Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I look forward to making my contribution to this debate today on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill. Senators in this place should have road safety foremost in their minds, not only for our transport operators but for every single Australian who uses our roads. There are a lot of issues I want to clear up. Firstly, it is no secret that Labor does support the general purpose of the bill. We have no argument with that as it was our legislation and our work in 2009 that created this bill.

The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme should be legislated. I heard Senator Williams going on about not listening to Labor lies, and saying to the cross benches 'Why didn't Minister Albanese legislate it?' I will go further into why Labor believes the amendment should be passed and we should legislate the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme.

There are a couple of points about heavy vehicle road safety that I want to touch on. The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme is another element in the armoury we have to help drive down road deaths and injury. There should absolutely be no argument in this chamber or in the other place about doing whatever we can to reduce road deaths, trauma and injury. This program sits alongside spending on our national network, including record spending on duplicating the Bruce and Pacific highways, which, once again, was initiated by the former Labor government.

Heavy vehicle safety is also being addressed by the new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which is sometimes referred to as the 'safe rates remuneration tribunal', which, no-one will be surprised to hear, I am going to have a bit to say about later. I am also going to have a fair dinkum crack at those on the other side who want to take this away from the road transport industry and thus diminish road safety for other road users in Australia. I will say more on that later. The tribunal was established by the former Labor government. It commenced operations in July 2012. The object of the act is to promote safety and fairness in the road transport industry. I do not see what is hard about that. In fact, I will tell you what is hard about it: it is a disgrace to this nation that it has taken so long to get through. But it is here now for the time being, and that mob over there are going to do everything they can to try to water it down.

The tribunal's role in this area primarily relates to addressing the relationship between remuneration and safety in the industry by, amongst other things, ensuring that road transport drivers do not have remuneration related incentives to work in an unsafe manner—and, my God, they are out there and they are alive. Also, it removes remuneration related incentives, pressures and practices that contribute to unsafe work practices. I challenge any senator who wants to debate this with me publicly to bring it on, because I will tell you that you are on the wrong ground if you think you are going to put up an argument with me that counters what we are saying about road safety and linking road safety to overloading, breaking fatigue management, speeding, and illicit use of drugs. But the offer is there to any one of you. Bring it on. But you will not. You do not have the guts to do it.

The coalition government flagged its intention to eliminate this tribunal, even before its first partial order came into effect, on 1 May this year. They have commissioned an inquiry into the tribunal before it has had a chance to prove its worth as an additional tool to deliver road safety. In describing the tribunal as red tape, the government prefers ideology over finding new ways to save lives on the road.

While I am on a roll discussing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, back in June this year Mr Jamie Briggs, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, was addressing an Australian Livestock Transport Association conference in Adelaide. I am quoting from ATN magazine, which is a pretty good magazine, too. It says here:

Briggs told the ALRTA conference the Coalition has "always been very uncomfortable" with the tribunal and then added: "I think you can see the direction the government is intending to take."

"We think over-regulation of your industry doesn’t help your outcomes. It just adds cost, it doesn’t improve safety. It just means your businesses are harder to operate."

What a load of bunk! Why didn't he just come straight out and say, 'We will give you every opportunity in the trucking industry to screw around drivers' wages, break every fatigue law, speed, overload and turn a blind eye to illicit drugs.'

Let me just clarify this: I do not think one member of the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association would agree with that statement I just made, but these are words coming from a politician from South Australia. I just want everyone to know his working history. It is a travesty when you get members of parliament who have had absolutely no life experiences and they pertain to be experts in the road transport industry. It really does give me the screaming abdabs.

But I have got to tell you Mr Briggs's work history. He was born in 1977—great, tremendous, no dramas. His employment before coming to parliament was as an employment relations adviser for Business South Australia—whoopee! Then he went on to become a research assistant to the Hon. RI Lucas MLC for a year, then he was adviser to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP, for a year and then he was senior adviser to then Prime Minister, the Hon. JW Howard—