Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Government is introducing the Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Billbecause this Government stands by owner drivers and mum and dad small businesses who just want to earn an honest living.

It has been clear for some time that the Road Safety Remuneration System, established in 2012 by the former Labor Government, has demonstrated no tangible safety outcomes for the road transport industry. Two separate, comprehensive, evidence based reviews have supported this in the strongest of terms.

Even Labor's own regulatory analysis completed at the time the System was introduced acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear link between road safety and remuneration.

There is nothing fair or safe about the Road Safety Remuneration System and that is why the Coalition Government has listened to thousands of owner drivers across the country and put this very urgent bill before the House today.

The refusal of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to listen to reason and delay the commencement of the 2016 Payments Order in the face of widespread confusion and misunderstanding is the last straw. Around 800 submissions were made to the Tribunal. Almost all of these called for a delay to the Payments Order, with many indicating that the Order will negatively impact their business and, in a number of cases, put them out of business altogether.

Even in the face of this evidence, the Tribunal refused to delay the start date of the Payments Order to allow these small businesses time to try to comply.

I note that, notwithstanding the Transport Workers Union's strong opposition to any delay, the TWU is before the Tribunal today, seeking to delay the payments in the Order to 1 January 2017.

What an extraordinary and absurd turn of events - the union for whom the Tribunal was created, who attacked owner drivers for challenging the order and went to the Federal Court only two weeks ago to have a stay of the order lifted, is now before its Tribunal saying 'we've changed our mind, we want you todelay the order'.

Are the tens of thousands owner drivers out there supposed to believe the TWU has finally accepted that the Payments Order is having devastating effects on the industry, or should they believe this is just a stunt - one last desperate attempt by the TWU to save its own Tribunal?

But the introduction of this legislation is not about the TWU. It is much more important than that. This is about the mum and dad owner drivers, who have staked their livelihoods on owning a truck and driving freight across this vast country of ours. This is about those mum and dad operators who contribute to the economy by paying their taxes, and keeping alive other small businesses in the regions in which they work. And this is about those same mum and dad operators who just want to earn a living, so they can continue to sponsor their local sport club, the St John's Ambulance or their children's school, without having their very livelihood threatened to be taken away by this disastrous tribunal created by Labor and the TWU.

The Tribunal's Payments Order handed down on 18 December 2015, together with the Road Transport and Distribution and Long Distance Operations Order 2014, will result in a net cost to the economy of more than two billion dollars over fifteen years.

The way owner-driver trucks are financed means the family home is often at risk if the family business goes under. The Tribunal isn't just putting people out of business; they are also potentially putting them out of a home.

But let me now put a human face to these very real accounts of the impact of the RSRT is having on owner drivers and the trucking industry more broadly.

One owner driver who recently applied to the Tribunal expressed her fear about what the Payments Order will do to her business and her family. In her own words, she told the Tribunal:

'As an Owner-Driver our future is grim. Major transport companies have already begunsending letters to their Owner-Drivers stating that as of April 4, 2016 their services will no longer be required. In trying to protect us, the Order is setting out to destroy us. The impact of this Order upon Owner-Drivers will very likely be that we will no longer be a part of the Road Transport Industry and in turn finish up bankrupt as we have loans on equipment that we will be unable to sustain. My family of four relies solely on the income provided by our truck driven by my husband. Without thiswe will lose our livelihood and lifestyle after over 20 successful years in the Industry.'

Glen and Pauline Kearney are two other owner drivers facing economic ruin thanks to the RSRT. Glen and his wife Pauline own two trucks, having mortgaged their house to set up business 20 years ago. Pauline and Glen employ their eldest son in the family business and want to employ their youngest son when he is old enough. If you ask Pauline and Glen, they set up their haulage business to provide their sons with an economic future - a means by which they can support themselves and in turn their own families - while supporting other small businesses - the mechanic who maintains their trucks, the tyre seller who replaces their tyres, the coffee shops and restaurants they can afford to visit because they have worked so hard to be able to contribute to broader economy.

Now we have heard a lot from those that sit on the other side of the Chamber that the RSRT and the Payments Order will drive down truck crashes and improve road safety.

This is plainly wrong.

The Payments Order cannot improve safety. Let me explain a couple of reasons why. Firstly, there is no tangible link between paying drivers more and improved road safety. As one owner driver explained to me, if you pay the cowboy drivers more, because they are cowboys, they will just drive more - more hours, longer distances, to get that money. This creates increased risk to road users, not safer roads.

Secondly, the Payments Order applies to only owner drivers. Road accidents involving trucks occur with both owner drivers and employee drivers. In 84% of cases where there is more than one vehicle involved in a fatal crash, the accident was caused by the other vehicle, i.e. not the truck. To single one group out, effectively branding them as unsafe, is not only unfair, but it's also wrong, and enormously insulting. And as one owner driver put it, un-Australian.

Finally, the Payments Order does not require an owner driver to have a minimum number of rest breaks on their journey, nor does it require a truck to have the latest fatigue management equipment installed. And it doesn't require the owner driver to undergo any training on road safety. These practical measures have all been recognised as having a significant impact on safety and yet the Order doesn't mention them.

This Government is not prepared to let small business operators and families be punished just because they decided to buy a truck instead of a corner store. Since the Order was made, concerned truck drivers and their families have been inundating the government saying that this Order is creating uncertainty and costing them their livelihoods.

The uncertainty is almost as crippling as the Order itself, and some drivers have indicated they are parked up and will be broke within weeks. This Order has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pricing small businesses out of a market. Small businesses whose workers don't typically choose to be a member of a union - which when it boils down to it, that's what the Road Safety Remuneration System has always really been about.

And who can forget the circumstances in which this System was created. The RSRT was a trade-off by the Gillard Government to stop the TWU agitating against the former Government's carbon tax. Mr Sheldon, head of the TWU, confirmed the link himself when he spoke on 28 July 2011:

Mr Sheldon told the Herald yesterday that during the meeting with Ms Gillard, " I spoke about the impact the carbon tax would have on truck drivers and the urgent need for safe rates to ensure truckies didn ' t have to wear yet another cost " . 1

This Government wants to see real solutions to the problem of road safety. The most recent independent review of the system, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, was damning. PwC found that:

'abolitionof the System would result in significant net benefit to the economy and community at large

The report could not be clearer on the many failings of the Road Safety Remuneration System.

The Government remains strongly committed to ensuring the highest standards of road safety. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is clearly not the body to tackle road safety.

This is why we will ensure that the proper regulator, tasked with making a real difference on safety issues, will be properly funded. We will redirect all the resources from the Road Safety Remuneration System - $4 million per year - to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to ensure the tangible safety measures the industry want are given priority.

We cannot afford to wait any longer for this mess to be sorted out. We must stop this act of economic vandalism – there are real families suffering real stress and financial ruin.

This Bill will repeal the Road Safety Remuneration Act 2012, thereby abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and the orders it has made. We will make sure the Payments Order is gone as soon as the Bill takes effect.

I therefore urge all members to support this Bill, which is about saving jobs, not only of the 35,000 owner drivers, but of their families who help run the business, and of local people in the community who rely on the business that local trucks bring.

