Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Road User Charge Determination (No. 1) 2012 made under the Fuel Tax Act 2006, be disallowed.

For many years, heavy vehicles have been charged to recover the part of road maintenance costs that are attributed to their road use. This cost is recovered in two parts: by the states and territories through registration charges and by the Commonwealth through the fuel based road user charge. The Fuel Tax Act 2006 establishes the mechanism for the collection of the road user charge by reducing the fuel tax credit provided to eligible businesses and non-profit bodies by the amount of the charge. The act provides that these entities are entitled to only a partial fuel tax credit for fuel used on a public road for business purposes in registered vehicles over 4.5 tonnes. The fuel tax credit claimable is equal to the amount of the fuel excise minus the road user charge. The road user charge is designed as a cost recovery measure paying for the road maintenance and construction costs attributed to heavy vehicle road use.

In its February 2012 report to the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure, or SCOTI, the National Transport Commission provided an overview of its methodology. The NTC calculates the total cost base by gathering yearly figures from the states and territories on road expenditure and then adds this to the figure that local governments report to the ABS for road expenditure. The NTC deducts expenditure on non-road costs—for example, amenity expenses—to obtain the allocated cost base. The figure is allocated to the entire vehicle fleet by analysing the Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage, or SMVU, to determine how much should be collected from each vehicle class—that is, cars, each type of truck, motor bikes et cetera—taking into account the size in passenger car units, the weight, the kilometres driven and the equivalent standard number of axles. This allows the NTC to calculate how much is owed by the heavy vehicle industry for cost recovery. This figure is divided between the amount collected by the road user charge and state and territory registration fees on a basis of 62 to 38. The split is largely historical and reflects the revenue share between the Commonwealth and the states and territories at the time the national charges were implemented. Fuel consumption and vehicle number figures from the SMVU are used to derive the level of registration and road user charge to recover the cost of their impact on the road network.

In 2007 the former coalition government initiated a review of the formula and consultation processes in place for determining the appropriate level of the road user charge and state and territory registration fees. However, in March 2008, the coalition successfully disallowed Labor's proposed increase to the road user charge, on the basis that consultation processes were inadequate, and automatic indexation was introduced. The government sought to address these concerns, and so industry and the coalition have not opposed increases in the road user charge and registration fees since 2009.

In December 2011, the NTC invited public comment on a consultation document which set out the data and calculations used to determine options for reviewed heavy vehicle charges that would apply from 1 July 2012. During the four-week consultation period the NTC held public forums and received written submissions on the consultation document. In February 2012, the NTC recommended a rebalance of heavy vehicle charges according to new research on the road maintenance costs associated with different types of heavy vehicles. This recommendation saw most registration charges rise but others fall. Road reconstruction expenditure from the 2010-11 natural disasters was to be excluded from the calculations. It also recommended an increase in the road user charge of 2.4 cents from 23.1 cents per litre to 25.5 cents per litre, an increase of 10.4 per cent. On 21 March 2012, the SCOTI considered the level of the road user charge and heavy vehicle registration fees. A majority of those present, or who participated in that meeting, adopted the NTC recommendation. It is clear from briefings with the department, the NTC and industry groups that there are a number of unresolved issues in relation to the proposed increase to the road user charge. The industry has expressed its dissatisfaction with the consultation process that was undertaken this year in the development of the determination. While commitments were made in 2008 to improve the relationship between industry and the NTC, and this seems to have worked successfully for the past few years, there is no doubt that issues have reoccurred in 2011-12 and those relationships have broken down. In this case, despite consultations beginning in late 2011 and the NTC providing its recommendation to SCOTI in February 2012, industry was not provided with detailed information on the formula used by the NTC or the input data and the assumptions it relies upon until March 2012—and only then as a result of a freedom of information request. So the consultation period expired without the information and details of the formula being used actually being made available to the industry.

There is a difference of opinion between the Australian Trucking Association—the ATA—and the NTC as to the most accurate number of trucks that should be used to calculate the cost attributable to the heavy vehicle industry. The NTC uses historic figures from the 2007-08 survey of motor vehicle usage to determine the number of heavy vehicles there are on our roads that must be charged to recover the costs of their road usage. The NTC believes this figure is appropriate as it provides an average of the number of trucks that would be associated with the seven-year rolling average of expenditure on roads that they use to determine the amount to be paid.

However, the ATA argues that it is more appropriate to use the actual registration information from the states and territories to determine vehicle numbers, particularly as the fuel usage figures used to determine how much should be paid by each truck are current figures. Even when using the number of trucks from the same year, the ATA and the NTC cannot agree on a number of trucks and they cannot agree why their numbers are different. The NTC believes that their figures are different because the ATA is including special purpose vehicles, which are registered but are given access to concessional registration rate or are not required to pay registration. The ATA rejects this claim and says that even if you exclude SPVs, there is still a vast difference in truck numbers—in the order of 170,000 vehicles. There is a disagreement of 170,000 as to how many trucks there are in the country! The ATA believes that the flaws in the methodology used by the NTC in determining their recommendations results in an over-collection from the heavy vehicle industry. They estimate this over-collection at $1.1 billion in 2012-13 alone.

