McKELLAR, Mr Andrew, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Trucking Association

McKINLEY, Mr Bill, Chief of Staff, Australian Trucking Association

[10:43]

CHAIR: I welcome representatives from the Australian Trucking Association. Mr McKellar, we haven't had the pleasure of meeting, so welcome here today.

Mr McKellar : Thank you very much. It's nice to meet you.

CHAIR: Thank you. Would you like to make an opening statement before we go to questions?

Mr McKellar : That would be tremendous. I'm the chief executive of the Australian Trucking Association, and I've recently been appointed in that post. For me, it's a very steep learning curve but one that I welcome. Obviously road transport is an absolutely critical sector of the Australian economy and I think the issues that you are dealing with in this inquiry—which are fourfold, relating to viability, safety, sustainability and efficiency in road transport—are all absolutely fundamental questions. So the ATA very much welcomes the opportunity to participate in your inquiry. We made a submission back in November, which you have, which I think was quite a broad-ranging submission.

I'd like to make just a few brief comments to the committee today, and I will focus mainly on safety issues, but of course we can discuss the other points if you have any questions on that. One of the things to say is that currently more than 1,000 people are killed on Australia's roads each year. In 2020 it was 1,100. Of these, 170 were killed in crashes involving trucks, which is our obvious area of focus. The truck industry's safety performance has steadily improved during the past decade. In 2011, for example, 205 people were killed in crashes involving trucks. So, even though there's been an improvement, we would have to say that any level of death or serious injury is completely unacceptable, and our target is to get to zero. Essentially we need to press on with a coordinated approach that's built around the safe-systems model, and this has been at the core of the National Road Safety Strategy over the past 10 years and at the core of the international Decade of Action. But we have to say that that international experience has not met its objectives, and we have to ask ourselves why that has been the case.

We see that there is now a new draft for a 2021 to 2030 National Road Safety Strategy, which will guide Australia's approach to all aspects of road safety—cars, trucks, all forms of vehicles, all forms of road users. The draft floats an overarching target of a 50 per cent reduction in fatalities per capita and a 30 per cent reduction in serious injuries per capita by 2030. One of the shortcomings of that draft strategy is that it does not quantify how Australia can get there, and the proposed actions that we see in there relating to heavy vehicles—to trucks—are not strong. So we would certainly urge the committee to take a view on that draft strategy. The measures it proposes will have a strong impact on truck safety and are closely tied to the committee's terms of reference. In particular I would point to things like transport infrastructure, because building better roads does have a profound impact on safety. If we take an example, the upgrade of the Pacific Highway has seen fatal crashes decline from more than 40 a year to around 20 a year. So there's evidence there that there's a measurable impact, and I'm sure that before those investments were undertaken that was projected—and accurately projected.

Our submission proposes changes to the assessment of road projects to make safety a priority and to ensure that it's part of the decision-making process. Our submission also proposes that the guidelines for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program be amended to require that truck rest areas that are funded under the program meet the Austroads rest area guidelines. I think that's still very much one of the shortcomings that we would identify in what's happening out on the ground today.

CHAIR: I would agree, yes.

Mr McKellar : So, mark that as an absolute priority issue and something that we'd welcome the committee's attention to. New technology also has an important role to play, and our submission discusses the importance of mandating advanced emergency braking for new trucks, together with electronic stability control for new rigid trucks. We are working with the infrastructure department to adapt the international standards for the Australian trailer fleet and for our multicombination vehicles. So, I think rapid progress can be made in that area.

One of the biggest obstacles to accelerating the rollout of new vehicle safety technology is the resourcing and capacity of the vehicle standards area in the department. I think it's important that that is resourced and can do its work speedily and efficiently. So we urge the committee to recommend that funding for the development of vehicle standards should be increased. We've marked that also as a priority.

CHAIR: Funding for vehicle standards.

Mr McKellar : Driver training and licensing is another issue that we highlight. The committee has heard compelling evidence from witnesses about the quality of truck driver training and licensing, and I think there is a distinction between the two issues. Our member associations, I have to say, are doing a fantastic job in helping to deliver better training, and this is clearly an area of key focus for our member associations. For example, the Western Roads Federation has partnered with the Western Australian government on a $6.1 million program to train up to 500 new drivers and upskill another 500. I think they deserve to be applauded on that initiative. The ATA is feeding our members' views into the review of the Heavy Vehicle Driver Competency Framework, and this Austroads project got underway last October, so that's something that's in train.

