Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the bills as proposed by the government. This is an important issue without a doubt. The opposition wants to discuss the merits of this bill and also the reasons we cannot support the bills in their current form. We certainly do not support the idea that you would abolish an independent umpire because you do not agree with a decision, particularly in light of the fact that the government has not really spent any time explaining what is, I think, in some senses a complex issue around the correlation between the remuneration of payment for drivers, whether they are owner-drivers independent contractors or award employees, and the incidence of fatalities and injuries on our roads. This is not just an occupational health and safety issue; this is a public safety issue.

Less than 24 hours ago, on the Augusta Highway in South Australia, 200 kilometres north of Adelaide, four people died in a car accident: a 70-year-old man, a 59-year-old woman and two girls, aged five and 10. The truck driver involved and two of his passengers were taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries—it has been reported—and a fourth passenger is in a critical condition and was flown to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Nobody knows, nor should anyone conclude, that this accident is a result of any fault of either driver. Nor do we know whether in fact fatigue of either driver or any other reason impacted on the capacity of the drivers to avoid this collision. But what we do know is that too many people die on our roads. What we do know in the context of this debate is that too many truck drivers have injuries and also die too often on our roads.

I think this debate, if it is to be a genuine one between the opposition and the government, should seriously contemplate the arguments that have been submitted about the correlation between reducing the likelihood of injury or death on the roads and the need to ensure that wage remuneration does not have a bearing on truck drivers driving excessive hours, driving fatigued, driving under pressure and in some cases driving debilitated because the driver has self-medicated just to get the job done.

I think a truck driver's job is a remarkably tough one. I think for owner-drivers in particular, who have to deal with the responsibility of looking after their rig, paying for what is an expensive piece of capital equipment, and maintaining a business, it is certainly a challenging one. I have great empathy for those that manage to struggle and to ensure that they can maintain a profitable business. I do believe that members on this side share the government's concern in relation to the plight of truck drivers. However, the difference seems to be—at this point, at least—that on this side of the House, whilst we do not believe remuneration is necessarily the predominant reason and we certainly do not think it is the sole reason, we think it is a reason we see the incidence of fatalities. We do believe there is some correlation, and we are not alone in that.

The other thing to note is that, if this matter were so sincerely held and considered by the government, why is it that we have prorogued the parliament? The Prime Minister has written to the Governor-General, referring to why he wanted the parliament to be reconvened, yet there is no mention of this matter in that letter to the Governor-General. There is no mention of this matter in, for example, the Governor-General's address. The reason for that is that the interest of the Prime Minister in this serious issue arose between us leaving parliament a few weeks ago and returning.

There was an order made by the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal some months ago. The only time the government showed any interest whatsoever in a matter that has been ongoing for some years now is when the Commonwealth intervened last month to delay an order. With respect, there was no effort by the government, which has the capacity to do such a thing. The Minister for Employment could have intervened in the matter before the tribunal, as is her wont and as the legislation provides, and made a submission on behalf of the Commonwealth laying out its concerns. The government did not do that. There was no attempt to put an argument before the independent umpire in relation to any concerns it had with the proposed order. All we had was an eleventh-hour intrusion to delay. That was the first position taken by the government. Then we had the Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who has no agenda for this country—intervene in this matter and elevate the controversy, if you like. He did not act as a leader; he elevated the matter, saying, 'I don't like this decision, so we're going to abolish the independent umpire.' To me, that is a rash, disproportionate and arrogant response to a single decision of an independent body by a Prime Minister who, as I said, has no agenda other than to attack working people's pay and conditions. I believe it is insincere of the Prime Minister to be using the safety of Australian truck drivers as a pawn in his political game, as I believe it does also not really become a Prime Minister to use what is clearly the genuine concern and emotion of truck drivers who are concerned about the potential consequences of the order.

Let me be very clear about this: in the view of Labor, this bill will mean that roads are less safe for all Australians. We need, of course, our roads to be safer. In the last month alone, tragically, 25 people died on our roads as a result of heavy vehicle accidents. Fatality rates for the trucking industry in Australia are 12 times the national average of all industries. Between 2004 and 2014, more than 2½ thousand people were killed in truck-related accidents.

Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, you cannot put a price on a person's life, but that is exactly what the Abbott-Turnbull government is seeking to do. This is not just an emotional argument; there are significant bodies of evidence that link the pay of drivers to safety on our roads. Labor established the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal in 2012 to make Australian roads safer not only for heavy vehicle drivers but for all road users. The decision to establish the tribunal was based on the significant evidence linking pay and road safety.

I have been asked, 'What evidence?' Firstly, the government's own report, prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, 'assumed that the Road Transport Order and Payments Order resulted in a 10 per cent and 18 per cent reduction in the number of crashes'. A study in 2001 entitled Driver fatigue: a survey of professional long distance heavy vehicle drivers in Australia found:

Drivers who were paid in terms of the amount of work they did … reported fatigue more often than drivers who were paid in terms of the time they were working.

A 2007 study concluded:

The strong association of payment by results and low pay with drug use among Australian long-distance truck drivers is consistent with other research suggesting that economic factors are an important influence on health and safety in the workplace.