The minister has said that the determination delivers:

… full recovery from heavy vehicle users and the removal of cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.

However, the Australian Livestock and Road Transporters Association asserts that the NTC's pricing model indicates it would see road trains overcharged by $27.9 million per year, or by 40 per cent. This undermines the minister's statement. Using the NTC's own figures and pricing model, the livestock and road transporters association has shown that cross-subsidisation is occurring under his determination.

The department and the minister have confirmed that the additional stimulus expenditure outlaid during the global financial downturn has been included in the seven-year rolling average of road expenditure. The minister has said:

… heavy vehicles are already benefiting from past government investment in road infrastructure … [and] The revised charges … ensure that heavy vehicles pay their fair share of this investment.

However, this money was specifically designed to stimulate the economy and was not part of the general road construction and maintenance budget that would have been anticipated by the industry. It is unreasonable to recoup stimulus expenditure from the heavy vehicle industry after the fact to help balance the federal budget.

In May 2012 transport ministers agreed to a review of the formula, as it is generally accepted by all levels of government that it may not be an accurate reflection of the costs attributable to all heavy vehicle classes. The NTC has said that this review would look at the balance of charging mechanisms, the assumptions and methodology to 'ensure they are practical and fair'. I understand it is intended that the review be completed before the next determination on the road user charge is determined. So all ministers have now agreed that the formula is not working properly, that there is the potential for it to be significantly impractical and unfair, yet the government is insisting on an extraordinary increase this year—before that review has been completed.

Despite a majority of SCOTI ministers, or their representatives, agreeing to the increase, various state governments have subsequently implemented alternative proposals. The Northern Territory and Western Australian governments have implemented significantly lower registration increases than would have flowed from this recommendation. The New South Wales and South Australian governments have announced concessions for certain truck configurations. It is interesting to note that the meeting at which the increase was decided was attended by more departmental officials than ministers and was, unusually, held when the Queensland government was in caretaker mode. If successful, this disallowance motion will have no effect on state government heavy vehicle registration charges, which are the responsibility of state and territory Governments. They can set them at whatever level they choose.

As a result of a readjustment in the way A-trailers are charged, the figures used to determine the amount owed by the heavy vehicle industry were recalculated. A historic underrecovery of the costs attributable to the heavy vehicle industry was identified by the NTC and corrected in this determination. In February 2012, the NTC admitted for the first time that the 'NTCs previous verification processes have revealed an under-recovery' and that, if it were not corrected, it would amount to $144 million in 2012-13.

In this respect, it should be noted that the underrecovery was not contemplated in the 2011 consultation document released to the industry. There was no reference to a $144 million shortfall during the industry consultation process. The industry was not told about this underrecovery. Possibly it was only discovered by the NTC after the consultation period was over, but they did not then go back, telling the industry that they had got all the numbers wrong, and reopen the consultation process to enable a fair and reasonable negotiation to continue. There should have been discussion with industry about whether or not there was indeed an underrecovery and, if so, how it should be addressed. Either this was incompetence or it was deceit and dishonesty. Whatever name you give it, the reality is that the consultation process with the industry—a fundamental part of the way these charges are settled, was seriously flawed. The industry and the consultation process took place on the basis of their needing to be a 5.7 per cent increase. But the government, after the consultation period was over, imposed a 10.4 per cent increase. That is clearly unfair and unjust.

In June, I wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport requesting that he withdraw his determination and replace it with a more modest increase, in line with previous annual adjustments of 5.7 per cent, pending the outcome of the current review process. The minister has rejected this offer. I have also written to the Independents, outlining the coalition's position and seeking their support for this motion so that there can indeed be seen to be a proper process. The government outlined and agreed a process in 2009, I think it was, to be properly followed. They have not done that. If the comprehensive review currently underway is intended to ensure that the road user charge is fair and practical, it is only right that this process run its course before we impose such a large increase on the industry.

It is worth noting that it was the Howard government which introduced fuel tax credits in 2006 to give a better deal to the Australian trucking industry and other businesses that make heavy use of fuel. As the minister responsible, in 2006 I blocked moves by the Australian Transport Council and state Labor governments to increase registration charges for truck operators. In February 2008, when federal, state and territory Labor transport ministers increased taxes and charges on the trucking industry, I was dismayed by this move, as it would not only make the trucking industry worse off but see Australian families wear the flow-on effects to the prices of goods that we buy at supermarket checkouts.

The coalition's offer to the government to meet truck drivers halfway in reducing the road user charge remains on the table. If the government agrees to a reasonable 5.7 per cent increase rather than this arbitrary 10.4 per cent increase, the coalition will agree to the determination.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the motion is seconded.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Canning.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to strongly object to the member for Wide Bay's motion. As parliamentary secretary for road safety, I want to spell out some of the inevitable consequences of the motion before the chamber. The member for Wide Bay's motion in essence will leave taxpayers to foot a bill of $700 million for wear and tear of our roads that are caused by heavy vehicles. While the government are investing in our national road infrastructure, what we are seeing again is an opposition who want to rip funding out of road infrastructure.

