Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposition that remuneration equates to safety is flawed. It has no basis in fact. Yet this flawed and unsubstantiated thinking is the basis on which the Greens-ALP alliance comes before this place advocating for the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2012 and the Road Safety Remuneration Bill (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2012.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, you are entitled to be heard in silence. Senators not participating in the chamber, leave silently, please.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is ironic that we are discussing a proposal for a separate authority with a separate set of laws for the road transport sector when the ALP's vehement opposition to the Australian building and construction commission was based on the so-called principle that we need one set of laws for all. So a special authority for the building and construction sector is described as unconscionable and unprincipled and it is said that it should be abolished, and so the gaggle of ex-union bosses and their Green alliance partners voted. Yet here we are, just two hours later, with the same gaggle voting for a separate authority with separate laws for the road transport sector. All of a sudden a separate authority and separate laws are good. It is principled and it needs to be implemented! This forked-tongued approach to public policy, disappointing as it is, should not surprise. It is in tune with promising that there will be no carbon tax and then implementing it.

Let's talk about the carbon tax and its impact on road safety. Labor senators may laugh. Senator Sterle may take a fit in his seat—I do not know what he is doing—but let me remind Labor senators of some quotes. It has been said:

Under the carbon tax, drivers will be forced to do longer hours, sweat their trucks further, have less maintenance, and that means more deaths.

And it has been said that changes in fuel tax credits and excise levels 'will result in more truck driver deaths and related harm unless drivers can fully recover their costs'. The quote goes on:

Truck drivers are approaching the union and asking how they can ensure the tax will not just be another hit on running costs that they won’t be compensated for. I reckon that’s a pretty good question.

Isn't it amazing? The Labor senators have now gone quiet because they recognise the person who said all these things: none other than the national secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Mr Tony Sheldon. He was deliberately linking the carbon tax with the possibility of more deaths on our roads for the road transport sector. That is what Mr Sheldon said on Ten News on 11 July 2011. So here we have it. We know, courtesy of the national secretary of the Transport Workers Union, that if you genuinely wish to reduce road deaths then you would repeal the carbon tax.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he didn't say that.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What he said, Senator, was:

Under the carbon tax, drivers will be forced to do longer hours, sweat their trucks further, have less maintenance, and that means more deaths.

Whether Senator Collins likes it or not, that is what a current trade union boss has said. So we know, courtesy of the national secretary of the Transport Workers Union, that if you genuinely wish to reduce road deaths then you would repeal the carbon tax. But, the carbon tax having been foisted on the road transport sector, the Transport Workers Union clearly flexed its muscle and demanded this legislation as their price to go quiet on the carbon tax, as they unconscionably have.

The carbon tax, which was going to cost truckies' lives according to Mr Sheldon, all of a sudden is no longer an issue, because the Transport Workers Union has been bought off with a separate, expensive tribunal—a tribunal which can issue road safety remuneration orders with respect to remuneration and related conditions on its own initiative if it is in relation to a matter identified in its work program or, at its discretion, on application from an industry participant or an industrial association with respect to something that is, or is capable of being, included in the tribunal's work plan. The road safety remuneration orders will—get a load of this!—override a Fair Work Australia award or agreement if the order is more beneficial than the Fair Work Australia document—either award or agreement. What a huge vote of no confidence in Ms Gillard's Fair Work Australia regime. The regime that was going to cover all workers and deliver justice for all workers is, all of a sudden, not good enough. We now need another body to override the decisions and determinations of Fair Work Australia to get a better outcome for the Transport Workers Union, who have been so very badly dudded in relation to the carbon tax. This, of course, is all being done in the name of reducing road fatalities involving the road transport sector.

But according to the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, during the 12 months to the end of June 2011, 185 people died from crashes involving articulated and heavy rigid trucks, a figure that, I am sure, is sobering for all of us. For articulated trucks, that actually represented a decrease by an average of 3.5 per cent per year over the three years to June 2011. For heavy rigid trucks, it was a decrease by an average of 14.7 per cent per year over the three years to June 2011. So we are actually seeing a reduction in road fatalities involving the road transport sector in raw figures and percentage terms, in circumstances when the road freight task of this nation has been increasing exponentially. As we have been getting even more and more trucks on our roads, one would anticipate on the law of averages that the accident rate and, as a result, the fatality rate might increase. But no: as the freight task has grown and there are ever more trucks on the road before, the rate of fatalities has in fact decreased.

Interestingly, it is clear that the attempt to link road safety and remuneration rates and conditions for truck drivers assumes that the overwhelming majority of road accidents are actually the fault of the heavy vehicle driver. That is false and does a great disservice to those truck drivers. NatRoad makes the point that research by the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority concludes that the heavy vehicle driver is at fault in only 31 per cent of fatal crashes involving a heavy vehicle. They go on to say that it cannot be expected that driver remuneration will have any bearing on the remaining 69 per cent of fatal heavy vehicle crashes. The bill, even if it does all it alleges it will do, will do nothing to address the causes of the other 69 per cent of crashes. That in itself exposes the myth and the cynical use of road safety for this particular piece of legislation. That is because well over two-thirds of the crashes and fatalities of which we speak—indeed, 69 per cent—are not related to the truck or the heavy rigid vehicle in any way, shape or form. Yet somehow, miraculously, if we are to pass this legislation then we will get rid of these very unfortunate and regrettable fatalities. There is no logical basis to link remuneration with road safety. Indeed, we have seen an ever decreasing rate of fatalities involving trucks as the road haulage task has been ever increasing.

Let's turn to the issue of red tape. The heavy vehicle industry is already subject to numerous regulations and legislation relating to driver safety, at both a state and a national level. These include independent contractor legislation, workplace health and safety legislation and the soon-to-be-implemented national heavy vehicle regulator. NatRoad points out:

There are existing laws that apply to wages, conditions, contracting arrangements, road use, vehicle standards, fatigue, speed, mass, dimension, loading, substance abuse, record keeping as well as general workplace health and safety obligations.

This bill will add further complexity to an already bureaucratic area. In New South Wales, for example, the bill will be the fourth layer of regulation for driver fatigue.

Senator Sterle interjecting—

It looks as though Senator Sterle, yet again, is suffering from fatigue, although he is not driving anything anywhere, least of all his own career.

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

I'm sick of listening to your crap.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a charming individual. These ex-trade union officials cannot help themselves, can they, really.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, please address your statements to the chair. Senator Sterle, I did not hear you clearly but please be careful about the language that you are using.

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

I'll save it for outside, Madam Deputy Chair.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sort of language we just heard from Senator Sterle is the great intellectual height to which they soar when they cannot deal with the issues and the facts that are being laid on the table before them. Do they seek to dispute the facts from the relevant bureaus? Do they seek to dispute the statistics? Of course they do not, because they cannot. So what do they do? They descend into the gutter and use the sort of language that we were just subjected to from Senator Sterle.

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

I've got more. I'll just save them for outside.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He interjects and tells us he has got more. I have no doubt that that senator across there would have more of that sort of language. That he is proud of it is just, quite frankly, astounding. But let us not be too distracted from that which is before us, and that is the huge layer of red tape that will be imposed over the sector for no discernible road safety benefit or dividend.

The bills would also erode the concept of an independent contractor, something that the trade union bosses are so very desperate to do. They see every independent contractor as somebody who is aspirational, somebody who wants to be their own boss, somebody who wants to move ahead in the world, and they would like to see them as an employee subject to the dictates of a trade union boss. These bills would also cover, regrettably, independent contractors, who are currently outside the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Act. In doing so, the bills will create a new class of employment relationship that is neither employer-employee nor a hirer-independent contractor. This will remove the independence of owner-drivers and will significantly reduce their autonomy.

