Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that the maintenance of safe, sustainable rates in the trucking industry is essential for ensuring community safety on our roads; and

(2) calls on the Government to retain the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal intact, and not to allow profit-taking to take precedence over the reasonable safety of motorists and truck drivers.

Like many Australians who understand the trucking industry, I am astounded that the government is considering abandoning the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. The link between trucking accidents and the contract conditions of owner-drivers has been established beyond reasonable doubt in report after report. We expect heavy haulage drivers to operate in a safe manner with proper fatigue management practices in place, but we know that unless owner-drivers are paid reasonable rates and are given reasonable delivery schedules the pressure will be on to cut corners to meet the high cost environments in which they operate. For many owner-drivers, many of whom I know, the stakes are very high. They mortgage their houses to buy their rigs. They cannot afford to turn down unsafe jobs. I have watched the pressure under which these truckies have operated over the last three decades. Indeed, I was in my twenties when I first learnt of the alternative meaning of the mixed grill, the cocktail of pills that is used to keep going on those punishing schedules like the Perth-Darwin run.

When I became the transport minister in WA I was appalled to see that same pressure to drive too long and overload was still being applied to drivers. It was appalling to see the resistance to the chain of responsibility legislation that would have made those cost-cutting principles take some responsibility. It is all very well for Coles and Woolworths and the like to engage in cost-cutting wars, but in the end someone pays. Here it is the truck drivers and their families and, tragically, very often other road users, people like Suzanne De Beer, a very wonderful, very compassionate WA woman whose husband was killed by a fatigued truck driver. She attended the trial of that truck driver, and she had this to say:

That day in court, hearing all the detail of the case and how long the guy had been on the road; my thought was he should not have been the only one on trial. You know there's the whole industry should've been on trial … that day.

And indeed they should.

We have made some progress. I was very pleased that in WA we were able to put in place the very first protective legislation in Australia in the Owner-Drivers (Contracts and Disputes) Act 2007. And, federally, the Labor government took this up with the establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal in 2012, establishing a mandatory minimum rate of pay and related conditions for employed and self-employed truck drivers, removing that pressure to contribute to unsafe work practices—and it has worked. It has worked. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics has shown a 30 per cent fall in the number of fatal truck crashes involving articulated trucks over the last year.

We demand that the irresponsible history of denial by the minister for transport that there is a compelling link between the terms of contracts of truck drivers and the time and cost schedules under which they are put and the safety of truck drivers be addressed. We can no longer deny this link. We need to act now. We need to ensure that that legislation which has so comprehensively been demonstrated to produce sound results is supported and not repealed. On this matter, we must take a practical, pragmatic approach, put ideology on hold and make sure that we give our truck drivers a safe working environment and that we ensure that all of our road users are not being undermined by cost-cutting, reprehensible behaviour on the part of the trucking industry.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too come into this place to debate the motion before us. I do not come here looking through the eyes of a union official or a Labor Party apparatchik. This is about a heavy vehicle drivers licence, so I come from having some experience of driving trucks up and down the roads. I can say as a member of the coalition that nothing concerns me more than safety on our roads, particularly the safety of those people who drive trucks and keep this country going. The electorate of Parkes has the Newell Highway traversing it from one end to the other. It is one of the largest and busiest freight corridors in Australia, so I know only too well the important role that the transport industry has and also the importance of safety.

The member for Perth, I believe, is jumping the gun, probably in an attempt to gain a favour from her friends in the TWU. The coalition agreed before the election to a review of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal legislation, and as yet we are waiting for the result. I would suggest to the member for Perth that perhaps we wait and see what the review shows up, what recommendations come out of it, before we jump to too many conclusions in this place.

The idea of tying the salary of truck drivers to road safety is indeed a tenuous one. I have to say that some of the items that are in this year's budget, which has just been released, around black-spot funding and increased road funding through infrastructure will also play major roles in the safety of our truck drivers. As we continue the duplication of the Pacific Highway and upgrade the Bruce Highway—and indeed, in my own backyard, create more overtaking lanes and stopping bays, properly serviced resting bays for truck drivers—that will lead to greater outcomes in road safety.