The truck industry is growing, and unfortunately the number of road crashes involving trucks is rising with it. Over the past 10 years, the number of kilometres travelled by commercial heavy vehicles around the country has increased by more than 20 per cent, and those of us who live in regional and country areas certainly know that the number of heavy vehicles that we see on roads that were never designed to take these vehicles is growing. Truck drivers are driving longer hours and longer distances with shorter deadlines.

During last year alone, over 200 people died from crashes involving articulated and heavy rigid trucks. The statistics show that in the majority of circumstances these crashes occur on our national highways, which is why in the budget we announced a $140 million extension to the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. The program improves safety and productivity for users of heavy vehicles. While we have invested to support the safety of our nation's road users by investing in road infrastructure, those opposite want to take away $700 million of funding to maintain and improve our roads. That is the consequence of the motion before the chamber.

Under our Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, we have already seen 236 projects delivered in its first four years. The importance of investing in new and upgraded rest areas cannot be overlooked in that process. Just last sitting I attended a parliamentary breakfast for TruckWeek hosted by the Australian Trucking Association. The guest speaker for that breakfast was Lisa Sharwood, a senior researcher who is undertaking her PhD at the moment, from the George Institute. She presented her finding on the frequency of sleep apnoea amongst Australian truck drivers. Her study found that more than 40 per cent of truck drivers could have significant sleep disorders which could significantly increase their risk of crashing. She clearly articulated significant risk factors faced by this Australian cohort of truck drivers. She clearly articulated the need for preventative measures: physical health checks; oxygen assistance at night to assist night breathing; diet; and preventative measures on smoking—and the need for proper rest breaks. I look forward to her research being published. Members opposite who were at the breakfast would have heard the clear evidence about the importance of rest for truck drivers and the impact of fatigue on road safety, particularly in a cohort that has a higher incidence of sleep apnoea than the general population. In order for truck drivers to rest, you need rest stops. To build rest stops, you have to have money for road infrastructure.

Let me tell those opposite some of the road safety statistics. From 2001 to 2006 almost 50 Australians died on our roads from heavy vehicles in the member for Murray's electorate; another 44 in the member for Barker's electorate. In Riverina there were 36; in Wannon, 35; in Parkes, 33; in Gippsland, 28—the list goes on. Even in the electorate of the member for Wide Bay we have seen the tragic death of 26 people who were involved in heavy vehicle crashes between 2001 and 2006.

It is for reasons such as this that we have doubled the funding dedicated to the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. What we see from the member for Wide Bay is a motion to disallow the increase of the road user charge—a charge which recognises the importance of industry paying its way in road infrastructure. The member has again shown his lack of vision for our nation's infrastructure and an absence of support for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. Where does the member think the $700 million is going to come from for road infrastructure? The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program has for the first time seen funding dedicated to rectifying the unacceptable lack of safe, modern roadside facilities along our nation's highways.

The government is taking many other steps to reduce the number of road deaths across Australia. We continue to invest more money in road infrastructure than any other government in this nation's history and, as it stands, the road budget is at a record $28 billion over six years. This includes more building of truck stops and rest areas, and it is the largest investment in road infrastructure since the creation of the national highway network itself. We are continuing to inject more funding into the Black Spot and Roads to Recovery programs, and we are continuing to implement the action items in the National Road Safety Strategy to reduce the number of road crashes involving heavy vehicles.

The steps in that strategy include: the implementation of antilock braking systems and load proportioning brake systems for heavy vehicles, considering increasing heavy vehicle cabin strength, electronic stability control and lane departure warning systems for heavy vehicles, increasing the effective application of chain of responsibility legislation to prosecute heavy vehicle speeding offences, and harmonising legislation to assist cross-border enforcement. This is in addition to the Road Safety Remuneration Bill that the government introduced into this House, and that was another example of the lack of support for safety on our roads shown by those opposite.

It is unacceptable that while only three per cent of our nation's vehicle fleet are heavy vehicles, heavy vehicles are involved in 20 per cent of road deaths. It is unacceptable that over 200 deaths each year are the result of crashes involving heavy vehicles, with speed or fatigue being a major factor in a large proportion of these cases. Once again I appeal to those opposite to vote against this motion—particularly those National Party members in this House when the number of fatalities in their electorates involving heavy vehicles is so significant. More people die in crashes involving heavy vehicles in their electorates than in any others. The member for Wide Bay's motion contradicts the heavy vehicle charge principles that were supported under the Howard government back in 2004 and again in 2007. It is another example of members opposite putting negativity over common sense. I urge all members to support the safety of road users and vote against this motion.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This disallowance motion seeks to overturn the increase in road user charges for heavy vehicles which came into effect on 1 July 2012 and which has seen heavy vehicle operators slugged by 2.4 cents, with the charge rising from 23.1 cents per litre to 25.5 cents per litre—an increase of 10.4 per cent. Heavy vehicles have been charged for a number of years to recover part of the road maintenance costs attributed to their road use. This cost is recovered in two ways: firstly by the states and territories through registration charges, and secondly by the Commonwealth through the fuel-based road user charge. In 2012-13 total collections are expected to be $2.5 billion.

