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

and as my mate and colleague Senator Gallacher said, he was up to his neck in WorkChoices—for three years. The man has never had a real job. He has never had dirt under his fingernails and would not know what it is like to get out there and actually have to change a tyre at two o'clock in the morning when it is pouring down with rain; but he is an expert in road transport and road safety! What an absolute disgrace. Anyway, I will have a bit more to say about that later.

We will get back to the bill. I just want to quote, while we are talking about road safety, some words of wisdom from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. What they said, in terms of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme under the act, is:

Heavy vehicles are involved in many serious accidents across Australia annually—during the 12 months to September 2011, 230 people died from 204 fatal crashes involving heavy vehicles or buses and there is significant evidence linking such accidents with fatigue. Drivers are also required to comply with heavy vehicle driver fatigue-related legislation which ensures that regular and effective rest breaks are taken during long journeys.

Senator Gallacher and I know that, as we put in a lot of hard work in our former lives as transport workers and also as senior officials with the Transport Workers Union in the transport industry. This is not news to us two; we have been living and breathing it for the last 30-odd years of our lives. It may be news to a few on the other side, particularly those who have never had a real job in their lives but pertain to be experts in the road transport industry.

It also goes on to say:

The size of the heavy vehicle road freight task was 503 billion tonne kilometres in 2008, according to the National Transport Commission (NTC), and this is expected to reach 1,540 billion tonne kilometres by 2050. NTC argues that “improved productivity is the key to reducing the effect of the growing freight task on road safety, the environment and the amenity of our communities”.

They are words of wisdom. I could have told them that. There are no dramas; they only had to ask. But let us go back to what we did and the fears that Labor has in terms of the amendments not being picked up and not being legislated.

You see, in the round 3 criteria—which was under the Labor government—we said that projects that reduce accidents by targeting driver fatigue are of extreme importance. I want to share some examples of round 3 projects that we did do under Labor. Senator Johnston, let us go to your state and my state. Let us talk about WA, shall we? I can tell you, I know all these areas, as you probably do too. If I get it wrong, I am sure you may assist me. I also know that you will agree and I know that you will do everything that you would see fit to make sure that our roads are safe for all road users.

The government contributed $1.5 million to upgrading the Great Northern Highway road train assembly area in Wubin. You could spend another $1.5 million on that before you got it up to scratch, but at least that has been started under a Labor government. And $850,000 was spent in upgrading five rest areas on the Great Northern Highway north of Wubin. Let me tell you, that is only a drop in the ocean. I was in the Kimberley last week. I do that regularly; I am a regular visitor to the Kimberley and have been since 1980. I have to tell you, it is hard for the road train operators to get into a parking bay at this time of the year. Everything up there is big; they are either over width or have three trailers. But you have the grey nomads in there, who will not spend a dime in town but will go and park in a truck bay and camp there for a couple of days. We could do with a hell of a lot more truck bays up here.

But at least there were five of them done at $850,000 under the previous, Labor government. The layover bays on the Great Northern Highway between Port Hedland and Newman were done. That is only one project. You should see the other fine work that was delivered under a Labor government in Port Hedland, which I had an opportunity to look at last Tuesday. There was an upgrade to the existing rest area on SLK 526 on the Eyre Highway and a number of other initiatives.

The wording is the problem that we have with the government at the moment on this bill, because—as I have said—our criteria said that projects that reduce accidents by targeting driver fatigue are our cause. But under the Liberals' round 4 criteria, they have changed the wording to:

… improve the safety environment for heavy vehicles.

What the hell does that mean? This is the fear we have and I want to share this with the chamber. I heard Senator Williams going on to the backbenches, saying, 'Do not be fooled by Labor,' and all that sort of stuff.

The truth of the matter is—and I am not going to be a shrinking violet on this; I have made this very, very clear—I do not trust the other side of the chamber when it comes to weaselling out of road safety programs. I absolutely do not trust the ministers to uphold what they should be upholding in terms of delivering road safety. We have seen that with some fellow who has never had a real job in his life but who claims to be an expert in road transport. He tells people he will water down road safety—he sees it as red tape. But I also do not trust Minister Truss to stick by his commitment to road safety, unless it is legislated in this chamber.