I will just mention industry-specific safety regulation. Clearly we have devoted an enormous amount of effort to reforming the trucking industry's safety rules. We were just hearing some comments on the Heavy Vehicle National Law, which now includes strong safety duties and multimillion-dollar penalties for companies that breach them. These rules apply to the industry's customers as well as to trucking businesses, and the NHVR is now launching major cases against customers. One of our key areas of focus in the current reform process is to simplify the existing fatigue rules. That's a point of focus. The record-keeping requirements, in particular, are ludicrous. The penalties for minor paperwork offences are far too burdensome and those need to be looked at.

As a final point, I'll just mention that our members have also told us that things like truck sleeper cabs need to be more flexibly adapted. They need to be wider. Under the design rules, a sleeper cab can be as narrow as 53 centimetres. That's not effective. We've proposed a regulatory incentive to encourage the installation of sleeper cabs up to 1.3 metres wide. We supported this proposal with a detailed engineering analysis. It's feasible, and we believe it needs to be done. I will conclude my brief comments at that point and say that we are very happy to take any questions or discussion that the committee might have.

CHAIR: Thank you. I'm very keen not to ambush you—you've just got your feet under the table—but I know Mr McKinley has been around for a while. There will be a number of questions that I will want to go to. If you don't have the answer, Mr McKellar, I'm quite happy for—

Mr McKellar : I'm ably supported by my colleague.

CHAIR: Before I do, because I have a tendency to grab hold and keep talking all day, I will go to Senator Hanson. We seem to have lost her. We'll grab her when she is available.

I want to go along this line. Over the many years I've been involved but particularly over the last 20-odd years, where I haven't had a hands-on approach, productivity within the road transport sector has gone through the roof. Would you agree with that statement?

Mr McKinley : No. Our research shows that the productivity of the transport, postal and warehousing sector has actually declined since 2014.

CHAIR: I said the last 20 years. Maybe I got the timing wrong. I'm likely to do that. Let's go back 30 years. I'll take it back to the days when I was in a pair of blue shorts, a blue singlet and thongs. We had no fatigue management in WA. That's why we didn't want to run over east, because you blokes were just all crackers over here, and the coppers loved to take your pay packet off you. Would you agree that industry has made massive inward steps in increasing productivity, vehicle lengths and access to roads? Is that a better way of putting it?

Mr McKinley : Yes. In the period up to, as I said, about 2014, the sector's productivity increased dramatically, particularly with the introduction of the B-double. However, as I said, since 2014, the industry's productivity has shown a steady decline.

CHAIR: What do you put that down to?

Mr McKinley : One substantial reason for it is the access requirements for heavy vehicles to the road system. Because productivity is a ratio of what you get out to what you get in, as the cost of a vehicle increases, unless you get a large productivity gain out of it, then your measure of productivity is going to fall. What we've seen is increased investment in new heavy vehicles, but what we haven't seen is expanded access for those vehicles. This is really a key part of the heavy vehicle national law project, if you like. Most of the economic benefits of national heavy vehicle laws were projected to come from increasing productivity and better vehicle access. Although there have been significant gains made, that increased access hasn't kept pace with the deepening of the industry's capital stock.

CHAIR: Mr McKinley, there are many truck drivers listening as they are thundering down the highway today. What if I said, 'I reckon it's because the clients, the customers, don't want to pay for it'? What's the ATA's position on that? I do talk to a lot of your members as well.

Mr McKinley : Trucking is a low-margin industry, as you know, and what we can see from the data is freight rates falling steadily since the 1980s. In many respects, that's due to the industry's increased productivity. That has led to enormous benefits for consumers, for example, and also for exporters, who benefit from lower freight rates. But the industry is a low-margin industry. We believe there are measures that governments can take to support the industry, and particularly smaller operators in the industry, such as fixing the payment terms issue and fixing unfair contracts.

CHAIR: So how?

Mr McKellar : If I can interpose and make a comment. One of the things that was just mentioned then is unfair contract terms. We do see in the Competition and Consumer Act unfair contract terms as part of that, and a reform agenda for that which can be expanded. Originally, when that was put in place, it was really essentially between business and consumers. It's been expanded to relationships between business and business. One of the things we would say should be expanded upon is really looking at how you can use those powers and the power of the regulator, the ACCC, to ensure that particularly smaller businesses are not being adversely taken advantage of, given take-it-or-leave-it terms and conditions by big customers, by big suppliers.

CHAIR: It is not only the small ones; many large companies are getting treated like this.

Mr McKellar : Sure.