The Fuel Tax Act of 2006 established a mechanism for the collection of road user charges by reducing the fuel tax credit provided to eligible businesses and non-profit bodies by the amount of the charge. The act also ensures that these entities are entitled to only a partial fuel tax credit for fuel used on a public road for business purposes in registered vehicles over 4.5 tonnes. This tax credit is equal to the amount of the excise on the fuel minus the road user charge.

The National Transport Commission reported to the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure in February this year, giving an overview of its methodology. The NTC explained it calculates the total cost base by gathering yearly figures from the states and territories on road expenditure and then adds this to the figure local governments report to the Australian Bureau of Statistics for road expenditure. The NTC also deducts expenditure on non-road costs, for example, amenity expenses to obtain the allocated cost base. This figure is allocated to the entire vehicle fleet by analysing the survey of motor vehicle usage to determine how much should be collected from each vehicle class, taking into account size in passenger car units, weight, kilometres driven and equivalent standard number of accidents. This allows the NTC to calculate how much is owed by the heavy vehicle industry for cost recovery. This figure is divided between the amount collected by the road user charges and the state and territory registration fees on a basis of 62 to 38. The split is largely historical and reflects the revenue shares between the Commonwealth and the states and territories at the time the national charges were implemented.

Additionally, fuel consumption and vehicle number figures from the survey of motor vehicle usage are used to derive the level of registration and road user charge to recover the cost of their impact on the road network. In 2007, the former coalition government initiated a review of the formula and consultation processes in place for determining the appropriate level of the road user charge and state and territory registration fees. However, in March 2008, the coalition successfully moved to disallow Labor's proposed increase to the road user charge on the basis that consultation processes were inadequate and automatic taxation was introduced. The government sought to address these concerns and industry and the coalition have not opposed increases to road user charges and registration fees since 2009.

The National Transport Commission invited public comment in December 2011 on a consultation document setting out the data and calculations used to determine options for a review of heavy vehicle charges to apply from 1 July 2012. During the four-week consultation period, the commission held public forums as well as receiving written submissions. In February 2012, the NTC recommended a rebalance of heavy vehicle charges according to new research on the road maintenance costs associated with different types of vehicles. This recommendation saw most registration charges increase but others fall, road reconstruction expenditure from the 2010-11 natural disasters excluded from calculations and an increase in the road user charge of 2.4c from 23.1c per litre to 25.5c per litre.

On 21 March 2012, the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure considered the level of the road user charge of heavy vehicles registration fees. The majority of those presents adopted the NTC recommendations. The coalition has some concerns about the increase to road use charges, which have stemmed from briefings with the department, the NTC and industry groups. The Nationals leader and shadow minister for infrastructure and transport called on the government to meet truckies halfway on the road user charges. The coalition called on the Gillard government to put the brakes on the massive increases to the road use at charges, all to no avail. This is why this disallowance motion has been brought to the House. The 10.4 per cent hike in the road user charges is in addition to be the effects of the carbon tax and comes at a time when the transport industry is struggling to survive the cost increases.

I know, certainly many of the operations throughout the Riverina, many of them family-owned and small fleets, are doing it tough. They meet all the stringent safety requirements, as they should, but they have higher fuel costs, labour costs and other expenses and they are doing it very hard and very difficult at a time when the carbon tax is certainly not helping.

The shadow minister wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport with a solution earlier this year to reduce the massive costs and to avert a political show down. The coalition's proposal would have reduced the increase to 5.7 per cent by eliminating an unexpected $144 million surcharge being imposed to correct earlier miscalculations. Truck drivers need to be protected from the increased charges, arbitrary increases in registration and fuel excise costs. The trucking industry has been alarmed ever since the National Transport Commission decreed at 10.4 per cent increase in heavy vehicle charges, which took effect from 1 July. The Australian Trucking Association says that the decision is based on outdated truck numbers which inflate the amount drivers must pay to the government in 2012-13 and overstated road building and maintenance calculations. Instead of counting the actual number of truck registrations, the ATA says the NTC took old registration figures and extrapolated a theoretical fleet size which will see drivers fork out $700 million more than they actually should.

Making matters worse, as usual, consultation this year could well be described as shambolic. Documents provided to industry were later altered before being given to ministers for a decision. The industry was not provided with detailed information on the model used by the NTC, nor the input data or assumptions underpinning them. In fact, these were made available only after industry secured a freedom of information request, and even then only after the NTC's recommendations had already been accepted by the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure.