Recent developments include revised health and safety laws, the introduction of modern awards, the Fair Work Commission and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. Where the legislation comes unstuck is that, when a transport operator picks up a load of cattle from a remote cattle station from, say, a part of my electorate or somewhere up in Queensland, a contract will be exchanged that goes through the Fair Work Commission. It is bureaucracy and the TWU getting their fingers on all levels of the operation. Former transport union employees have spoken against the tribunal, noting that there is 'barely a specific case study where a death is involved to support [the link between rates of pay] and safety'. Concerns have also been raised by those within the road transport industry that the work of the tribunal could overlap with and undermine other regulations and could impose onerous and unnecessary compliance burdens, as I just mentioned.

Consistent with our commitment, the government commissioned the review shortly after the election to be conducted by Mr Rex Deighton-Smith of Jaguar Consulting, who has 25 years of experience in public policy and whose expertise includes policy research and analysis, regulatory impact assessment, competition policy and stakeholder consultation. Mr Deighton-Smith also conducted research into safety in the road transport industry for the Rudd-Gillard government. The review is focused on eliminating duplication of regulation and ensuring that regulations and policies for improving safety performance in the road transport industry are based on credible evidence. The review involves the assessment of the regulatory and economic burden of the road safety and remuneration system on participants in the road transport industry and on the Australian economy generally; examination of whether other Commonwealth, state and territory regulations and initiatives provide a more appropriate means of improving safety outcomes in the road transport industry; examination of any available evidence about the impacts of the road safety remuneration system on improving road safety—for instance, accident data; assessment of the operation and conduct of the tribunal and the extent to which it has achieved its aims and objectives; and consultation with the relevant stakeholders where necessary. This motion is premature. There is a review underway and we should wait and see what it brings up.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the motion moved by the member for Perth and join her in calling on the government to retain the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal so that it can do its job to make our roads safer for all users. I note the comments by the member for Parkes and would say that I have not been here long but I have learnt one thing: defence is the best form of attack. So, yes, I too am jumping early and with good reason. Words like 'unstuck' and 'safety could be assumed to be a burden' have me on my feet today.

The passing of the original legislation in 2012 was an important moment for all Australians. It sent a clear message about the then Labor government's commitment to road safety. But more than sending a message, it ensured that action would be taken to make our roads safer. It created the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, with specific powers to ensure pay and pay related conditions for truck drivers and that they and the trucks they are driving are at their best when they are on our roads. It was introduced in response to alarming statistics in human cost. Between 2010 and 2012, around 250 people were killed and more than 1,000 suffered serious injuries on our roads in accidents involving trucks. It was the Australian industry with the highest incidence of fatal injuries, with 25 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2008-09. It was 10 times higher than the average for all industries. The legislation was passed to address specific issues: to reduce incentives for drivers to push themselves beyond what is fair, reasonable or safe to make unrealistic deadlines and a decent living; to reduce incentives to cut corners on safety and maintenance; and to make our roads safer for truck drivers and the general public.

The tribunal was created to do all that was necessary to ensure that truck drivers, whether they are an employee or a self-employed owner-driver, have a safe and fair workplace, while sustaining the long-term viability of the road transport industry. The government of the day recognised the important role of small business, particularly owner-drivers, in the road transport industry. They acknowledged that the small businesses in this sector provide flexibility for businesses to meet demand for the delivery of goods, particularly in rural and regional areas. It was noted at the time of introducing the legislation that small businesses made up around 60 per cent of the road transport industry, yet they made up far less of the income earned in that industry. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal works with all stakeholders to ensure that pay and pay-related conditions encourage drivers to drive safely, to manage their hours, and to maintain their vehicles.

The safety of truck drivers and of the community is paramount. When your place of work is the cabin of a prime mover, work conditions and rates of pay that allow for rest are essential for your own safety, for the security of your family and for the safety of everyone else using the road. I heard the term 'road train'—long before I saw one for the first time on the Stuart Highway in 1984—from two brothers who were owner-drivers doing interstate haulage. I was taught by those same brothers to respect trucks on the road and to understand their capacities and limitations. I understand the variation of load on the way a truck manoeuvres, and I appreciate and admire the skill of experienced drivers as much as I admire those who load and secure trucks and ensure driver safety. I understand how important sleep is for truck drivers because, as a family, we lived it.