CHAIR: We have heard of many, many examples. With the legislation the government was putting through, I know how active the ATA were in supporting that. I know how active I was behind the scenes, too. Why were we only talking about over $100 million? As you say, Mr McKinley, the trucking industry has low margins, unfortunately, but they haven't always been low margins. Some people made a lot of money out of transport, and the margins were more than a headwind of what they are now. Your members would tell you—we're talking 30 days now, as if there's some magic bullet. I went on strike to get paid weekly in the eighties. What is this magic bullet about 30 days? I'm old school: you should be paid cash on delivery. All of a sudden now, we're pleading: can the masters here in parliament please move a law where we get paid in 30 days? You know yourself—60, 90, 120, 150—

Mr McKellar : We think that's minimum. Acceptable standards should be applied in business. Clearly in some cases we're seeing that those payment terms aren't respected; in many cases they are. We're saying that there should be a regulatory minimum. If businesses can improve their practices and cash flow and cash management, then the shorter the better. As you say, cash on delivery is the optimal outcome.

CHAIR: Yes. I will come back now to standards. Mr McKinley, I'm going to quote you this, though I don't have it in front of me—I can dig it up, but I don't have to. I remember doing a road safety inquiry in this building in about 2016—

Mr McKinley : I remember it well, Senator.

CHAIR: Yes, and I remember your words to me were along the lines of, 'Senator, the ATA doesn't get involved in industrial relations. That's RTA's role,' and I respect that. But you certainly got involved when there was a calling for the abolition of the RSRT; you were front and centre. One of your previous presidents, Mrs Watson, was proudly getting her photo taken on the front lawn here with Michaelia Cash—and how wonderful that was. What are your members saying to you now? Do they still think that was a great way for the ATA to get involved in industrial relations, when you said you never would?

Mr McKellar : I will make a very brief comment.

CHAIR: Yes, please do.

Mr McKellar : Then I will refer to my colleague. Certainly my understanding across the membership is that they believe that issue was dealt with by the parliament, that the system that was put in place was not working effectively and did not work according to its objectives. The parliament took a decision and abolished the RSRT. I think that's not something that should be relitigated. We think that debate is done. When it comes to safety, one of the things we would say is that we should look at: Where is the greatest return? Where is it that we will get the maximum benefit? Where should we put our focus in terms of policy outcomes, legislative, regulatory outcomes, that will deliver the greatest dividend in terms of lives saved and injuries prevented? We would say that reprosecuting that argument is not where that's going to go. There are many much higher priorities in terms of safety where we will get a much greater dividend. So my expectation is that, if we were to go back and ask our members on that, and we certainly will, in the context of the forthcoming federal election, I'm not aware that any of the major parties are advocating that we put the truck into reverse on that issue—

CHAIR: The Labor Party put it through its platform two weeks ago.

Mr McKellar : It may have it in its platform. Whether it will be part of its stated policies for the next election, we will obviously ask the shadow minister and the leader to confirm the position on that, or to articulate the position on that.

CHAIR: Of course. You need to, and I can help you out.

Mr McKellar : I'm sure that will be part of the debate and part of the information that people will look for in the context of any forthcoming election. But, as far as I'm aware, the position of our members would be that they wouldn't see reversing what's already been done as a priority in any shape or form.

CHAIR: Mr McKellar, by 'reversing', you mean back to an RSRT or something similar?

Mr McKellar : Going back down that track. We wouldn't see it as being effective or something that would be advocated. It wouldn't be optimal.

CHAIR: Then may I ask you this question. Most of your membership has presented in front of this committee so far, and we understand that TWU are no longer part of the membership. I know that. When I heard from the Queensland Trucking Association in Queensland, I found that that's not their view. Mr McKinley, have you read the transcripts of the inquiry so far?

Mr McKinley : I'm familiar with the evidence that's been presented, yes.

CHAIR: Well, pull me up if I get something wrong and I will correct the record. So QTA aren't saying that. QTA are saying that something has to be done because of the squeeze at the top of the supply chain. Don't quote me word for word, because there have been that many times about this in the inquiry.

Mr McKinley : Of course.

CHAIR: Roadtrack New South Wales, absolutely, have the same position. They don't share your position. Pull me up if I'm wrong. Western Roads Federation—what a presentation that was from Cam Dumesny! He doesn't support your position. Am I correct still, there, Mr McKinley?

Mr McKinley : That's what the evidence—

CHAIR: When I spoke with Mr Shearer and Ms Middleton of SARTA—and please help me out, because my memory is a bit shady—they weren't opposed to something being done correctly, something done properly with consultation. Did I get that bit right?

Mr McKinley : That sounds right.

