way they operate in practice, never got to be the Speaker. The fact is—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will not reflect on a member of this chamber.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask him to withdraw.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will not reflect on another member and will withdraw that reference to the member for Mackellar.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which reference, Mr Deputy Speaker? I said she never got to be the Speaker. That is a fact.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will withdraw.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw if she is that sensitive, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, just withdraw unreservedly.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. I understand the embarrassment there, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is important legislation and these are important amendments. They should be supported by the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the debate is interrupted. The debate may be resumed at a later hour this day.