Bill
Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill 2016
passed, as at 2016-04-19. Employment portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Employment
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2016-04-18
- second reading — 2016-04-18
- second reading — 2016-04-18
- second reading — 2016-04-18
- third reading — 2016-04-18
- introduced — 2016-04-18
- second reading — 2016-04-18
- second reading — 2016-04-18
- second reading — 2016-04-18
- third reading — 2016-04-18
- passed — 2016-04-18
- royal assent — 2016-04-19
Divisions
- Lisa Chesters What an extraordinary question time—again the government denied the link between pay and safety when it comes to roads and what has been decided by the tribunal. Let me remind the government what the Australian Productivity Commission report found in 2016. This is a government that is happy to support the Productivity Commission when they recommend cutting penalty rates but is not willing to support the Productivity Commission when they say there is a direct link between pay and safety. The cherry-picking of this government is extraordinary. And that is not the only report that linked pay to safety on our roads. There was another report, by Jaguar Consulting, in 2014. There was the National Transport Commission report in 2008. The Productivity Commission recognised in 2014 and 2016 that RSOS will result in a '10 per cent to 18 per cent reduction in the number of crashes'. This is on page 86, if government members would like to check it out. Perhaps they should read up on it before they make a statement in this House stating otherwise. The road transport industry has the highest fatality rate of any industry in Australia, with fatality rates 12 times higher than the average for other industries. That was on page 6 of the Productivity Commission review. Let me just state that again: '12 times higher'. Let's be real about our roads network. It is the workplace of Australian truck drivers. It is the responsibility of this place to do everything it can to ensure that safety is paramount on our roads, yet all the government plans to do—what they believe will improve road safety—is just build roads. That is not enough. It is not enough to just build roads. You also have to look at who is driving on our roads and the pressure on our truck drivers on our roads. In my previous statement I listed example after example of trucking accidents in my electorate. The Bendigo electorate has a vast network of highways. It is important that we have tribunals like this tha — 2016-04-18, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 79, noes 57
- Tony Smith The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. — 2016-04-18, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 84, noes 54
- Tony Smith Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately? Tony Burke No, it is not. We want to have a consideration in detail stage. It is quite reasonable to be able to have it. This legislation did not reach the parliament until today. It is being gagged already. People are entitled to give five-minute speeches on it. Christopher Pyne I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay. Tony Burke I am opposed to standing orders being suspended, and Labor is opposed to standing orders being suspended here. All we are saying is we should be allowed to put our case to the Parliament of Australia. But those members opposite believe that somehow they have the right to just ignore that, to come straight over the top. Ross Vasta The question now is that the motion be agreed to. Tony Burke No, I am speaking in that debate. I am speaking in the debate. I have got the call. Christopher Pyne Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, on a point of order— Tony Burke He is upset that he sat down and forgot to give a speech— Christopher Pyne I move: That the Member be no longer heard. Tony Burke Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, on a point of order: it is just been argued that I did not have the call, so how can he move that I be no longer heard? You have to give me the call now that that has been stated and then, if he is upset, he can move that I be no longer heard—but he cannot move it if I do not have the call. Ross Vasta I give the Manager of Opposition Business the call. Tony Burke Thank you. North Korea would be proud of the Leader of the House tonight! They would be really impressed. Christopher Pyne I move: That the question be now put. Tony Smith The question is that the question be now put. — 2016-04-18, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 84, noes 57
- Tony Smith The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders be agreed to. — 2016-04-18, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 82, noes 58
- Christopher Pyne I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— Tony Smith No, the member for Gorton will resume his seat. The motion requires the third reading be put immediately without debate. _A division having been called and the bells being/having been rung—_ I appoint the same tellers as per the previous division. Again, if members would remain in their seats during successive divisions, it would be helpful. If they did not vote in the previous division or are changing their vote, they should report to the tellers. Those who have changed their seats or come into the chamber: could they report to the tellers. — 2016-04-18, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 85, noes 55
- Tony Smith _(In division)_ If members have changed sides or come into the chamber, they need to report to the tellers and indicate to the tellers— Brett Whiteley And they have. Tony Smith and they have. Members cannot move now. Mr Burke interjecting— Mr Pyne interjecting— Mr Albanese interjecting— Members should not move around during—let's be very clear about this. This is a matter for the tellers to be satisfied that people have reported to them. Mr Burke interjecting— As I have said, this is a matter for the tellers to satisfy themselves. I am not going to take interjections on the subject. Mr Perrett interjecting— The member for Moreton! The Clerk is conversing with the tellers, as you know. Tony Burke Point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been a breach of the counting rules that have been carried by this House by the government whips. And this is a serious point of order, because the whips have put you in this position, Mr Speaker, and you have simply reported to the House what they have given you, but the numbers you have reported in terms of how many people have voted on the government side are not signed off on or agreed to in any way by the opposition whips. They are in direct contradiction to the rules that have been put in place by the Leader of the House. We did not like those rules when they were brought in, but the rules are: unless someone leaves their chair in an orderly way—they cannot do it in a disorderly way, which would put an obligation on you to consider naming them or removing them from the House—during the period when the doors are open, they must come up and report to the whips. We know that only happened with the member for Kennedy, and yet the count has changed by three. That is not possible as an outcome under the rules we have. Standing order 129 has been changed in this term of parliament. Standing order 129 now says: (c) Upon the doors being locked, the Speaker shall: (i) state the question to the House; (ii) direct the Members voting — 2016-04-18, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 85, noes 53
- Michaelia Cash I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in _Hansard_. Leave granted. _The speech read as follows—_ The Government is introducing the _Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill_because this Government stands by owner drivers and mum and dad small businesses who just want to earn an honest living. It has been clear for some time that the Road Safety Remuneration System, established in 2012 by the former Labor Government, has demonstrated no tangible safety outcomes for the road transport industry. Two separate, comprehensive, evidence based reviews have supported this in the strongest of terms. Even Labor's own regulatory analysis completed at the time the System was introduced acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear link between road safety and remuneration. There is nothing fair or safe about the Road Safety Remuneration System and that is why the Coalition Government has listened to thousands of owner drivers across the country and put this very urgent bill before the House today. The refusal of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to listen to reason and delay the commencement of the 2016 Payments Order in the face of widespread confusion and misunderstanding is the last straw. Around 800 submissions were made to the Tribunal. Almost all of these called for a delay to the Payments Order, with many indicating that the Order will negatively impact their business and, in a number of cases, put them out of business altogether. Even in the face of this evidence, the Tribunal refused to delay the start date of the Payments Order to allow these small businesses time to try to comply. I note that, notwithstanding the Transport Workers Union's strong opposition to any delay, the TWU is before the Tribunal today, seeking to delay the payments in the Order to 1 January 2017. What an extraordinary and absurd turn of events - the union for whom the Tribunal was cre — 2016-04-18, Senate: negative, ayes 32, noes 36
- Stephen Parry The question now is that the bill be read a second time. — 2016-04-18, Senate: affirmative, ayes 36, noes 32
- Stephen Parry The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. — 2016-04-18, Senate: affirmative, ayes 36, noes 32
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
billhome
frl act