CHAIR: On Friday I will be talking to the TTF, so I can't speak for Michelle and her team down there. Last week in Victoria with the VTA and Mr Anderson, it was one of the most powerful presentations, again, calling out that something needs to be done. I haven't got that one wrong either, have I?

Mr McKinley : No, and there were many aspects of Mr Anderson's presentation that we would completely agree with.

CHAIR: Sure. I know that your membership is vast and varied, and I get all that, and I'll have a chance to talk to the livestockies. I was speaking to all the livestockies in their states. The livestockies have clearly said that they don't want anything. They're on the same team, the same argument, as you, although they do realise there are some challenges. I think the Western Australians were saying it would be nice to be able to get our rates. They'll speak for themselves later today. NatRoad will be appearing today, and I'll ask the same question of them. When you say your membership is not supportive of going down that path, who are you talking about?

Mr McKellar : That's the position of our general counsel, and all of those members have a voting seat in the general council. We know what happened with the legislation previously, and that's where the membership was. At no point in my short tenure has anyone come to me and said, 'We need to change this; we need to go back.'

CHAIR: That's fair.

Mr McKellar : What I am setting in train, though, is a process where we go to our members and ask them what they think is important, in the context of the future of the industry, and how we communicate that to all stakeholders and parties, particularly in the context of the political process. As we come towards another federal election, sometime in the next 12 months or so, these are questions and policy positions that we will have to elaborate on. As a membership organisation, the positions that we articulate in that approach will be the ones that the members guide us through. We are undertaking that consultation and we will have the results of that in the coming months.

CHAIR: I am asking you because I remember when the ATA were formed and I was very supportive of one body to speak for the industry. I thought that would be a great start. Unfortunately, I've fallen out of favour. We tried to get back, but anyway. You never know, the stars and the planets might line up and we might all be mates one day, again, on the same page. On the safety stuff, I'm with you. I get all that. But I can't let you escape when you tell me you don't have anything to do with it and then you have Mrs Watson and your crew out there with the pitchforks and all that celebrating the abolition of a body that could have had the opportunity to make roads safer, although the orders were flawed. I've said that. Sorry, I nearly forgot the Northern Territory Road Transport Association. I talked to Ms Bilato and it's the same deal.

Mr McKellar : Another member—

CHAIR: Coming back to your other greater part of the membership, are there other bodies—I say that sincerely, because I don't know—that I may have missed?

Mr McKellar : In terms of who has a contribution and a vote currently, under our constitution, as part of our general council, we have the member associations that you've referred to. There are 10 of those. We have a number of corporate members as well, major operators. They also have some influence and say. We have our past presidents as part of that, the former leaders of the industry who've made a long contribution, most of them over the lifetime to the industry. They also make a contribution.

CHAIR: So they all have a vote too?

Mr McKellar : They have a say, that's correct. We do consult them. In addition, we have a number of associate members who don't have a voting influence but, nonetheless, they're participants, they're players in the industry, major stakeholders that we also work closely with. That's the structure we have as a national organisation. We have within our constitution a provision that trade unions can be members, and the TWU was. That's there in the constitution and they're perfectly welcome to come back at any point, if that's their desire.

CHAIR: I've taken evidence from a large chunk of your membership. You talk about your general council. Do you all sit around and have a vote? Would you say: 'Gee whiz, that committee that the Senate's having is really bringing up remuneration and pay rates, and things are pretty crook in Tallarook. The top of the supply chain is squeezing the living daylights out of the poor damn beggars who are buying the trucks and trying to employ drivers, before we even start getting to the small family businesses and the owner-drivers'? Do you sit there and have a vote? Is that what you do? Do you say, 'Should we support the government's implementation?' Just say the Labor Party got in. The Labor Party has clearly said that we're going to do something. There will be a real choice at this election. Do they sit there and say, 'Hands up, those for and those against,' and you take a count? Is that how it works? I'm not being cheeky—I don't know.

Mr McKellar : You will see that our council meetings are consultative meetings like that. Our member meetings work like many meetings of members—that is, they're a consultative process. There's a discussion. There can be a consensus that's discerned, of course. If it comes to an issue where there is a divided view or people want to take it to a vote, then of course they're entitled to take it to a vote. There are processes within our constitution to govern that. In my experience, very rarely, whether it's a board meeting or whether it's some other form, do you get to the point where you start polling numbers. But, of course, on any issue that can be done.

CHAIR: And is it weighted? I just sit here and think past presidents are part of your bucket. Does a past president have the same weight as, say, one of the state associations?

Mr McKellar : No, they don't.

CHAIR: Thank you for that, Mr McKellar. I know you have owner-driver reps. My very dear friend Frank Black is at the back. Hello, Frank. As I said, I'm not trying to set you up or anything. You have owner-driver representatives on the board?

Mr McKellar : We have an elected owner-driver representative who is a member of the general council; that's a position that's reserved in the constitution for our general council.

CHAIR: How does that owner-driver weigh up the numbers of people that he or she may support? How is that done? I don't know who your rep is, and I wish them all the very best—good on them for standing up and wanting to do something.

Mr McKellar : There's a recently elected representative. His name is Mr Darren Johnson. He has just taken office; he's attended one meeting. Given my recent arrival, I might refer to my colleague to answer the detail of how that election process is conducted, because I know he's involved with it.

CHAIR: Sorry, Mr McKellar, it will be fair and above board—I have no doubt about that—but how do you determine how that owner-driver gets the message out to the owner-drivers? Being an ex-owner-driver, I know the majority of owner-drivers are either in the TWU, predominantly metro and a bit of out sort of work; I know NatRoad represent owner-drivers; I know the National Road Freighters Association represent owner-drivers.

Mr McKellar : Sure. If I can say, I think you've raised an important point—that is, in many of our member associations, much of their membership is made up of owner-drivers.

CHAIR: The state associations?

Mr McKellar : I believe so.

CHAIR: I'd be interested in that.

Mr McKellar : In the national associations, I'm sure there are—

CHAIR: I won't speak for NatRoad. I know the National Road Freighters have a heck of a lot of owner-drivers and small owners; I know the TWU has some 12,000 owner-drivers—I don't know what the figure is. I used to represent 2,500 in WA alone, but I'd be very surprised if the state associations—

Mr McKellar : Have owner-driver members.

CHAIR: They may have someone who's got one or two—I don't know.

Mr McKellar : I stand to be corrected, so I'll consult my colleague Mr McKinley. I would imagine that many of our state associations do.

CHAIR: Sure. If I'm wrong, you've proved me wrong. That's fine.

Mr McKinley : I'll go to your question about how the owner-driver and small-fleet representatives on our council engage with their constituents. In the time I've been with the ATA, Frank has been re-elected as our owner-driver representative in all but two of the elections he contested, from memory. Frank has an exceptional network through the TWU, and he has made a major contribution to the council on a number of issues. There are two that come specifically to my mind. This isn't an exhaustive list, but the first issue where I personally valued Frank's contributions, in particular, was the reforms to the way we conduct owner-driver elections. Frank was able to bring our election regulations from a paper based system, which, at the time, was just what we had, to an online system where an owner-driver could vote for their rep on their phone.

The second issue where Frank made a major contribution that I specifically recall was the 'slow down' laws in New South Wales for emergency vehicles. I also recall Rod Hannifey, who, for some years, was our owner-driver rep and Angela Welsh, our small-fleet representative, who represents small-fleet businesses with one to five trucks. Rod Hannifey, who you know well, Senator, has a remarkable network across the industry. Similarly, Angela Welsh has an outstanding network, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, and made a major contribution to the industry, in my view, during the pandemic, on the New South Wales-Victoria border issues. She was able to highlight a host of issues at border crossings, where perhaps the police staffing the border crossings made calls that were not in line with the various health department requirements.

So, looking back over the years since 2007, I think I can say that all our owner-driver representatives have had wide networks and been able to communicate their views widely.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr McKinley. I will go along the line. I'm mindful of the time—but thank you; I kept you waiting. As I said, I applaud the ATA's work on safety. I think that's fantastic—keep going. You've got your safety truck and all sorts of stuff. But, as Mr Kaine said earlier, without employers we don't have anything.

I want to share with you my experiences through this committee—it's been going for the last 40-odd years. The No. 1 topic is what companies are getting paid, what truck drivers are getting paid and then the rest of the staff. And it's not just about truck drivers—we know that. It's all the rest: forkies, loaders, receival staff, admin, salespeople, tyre fitters and mechanics—the whole lot. We know we have an absolute shortage of truck drivers in this nation. We're struggling. Do your members talk to you about the amount of work they are losing to people through undercutting, sham contracting and exploiting owner-drivers? Do you have those conversations, at all?

Mr McKellar : I'm going to ask Bill.

CHAIR: Please do. If I had the answer, I'd be smirking, but I don't have the answer.

Mr McKellar : I don't immediately have the answer.

Mr McKinley : We've had extensive consultations about issues like unfair contract terms and payment terms, as we've discussed, and also on the broader issues of applying the general tax law and the general companies law to these issues. There is a national regulatory effort in this area, as you would be aware. On the sham contracting side—

CHAIR: Effort. From who?

