Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on these bills today; although I must say I'm disappointed to do so. In fact what we're seeing here within the parliament and what we saw when this bill was debated in the Senate is actually a failure of implementation and, frankly, a failure of leadership from the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister responsible for these bills. The bill itself, if you just listened to the person at the dispatch box before, is pretty straightforward. The Road Vehicle Standards Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 seeks to amend the commencement provisions of the Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018, which passed through this parliament last year with Labor's support. The package of legislation, in fact, received royal assent and became law on 10 December 2018, yet here is the government now coming into this place with a piece of legislation which has been over a decade in coming and has been consulted on literally to death. I don't know what other consultation the government thinks it is going to be doing over the course of the next two years, but this is a piece of government legislation that passed the Senate, passed the House of Representatives and was given royal assent in December last year, and now the government is saying, 'We need to delay this for two years.'

The reality of what the government has done is that it has failed to invest money in the department for the IT system. This is a failure of implementation from the government and it is a failure of leadership. We in Labor get that this is a tricky issue. We get that there are always going to be stakeholders in this space who are not going to be satisfied that the changes are exactly what they want. After having consulted for five years—and I'll go through some detail as to the level of consultation, the number of Senate inquiries that this piece of legislation has been through—the problem now is: how is the government going to resolve those standing problems? They're not going to get resolved; that is the problem. They are really difficult. There are opposing views on particular and specific issues. As for consultation, what assurances is the minister going to be able to give us that that consultation will resolve those issues which have been longstanding?

The reality is that they won't. The government has to either take the decision to bite the bullet and implement this legislation or say it's all too hard. If they delay it for another two years, I am going to be asking the minister very specifically: 'What investments are you planning to make in the IT system? What is your consultation program and consultation plan? Who are you consulting with? What are the outstanding issues in order to bring this in?' Because right at the heart of it this bill is about road safety. It is about the vehicles that are on Australian roads today and making sure they are the safest vehicles that they can possibly be. At its heart, that is really what this legislation is about.

As I said, the original package of legislation passed the parliament and got royal assent back in December 2018. Commencement of the substantive provisions of the legislation is scheduled to occur on 10 December this year. They had a year to basically get all of this in place but are now saying, 'No, we can't do it.' We're here today to pass a bill which would delay commencement for almost two years—potentially more, I suspect, given the difficulty that the department is going to face in trying to resolve some of these quite intractable issues, simply because the government has not done the work and has not given the department the resources it needs to implement it. It is a significant failure of implementation and, in my view, a significant failure, on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister, of leadership in terms of road safety, an area where this government is failing.

The Road Vehicles Standards Act 2018 replaced the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989. Clearly, we know a lot has changed in road vehicles since the 1980s, when the Motor Vehicle Standards Act came into being. The new road vehicles standards legislation that passed this place in December last year created a new framework to regulate the importation and supply to market of road vehicles and certain road vehicle components. That legislation provided recall powers to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development to recall non-compliant vehicles. The legislation improves access to specialist and enthusiast vehicles and ensures that Australia's vehicle fleet continues to offer world-leading standards in community and environmental safety.

Importantly, the legislation to be delayed that we are now debating will reduce regulatory compliance costs to business. The government tells us that some $68 million will be saved each year as a result of that scheme coming into play. Unfortunately, industry and the Australian public will now need to wait almost two years before they will be in a position to realise the safety and financial benefits that the government claims the new Road Vehicles Standards Act will deliver. The bill before us today seeks to delay commencement of this regulatory regime until July 2021, almost two years later than when some of the provisions of the original act were due to commence in September this year.

Before I talk too much about the detail of the amended bill before us today, I want to take a few minutes to reflect on what's actually happening in road safety, because, as I said, at the core of it that is what this legislation is about: the government taking a decision to delay for two years regulation that will improve road safety. And it's not as though we are doing incredibly well when it comes to road safety in this country. If the government thinks that road safety is all okay, and we can delay the implementation of an important scheme for a couple of years because there won't be any consequences to that, then I'd ask it to reflect on what's actually happening. As legislators there is nothing more important than keeping our people safe on our roads. I had the privilege of serving as Minister for Road Safety in 2013. As a former minister for road safety, I therefore know that safety depends on three things: safe drivers, safe roads and safe vehicles. The Road Vehicles Standards Act sets the regulatory framework for one of these elements, ensuring that the safest possible vehicles are supplied for use on Australia's roads.