The Independent Contractors Association argues that the actions of a small number of dangerous drivers who are already breaking existing laws is being used as a justification for making owner-drivers subject to provisions similar to those in the Fair Work Act. The Civil Contractors Federation argues that a consequence of issuing road safety remuneration orders to owner-drivers would be the setting of a floor price or benchmark which may not take into account the individual specifications of a particular job. An operator who has 10 years experience in a particular type of cartage would be rewarded the same as an operator who has little or no experience. This point is picked up the Independent Contractors Association, which argues that the price fixing element will reduce competition, increase prices and lead to a less efficient and less effective transport sector within our nation.

By reducing the autonomy independence of owner-operators, the bills will have a significant impact on the state of employment relations in our nation. We will for the first time have a new type of employment relationship whereby independent contractors in the heavy vehicle sector are treated differently to independent contractors in any other industry. Indeed, if we go through the coverage of the bills we note that they will only cover approximately 80 per cent of employees and 60 per cent of owner-drivers because of the constitutional limitations on the bills. It is the same as Labor's so-called claim in relation to small business tax deductions and the lower rate of tax, which only applies to companies and not to the 70 per cent of small businesses that are partnerships or sole traders.

In dealing with the definition of the road transport industry, it is interesting that even a body such as the Post Office Agents Association in their submission to the House inquiry—

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

Them grubs.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Senator Sterle has another outburst.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, ignore the interjections, please.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are individual business—

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

Touched a nerve, have I?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have, Senator Sterle. Senator Sterle has touched a nerve with his interjection. This constant denigration of small businesspeople by the likes of Senator Sterle does get under my skin because I have no difficulty in seeking to champion their cause and no difficulty in championing the cause of the Post Office Agents Association which was outlined in their submission to the House inquiry. They stated, 'It seems unlikely that the bill would improve road safety for mail contractors.' And yet they could well be caught by this bill. What a ridiculous situation to observe: mail contractors are now in the same situation as the long haulage truck drivers.

We as a coalition believe that there is an alternative. The coalition is in favour of a multifaceted, holistic approach to improving road safety in the heavy vehicle industry. This will include better roads, awareness programs, education initiatives, industry codes of conduct, building more rest stops and passing lanes, and looking at ways to use technologies to improve road safety. The New South Wales branch of the ATA noted in their submission to the House inquiry that mandatory safe driving plans for long haul drivers, GPS tracking devices, full compliance with work health and safety regulations and fatigue and speed laws, as well as the adoption of suitable industry codes of practice, are the best ways of delivering enhanced safety and fairness across the road transport industry.

The Australian Logistics Council also notes the success of voluntary industry codes and the national chain of responsibility and fatigue management requirements that will be contained in the NHVR. The coalition in principle supports all of those initiatives and sees them as a more viable way of improving road safety in the heavy vehicle industry. The coalition opposes these bills, realising that the bills, while dressed up as road safety bills, are in fact another grab for power by trade union bosses. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be supporting the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2012 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2012, and I will outline my reasons shortly. Before I do, I want to reflect on a couple of issues. Firstly, the government—and this was a point that was made very well by Senator Fisher—says that the ABCC is discriminatory because it deals with a particular class of employees and that there ought to be one rule for all. I am not necessarily against the idea of different rules in different areas. Sometimes there are compelling reasons to take a different approach on an industry by industry basis. That is why I am not necessarily against the abolition of the ABCC or its functions. For that reason, I do not think that it is inconsistent for me to support a specialist tribunal if the focus is safety. There is another issue at stake here. The opposition says that this is about an industrial matter rather than a safety matter, in a sense. I want to make this clear, and it is perhaps something that the opposition has not made clear: I have serious concerns about the modern award system in its current form. I have serious concerns about small businesses who tell me that they are shutting their businesses on Sundays because they cannot afford to pay people double time. I have concerns that there are young people—students—who tell me that they are quite happy to work for time and a half, not double time, because it is not economical for the business to stay open. I think that is a debate that we have to have.

But I see this bill in a different category. I think that this bill is about issues of safety and that these are quite distinct from the issues that relate to small businesses, because of the influence of Coles and Woolworths with regard to this industry. This bill is about taking a national approach to safety issues relating to pay and conditions in the road transport industry. It establishes this tribunal, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal which, importantly, will be empowered to resolve disputes between drivers, hirers, employers and participants in the road transport industry supply chain. That is important because there is a complete disparity of bargaining power in that supply chain, and the drivers are the ones who are often the most vulnerable. They are the ones that cop it in terms of fatigue and a whole range of issues.

I just want to make it clear to my friends in the government and in the opposition and, indeed, the crossbenches that I think there are some industrial things that we are making a mess of in this country and that the modern award system is coming up with a whole range of presumably unintended consequences that are really hurting small businesses, but this bill is a very different approach.

The tribunal will be able to inquire into issues and practices within the road transport industry and to determine mandatory minimum rates of pay and conditions for employed and self-employed drivers. Road transport is a growing industry that employs over 246,000 Australians and accounts for over 1.7 per cent of Australia's total GDP.

We need to make sure that this industry is safe, not just for the drivers but for every other road user in this country. This industry has the highest incidence of fatal injuries of any industry in Australia, with 25 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2008-09, making fatalities in the road transport sector 10 times higher than the average for all industries. That is not to mention other road users who get killed or injured in trucking incidents.

Last week I was visited by Lystra Tagliaferri, who bravely came to urge me to support this bill. With Ms Tagliaferri's permission, I would like to share the story of how her late husband, David, was killed, and her own courageous response.

Last year, David was stopped on the side of a Western Australian road. He had a flat tyre, which he was changing with the help of another motorist. While the two men were changing the tyre an out-of-control truck veered off the road straight into them, killing both men. The truck driver had been on the road for 13 hours and was found to have taken antidepressants and diazepam, which had contributed to the accident. The driver had also taken a small amount of marijuana, but this was found to be non-contributory to the crash.

The driver pleaded guilty—and he deserves credit for pleading guilty, rather than contesting it—to two counts of dangerous driving causing death. The driver has been imprisoned. I said before that Ms Tagliaferri has been courageous in her response, as not only has she found it in her heart to forgive the truckie but to ask questions as to why he was driving so erratically and drugged up to try and prevent this from happening to other families. I think it is important to note that David was just 44 years old and left behind two young children.

Ms Tagliaferri, along with David's sister, Ms Sawyer, are seeking answers as to what the company's role was in this and where the law sits in these sorts of circumstances. I will be supporting the application to have the Western Australian coroner look into these matters. I think it is important that there be a coronial inquest. I will do everything that I can to support such an application for the coroner to hear this matter.

Today we have the opportunity to clarify where the law sits, and to protect truckies from the insidious pressures that come down the supply chain—and they are insidious pressures. Our nation's truck drivers face unrealistic and often impossible deadlines and schedules. This results in truckies driving too far, too fast and for too long. In these circumstances our truck drivers are set up to crash, with deadly consequences. Their rate of accidents is unacceptably high.

We need to ask who set these impossible deadlines and schedules that result in the road industry being the deadliest in Australia. It is no secret that a very substantial proportion of trucks on our roads each and every day are carrying goods for major retailers. The market dominance of retailers such as Coles and Woolworths allow them to dictate to transport companies and truckies on delivery schedules and price. There is a real issue of drivers being forced to queue, unpaid, for hours to load and unload at the depots of Woolworths and Coles, forcing drivers to then work long hours to make a buck.