The ATA says that, despite the NTC's recommendation that flood recovery expenditure be excluded from the calculations, about 20 per cent of that expenditure remains in the formula. In addition, $144 million was unexpectedly added to the amount to be collected because of a recalculation of past obligations under the model. The Australian Livestock Transporters Association estimates of the impact of the NTC's pricing model will result in road trains being overcharged by $27.9 million per year, or by 40 per cent. As such, the principle of cost recovery by vehicle class is corrupted.

In May 2012 transport ministers agreed to review the NTC formula, accepting the general view that it may not be an accurate reflection of the costs attributable to all heavy vehicle classes. Despite SCOTI ministers agreeing to the increase, the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments have implemented significantly lower registration increases and the New South Wales and South Australian governments have announced concessions for certain truck configurations.

Since all parties seem to agree that the calculation model is in need of review, it would be palpably unfair to apply this model to justify such a massive increase. The road user charge is collected through the fuel excise system and truck registration fees, many of which will increase by more than 30 per cent. As I say, this is at a time when regional trucking companies are doing it very tough. The charge costs the road transport industry almost $2.5 billion a year and is intended to cover road maintenance and construction costs attributable to the industry. The member for Ballarat spoke of the need for sleep for truck drivers and of the tragic role that fatigue plays in road safety. Everybody in this House is very aware of the fact that truck drivers need to play by the rules, to certainly have the necessary sleep and to ensure that safety aspects are absolutely paramount. I am sure that truck owners and operators throughout the nation are also very aware of the absolute need for truck drivers, given the high incidence of their involvement in many fatal accidents and the weight their vehicles are carrying, to ensure that safety comes first and foremost.

The member for Ballarat alleged that the member for Wide Bay lacked vision for infrastructure, but I would say it is quite the opposite. The Nationals, of which the member for Wide Bay is our leader, have always known that our road networks are the arteries which feed the national economy. They are the highways which connect us as people and which deliver Australia's commodities to markets here and to our ports, which are the gateways to international markets for our regional produce, our food and fibre. Whether it is local roads and streets or national highways and railways, a quality land transport system is vital to a strong economy. No-one knows that more than the Nationals members of parliament.

It was John Anderson who drove the creation of AusLink, Australia's first national road and rail funding plan. Warren Truss, the member for Wide Bay, was the transport minister when the last coalition government committed the necessary funding to complete the four lanes of the Hume Highway between Sydney and Melbourne. I can honestly say that the improvements around Gundagai and Tarcutta in the Riverina electorate have certainly enabled far better safety aspects for that stretch of freeway.

We know that Australia's freight task will double by 2030, but along the eastern seaboard it will treble. Communities and commuters from Sydney to the Queensland border were promised a four-lane Pacific Highway for years. That is a highway that many heavy vehicles use. The government had pledged to duplicate the Pacific Highway by 2016 but, unfortunately, that has not occurred. Labor is saying that any future money from the Commonwealth will have to be matched 50-50 by the New South Wales coalition government, even though Labor paid more than 80 per cent of the cost of projects on the highway when the state Labor government was in office in New South Wales. Labor knows that the NSW government, which is deeply in debt, cannot afford a deal such as that. The people deserve no less than they were promised.

On Saturday, at the Nationals' Federal Conference here in Canberra, I am pleased to report, the member for Wide Bay, who does not lack any vision, as the member for Ballarat would allege, announced that the next Liberal-National coalition government—hopefully, that will be at the next election—will provide the funding to complete the widening to four lanes of the Pacific Highway all the way from Sydney to the Queensland border. That was a very welcome announcement, because that particular stretch of road is used by many heavy vehicles transporting the wonderful produce of the regions to capital city ports and world markets. On top of the $3.56 billion already included in the federal budget, the coalition will redirect $2.08 billion that Labor had allocated to the Epping to Parramatta rail line, which the O'Farrell government does not regard as a priority at this time, to guarantee the completion of the Pacific Highway. I think everybody in this House should applaud that move. The new funding commitment brings the Commonwealth's funding offer up to the standard 80-20 ratio and puts an end to Labor's phoney and discredited stand-off with New South Wales.

Once this project is completed, Australia will have a four-lane national highway connecting the country's three largest cities—Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane—with four-lane connections to Sale, Toowoomba, Gympie and other centres. That is a wonderful announcement that complements the coalition's existing announcement of new major roads projects in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth and its recommitment to Tasmania's Midland Highway and the Toowoomba Range crossing. There will be more to say on roads as the months progress, not just on highways but on local roads and bridges too.

In conclusion, road user charges are being imposed unfairly. That is why this disallowance motion is necessary and is imperative. I commend it to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the irresponsible motion moved by the member for Wide Bay, as it puts at risk the extension of a vital program aimed at improving heavy vehicle safety and, in doing so, threatens our nation's road freight transport. It was great to hear the member for Riverina talk about the member for Wide Bay. I think the member for Riverina said that our roads are our arteries: under the supervision of the member for Wide Bay the arteries were starved of oxygen. We saw when we came to power that a major bypass was needed. It is amazing to think that the Leader of the Nationals, a former transport minister and a member whose electorate sits right on the Bruce Highway, could supervise such neglect of such an important highway as the Bruce Highway. It is great to see that he is committing to the Sydney-Brisbane highway, a road I know reasonably well—I drove from Sydney to Brisbane in January—but there has been no mention from the Nationals of what they are going to do in relation to duplication and flood proofing from Brisbane up to Cairns, which is something the member for Dawson has touched on regularly.