Almost 1.2 million cars are sold in Australia every year, in addition to thousands of trucks, caravans, trailers and other road vehicles. There are currently almost 20 million vehicles registered for use on Australian roads. Vehicle technology is, of course, rapidly changing, and over coming years we will see even more rapid uptake of new technology, such as electric and hydrogen, and also more automation in vehicles. We also will see increased automation in the freight sector. As the population grows and as businesses rely more on just-in-time delivery, we will see more freight vehicles, small and large, on our highways, roads and local streets. We will also see the continued growth of the recreational vehicle fleet, such as caravans and campervans, which we know have had such a huge resurgence in recent years. As vehicles become more and more complex, so too does the need to ensure that rigorous certification and approval processes are in place before any new vehicle or component is made available to the Australian market.

We know that every year more than 1,200 people lose their lives on Australian roads. The economic cost to the Australian community as result of road trauma is estimated to be some $30 billion each and every year. But we also know that the social and emotional cost to families, individuals and communities across this country is even greater. After many years of continuous improvement—largely brought about by road safety reforms implemented across Australia, and with the strong commitment of the Australian public, in the 1990s—Australia's road toll, unfortunately, has again begun to turn in the wrong direction. We can't allow that to continue. We need to do something different if we're going to reduce the loss of lives on Australian roads.

Last year, in the lead-up to the election campaign, we committed to establishing a national office of road safety, to give much-needed national leadership in addressing Australia's road toll. It's an important initiative. We believed that the office needed to work strongly with state and territory agencies to better understand the road safety challenges faced around the country, to develop and promote best practice and to undertake much-needed research into the factors affecting safety on our roads. It's how we can develop sensible policy and legislative responses based on evidence and real-time data and research about what is happening on our roads. This research and data collection should be used to help shape the next National Road Safety Strategy, which is due to commence next year. I am very pleased that the government pinched this idea and has now established this office within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development. I certainly call on the government to ensure that the office is well-resourced and able to make a real difference in this important area of public policy. The opposition will continue to monitor the work of the office and to advocate most strongly for its function as part of national leadership in road safety.

But I also want to note that the government has failed in delivering the National Road Safety Strategy in particular. We know that that has been the subject of some concern by the government, as it should be. But we know that, even after nearly seven years—this government is in its third term; it's not a new government—it has been basically sitting on its hands when it comes to national road safety. For example, when it comes to the National Road Safety Strategy, there are eight indicators that the government still can't even measure, including one of the two headline targets: reducing serious injuries by 30 per cent. So, after six years in office—the National Road Safety Strategy has been in place for a while now—this government can't even measure some of the indicators to tell us how it's actually going to be able to reduce serious injuries on our roads. That's what the government has been doing.

It is not just the Labor Party saying that the government is failing on road safety. The government undertook a review into the national road safety governance, which was completed. It was dropped out on a Friday afternoon a few weeks ago. The key finding of this review into the government's capacity and leadership in road safety—the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for this area—was pretty damning. Authored by the Deputy Prime Minister's own department, it found that this government, the Morrison government, has not provided strong leadership, coordination or advocacy on road safety to drive national trauma reductions. And what's government's response? The government's response is to come into this place and delay for yet another two years a really critical component of actually getting safer vehicles on our roads. That's what the government thinks its role is in national road safety.

The review examined whether Australia has the appropriate governance arrangements in place to deliver the commitments made by governments to mainstream road safety in line with what we call the safe systems approach. The recent transport infrastructure ministers meeting in Adelaide signed off on the Commonwealth-led review of national road safety governance. It signed off, basically, on a report that said that the Commonwealth had failed. If that's what the minister thinks leadership is, goodness help us when we come to actually improving road safety.