I also understand the pressures to meet the deadlines; the hours spent waiting to load and unload; the time off the road for repairs and maintenance, or because the roads are congested or flooded—and what it costs in terms of income. I understand the pressure to make the payments on the truck and to keep the business alive. I also understand the love for the work. With that, I also understand how unfair the industry can be, how cutthroat, and how an owner-driver has little time for politics, or organising, or lobbying. In my experience, there was no time for that—just the pressure to stay on the road and make a living. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was established specifically to target this, in an industry that is essential for our economy: to make that industry safer and fairer. While the economic cost is important, it is the human cost that really counts. Very few Australians have not been affected by the loss of a loved family member, a workmate or a friend in a road accident. My family is no different; except that the one we lost was an owner-driver, thrown from his prime mover on a sweeping bend. My family have lived the nightmare of the police visit with the ghastly news. It was a single-vehicle accident so we were, thankfully, spared the worst news—that others might have been killed or injured. The effect was devastating.

As a society, we have changed the way we socialise to counter the damage of road accidents. We have spent millions of dollars on advertising and deterrence. I urge the government to let the tribunal get on with the job.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to debate this private member's motion. The proposition that remuneration equates to safety is flawed. It has no basis in fact. Yet it is this flawed and unsubstantiated thinking that led to the establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not expecting you to take my word on that; rather, let us go to the government's own Regulatory Impact Statement in 2012 on the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Amongst other things, it said, 'data at this point in time is limited and being definitive around causal link between rates and safety is difficult'. It leads me to rise to speak on this motion today on two fronts.

Firstly, Barker is home to a large heavy vehicle industry. Indeed, some 2,000 of my constituents are long-haul truck drivers. The very establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal does them a disservice, because it pre-assumes that the majority of road accidents are actually the fault of the heavy vehicle driver. That is false and does them, as I say, a great disservice. Why then did we see the establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal into 2012? Well, it might not surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to learn that the Transport Workers' Union have been campaigning for the introduction of so-called 'Safe Rates' for a number of years, claiming that substantial wage increases for road transport drivers will have a positive effect on the safety record of the industry.

Any work-related injury or fatality in the road transport industry is one too many. I speak, as did the previous speaker, from a position of personal knowledge, so it hurts me when people coming to this place and use workplace safety as a cloak to mask a different agenda. Clearly, this different agenda are the claims of the Transport Workers Union. Let us call this motion for what it is—it pains me to do this. This is cheap politicking by the member for Perth. Worse, it is a further example of the opposition putting the interest of union bosses in front of the national interest. It might be that the member for Perth is looking to improve her standing, given that she was the parliamentary secretary for Western Australia during what can only be described as an outrageous defeat of the ALP in WA.

I was thinking about union influence and was reminded briefly of the attempts by the Leader of the Opposition to crab-walk from the influence of unions in the Labor Party and also, over the autumn recess, of the comments made by the member for Bendigo that, in fact, union bosses do not exert enough influence on the ALP. The reality is that in relation to the overall incidence rate of work related entries in the transport industry there was a 20 per cent reduction between 2002 and 2012—rates of accidents have decreased.

What, then, of the coalition's position? The coalition detailed its plan in May 2013, well before the last federal election. We undertook to undertake an urgent review of the operations of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Consistent with our commitment, the government commissioned a review—that was conducted by Rex Deighton-Smith—shortly after the election. The review focused on eliminating duplication in regulation and ensuring that regulations and policies for approving safety performance in the road transport industry are based on credible evidence. The coalition government has received the review and is carefully considering it before making any decision. As I have said, the nation from the member for Perth says cheap politicking and deeply hurtful to me. It is yet another example of the opposition putting union bosses' interests ahead of those of the nation. If the opposition was genuinely interested in ensuring the safest possible roads it would wait to see the review and examine it in a calm and methodical manner, not simply come in here and move a motion on behalf of their mates in the TWU.