Now before I conclude, there are a number of owner drivers who are present today in the House. These owner drivers have taken the time and borne the cost of fuel and accommodation to be in Canberra today as their futures depend on it. Thank you for being here today. The Government is committed to abolishing the System so you can return to work.

A vote for this Bill is a vote for a real solution to the issue of road safety in the trucking industry.

A vote for this Bill is a vote for the thousands of Australians who rely on this industry.

A vote for this Bill is a vote for the viability of mum and dad small businesses, which are so vital to the Australian economy.

I commend the Bill to the House.

1 Coorey, P, 'Labor doubts sincerity of union boss attack on carbon tax,' Sydney Morning Herald, 28 July 2011, p. 3.

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

Could I just clarify: you have just moved a gag—

Senator Cash interjecting—

a guillotine at 9.30?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate agreed with us.

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

You have moved a gag on this bill with the support of Senator Lazarus and Senator Madigan? Senator Madigan, did you even know they were doing this? You agreed to the gag as well?

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

For what earthly possible reason could you have agreed to a gag?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair—

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

Senator Conroy, direct your comments through the chair, please.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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—

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

And referring to those in the other place by their correct title, of course.

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

Sorry, my apologies—Mr Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, said:

… we are not emphatically opposed to this.

So rather than sitting down and consulting with all affected parties—and I know, Senator Madigan, that you will stand up and say, 'I did consult on the weekend.' I am aware that you gathered bodies—I was shocked to hear that you did not invite any representatives from the Transport Workers’ Union, a stakeholder in the sector.

Senator Madigan interjecting—

I know you had a meeting with them, but I was told that they were not invited. I could be wrong. If you indicate to me in the chamber that that was wrong, then I am happy to accept that.

Senator Madigan interjecting—

I did not speak to them about it. Someone else who attended told me that.

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

Are you referring to me, Senator Conroy?

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

No.

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

Pass your remarks through the chair, please.

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

My apologies. I am not referring to—

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

No. When you are talking—

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

Sorry, my apologies. If the senator wants to indicate that it was the case that the TWU were invited, I will happily accept that. If he is nodding and saying it is, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will accept his word. Others who attended told me that they were not invited. I saw the list of participants and I asked the question.

Senator Madigan interjecting—

Saturday just gone. Two days ago.

Senator Madigan interjecting—

I accept the interjection, Mr Acting Deputy President, because I know that Senator Madigan did hold a forum with the national secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union. I repeat: I congratulate you, Senator Madigan, on the way you conducted yourself. You have made an attempt to be informed about all sides of the debate. You may have ended up on a different side to me, but you have made a genuine attempt to get across the complex issues that I have also focused on for 25 years of my working life. I was told that the meeting you had on the Saturday just gone was a meeting of stakeholders. But it was a stakeholder meeting that did not include the Transport Workers’ Union. It was with all the employer bodies, which I would have thought, by definition, are not all stakeholders.

Senator Madigan interjecting—

I am not trying to have a go. You attempted to inform yourself. But I was surprised, if you were holding a stakeholder forum, that they were not invited to that meeting. Rather than properly sitting down and consulting with the affected parties—employers, workers, unions, owner-operators—the government and some on the crossbench are going to recklessly ram this decision through. (Time expired)

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this legislation to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. I oppose this legislation, which we have not even seen, which is being rushed through—rammed through. We are hearing now that the whole debate is going to be gagged and guillotined in an hour and a quarter's time.

The establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was good legislation. It was good legislation because it was about improving safety for us all. Abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is yet another attack by this government on the rights of hardworking Australians who deserve the right to be paid, or to pay themselves, a decent wage—a fair pay—for their work as truck drivers.

The fact that this legislation is being rushed through tonight—even more than we thought was going to be the case, with the legislation being guillotine tonight—just shows the strength of the government's attack on ordinary hardworking Australians. The reason I am passionate about this, and passionate about fact that the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was supported by good legislation, is that this is about people's lives. In talking tonight, I reflect upon the fact that, in the last year, 194 people lost their lives on Australian roads because of a crash involving a truck. Every single life lost is a tragedy, but it continues to happen. This legislation is about everyone of those fatalities. Every time you hear a news report on the radio or the TV about one of these fatalities, you can just imagine getting a phone call telling you that your son or daughter has been killed in a crash and your life changes in a single moment.

We have probably all thought of it, but it is a risk that we take—whether we travel by truck, by car or even by bike. Anyone who has driven a car knows the feeling when you are driving down a country road and a truck appears in the distance. As it powers past you, you have got to hold onto the steering wheel. The car rattles a bit in the wind produced from the sheer mass of the truck, but you have made it past safely. As for the truck drivers, I can only imagine the weight of responsibility every time they jump into the cabin and turn the key in the ignition. These truck drivers are doing their jobs—delivering the goods that we need—and doing it for the families; and, to the best of their ability, they keep everyone else on the road safe.

But, too often, truck drivers can be doing nothing wrong on the road when they are inadvertently involved in a collision. They might survive the crash, because they are in the larger vehicle, but the emotional scars can last a lifetime. Our truck drivers go to great lengths to do their job. I have spoken to many truck drivers over many years. I live in Footscray, and many trucks ply the streets of Footscray and Yarraville going to from the port. I have engaged with truck drivers over the last two decades. When I talk to truck drivers, they tell me about the immense pressure they are under. They tell me that they are not being paid enough and thus find themselves forced to cut corners, to skip breaks, to work incredibly long hours or to take up a second job. They find themselves forced to work up to 18 hours, often at night. They find themselves forced to take uppers in order to stay awake. They find themselves doing things that are against regulations, against all of the controls. They are doing that and they are pushing the system. They are running the risk of breaking these laws because they feel they need to do it in order to make enough money to make ends meet.

Our job in this place is to make sure these drivers do not feel under pressure to do unsafe things. Truck drivers should not be forced to work ridiculous hours to put food on the family table. They should not be forced to cut corners because it is the beginning of the school year and their kids need new shoes, books or uniforms. Enabling truck drivers to have minimum rates, a fair amount of pay for the work they do, is what the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was set up to do. It was set up so that truck drivers were not in a race to the bottom, were not spiralling to the bottom and feeling that they were so desperate to get that next job that they had to undercut somebody else, offer to do it cheaper and, because of that, work longer hours, take risks and cut corners. The abolition of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will be a cruel blow to anybody who has been affected by road trauma involving trucks and a cruel blow to the many additional people who will be affected by road trauma in the future. They will have their colleagues, their friends, their sons, their daughters or their parents unnecessarily involved in a road crash because truck drivers were cutting corners and taking risks.

The abolition of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will be a cruel blow to other people on our roads. I am thinking of the intersection of two main roads, Geelong Road and Moore Street in Footscray, just around the corner from me and the number of times you see trucks running red lights. I am thinking of the number of times that the fence of the house at that corner has been smashed to smithereens because of trucks running red lights, speeding and doing their best to do their job as quickly as possible. We know, from talking to them, that the reason they are doing that is that they have to get their load somewhere as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to have their job.

The abolition of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is going to be a cruel blow to people travelling on trains. In particular, I am thinking of the rail bridge near Footscray Station, in Napier Street Footscray, which is the most smashed into bridge anywhere in Melbourne. It gets smashed into when drivers, for some reason, forget how high their trucks are—and, oops, they do not quite fit under the bridge! Why is that the case? It is because of the pressure that these drivers are under. It is because they have to get from the port to the container yard as quickly as possible. They have not even stopped and paid attention to how high the container loaded on the truck is and that it is not actually going to fit under that railway bridge at Footscray Station.

