<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2016-03-22" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="4753" />
  <endPage num="4812" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Road Safety Remuneration Order</name>
      <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000496">
        <heading>Road Safety Remuneration Order</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="3124" kind="question">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Unley</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-03-22">
            <name>Road Safety Remuneration Order</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-03-22T14:29:57" />
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000497">
          <timeStamp time="2016-03-22T14:29:57" />
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI (Unley) (14:29):</by>  My question is to the Minister for Transport. After today's demonstration by owner-drivers against the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal's introduction of minimum rates from 4 April, will the minister now join with the federal government to support the Australian Industry Group and other driver associations who have applied to have the start date for minimum rates pushed out to 1 January 2017?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4842" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Lee</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Transport and Infrastructure</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Housing and Urban Development</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-03-22">
            <name>Road Safety Remuneration Order</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-03-22T14:30:27" />
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000498">
          <timeStamp time="2016-03-22T14:30:27" />
          <by role="member" id="4842">The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:30):</by>  I thank the member for Unley for his question. I know that he's shown some interest in this issue in recent weeks. The member for Unley was partially correct in one of the assertions that he made in his question about referring to the federal government, because this is a matter which is within the purview of the commonwealth jurisdiction, and in particular the commonwealth government. I'm glad that today—</text>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000499">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="4343">Mr Gardner interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000500">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The member for Morialta is warned.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4842" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000501">
          <by role="member" id="4842">The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN:</by>  —22 March 2016, can be the day that the state opposition has finally found its voice to speak up against the federal Coalition government. They let it go with the automotive industry, they let it go with the submarines, they let it go with health funding, they let it go with education funding. It's just a shame, Mr Speaker—</text>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000502">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="3124">Mr Pisoni interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000503">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The member for Unley is warned.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <page num="4785" />
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000504">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  Point of order, sir: this—</text>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000505">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="633">The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000506">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The Treasurer is called to order.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000507">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  This was a simple question, sir, as to whether the government supports—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000508">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  What's the point of order?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000509">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  Relevance to the question of supporting the extension until 1 January.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000510">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Yes, alright, I uphold the point of order. Minister.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4842" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000511">
          <by role="member" id="4842">The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN:</by>  Thank you, Mr Speaker. In terms of how this matter may be resolved, it's my understanding that there was some contemplation at the federal level, particularly over the last couple of years, about whether the federal Coalition government would be moving to repeal the legislation which established the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, but, of course, given the fact that the tribunal still exists, clearly they haven't.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124" kind="interjection">
        <name>Mr Pisoni</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000512">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr Pisoni:</by>  They don't have the numbers in the Senate, that's why.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000513">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The member for Unley is warned for the second and the final time.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4842" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000514">
          <by role="member" id="4842">The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN:</by>  The member for Unley says it's because they don't have the numbers in the Senate and that's why they haven't tried it on. It's funny, because there seems to be a lot of conjecture around about whether they'll try it on with other industrial relations-type legislation—the ABCC—and, apparently, whether that's a trigger for a double dissolution election. So, when it comes to taking this issue seriously, I don't think that the member for Unley can claim that his federal Coalition party counterparts are indeed paying it the attention that he wishes they would.</text>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000515">In terms of how this issue may be examined and resolved, of course the member for Unley should be aware that the tribunal continues to sit; in fact, the last advice I had was not only did they have sitting dates that extended throughout the period of this working week but they were prepared to sit through the Easter long weekend period—</text>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000516">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="3124">Mr Pisoni interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000517">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The member for Unley will withdraw for the remainder of question time under the sessional order.</text>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000518">
          <term>The honourable member for Unley having withdrawn from the chamber:</term>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000519">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Minister.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4842" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20160322376ec8ef4eb44fc8a0000520">
          <by role="member" id="4842">The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN:</by>  As I was saying, the tribunal continues to sit. They continue to receive submissions from trucking companies, employer representatives, as they do employee representatives. That is the jurisdiction in which this will be resolved. As for my views, as I said in the last sitting week of parliament, I certainly support the principle about which this tribunal was established and what it aims is to achieve. Of course I share the concerns of the trucking industry if they have legitimate fears about the impact of this, and that's why the tribunal continues to sit, to hear and to weigh these arguments, not just about whether there should be an order made and enforced but about the timing of the implementation of that order, which I understand is the nub of the issue which is being raised by industry.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>