I note the government now is going around holding some roundtables with industry on where the next National Road Safety Strategy will go. The government has said that it wants a bipartisan approach when it comes to road safety. Well, if you want a bipartisan approach, how about you invite the opposition to the table for a start? That might get you somewhere in terms of getting a bipartisan approach on road safety. If you want to hold roundtables and tell industry that it will be bipartisan, how about you actually invite the opposition to the table in the first place?

As I said, this bill itself is basically saying that the government thinks that we need to have a delay to something that will improve the safety of our vehicles on our roads. That's what this bill is about. Frankly, one death on Australia's roads is one too many. It is why Labor supported the passage of the original Road Vehicle Standards Act and associated legislation back in 2018. We recognised how important it was and still is for the parliament to ensure that the standards applying to the supply of motor vehicles to the Australian market are kept up to date and are actually fit for purpose. Seventeen years have elapsed since the current Motor Vehicle Standards Act and its regulation were last reviewed. The new road vehicle standards legislative package, which passed this parliament last year, puts in place a regulatory regime that is more streamlined and able to respond to changing market conditions. It is true that Labor did have some concerns about the final detail of the legislation. It's complex and there are multiple stakeholders in this area. But we supported the passage of this bill through the parliament last year and we thought it was important, as the government told us then, to get that legislation in place as quickly as possible because it would improve the safety of vehicles and that will improve lives on our roads.

The legislation was developed over more than five years, with work starting on this actual reform back in 2013. The government, frankly, has consulted on this as far as it can. It consulted with industry through many rounds, including a review of the act and regulations in 2013-14, formal consultation sessions with industry in 2016 and 2017, release of an exposure draft of the bill in 2017 and 2018, and a Senate committee inquiry in 2018. These consultation exercises have given the government multiple opportunities to hear from industry not only to refine and finalise the legislation but also to begin working on implementation arrangements. It's had plenty of time.

Five years is a long time—seemingly more than enough time to have worked on an IT system to support the new legislation, seemingly sufficient time to have worked with industry on how to ensure that all parts of the industry could be ready to go with the new regulatory arrangements from the commencement date. Unfortunately, we are now considering a bill which seeks to delay that commencement by almost two years, to July 2021. This delay means that the savings and safety benefits from the new regulatory regime will be delayed by up to two years. It also means that those parts of the industry that have already invested a lot of time and resources in consultation with the government will need to embark on yet more consultation on the finer detail.

What I really want to know from the minister—I'm assuming the Deputy Prime Minister's not coming in, but the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister could help me on this—are the answers to a few questions. I expect that Minister Gee will be able to answer these when it comes to this legislation. What resources is the government now putting into the IT system required for the department to implement this new regulatory regime? What are the areas that the government thinks it must absolutely now consult on? What are the outstanding issues the government thinks it has been unable to resolve in the past five years of this consultation that have led to this point, where it's now starting the clock again and giving itself another two years? What are those issues and how does it propose to resolve them? I don't think it can resolve them, because I think they are issues that are not resolvable; however, the government is now saying it's going to consult more and that it will be fine.

What does the government propose to say to those areas, such as the caravan and camping industry, that are already ready for the implementation of this new regulatory regime? Is there any compensation for those who have already spent a huge amount of money on implementation and are ready to go? What is the consultation process from here? What is the government planning to do to actually resolve these issues? They are questions that the minister, now that we are having a debate on this delay, should be able to answer when he comes to the dispatch box to sum up this legislation.

Now, I do want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that there are a number of sectors within the industry that have advised the opposition that they are ready for implementation now. We know there are some that are not, and there are some reasons for that—some of them have been dragging their feet on this for quite a long period of time; others have got some other reasons—but there are sectors who have invested the time and the resources to get their systems in place. They are disappointed that they are now being asked to wait for another two years to realise any benefits.

The minister wrote to me, in advising me of his intention to bring forward this legislation:

More time is needed for all affected parties to ensure the smooth implementation of the reforms and avoid needless disadvantage to Australian businesses in transitioning to the new legislative arrangements.