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

I commend the member for Perth bringing this important motion to our attention. The government's lack of commitment to ensuring the highest level of safety on Australia's roads is of great concern, quite frankly. The government is yet to come clean on its plans for the future of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. This tribunal, bear in mind, was given the important task of establishing a safe road system based on safe rates for the Australian transport industry to ensure the safety of all road users. The tribunal should be left alone by this government and allowed to get on and do its job, which is to make our roads safer for everybody.

The road transport industry is one of the deadliest in Australia, with death rates 15 times higher than the national average. Fatality rates on road freight transport doubled between 2011 and 2013, which should be of concern to everybody. It is not only the workers in the industry who are affected, out of the 330 people who die each year in truck related accidents, between 50 and 70 truck drivers and the rest are other motorists and pedestrians. Australian truck drivers work hard to make a living, but they should not be expected to die to make a living. In addition to the loss of life, accidents involving heavy vehicles result in high economic cost to this country. Staggeringly, that cost is approaching around $2.8 billion annually.

Safety standards in the road transport industry clearly have an effect on our overall road safety. When truck drivers are overworked the safety of all road users is compromised. Clearly, the financial pressures being placed on our road transport companies and in turn on truck drivers by their major clients are compromising road safety. Truck drivers and their families and other Australian road users are being squeezed to death by the overwhelming market power of big retailers, such as Coles and Woolworths, which account for 33 per cent of road freight movements each day. In 2012 an industry survey of Coles's supply chain showed that 46 per cent of drivers were pressured to skip rest breaks, 28 per cent were pressured to speed and 26 per cent were pressured to carry illegally overweight loads. Delivery schedules set by our major retailers take no account of traffic, road works or other delays and force our drivers to speed and skip rest breaks in order to meet those impossible deadlines. We know what happens if they do not meet these deadlines: they lose their contracts.

It should come as no surprise that a company like Coles, which has donated more than half a million dollars to the Liberal party since 2004, was strongly opposed to the previous Labor government's measures to strengthen the road safety system. These companies are clearly profit driven; regrettably, concerns about safety are secondary. The government cannot afford to take the same position and needs to stand firm on the side of safety. No-one wants to see people die on our roads. This government cannot afford to abandon the extensive efforts initiated by the previous Labor government to improve road safety standards throughout our transport industry. Unfortunately, those opposite have already demonstrated their priorities, when, in 2012, they opposed the construction of new rest stops and parking bays to assist heavy-vehicle drivers to improve road safety.

I congratulate the Transport Workers Union, led by Tony Sheldon who has fought long and hard to protect not only his members, who work in one of the deadliest industries in this country, for its important campaign, which is based on improving safety standards for all members of our community. I urge the government not to abandon the efforts of the Labor Party over the last couple of years to strengthen and support road safety by retaining the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and not compromise the safety of transport workers and all road users. It is clear that safety measures in Australia's deadliest industry need to be strengthened, not abandoned.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This discussion about the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is very important for this nation. The coalition has a long history of supporting safety in the workplace, particularly in Australia's transport industry, but the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has brought with it a lot of complexity that has not really addressed the safety issue. We all support safety on our roads. It is a given. One death on the roads is one too many. But how the so-called Safe Rates campaign translates into safety outcomes is not clear. Let us look at the safety record before the Safe Rates campaign came to fruition. In 2011, 185 people died in road-trucking accidents. One is too many, let alone 185, but if you look at the three years previous to that before any of this came to fruition, there was overall a three per cent reduction in accidents involving articulated heavy vehicles. For heavy rigid trucks there was a 14.7 per cent reduction in accidents and fatalities. Overall, in the 10 years prior to the introduction of the tribunal there was a 20 per cent reduction in road-trucking accidents. When you look at the massive expansion of road transport in that time it is really showing a downward trend in accidents rather than an increase.