I am thinking of the speeding trucks that rush past me when I am on my bike in Moore Street Footscray. I fear my life. Again, they run red lights and put other road users at risk. I think of the people, living in residential streets in the suburbs around me—in Footscray and Yarraville—who are trying to sleep but cannot sleep, despite the fact the there are curfews on the roads around them and regulations in place that are meant to say, 'No, trucks aren't allowed on these roads at night.' But there are truck drivers who—again, because they are not being paid enough—are desperate for the job. They are desperate to do it quickly and they are desperate to drop off their load so they can quickly go out and get another one. They break the rules, and they do it because it is impossible for them to survive. It is impossible for them to be earning a decent enough wage without cutting corners and without speeding. They do it to survive.

How do we stop these unsafe practices? There are obviously a number of factors that come together to make our roads safer, but fundamentally we have to change the system so that the incentives to be going too fast, cutting corners and breaking the rules no longer exist. Yes, we need more enforcement of existing regulations, but we have had those regulations in place for years—some of them for decades—and they keep getting broken because the incentive to break those regulations is there. The incentive of trying to earn a decent amount of money is there, and it is why those regulations are broken.

By saying that we can fix all this just by enforcing these existing regulations is just treating the symptoms rather than treating the fundamental problem that many of the drivers driving trucks on our roads are not being paid enough for the trips that they are driving. They are not being paid enough so that at the end of a day's work, or at the end of a week's work they have enough money in their pockets to survive. Yes, we need to have safer trucks. There is no doubt about that. We need to have safer roads, but the evidence that we have heard at the road safety committee has told us that you need to be looking at the whole system that operates together. You just cannot pick out one thing and hope that that is going to be your silver bullet. We cannot just hope that enforcing regulations will be enough. We cannot just hope that having safer trucks will be enough. We cannot just hope that having safer roads will be enough.

You need to have everything working together, and that is why the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was set up to add the other piece of the jigsaw puzzle by ensuring that if you had minimum rates of pay then truck drivers, after working a hard day's work or a hard week's work, would have enough money and would be earning a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We have to pay them properly, otherwise they are at risk of being undercut. Without minimum rates that is what happens. Without minimum rates you can have truck drivers who are determined that, as an owner-driver, they are going to make sure that they charge enough for the trip that they are doing. But then they find that there is somebody else who is just that little bit more desperate than them who undercuts them, and so it is a race to the bottom—a spiralling to the bottom. This comes to the crunch of why we have regulations. Particularly when we are looking after workers' rights, we have regulations for minimum rates of pay. We have awards. We have enterprise bargains. We have these regulations in order that people can be assured that they will be getting a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal exists in the interests of our truck drivers and the safety of everyone on our roads. Abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is going to make our roads less safe. We supported establishing the tribunal because the Greens believe that everyone deserves a safe workplace and our roads should be safe for everyone. This is supported by study after study. Study after study shows that you need to be working on all of the factors that I have talked about; but they particularly show that safety on the roads for truck drivers and everyone else is related to truck drivers' wages and conditions, and by improving wages and conditions for owner-drivers we make our roads safer for everyone. The Greens supported the tribunal and we welcomed the tribunal's decision for safe rates when it was handed down.

The other aspect of abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is that it fits into the government's overall agenda, and particularly the debates that we have had today: the government's attacks on workers' rights across the board and the multiple attacks on workplace safety. We need to be taking action to reduce the road toll, but the ideological smear campaign that has followed the tribunal's order and has occurred with this legislation proposing to abolish the tribunal is putting the safety of everybody on the road at risk. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and the orders under the tribunal have lifted and would have continued to lift the wages and conditions of all truck drivers, so that owner-drivers receive a similar pay rate and conditions as employee drivers, whose pay and conditions are covered by an award.

By ensuring minimum safe rates for everybody, it means there is not cutting corners—you cannot try and find somebody who is going to do the job a little bit cheaper by cutting the corners and breaking the rules. Having these minimum rates obliges those at the top of the supply chain to adjust their present and future contracts to actually recognise that there needs to be enough money flowing down the chain to be paying owner-drivers adequately. Otherwise, by abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, the real winners are not the owner-drivers. It is the owner-drivers who will have to continue to underpay themselves, and they are going to find themselves having to cut corners again and again.

No, by abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, the real winners are going to be those at the top of the supply chain. It is going to be the big businesses and the supermarkets—the people who are ordering and in control of these transport contracts. They are the ones who are going to be screwing all of the truck drivers. They will be screwing the owner-drivers. They will be screwing all the other truck drivers to try to reduce their rates. Whereas, having the tribunal ensured that owner-drivers, as well as other drivers, were able to have safer and stronger working conditions. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal system was based on the successful system that has been operating in New South Wales for the last 30 years.

The evidence is that having this order from the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, the continuation of the tribunal, is not going to cause owner-drivers to lose work. The outcry from owner-drivers that they are already losing work—where is that work going to go? It is not as though there is a whole spare fleet of thousands of trucks and thousands of truck drivers to take up the jobs they would otherwise be doing. It is not that the employees of the large trucking companies are going to be paid less than these owner-drivers, because they are not. This order and the operation of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal are there to ensure that what owner-drivers are paid is equivalent to what employees of trucking companies are paid.

Safe rates for truck drivers are essential for ensuring that our roads are safer for everyone. When I am driving down the road and when people are sleeping in their beds on truck routes, I and they, the community, want to rest easy that the driver of the truck coming towards us has had enough sleep and is not being forced to do anything that is putting our lives at risk. In particular, I never want to have to receive that dreaded phone call saying that something has happened to my family.

The Greens are very strong in opposing these moves to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and I am hopeful that the crossbenchers, today, will see sense, see that the rush to push through legislation to abolish it is wrong. It is wrong for the safety of Australians on our roads, it is wrong for truck drivers and it is not in the interests of fair working conditions for ordinary hardworking Australians.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill 2016. I am voting to abolish the RSRT and the order for two reasons: firstly, owner-drivers need the right to run their businesses their own way; secondly, owner-drivers are being forced to charge higher freight rates, which is pricing them out of the market and sending them broke.

I have spoken to a lot of owner truck drivers over the last couple of weeks and they are very worried about their future. Two weeks ago I was at a trucking rally or convoy in Brisbane. A young man came up to me and said, 'I do know what I am going to do. I only purchased this truck a week ago and now they are telling me they do not need my services on Monday.' I am hoping that young man is listening because, hopefully, in the very near future this will only be a nightmare and he can get on with his work and get on with what he loves doing and what he is passionate about—driving trucks.

I believe that truck drivers—owner truck drivers, in particular—are the very fabric of this country. If they stop this country stops. I am absolutely horrified about what this tribunal has handed down, in the way of an order. It, quite clearly, is not a level playing field. All this does is benefit the big end of town and the TWU. Owner truck drivers will get so desperate that they will have to sell their trucks at a minimal price. Then, they will have to sell their houses, because they will have to pay off their debts and, then, they will be looking for work. The first place they will go—because all they know is driving trucks—is to the big transport companies. If you want to become a truck driver for one of those big companies you have to be a member of the TWU. That is exactly what they know and that is exactly what they want. We are indebted to the trucking industry. In my state of Queensland, which is a vast wide-ranging state, owner truck drivers transport goods and services around the state without question, and they do it because they love doing it.