In other words, the government is claiming the delay is because the industry is not ready for the new arrangements to commence. But some in the industry tell us that they are ready, and that they just want the government to get on with implementing the new arrangements. We know, for example, the Caravan Industry Association is strongly supportive of the original package of legislative changes. The association has advised me that Australian caravan and trailer manufacturers have invested significant financial resources in ensuring that they are ready for implementation on the date set out in the package of legislation. They are very concerned that the delay will both disadvantage those who are prepared and allow more potentially unsafe products to enter the Australian market, particularly from overseas suppliers.

We have a booming caravan industry in Australia at the moment. It's something that we should be very proud of. I'm the daughter of a former caravan manufacturer. I know caravanning pretty well and, as the daughter of a caravan-manufacturing small-business owner, I've seen the boom and the bust in caravanning. It's really lovely to see that we're experiencing a great boom at the moment, but they are very expensive items. And when you have got local manufacturers competing against imports that potentially may not be as safe as local product, or have local product—there are a lot of people who jump on when an industry is booming. They decide they might be able to make caravans from a smaller manufacturing facility and make a small number of those when the industry is booming like this.

This legislation—the legislation the government passed previously—is actually about making those caravans, and the trailers and chassis that those caravans are built around, as safe as they possibly can be. The caravan industry in Australia is saying: 'Yes, we agree with that. We want them to be safer. We're worried about what's actually happening in our sector.' But this government says, 'No, we're going to wait for another couple of years, if then, to see what's happening.'

Others tell us that the delay is only warranted because much of the detail that the department needed to work on has in fact yet to be finalised. On behalf of the opposition, we don't accept the assertion that the delay has occurred at the request of industry. Instead, it is pretty clear to us—to the opposition—that the delay has come about because the government has failed to give the department the resources that it needs to actually implement this legislation, and that the government is a bit nervous about the stakeholders who continue to say they have concerns about this legislation. This is instead of saying, 'Look, we've consulted and we think we've got it as best we can'—because it's never, ever going to be absolutely perfect, with every stakeholder agreeing to it—and showing some leadership by saying, 'We need to proceed with this now and we've given the department the resources it needs to do the job properly.' That's what's actually happening here.

It would have made sense for planning and implementation arrangements to have been well under development in parallel with drafting of the bills and the passage of the legislation through the parliament. Yet it would appear that neither sufficient direction nor sufficient resources have been provided to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development to upgrade the IT systems needed to support the new regulatory regime or to finalise the implementation rules and policies needed by industry. We know that this is a difficult area, one that's never going to be absolutely perfect in the eyes of every single stakeholder. But, frankly, the government, as I said right at the start, has had a failure of implementation and an absolute and utter failure of leadership when it comes to the minister.

However, as I have said, we are far from satisfied that this bill was in fact even required. That being said, as we did in the Senate, we will support the bill—grudgingly, frankly. But we want some assurances from the minister, and if we can't get them here we will pursue them through other avenues. We want some assurances about what the government actually intends to do over the course of the time that it's given and what extra money it has committed to the department, and, as I asked, what outstanding issues it thinks need to be resolved, what the process is for resolving those and the process for consultation. What is it going to do in relation to potentially compensating or acknowledging those industries that have already spent substantial money in getting this ready?

That being said, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government for its failure to appropriately prepare for the significant reforms introduced by the act, which aim to ensure that Australians are kept safe on our roads".

Further to my amendment, as I said, I call on the minister to assure this House and to assure those members here debating this bill that sufficient resourcing and direction will be made available to the department to ensure that the revised commencement date can be met.

I make it very clear: the opposition will not be in any position to support any further delays beyond July 2020. That means the government had better do what it should have been doing for the last 12 months at least—that is, actually get on with the job. Australians need assurances that we have the safest vehicles we possibly can on our roads. Unfortunately, with a government that has completely dropped the ball when it comes to road safety, the bringing forward of this legislation doesn't give me any confidence, frankly, that it cares about this issue or that it in fact is actually going to be able to do the work to deliver on the real promises that this regulatory regime and the changes to it will make for road safety across the country.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment moved by the member for Ballarat. I have a regional electorate that neighbours the member for Ballarat's. Like her, I have witnessed and met with far too many grieving families who have lost a loved one to road trauma. It is true that, whilst we had some years of decline in road trauma and road death, unfortunately we are going through another spike. This government's delay on these reforms could not come at a worse time, urgently demonstrating why we need the government to act and to implement these standards as quickly as possible.

Before I speak further about the experiences on our roads today, I want to support the comments made by the member for Ballarat about the need for road vehicle safety standards as soon as possible. Apart from a family home, a car or a caravan is the most expensive item that many of us have. For many young people, the first loan that they take out is for their car. The pressure on our dealerships and on our manufacturers—we no longer manufacture cars in this country, but we do manufacture caravans—is increasing. It is a significant investment that many individuals undertake, and that is why making sure that we get these road vehicle safety standards right and enacted as quickly as possible is necessary.

It's tough times for car dealerships; it's tough times for the car industry. My local dealers say to me, 'With delays and more uncertainty, we just don't know where we stand from day to day.' In the country, in regions, you cannot get around if you don't have a car; it's a fact of life. It is very hard, because we just don't have the population to support good transport routes, and that is only going to get worse under this government because of its delay in bringing forward infrastructure spending—particularly in our regions and particularly on public transport.

We have more cars, more car users and more people taking out loans to invest in cars. Whilst we know that Australian cars are safe, to make sure that we meet appropriate safety, anti-theft and environmental standards we need to continue to improve. Whilst we have some of the safest cars in the world, we also have some of the dirtiest cars in the world. It's something where our car purchasers, our car drivers and our car dealerships are actually moving ahead at a much quicker pace than our government. Did you know, for example, that there's at least a six-month wait if you want an electric Hilux ute in this country? There is a delay on the rollout of electric cars and hybrid technology in our country because the demand from people wanting to purchase those vehicles has increased. For all the scaremongering and the fear campaign that was run by those opposite in the lead-up to the last federal election, car users are embracing cleaner cars and the technology that goes with them: (1) it is more fuel efficient, and car users see that they save at the bowser; and (2) they want to do their bit for the environment. They can have their ute and have a clean car at the same time. The technology is here. Ensuring that those safety and environmental standards are rolled out across the industry is vital.

From time to time we have the debate about parallel imports. Again, this is a vexed area within our communities, because it does ask the question: do those overseas cars meet the same standards as our own cars? We've lost the opportunity in this country to really control our cars through the way we manufacture them. Because of this government, the car industry manufacturers shut down and left. Since then, legislation like this, the Road Vehicle Standards Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, is now one of the only ways we can ensure that we have the best safety standards.

Why do we care? Why do we care about the safety of our vehicles that are on our roads? Because, unfortunately, the road toll continues to rise. It is higher now than it was four years ago. We've had more than 1,200 people die on Australian roads in the 12 months leading up to 30 June 2019. There's been a spike in my state of Victoria. A majority of these deaths, unfortunately, have occurred on country roads. It is the triple effect in our regions of population growth, deteriorating roads and the mixed use of roads—that is, someone driving a family car on a road where there is also high usage by industry vehicles and truckies. We are seeing far too many lose their lives or be victims of road trauma, and, whilst there is significant investment from the Victorian state government into country roads, they don't have a partner in the federal government to ensure that that funding is matched.

Just as the previous speaker recognised that the government has adopted one of Labor's proposals about a road safety office, one proposal they have not adopted, which was put forward at the last election, was to contribute towards establishing a rural road trauma research hub at La Trobe University. It was to be based at the Bendigo campus. Labor made this commitment because we acknowledged that, whilst you have to have a safety office, you also have to ensure that you are funding research to ensure that we are meeting best practice and that we are working out and working through the challenges that are occurring. Every fatality that we have on our roads, every serious injury, is somebody's loved one. They're somebody's mother, son or daughter. They are connected to our community. This rural road trauma research hub would have combined research expertise from across the La Trobe University Bendigo campus in rural health, psychology, pharmacy, engineering, planning, education and law to tackle those questions. There is a road trauma research hub that does exist, but it's based at Monash, and in the past it has largely focused on metro road trauma, not on rural road trauma.