I want to send a message out to Senator Muir. I have had the opportunity to speak to Senator Muir. I am privileged to have had the opportunity to speak with Senator Muir's chief of staff, who, like me and Senator Gallacher, is an ex-truckie and actually gets the importance of road safety. This may not come up again. Senator Muir has six years in this building at this stage; he may get another six years—I hope he does. But, Senator Muir, you have to understand that you may not have the opportunity to correct the ship. Along with other crossbench senators, this is now the time to support Labor's amendments, as I know the Greens will. I want the Palmer United Party to understand this. Why should the minister have the final say? We should trust the parliament; we should not trust individual ministers with road safety.

Here is another reason why—and I am going to make this very, very clear: one of the major pushes for the abolition of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has come from none other than Coles, the supermarket. Surprise, surprise, Coles have got a problem. Coles do not want transport operators to be safe. Coles have problems because our drivers have to have fatigue management breaks. Coles have problems—they will not say it, but why else would they want to kill off the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal?—because truckies have to be paid properly. If truckies are paid properly, truckies will not have the incentive to speed, to break speed limits to make a dollar or, even worse, just to meet their basic commitments in fuel payments, insurance payments, truck payments, maintenance and tyres. Coles have a problem with the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal because it also takes away the incentive for truck drivers to seek to use illicit drugs. I did not say Coles were supporting or promoting illicit drugs, but why in hell would a major user of transport have a problem with truck drivers being remunerated properly? Why would they have a problem with truck drivers carting legal limits, legal loads? Why would they have a problem with other road users making sure that they are absolutely protected due to our truckies being protected when they are paid properly and they are rested? I rest my case. I do not see the reason for this.

There is this bulldust about red tape. Call it what you like, but when my kids and my wife are out on the road I want the truck coming towards them to be driven by a truck driver who is remunerated properly, who is carting legal load limits, who is not using illicit drugs and who does not have to speed or shortcut on repairs, maintenance and tyres. You can call it what you like—I do not care what you call it—but to hide behind red tape is an insult to the transport industry and an insult to the road safety industry. Every person in this chamber and in the other place should condemn the ridiculous statements made by people who have no idea but who are getting paid a nice little wage because they are a parliamentary secretary or an Assistant Treasurer. It really irks me.

If Mr Briggs has a problem, I welcome the opportunity to tour the country with Mr Briggs. There is the offer, if he is listening. Let's debate it. He and I can get into a debate, but we are not going to hide behind the apron strings of Coles, behind the apron strings of major transport companies who do not want to pay their drivers properly or behind the apron strings of other users. Debate me, but debate me with community people. You name the place, Mr Briggs, and you name the time—I will be there debating with you. You put forward your case and I will put forward my case as to why we should have a Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, why we should make sure that every Australian has an opportunity to go to work or to go visiting or whatever and know that Australia's truckies are rested properly and paid properly and that the use of illicit drugs is stamped out. There is the challenge.

We have heard a number of statements about how great the government is and, yes, we all support these things and we all want to work together, but we have to put it in context. If all sides of the chamber—the crossbenchers, the Greens, Labor and the Liberal-National coalition—agree, what do they have to fear about letting the parliament be the judge? What is there to fear about amending this piece of legislation by taking this decision out of the hands of the minister? We have seen other examples. Minister Truss may have some problem with this, but I also remember in 2004-05—I was not a senator in 2004—that there was a fair bit of pork-barrelling going on. The Australian National Audit Office found 17 shocking examples of pork-barrelling. I am not saying that that was all involving Minister Truss; other ministers were in that portfolio before him. But Minister Truss picked up the last six or eight months in the portfolio. This is the sad part. If it is not controlled by the parliament and it is the hands of one minister, it could be twisted, it could be moved aside, and certain elements could be de-prioritised. When I see the wording of the coalition's round 4 criteria state in brackets that they want to improve the safety environment for heavy vehicles, that does not give me any comfort at all.

I say to all those out there listening: put on the hat of your parents or your brothers or sisters. My son is a truckie. He is out there every night on the North West Coastal Highway or the Brand Highway or the Great Northern Highway. I know that he works for a reputable firm. He works for Western Australia's largest transport company, where the truck drivers are paid on their fatigue management book. They cannot diddle their hours. They also have cameras in the cabs and they have GPS. If they—the largest transport company in Western Australia, which is privately owned—do not have grief with paying their truck drivers properly, if they do not have grief with making their truck drivers have fatigue management breaks and telling their clients, 'If you want us to provide your transport services, these are the laws and regulations that you must work in,' why the hell are the likes of Coles, ably abetted by junior ministers who have no idea, pushing to get rid of or water down Australia's road safety legislation? We will not be supporting the bill.