I believe that this bill before us goes some way to addressing those issues, to ensuring that truck drivers are properly remunerated and not forced into impossible schedules. I believe that, in delivering food to our tables, truckies should not feel so pressured that they resort to substances to keep them awake—dangerous substances that increase the risk of a crash. I find it remarkable that we are here debating to give truckies a fair go, to remunerate them properly and also to remove those pressures on supply lines. I see the pressures in our horticulture sector, where farmers are too scared to speak out against Coles and Woolworths because they feel so intimidated and fearful. The same thing is happening in this industry.

I think this is an issue in my home state of South Australia. I know that Steve Shearer, who represents trucking companies and who is a person I actually have a lot of regard for—

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

I don't!

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle says he does not; I do. I have worked well with him on a whole range of issues, and I am happy to engage Mr Shearer, who has expressed real concerns, about this because I do respect him. I think that such is the nature of this industry and such is the nature of the pressures that we have that it is essential that we tackle this once and for all.

I just want to conclude by referring to a couple of other things. I have heard stories of employees accepting cash payments, still at rates higher than what they are normally paid, simply because if they did not the employers would not be able to open as penalty rates are too high. That goes to other industries, and shows how the system can be manipulated. I think that it is important that there be fair remuneration, but that is something that our truckies do not have the luxury of. In the trucking industry, truckies are forced to wait around, unpaid, while their trucks are loaded and unloaded. There are no penalty rates in sight for them and they have to work excessive hours in order to make a living and to pay for their trucks—often they are owner-drivers.

To those who say this bill is purely about industrial purposes, I do not believe that is the case. It is about having safer roads, and that involves decent remuneration—not excessive remuneration—it is about protecting drivers from those who dominate supply chains, forcing truckies into impossible schedules, and it is about safety. It is about having drivers who are not too tired, it is about having drivers who do not need to resort to drugs—which is unacceptable on any occasion—and it is about drivers having the support they need to do the job well and safely.

Ultimately, it is about saving lives. I think the time has come to have an industry that has one of the best rates of safety in this country, not the worst. I believe that this bill will go some way in achieving that. I support the bill.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2012 and a related bill. After a lifetime in the transport industry, and as a member of the TWU for 35 years and an official for 23 years, I want to set all that aside to talk about my experience in road safety. I was appointed acting transport commissioner of the National Road Transport Commission by the then minister for transport, John Anderson. I was appointed by the Governor of South Australia to the Road Safety Advisory Council of South Australia, and I was also appointed by the Governor of South Australia to the Motor Accident Commission as a director for some five years. But I will I set aside my union experience to talk about my experience in the road safety area.

We see 250 deaths a year and 1,000 injuries. Unfortunately, deaths are quantifiable; you can put a dollar value on the death. You can quantify it; it can be insured and paid out and the grieving families will deal with their grief, bury their dead and get over it, albeit they will remember their loved ones forever. But, when it comes to 1,000 injuries, insurers, families and the people who act as directors of the Motor Accident Commission dread those 1,000 injuries. A closed head injury can cost $5 million to $6 million. The families will live with that all of their lives. We are killing 250 people, and we have 1,000 injuries, and we have a transport task that is set to double.

Today I heard Minister Shorten asked whether this will bring the road toll down. He was very careful in his answer, and he covered all bases. But the reality is that, with the transport task set to double, it is unlikely that the road toll will be brought down and it is unlikely that the number of injuries will be brought down. But what we can do is put in place safe systems of work for people who carry this economy, people who work as hard as is humanly possible and who work when most Australians are asleep. They work at the wrong time of the day in relation to their circadian rhythms, so we really do have to do something about road safety. To write this off as a cynical exercise in union power is completely misleading. The cost of these injuries to the national economy is estimated to be about $2.7 billion. If we look at the transport task doubling, then we can add zeros to that.

Now fatigue is inseparable from remuneration. If a driver is held over for four hours in a loading bay and then needs to go on and complete his task of earning a decent living for his family, his decision is simple: do I feed my family or do I pull up and go home with half a day's pay? These things are quite clear and unequivocal. The driver who decides, after being held up for four hours, to work out the rest of his allotted kilometres—to earn the wages to feed his family, to keep the company that he is employed by in work with a supply chain participant who is merciless—will accumulate a sleep debt. There are a couple of things you could do. You could stop eating—you could probably go for three or four weeks without eating—or you could stop drinking for a few days. But you cannot stop sleeping. You will accumulate a sleep debt and, when that debt is due and payable, you will go to sleep. Unfortunately microsleeps of three to five seconds at 100 kilometres an hour can have tragic consequences. If the pilot of a jumbo jet happened to have a microsleep of three seconds while landing the plane, everybody would be thinking, 'Gee, that is a huge problem.' It is no different with a B-double truck of 53 tonnes.

Senator Xenophon mentioned a coronial inquiry. Let me tell you about the first coronial inquiry into transport. According to Dr Philip Swann, it was around 1740 in the County of Sussex. A carter and his driver were killed. A coronial inquiry was held which ruled two remarkable things: (a) the driver had fallen asleep because he was tired and (b) the horse was blind. Now at the Remote Areas Conference in Alice Springs a number of years ago, I asked all the operators in that area: how many blind horses are your drivers in charge of? The answer was 500 to 600, because that is the horsepower of trucks that we currently operate. So, in road safety terms, we must pass this bill in order to protect the travelling public of Australia; allow truck drivers who start in good shape in the morning to return home to their families; take off the pressure, which is merciless, that the supply chain providers put on the companies and ultimately the drivers; and simply allow truck drivers to have a decent living and a fair wage and get home to their families in one piece.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one disputes the issues of road safety. They are at the forefront of everybody's mind. The issue of truck drivers being able to stop is something on which there has been a lot of concentration. The issue here is how much you pay truck drivers. Is it determined by a panel that can be dominated by—to be honest—TWU members and safety issues? That is what we need to concentrate on. We are completely mindful of making sure we do everything in our power to make the roads safer. To be honest, we will be moving for inland rail—getting back to short-haul road transport and trying to get as much long-haul road transport onto rail as we possibly can. But there is nothing in this bill that will protect road safety per se. The government has provided no evidence that greater pay will reduce road accidents and fatalities. We all want to be paid more; that is a natural human aspiration. But it is the same argument as this: if we pay doctors more, will they be more successful with their operations? I do not think so; they are probably doing the best job they can at the moment. If we pay bricklayers more, will they be better at laying bricks? Probably not, but they will probably try to lay a lot more bricks than they currently do.

One of the concerns we have is that, if we go away from paying a salary and instead pay according to the amount of work done, it is motivation to do more work—and that means you are going to be more tired. If this bill is about safety, why has the government transferred responsibility from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations? Industry representatives, truck drivers and small business owners question whether a link can really be made between remuneration and road safety. No-one doubts for a moment that people want to be remunerated at the highest possible level they can get; that is the natural instinct of all people who work, including me and everyone in this chamber. But does this legislation make the roads safer? I do not think it does. If it does, the evidence has not been presented to the Senate in a form that wins the argument.

In their submissions to federal inquiries, reputable industry bodies such as the Australian Logistics Council and the Australian Industry Group clearly say they do not believe there is a link between road safety and remuneration rates; they certainly say it has not been proven. NatRoad's theory is that drivers will, for a time, increase their labour availability in response to higher wages. That is what most people do—because higher wages are a reward and generally increase their incentive to work while decreasing the relative attraction of leisure time because of its greater opportunity cost. In essence, if you get paid more per hour then you are going to try to work more hours. If you work more hours, does that make you safer? Not necessarily. It might make you wealthier, it might make you better remunerated, but it does not necessarily make you safer. Even the Ai Group has doubts. They stated:

Even if a causal connection between remuneration and unsafe practices is presumed to exist it does not follow that establishing higher minimum rates or prohibiting certain methods of payment will result in drivers changing their unsafe practices.