I think the member for Wide Bay, the shadow minister for transport and infrastructure, actually drove the family truckster that was full of Liberal and Nationals over Christmas from Cairns down to Brisbane, where they inspected the Bruce Highway. I think he was behind the wheel, as Minister Albanese has mentioned in question time. Not that Minister Albanese was responding to a question from the former transport minister the member for Wide Bay—he has not asked a question about transport of the Leader of the House. In my speech I will touch on why that might be the case.

The member for Wide Bay wants to disallow the legislative instrument that increases the heavy vehicle road use charge as at 1 July 2012. That negative, short-sighted move has the potential to leave taxpayers to foot a bill of up to $700 million for the wear and tear caused to our roads by heavy vehicles. In this year's budget, the government announced a $140 million extension to the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program to allow the continued construction of rest areas, parking and decoupling bays, road enhancement projects and technology trials and projects that are aimed fairly and squarely at improving safety but also—for the economists out there—aimed at improving productivity. So it is good for the truckies, as it keeps them safe, which keeps other people on the road safe, so it is good for the public; but it is also good for the nation's economy.

In its first years, this program has delivered 236 projects, and there is a continuing strong demand for new and upgraded rest areas and other safety measures across the nation, in areas off the national road link and main highways, and in country areas. It is for this very reason that we doubled the amount of funding dedicated to the program—good for public safety but also good for productivity and for road users.

The extension of this important safety and productivity program comes on top of our recent establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to set safe rates to stem risky behaviour by heavy-vehicle drivers. The other day, in my electorate, I pulled in to grab some drinks at one of my servos, near Archerfield Airport—and this is, I was told by the truckies at the servo, the busiest servo in Australia in that it sells more diesel than any other servo in Australia—where I ran into a gentleman by the name of Steven Corcoran, who had me sign his survey. Now, I know Minister Ellis is a subscriber to Big Rigs, the free national transport newspaper, and there was an article in there about Steven Corcoran, who had been collecting signatures at truck stops and roadhouses about getting safer rates. The article quoted him as having said:

… truck drivers were 30 times more likely to die than other professions …

So good on Steve Corcoran for taking the time to go into bat for this important cause. So people do care about our truck drivers and the safety of the public. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case from those opposite, which is why we have this disallowance motion before us.

Of course, there is our historic achievement of establishing the first ever National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. That will commence on 1 January 2013. That is despite Federation occurring 112 years ago. Now a Labor led Commonwealth government has been able to achieve this national regulator. That is a good thing too, especially with the way Campbell Newman is slashing jobs in transport in Queensland. It is amazing. What is the first thing Michael Caltabiano—who used to be Campbell Newman's council colleague in the Brisbane City Council—is doing as his new appointee in charge of Queensland transport? He is getting rid of front-line people in the transport department, the people who provide safety out on our roads. Thankfully this federal Labor government is able to bring in the new National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. The wheels of federation move slowly but, when Labor is at the wheel, they move surely—and certainly a lot faster than those opposite.

This historic reform will boost national income by up to $30 billion over coming years by providing savings and boosting our productivity—as well as saving lives. These reforms are vitally important to the heavy vehicle transport sector, which employs hundreds of thousands of Australians and plays a central role in getting our goods and services to our towns, our cities, our airports and our ports.

As I mentioned, my electorate of Moreton is in the middle of many of those highways and train lines. It has 19,000 small businesses, many of them connected with the transport industry. There is the Acacia Ridge rail yard, which is basically the end of the standard gauge line that goes all the way to Perth, and the Moolabin rail yards as well. The Brisbane Urban Corridor goes straight through my electorate, which has some of its busiest intersections—I think the intersection of Kessels Road and Mains Road is the second busiest intersection in Queensland. Thankfully, I was able to secure $300 million in funding to get a grade separation there, mainly because of the problems with trucks trying to do a hill start there in the afternoon—when people are trying to go north, south, east and west, having these big rigs trying to do hill starts creates a lot of problems. I have not seen an article about that in Big Rigs magazine yet, but I know Minister Ellis will keep me up to date.

Since 2007, the Labor government has invested a record $36 billion in our nation's infrastructure, including doubling the roads budget. I think that might be the real reason the member for Wide Bay does not ask Minister Albanese any questions about roads—we have doubled the roads budget. Compared to the former Howard government, we are investing more than twice as much in half the time: $2.8 billion since we came to government compared with $3.1 billion over 12 years. You can do the maths; anybody can do the maths: twice as much in half the time. You can dress the politics up anyway you want but these are the facts and, as I said, it might explain why the member for Wide Bay does not ask questions on transport in question time. Nothing better symbolises the neglect of our road infrastructure under 12 years of coalition government than the state of the Bruce Highway. I used to travel the Bruce Highway quite a lot: in 1988 I was teaching up at Babinda, up near Cairns, and I have gone north to Cairns ever since for holidays and when I worked for the Queensland Independent Education Union, the patch I looked after was from Longreach to Moranbah to Rockhampton and all the way down to Brisbane. So I knew that highway in intimate detail and I knew where you could get the best crab sandwiches, I knew where you could get a good cold drink as I knew every part of that highway. I think the place where you can get the best crab sandwiches might be in the member for Flynn's electorate, in Miriam Vale—if indeed that is part of the member for Flynn's electorate. So I knew that highway intimately, every bump, every rest stop and just about every hotel along it—although, obviously, I have not driven it as much since I have been a federal member of parliament.

Taking the Bruce Highway, look at what the federal Labor government is doing. We are building 20 new rest stops and upgrading a further nine under the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. In the early noughties I used to drive the Bruce Highway almost every other week, but how it has changed. This financial year we have seen the following investments along the Bruce Highway: construction of a new interchange at the intersection between the Bruce and Dawson highways, known as the Calliope Crossroads, near Gladstone, federal contribution $150 million; straightening and raising the Bruce Highway between Sandy Corner and Collinsons Lagoon, federal contribution $50 million; straightening and widening the Bruce Highway from Cabbage Tree Creek to Carman Road and across Back Creek Range, federal contribution $100 million. That is at a place where I used to swear quite a bit, from memory, while on that Back Creek Range having got behind a slow farmer or a slow rig. Also, there is straightening the Bruce Highway just south of Gin Gin and upgrading of the intersection with the Bundaberg-Gin Gin road, federal contribution, $20 million. In addition to major upgrades to key sections of the highway, our $440 million safety package is installing 52 new overtaking lanes, fixing 100 dangerous black spots, and building 20 new rest areas and stopping places as well as upgrading a further nine existing rest areas. We are also laying audible edge-line markings. This is substantial progress, substantial investment, and it has all been delivered by a federal Labor government. As I said: twice the money in half the time; that is the maths.

If the opposition motion to disallow the Road User Charge increase succeeds, it will put at significant risk hundreds of new projects aimed at improving heavy vehicle safety and productivity. And what does that do? It puts lives at risk. That is what happens. When you do not have an overtaking lane and you have a slow caravan or a couple of trucks then people try to go around too many vehicles, and lives are lost. That is what happens on the Bruce.

Unfortunately, Premier Newman has sacked 1,400 people from the Department of Transport and Main Roads. There are only 9,200 in that department. That is one in seven sacked, and many of those are frontline operators who make sure that there is vehicle safety and that our roads are safe.

So the member for Wide Bay should direct his energies towards talking to Premier Newman rather than coming in here and holding up the Labor agenda. He is putting at risk rest stops; he is putting at risk road and bridge upgrades; he is putting at risk parking and decoupling bays—all needed to ensure improved heavy vehicle safety and productivity and to increase access to the road network.

The Bruce Highway is an interesting piece of road stretching from Brisbane all the way to Cairns. Many English people might think that it is named after a Monty Python sketch but it is not. It is actually named after Stanley Bruce—one of those rare prime ministers who was actually voted out of government while prime minister and voted out of his own seat. It has only happened twice in the history of Federation. Stanley Bruce was one and John Winston Howard was the other. Largely, that was because they did not recognise some of the concerns of Queensland. We are a decentralised state. In terms of transport links, we have a hub settlement pattern straight up the highway from the coast, but then we have rail spurs and roads west from Rockhampton out to Longreach and from Townsville to Mount Isa, Cairns et cetera. So we need to get it right.

The people on this road are an interesting mix of tourists, heavy vehicle operators, grey nomads, businesses and locals going between coastal businesses as well. So overtaking lanes are crucial—and rest stop areas for heavy vehicles are also crucial. So I would urge the House, I would urge all those members of the Liberal and National parties from Cairns all the way down to Brisbane, to vote against this opposition motion which would disallow the road user charge determination because it will put lives at risk.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the disallowance motion which is currently before the House on the Road User Charge Determination No.1 2012, made under the Fuel Act 2006. The road transport industry is of great significance to the Australian economy and I am passionate about this industry. I myself have owned trucks for the last 30 years and, like the member for Moreton, I have travelled the Bruce Highway many, many times and done many, many miles between Rockhampton and Gin Gin, which unfortunately is the worst piece of the Bruce Highway on the Brisbane to Cairns run.

My heart goes out to an owner truck driver in Rolleston who, during the floods last year, could not move his truck for three months because of the flooding of the Panorama Creek in Rolleston. Later on, he could not move his truck for another three months because the roads where he had to get cattle off a farmer's property were too wet and boggy. So he went for six months without moving a wheel, and his registration at that time was $22,000, so you can imagine how much out of pocket he was.