Mr McKinley : It's via ASIC. What we're seeing is the introduction of a unique director identification number, for example. We're seeing prosecutions for sham contracting; we're seeing the tax office cancelling large numbers of sham ABNs or inappropriately issued ABNs—

CHAIR: Sorry, but I'm going to write this down. I'm rapt to hear this, because I write to and I ring the Fair Work Ombudsman—sorry to distract; we'll come back to it. There are some huge fines and all that sort of stuff, yet when I write to them about mobs in Kalgoorlie trying to do it, I don't get responses. I'd be rapt if you could point me to this. Is it the ATO or ASIC who are cancelling the sham contracts?

Mr McKinley : The ATO are cancelling inappropriately issued ABNs.

CHAIR: Great. I'll be keen to hear this, because there are accountants out there that are telling people to go on sham contracts. Anyway, you keep going.

Mr McKinley : What the ATO are also doing is that there is now a system of identifying payments for road freight—again, for tax purposes—to ensure that people are not using sham arrangements to evade the tax law.

CHAIR: Who's doing that? Is it the ATO?

Mr McKinley : This is an ATO issue again. My broader point is that these issues you raise are extremely important for business. They are not unique, however, to road freight transport. They are being addressed through an overarching effort. Let's take director identification, for example. There will be, going live this year, a system of unique director identification numbers. So it will be possible to trace an individual director across all the companies that that person is a director of and it will be possible to identify when a director is the director of multiple sham or phoenixed companies. We've had extensive conversations about this, within the ATA. We've provided our member associations and others with information to pass onto their memberships about it because, in the ATA's view, these sort of issues are best dealt with as general business regulation issues, not specific road transport business regulation issues, if only because the enforcement of a general measure is usually so much better.

CHAIR: I'll move on. I apologise; I forgot RTO are your members, and you heard RTO's evidence too. I should have mentioned RTO too. You would also have heard Mr Ryan calling for a minister for transport. Were you in the room then?

Mr McKellar : I would say we have a minister for transport federally.

CHAIR: Help me out. Why do you say that?

Mr McKellar : The Deputy Prime Minister has that portfolio responsibility, and I think he is strongly engaged with the sector. In the past, federally, when the Labor Party have been in government, we've had other excellent ministers as well, such as Anthony Albanese himself. They have both been very good federal transport ministers, but I think the issue that I heard being referred to here in part goes to the constraint that, within Australia, transport responsibilities fall between what the federal government can do and what the state governments do. There are state powers and federal powers. I think short of a referral of those powers, probably to the federal government, you're not going to have a completely national approach. This, I think, is illustrated by the experience that we have with the heavy vehicle national law. It's template legislation originated in Queensland. We heard that it's been largely reflected in a number of other jurisdictions, but not entirely. The comment that was made was that the two or three per cent that you don't get picked up and reflected in other jurisdictions like New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania can be very important. Equally you don't have it reflected at all in a jurisdiction like Western Australia. So we don't have a truly national heavy vehicle law, despite the attempt to create one. Short of fixing the Australian Constitution, which is a challenge that many have tried and nobody has succeeded at, then that's the constraint we have to operate under.

CHAIR: I believe there is a lot more that can be done, and I understand—

Senator HANSON: Because I'm on teleconference, who was the gentleman that was just speaking?

CHAIR: That's Mr McKellar—the CEO of the ATA.

Senator HANSON: Okay. You just said we have a very good transport minister at present, and that would be Mr McCormack, the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to ask you a question: what has he done for the industry in the last three to four years?

Mr McKellar : My experience, bearing in mind that personally I have been out of the country until earlier this year, is that we have a very good relationship with the minister, an active engagement. I think there is support for a broad agenda of transport reform. We see that being conducted not only by the federal minister but, in general, across the jurisdictions. Here the various ways in which the states and the Commonwealth interact are very important.

Senator HANSON: Of course it is.

Mr McKellar : The TIC, the Transport and Infrastructure Council, now the Infrastructure and Transport Ministers' Meetings, is an important forum. Does it achieve everything that it needs to achieve? No, it does not. But with goodwill between the Commonwealth and the states they can make more rapid progress. What we need to be is more ambitious in the key areas, and my colleague, Mr McKinley, identified one critical area where governments can work together much more effectively for progress in the future, and that's in the productivity area of the industry. We've got to try and give credit where credit is due. I think there is a lot of goodwill there. There's a lot of support for the industry. We see it as being bipartisan. We see it reflected in the federal government, in the opposition and across the jurisdictions, but to the extent that there are small areas where we don't achieve national harmonisation that holds us back, and that's where we've got to make progress.

