Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011 trouble me greatly. If I could find a way to reduce the road toll I would grasp it immediately. If I could find a way to legislate to eliminate tragedies on the road, and the sufferings of families and the loss of livelihoods associated with road accidents, I would support it enthusiastically. If I could pass a law that delivered safer roads I would want to do that, and I think everyone in the House has a similar view.

I have read all of the reports that have led to the introduction of this legislation and I have read the explanatory memorandums and other information. I have to say that, even looking at this as objectively as I possibly can, I cannot find any evidence that higher pay for truck drivers will actually deliver safer roads. Nothing in any of the documentation I have read establishes any real evidence that there is a direct link between higher levels of pay and safety on the road. None of the various studies that have been done come to that conclusion in any provable way. It is of course true that a driver who is under pressure—whether it be because of troubles in the home or financial difficulties, because he is worried about his timetable or where his next load is coming from or because he is concentrating more on the football or the music in his truck—is not going to be as safe as somebody who is actually paying attention to the road and to the wheel. There is certainly a link between stress and safety on the road, but to suggest that that can be resolved by higher pay rates I do not think is provable.

At the beginning, I must express concern about the way in which the government is handling this legislation. It is being brought on for debate today even though the committee to which it has been referred for consideration, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communication, has not yet reported. I do not know when the committee is going to report. It might be tomorrow; it might not be until the next sitting period. I do not think it is appropriate for the parliament to be asked to debate bills that have been referred to a committee before the committee has reported. It was supposed to be a part of the new paradigm that there was to be a better committee system in the parliament, and I have heard the member for Lyne talk and boast about how he thinks the committee system is working better. But in reality that new paradigm is not present in the way in which this legislation is being dealt with today. It was referred to the committee. As I understand it, the committee has had one public hearing, which went for a couple of hours. The member for Lyne is actually on that committee but did not attend that hearing. The debate is now being brought on before we have had the benefit of knowing what the members who considered this matter in detail actually think about it—whether they believe that amendments are required or whether or not the bill is worthy of support. What is the point of the committee bringing in its report after many of the members participating in this debate have already made their contributions? This is an unsatisfactory process which demonstrates a contempt for the proper processes of the parliament.

The public hearing that was held raised quite a number of significant issues and the submissions that were made to the committee also raised important issues. I would like to know how the committee has assessed those issues before I am asked to respond, on behalf of the opposition, to this piece of legislation. It is quite extraordinary that this issue has been around within Labor circles in state and federal governments for decades. The report that led to this piece of legislation was written in 2008. Now the legislation finally comes into the parliament and we are expected to deal with it before allowing just a couple of days for the committee to do its work. In my view, that is unsatisfactory. The government uses its numbers on the committee to curtail many of the examinations that go on and to choose the witnesses. For the debate to then be called on before the committee has reported shows that the government is out of touch and not really interested in the proper processes of a democracy.

In addition to that, it is my understanding that the government intend to move a series of amendments to their own legislation; but the amendments have not been made available to the opposition. Industry has been told that the amendments are out there, that they have been drafted. Industry is not allowed to see them and the opposition are not allowed to see them, yet we are being asked to undertake the debate. The government obviously know the legislation is flawed, because they are going to propose their own amendments, but they will not even tell the opposition what those amendments are. Yet we are expected to make our contributions to the debate today. In my view, that is completely unsatisfactory.

Compounding all of these suspicions is the way in which the government has handled the legislation. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport introduced the bills into the parliament, but I am told that their passage has now been moved across to the minister for industrial relations. Any pretence that this legislation was actually about road safety and about having a safer transport network was blown aside when the bills were moved from the transport department across to industrial relations. The obvious conclusion one can draw is that this is legislation about industrial relations rather than road safety. The titles are misnomers—and indeed as you go through the contents of the bills it is clear that they set up a new tribunal and introduce a range of arbitration arrangements which are linked to industrial relations legislation.

In relation to the legislation itself, the coalition strongly supports improving road safety in the heavy vehicle industry and, in doing so, making roads safer for all road users. According to the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, during the 12 months to the end of June 2011, 185 people died from crashes involving articulated and heavy rigid trucks. For articulated trucks this was a decrease by an average of 3.5 per cent per year over the three years to June 2011. For heavy rigid trucks, it decreased by an average of 14.7 per cent per year over the same period. This has happened despite the fact that the number of trucks on the road has increased enormously. Also, the length of distance that they travel has increased enormously over that period. So whilst any death on the road is more than is acceptable—any loss of life is unacceptable—the reality is that there has been a steady improvement in the safety record of the transport industry. That improvement needs to go further and initiatives have already been introduced which I think will continue to make a difference. But the need to introduce this bill at the present time is not supported by the statistics in relation to road accidents involving trucks.

Government, industry associations, trucking companies, truck drivers and all other road users must continue to do more to bring the road toll down. Of itself, the fact that the toll is going down is not a reason to oppose this bill. A reason to support the bill would be if it was in fact going to make an improvement; if it was going to make a difference. That is the key piece of evidence that the government has not yet provided. The question is: what will get the results that we all want? The coalition contends that this bill is fatally flawed for a number of reasons and therefore is unlikely to achieve its stated objective. It is not going to significantly improve road safety in the heavy vehicle industry.

By way of history, this legislation goes back to state and federal ministers for transport—I think all Labor ministers at the time—who commissioned a report from the National Transport Commission on what has been referred to as 'safe rates'. The document I am holding up is that report, and I have read it at some length. The first thing that disturbed me a little bit was the choice of people to undertake this inquiry. The Hon. Lance Wright, who was one of the committee members, was a former president of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. He has a long history prior to that in the union movement, but obviously as an industrial relations commissioner and as a lawyer one would expect him to discharge his responsibilities to the committee in a fair and reasonable way. The second person who undertook this inquiry was Professor Michael Quinlan. Professor Michael Quinlan has a long history of support for 'safe rates'. He has written many, many papers on the issue. And, indeed, if you read this report, the most quoted authority for the findings of this report is Professor Quinlan himself. So Professor Quinlan is using his own previous work to support the recommendations of this inquiry. So the committee can hardly be considered to have been objective. It can hardly be considered to have been impartial.