There are so many other issues that need to be addressed for owner drivers, such as registration rates on trailers and trucks. As much as possible, these issues need to be addressed. This is an area where people are being done over.

Also, we do have concerns about how the major retailers are treating owner-drivers. We do have a concern that not only are they being exploited but so are farmers. We have tried to be as vociferous as we possibly can on that. We have stated the case on behalf of dairy farmers and vegetable growers, who, like truck drivers, are just small business people. But we have not yet been convinced of the argument that paying people more money, by means of a tribunal, to grow more lettuces makes them a safer tractor driver or that paying them more for a litre of milk, which they probably deserve, makes them a safer dairy farmer. Likewise, does paying them more money to drive a truck make them a safer truck driver? We are not engaging in an argument about whether people have been exploited. We are engaging in an argument—because it is the premise of this legislation—about whether a connection has been made between the rates being paid and the safety outcomes on the road.

Senator John Williams was a truck driver, so in the National Party there are strong sympathies with the issue of the exploitation in owner-driver pay rates. We are aware of those issues; we are not blind to them. Discussions have been held even tonight about what this issue means. Without labouring the point, the premise of this is that there is a connection between how much people are paid, as determined by a tribunal, and how safe a process is. But we think it goes beyond just that.

These laws require a business to ensure that workplace risks are 'as low as reasonably practical'—ALARP. Not only has this legislation not been given the opportunity to prove its effectiveness but, as the Australian Logistics Council notes:

There is a direct collision between the philosophy of this Bill, which raises the spectre of inserting command/control regulation in an area where other laws require the application of ALARP principles—which in one way places greater burdens on operators as ALARP implicitly requires implementation of 'best practice' and continuous improvement.

Additionally the Ai Group has suggested that the regime undermines the operation of the Fair Work Act by overriding decisions of the existing industrial tribunal. By implication, the Fair Work Act must be flawed and unable to produce appropriate remuneration and conditions for the employee truck drivers, which is something that should be taken up in the Fair Work Act rather than being dealt with in this bill. Employees in the heavy vehicle industry are already subject to the modern award principles of the Fair Work Act. Does this lead to a conclusion that the minister believes that the government's Fair Work Act provisions are not working, or is the bill an attempt to push up the wages for truck drivers? If there is an issue with the Fair Work Act, the Australian Labor Party should deal with it through the Fair Work Act.

This bill is yet another layer of red tape for businesses and the heavy vehicle industry to deal with. The industry is already subject to numerous regulations and legislation at both the state and national levels relating to driver safety. These include independent contractors legislation, workplace health and safety legislation and the soon-to-be-implemented National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. NatRoad points out :

There are existing laws that apply to wages, conditions, contracting arrangements, road use, vehicle standards, fatigue, speed, mass, dimension, loading, substance abuse, record keeping as well as general workplace health and safety obligations.

The bill will add further complexity to an already bureaucratic area. In New South Wales, for example, the bill will be the fourth layer of regulation for driver fatigue. One would note, by listening to channel 40 on any night on the Newell Highway or any of the major roads, drivers continually dealing with the issues of regulation, especially, and necessarily, in fatigue management and weights. These are issues of safety and I suppose they are necessary encumbrances, but a direct correlation between how much they are paying you to do a job and safety is not clearly drawn. What is clearly understood is that, if you have a centralisation in any marketplace and you have two major players—say, Coles and Woolworths—who have the capacity to determine a rate, you are probably going to get done over—and that does not just go for truck drivers; that goes for dairy farmers, vegetable growers and a whole range of people who are trying to deal with this issue.

To be honest, this is something that the National Party has been harping on for a long while and being derided about—sometimes by our own side, to be honest, and sometimes by Dr Craig Emerson. He gives a splendid rendition of how evil we all are for bringing these sorts of things up. Maybe I look forward to a time in the future when there can be a bit more understanding across the chamber on issues where certain people and certain industries are getting done over. Maybe we might be able to, in a joint way, understand the issues that are not just exclusive to truck drivers but may also be part and parcel of other issues—not just for the TWU but for farmers as well.

Without labouring the point, we are not emphatically opposed to this. We oppose it, but we are not going to town on it. We understand and have strong sympathies with owner-drivers. We understand the complexities and the discrepancies and the corruptions and the mechanisms by which they should be paid a fair rate for what they do. But in this instance we do not believe that the argument has been clearly drawn in the Road Safety Remuneration Bill on the premise that there is a clear connection between road safety and what people get paid. I am not casting any aspersion at all on whether what they are being paid is fair. That is a completely separate issue. It is like the fact that we do not believe that many farmers are being fairly paid but we do not think that paying them more—although they should be paid more because that would be fair—is going to make them safer farmers; it will probably just mean they are being dealt with in a fairer way.

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

I acknowledge the contribution from Senator Joyce. Senator Joyce and I have a lot in common. Some may not think that, but we entered the parliament together and we do enjoy each other's company. Like you, Senator Joyce, I do believe Australia's farmers are getting a pretty rough deal.

I would have to say that, in the seven years that I have been in this building, this would be the crowning achievement of my political career, although Senator Abetz may think it is going nowhere. I can inform all those in the chamber that 30 years of my working life has been dedicated to the improvement of conditions for Australia's owner-drivers and Australia's transport workers. As everyone in this building knows, even though Senator Abetz may not like it for himself, when I rise to talk about road safety and the issues facing Australia's trucking industry and Australia's truckies, unlike Senator Abetz I know what I am talking about. I have been a small business man. I know what it was like for my wife in the early days to be sitting there worried sick because the phone call had not come when I was supposed to be in Fitzroy Crossing, or I may have been supposed to be in Port Hedland that night and the reverse charges phone call did not come on the Telecom box, because I did not have a mobile phone.

I suffer this myself at times. Senator Abetz, you really should be in the chamber and you will get a lesson in what actually happens in Australia's trucking yards and Australia's trucking families. My 21-year-old son, who I am so bloody proud of—I am sorry; I am so damn proud of—is a young Australian truckie. He is 21 years of age and he is busting his backside to get his road train licence so he can start line hauling. He is driving semitrailers around Perth and he carts to the mining companies in Western Australia's north-west. When my son says to me, 'Dad, I'm going to be in Meekatharra tonight at eight o'clock; I'll give you a buzz,' and that phone call does not come through, every parent in this building and every parent listening would appreciate the tightening in my gut when I think, 'Where the hell is he? Is everything all right?'

My father was a truck driver, so I am second generation and my boy is third generation. We have actually had a doctor sneak into the family—I do not know where she came from! When my father was out trucking, carting furniture across the Nullarbor for Gills Transport, I was too young to appreciate the dangers that he went through every fortnight, pedalling that little bucket of nuts and bolts across the paddock. But my mum was not too young. My mum knew darn well what was going on. And we did not even have a telephone.