Senator HANSON: Certainly. Reading your submission, you put in quite a few things. You want a code of conduct for payment for truck drivers. You talk about trucking stops, which could be handled. We just heard that you haven't got a national road authority for the whole of Australia; it's in bits and pieces in different states, and those few percentage points make a big difference in how they do their job. The report said in 2011 that it would increase productivity, whereas actually it hasn't. You stated in your own opening statement that it's been on the decline since 2014. These are things that need to be addressed. You've even got in here about education of other drivers on roads, because 83 per cent of fatal multivehicle crashes involving trucks are not the fault of the truck driver. That's not the perception that the public has, so this has not been put out there. There should be training programs, safety programs, which haven't been addressed. You've got the wages. You've got the long hours the drivers are working just to keep their heads above water. We heard about the deaths that are constantly happening. What has the government done about that? For you to make that comment, I'm mystified. People are fed up with the talkfest.

Senator Sterle has been a truck driver. He's more experienced in this area. I've constantly heard him saying that the changes have not been heard. I hear it from the workers. I hear it from businesses. I hear it from the truck drivers themselves that it has not been addressed. Okay, I will give credit where credit is due, but what I've been hearing over the years is the governments are not doing anything about it, and it's both sides: Labor and also Liberal who are in government. It's up to them to put the legislation forward. I'm sick of hearing the same old rhetoric, the same old talk. People are dying out there. People are going under. Businesses are suffering, and we are not really addressing it. That's my opinion. You may have yours, but I'm not in the pocket of the Liberal Party or the coalition government. I speak for the people, and this is an industry that I think needs to be addressed seriously if we want to support our truck drivers and deliver the commerce and deliver the product that we need to to consumers in Australia.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Hanson. I do love your passion and I support what you say there. In concluding, I want to come back to this—and I think it's important, Mr McKellar and Mr McKinley. My views of the engagement with the minister are completely different to yourself. I wish I was wrong and I hope I'm wrong. You can clear this for me. Are you in regular consultation with Minister McCormack?

Mr McKellar : Yes, we are, and also with the shadow minister as well.

CHAIR: I understand. The reason I didn't ask about the shadow minister is that we can't make the changes, but that's good.

Mr McKellar : I think the bipartisanship approach and bipartisan contact and engagement that we have is very positive.

CHAIR: 'Bipartisanship' is my favourite word. I might need my head looked at, but I actually reckon that we can get somewhere, because the industry is coming together. There are a few people who aren't, but I'm buoyed and lifted at the amount of people who do want to do something. They outweigh the number of people who don't want to do anything, so that's a good start. Are those consultations one on one or is there a structured body that you have with the minister? Is there a road transport council, in terms of Mr Ryan's request earlier on?

Mr McKellar : For us there are a range of avenues through which we would pursue our engagement with government and opposition. We are a representative body that do that. The question that you ask, I think, and I go back to the former arrangements with the ministerial council—it's name is constantly changing—but in fact they go back to the time when Anthony Albanese was the transport minister. He did engage a range of different stakeholders from across the transport sector at those meetings. That was very constructive. I think we've seen that go backwards in the past few years. I think that's not so constructive. If we could return to those sorts of levels of consultation it would be a positive thing. But I would say that, certainly, our engagement directly with the federal government, with the minister, the minister's office, with all of the agencies that we need to deal with and then nationally with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator is very constructive. We have a lot of engagement with them. We spend a lot of time with them a whole raft of different issues.

CHAIR: Thanks, Mr McKellar. I know you might not have the answer to this, but I can't let it slide. I held a transport industry standards forum meeting here, and the majority of transport organisation reps were here. There were two. One was prior to the last election, there were 73 there—ATA where there-and the one after the election had about 65, and the ATA were there too. The terms of reference for this inquiry into the importance of a viable, safe, sustainable and efficient road transport industry were put on the table. They were discussed intently among the delegates who were in the room. They all had a lot to say about them and made some changes. Hence, it went forward.

Mr McKellar and Mr McKinley, had there been any conversation at the time forum I held here went through and then when I presented this inquiry to the Senate, when I went out and spoke to and got the support of One Nation—thank you, Senator Hanson. I got the support of Jacqui Lambie. I got the support of Cory Bernardi even, who was still in the Senate, as was Centre Alliance, and of the Greens and Labor. Was there any conversation between Minister McCormack or Minister Buchholz or any of their staff with anyone from the ATA about whether this industry needed to have this inquiry—to the best of your knowledge. I know you weren't here, Mr McKellar.

