Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications I present the committee's Advisory report into the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—It is a great privilege to present the reports to the House. These are reports on the two bills that were referred to the committee on 24 November 2011. The bills were considered by the committee through the process of opening for submissions. We invited submissions from federal, state and territory government departments and organisations from the road transport and workplace relations industries across Australia. We released media statements on 15 December and 9 February with details of the inquiry. As a result, the committee received 29 submission, five supplementary submissions and 19 exhibits to the inquiry. For the interest of people who want to look at the report these are listed in appendices A and B.

Given that we had a relatively short time frame to take into account the possibility that the bills would be debated, the committee decided to hold a public hearing, which was held on 15 February 2012. The witnesses who appeared at that public hearing are listed in appendix C. Also attached to the report are copies of the bill, at appendices D and E. I acknowledge that there is a dissenting report to this particular report. I particularly want to thank all the members of my committee, including those who put in the dissenting report, for their participation in the process of this particular inquiry. I also acknowledge that the deputy chair of the committee, the member for Hinkler, is in the House at the moment.

The committee heard extensive evidence on the development of these bills, in particular on the issue of the evidence that exits between not only the rates of pay, which I know has been commented on by members of the House when looking at these issues, but also the conditions and the structures under which pay and remuneration are made for truck drivers. The majority of the committee were quite clear on the importance of safety on our roads and the importance of ensuring that we take all measures possible to improve safety for not only those who work on our roads—the truck drivers, who are directly affected by this bill—but also, more broadly, the communities in which they ply their trade by using the roads. They have every right to expect the best possible opportunity for safety maximisation on the roads. I note that my colleague the member for Fowler, who has been involved in these issues for a long time, is here with me today.

It is the view of the majority of the committee that whilst there are other regulatory and educational programs in place to improve road safety, and some of those come into fruition this year and next year, another aspect that should be considered and that this legislation seeks to address is the way that remuneration is structured and organised in the industry. That has the capacity to put unreasonable pressure on drivers and therefore affects safety.

I appreciate those who came and presented orally to the committee. We paid due attention to all of the evidence, written and verbal. There was however compelling evidence from truck drivers about the circumstances they face. I think their families in particular will welcome us taking action to improve safety for them on the roads. There was a deal of detail in the written submissions on some of the specifics of the bills. It was the case that some people, while they might have had concerns about the bills that are being introduced, wanted to make suggestions to improve them. The report documents all of that. It acknowledges that the bills are subject to a review process. It suggests that these issues should be looked at in that review process. At the end of the day, the majority of the committee were of the view that the recommendation to the House should be that the bills be passed.

I commend everybody who had anything to do with the inquiry on their energies and their efforts. I particularly thank the secretariat for their support in this process. I thank the secretary of our committee, Ms Julia Morris. In particular, I thank Ms Susan Dinon, who is in the chamber with us today, for her outstanding efforts on this inquiry. I also thank our other staff, Dr Kilian Perrem and Mr Peter Pullen, for their work.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak as the Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communication. The bills that we are currently debating in the parliament today, the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2012 and the Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2012, are the bills that the committee inquired on. They envisage a Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. I want to make it clear that, from the perspective of me and my colleagues, the committee's report is both a fair and accurate record of the evidence that was received in submissions during the public hearings. That is not in dispute.

The object of these bills is the promotion of safety and fairness in the road transport industry by the establishment of a Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal that will set pay and contract rates in the road transport industry by issuing road safety remuneration orders. These RSROs may contain minimum remuneration and employment conditions in addition to those contained in the awards. The RSROs may also address industry practices such as loading and unloading, waiting times, working hours, load limits, payment methods and periods. The tribunal will also be able to make orders to reduce and remove remuneration related incentives, pressures and practices that contribute to unsafe work practices. It will also be empowered to resolve disputes between drivers, hirers and employers, so it does have wide jurisdictional power.

As I said before, the coalition members of the committee understand and appreciate the intention of the bills. We support those matters relating to the safety and welfare of drivers. In fact, I have made this one of my focuses in my time in parliament. However, we believe that the measures contained in the bills, and especially those measures built around remuneration, will not have a significant impact on improving the safety of truck drivers and other road users. We could not see the evidence for a causal link between the level of remuneration and the actual delivery of safety.

We would support improvements to road infrastructure, the enforcement of existing laws and better regulations as first steps towards improving safety. They were repeatedly raised by witnesses. We believe that if complex rules and cross-jurisdictional overlap were removed then the efficiency of the industry would be improved. And that would not burden operators or drivers. We feel that the evidence points to ongoing fatigue and extended waiting times, first at loading points and later at distribution centres, supermarket bays and the like. These matters were raised over a decade ago in the then committee's report Beyond the midnight oil. Clearly, the focus over time has been deficient. That is where the coalition members of the committee disagree with our government colleagues.

Coalition members understand and appreciate what the government is trying to achieve. But it needs to be noted that there has been a gradual improvement in truck accident and fatality rates over recent years, despite the increase in the national freight task. In other words, there are more trucks but fewer accidents. It also seems worthy of note that only 31 per cent of the accidents involving heavy transport come down to the driver, so the deficiencies are not all with the driver but also very much with other people who are on the roads.

Another issue of some concern to the coalition members was what was referred to as jurisdictional creep. These bills could invade other parts of the transport industry. It has already been suggested that intrastate courier drivers should be brought under this legislation. That would start to take the focus off the original intention of the bills, which was to improve the safety of truck drivers on the highways.

Members of the coalition support the spirit of what the government is trying to undertake. We made this clear in our dissenting report. But we feel that it can be achieved in other ways. We could not find, on one hand, a causal link between remuneration and increased safety on the other. In fact, some experts who appeared before the committee said that, for the cowboys in the industry, more money might make them even more bolshie—so to speak—and see them going out after more money. That might not necessarily improve safety. There are forms of stress other than their pay packet that worry drivers. So, given these concerns, coalition members support further efforts to improve occupational health and safety, better logistics at the point of loading and unloading and fatigue management measures but we reject the final recommendation, which is summarised at item 2.35 of the report. On that basis we cannot support it.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned.