Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Here we go again—ideology over substance. We've had, to this chamber and with this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill, representation from owner-drivers, employee-drivers, contracting companies, many fleet operators, large transport companies—a great variety of people right across the board—and all we can hear is rubbish from Senator McKenzie, saying about consultation, 'Is this an urgent requirement to be put forward by the government?' Well, if you turned around as the shadow minister of I don't know what, because you're actually talking to transport companies, you'd be finding out about how urgent this is.

What do they come in here with? An amendment to say that we should wait until 29 May before we start discussing this further. Last week they were turning around saying how important it is that we act urgently on fuel, yet they're putting amendments up about delay, delay, delay and red tape after red tape after red tape. Their ridiculous approach to the whole substance of what they've been putting forward is making sure that we delay the whole process of making sure mum-and-dad truck operators, those in the supply chain, are actually getting the benefits of having these sorts of issues in front of the Fair Work Commission. What don't like is that, during the closing the loopholes bills, there was a proposition that we should have supply chain accountability for those big retailers, who they're always on the side with, and those big miners that are screwing down people that are in the supply chain, who they're always on the side with. Those in powerful positions in the economy, under the closing loopholes bill, are held to account about transport costs.

What this bill simply does, but importantly does and critically does, is make a variation to say that the Fair Work Commission doesn't have to wait six months at least to make a decision. They have to consider the arguments. They have to consider the evidence. They have to consider the positions put forward by all the parties right across the economy. But they don't have to wait an arbitrary six months.

Now, to the credit of a number of companies—it might be funny for me to come in here and say some good things about Woolies and Coles because I spent about 30 years bashing them up. On this one issue, they've turned around, as a result of the closing the loopholes bill that we put through—that One Nation voted against, that the Liberals and Nationals voted against and that is the result of a discussions that have taken place so far on the bill that has already been passed on closing the loopholes on supply chains—and said that they'll go to fortnightly payments. They said they'll go to new payment terms to make sure truckers aren't sent bankrupt. The consequence for all of us in the community if that happens is that we won't have supplies of fuel actually making it to the petrol station. We won't have food going to remote communities, to regional communities or to your local shop in our capital cities.

This bill is to make sure the urgency that's required of the fuel challenges that we have now because of the Middle East crisis is dealt with in a faster, more efficient way. But they're just against it because of ideology. They don't like the fact that some of the biggest, most powerful companies in this country, along with owner-drivers and employees and transport companies, can all come together and work out a solution and that, if they can't get a solution, then the arbitrator by hearing the evidence can make a decision to make sure that nobody's left behind. Those good companies—and there's a number of them out there—that are doing the right thing and that are making sure their transport operators don't go bankrupt are competing with the mongrels they're protecting. If they don't pass this legislation and if they don't pass this bill, then they are turning around and going to the most base and crass operators that are turning around and profiteering from the challenges that we have because of the Middle East crisis. They're going to stand with them rather than stand with those businesses, those owner-drivers and those employees who are doing the right thing.

I heard the comments from Senator McKenzie before: 'Heaven forbid, the unions—oh, my God, the unions are involved with this as well. Isn't it horrific?' Well, I'm proud to say—yes, I'm union member; yes, I was the national secretary of the Transport Workers' Union. It happens to be the largest small-business organisation in this country, with tens of thousands of owner-drivers in every transport chain you could possibly think of—gig workers, taxi drivers, long-distance truck drivers, waste workers and car carriers, and the list goes on. The TWU still are the largest organisation in this country representing small businesses.

But it's not just they who have come to the table and said how important this bill is. It's people like Peter Anderson, who's the secretary of the peak transport employee body, the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation. On 23 March of 2026, he said this:

There are plenty of good transport clients out there doing what they can to get everyone through these fuel price spikes. But they're being undermined by the many others who are forcing transport businesses to fully absorb skyrocketing fuel costs themselves. They can't afford that, and that poses an imminent threat to our supply chains. We need to see these emergency powers put in place for the immediate viability of our transport industry.

The Australian Trucking Association CEO Mathew Munro—we've had a few arguments over the years, too—on 26 March 2026, this year, said that the Senate must pass the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill to save trucking businesses struggling to cope with crippling fuel bills and dwindling funds. The National Road Freighters Association on 23 March, a long time truck driver, Glyn Castanelli, spoke. Glyn and I have had a few arguments too, but we all agree on something. This is what Glyn says:

This is a positive step forward to protecting the viability of Australia's transport operators and maintaining the continuity of essential freight across the country.

Senator McKenzie, maybe you should listened to the transport industry. Maybe you should stop for a minute, read what they've said, read what they put in writing and listen to what they were saying to you. If you don't listen, and if the Liberal Party doesn't listen, then others will. We're going to make sure we got to transport industry's back.

Senator Hume called for urgency now. Maybe they should follow through and actually vote for what hardworking Australians are calling for instead of playing games, because this is a simple ideological attack—because they were against closing loopholes, all those years ago, when it was passed in this place. This is an amendment to make it more efficient, more effective and more successful for every hardworking Australian. This doesn't cover just people who are members of unions or those associations; it covers everybody. Where did Senator McKenzie's ridiculous 50 per cent thing come from? It's like everything else—truth plucked out of thin air, and you know where it should be put, because it doesn't actually exist. You're just coming in here and saying a whole pile of absolute rubbish rather than turning around and sticking to the facts.

If Senator Hume, who's also the shadow minister for industrial relations says there won't be proper consultation, Senator Hume might want to turn around and have a look at what it actually says in the Industrial Relations Act. I'm sure she's aware of it. The Industrial Relations Act requires proper consultation. It requires proper consideration. It's a necessity of the act. Judges sit there—the same judges as are in the other essential courts in this country—and consider those arguments. But, most essentially, it brings parties together on a common cause, with common views, for a common industry. That's what's happening in this parliament. It's a common cause, common views and a common sense of history and importance in passing this legislation.

We've seen the impact of the Middle East conflict. It's having a horrific effect on so many people across the world and in this country. We know that we have to take steps, and this is one of those important steps that needs to be taken to make sure that we have a trucking industry viable and still operating, to make sure we get the goods into our shops. This means that the commission can require retailers, mining companies and manufacturers—those at the top of the supply chain—to offer fair contract terms, which they want to minimise in their amendment. They don't want fair contract terms. They don't like the whole idea of having this act in the first place, because they voted against it. They don't want to have fair contract terms because that's actually what the industry is asking for. I might add that the industry is asking for this not only for those big clients and big retailers at the top of the supply chain; they're saying that when they subcontract they'll also be held to account for that. The responsibility goes right through. Not only are they saying, 'You should do it for these people'; they are saying, 'You should be doing it for all of us.' We're in this together. Not them; they're not in it with everybody else. They're in it for the ones at the top of the supply chain, not the ones doing the right thing right now. They are the ones who continue to do the wrong thing and put the transport industry in such dire risk. Tens upon tens of thousands of owner-drivers—mum-and-dad businesses—are making sure that we turn around and get the right thing done here.

This whole review system on 29 May and the proposition from the opposition that this is all some sort of stunt—well, say that to truck drivers that are doing it tough out there at the moment. Say it to the ones that can't get proper fuel cost recovery. Say that about the terms of payments on that fuel in a situation where it's so ridiculous it's putting pressure on businesses and, ultimately, will close them down.

We've just heard about price gouging. We know there should be further questions and investigations. That's why the government has got the ACCC doing an investigation into price gouging. But those same fuel companies at the top of the supply chain can apply pressure and change at a whim the terms on how payments are made for fuel under these difficult circumstances. They want to close all that down. Then they want to have a limit on it. They're saying: 'If we can't bash them that way, knock them out that way and delay it this way, then we'll have a limit.' They'll say, 'Let's make it six months,' then, 'Why not make it nine months or 12 months?' Then they could say, 'Let's think about it and make it two years.' Any sort of proposition is purely because they want to make sure they can frustrate this whole aspect.

If there's an emergency, there's an emergency. The minister has the capacity to turn around and connect that through to the Fair Work Commission. The independent body then makes a decision about the emergency and the status of that emergency and how it deals with it after hearing all the evidence from all the parties. I'm saying to everybody in this chamber: get your ideological blinkers off. Turn around and tell the trucking industry—owner-drivers, employees, small fleets, mum-and-dad operations and truck drivers—that their jobs are going to be more secure because there will be the chance for the commission to deal with the issues that have been proposed here about some ways of stopping the impasse. What's been suggested here are things that the Fair Work Commission does in an orderly, transparent, collective way, where people are able to see what the results are and how the results are arrived at.

To those opposite: I guarantee you that there will be lots of companies throughout that supply chain that will go to the commission and have a common view and common task. They've already had that. It's the ones you're protecting, that you're slowing up, by having this bill not go through, by putting all this red tape in the way. If you want to put all this red tape in the way, it is all about frustrating an outcome for truck drivers and it means fewer trucks on our roads, more pressure on small mum-and-dad businesses and fewer drivers out there to deliver our fuel, our feed and our retail supplies—and our local shops are getting it in the neck as well.

To those opposite: I applaud that you support this bill wholeheartedly, not just these ridiculous amendments that you're suggesting should be put through. Reconsider the ridiculous amendments you're putting forward and withdraw them.