A 2008 report determined:

… the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that commercial/industrial practices affecting road transport play a direct and significant role in causing hazardous practices. There is solid survey evidence linking payment levels and systems to crashes, speeding, driving while fatigued and drug use. The evidence has been accepted and indeed confirmed by Government inquiries, coronial inquests, courts and industrial tribunal hearings in Australia over a number of years. The association between remuneration and safety applies to both employed and owner drivers.

A 2014 survey of heavy vehicle drivers in Australia found:

Piece-rate compensation methods were associated with higher levels of fatigue-related driving than non-piece-rate methods.

And the government's very own report it commissioned back in 2014 to justify the tribunal's abolition but only released recently—and how convenient of them to do that just recently—stated:

Studies have identified statistically significant relationships between driver remuneration and accident involvement.

I could go on on these matters.

On top of the evidence, we have had major employers and employer associations backing the establishment of the tribunal. But how has the Prime Minister responded? He denies the evidence, denies employer support because, for him, this is a political game. Malcolm knows everything about everything—just ask him. The experience has been the same, by the way, in comparable jurisdictions. Take for example the United States of America: research there has found that driver pay has a strong effect on safety outcomes. Of course, before making the order, which led to why we are standing here today, the RSRT—that is, the tribunal—heard evidence from employers, workers, unions, employer bodies and, based on that evidence, agreed there was a link between pay and safety.

I note that during the entire consultation period, more than two years, where the tribunal was hearing from affected parties, gathering submissions and evidence, the Abbott-Turnbull government did not make a single submission. Why did they do not make a submission? The order that brings us here today was made in December last year. Where was the government until a few weeks ago? The only conclusion you can draw is, once this became an issue that attracted media attention, Malcolm Turnbull thought he better buy in. Of course his comments do not fit with the evidence. His conclusions are one of someone who has not considered this matter fully. The evidence does not suit his political agenda so what is the response of the Prime Minister, who thinks he knows everything about everything? It is to deny the evidence and trash the tribunal—abolish the one body that has the ability to address the conclusions which have been reached by these multiple studies and reports.

If this tribunal is abolished, a number of enforceable conditions will be simply wiped away. When it comes to safety, protections for drivers who want to raise their hand about safety issues including their pay will be removed. Abolishing the tribunal will mean that there will no longer be a requirement that transport operators have drug and alcohol policies in place. Talking about safety, what a reckless, retrograde Prime Minister we have. Tony Abbott's wish is Malcolm Turnbull's command. After all, it was Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister, who wanted to abolish the tribunal and the current Prime Minister is gleefully seeking to ensure that happens. It is now crystal clear what the Prime Minister will do when he gets a decision from an independent umpire that he does not like: he will just get rid of the umpire.

The Prime Minister has gone from seeking a delay to the decision by legislation to now recklessly trying to kill off the tribunal simply because he does not want to hear the evidence, does not want to consider the evidence and does not like the conclusion of the decision. This raises very serious questions about future decisions of governments and sets a very disturbing precedent. If the Prime Minister is willing to abolish an independent body because he does not like the decision, what would stop Malcolm Turnbull, if he were to be re-elected as Prime Minister—if he ever gets elected as Prime Minister, I should say—by the Australian electorate, what would stop him intervening on a Fair Work Commission case delivering a national wage minimum? What would stop him saying: 'I do not agree with that minimum wage increase by the national Fair Work Commission; I think we better change that by way of parliament.' This is the approach that was taken here: 'I do not agree with the independent body; therefore, by way of legislation, I am going to revoke the order of the independent umpire.'

What would it mean for the decisions of the Fair Work Commission? We know the government has already made a submission by putting in the Productivity Commission's submission that recommends the abolition or indeed the reduction of penalty rates on Sundays for the lowest paid workers in this country. We have already heard the Prime Minister talk about us now living in a seven-day economy and he effectively pronounced the death of the weekend in doing so. What would stop the Prime Minister intervening in the Fair Work Commission decision to not cut penalty rates and he was not happy with that decision? He would have his big fund raising mates, he would have the donors of the Liberal Party saying, 'We want to see cuts to penalty rates.' He might just intervene on that decision and move a piece of legislation in the parliament to revoke an order of the Fair Work Commission. What would stop him doing that? Because that approach is consistent with what is happening here, except it would then be further if he chose to abolish the Fair Work Commission. Who would know? This is supposed to be a mature, sensible, stable, adult government.

We have a prorogued parliament. I just sat in the Senate to listen to a two-minute speech by the Governor-General on the agenda of the government. It took him about two or three minutes to outline the agenda of the government. They have embroiled the Governor-General, His Excellency, in this matter for a stunt. And now, in the House of Representatives, we are debating a bill that was never mentioned in any letter to the Governor-General to reconvene the parliament. It is a too-clever-by-half tactic of the Prime Minister to bring back the parliament, and now, apparently, this has become a matter of national importance. If this is so important, then a true leader—a genuine leader in the office of Prime Minister—would convene a meeting of all affected parties. A true leader would listen to the experts and the owner-drivers—they have absolutely got a right to be heard.