I have met a lot of truck drivers. Two of the more interesting ones—I cannot remember their last names but they were Angelo and Leanne from Brisbane—had a dream that at some stage they would own a truck and they would see this wonderful country that we live in via that truck and by transporting goods and chattels around this country. The dream came true. They did end up buying a truck and they are absolutely loving what they are doing. But their world was rocked, on 4 April, when an order came in to say that they would have to charge higher rates than the bigger transport companies have to. So business dried up. They were in a state of disrepair. They did not know what they were going to do or where they were going to go. In fact, at the rally a couple of weeks ago there were quite a few men and women in tears, sick with worry about what the future holds.

I am sure the RSRT was set up with good intent. Only last year I voted to keep it established. I have apologised to the people of Australia and have admitted that I was wrong.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did you change your mind?

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because I thought it was put together with good intent. Clearly, I was mistaken. A couple of weeks I apologised for my actions on voting to keep this RSRT established. I was clearly wrong. But it was with good intent that I voted for it.

Today, as we sit here in this building, owner truck drivers are going broke across the country. Mum and dad truckies are losing their trucks, their homes, their families and their lives

Queensland is in mourning, as last week in Queensland we lost a truckie by the name of Adam Caton due to the compounded stress that this RSRT had brought upon him. I send my sincere condolences—

Senator Singh interjecting—

A bit of respect, Senator Singh. I send my sincere condolences to his family and friends at this difficult time.

I think we all agree that we need safer roads. We all agree Australians need a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. The intent of the RSRT order was probably good, as I have said, but the order in its application has resulted in unintended consequences. It has resulted in the decimation of an entire owner-driver trucking sector. The issue is now a complete mess. We need to abolish this tribunal and the order today—right now, without further delay. There are some 35,000 owner truck drivers in this country, and all of them are in limbo, not knowing what their future holds.

The funds from the tribunal, I think, need to be directed to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, and the Heavy Vehicle Regulator needs to be given more teeth, even though the trucking industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in this country. I have no doubt that the owner truck drivers love their trucks with a passion. I have seen well over 300 or 400 trucks in the last couple of weeks, and every one of them was immaculate. You would swear they had just come off the showroom floor. We also need to develop an industry code of conduct, which should sit with the ACCC, to ensure there are fair trading and business practices across the industry. We need the code of conduct to ensure that the big boys do not take advantage of the mum and dad truckie businesses. It is only fair that owner-drivers deserve to be paid within 30 days, not 90 or 120 days, and they deserve to be treated fairly. The RSRT order regulates the victims in this industry, when it is the big boys who should be regulated.

I have met quite a few owner-driver truckies. Their trucks, as I said, are immaculate. They care for their trucks like their treasure. They drive trucks and own trucks because they are passionate about what they do and they love doing what they do. They are kept to a high standard and they are safe. Over 80 per cent of trucking accidents on our roads are not the fault of the truck drivers—they are the fault of cars and the drivers of those cars.

If we look across our communities, owner truck drivers are responsible for many initiatives, including—we have just seen it—the Burrumbuttock Hay Run and the Convoy for Kids. I was in Townsville late last year and joined in the carnival. There were hundreds of trucks, and 80 to 90 per cent of them were owner-drivers—not trucks from big transport companies, but owner-drivers. Eighty per cent of the trucks in the Burrumbuttock Hay Run are owner-drivers. Owner-drivers are the heart and soul of our country. I think they are the very fabric of this country. They keep us going. They do the jobs that need to be done that the big companies will not do. When we have debated this issue we have heard the example of farmer John wanting a couple of head of cattle taken up the road. The truckie will do it for $150, but now he has to charge $748 to haul those same cattle because of this order. It is an absolute disgrace.

They donate their haulage for the charity initiatives that need to be supported. They do much across our country and today we need to do something for them. We need to give them back the right to drive their trucks on our nation's roads, because that is what they do best. That is what they are passionate about and that is what they love doing.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to thank some people that I have come across in the last month or so in regard to this issue. I would like to send out special thanks to Rodney Chant. He is a Queensland truckie who has worked tirelessly with me and many other truckies in Queensland to see this mess resolved. He absolutely loves what he does and loves working in the industry. He loves the mates and the friendships that he has created through his truck driving and he was absolutely shattered by this order. I would certainly like to thank him for the hard work that he has done in helping this parliament abolish this ridiculous order.

I would also like to thank Kylie Robinson. Kylie is part of the Trucking Support Agency in Queensland, and I would dearly love to thank her and her husband for their tireless work in supporting drivers. Kylie was keeping me up to date with all the committee hearings and things. Wherever I turned up for a trucking rally, there was Kylie, front and centre, making sure that everything was running smoothly. I would also like to thank Di, who is a part of Trans-Help, and I would also like to thank Natasha Schipp of Lights on the Hill Trucking Memorial for her wonderful work in supporting truckies across Queensland and ultimately across this country.

My commitment to you, the trucking industry and all the owner truck drivers is that I will abolish the tribunal and the order. I am now seeking the support of the Senate to achieve this. I want to do this because I want owner-drivers to be able to continue to do what they absolutely love doing, and that is driving their trucks, so they can get back to work.

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

I too would like to make a contribution in this debate on the Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill 2016. I want to put on the public record at the outset that the minister, the Hon. Michaelia Cash, is really putting politics over substance here. A political win for her has been put over decades of research and an enormous amount of work by competent, professional, highly skilled people. For the minister to say, in a very disgraceful comment, that this is about the TWU putting money into its coffers or filling its coffers, or some such thing, is an absolute disgrace.

I have been a member of the TWU since 1975. I know, have spoken to and worked with more drivers than Senator Cash will ever meet. I know the things that they go through on a daily basis. I know all about fixed costs of transport, variable costs of transport and labour costs of transport. These are things that I actually grew up with in all of my working life until I entered this place. I know all about visiting families who have had people in their families not come home from work. I can recount to you a story, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, of a police report where the driver was slumped over the wheel of his cab. The steering wheel was drenched in blood. The inquest proved that the person had ingested some amphetamines. He had an ulcer that had burst in his stomach. He vomited and drowned in his own blood. He was not taking drugs for a high, for a kick or for some fun. He was using those substances to get his daily work done. His schedule was so horrific, never-ending and ceaseless that, to actually stay awake and contribute to the economy, he had to take drugs. They are not isolated circumstances. No-one knows better than the Transport Workers Union of the worth of the owner-driver to the economy and to our society—no-one knows better.

For those students of history, most of the branches of the TWU were formed by owner-drivers. The South Australian branch of the Transport Workers Union came out of the Federated Carters and Drivers' Industrial Union in around 1900. The 11 miles from Port Adelaide to the city was the transport connection from the port to the city. Those carters and drivers formed the industrial organisation which became the South Australian branch of the Transport Workers Union. No-one can say that the TWU does not know owner-drivers. No-one can say that they have ever failed to represent them industrially. In the fixed costs of bringing a truck to the road—the registration, insurance, the leasing payments—these are easily readily quantifiable amounts. The variable costs—the tyres, the oils, the lubes—are easily readily available quantifiable costs. And for the labour costs, you go to an award, you take an award rate, you put a casual loading on it, you add your superannuation, you add your WorkCover, and they become an easily quantifiable rate for an owner-driver.