So I get a little bit annoyed when I hear the tripe from Senator Abetz, when he attacks my credibility on this issue. Was I rude to him, Madam Acting Deputy President? Yes, I was, and you pulled me up—and I tell you what: there is a bit of me burning in my gut wanting to be a lot ruder to him. How dare he treat me like this! But I will carry on the conversation outside, Senator Abetz, and in fact I will throw another challenge to you. Your mate Mr Truss would not take up the challenge: challenge me to a debate on road safety and the link between road safety, remuneration and fatigue and our truckies getting home each night to their families. Let us take the fight out there, Senator Abetz. Come on out, mate! You pick the states; you pick the trucking yards!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Sterle, address your remarks through the chair, please!

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

I will blue you; I will debate you! Don't flood it with the likes of Ken Phillips. Don't flood the meeting with the likes of the Australian Trucking Association—and out of respect, Madam Acting Deputy President, I will leave it there. There is the challenge, Senator Abetz. While Senator Abetz was playing kiddie politics in the Liberal Party in the Tasmanian university, or wherever he went, I was playing with road trains. Bring it on, Senator Abetz!

It is a happy night. I am happy. I am so happy that I cannot stop laughing. For that, I want to express my sincere thanks to the hardworking men and women in our trucking industry. I look up into the gallery at that young good-looking rooster in the blue shirt there, Mr Frank Black, an owner-driver, a bloke like me—no, a bloke better than me. He is still out there peddling. I have long hung up the riding boots; I surrendered. Frank is still going. Frank was interviewed on numerous television programs, and I watched them, and there were numerous news articles. Frank represents owner-drivers on the Australian Trucking Association Safety Council, I think it is—and if it is not, we will correct the record. He is a man who has been at the forefront of the fight for decency and safety and a proper remuneration for Australia's trucking fraternity. I dip my hat to you, Frank. I know you have been here for the last two days but you have also been here on numerous other occasions. I have met with Frank in Queensland, convincing owner-drivers that, if you want to get home safely and if you want to see your kids get through school and graduate and make a decent living, you have to be remunerated for your efforts. Not only is there the cost of running your truck, fixed and variable, but you must also have a safe and sustainable rate.

We should be proud of Australia's truck drivers. We are not embarrassed to be truckies. We are not embarrassed that we did not go to university. We are not embarrassed because we do not carry around some piece of paper with a lovely red ribbon on it that says, 'Aren't I wonderful? I went to TAFE college.' I do not have that. I have got a heart the size of a lion and I have got a road train licence. I have got my union card in my pocket and no-one is getting that from me.

I want to sincerely congratulate and thank the leadership of the Transport Workers Union while I am at it—and may I declare, in case someone out there in Liberal land missed it, that I am a proud member of the Transport Workers Union and I have been a proud member for 30 years. I joined the Transport Workers Union in 1981 as a young owner-driver. Actually, hang on; let us go back a bit. I actually joined the Transport Workers Union as a young 16-year-old cocky in 1976 when I first walked through the doors of Ansett Wridgways—and they may have been just Wridgways back then. I was told, 'We should be in the union, boy.'

Senator Edwards interjecting—

Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, you can carry on. Don't be a smart-A, mate! If you want to have a bubble about road safety, take it outside! I will carry this on. You are not that smart.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle, through the chair, please, and do not direct comments to other senators.

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

I will sort this out later with Senator Edwards. He thinks that he is quite comical when we are talking about road safety.

I had joined the union in 1976. When I became an owner-driver, I was that smart; my boss told me that because I was an owner-driver I did not need to be in the union. I thought, 'Okay, that is fine.' It took me a year to work out that—hang on—he had just pulled the wool over my eyes. So in 1981 at Wridgways all I wanted was a decent, safe and sustainable wage, and income for my small business—my tiny business: me, and then in 1982 it became me and my wife. So I joined the union again.

For 30 years I have been fighting for safe, sustainable rates. But these guys up there did it. I did not do it. I could not do it. We actually had the ability under the leadership of Tony Sheldon, ably assisted by Michael Kaine, the national assistant secretary of the Transport Workers Union. I notice Peter Biagini up there, the Queensland branch secretary—it is great to see you, Pete. And there have been a gaggle of hardworking owner-drivers and wives who have pushed like heck to one day see this dream come true, and today it is going to come true. I will now celebrate, but in sharing my celebrations I am also very mindful that I want to give my friend and my colleague from Queensland Senator Mark Furner the ability to have some words as well. So I will surrender some of my time.

But what I would like to do, with your indulgence, Madam Acting Deputy President, is to say very, very clearly that there is nonsense being peddled by those who do not under any circumstances support small businesses; when they come out with this load of wallop about there being no link between safety and remuneration, they do not know what they are talking about. I am telling you, as an owner-driver, there is a damn strong link. Do you think that as an owner-driver I would drive, and my colleagues out there who are still doing it would drive, when feeling absolutely RS? You feel absolutely shattered because you have probably had about eight or 10 hours sleep in the last two or three days.

In Western Australia in the 70s and 80s when I started trucking, we did not have fatigue management. Well, actually we did. Once you bumped over one of those little white posts with the red reflector on it—uh-oh—it was time to manage your fatigue. That was our fatigue management. Do you think we truckies got home feeling like trash every week because we loved to feel like trash? We felt like that because our rates of pay did not adequately provide us with the ability to have a minimum of eight hours sleep. Senator Joyce's contribution—balanced, heartfelt. Senator Abetz—what an absolute disgrace.

But with the little time I have left I do wish to take this opportunity to sincerely thank some very special people who need to be thanked. There are the Baldwins, Irene and Ian, and the Western Australian ladies who came to the parliament last week and the week before, as Senator Xenophon mentioned: Lystra Tagliaferri and Lisa Sawyer—and I will not go into it, but we know they lost their husband and brother—and Suzanne De Beer and her mother-in-law Johanna De Beer, whom I met, who had come across from South Africa. Suzanne had lost her husband and Johanna had lost her son. To the TWU drivers and delegates: Frank Black—you've already got one plug, mate, but I'll give you another one, good onya, cobber!; Mark Trevellian; Dale Haining; Euan Scott-Bell; Ray Childs; Billy Burka; Ian Vaughan; Paul Freyer; Alan Taylor; John Waltis; Paul Dewberry; Dudley Wellard; Dennis Wilcox; Paul Walsh; Tony McNulty; my old mate George Clarke—love you, Georgie, great work!; Charles Mackay; Arthur Fasoulis; Paul Remadeno; Robert Ireland; Andrew Villias; Robert Burles; Graham Batten; and Brad Webster.

To the TWU Veterans, who I enjoyed a cup of coffee with the other day with, and we manage to meet every time we are in New South Wales as our federal-state councils and conferences: Dave Lupton, Brian Thomas, Peter Cooley, Steve Whittick, Col Neal and Kevin Sweeney. It is great they are still around to enjoy this dream that has come true.

To my very, very dear friend and blood brother Jimmy McGiveron from WA: Jimmy, fantastic mate, you gave me my start in the union movement and I dearly thank you for that. I still have not escaped the clutches and we are still out there battling. I will be battling alongside him till the day I fall.

To my good mate Senator Alex Gallacher: well done, brother! I know how hard you fought for owner-drivers and Australia's truckies all these years.

On that note, Madam Acting Deputy President, I could go on for the next hour with a gobful of marbles under cement, but I do want my friend and colleague Senator Mark Furner to have his opportunity to speak. I commend the bill to the Senate.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Silence, please, in the gallery! I am sorry, Senator Furner, but Senator Fisher is the next speaker.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and I will attempt to keep my comments short so that others have time to speak tonight. At the outset I want to defer to the obvious experience in the industry which some in this chamber have and also those associated with the industry who are in the gallery. Whilst we in the coalition have significant reservations about this bill, I also want to make it very clear that nothing that we say or do is intended to in any way take away from the pain and distress suffered by families of those who have been affected by injuries or fatalities on the road and in this industry.