Mr McKellar : I wasn't.

CHAIR: Mr McKinley, you were here.

Mr McKinley : If that discussion took place, I don't recall it being with me.

CHAIR: 'You don't recall' or 'you can categorically say' that—

Mr McKellar : If I can say, it wouldn't necessarily have been a discussion that would have happened with Mr McKinley—

CHAIR: Mr McKellar, Mr McKinley can look after himself. He can answer the question.

Mr McKellar : I'm sure—he just answered the question. He said it wasn't with him.

CHAIR: He can answer the question himself. I clearly put it. Was there anyone from the ATA who had a discussion with Minister McCormack about either supporting or knocking back this Senate inquiry that came from a request from the majority of the industry?

Mr McKinley : The establishment of a Senate inquiry is a matter for the Senate, not for the executive government, and—

Mr McKellar : Yes, correct.

CHAIR: I'm not saying that. Don't play games with me, Mr McKinley. Just say yes or no.

Mr McKinley : No.

CHAIR: Was there any conversation—

Mr McKellar : On that point—

Mr McKinley : No, Senator. It's not a matter for the executive government to decide whether the Senate holds an inquiry.

CHAIR: I didn't ask you that. Did anyone from the ATA—I don't care if it's the coffee lady—talk to the minister, whether Minister McCormack or Minister Buchholz, or anyone from their offices about this inquiry before it went through the Senate?

Mr McKellar : If I can exercise my role as chief executive: yes, I think Mr McKinley answered the question that you asked.

CHAIR: No, he didn't.

Mr McKellar : The conversation wasn't with him.

CHAIR: No, he did not say—don't practise on me! I've been doing this too long.

Mr McKinley : No, Senator, I'm going to stand on the grounds that the Senate voted to convene the inquiry, and really that's the end of it.

CHAIR: No, it's not.

Mr McKinley : The ATA made a very detailed submission to your inquiry—

Mr McKellar : So—

CHAIR: No. Stop, Mr McKellar. Keep going: the ATA what?

Mr McKinley : The ATA made a very detailed submission to your inquiry—

CHAIR: Yes, I know. I've got it in front of me.

Mr McKinley : and we are very grateful to you personally for giving us an extension, because the inquiry was scheduled at the same time as many issues papers on the HVNL review.

CHAIR: So you're not going to answer my question about whether you or anyone to your knowledge talked about this with the minister or anyone from his office.

Mr McKellar : He answered the question. He did not. He cannot have knowledge—

CHAIR: He didn't say that.

Mr McKellar : He did—

CHAIR: He only had to say to me: 'No, Senator,' or 'Yes, Senator.'

Mr McKellar : He did not have that conversation—

CHAIR: I didn't hear him say that, sorry.

Mr McKellar : He did say that.

CHAIR: Don't put words in his mouth.

Mr McKellar : I'm sitting next to him. I heard him—

CHAIR: You're on Hansard record.

Mr McKellar : I heard him say it.

CHAIR: We are recording everything for posterity here. Did you have any conversation or do you know of anyone in the ATA—

Mr McKellar : You did not.

CHAIR: that had a conversation with either minister or anyone from their office about the inquiry that was discussed at my transport industry standards forum? Yes or no, Mr McKinley.

Mr McKinley : To be definitive, it's a duly appointed inquiry of the Senate.

CHAIR: Let's leave it there. It's not sufficient. You're fairy flossing. You're on Hansard, okay?

Mr McKellar : I heard him say—

CHAIR: The question is answered, thank you very much. I'll tell you why. Maybe you or someone might be able to explain to my why in the hell 65 representatives of the road transport industry in Australia would work on some terms of reference, because they wanted an inquiry into their industry—not yours or mine, their industry—and then the minister who is so wonderfully engaged with you people not only instructed his senators from the LNP, from both parties, who are both as guilty as each other to vote against it? When I called for a division they got up and crossed the floor. Why would an active minister do that?

Mr McKellar : I think this is all a matter for speculation. It's something that we can't possibly have any knowledge of. The fact of the matter is the Senate duly constituted this committee's inquiry—

CHAIR: Not with any help from the government ministers; it was the crossbench that did it with us.

Mr McKellar : and the ATA supports the inquiry. We've contributed to it. We welcome the terms of reference that you have—we think they're good terms of reference—and we've provided you with a comprehensive submission. We look forward to the committee's report.

CHAIR: On that, thank you very much. Thank you for your time. We know where to find you should we need to follow anything up.

Mr McKellar : You do.

Proceedings suspended from 11:37 to 11:51