It may surprise this chamber, given some of the contributions we have had here today, that since 1984 there has been a contract determination in New South Wales which has done precisely what the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has done today. Since 1984, owner-drivers in New South Wales have been able to access an owner-driver determination which prescribes fixed costs, variable costs and labour cots. The world did not fall down in New South Wales. In fact, New South Wales has the highest remunerated drivers and, particularly, the highest remunerated owner-drivers. They are not out of work. They are still contributing to one of the largest economies in Australia in a useful, productive way.

What has happened here is that the trips over 500 kilometres interstate have, for the first time ever, had sensible researched, credible costings attributed to the cost of bringing your truck to the market. No owner-driver in this country should be afraid to charge those rates. You, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, as a person of some business acumen and experience, would not put a truck on the road unless you could get your fix costs, your variable costs and your labour costs. And, dare I say it, for all of the hard work that they do, perhaps a little bit of profit would not be out of the question. That is what the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is trying to bring about. For there to be a knee-jerk reaction, which is what this is—a disgraceful political attack for political expediency—to just go out and throw out 20 years of hard work and 20 years of research just for political expediency, you hope it you might get you a few votes at the next election. And I have not even touched road safety!

I can speak on road safety. As a former National Transport Commissioner, as a director of the Motor Accident Commission of South Australia, as an acting chair of the Road Safety Advisory Council of South Australia, I do come to the argument qualified to talk about road safety. As a person who does drive—unlike the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister who in lieu of an eight-hour drive took a helicopter—last week I did my 800 kilometres on the road to attend a rural South Australian meeting. When I got back, dare I say, I was little tired, because 800 kilometres and three hours at a meeting—there's 11 hours. I did that once. Owner-drivers do that seven days a week, and put more on top. They will do 14 hours of driving, they will do their service in their own time, they will wash their trucks in their own time—and they do take pride in their gear, as Senator Lazarus has said. They are totally committed, professional people who are entitled to recover the true cost of doing their job. That is what this tribunal allows them to do. It allows them to be in the marketplace and say—and I read the other day that to take three trailers from Adelaide to Darwin, with a $280,000 truck, was $6,000; $4,000 in standing costs. Two grand for six days work and you are bringing $300,000 worth of gear to the job. That is if you can get a little bit of backloading; you might be a little bit in front of that. The true cost of doing that job one way is seven and half thousand dollars. That is the epitome of the problem—the true cost of doing it.

These people are being forced to do work at less than the true cost of recovery, and they have been doing it for years. I have seen friends of mine who have bought trucks, operated them for two years and operated them with the absolute commitment that God has given them—20 hours a day would not be unusual for them—only to find that, at the end of two years, they have eaten the truck. The truck is worth a lot less than what they started with, and they have nothing to show for it. The companies that they are employed by are paying their fuel bills because they cannot afford to pay their fuel bills. Some of these trucks will do two kilometres to a litre. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that if you are doing 3,000 kays that is $1,500 bucks, minimum, before you start recovering your tyres, your lubes and your oil.

Let us talk about road safety. There is one thing that is very clear: you can stop eating and you can stop drinking for a fairly lengthy period of time but one thing you cannot do is deny sleep. Sleep deprivation is cumulative. If you go with four hours sleep and then another four hours sleep, eventually you are going to fall asleep, and you will not be able to control that. I have spoken to drivers who have fallen asleep on the road with their 50-tonne trucks and travelled for a considerable distance. If they are doing 100 kays, you do not have to be a scientist to work out that if there is something in front of them it is not going to be good. You cannot avoid sleep. When you have drivers who are stretched financially, who need to work to pay that fuel bill, pay that mortgage, pay that truck bill and pay that wage, then they will push themselves to the limit. But there are limits to what you can do when depriving yourself of sleep.

There is an old story about the first coronial inquest into transport, where a carter and his driver had had an accident. The driver was killed. The inquest found that the horse was blind. The driver forgot to turn the horse and off it went, the cart rolled over and then the driver was dead. The question now is: how many blind horses is a driver in charge of when he has a power nap or a sleep deprivation event? The answer is 500; a 500 horsepower motor. If you fall asleep for 60 seconds, it is catastrophic. You cannot deny your body sleep. There is a serious problem with overwork, underpay and road safety. We, the community, are paying for that.

We do not say that paying everybody more money is going to fix all problems but it will take the pressure off. Look at some of the transport companies of renown: for example, Quikasair—it is a fancy name. Did you know that Quikasair were actually proved to be as quick as air? The ACCC consigned an airfreight parcel in Victoria. It went to the airport and it went in a Quikasair truck, which we used to call 'bitumen Boeings'. It was delivered in Adelaide at the airfreight price; they were fined several million dollars for doing this, but they still do things very, very efficiently and quickly. I was called to a depot where a high-speed transport operator was not only high but also he had driven from Sydney to Adelaide in just over 12 hours. That is 1,400 kilometres. How is that literally possible? It is possible because human beings take a lot of risks when there is a bit of money to be made and they have no rules to bind them—so, doped to the eyeballs and speeding all of the way.

There was a very famous coronial inquiry in South Australia where a driver did back-to-back Sydney trips. On his third way back, without sleep, he crashed into a car and three generations of a family were incinerated. He earned 14 years at Her Majesty's pleasure for that effort. This is a vigorous and very dangerous industry. If people cannot recover their true cost of coming to work, then something will give. Quite often it is something in the road safety area that gives if tyres are not changed and maintenance schedules are not met. I heard Senator Cash say, 'We could have a bit of gear in the truck that would fix all of that.' The Australian design rules do not feature crash data or journey data. If there is journey data in the imported trucks that come into Australia, the feature is actually taken out for Australia. In Europe you have crash data and journey data. In Australia, you do not.

The road safety aspect of this cannot be estimated. The cost to the economy is unbelievable. The cost to a lot of workers' compensation schemes around Australia is also extremely important. Dare I say, all of that has been glossed over because Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash believes it is the TWU trying to fill its coffers. I have to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. We have invested 20 years in this effort; 20 hard years of convening all of the stakeholders in the industry, and of convening all of the experts we could find to prove the case, to prove the link between road safety and remuneration. We were successful. Now, with Senator Lazarus, Senator Lambie and others—perhaps Senator Muir will be on our side—it looks like it will all be thrown out without proper debate.

One thing that John Faulkner said before he left this chamber is that the really disappointing thing is that decisions are not made in this chamber after debate. Decisions are not made in this chamber after a good, long, hard and fulsome contribution from all sides of the chamber. They are done in tiny corners with secret deals. Here we stand today, with 9.30 pm as the cut-off, gagging debate and not even allowing a proper contribution from all interested parties. Why? Because of the narrow political interests of those on the other side and some people who have been snowed.