As Bendigo Health told me during the campaign that whilst we have lost lives on our roads there has also been an increase in trauma and injury. As our cars have become safer and as more people survive severe accidents, their recovery, unfortunately, is longer. That is where we have a gap and where we need to start the research and ensure that we are funding and supporting the work that goes on. For many, recovery from road trauma can be long, whether it be from a physical injury where they are learning to walk again or whether they have a severe disability through a mental injury where they are literally learning to speak, recovering their motor skills and so on and so forth.

As I mentioned, at the time that we made the announcement, 90 lives had already been lost on Victorian roads that year. That was from January to April. It was 50 per cent higher than the same time the previous year, and, unfortunately, it continues to increase. Road safety messages aren't getting through, and that is another reason why this research hub should be supported by the government. I urge them, like they did with Labor's proposal on the road safety office, to consider the proposal, put forward by La Trobe, to fund a rural road trauma research hub so that we can really drill down into what's happening on our regional roads and provide policymakers, this place and our state governments with the best advice on how to tackle this growing crisis in our regions.

This is all part of the discussion about road safety and the amendment that was moved by the member for Ballarat. It is another example of how the government have completely dropped the ball. As outlined, this bill has been delayed again and again. Perhaps it's because of the turnover of ministers in this portfolio. Every time somebody new comes to this portfolio, we're hit with another delay. Meanwhile, people on our roads are dying. Meanwhile, people involved in the industry are getting frustrated by delays. As we've heard, the Caravan Industry Association strongly supported the original package of legislative changes. They got on with the job—they implemented and are ready. The largest manufacturer of caravans and recreational vehicles in this country is Jayco. They're based in Dandenong. Unfortunately, they're now our largest vehicle manufacturer in many ways because we have lost our car industry. But many may not know that they started out in Bendigo—they are a proud Bendigo family, and these days they have two manufacturing bases. Their largest is in Dandenong and the other is in a town in regional Victoria where they support at least 50 jobs. They are under immense pressure because they proceeded with the changes. They support the changes, but, like many within the industry, they are frustrated that the changes have again been delayed. The changes have been delayed and delayed, and here we are again talking about them. They are going to be hit with further delays.

Also highlighted in this bill, and something of which we need to remind the government, is it's failure to respond to the inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy. The road toll is higher now, yet of the 33 indicators in the National Road Safety Strategy that have been in place since 2011 only nine are on track to be met—only nine out of 33. That's a terrible failure rate from the government. On its watch it has allowed us to fall behind. This is a collaboration, absolutely. Road safety is the responsibility of all of us, but it takes national leadership to really help drive these changes through. Road crashes is one of those areas that are the bread and butter of regional journalists. It is terrible to hear from journalists in regional areas that crime and road crashes are what they respond to. Unfortunately, we've had so many crashes in the Bendigo electorate that they've had to employ more journalists. Basically, two or three people will get allocated to that area of responsibility each day because crashes are becoming so frequent.

The major road in and out of the Bendigo electorate is the Calder Freeway. It runs through Bendigo, through my electorate—in fact, through the electorates of many Labor MPs—into Melbourne. Far too many lives have been lost and far too many accidents have occurred on this road. We also have, to our north, the Calder Alternate Highway, where again there have been far too many accidents and far too many lives lost. That runs from my electorate through to Mildura, cutting through other electorates. Then there is the Midland Highway, where we have challenges as well. All of these roads have mixed road users. We are reminded daily about the importance of safety. That is why the delay in progress on road standards that this bill will cause is frustrating so many and is so disappointing.

I call on the government to reintroduce safe rates. The Safe Rates campaign has been organised and run by the Transport Workers Union. With great fanfare and politics this government removed the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Our roads have not become safer because of the removal. Transport and trucking costs have not reduced because the government got rid of the tribunal. Instead, we've seen the opposite occur. Our roads are unsafe. We have seen more deaths involving trucks than ever before. That is disappointing. When I say 'ever before', I mean that with the introduction of safe rates we started to see a decline. Now we're seeing an increase again. Wealthy companies at the top of the supply chain squeeze contracts. They force drivers and trucking companies to cut corners on safety. There is an issue about racing against the clock and time. A safe rates system would set standards for all transport workers. It would see the same pay for the same job. It would ensure that those working in the industry would have safe time and safe rates to complete their jobs.

I urge the government to drop the politics on this issue and to meet with the union, with the workers and families affected and with those involved in the trucking industry to consider reintroducing a safe rates scheme to ensure that all those involved in the trucking industry are safe and can get to and from work safely. We forget that for truck drivers the road system in Australia is their workplace. Every single day that they go onto the road, that is their workplace. I urge the government not to delay further when it comes to this legislation. Road safety is paramount.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bendigo for her contribution and also the member for Ballarat for her second reading amendment, which reads:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government for its failure to appropriately prepare for the significant reforms introduced by the Act, which aim to ensure that Australians are kept safe on our roads".

As stated by previous speakers, the Labor opposition support the passage of the Road Vehicle Standards Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, but we totally reject the assertion that the delay is at the request of the industry. It's actually because of a lack of planning from this coalition government and a lack of resourcing for the department to upgrade its IT systems. Now, let's put this into the appropriate context: we've got a government well into its third term, now in its seventh year in office—yes, that's correct—and no-one to blame but itself, yet we've got a department not able to upgrade its IT systems in order to roll out this program. The Road Vehicle Standards Act and associated legislation actually passed last year, and that created a modern regulatory framework to ensure road vehicles and certain road vehicle components provided in Australia meet the appropriate safety, anti-theft and, most importantly, environmental standards that are required. They also gave affect to our international obligations when it comes to vehicle standards.

There are positive road safety innovations and environmental benefits that flow from the updated regulatory framework which would give greater powers to ensure unsafe vehicles are not on Australian roads, which is obviously what we want. That will keep more Australians safe, and there will be more flexibility to accommodate innovation, which seems to be coming on us so quickly. When you sit in a new car, you're amazed at what's there.

After an extensive period of consultation with industry, the release of an exposure draft of the legislation and a Senate inquiry—so lots of lead-up, lots of input, lots of process and lots of consultation throughout Australia—it's very disappointing to see that the Morrison government has not actually been doing its job. It's asleep at the wheel. It seems to be focused on being the opposition to the opposition rather than actually taking control of the steering wheel of government and heading the country in the direction it wants. Instead of developing policies, procedures and IT systems to ensure that the legislation can commence as planned, it's focused on cheap politics and trying to wedge the Labor Party. Every second release that comes from those opposite is saying, 'This is a test for the Labor Party.' Well, the real test comes every month when they receive their payment for being members of the government. They are paid to do their job; instead they're focused on being the opposition to the opposition. So the Labor opposition, the actual opposition, call on the Morrison government to make a firm commitment that will provide the necessary resourcing and direction to the department to ensure that there are no further delays.

Here's a little bit of history to this: the Motor Vehicle Standards Act came in in 1989. Back in 1989, the Wheels magazine Car of the Year was the Mazda MX-5—to put things into a bit of context. In 2002, the legislation was reviewed and updated. It had a grease and oil change done on the regulations. Back then, the Car of the Year was the Ford Falcon BA. Now, in 2019, the Car of the Year is completely different to those two cars that I mentioned—the Mazda MX-5 and the Ford Falcon BA. It's the Volvo XC40, a completely different vehicle. The legislation passed last year was developed over five years. There was a lot of input from industry as well as the development of international standards and technological changes. All of this work started way back in 2013. Five years is a long time for the government to not update an IT system and not work with industry to ensure that all parts of industry are ready to go from the date of royal assent.

The coalition government tell us some $68 million will be saved each year as a result of this new regulatory regime. Unfortunately, industry and, most importantly, the Australian public will now need to wait almost another 24 months before they'll be in a position to realise the safety and financial benefits that the new Road Vehicle Standards Act will deliver.