It seems that the committee was chosen to achieve a desired outcome. The long cherished desire of the Transport Workers Union to have somebody interfering and deciding what the rates of pay should be for truck drivers has come to fruition through it. The way the inquiry was managed opens real questions about whether the issues have been dealt with objectively. When you have got to quote yourself time and time and time again to justify the conclusions at the end, you have really got to ask serious questions about whether or not this report has been properly objective.

The bill establishes a new Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which is to be given broad powers to investigate and set pay rates and conditions for any segment of the heavy vehicle industry. The bill will cover the broadly defined road transport industry, which includes: the road transport and distribution industry; long distance operations; the cash-in-transit industry; the waste management industry; and all road transport drivers, including independent contractors. The tribunal must prepare an annual work plan, 'with a view to making a road safety remuneration order' and, in doing so, must consult with industry. The tribunal can issue road safety remuneration orders with respect to 'remuneration and related conditions' either on its own initiative or at its discretion on application from an industry participant or an industrial association. RSROs may contain minimum remuneration and employment conditions additional to those contained in the award and can address any number of industry practices, including loading and unloading, waiting times, working hours, load permits, and payment methods and periods.

The tribunal can also make an order to 'reduce or remove remuneration-related incentives, pressures and practices that contribute to unsafe work practices, for example speeding and excessive working hours'. It is important to note that an RSRO will override a Fair Work Australia award or agreement if the RSRO is more beneficial than the Fair Work Australia document. So the government has just set up its iconic workplace relations legislation, the Fair Work legislation, and now it is setting up a tribunal that can actually override the Fair Work Act. The tribunal is also empowered to deal with disputes on remuneration or related conditions between employers-hirers and employees-independent contractors, where the dispute is not before the FWA. The dispute can be dealt with by conciliation or mediation and, if an agreement cannot be reached, by arbitration.

The legislation is declared a 'workplace law', giving drivers covered by enforceable instruments the rights of employees under the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Ombudsman and FWA have general jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the act and its enforceable instruments. This, together with the fact that the development of this bill has been moved from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations—not to mention the fact that the bill was introduced, as I said before, by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport but it is now being dealt with by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—just goes to show that this bill is not about road safety. It is not a transport measure. It is an industrial relations measure, and that is how it is now coming through to the parliament.

It is clear that this legislation is the payback to the Transport Workers Union for loyal and faithful service to the Labor Party over many years. The Transport Workers Union have been driving this legislation, and this is the reason it has come into the parliament. Road safety in the heavy vehicle industry is an important issue and more needs to be done to address it. However, introducing industrial relations measures under the guise of road safety enhancements is not the way to address serious issues faced by the industry. As I said earlier, the bill results from the 2008 National Transport Commission report, which states that there is a link between remuneration rates and methods and safety. As I also said, it was based mainly on the previous writings of one of the committee members. The TWU and the minister have strongly argued that the legislation is designed to improve safety in the heavy vehicle industry because there is a link between remuneration and conditions and safety. However, the existence of this causal connection has been heavily questioned by a number of industry representatives, truck drivers and small business owners. That, ultimately, led me to question whether the bill will be effective at all in improving road safety in the heavy vehicle industry.

Indeed, the government's own regulatory impact statement on the bills questions the existence of a link between remuneration and road safety. It says at page IV:

Speed and fatigue are often identified as the primary cause for a crash but it is a much harder task to prove that drivers were speeding because of the manner or quantum of their remuneration …

It goes on to say:

… data at this point in time is limited and being definitive around the causal link between rates and safety is difficult.

It is clear that several subjective judgments are being made to make the claim that there is a definitive link between road safety and remuneration. The amount of money that a person earns before they decide they have a sufficient salary is of itself a subjective concept and, as such, will depend on the individual. One person will be satisfied with $1 more; somebody will want $5; somebody else will want $100. If you are going to reduce stress by paying people more, how much money do you have to pay them? If you are going to stop an accident, what is the price of stopping each of those accidents? If a driver is worried about his schedule, his income, his next load, his family or his sick children he is not as safe on the road as somebody who is concentrating on the road and his wheel.

The Australian Logistics Council and the Australian Industry Group clearly state in their submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications that they do not believe that the link between road safety and remuneration rates and conditions has been definitely proven. Additionally, Independent Contractors Australia notes:

There is no proven link between pay rates and the incidence of road transport safety. There is, however, a direct link between driver behaviour and road safety.

The National Road Transport Operators Association—NatRoad—in their submission provides an analysis of the bill through the eyes of classic economic theory. They explain that it is generally agreed that workers will, for a time, increase their labour availability in response to higher wages because the higher rewards will generally increase their incentive to work while decreasing the relative attractiveness of leisure time, because the opportunity cost becomes greater. NatRoad argues that this is particularly true for the lowest paid and states their belief that 'these workers are likely to increase, rather than decrease, their labour availability in response to a Road Safety Remuneration Order which marginally improved remuneration levels for these workers'.

The Ai Group picks up the same point and states:

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. Rather, if it is accepted that an individual’s on road behaviour is influenced by the quantum of their remuneration it is conceivable that increased rates may further incentivise individuals to engage in behaviours such as the working of excessive hours in order to reap the greater rewards.

Additionally, NatRoad makes the point that research by the New South Wales RTA concludes that the heavy vehicle driver is at fault in only 31 per cent of fatal crashes involving a heavy vehicle. They say:

It cannot be expected that driver remuneration would have any bearing on the remaining 69 per cent of fatal heavy vehicle crashes.

How does this bill address road safety in these circumstances? The simple answer is that does not. For all of these reasons it is a fair conclusion that the underpinning assumption for the bill is still far from settled. What is a 'safe rate'? Even if it is accepted that paying drivers a 'safe rate' would improve safety in the trucking industry, then the next question is: what would be a safe rate? Can you ever determine what a safe rate is?

Noel Porter, the owner of Porter Haulage, from Victoria, has been involved in local and interstate road transport since 1976. He says in his submission to the House committee that it is his firm view that, 'There is no such thing as a safe rate.' Dallas Brookfield, from Brookfield's Transport Services, in his submission to the House committee agrees. He spent time on his submission outlining the complex, fixed and variable costs involved in operating a B-double truck, including registration, insurance, loan repayments, fuel, tyres, repairs, maintenance, wages, administration, cleaning and various other costs which vary according to the amount of kilometres driven. He concludes, 'How on earth can a committee decide on what a safe cartage rate will be?' He goes on to say:

To have someone, or a body of only a few so called experts, sit and decide what our minimum or “safe rate” is would be a joke as it just cannot be done.