I will say, Senator Lazarus, I know owner-drivers probably better than you know owner-drivers. When I was elected as the secretary of the TWU SA/NT branch, I had a thousand owner-drivers vote for me and I never shirked the task of representing them, their families or anybody in that industry. To come in here and say, 'Oh, I made a mistake last week', well, that is not how it works. This is a vital segment of the Australian economy. It contributes magnificently. The only thing it is not good at is getting paid correctly. Most of these people will not be paying tax. Their accountant will be saying to them: 'You had better have a better year next year because these figures do not look good. You have eaten the truck—that has depreciated in value—and you have not provided for a new one, or you've taken a mortgage out on your house for what looks like a pretty bad business deal.'

It has to get more mature. People need to get proper remuneration for the fixed, variable and labour costs. Lots of these owner-drivers will work themselves to death

They will rely on their partner at home to do the books. I have met them. I have met single owner-drivers and their partners. I have met small companies with three, five and 10 trucks. I have sat down in their kitchens and talked about superannuation payments, wages payments, truck payments and how they balance all of these things together. The only thing they are not good at is actually charging for what they do.

The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get independently costed figures into a deal which the marketplace should respect, because you cannot hire a driver who has not registered his truck, you should not hire a driver who has not got some sickness and accident insurance or some WorkCover and you should not hire a driver that has a poorly maintained vehicle. But they do because they do not pay them enough to do the job properly. They simply do not pay them enough to do the job properly. Quite often these drivers will have to show their costs to a company, and the company will then tell them, 'Take a bit out of here. Take a bit out of there.' It is an absolute disgrace.

This was, for me, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see some sanity, some fairness and some real reward for their effort. Now, I understand what has happened. The hirer will say, 'I can get that transport company to do the job cheaper'—and they may well, for a week. But if there are 35,000 owner-drivers today in Australia, that means there are 28,000 to 30,000 jobs in Australia which no-one can pick up in a day. There is no company with that spare capacity. If they had that spare capacity, they would soon realise that you need to up-rate the business, because no-one is more efficient than an owner-driver. They get up in the morning, they wipe their chrome wheels, they clean their cab. They never charge for any of that. If they cannot even charge for the wherewithal of what they use in doing the job, they do not charge for the additionals.

I know lots of employee drivers who will not do anything on their own time. They wait till they get on the clock and they say, 'Fair enough.' Lots of transport workers get into work 15 minutes early and give the boss that because they do not like to be rushed. But owner-drivers are a most efficient people, except at claiming their costs. Now, it is pleasing to see that Senator Muir has stayed on the right side of the argument, but I have found Senator Cash's contribution very virulent, shrill and over the top. It is as if we are out to collect owner-drivers' money. How does that work? Please explain it to me? It is voluntary to join a union. You have to articulate a case to join a union and you have to ask them to sign a form and pay some money. There is no great big deal out there. There has not been a deal like that since I was a junior organiser—and there was a deal then, but we will not go into that.

The reality is this: we need to keep the Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill 2016 in place. I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and the bill be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 May 2016".

That, I believe, will give us the opportunity to look at this in the cold, hard light of day, instead of in the political red haze that has descended on this chamber. It is a political red haze—with double-D this and that and the rest of it. This is too important. This is about people's lives, both the road users' lives and the owner-drivers' lives. It is about them getting a respectable return on their great investment. It is about people being safe on the roads, free from the fear of injury or accident. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

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

I note with dismay that the debate of the Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill 2016 will be gagged at 9.30 tonight. I thought it would be fair and reasonable that this bill be concluded some time tomorrow. That would give certainty to the sector.

Senator Lazarus interjecting—

Yes, but 24 hours, I think, would have been very clear. But I do not want to argue with Senator Lazarus about it. John Maynard-Keynes once said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?' Clearly, this tribunal, which I supported in good faith back in 2012, has turned into an unmitigated disaster. The payment order that was made a number of weeks ago is one that is completely unsustainable for this sector. I congratulate Senator Lazarus for his advocacy and Senator Madigan for his hard work in meeting with drivers in Ballarat a couple of weekends ago. He met with some 200 owner-operator drivers to hear what the problems are from the source.

When I supported this bill I was comforted in part by what then Senator Joyce, now Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, said about the bill. He said that he did not think there was a causal relationship between remuneration and unsafe practices. He said:

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.

He went on to say that there ought to be fairness for drivers in relation to this, and he said:

Without labouring the point, we are not emphatically opposed to this. We oppose it, but we are not going to town on it.

Senator Williams, someone who has had a lot of the experience in this industry and who I have a lot of time for, when he spoke on this said:

… 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.

He also said that they would not go to town in relation to these bills or die in a ditch with them. No-one anticipated how bad the tribunal would be in its implementation. By the order it made, it effectively put at risk the viability of every owner-operator driver in this nation, and that is why there is a great degree of urgency in dealing with these matters.

The problem is that even if the tribunal belatedly is going to suspend the orders that will not help all those owner-operator drivers who are not able to get finance, who have had contracts cancelled and who are unlikely to get new contracts put in place while the spectre of this tribunal making another bizarre decision hangs over them. That is the problem. This tribunal has to go. We need to start from scratch, and we need to do so in good faith. I note that the minister has talked about issues of consultation, and I do want to acknowledge the work of Tony Sheldon, who I have worked with constructively on a whole range of issues and particularly when the TWU raised some really genuine concerns on behalf of employees of Qantas. I have been very pleased to stand shoulder to shoulder with Tony Sheldon in relation to that.

What we have here is a piece of legislation that does not work—a piece of legislation with unintended consequences that have been catastrophic for this sector. The Contractor Driver Minimum Payments Road Safety Remuneration Order of 2016 shows you that this tribunal cannot be trusted in this sector. It is a tribunal that does not understand what happens in the real world with owner-operator drivers. Interestingly, two independent reports commissioned by the coalition government have shown that the RSRT is expensive and ineffective in achieving its aim—road safety. The PwC report dated January 2016, which I understand we saw only a few days ago, wrote that it considered 'the abolition of the System would result in significant net benefit to the community at large.' It also said that, in terms of stakeholder consultations with industry, there were limited research and conclusions as to the nature of the relationship between remuneration and road safety. More interestingly, there was a report by Jaguar Consulting back in April 2014, which we have only just seen, effectively, in the last few days. That 220-page report was scathing about the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and the system put in place. It said:

In sum, the evidence for the existence of linkages between remuneration levels and road safety performance is relatively limited, while there are difficulties in interpreting the specific nature and significance of any such links.

It goes on to say that this will not work in terms of safety. It was a scathing report and I do not understand why that report was not released publicly well before then. I do not know why the coalition did not release that 220-page report when it surfaced back in April 2014.

I want to acknowledge the work of the South Australian Road Transport Association's Steve Shearer, who has been a great source of fair advice. He has told me that SA Police tell him, and their interstate colleagues have the same view, that they need to focus on a small recalcitrant minority, which they put at five per cent or less, which includes repeat offenders or serious offenders, those getting it wrong all the time and the ones who get it badly wrong. They say that 95 per cent of the operators do the right thing. This is why heavy vehicle enforcement units in South Australia and their counterparts around the country use intelligence-led targeted enforcement against that small recalcitrant minority. Within that five per cent is compliance with fatigue laws—which includes waiting times—speeding and roadworthiness of trucks. All those issues are what the police are looking at. For any company getting it wrong with waiting times at distribution centres, whether it is the supermarket causing it or not, the police still deal with that issue with the truck operator.

