Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill 2016. Let me be clear from the very outset: Labor does not support this bill. Let us not be confused about this. This bill seeks to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, a tribunal established by Labor in 2012 to make Australian roads safer by reducing the number of fatal crashes involving trucks on our roads. By abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, the following will be wiped out: maximum 30-day payment terms for owner-drivers; the right for both employee-drivers and owner-drivers to have a written contract setting out the terms and conditions of engagement; safe driving plans for both employee-drivers and owner-drivers so that the work is planned to be performed both safely and legally before the driver gets behind the wheel; a prohibition on deducting money from owner-drivers without express authorisation; adverse action against protection for drivers raising the hand about safety issues, including their pay; client accountability to ensure contracts conform with this order; and a requirement that transport operators have drug and alcohol policies in place.

The Prime Minister's decision—supported, it seems, with a gag motion, by a range of crossbench senators—will mean, if it passes, that Australian roads are less safe for all Australians. Safety on our roads must be paramount. Malcolm Turnbull has no regard for this, despite the body of evidence that links rates of pay and frequency of crashes on our roads.

Fatality rates for the trucking industry are 12 times the national average. This makes the road transport industry the most deadly industry in Australia. Just last month, 25 people died on Australian roads as a result of heavy vehicle accidents. Yet, despite all of the evidence, those opposite continue to peddle the lie that there is no link between rates of pay and safety. Despite the evidence of their own commissioned report which was commissioned with the sole purpose of discrediting this link, it found the link. It actually proved that the government continues to lie about this issue on a daily basis.

This needs to be addressed. Instead of addressing this, Malcolm Turnbull is going to trash the tribunal established specifically to stop accidents which cause death and serious injury. This decision is extraordinarily rash and extremely dangerous, given the body of evidence that links pay and safety on our roads.

A PwC report commissioned in 2016, a Jaguar Consulting report in 2014 and the National Transport Commission report 2008 all showed that reduced pay for truck drivers increases risk. All of those reports—including ones commissioned by this government and its flunkies—established the link.

Earlier this year, after reviewing the road safety remuneration system, PwC reported that the road transport industry has the highest fatality rates of any industry in Australia, that being a fatality rate 12 times the average for all Australians. These are incredible statistics and must not be ignored. But Mr Turnbull and Senator Cash want to ignore this and, worse, they want to make up outrageous lies about this issue: 'It is just here to feather the bed of the Transport Workers Union.' How often has that been repeated in the last few days?

Well, I am proud of being a member of the TWU, I am proud of being a former official of the TWU, and I am proud of my support—doing what I could by supporting this legislation—to reduce road deaths in this country. I have been associated with this industry for over 25 years. I have met and I have talked to drivers who have been forced to drive unsafe vehicles, forced to drive at unsafe speeds and forced to drive in a way that would not comply with our road rules. If they dare to point out that the brakes do not work properly and need a service or the average speed they need to drive at is actually greater than the allowed speed limit in many parts of Australia, they lose their work. Organisations like the ATA mercilessly exploit drivers—owner drivers and company drivers. I am shocked and horrified to see press conferences being conducted by people who exploit so blatantly vulnerable workers in their work environment: the cabin of a truck. For that to be described as being simply about putting money into the TWU and supporting the TWU is certainly a disgraceful way to conduct the debate and hide the shameful act that is taking place in this chamber tonight.

I appreciate that there is an election coming and I appreciate that the pressures are on, but those opposite want to abolish an independent road safety tribunal, even when I think that, unanimously in this chamber, everybody would agree that the recent rulings need to be amended. In fact, the TWU spent the morning—they are not even here in the building today—in the tribunal asking to have the rulings so far set aside, to do what Senator Williams pretends he is really about. He said, 'Let's defer it until 1 January.' No, it was never really about that. Let's not be fooled. That was the position of almost every person in this chamber, until the last few days when we got a chance to bash a union for protecting lives in this country. The TWU appeared today before the tribunal to put all those points and are awaiting the decision. Hopefully, it is a decision that shows more common sense than has been shown so far, proving that it is independent. It has heard from all parties. No employer group opposed the proposition from the TWU today, so you could have achieved a common sense outcome if you had not decided to play politics. But you have been around for a long time, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams.