In addition to these general points in the 'safe rates' debate, the bill has the potential to conflict with others already being developed and undermine much of the good work that has been done in improving standards in the heavy vehicle industry. This point is picked up by the New South Wales government in its submission where it notes the good work that is being done through COAG processes to implement the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and the National Heavy Vehicle Law. The NHVR has taken years of development, consultation and negotiation by successive governments and will standardise a number of previously conflicting legislative requirements. Importantly, it will include national chain-of-responsibility provisions which would make companies directly responsible for the unsafe behaviours of their drivers. This has the potential to be a much more powerful influence for safety than does any new pay rate.

It should also be noted that the model Work Health and Safety Act commenced operation in some Australian jurisdictions on 1 January 2012. These laws require a business to ensure that workplace risks are as low as reasonably practicable. Not only has this legislation not been given the opportunity to prove its effectiveness but the Australian Logistics Council notes about the bill:

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

Additionally, the Ai Group have suggested that the regime undermines the operation of the Fair Work Act by overriding decisions of the existing industrial tribunal. In doing so, the bill questions the effectiveness of Labor's modern award process as being able to produce appropriate outcomes. Either the minister believes that the Fair Work Act provisions are not working or the bill is an attempt to push up wages for truck drivers.

This is another layer of red tape for business. In terms of red tape, the heavy vehicle industry is already subjected to numerous regulations and legislation at both a state and a national level. These include the independent contractors legislation, workplace health and safety legislation and the soon-to-be-implemented National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, which commences on 1 January 2013. As NatRoad points out, there are existing laws that apply to wages, conditions, contracting agreements, road use, vehicle standards, fatigue, speed, mass, dimension, loading, substance abuse and record keeping as well as general workplace health and safety obligations. The bill will add further complexity to an already bureaucratic area.

In New South Wales, for example, the bill will be the fourth layer of regulation for driver fatigue. This point was raised by a number of small businesses in their submissions to the House committee inquiry. Ross Ingram, from Bonaccord Freightlines, in Victoria, states:

After 20 years in the freight business, with 35 trucks travelling in 4 different states, we are often frustrated at the lack of consistency with various legislation and road laws between the states.

He goes on to discuss the complex documents and conflicting information that he believes make operations more difficult.

Ken Wilkie talks about the 'complicated compliance requirements currently demanded by government and its agencies' as a major cost burden on operators. The Civil Contractors Federation is also concerned about the administrative and compliance burden and argues that a further developed regulatory impact statement is required before the bill should be considered any further at all.

The bill, if successful, will certainly make the industry less flexible, as RSROs have the potential to stifle efficiency gains and innovation, with RSROs reflecting the standards in force at a particular time rather than current provisions which allow adaptability and flexibility. Additionally it will remove the ability of the industry to respond to changing conditions such as fuel prices.

The bill would also cover independent contractors who are currently outside the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Act. In doing so, the bill will create a new class of employment relationship that is neither employer-employee nor hirer-independent contractor. This will remove the independence of owner-drivers and will significantly reduce their autonomy.

Independent Contractors Australia argues that the actions of a small number of dangerous drivers who are already breaking existing laws are being used to justify making owner-drivers subject to provisions similar to those in the Fair Work Act. The Civil Contractors Federation also argues this point very strongly in its submission. The point is also picked up by the ICA, who argue that the price-fixing element will reduce competition, increase prices and lead to a less efficient and less effective transport sector in Australia. There is no doubt that this bill will lead to higher costs for Australian industry and higher costs in every store in every town, and particularly for regional Australia, which relies so much on the transport sector.

NatRoad notes that the floor price concept has the potential to lower pay and conditions for some owner-drivers who have negotiated a better agreement through superior service or a longstanding relationship. If the floor price becomes the standard rate for all freight movements, this may well be the case. NatRoad argues:

Many consignors will immediately question why they should offer more than the standard rate contained in an RSRO when tendering contracts to the market.

By reducing the autonomy and independence of owner-operators, the bill will have a significant impact on the state of employment relations in Australia. We will, for the first time, have a new type of employment relationship whereby independent contractors in the heavy vehicle sector are treated differently from independent contractors in any other industry.

It should also be noted that the bill is flawed in its coverage. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations estimated that, due to constitutional limitations, the bill will only cover approximately 80 per cent of employees and 60 per cent of owner-drivers. This is a curious statement in the light of the fact that both the Queensland and the New South Wales governments have stated their opposition to the bill. The Queensland Labor government is opposed to this bill and has made that clear at every stage, and now New South Wales and other state governments feel the same. New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia already have their own laws in relation to this matter. Why are they being duplicated through this legislation? The reality is that harmonisation of any laws in the heavy vehicle sector has been a lengthy and difficult process, so to expect the states to refer their powers in this area is incredibly naive, and to expect the states to sign up to something which overrides their own legislation also fails to reflect reality.

There are many other industry organisations that have serious concerns about this legislation. The Post Office Agents Association in their submission said:

It seems unlikely that the Bill would improve road safety for Mail Contractors.

Their industry has a number of particular issues it could assist, but the tribunal, they say, 'offers very little in the way of improved road safety'. So the reality is that this is not a solution.

The coalition has an alternative. We favour a multifaceted, holistic approach to improving road safety in the heavy vehicle industry. This will include building better roads, awareness programs, education initiatives, industry codes of conduct, building more rest stops and passing lanes, and looking at ways to use new technology to improve road safety. The coalition in principle supports initiatives such as GPS tracking devices, mandatory safe-driving plans and compliance with work health and safety regulations, fatigue and speed laws, including the chain-of-responsibility requirements, as well as the adoption of suitable industry codes of practice. These are the greatest way to deliver enhanced safety and fairness in the road system.

This bill will not deliver safer roads. It is an industrial relations measure, not a measure about road safety, and is therefore very difficult to support. (Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to speak today on the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011, which establish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and take critical action to promote road safety and fairness for our country's road transport industry. The road transport industry is the deadliest industry in Australia, with 25 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2008-09. That rate is about 10 times higher than the average for all industries. Each year, approximately 330 Australians are killed and 5½ thousand Australians are injured in road crashes involving trucks. These are more than statistics; each number represents someone's husband or wife, mother or father, sister or daughter, brother or son. It is not just about truck drivers; it is about many members of our community who use the roads on a daily basis.