It is fair to say that about five years ago there was a serious problem with waiting times at most distribution centres. Because of the work of the police and the industry itself, the waiting time problem at large distribution centres has been dramatically improved, and with that issues of fatigue. In South Australia's case, SARTA, the police and the department of transport have visited the distribution centres, explained their obligations and helped them to work out how to manage the arrival, loading and unloading of trucks to avoid these fatigue breaches. The tribunal was not instrumental in this. We have seen significant reforms and improvements in this area.

The Australian Trucking Association has said that if we want to get this right, if we want to have reforms, we need to have a mandatory code of practice to deal with a whole range of associated issues. I know that Senator Conroy does not have much time for the Australian Trucking Association, but the fact that they are prepared to have a mandatory code of conduct enforced by the ACCC to deal with issues of compliance, of fair remuneration and of unfair contracts is very significant. We need to have a mandatory code. Previously they were talking about only having a voluntary code. Minister Cash has made a commitment to deal with these issues. These are issues that will not go away.

The Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens and those who oppose this legislation have every right to raise this matter right up until election day on 2 July, and I am committed in good faith to sit down with key stakeholders and deal with these issues, including a mandatory code, including additional resources for the heavy vehicle regulator, including dealing with those issues where we must do better. There are sham contracting arrangements, where we have heard that people through international treaties are allowed to be on our roads and drive heavy vehicles when there are real issues about their credentials to do so. That is something that I know Senator Sterle, as a lifelong member of the TWU, has raised. I agree with Senator Sterle—these issues need to be dealt with. But the tribunal has been an unmitigated disaster and that is why we must start from scratch, doing so in good faith with all the key stakeholders—with industry, with the unions, with the owner operators—so that we can get this right. The tribunal has been very destructive in this sector. Too many owner-operator drivers will go broke, too many of them will lose their livelihoods and their homes, unless we start from scratch. We need to do that by scrapping this tribunal and starting afresh.

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

On 16 March I made a speech during the time for senators' statements saying that this Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal order is wrong; it is very damaging to owner drivers. Some 35,000 of them will face huge financial burdens, loss of income and even bankruptcy. When the legislation came in in 2012 I was not overly critical of it because I was told by many that it was about Coles and Woolworths paying a fair rate to truckies. I always support small business, so I was not overly hard on it. I did say to members of the Transport Workers Union that if they stacked that tribunal with union thugs we would rip it apart one day, and that is exactly what is happening. Jennifer Acton is on a huge salary of some $400,000-plus a year to be president of this tribunal—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What!

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

Yes, $400,000-plus. The sheer arrogance of the tribunal—I spoke to Senator Sterle at the back of the chamber and I said, 'This order that comes in on 4 April must be delayed. People don't understand it; they don't know the ramifications; people are going to go broke; people are going to lose their jobs. They will probably lose their houses because their houses are mortgaged to buy their rigs.' We put an application in, thanks to Senator Cash, AiG, NatRoad, the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association et cetera, to have this delayed.

Senator Singh interjecting—

Even the Transport Workers Union put in a submission on the proposal to have the draft order delayed till 1 January next year and proposed to have it delayed till October this year.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn't you stick to your guns?

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

Even the TWU did it. What happened was that the tribunal, in its arrogance, said, 'No, it starts on April the fourth.'

Senator Singh interjecting—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

They would not even listen to the Transport Workers Union, let alone the owner-drivers—

Senator Singh interjecting—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Singh, interjections are disorderly; you know that only too well.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I appreciate that. As I said on 16 March in this place, this order is going to send people broke. It is not about the rate they get for carting their main load. I gave the example of livestock transport. When they cart their main load, they might charge $4.50 a kilometre for a four-deck sheep crate with a load of about 400 sheep. They run home empty and the one-way rate they charge covers them to come home empty, so, if they get a backload, that is a bonus. I gave the example of bringing home a few rams. If you go 500 kilometres, you have to charge about $800 to bring 10 or 20 rams back on a backload, in one pen on the bottom deck. What would happen then is that the grazier who ordered the rams to be delivered would get a bill for about $800. That grazier would then go to his stock and station agent and say, 'What are you doing charging me $800?' There would be a hell of a blue as a result of that and the agent would say, 'This is this new order. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has brought this on.' That truckie would then never get another job with that stock and station agent. It is simply unrealistic. It got even worse. If you took two-part loads, you had to charge the full rate for each part load. The backload was the problem. We have many examples. One truckie, Senator Lazarus, carts from Adelaide to Brisbane and gets a good rate and then loads up and goes from Brisbane right through to Perth and gets a good rate, but he charges just $2½ thousand to go from Perth back to Adelaide. He was happy with that, but the order said that he had to be paid $6½ thousand for a part load to go from Perth back to Adelaide, so he lost his job. He had to run back empty. He did not get anything—he would be out of business. Here is the problem.

This was supposed to be all about safety. I can guarantee you that the owner-drivers are good, safe drivers. As I said to them yesterday, when they are going down a hill, they have the Jacobs engine brake on. They go back through the gearbox and use the engine to slow down so that their brakes are cool and are there for an emergency. They are not riding their brakes and wearing them out because the owner-driver has to replace them. If you drive for a big company and wear the brakes out, the company has to replace them. It is in the owner-driver's interest to look after and maintain their rigs, simply to save on costs.

When this bill came in, of course, there was a hung parliament in the other place. It was supported by the then member for New England, Mr Tony Windsor, who just let it go through, along with an independent member, Mr Andrew Wilkie, the Greens member, Mr Adam Bandt, and even the member for Kennedy, Mr Bob Katter. Let me talk about him. Mr Katter, a big supporter of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, was paired during the vote on the bill. Mr Katter was not present—he often does not vote—but he supported the introduction of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Even recently, Mr Katter remained a staunch supporter of the RSRT. On 26 March 2015, Mr Katter held a joint press conference with the secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Mr Tony Sheldon, and signed on to the Transport Workers Union's campaign to maintain the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. I wonder if he ever thought that it would be sending people broke.

Just recently, I signed a letter with Senator Sterle to send to this tribunal because we saw truckies who were renewing their contracts and were going to get paid in 90 and 120 days. They were happy with the rate, but they would not get paid for three months. They had to pay their wages in seven days, their fuel bills in a month, their lease payments on their trucks and trailers in a month, and their tyre bills, maintenance bills, spare parts bills and service bills in a month, but they would not be paid for three months. We wrote to the tribunal and said, 'Why don't you make an order that all transport contractors be paid in a maximum of 30 days?' That would have been a good order. It is not the rate; it is getting paid on time—that is the big issue. They are happy with their cash flow and happy with their rate; they just want to be paid on time, which is only fair. Life is about fairness. But, of course, we never heard from the tribunal.

Returning to when we tried to delay this order, it was supported by the Transport Workers Union through to October and supported by everyone else to 1 January next year, and, in its arrogance, the tribunal said, 'No, it will start on 4 April.' So NatRoad went to the Federal Court in Brisbane on Saturday, 2 April, from memory, and had it delayed. Then, of course, along came the Transport Workers Union into the court the following week to have that injunction removed. So they did not want to delay it at all; they wanted to bring it straight in. I wish they were with us talking to the truckies, Senator Lazarus, over the last couple of days, including in Tamworth on Saturday, when we had a big gathering with the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Barnaby Joyce, and others. Those people are really hurting.