I believe, having spoken to the Australian Trucking Association and the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters' Association, that some of the points they have made to me have got merit. I believe there are problems with the order. Normally, I would have to accept that—as you accept independent decisions of statutory bodies—but the matter is now before the parliament. I have made it clear that Labor is willing to sit down and discuss with the Australian Trucking Association, the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters' Association, the Transport Workers Union and other affected parties how we would go about making sure that on one hand we reduce the likelihood of death on our roads—of truck drivers as well as the men, women and children who use our roads from dying—and, on the other hand, deal with some of the legitimate matters that have been raised. Some of these matters I do not agree with. Some of the matters are misrepresented, in my view. Some owner-drivers have been misled by some propaganda, but they have raised legitimate concerns. The opposition—Bill Shorten and others, and me—are willing to sit down and talk to them about these matters.

Instead, what we have is a motion to revoke the order, or delay the order—but it does not matter, because we have before us right now a bill to abolish the independent umpire all because the Prime Minister does not like the decision, having thought about it for a day or so. Now, if they are willing to abolish a tribunal, then who knows where they would stop with decisions of independent bodies. No wonder 4½ million Australians—who do, on occasion, receive penalty rates; some receive it as a part of their constant weekly wage—should be worried about a government that is willing to show such a disproportionate and reckless response to such a situation.

We believe that there should be time to consider this. What should not be forgotten either is the sincerity of all parties. This has been blown up into this black-and-white issue—this binary argument we are now having—but that was not what was happening before the tribunal. With respect to the tribunal, they should have allowed the parties to delay the order, as was put to the tribunal. There was goodwill, via the parties, to consider some of the matters that had been raised. That did not happen, and that is regrettable, but we have an opportunity now, because if this is about seriously looking at the concerns of the constituency in the road transport industry, then you can do that. You can bring people together; you do not have to seek to divide them.

I consider this to be very divisive. The way in which the Prime Minister is handling this matter is disproportionate, and he has not listened sufficiently to those who say, 'I have lost my husband, because someone was fatigued and drove for too long.' 'I lost my wife.' 'I lost my children.' Because, regardless of those on the other side pretending that it does not happen, I am sorry to say there is too much evidence. We can argue about the degree to which it happens, absolutely. But I do not think anyone is suggesting that people do not die on our roads because drivers are fatigued. I do not believe the Prime Minister has seriously considered the mounting evidence that shows a correlation between remuneration and the incidence of death on our roads. If he was really serious about this issue, he would be doing that.

Insofar as the way the government operates, was there a cabinet meeting called to discuss this? Did this happen because he just chose to make a decision? Was this a captain's call from a bloke who said he wanted to deliver collegiate, proper Westminster style government? The Prime Minister gets to answer this. What we know about the Prime Minister is this: he says he listens, but does he really listen to anyone at all? We know he does not talk to his Treasurer, even about when he decides to set the budget. We know he does not talk to the Treasurer about when the Treasurer has to hand down the budget across this table at this dispatch box. So we know he does not talk to the Treasurer about the budget and when it might be handed down. Has he spoken to his cabinet colleagues about this approach? I would dare say he has not. He has not, because this is a Prime Minister who is without an agenda. Without an agenda he plays stunts, like proroguing the parliament. He embroils His Excellency, the Governor-General, in recommitting us to sit in the Senate to listen to a two- to three-minute speech on, supposedly, the agenda of the government.

This is a government bereft of an economic plan. It is bereft of a jobs plan. It is bereft on policies in the areas of health and education. Indeed, the Treasurer has no capacity to explain the fiscal strategy of the government. So instead we are here, apparently to talk about the ABCC and registered organisations, and yet we find ourselves talking about a bill that was not mentioned once in the five weeks we sat in parliament in a conventional way but has been brought back here for consideration now in a rash, arrogant way by a Prime Minister who clearly is not willing to listen to those people who have been victims of tragedies on our roads and yet at the same time is willing, with scant regard to the evidence, to abolish an independent umpire just because he does not like the decision. Well, that is not the way prime ministers should conduct themselves.

What we have said all along is that we believe there is that link. I do not believe the government has refuted the fact that there is a direct link between remuneration and road deaths. And yet we have a situation where the government is willing to throw out, as it said, the entire system to claim victory. I am not sure that all public users of roads will be claiming victory, and I dare say that some of those owner-drivers—many of them, I would suggest—who are in very unfair contracts will not be claiming victory.

If this leads to one more death on our roads—and I dare say that, if we abolish the system, it is going to lead to a lot more than one—I really believe that this parliament has failed. It has failed in its duty of care. It has failed in its most important job, which is to protect and secure the safety of the public in public thoroughfares. If we cannot see that this matter is more than just arguing about some of the issues that have been raised by the government, if we cannot see that this is first and foremost a road safety issue, a public safety issue, then I think the government has completely misjudged this matter, has failed the Australian people and, in particular, has failed the road users of Australia.

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

It being slightly after 12 pm, I took the view that the deferred division should not have been proceeded with until the member speaking at 12 noon had completed his speech, and I did not interrupt the member.

Debate adjourned.