Two such community members were Albert De Beer and David Tagliaferri. David got a flat tyre on the Old Coast Road near Myalup in Western Australia in February 2011. Seeing David in trouble, Albert, who was a total stranger to him, played the part of the good Samaritan and stopped to help. Then tragedy struck. An oncoming truck hit both men and they both lost their lives. David's wife, Lystra, and his sister, Lisa, and Albert's wife, Suzanne, and his mother, Johanna Christina De Beer, are all in Canberra today to witness the passage of this legislation through the House.

As well as the horrific human cost, there is a definite economic cost to our nation, which is estimated at the moment to be $2.7 billion each year. Reforms that address the links between remuneration and safety—not just rates but structures and practices—were recommended by the National Transport Commission's 2008 review of safety and remuneration in the industry. Clearly these reforms are needed to make the sector fairer for drivers and to make our roads safer for all Australians.

I would like to congratulate the member for Hinkler on his forthright remarks to the Australian Logistics Council when they appeared before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, on 15 February, as part of the committee's inquiry into these bills. Paul Neville said:

We have had a series of inquiries going back 10 or 11 years now, one of which I chaired, where we felt that the limits had already at that time been pushed to a point where drivers were not receiving fair reward. Two things were happening. In companies where there were employees they were taking on more overtime than they could reasonably handle. And in the case of the owner-drivers they were being set unrealistic limits. Just to say that you do not think there has been any evidence and that there has been a small decrease in the number of heavy vehicle road fatalities—I do not think that establishes anything.

The member for Hinkler is no stranger to safety issues in the road transport industry, having chaired the Beyond the midnight oil inquiry. I only hope that, when he goes back to his party room, he can convince his colleagues to support his remarks and his convictions in this matter.

Clearly the financial pressures being placed on road transport companies, and in turn on the truck drivers, by major retail clients is immense. Truck drivers, their families and Australian road users are being squeezed to death by the overwhelming market power of big retailers like Coles, which along with Woolworths accounts for over 30 per cent of the road freight on our roads today. They determine the work practices and timetabling. They have the power and the opportunity to impose good, safe work practices, but they have failed to do it. The notion of a fully contestable market sounds good, but unfortunately in this case the price being paid for those compromised practices is measured in lives lost, families wrecked and communities devastated.

Today I would like to talk a little bit about some of the people at the coalface in this debate and share some words from some of the truck drivers themselves. Former driver Andrew Villis gave evidence to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission:

When I was required to perform excessive hours I would sometimes experience a state of mind that I can only describe as hallucinations, which I considered to be due to sleep deprivation.

I would 'see' trees turning into machinery, which would lift my truck off the road. I 'saw' myself run over motorcycles, cars and people. I estimate that I had experiences like these roughly every second day. They were not an uncommon thing for me.

This is a heavy vehicle user on our roads.

Tom, a 40-year-old truck driver from New South Wales, summed up the pressures and dangers when he said:

I am doing 24 hours in unpaid waiting times a week. With trailers being preloaded by clients I cannot afford to wait another hour or so unpaid while they unload and reload a set of trailers to get the legal weights. I carry overweight regularly and I don't have a choice.

When his vehicle eventually gets loaded, Tom has effectively been working for four to six hours without being paid. The truly frightening thing is that that is just the start of his work day. He will be driving on our highways and freeways, through our suburbs and electorates, for the next 12 hours or so until his load is finished. It is hardly safe.

These are not just stories; these are facts. I used to regularly visit what is known as Uncle Leo's truck stop. They are the sorts of stories I would get from driver after driver who saw their occupation of driving trucks as one of driving mobile storage units for major retail interests. They were given slot times indicating when to arrive. It is not a 747 landing, this is a truck being scheduled for when it can arrive. Drivers' arrivals would be delayed and they would be forced to wait and not get paid for it. These stories illustrate why there must be full and proper recognition of the relationship between supply chain pressures, methods and rates of remuneration of drivers, and safety and accidents on our roads. I fully agree with the Prime Minister Julia Gillard's remarks when she said:

Australia's truck drivers work hard to make a living. But they shouldn't have to die to make a living.

This bill and the tribunal that it establishes will constitute an effective safe rates system for the Australian road transport industry. It is not about removing competition—far from it. However, it is about ensuring safe standards in an industry that represents the nation's deadliest workplace. The legislation will give effect to four key aspects that deliver a safe rates system. Firstly, it will apply a system to all participants in the supply chain that includes client accountability for safe planning, performance and rates. Secondly, rates and structures of remuneration will be established by an independent tribunal. Thirdly, it will provide the capacity to make binding determinations and resolve disputes. Fourthly, it will provide an appropriate and adequate enforcement regime.

The road safety transport tribunal will have the capacity to examine for the first time, and with national effect, all of the factors, including economic pressures, that impact on safety in this industry. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will be empowered to inquire into sectors, issues and practices in the road transport industry and, where appropriate, determine minimum mandatory rates of pay in relation to employed and self-employed truck drivers. The tribunal will ensure that drivers do not have pay or pay-related incentives to work in an unsafe manner and that they are paid for the hours that they work, including waiting times and loading and unloading times. The tribunal will ensure reasonable, safe enforceable standards throughout the industry. The tribunal will ensure that the hirers of drivers and all participants in the supply chain take responsibility for implementing and maintaining safe standards. It will also ensure the approach is evidence based and it will resolve disputes.

In this place, whenever the activities of a trade union get raised the hackles of those opposite are quick to rise, and that is what occurred with the opposition spokesman for transport and his view about the Transport Workers Union. But as the member for Hinkler knows, the Transport Workers Union has had a long fight for safe practices for our road transport industry and is looking after the issue of road safety in general. I personally offer my congratulations to Tony Sheldon and the TWU for what they have done, not only for the employees in their industry, but also for working constructively with the government, which is dedicated to protecting the lives of Australian road users.