What really will make a difference to road safety is better roads. In the next few years we have in front of us the biggest road-building campaign by a federal government in the history of Australian government. In the Lyne electorate the road transport industry is front and centre of all our industries. Trucks bring stuff into the electorate and take it out of the electorate. Whether it is industry taking stuff in and out of Taree or Port Macquarie or over to Gloucester, we depend on roads. And what has the coalition got for the Lyne electorate? We have $16 million on the table for the Buckets Way—long overdue—to be delivered this budget. All that road transport going between the Manning Valley and out to Gloucester and down to Newcastle will benefit from it. Look at what we have got on the Pacific Highway—$1.129 billion committed to upgrades north of the Oxley Highway intersection up to Kempsie. We have got increased money for Roads to Recovery. We have got increased money for black spot funding. Safe roads make for improved safety.

The other complexity concerning the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is that as well as looking at pay rates for truckies and their conditions, it has factored them into commercial arrangements. In my particular situation, theoretically, when a cattle truck turns up to take a load of animals off to the saleyards or to the abattoirs everything should go through the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. For red tape, one only has to look at this situation. It does not make sense. We want to cut red tape and make the workplace and the arteries of our commerce and tourism safe. In the Pacific Highway upgrade we are going to get more rest stops. We are going to get separated dual-lane highway. This will lead to an increase in safety much more than using safety as a trojan horse for unnecessary regulation and for trade unions to be involved in commercial arrangements between customer and provider. We all support road safety and our initiative is going to achieve much more of that than trade unions being involved in commercial arrangements that are not part of the deal. So I think a long-term commitment to improving the transport infrastructure will be a great outcome for people in the trucking industry, for the tourists and for all those family members that have been affected by accidents on the roads. (Time expired)

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the motion and I want to thank my colleague the member for Perth for bringing it to the attention of the House. This is not the first time I have spoken on this issue in the parliament and, in fact, it is something I alluded to even in my first speech in this place. I recognise that truck drivers play a vital role in Australia's economy. In a country so large, they are essential in keeping our industries alive and putting food on our supermarket shelves. They are some of the hardest working people I have ever, and anyone in this place is probably ever likely to meet either.

But we also know that the unrealistic deadlines that are still placed on truck drivers squeeze them of every dollar they earn and can tragically even cost them their lives and the lives of others. The pressures that too many truck drivers are forced to perform under have made truck driving one of the most dangerous industries in our country with a workplace fatality rate of truck drivers 10 times the industrial average. I am privileged to represent around 1,500 professional drivers in my electorate of Greenway. My constituents, these truck drivers, often risk their lives each day when they go to work just so they can support themselves and their families. That is why the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was established—to make sure that these people, just like the ones who live in my electorate, are treated with the respect they deserve.

The first order of the tribunal came into effect on 1 May. Essentially, this important order sets out minimum entitlements and requirements for certain road transport drivers, their employers or hirers, and those drivers in the supply chain. This covers drivers who transport any good or material destined for sale or hire by a supermarket chain, and long-distance drivers. This includes requirements regarding safe driving plans for long-distance drivers, work health and safety training, written contracts for drivers and payment requirements for payers. This order is essential to achieving safety and fairness in the road transport industry. For an industry that is expected to grow by 73,000 over the next five years, far exceeding workforce growth in many other parts of the economy, these safety provisions are more important now than ever.

This issue is one very close to my heart. My late campaign director in Greenway, Blacktown resident and ex-truck driver of 45 years, Mr Brian Thomas, was a strong advocate for the safety of truck drivers. He often told me about his own experiences and the immense dangers that all truck drivers face because of the time pressures and the often impossible targets that are enforced. These dangers are the reason that the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was established and why it should be retained by this government.

One of my friends from the 43rd Parliament, the former member for Hinkler, was a strong advocate for the safety of truckies on our roads. I am dismayed by the way in which some of the speakers in this debate fail to respect and uphold his grounded and concerned views. On repeal day, the so-called Regulatory Repeal Day, the tribunal was called 'just another bit of red tape'. I heard the previous speaker talk about road infrastructure and how that will be a key part of truck driver safety. Truck driver safety is not just about infrastructure; it is not just about roads. You can have the best road in the world, but a driver—as the member for Perth mentioned—on the deadly cocktail to help them stay awake is not safe. The best road in the world is not going to save that truck driver or people around him.