A convenient starting point is Senator Sterle's pride in his achievements after having sought for many years safe and sustainable rates for the trucking industry. For our side of the chamber, that is the nub of the problem. Whilst one injury is one too many and one fatality is one too many, safe and sustainable rates are not necessarily the same for each and every person driving a truck on the road in this country. One man's or one woman's sustainable rates are not necessarily another man's or another woman's sustainable rates. That is one of the reasons why we do query strongly the link that is supposed to exist or what the government says exists between what this bill is supposed to do and safety on our roads.

But, first of all, on a matter of principle: over the years in the lead-up to today's passage of the bill to effectively abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the clear call from industry and the clear answer from this Labor government was that there should be one set of laws for all workers, regardless of their industry. You do not need to look very far to find evidence of that. The member for Blair, Mr Neumann, in August 2009 said in the House:

The truth is that the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry was … to ensure that the salary and conditions of those hardworking men and women in the building and construction industry would find themselves subject to a different rule of law than any other worker in any other industry.

He went on to say:

I have a fundamental belief that whether you live in Palm Beach, Perth, the Torres Strait or Tasmania, there should be one law for all.

Around the same time, unionist Ark Tribe was on trial in the Adelaide Magistrate's Court for alleged breach of the law on building sites. He was strongly supported by rallies from day to day, depending on when his court appearances were. On one of those days, as was reported in the Weekend Australian on 31 October 2009:

About 300 people rallied in support of Mr Tribe under scorching sun in a central Adelaide Park yesterday as he appeared before the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

He was cheered into court by workers chanting: 'One law for all'.

That was the measuring stick. That was what then mattered. Again, on 28 September 2010, a press release issued by the ACTU about the ABCC said:

The ABCC has wasted millions of dollars while health and safety in the industry has not improved. There should be one set of laws for all workers regardless of the industry they work in.

There is no qualification to any of these comments. It is clear from members of government, from members of peak union body, from workers in the streets that they were saying, in the context of the building industry but without constraining those comments to the building industry, that there should be one set of laws for all workers.

The government dominated Senate committee inquiry into the building industry bill of course saw the writing on the wall, knowing that this Labor government wanted, around much the same time as abolishing the ABCC, to introduce this bill to cater specially for the road transport industry, as well as a bill to increase special protections for those in the textile and clothing sector which I think this chamber will deal with tomorrow. The government has had the building industry bill this week knowing that it had another couple of new sets of laws that were not about one set of laws for all workers but about creating very different and specific sets of laws for workers in the road transport sector and the textile sector. So the members on the government committee saw fit to say—and this is my description of their conclusion; I am not quoting them—that they supported 'as a general principle' one set of laws for all workers, therefore they watered down their previously absolute commitment to one set of laws for all workers regardless of industry or circumstances to a general principle in most circumstances. That paved the way, of course, for this bill we are now considering and for the textile bill that will follow later. The then Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Evans, in November last year was reported, when talking about this bill, as saying that the government wanted to create this tribunal to set pay rates in the trucking industry because of the circumstances of owner-drivers. He was quoted as saying that similar moves were not planned in other industries. He was also quoted as saying:

The government has only ever intervened to protect vulnerable workers at the risk of exploitation. TCF outworkers and owner-drivers are the two groups that meet this test.

It ought to be no surprise that the coalition as a matter of general principle is prepared to consider specific laws for specific industries but also that the building and construction industry remains one of those sectors with vulnerable workers who are subjected to exploitative terms and conditions and subjected to thuggery and lawlessness on building sites. The message from us to this government is: please make it so you can lie straight in bed at night. Without taking away from the principles behind this bill, I suggest that this government cannot.

As to our concern about the need to know that there is some sort of an established link between safety on our roads and the provisions of this bill, we are at a loss. We can see that the government is relying on what is now a four-year-old National Transport Commission report which did conclude that there is a link between heavy vehicle payments and poor safety performance, but it simply accepted the proposition then that higher rates of pay would lead to lower accident rates. That is where we just do not get it. While we may not have the experience that some members opposite have in the industry—and we clearly do not have the experience that some in the gallery have—we are nonetheless equipped to query that supposedly basic proposition that higher rates of pay will somehow miraculously lead to lower accident rates.

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Shorten, was quoted in the Financial Review on 20 March this year as saying:

Paying truck drivers for previously unpaid unloading times could address the road toll by removing incentives to drive for excessive hours.

That is a pretty long bow. Is the minister seriously suggesting that paying truck drivers for that which they were not paid before—and that is in many cases unloading times—will fix the road toll just like that? Please! The fact that truck drivers may well be entitled to be paid for currently unpaid work unloading vehicles is a separate issue. It is a workplace relations issue and it is on that basis that it should be dealt with, not as part of a bill and the creation of a specialist tribunal that is supposedly aiming at creating safer roads.

The government has not been able to explain—and, with respect, senators opposite have not yet explained—how paying truck drivers more will result in fewer road accidents. Despite our sympathy for the exploitation and the unpaid work which we have acknowledged does take place, we have not seen empirically illustrated by members opposite, or in any other place or way, how paying more will mean safer roads. For example, at what precise uniform pay point, if any, will the four gentlemen in the gallery and every truckie on the road decide to get more sleep rather than drive more hours? At what precise pay point, if any, will every truckie on the road decide to try to avoid every other risk which they take daily when driving on our roads? How will more pay for each and every one of our truckies, including the good gentlemen in the gallery, stop accidents which are caused by other users on the road but which just so happen to involve a truck? I do not see it, and I am really sorry that I do not get it. It is on that basis that we are concerned about the ability of this bill to deliver the outcomes that the government says it will.

I am drawing to a close so that Senator Furner can make some comments. We are also very disappointed at the truncated debate. We are very disappointed that the Senate rejected the motion of Senator Abetz to refer this bill to a Senate committee, because there are very important questions which we should be able to ask and which may indeed have benefited the government's quest in the establishment of this tribunal. For example, there are very important questions about how these safer rates are going to be determined. What process will be used? Will they be individual, truckie per truckie? Will they be individual trucking company per trucking company? Will they be state based? Will they be on some sort of group basis? Will it be, as Minister Albanese reportedly said on 23 November 2011 in the Financial Review, that the changes will ensure a level playing field by giving participants a forum to complain about 'cowboys who try to undercut and put in unreasonable conditions upon truck drivers who might be desperate to get that job'? What does it mean that this tribunal will be able to do? What powers will it be able to exercise in attempting to come to an outcome? Will the outcome be, for example, sectorally based or will it be, as a spokeswoman for Minister Albanese said, 'The system was designed for sectoral determinations but this does not exclude individual companies making an application to the tribunal for determination'?

We deserve to have had answers to those questions and others like them. So do the Australian people. We are disappointed that we did not get that opportunity.

Thank you for allowing me to contribute tonight.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a proud moment for me. It is a proud moment to have followed the likes of Senator Sterle and Senator Gallacher and to have present in the gallery tonight, to represent real reforms to the transport industry, where reforms are needed, workers who are vulnerable, workers who I have represented in my career and the first union I worked for: the Transport Workers Union Queensland branch. It is a union that I am extremely proud of. I am proud to see here tonight representatives from that union in the gallery: TWU National Secretary Tony Sheldon, TWU National Assistant Secretary Michael Kaine, Peter Biagini from the Queensland branch and Frank Black, an owner-driver from Queensland.