On 24 January, not far from where I live, a B-double crossed the embankment, crashed through the guard rails and smashed head-on into a car on a bridge in Menangle. The crash killed Calvin Logan, 59, and his elderly parents, Donald and Patricia Logan. They had been returning from a family function in Canberra. They were driving down the Hume Highway, the very road that I will be driving down with my wife on Friday as we return home to Sydney. We will be crossing the very same bridge at Menangle. To say that this is not personal would be an understatement. We all here have a community responsibility and I would urge all members of this parliament to put the community first and support this bill.

The families of Albert and David have learnt a lot about the trucking industry since the tragedy. The driver involved in that instance was sentenced to five years jail in January this year for negligent driving. However, the De Beer and Tagliaferri families see the bigger picture. Drivers should be responsible for their actions, that goes without saying, but ultimately it is those at the top of the supply chain, those who drive the standards, those who set the timetables, who need to take some responsibility. After all, that is what is leads to carnage on our roads. So when those at the top of the supply chain fail to act and fail to set appropriate standards and conditions regulatory intervention is appropriate and, therefore, I say the imposition of safe rates is appropriate. I commend the bill to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011. I share the thoughts and the comments of the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, the member for Wide Bay, who spoke earlier. Along with the previous speaker, the member for Fowler, I have experienced and am very sympathetic to anyone who loses their life on the road. I have experienced loss of life in my electorate through the floods and natural disasters, so I am very au fait with the pain of losing people in your electorate. However, I do want to make the point that before coming to this place I owned a transport company. I believe I am the only person in this House who has had such an involvement in this industry. I had 14 depots throughout Queensland, I employed 105 permanent staff and contractors, and my payroll was around $80,000 a week specifically in the transport sector. I have some authority in this sector.

I have also stood in this place on a number of occasions and supported bills. The government will make the point that the opposition gets up and says, 'No, no, no.' I have stood in this place and supported numerous bills so that good policy had carriage in this place. But I stand here today, qualified in the industry, au fait with the machinations of the industry, and stress to the government that this is not good policy.

I will outline for you, categorically, why this policy should not be dealt with in the way that it is at the moment. Even looking at the way the bill is being carried, the procedure of the House is being totally disregarded. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications has taken evidence and has not given its report as yet but the bill is before the House. I believe that the government also has amendments to what is already a flawed bill before the House. So not even the government believes that the bill before us is intact. It is already proposing amendments.

It is right that you are going to hear members of the government speak about road fatalities and try to make the causal link between pay rates and road fatalities. We on this side of the House have no reservation about trying to preserve life. The causal-link process is far from accurate. Evidence that was given to the inquiry, evidence that I will share with the House, will raise doubts and concerns about the line of attack that the government will use to support this bill.

I will now take you to some of the comments by people who gave evidence at the recent inquiry. There were a number of people who gave evidence, but I have chosen the peak bodies or organisations that have a stronger emphasis on representing the voice of the independents. The independents, for the sake of this debate, are the people I will refer to as one- to three-truck owners, not the multinationals. By definition, the independents are the people that the government is trying to assist—trying to help them by regulating their pay. The peak bodies are also not supportive of this because they see it as fundamentally flawed policy. The Australian Long Distance Owners and Drivers Association says:

… members feel that this Safe Rate legislation will only add to the ever increasing amount of compliance we are subjected to already.

…   …   …

… the transport industry is the most legislated and regulated industry in this country. This is not bad provided it is enforced consistently across the country and the Chain of Responsibility is extended to cover government’s role in this industry.

I want to pick up on that comment because the member for Fowler made the point that he sat in a roadhouse and he spoke with drivers involved in the industry. I have sat in those roadhouses, I have showered in those roadhouses and I have slept in them. So I understand exactly what he was talking about. The point that the Long Distance Owners and Drivers Association was making is that it is a burdensomely overcomplianced and overregulated industry. The point is that with regard to both of those examples that were put up—the excessive hours and not having the choice to carry overweight product—there are regulations in place for that. If you are driving over your logbook hours—and no reasonable operator encourages that with their staff, but I am not so naive to think that that does not happen—then you are in breach of regulations that exist. If you choose to carry product that you know is overweight, you are in breach of the regulations. So I am suggesting that putting another layer of compliance over the top of this for these people is not going to fix the principles or the practices that are already in place in the industry. Another layer of compliance is not going to fix it. I know genuinely in its heart that the government wants to get a resolution on this, but I am suggesting the means and the ways by which it is setting about it will not get it the outcome. I will be happy to give you my years of experience in the industry to get to an outcome. But I implore the government that the way it is going about it at the moment will not reach the desired outcome and does not have the support of the industry.

Brookfields Transport gave evidence to the inquiry stating:

“Safe Rates”, whilst a great idea in principle, it will have a huge amount of flaws in practice.

…   …   …

You really do not need a committee to even look at “safe rates” as again, it will not work due to the wide diversity of road transport, and any attempt to introduce it would just show a total lack of understanding of road transport in Australia. Seriously, get out and actually talk to the back bone of road transport, and they are not the major companies. Find out what their real costs are, the government red tape, registration costs … waiting times at loading and unloading sites, and of course roads.

Predominantly, what the person giving evidence there was saying is not too dissimilar from what the government is trying to achieve. The government is trying to achieve a higher margin for the independent operators—for the people within the industry—by increasing the rate. What the evidence received by the committee is saying is that although they want the same outcome, they want the government to get its hand out of the pocket of the industry with regard to costs, reduce their overheads and allow them to operate in a free market so that they get that bigger margin. Do not increase their wages, just play a role in decreasing their costs. You might think, 'How does the government play a role in these increased costs?' As they have said, there is overcompliance and the burden of the workplace health and safety. To give you an example, I ask those people in the House now, and those people watching, to think about a figure—the cost. What do you think the price, imposed by government, is of the registration alone—a one-line item on one truck—on a B-double truck is at the moment? You might be thinking about the $300 or $400 that it costs for your car. A B-double registration for 12 months is $15,708. What do you reckon a multi-combination unit registration is? The answer is $22,200. Those costs have increased exponentially over the years. The industry is saying to the government, 'Get your hand out of our pockets and let us try and get on with trying to provide a lifestyle for our families.'

The National Road Freight Association said:

… over regulation and inconsistent regulation … has far more effects of the Safety of our members. I feel this ''Safe Rates" bill will further monopolise the Transport industry and force individual operators out of the industry.