The point is that we all want people to be paid fairly, whether they are an employee or a contract truckie or whatever. Life is about fairness, as I say, but this order meant that they could not get a backload. It was destroying them. They just were not getting the jobs. Some of these big companies that have contracts might say a contract was for $2,000 to bring a load back from Brisbane to Melbourne and they might have to pay more under this order. They were actually contracting in the long term and losing money when they paid the owner-drivers, so they were not going to use the owner-drivers. They would use their own drivers in those companies because the order does not apply to them. This is a crazy situation. Thank goodness for people like Mat Munro—I really appreciate Mat Munro; he does a magnificent job for the Australia Livestock and Rural Transporters Association; he briefed me on this more than a month ago; hence my speech then—and Bill McKinley from the ATA and NatRoad and those people who really put in to see that this bill gets through and the whole tribunal is thrown out, because it is simply hurting up to 35,000 small Aussie battlers. These are people in business who may mortgage their houses and who, if they do not get back to work, will lose their houses and have their rigs repossessed.

It will flow right on through the communities. Go out to any country town, big or small, and there is your livestock and grain carrier. And where does that carrier buy their fuel? From the local fuel agent. For the tyres, spare parts and servicing it is the same thing.

Even if you are in the game of selling new trucks, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards—and I know a dealership down your way; in the last two weeks it has had 14 new prime movers either cancelled or put on hold. Four-and-a-half million dollars' worth of sales of new trucks were cancelled or put on hold because of this order. What is that doing for the people employed in that business? I am not going to name them; I just respect them for giving me the information from South Australia.

That is why this order simply has to go. These people, these owner-drivers, work very hard. On the weekends they are there: greasing their rigs, looking after them, servicing them and seeing that the tyre pressures are right and the brakes are adjusted on the trailer. I did it all myself for many years. So it was good to actually get behind the wheel of a truck again this morning, to join the group and show my support, along with many, many of my colleagues—especially Minister Cash, who I think has done a magnificent job in handling this issue.

I express my gratitude to the crossbenchers for their open-mindedness on this issue. They can see how wrong and how bad this order is and what it is doing to small business.

I come back now to the tribunal itself. Why didn't they delay this? Why didn't they listen to the people from all sides? Even the Transport Workers Union wanted it delayed.

Senator Singh interjecting—

Senator Singh, they wanted it delayed until October. That was their submission. You cannot deny that. And now you are trying to make a fuss about it because you are nearly to the death knock of this whole—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! To the chair, Senator Williams.

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

Certainly, Mr President.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators on my left! Senator Williams, it would be better if you addressed your remarks directly to the chair and not to members on my left.

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

I will certainly do that, Mr President. I will try and disregard those interjections, which are, of course, disorderly; I will just disregard them when they start yelling across the chamber at me.

That is what happened: everyone wanted the order to be delayed so people could actually see how bad it was; they wanted an understanding of it. But no—the tribunal would not do that. They would not listen to anyone. They just said, 'We have the supreme knowledge of the transport industry. The 35,000 owner-drivers—they don't know anything about transport; they don't know anything about maintaining their rigs or about being safe on the road; they are ignorant.' That is a disgusting attitude for that tribunal to have, and it will be very pleasing if, hopefully in the next 20 minutes, this tribunal is dead and buried, so people can get on with their jobs, go out and do what they do best—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left.

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

cart their grain and cart their cattle and keep our country going, because that is what the truckies do—they literally carry our country.

Those opposite me who have been interjecting have probably never driven a semitrailer. They probably would not know what it was like. They probably would not know how to start a semitrailer, let alone drive one! They would not know how to hook the prime mover onto the trailer. Well, I did it for years. I am very proud of that. It was a good experience. So I talk with some experience, having done about a million kilometres in semitrailers myself, and I know there are others in the chamber who have done the same.

As to those complaining, I wonder if Senator Conroy, with 25 years in the Transport Workers Union, has ever driven a truck? Probably not! He probably sold plenty of union tickets for commission. It reminds me: remember the blue card? Let us go back to safety. When I first came to this place, they tried to bring in the blue card, Senator Brandis, where all the companies had to hold a blue card for safety reasons. They bought the blue card off Bluecard Australia, which was based in Western Australia, Senator Smith. Everyone had to pay money to Bluecard Australia, and guess what? They had links to the Transport Workers Union and fed money to the Transport Workers Union. Where did they feed the money then? They fed it to the Australian Labor Party to help their campaigns. That is what you think of tracking companies: 'We'll steal your money and we'll use your money for our campaigns.' That is what you tried to put through this chamber, and I was very glad to lead the abolition of the blue card.

Remember Senator Conroy having a go at me in the middle of the chamber? He said, 'Senator Williams, I'm the Transport Workers Union through and through,' and I said, 'Well, you'd better call Lifeline. They care. I don't.' And thank goodness the blue card was blown out of this place, thanks to Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding at the time. This is what you are about: you are about bleeding money off the Aussie battlers to put in your union pocket to feed the money back to your campaigns come election time. It is not about safety. It is about the hundred million dollars you have had for the last 20 years from the union movement to fill your pockets for campaigns, which you are going to need on 2 July. But the Australian people will not be fooled. So that is what it is all about. It is not about safety.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On my left! Order! Order on my left!

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

Thank you, Mr President. It is getting quite rowdy, isn't it? So that is what this is all about: feed the union members; make the owner-drivers go broke; then they will go and get a job with a big company; they will be forced to join the Transport Workers Union and buy a ticket. And guess where the money from the ticket will go? It will go off to the Australian Labor Party to help with their state and federal campaigns. As I said, there was $100 million in 20 years from the union movement. Of course, it is not only the Labor Party; it feeds off to the Greens as well, Senate Rice. You get plenty from the CFMEU and that corrupt mob—a hundred of them on charges or in front of courts now from what they have done in bribery and blackmail in the building industry. So it is all: 'Let's look after the people who are siphoning the money off the hardworking Aussies and putting it in our pockets for our election campaigns.' That is what the Transport Workers Union is about. You've done your dash this time. And those owner-drivers who would have been members of the Transport Workers Union will be tearing their tickets up now. You will not suck them in again after you tried to cripple their livelihoods and have their rigs repossessed and reduce the value of their rigs and even have their houses taken off them if they went bankrupt. That is what you are about. It is not about safety. It is about filling your pockets for election campaigns. Well, you have been caught out.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

It is the second time you have got caught out tonight, Senator Conroy. You got caught out when I was in the chair on a motion. So, with great pleasure—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has had a very bad day, today, Senator Conroy.

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

It has not been a good day for Senator Conroy—exactly! I take that interjection. It has been a very bad day for Senator Conroy! He is not having a good one at all.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the chair, Senator Williams.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order on both sides.

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

So this order is wrong. It is damaging. It is crippling to our trucking industry and our owner-drivers. It is bad for our economy. It is bad for our country. It is bad for our country towns. It is bad for everyone. And hopefully, in about 10 minutes time, it will be dead and buried, and the tribunal after it, because of their arrogance where they would not delay the whole order. They brought it on themselves. And thank goodness the crossbenchers have supported us and common sense will prevail.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The allotted time for the consideration of this bill has expired. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Gallacher on sheet 7906 be agreed to.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.