Let's hear from some of the stakeholders. The Caravan Industry Association is a very important stakeholder. Anyone who has driven on country roads in Queensland, especially around this time of year, will know how important it is to get it right for caravans. They are strongly supportive of the original package of legislative changes. The association advised that Australian caravan and trailer manufacturers have invested significant financial resources in ensuring that they are ready for the implementation on the date set out in the package of legislation. They're very concerned that the delay will actually disadvantage those who are prepared and who have made the changes and that, more scarily, it will actually allow more potentially unsafe products to enter the Australian market, particularly from overseas suppliers. They say, 'The postponement is an action of convenience, due to the provision of insignificant resources being allocated to the department to roll out the RVSA, along with actions taken from other sectors who have not taken their obligations to be prepared for the RVSA in a timely manner.' Other industry associations have mixed views on the delay and acknowledge that the department is not ready to go.

In September 2017 the coalition government appointed a panel of road safety experts to conduct an inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy, which was clearly failing to make a material improvement in our road toll. The report was handed to the Deputy Prime Minister in September last year. I just want to point out something about the Deputy Prime Minister: he represents a regional area, a bit like the member for Ballarat and the member for Bendigo. He is a Nationals MP—the party that supposedly speaks up for the bush. Obviously anyone that understands road accidents knows that rural and remote areas do it tougher. I'm very proud of having been a member of the Labor Party that made significant investments in road infrastructure in the bush, as well as those other great contributions which, as the Labor Party, we've always made to the bush: investing in schools in the bush, NBN, Medicare—there are so many things that the Labor Party invests in and does so much for in rural and remote communities. But we find that the modern National Party seems to have forgotten the bush and seems to have forgotten what it's actually paid to do. It's supposed to represent the interests of the bush. The Deputy Prime Minister received this report in September last year, yet the champion of the bush is yet to respond. We are one year on and the responsible minister, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, is yet to respond.

The review's two co-chairs are eminent Australians in this field. Dr John Crozier, a leading trauma surgeon at Liverpool Hospital, is very eminent and well respected, as is Associate Professor Jeremy Woolley, director of the Centre for Automotive Safety Research at the University of Adelaide. In March this year they publicly released a video saying that they were 'underwhelmed'. What that is code for is that they are incredibly upset that the Deputy Prime Minister is just sitting on his hands.

The government's lack of response to the inquiry's findings is amazing. The road toll is higher now than it was four years ago. In the 12 months to 30 June this year 1,214 people died on Australian roads, compared with 1,170 in the 12 months to 30 June 2015. Coming from country Queensland, I note that rural and remote communities particularly experience the trauma, as they do so much driving. It's important that we get the settings right for the bush.

Of the 33 individual indicators in the National Road Safety Strategy, which has been in place since 2011, only nine are on track to being met over the strategy's 10-year time frame. I was contacted by one of my constituents who was concerned about this and about the fact that it was basically snuck out on a Friday afternoon. We are eight years into a 10-year strategy and the government still cannot actually measure eight of the indicators, including one of the strategy's two headline targets—that is, the reduction of serious injuries by 30 per cent.

The key finding of the Review of national road safety governance arrangements was that the Commonwealth:

… has not provided sufficiently strong leadership, coordination or advocacy on road safety to drive national trauma reductions.

As I said, it's like the National Party, in particular, is asleep at the wheel. I use that metaphor deliberately. Deputy Prime Minister McCormack is a National Party MP. His own department authored the report critical of the lack of Commonwealth leadership to drive down road trauma. The review of national road safety governance arrangements is one of the few recommendations of the inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy to be actioned. The review examined whether Australia has the appropriate governance arrangements in place to deliver the commitments made by governments—Labor and coalition—to mainstream road safety in line with the safe system approach. That would actually save lives.

The review also identified ways for the Australian government to work in partnership with the state, territory and local governments to bring down the number of road deaths and serious injuries. Obviously, it is a three-level coordination requirement. It's time for the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Leader of the Nationals, to speak up. For too long the National Party in this particular area has turned into a lap dog of the Liberal Party. It's now time that the bush actually got a sheep dog or maybe even a pig dog—something with some teeth and that knows how to bite—rather than just a dog that is prepared to roll over and beg for the bone that's never thrown.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that certain words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Ballarat be agreed to.