I know that it is not the government's intent to force people out of the industry, but when independent operators and peak bodies are telling you that this legislation is going to be detrimental you must take that on board, you must take that into consideration, because they are not lone voices. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:

ACCI has considered the Bills and the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) accompanying the Bills. The RIS indicates that the proposals appear less certain to deliver improved safety outcomes for road transport industry participants …

It has had a look at the legislation and it just does not believe that it is going to work. Terrie Bradley, another small independent contractor, said:

… many of our members believe that the implementation of safe rates will only serve to disadvantage those of us who work for the right rate now.

Why is it that small independents are so concerned about getting a pay rise? It just does not make sense, does it? But when they are consistently saying this—and I am not just picking people willy-nilly from the industry—it indicates an overall mindset that this is bad legislation. One of the NatRoad surveys found that 74 per cent of their members did not agree with this policy. Labor understand the importance of 74 per cent. They had a vote the other day. They said that a 70 per cent vote gave them a mandate, that it was the majority of the room and that it showed it was time to 'move on and heal'. If 70 per cent, or greater than 70 per cent, of another industry is saying to you overwhelmingly that this is bad, you must take it on board. You cannot say that 70 per cent of one vote is a victory but that 70 per cent of voices in an industry must not be heard.

I live in a regional area and my post gets delivered by a little postal operator. The Post Office Agents Association said in point No. 33 of their submission:

It seems unlikely that the Bill would improve road safety for Mail Contractors.

Those little mail contractors are pulling in and out of the road all the time. The bill may be skewed towards linehauled road safety on our highways, but the far-reaching effects of this policy will touch the little postal operators—by definition, it will collect everyone. Point No. 43 of the same submission says:

Collective bargaining is already available under the Competition And Consumer Act 2010.

The Director-General of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General said:

The National Road Transport Operators Association said that the January 2012 survey of 105 transport businesses indicated that 74 per cent rejected the supposed link between pay and safety and that the RIS and the 2008 report by the National Transport Commission acknowledge that the link is not conclusively proven. They went on to say that limitations on federal powers mean that the bill will not have full coverage, resulting in a two-tier system unless states refer their powers, and it is estimated that the current proposal will cover just 60 per cent of owner-drivers and 80 per cent of employees.

I truly believe that the industry needs review. It is unfathomable that a driver and independent operator would be expected to line up next to a multinational operator at a loading dock. Before we even turn our trucks on, you can see the comparative advantage for the multinational operator. I buy my truck directly from the local Kenworth dealer. The bloke next to me, who is the multinational, is buying directly out of the European Union. He is paying $50,000 to $60,000 per unit less than I am. His fuel bill is $1 million a month. He is buying from the terminals cheaper than I can buy from the service station which charges a retail margin. We are not starting from the same point, so trying to bring the base price up will only infect the market.

I would like the opportunity to speak further, but time is against me. There are issues with waiting times that the industry must address. There are demurrage times of four, six or eight hours when drivers are not getting paid. They do have fatigue issues, but my point is that this bill will not resolve that for the industry. The industry sector's voice must be heard.

In summary, if the government really wants to help the industry the best way it can do that is to get its hand out of the industry's pockets and allow those margins to return. Increasing the base cost is not going to get you to the place you want to be, but increasing the margins by dropping the overwhelming burdens of cost that the government places on the industry would be a place to start. I am more than happy to offer my time to work with anyone from the government to achieve something that looks remotely like it would work.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on these road safety remuneration bills. The member for Wright spoke very interestingly about the different organisations that he has spoken to. The only people he has never spoken to are the people in the trucks—the people who get out there every day. He sits there and says, 'Well, the best thing government can do is to get their hands out of the industry's pocket.' What he does not say is that a lot of those costs are state based. Registration is not federal but state. He forgets that. I know, through my 15 years in the transport industry, just how important this legislation is. Nothing could be more important than ensuring that people get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Anyone who has been involved in the transport industry, dealing with the owner-drivers—the people who are running on the smell of an oily rag trying to scratch a living—knows just how important it is that we ensure that owner-drivers and drivers are paid fairly. What we heard clearly from the previous speaker, though, is that the opposition do not agree with a minimum rate of pay. Underlying this is a return to Work Choices. They reckon the only way that businesses can make money is to cut wages for people scratching a living for their family. They want to take fair pay away from people just so the fat cats in the transport industry can sit back and reap the rewards.

This is not just about ensuring that owner-drivers and drivers get a safe rate of pay but about ensuring their safety on our roads. It is a critical and vital issue for all Australians, including truck drivers, their families and the wider community. Sadly, as the Transport Workers Union has told us, around 330 people are killed on our roads each year. Think about that. It is an alarming statistic that almost every day a family will lose a loved one on the road when all they were doing was trying to scratch out a living. More than 1,000 people will suffer serious injuries on our roads each day in accidents involving trucks. Although the road death toll is falling, there is still more to be done. We cannot stand by and watch these accidents happen.

This bill establishes the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, whose objectives are to promote safety and fairness in the transport industry. It is that word 'fairness' that those opposite do not understand. The bills will see that truck drivers are reasonably paid for the work they do, and will get rid of the economic issues that force drivers to take unacceptable risks on the road. It is pretty easy to sit over there on that side of the House in your suit and say: 'Drivers shouldn't have to speed. They shouldn't overload their trucks, drive excessive hours or cut back on vehicle maintenance'. But the reality is that many are forced to do so in trying to make a living.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly what the union said about the carbon tax.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Member for Flinders, it is the height of hypocrisy for you to talk about the carbon tax. Read your thesis again! I am pretty sure that no-one on that side of the House would know the high costs associated with keeping a rig on the road—I am sure the member for Flinders would struggle with the word tyre let alone know the price of one—such as the cost of fuel and spare parts, costs that are required to keep these small businesses on the road—and they are small businesses. For example, and to educate the member for Flinders, a cleanskin 10.00x20, which probably means absolutely nothing to him, would set you back $550. Think about how easy it is to get a puncture when you are putting around the roads in your car, running from cafe to cafe. Then think about the guys who are running up and down the road doing 2,000 miles per day: they could have 28 of those tyres on their truck and tyre combo.