The other side indicated that they do not get it. I can understand why they do not get it, but it is not rocket science. Anyone can work out why we need to fix this problem. Conversely, you can look at it this way. I have been involved in situations where owner-drivers are under pressure running up from Sydney to Brisbane and running back empty because they cannot get a load back. So the incentive is to get up, get unloaded as quick as possible and get back for another load. These are the challenges we are facing in the industry. These are the challenges of lack of maintenance, lack of sleep, the taking of illicit drugs to make sure you get from point A to point B, main contractors paying subcontractors rates that have been agreed upon between the Transport Workers Union and the industry and ignoring those rates, the snowball effect down the path of paying company or employee drivers the incorrect rates at all. I have been privileged to be in situations where we have enforced those rates for the right reasons: to make sure that they are paid the right rates but also to make sure the roads are safe not just for transport workers but also for road users.

That is what the other side just do not get. They do not understand this is not just an issue that affects transport workers; this is an issue that affects everyone throughout our nation who uses our roads, regardless of whether it be on the black box running up the highway to Darwin or out in the western blocks of Queensland. It is an area that needs to be concentrated on. It is an area we need to resolve. And let's face it: just about everything we use, everything we wear, everything we consume comes on a truck. This is why we need to look after drivers and ensure that they have the right to work in a safer workplace environment—the same basic rights that many of us already enjoy.

A lot of us go to work each day. We come to the Senate each day. We do not come to work in this Senate each day thinking we are going to be injured, and I am sure drivers do not go to work each day after they have kicked their tyres, checked their oil and their water, jumped in that huge vehicle of anything up to 55 tonnes and headed on down the highway wishing that they would end up in a situation where they might be involved in an accident and kill some poor family. They are pushed into situations where they have had that situation created. It is a situation we need to correct.

We need to protect them, and this is why. More than 246,000 Australians are employed in our road transport industry. In 2008-09, there were 25 deaths per 100,000 workers, and this casualty rate is 10 times higher than the average of all industries. Annually, thousands of people are involved in truck accidents, with about 250 losing their lives per year. Minister Shorten indicated recently that Australian truck drivers have been pushed to the limit. Some have been pressured to cut corners on safety and maintenance, some to speed in order to meet unfair and unrealistic deadlines, some even taking illicit substances to keep themselves awake to get to destinations on time, putting their lives and the lives of other Australian road users on the line just to make a decent living, repay their debts and make ends meet.

The Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2012 seeks to create a road safety remuneration tribunal and to improve pay and conditions for drivers. It is not just about pay; it is conditions: looking at rest breaks, looking at the way they operate the vehicles, looking at the extreme conditions and the surrounds they work in, looking at the roads they drive on.

And let's not get started talking about roads. There were 11½ years that those opposite neglected our roads under their reforms. It was not until we came in, through the national building infrastructure program, to correct roads like the Bruce Highway in my state of Queensland, that we got on the road to making those roads safer for every driver, whether they are truck drivers or drivers of passenger vehicles on the roads. Our program is fixing and reforming the neglect those opposite were involved in for 11½ years.

The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communication states:

The safety aspects of the bill relate to removing the incentives for drivers to work excessive hours by improving their pay and also providing, in some cases, compensation for delays in unloading cargoes. It is proposed that this will reduce their chances of having an accident.

The report also states the tribunal's responsibilities include it to be 'empowered to inquire into sectors, issues and practices within the road transport industry and, where appropriate, determine mandatory minimum rates of pay and related conditions for employed and self-employed drivers by making Road Safety Remuneration Orders (RSROs).' By having rates of pay determined, it means that drivers will not have to rush and put their and other people's lives on the line so they get paid.

On 14 March, Lateline aired a story on the trucking industry. Reporter Kerry Brewster said truck drivers were not paid for loading and unloading times. That is a reality. You go out to some of those distribution centres, whether it be Coles or Woolworths, and you will see drivers sitting in their vehicles or walking around their vehicles to try to maintain some sanity, waiting for hours and hours for their vehicles to be unloaded. In some cases, at the end of the day they are told: 'Sorry, your vehicle won't be unloaded today. Come back tomorrow.' That is unjust, it is unfair and it is something we should not be allowing in this particular industry.

Kerry Brewster interviewed a gentleman here in the public gallery today, Frank Black, who told her there were penalties for arriving late. Frank said:

They either charge you a financial penalty or sometimes they re-book your delivery slot, which nine times out of 10 is the following day.

Put yourself in that situation: you are a small business person trying to make ends meet, trying to provide for your family and to put food on the table and you arrive at a distribution centre and you are told to come back tomorrow. How do you operate in that sort of time frame? How do you operate in that sort of business? This bill will fix those sorts of issues. Because of this penalty, Mr Black says he tries anything to beat the clock. I have been privy to the circumstances, as I referred to earlier, of what happens when people cut corners to beat the clock.

I reflect on a situation with the company Northline when I was an official at Eagle Farm. We had a campaign to make sure we got road train drivers paid at the correct rate. Northline was the only remaining company that refused to pay the agreed rates. So, as any good union official would do, we set up a campaign at their entrance and started talking to drivers as they entered the business. There were different road train drivers on the line of the campaign talking to the Northline drivers to make sure they were being paid the right rates. Sure enough, they were not. So the campaign spread until Northline succumbed and agreed to pay the correct rate so the road train drivers could make sure that their vehicles were maintained correctly and had the right rubber on the road. This legislation is about making sure that these things are fixed.

It really concerns and annoys me when I hear about Mr Black's plight as a driver. It is amazing that I was referring to a time back in 1989 and 1990, a few decades ago, and here it is still happening in this industry. It is something that should have been fixed decades ago. The only things blocking it now are those opposite. We on this side understand the reasons why this needs to be fixed. The only speed bumps in the road are over there—those opposite. These drivers who do our nation a service should not be putting their lives at risk and, ultimately, the lives of our families and other road users at risk just to put food on their tables.

Unpaid waiting times is also an area where the tribunal will have powers to investigate and to take action if it appears the times are likely to have an adverse effect on safety. The National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Tony Sheldon, believes now is the time to make our roads safer. He said:

Parliament now has the opportunity to vote on legislation to make a seismic difference to safety on our roads. They have the power to make our roads safer, to allow truckies a fair go and to stand up to the major retailers who care only about their bottom line.

How true that statement is. On 8 March Mr Sheldon also spoke about an incident involving a truck driver at excessive speeds. He indicated:

While I support the determination of investigators to cut down on unsafe road practices in the trucking industry, until such time as we address the core issues in the industry, dangerous behaviour will continue to be encouraged. The fundamental issue is the demands of major retailers such as Coles and their economic power in road transportation. Coles and other major retailers control 32% of the entire freight movement in the country. Their economic power allows them to demand ever more from drivers and transport companies. We have had more than 20 years of commissions, coroners reports and inquiries which have highlighted time and again the link between the transport safety crises and economic factors.

I think I have referred to just about every occasion where drivers are put to the limits in their industry. There is probably a multitude of other examples I could mention. In conclusion, I am extremely proud to be here this evening to make sure this bill passes this chamber. I commend the bill to the chamber.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2012 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2012. I back up what my leader Senator Joyce said: we are not overly concerned about this legislation. Even though we are not voting for it, it is one of the things I am certainly not going to die in a ditch over.