The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is not just another piece of red tape. Any industrial accident is one accident too many. The tribunal exists to ensure fairness for working families. It is there to ensure that women and children in my electorate have a husband and a father who leaves at the beginning of the day and returns safely at the end of it. That is not extra bureaucracy. It is a demonstration of inherent decency and responsible governance.

On this issue, I highlight that in the Senate on 11 December Senator John Williams did call it another piece of red tape when he was talking about the draft road safety remuneration order. He said:

What I am getting to is red tape and paperwork that will not achieve anything. It will not provide safety and will be of no benefit.

I dispute that entirely. I also point to this fact, as the former Minister Albanese highlighted in March 2012 when the tribunal was established:

Road accidents involving heavy vehicles cost our economy an estimated $2.7 billion a year, but the cost to victim’s families can’t be measured.

If saving that amount of money is red tape, then I put it to this parliament that we should be doing everything we can not only to save that amount of money but to save lives.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just say how great it is to be in the chamber after a wonderful week away talking to the people across the electorate. And my electorate is an electorate that understands the trucking industry.

Unfortunately, for a very long time our rail has been let go. We have not spent or invested enough in rail as a country. But it does mean that we have been using trucks. And we do have the advantage of trucks. As a truck owner myself, and as someone who has a heavy combination licence, I do understand the trucking industry. I have used it to transport grain, wool and many products that we produce on our farm to the market. Across our electorate, we produce $5.3 billion worth of exportable commodities. That is quite a large amount of stuff.

But the thing that is driving safety is not so much the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal; it is improving roads. That is really what our focus should be. I do not have a problem per se with this attempt to move a motion in the House, except that we have conducted a review and the appropriate way to do governance is to look at things thoroughly. Information creates good policy, and when we want to grandstand on an issue, such as moving a motion like this before the results of that review have been released, you get the feeling that we are not actually allowing good information to create good policy.

Our trucking industry is important. But what is also very important is our that our trucking industry is profitable. People get good wages when the business is profitable. And when you have profitable businesses they also invest significantly in newer trucks: those trucks have better braking capacity, they have airbags on their trailers and they have the capacity to be safer. My great concern with this motion is that it is attempting to hold up something, such as the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which may be under the guise of a pay discussion rather than the guise of the safety discussion. Let us have our review, let us have our findings and let us then make a decision.

The review involves assessment of the regulatory and economic burden of the road safety remuneration system on participants in the road transport industry and the Australian economy generally. It is an examination of whether other Commonwealth, state and territory regulations and initiatives provide a more appropriate means of improving safety outcomes in the road transport industry; it is an examination of any available evidence about the impacts of the road safety remuneration system on improving road safety; it is an assessment of the operation and conduct of the tribunal and the extent to which it has achieved its aims and objectives; and it is a consultation with the relevant stakeholders as necessary.

The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has been running for a little bit of time, and so it is appropriate that we see the findings of that review. And seeing those findings will ultimately create a good outcome. The previous speaker mentioned the 'deadly cocktails to stay awake'. Can I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, that the laws around drugs, or even having any drug in the cabin of a truck, are very strict. We are not removing 'deadly cocktails to stay awake' by paying truck drivers more as a result of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal; we are actually removing those drugs by very strong laws and very strong policing. That has been something that our truck drivers have been very involved with, and taken great ownership of.

In fact, mass management is something that our trucking industry and our small businesses have welcomed. It is the ability for a trucking business, provided that they do good record keeping and have really good maintenance, to be able to carry a little bit more on our roads. Things like that have really reaped great benefits, and they are the sorts of things we should be looking at.

As I come to my conclusion, can I say that our government is very committed to safe roads. I think everyone in this House is committed to safe roads. As a CFA member, I have spent all night holding onto a fire hose from a fire truck at fatalities. I do know how traumatic it is for the family involved. But the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is having a review. We should let the review run its course, and then we will have the findings of the review before we have a debate about trying to say how good it is before the review has had a chance to hand down its findings.

Debate adjourned.