Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill 2016

The government is introducing the Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill2016 because this government stands by owner drivers and mum-and-dad small businesses who just want to earn an honest living.

It has been clear for some time that the Road Safety Remuneration System, established in 2012 by the former Labor government, has demonstrated no tangible safety outcomes for the road transport industry. Two separate, comprehensive, evidence based reviews have supported this in the strongest of terms.

Even Labor's own regulatory analysis completed at the time the system was introduced acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear link between road safety and remuneration.

There is nothing fair or safe about the Road Safety Remuneration System and that is why the coalition government has listened to thousands of owner drivers across the country and put this very urgent bill before the House today.

The refusal of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to listen to reason and delay the commencement of the 2016 Payments Order in the face of widespread confusion and misunderstanding is the last straw. Around 800 submissions were made to the tribunal. Almost all of these called for a delay to the Payments Order, with many indicating that the order will negatively impact their business and, in a number of cases, put them out of business altogether.

Even in the face of this evidence, the tribunal refused to delay the start date of the Payments Order to allow these small businesses time to try to comply.

I note that, notwithstanding the Transport Workers Union's in-principle opposition to any delay, the TWU is before the tribunal today, seeking to delay the payments in the order to 1 January 2017.

What an extraordinary and absurd turn of events—the union for whom the tribunal was created, who attacked owner drivers for challenging the Payments Order and went to the Federal Court only two weeks ago to have a stay of the order lifted, is now before its tribunal saying, 'We've changed our mind, we want you to delay the order'.

Are the tens of thousands owner drivers out there supposed to believe the TWU has finally accepted that the Payments Order is having devastating effects on the industry, or should they believe this is just a stunt—one last desperate attempt by the TWU to save its own tribunal?

But the introduction of this legislation is not about the Transport Workers Union. It is much more important than that. This is about the mum-and-dad owner drivers, who have staked their livelihoods on owning a truck and driving freight across this vast country of ours. This is about those operators who contribute to the economy by paying their taxes, and keeping alive other small businesses in the regions in which they work. And this is about those same operators who just want to earn a living, so they can continue to sponsor their local sport club, the St John's Ambulance or their children's school, without having their very livelihood threatened by this disastrous tribunal created by Bill Shorten and the TWU.

The tribunal's Payments Order handed down on 18 December 2015, together with the Road Transport and Distribution and Long Distance Operations Order 2014, will result in a net cost to the economy of more than $2 billion over 15 years.

The way owner-driver trucks are financed means the family home is often at risk if the family business goes under. The tribunal is not just putting people out of business; they are also putting them out of their home if their business fails.

But let me now put a human face to those very real accounts of the impact of the RSRT is having on owner drivers and the trucking industry more broadly.

One owner driver who recently applied to the tribunal expressed her fear about what the Payments Order will do to her business and her family. In her own words, she told the tribunal:

'As an Owner-Driver our future is grim. Major transport companies have already begun sending letters to their Owner-Drivers stating that as of April 4, 2016 their services will no longer be required. In trying to protect us, the Order is setting out to destroy us. The impact of this Order upon Owner-Drivers will very likely be that we will no longer be a part of the Road Transport Industry and in turn finish up bankrupt as we have loans on equipment that we will be unable to sustain. My family of four relies solely on the income provided by our truck driven by my husband. Without this we will lose our livelihood and lifestyle after over 20 successful years in the Industry.'

Glen and Pauline Kearney are two other owner-drivers facing economic ruin thanks to the RSRT. Glen and his wife Pauline own two trucks, having mortgaged their house to set up business 20 years ago. Pauline and Glen employ their eldest son in the family business and want to employ their youngest son when he is old enough. If you ask Pauline and Glen, they set up their haulage business to provide their sons with an economic future—a means by which they can support themselves and in turn their own families while supporting other small businesses—for example, the mechanic who maintains their trucks, the tyre seller who replaces their tyres and the coffee shops and restaurants they visit while they are working.

We have heard a lot from those on the other side of the chamber that the RSRT and the payments order will drive down truck crashes and improve road safety.

This is plainly wrong.

The payments order cannot improve safety. Let me explain a couple of reasons why. Firstly, there is no tangible link between paying drivers more and improved road safety. As one owner-driver explained to me, if you pay the cowboy drivers more, because they are cowboys, they will just drive more—more hours, longer distances, to get that money. This creates increased risk to road users, not safer roads.

Secondly, the payments order applies to only owner-drivers. Road accidents involving trucks involve both owner-drivers and employee-drivers and in 84 per cent of cases are caused by the other vehicle involved, not the truck. To single one group out, effectively branding them as unsafe, is not only unfair, but it's also wrong, and enormously insulting. And as one owner-driver put it, un-Australian.

Finally, the payments order does not require an owner driver to have a minimum number of rest breaks on their journey, nor does it require a truck to have the latest fatigue management equipment installed. And it does not require the owner-driver to undergo any training on road safety. These practical measures have all been recognised as having a significant impact on safety and yet the order does not mention them.

This government is not prepared to let small business operators and families be punished just because they decided to buy a truck instead of a corner store. Since the order was made, concerned truck drivers and their families have been inundating the government saying that this order is creating uncertainty and costing them their livelihoods.

The uncertainty is almost as crippling as the order itself, and some drivers have indicated they are parked up and will be broke within weeks. This order has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pricing small businesses out of a market. Small businesses whose workers do not typically choose to be a member of a union—which when it boils down to it, is what the Road Safety Remuneration System has always really been about.

And who can forget the circumstances in which this system was created. The RSRT was a trade-off by the Gillard government—a deal done by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, to stop the TWU agitating against the carbon tax. Tony Sheldon, head of the TWU, confirmed the link himself when he spoke on 28 July 2011:

Mr Sheldon told the Herald yesterday that during the meeting with Ms Gillard, "I spoke about the impact the carbon tax would have on truck drivers and the urgent need for safe rates to ensure truckies didn't have to wear yet another cost".

This government wants to see real solutions to the problem of road safety. The most recent independent review of the system, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, was damning. PwC found that:

The report could not be clearer on the many failings of the Road Safety Remuneration System.

The government remains strongly committed to ensuring the highest standards of road safety. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is clearly not the body to tackle road safety.

This is why we will ensure that the proper regulator, solely focused on safety issues, will be properly funded. We will redirect all the resources from the Road Safety Remuneration System—$4 million each year—to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to ensure the tangible safety measures the industry want are given priority.

Australia cannot afford to wait any longer for this mess to be sorted out. We must stop this act of economic vandalism—there are real families suffering real stress and financial ruin.

This bill will repeal the Road Safety Remuneration Act 2012, thereby abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and the orders it has made. We will make sure the payments order is gone as soon as the bill takes effect.

I urge all members to support this bill, which is about saving jobs, not only of the 35,000 owner-drivers, but of their families who help run the business, and of local people in the community who rely on the business that local trucks bring.

Now before I conclude, there are a number of owner-drivers who are present today in the House. Those owner-drivers have taken the time and borne the cost of fuel and accommodation to be in Canberra today as their futures depend on it. Thank you for being here today. The government is committed to abolishing the system so you can return to work.

A vote for this bill is a vote for a real solution to the issue of road safety in the trucking industry.

A vote for this bill is a vote for the thousands of Australians who rely on this industry.

A vote for this bill is a vote for the viability of small businesses, which are so vital to the Australian economy.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.