A universal joint can set you back $600. They can break pretty easily—one mistake and they can pop out. When you think that some people are only earning a bare minimum of around $800 to do a Melbourne-Sydney run, one universal joint going will destroy your chances of making any money. That does not include the cost of fuel and everything else. Let us not get into the cost of diffs and engines and gearboxes. It is a very expensive industry to be in. It is one where you have to work hard and work long hours just to make a quid.

The Gillard government has been working on this legislation for some time. You think back on the processes that have gone into getting to this point. We released the Safe rates, safe roads direction paper in 2010 and called for public submissions. The Safe Rates Advisory Group was established in December 2009 and since then the industry has been consulted every step of the way. The road safety remuneration system will complement existing and new initiatives in the road transport industry, such as the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. The Gillard government is committed to improving safety outcomes for truck drivers while ensuring the long-term viability of the road transport industry. The nation's roads are shared by all Australians and it is in everyone's interest to ensure better safety on our roads.

We know that in collisions with trucks most deaths involve drivers or passengers in other vehicles. I have attended many accidents over the years, as a tow truck driver and as a CERT member, and they are very difficult to deal with. They are messy, there is the cost of human life, which you can never put a price on, and there is also the pain that the emergency services have to deal with in cleaning up the mess that is left, whether that is from a car versus a truck or a truck into a tree, which is the most common accident. These accidents happen because people are going over their regulated hours just trying to make ends meet. Accidents take many hours to clean up and leave huge scars on the landscapes, let alone the huge scars in the hearts of the families involved. It is something that never leaves you. I can still vividly picture some of the accidents I have been to that happened 20 years ago. These drivers are not just truck drivers, they are also husbands, fathers and brothers. We have a moral responsibility to ensure that people get a fair day's pay and to ensure that they are not pushing themselves over just make a living.

This government recognises the important role that our drivers play in the road transport industry. Small businesses make up around 60 per cent of the road transport industry. I heard earlier the comments by the Leader of the Nationals, who just did not seem to get that owner-drivers are small businesses. He just did not seem to be able to comprehend that. Although 60 per cent of operators in the transport industry are small businesses, they only makes up about 11 per cent of the income. That is a small proportion: 11 per cent of the income earned in the industry. Truck driving continues to be the industry with the highest incidence of fatal injuries. Those fatalities and injuries cost the community an estimated $2.7 billion in 2010 alone.

So what is the government's response? Through research, we have found that improved driver remuneration leads to increased safety outcomes. How? By taking away the stresses, and this is what the opposition does not get, of worrying about how you are going to make ends meet. This leads to better health, improved driver concentration and better road safety for all of us. There is evidence showing that many incidents in the industry result from speeding or fatigue. That is why the Gillard government is committed to improving the safety outcomes for truck drivers while ensuring the long-term viability of the road industry.

Australian truck drivers work hard to make a living. The Gillard government wants to support measures that ensure pay and related conditions encourage drivers to drive safely, manage their hours and maintain their vehicles. That will have a wider benefit for everyone in the community by making our roads safer. The measures contained in this bill are a targeted response to reducing crashes and fatalities involving trucks. The government is seeking to ensure that remuneration related conditions of truck drivers do not lead to financial incentives to drive when tired or to speed or, as in many cases, to attempt to simply break even. The unique circumstances of owner-drivers have long been recognised through regulation in a number of states. As far back as 1979 inquiries have recommended specific regulation for owner-drivers.

In 2008 the National Transport Commission report, Safe payments: addressing the underlying causes of unsafe practices in the road transport industry, found that there was a strong link between payment rates and methods for owner-drivers and employees, that those methods created an incentive to drive unsafely and that this resulted in poor safety outcomes on our roads. In the National Transport Commission's review, economic factors were found to create an incentive for drivers to speed, work long hours and use illicit substances.

The NTC report recommended that this link be addressed through regulatory intervention at the national level by the establishment of a tribunal. Transport ministers then agreed that there was a case for investigating a whole-of-government regulatory approach to address this issue. To assist in responding to the NTC report, the then minister for workplace relations established the Safe Rates Advisory Group, which included industry and safety experts. This group developed a directions paper and recommended that a tribunal be established to deal with safety and pay issues for both employees and owner-drivers as set out in the NTC's review.

The directions paper was released in November 2010 for a three-month public consultation period. The submissions received expressed various views, with some strongly supporting a tribunal and others preferring a voluntary model. The SRAG met again in October and early November 2011 and feedback received at these meetings has been considered in the development of this bill. This bill is the result of extensive independent examination of the underlying causes of unsafe driving practices in the road transport industry and lengthy consultations with key industry stakeholders.

The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal will be empowered to inquire into issues and practices within the road transport industry and, where appropriate, determine mandatory minimum rates of pay and related conditions for employed and self-employed drivers. The tribunal will comprise both members of Fair Work Australia and expert members with qualifications relevant to the road transport industry.

The bill complements existing federal legislation such as the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Independent Contractors Act 2006, plus current state based schemes dealing with owner-driver contracts and proposed state based heavy vehicle laws. Where the tribunal determines that a sector of the industry has poor safety outcomes, the tribunal will be able to make road safety orders to improve the on-road safety outcomes for drivers operating in that sector.

This is important because I know from all my years in the industry how owner-drivers get squeezed on their rates. It becomes a Dutch auction where you will go to driver A and say, 'I'll pay you $1,200 if you do a Melbourne-Sydney leg,' and he agrees. Then you go to driver B and say: 'He'll do it for $1,200 but I need it cheaper. Will you do it for $1,100?' It just screws its way down and down, so no-one makes any money. Then, once you finally get to Sydney after five hours of sitting at the docks or whatever waiting to be loaded and then heading up the road, risking life and limb on the roads, you have to go through that process again or else you will come back empty. Coming back from Sydney with an empty load you will have easily used 300 or 400 litres of fuel, and that will come out of your pocket. So you lose all the money that you made on the way up. And that is without what I said earlier about things like getting a puncture or breaking a windscreen. It is this stuff that they do not seem to understand. They seem to sit there and think: 'The only way we can make our roads safer is if the bosses make more money. Don't worry about truck drivers or the owner-drivers. As long as the bosses make money, the industry is well.' We come to a utopia of Liberal Party DNA. The fact of the matter is that you need to have people earning a fair rate to ensure that when they get on the road they are not sitting there worrying about things, taking shortcuts, speeding and overloading but are actually doing their job, which they can do extremely well.