The statistics quoted from the PwC report do not suit Mr Turnbull and those opposite in this debate. They certainly do not suit Senator Cash. We have reached the stage where Senator Cash now officially says that black is white, even regarding productivity in the Building and Construction Commission. There is no link between pay and safety on the roads. Black is white. Senator Cash could almost be a magpie, though I know she would not get on board at the moment. Only a true magpie sticks tough in times like this. You could do no better this week, if you want to examine the facts as opposed to the scare campaigns and the lies told by the government on this issue, than The Conversation, which ran a FactCheck on whether better pay rates for truck drivers improved safety. Their verdict said:

There is persuasive evidence of a connection between truck driver pay and safety.

The FactCheck also said:

… there is ample evidence that supports the relationship between compensation and safety in trucking …

I have to express admiration for Senator Madigan for staying, but I would have thought that the senators, particularly the crossbench senators, who agreed to support the gag and cut off this debate in just under an hour and a half would have had the decency to come into the chamber, listen to the contributions and participate before they chose to make Australia's roads unsafe. Senator Madigan, to his credit, is going to stick it out for the debate. That is very typical of Senator Madigan's conduct in the chamber. He comes in, says what he thinks and listens. But, to the others who have deserted the chamber after supporting the gag, I say: 'It's only an hour and a half. It's not that long. Come on down. I'm told you all want to make big contributions. Come on down, listen and speak in the debate. Don't desert the chamber and leave it to the government. You're voting for the gag. You're voting to make Australia's roads unsafe. Come into the chamber and be part of the decision-making process. Come and be part of the debate.'

The Conversation's FactCheck—and I will repeat it because it is worth repeating—said:

There is persuasive evidence of a connection between truck driver pay and safety.

'Persuasive evidence'. And:

… there is ample evidence that supports the relationship between compensation and safety in trucking …

So it is now crystal clear. The minister stands up and denies it. I watched the head of the ATA on television say there is no link. The CEO was on 7.30 and he said there is no link. Those are the deceitful people that you have got into bed with. They have a long history of deceit in this sector. I have dealt with the ATA. I have dealt with them over 25 years. They are deceitful and dishonest. Last week they said there is no link between road safety and pay, just so that the government could stand up and repeat it, saying, 'The ATA said it. It's okay if we say it.'

It is now clear that when the Prime Minister gets a decision from an independent umpire that he does not like he just goes out and trashes it. If he had put the first bill that was originally talked about—the deferment—on the table, I am hazarding a guess that he would have gotten almost unanimous support to try and work through the issues. But do not destroy a body whose job it is to make Australia's roads safer.

This behaviour raises very serious questions about future decisions of government and sets a disturbing precedent. If they are willing to abolish a tribunal because they do not like its decision, what would stop the Abbott-Turnbull government intervening to defer the increase in the national wage, or overriding a decision of the Fair Work Commission on penalty rates? The consequences of the decision that this chamber will make are quite extraordinary. Its decision has quite extraordinary implications.

The Prime Minister changes his position on an almost daily basis. This decision flies in the face of his commitment just a few weeks ago. He gave a commitment a few weeks ago to only introduce legislation to scrap the tribunal after the election. He made that commitment. But this Prime Minister does not care about road safety. He does not care about the families of the victims who die in these circumstances. He is turning his back on them. He will not talk to them. He will not meet with them—and there are some senators in this chamber who are guilty of the same. They have ignored all of the evidence. They have ignored all of the pleas and emails saying: please do not do this; please reconsider.

In this instance the Prime Minister is using Australian truck drivers as a pawn in his political game. Never in his time in the other place has the Prime Minister been so interested in road transport. What a comedy! Mr Turnbull pretending he cares about truck drivers! Maybe he should have said to the truck drivers that they should live within their means. I know they would like to live within Mr Turnbull's means! Why does the Australian Prime Minister, other than for cheap, base politics, want to make Australia's roads less safe?

Before embarking on this campaign the Prime Minister should have checked with his National Party colleagues, because in June last year Mr Truss said at a tribunal, 'We haven't got any plans to get rid of it.' But it was alright; Wacka was on the job, sneaking up like the sniper that he is. In 2012, when this legislation was introduced in this chamber, Senator Williams said:

Let us talk about road safety. We are talking about safe rates. We are talking about what truckies are paid, especially the contractors when they unload at Coles and Woolworths. I do not have a problem with what you are proposing.

These are Senator Williams's words. The sniper was in the grass. Barnaby Joyce said—and I hope you realise I am using an AFL reference in this one—