I was a truckie. It was a great pleasure just six months or so ago to drive a Kenworth with a friend of mine from Inverell to Canberra. I must admit that drivers are a bit spoilt today with these automatic trucks. When I started in the seventies we had 200 horsepower and they were dangerous times. There were no Jacobs brakes, no tri-axles, three decks of sheep, two decks of cattle and just bogey trailers.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Support the legislation then. Come across. Join us.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying to make a simple presentation. If you want to get into a blue, I can bring on a blue. We could start talking about the $515 million tax you are going to place on truckies on 1 July 2014. You talk about profitability and truckies surviving and you are going to hit their industry with a $515 million tax. Do you want me to continue or are we going to go back to the civil form?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: we are talking about legislation that relates to transport workers. The convention is that Senator Williams should sit down while I make my point of order. We are talking about the transport industry, not other legislation. Senator Williams should be relevant to the topic.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams, I remind you we are talking about the road safety remuneration bills.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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. I was a pig farmer and I used to sell pigs to Woolworths. Woolworths told us they would not buy imported pig meat, but six months later they were buying imported pig meat. Why? Because it was a bit cheaper. They looked at the bottom line dollar. So I have had a bit of experience in this field.

We are talking about profitability. We are talking about road safety. None of us wants to see more crashes on the road. There was one at Urunga just a couple months ago where the truckie just came round a corner and there was a Falcon ute on the wrong side of the road. The truckie had to veer off the road, he went through a house and a young chap was killed. What a tragic incident. Sadly, most of the time the truckies are blamed when most of the time it is not the truckie's fault. We know how professional the drivers are and we know how committed they are to their work. The point I make is that there are a lot of things that can be done. Madam Acting Deputy President, you know very well that the former National Party leader John Anderson insisted that the 18½c rebate be returned to the trucking companies when the road-user charge came in. He said that if he did not get it he would resign his position as minister. That is what brought a big lot of money back to the truckies. Now 3½c has been taken by this government. So this government is actually taking another $250 million in tax from the truckies.

Let's look at the truck stops. This has a lot to do with safety on the road. If you go up the Pacific Highway of a night you will find that if the truckies have not pulled up by 9 or 9.30 then they cannot get into a truck stop. That is a serious problem. The government are spending $17 million a year on truck stops; I urge them to spend more. It is an important issue. We know that in New South Wales some good truck stops have been established but there are many more to go. I ask members of the government, over on that side of the chamber, to look at establishing more truck stops.

I know that big business is hard; they look at the bottom-line profit. As I said, I was a pig farmer and I used to sell pigs to Woolworths. I have had firsthand experience. I urge the government to establish its tribunal fairly. Do not just stack it with members of the Transport Workers Union. Have people on the tribunal from the transport industry—people who know the industry and who are in the industry—not just those who are representing the workers. Then, and only then, will you see fairness in the tribunal. That is one concern I have and I trust that the government will take that on board, so that the tribunal when it is in place on 1 January next year is a fair tribunal.

We all want people to get home to their families. I remember the crazy things I did when I was driving trucks. In those days you would work 35 hours out of 40 hours and have little sleep. It was crazy. That was in the days before logbooks. Then, when logbooks came in, we carted livestock so we were exempted from the logbooks. I remember the trips down the Stuart Highway, with 500 kilometres of corrugations which were six inches to a foot deep, the bulldust holes and the danger of it all. They were crazy days and I am glad it is different today.

The trucks are now much safer. With the braking systems—the Jacobs engine brakes—and the stability in the trailers the trucks are certainly a lot safer these days. Thank goodness, because in the early days it was crazy. I remember Phillip Fazulla from Broken Hill. He had a load of sheep on his truck. He ran off the road going down towards Yunta. He hit a tree and he was killed. That is just one example that comes to my memory of someone who was simply working too many hours.

I realise what it is like. I know that some people in the transport industry pay their drivers for 1½ hours to unload. Sometimes it might take the drivers 30 minutes to unload; sometimes they might take two hours. They give the drivers a kilometre rate and they are happy with it. We know that the state and federal awards in terms of the kilometre rate were endorsed by this government. They were part of making it up and putting it in place. It is all about fairness. I say all the time in this place that life is about fairness. We want people treated fairly. We want the companies who pay the rates treated fairly. We want the truckies and the drivers treated fairly.

As I said—following on from my leader Senator Joyce—we do not have major problems with these bills but we do question whether they will be the silver bullet to prevent deaths. I hope they are. We will see how these bills perform when they are introduced. But I also urge members of the government to look at what they are going to do to the trucking industry—I could make this a big issue—on 1 July 2014. Look at pollution from trucks. Senator Sterle would be well aware that if you have one 400 Cummins driving down the road it will put out more pollution than 50 new Euro 5 motors. Fifty trucks today will put out less pollution than just one of the old 14-litre Cummins trucks. We know how much the truckies have cleaned the pollution up. They have done the right thing. Sadly, the new trucks use a bit more fuel, which produces a bit more carbon dioxide, because it is linked directly with fuel usage. The truckies have done their bit with pollution. These days you do not see the black smoke pouring out of the trucks as they go up the hills. The truckies have done their bit to keep their rigs safe. We just need to have them treated fairly.

The National Party is not going to die in a ditch about this issue but I will certainly be watching what happens. As you know I have been in the industry for many years and I have seen dangerous, crazy times. I am glad those times are not here today. But I urge the government to consider what you will do to the industry with that extra 7c a litre road user charge.

I also urge the government to consider the issue of the truck stops. I have raised this issue at Senate estimates hearings. Truckies do work hard; they carry our country. Look after them with more truck stops. The government are spending just $17 million a year on truck stops yet they are collecting an extra $250 million a year from the road user charge of four years ago. Think about the safety issues related to truckies being able to pull over and use the shower and toilet facilities, not just have somewhere to park. These are issues I have taken up with Duncan Gay, the new roads minister in New South Wales.

Let's hope that whatever happens we have people getting home to their families and that we have fewer accidents and fewer deaths on the road. Sadly, we will probably always have accidents, but let's hope they are reduced. I have questions about this legislation. I repeat that I want the tribunal set up in a fair manner, not stacked one way. If it is stacked one way, you know what this side of the parliament will do: we will oppose it all the way. So be fair about that. Let's hope that the end result is that there will be some saving of lives, and let's hope that there is some fairness shown to the contractors and small businesses. At the same time, treat those companies that are paying the truckies fairly—especially the smaller companies. With regard to back loads and livestock it is a whole different kettle of fish in terms of the same rate either way. You cannot expect someone to take six decks of sheep from Inverell to Brisbane, bring home 20 head of cattle and charge the same rate on the way home. It does not work like that; it cannot work like that. That issue needs to be looked at as well. With that, I will let Senator Thistlethwaite say something.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate on the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2012 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2012. In February this year I met with George Oei, a truck driver in the electorate of Wentworth, one of my duty electorates. George spoke to me about his plight as a truck driver and encouraged me to sign the TWU pledge to support this bill and bring about safer roads in Australia. Tonight I rise on a promise, as a proud member of the Labor Party, to support the Transport Workers Union campaign and to support these bills to make our roads safer, not only for Aussie truckies and their families but for the road-using public in Australia.

I will not go on with a lengthy speech because time does not permit, but I want to deal with one of the claims of the opposition—that is, the claim that there is no connection between road safety and rates of remuneration when it comes to trucking. That is simply wrong, and the Transport Workers Union has spent decades doing research and studies and campaigning to prove, indisputably, that that claim is wrong. I say to those opposite who make that claim: just ask the family of a truck driver who has unfortunately passed away on our roads, having to sit at their vehicle day and night to get the most out of it because a contractor has forced them to work because of unfair rates of pay. I saw in New South Wales what a difference it made in 1995 when provisions such as this were entered into the Industrial Relations Act.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that these bills be now read a second time.