I do not think anyone over there has actually sat in a truck and done trips from Melbourne to Brisbane or Melbourne to Adelaide. When you head up the Hume Highway on a Melbourne to Sydney run it is pretty boring once you have done it 10 or 11 times. Once you have done it 50 or 100 times, the road seems to go forever and you can just about pick out every tree along the way. You need to have concentration on the road with all the animals, cars and everything else. I have seen friends of mine involved in accidents where drivers have gone to sleep and crossed the road in front of a truck. I have seen it happen quite a few times. The most important thing when you are driving a truck is not having to be worrying about where your next dollar is coming from and not worrying if you have enough money to make the repayments on the truck or the trailer or the house or that you have enough money on the table so that your family can be fed.

These are the things that matter to people every day of the week when they get in those trucks and drive up and down the highway. We have a moral obligation to ensure that they get fair pay for doing fair work. I do not think anyone should argue against ensuring that when people go to work every day they can work in a safe manner and can be sure that they will get the pay that they deserve for the miles they travel and the effort they put in to keep Australia on the move. (Time expired)

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to address the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011 and to do so in response to the member for McEwen after his customarily eloquent, well-crafted and no doubt lucid contribution to the House.

The heart of this bill is a great contradiction to everything the government is doing on the carbon tax. We have just heard an informed presentation about the trucking industry, and what we have been told is that if costs rise for the industry and if drivers are not paid more there will be terrible accidents. Yet we know that the carbon tax would apply not just to 500 companies but to 60,000 off-road diesel users and to another 40,000 on-road diesel users as of 1 July 2014. So it is not 200, 300, 400 or 500 users, but 100,000 users. The very people who are on the front-line, who have the most to lose and the most to pay, are the small-business operators at the heart of the trucking sector. The very measure that this bill is purportedly designed to address is fundamentally compromised by the carbon tax. There is no doubt, no debate and no denial, because the carbon tax is intended to increase costs for the trucking industry. That is how it is designed and that is how it will work. It will increase the cost of activities that involve the use of electricity, gas or fuel.

We have just heard an extended discussion about income and safety, yet there is denial of the fact that the carbon tax, at $9 billion a year, will directly, without question, affect the income, the standard of revenue and the viability of businesses in the trucking industry. But do not take our word for it. The union was absolutely clear that it risks putting greater pressure on drivers. The Australian Trucking Association was absolutely clear that it would not just risk the viability of businesses but place greater pressure on drivers. They were fine words from the member for McEwen, but at their heart they were hollow, because there is a wilful blindness to the impact of the carbon tax on the revenue streams of the trucking industry. By his own argument, by his own account, that will lead to an impact on safety in the sector.

Again, these are not our warnings, they are the warnings of the small-business operators, of the union and of the association. Let there be no doubt that if this bill is about safety there is a hole in its heart, the hole caused by the change of 6½ cents a litre to the diesel fuel rebate, which will continue to climb upwards. That change commences for the off-road sector on 1 July this year and for the on-road sector on 1 July 2014. There will be a total sweep up of 100,000 small businesses. Those are the facts. That is the reality of the impact that the carbon tax, through its impact on the diesel fuel rebate, will have on the trucking sector, as is intended. It is designed to make it less affordable to drive. That is the purpose, that is the intention, that is the theory, that is the structure, that is the practice. That is what it will do because that is how it is intended to operate. So when those opposite say that this bill is about safety in the trucking sector, let us address the single greatest financial impact that this parliament is involved with in relation to the trucking sector. To do otherwise is simply to be in denial.

That brings me to the second point I wish to raise on practical action as an alternative to the measures contained in this bill. In my own electorate there are four major road reforms which would improve safety. We have seen many over the last half decade and beyond, and I am delighted to have played a small role in helping to bring some of these to pass. For the future there is a bypass for Lang Lang, through which an estimated 600 B-double trucks go roaring every day. The trucks pass literally within centimetres of Lang Lang Primary School. I have walked that road—I did it in August last year—and can say that it is literally within a metre, a matter of centimetres, of the primary school because there is no shoulder to the road at that point.

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

For those who care about safety this would not be the moment to object. The trucks also travel right through the town's high street. Every resident of Lang Lang and every visitor to Lang Lang sees it and knows it. This is an area of gravel pits. It is an area where sand is extracted and where large trucks, B-doubles in particular, travel. We need a bypass for the town. There was previously funding for one in the coalition's policy. If the government wants practical action I implore it to consider a bypass for Lang Lang.

I am delighted that the state government has agreed to support the Koo Wee Rup bypass. In this case, there are currently 1,500 trucks travelling through the centre of Koo Wee Rup every day. There are real risks for elderly residents and children. The community centre and the bowls club are on the route currently used by so many trucks daily. A bypass is a real priority. It would have a real impact. It would make a profound difference to the safety and security of the residents of Koo Wee Rup. We were facing the risk of numerous B-double trucks travelling through the towns of Crib Point and Hastings if plans for a bitumen plant were put in place. We have defeated that so far; we have offered alternatives. I am pleased to report on behalf of the community that, to this point, it appears to be a victory. Similarly, we want to see the completion and full duplication of the Western Port Highway. It would be good for the residents of Hastings and for the safety of people throughout the Mornington Peninsula, particularly on the Westernport side of the Mornington Peninsula.

Let me conclude with our concerns about this bill. They are simple: the bill does not achieve the outcome it wants. The evidence from the Australian Industry Group and others is clear. In particular, it undermines years of activity and years of constructive work which comes to fruition on 1 January 2013 with the implementation of a National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. That is real and significant. It was an agreed outcome that was not a political fix. It is an approach about standards and safety and it is specifically focused on producing safety outcomes. Every single person in this House wants to improve safety outcomes. The question of course is whether people are being wilfully blind because we do not wish to face the consequences of our own actions. The right way forward is to have a National Heavy Vehicle Regulator that allows for an express, clear and absolutely specific focus on safety. The wrong way forward is a carbon tax which will increase the cost of transport and place greater pressure on the small businesses and operators. For that reason, we oppose the carbon tax and we cannot support this bill.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Flinders will have leave to continue his remarks should he so desire.