As it stands, heavy vehicle road users have been charged to recover the part of the road maintenance cost attributed to the road use. This is done in two parts: firstly, by the states and territories through registration charges and, secondly, by the Commonwealth through the fuel based road user charges. Public consultation by the National Transport Commission last year has resulted in a number of recommendations that are based on outdated and unfounded theoretical information. This is not an acceptable manner to make a decision. Any good business person will tell you how healthy, long-lasting and effective decisions are made with appropriate and timely consultation.

An increase of as much as 2.4c litre is an increase from 23c per litre to 25½c per litre or, putting it in percentage terms, 10.4 per cent. This increase should not be imposed on an industry that is key to preventing us from running out of essential stocks around our great nation. There is a lot of movement in the transport industry. Much transport is now done on roads rather than on rail. When I was in the game in a big way, in the heartland of Emerald in the Queensland Central Highlands, grain, cattle and fuel were all carted mostly by rail. Sadly these days it is all carted by trucks, which adds greatly to the use of our roads, where there is a fight between tourists, general road users in their motor cars and the heavy loads of the three industries I just mentioned. Plus there is the fact that we have large mining equipment being dropped off from the ports of Brisbane from America and other places to supply the mines. This is also adding to the cluttering of our roads. Everyone is out there competing for the use of our roads. Our roads are deteriorating at a fast rate and we do need to do something urgently about it. Truck stops are virtually non-existent between Rockhampton and Gin Gin and after five o'clock at night you are very hard pushed to get through even the trucks parked on the road at Gin Gin. The Bruce Highway needs more upgrades—as the member for Moreton said, we need more passing lanes et cetera.

We do not need a mining tax to fix our roads. We need to fix the roads under the same terms and agreements that we had in future years. This business of saying 'We'll fix the roads if you introduce a mining tax' is just poppycock. We do not need these stipulations. We just need to get about fixing our roads and stop wasting money in other areas so that it can be applied to our roads. We are getting a return on our investment from our coal, gas, grain and cattle. They provide the money for those road upgrades—not the mining industry, which uses rail to transport coal and pipelines to produce gas and transfer it from the west to places like Gladstone.

I believe it is important that the parliament agree on a compromise of a most modest increase of 5.7 per cent, which is in line with the annual adjustment used in previous years. A 10.4 per cent increase would cripple an industry that is already struggling in a lot of areas—and the carbon tax will not help that either. We cannot cripple an industry. The mining industry at the moment is going through very tough times with the high Australian dollar and low commodity prices. There comes a time when the last straw will break the camel's back, and this, I am afraid, could happen to the transport industry.

Approximately 25 per cent of that expenditure remains in the formula. In addition $144 million was unexpectedly added to the amount to be collected because of the recalculation of the past obligations under the model. We really need to use some common sense here and look at the bigger picture of what an unsubstantiated increase of 10.4 per cent would mean for our road transport industry. I intend to raise a number of issues that I believe need to be addressed in relation to this bill. The issues are unresolved. Given the huge impact that the transport industry has on this country, I believe it is imperative that we pay close attention to some of these facts—facts such as that the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association asserts that the National Transport Commission's pricing model indicates road trains would be overcharged by $27.9 million per year, or by 40 per cent, and, as such, the principle of cost recovery by vehicle class would be undermined.

Furthermore, in May this year, the transport ministers agreed to review the National Transport Commission formula, accepting the general view that it may not be an accurate reflection of the costs attributable to the heavy vehicle classes. And, despite the majority of the transport ministers agreeing to the increase, various state governments have subsequently implemented alternative proposals. The Northern Territory and Western Australian governments, for example, have now implemented significantly lower registration increases, and the New South Wales and South Australian governments have announced concessions for certain truck configurations. Let me reinforce the view expressed by the member for Wide Bay, who said that, since all parties seem to agree that the calculation model is in need of review, it would be grossly unfair to apply this model to justify such a huge increase.

One of the most alarming issues in relation to this bill is the difference in opinion between the Australian Trucking Association and the National Transport Commission as to the most accurate number of trucks that should be used to calculate the cost attributable to the heavy vehicle industry. The National Transport Commission uses historic figures from the 2007-08 Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage to determine the number of heavy vehicles there are on our roads and what must be charged to recover the costs of their road usage. The National Transport Commission believe that figure is appropriate as it provides an average of the number of trucks that would be associated with the seven-year rolling average of expenditure on roads that they use to determine the amount to be paid.

However, on the other side of the coin, the Australian Trucking Association argues that it is more appropriate to use the actual registration information from the states and territories to determine the vehicle numbers, particularly as the fuel usage figures used to determine how much should be paid by each truck are current figures. The Australian Trucking Association believes that the flaws in the methodology used by the National Transport Commission in determining their recommendation results in an overcollection from the heavy vehicle industry. So we have a conflict. They estimate the overcollection will be $1.1 billion in 2012-13 alone.

I am not surprised that once again this industry is being hit in the leg by an unfair system, a system that is not agreed to by both associations, and therefore will suffer. It is a shame to say that at least there should be an acceptable method to come to a conclusion. We need to protect truck drivers. We should not be imposing unfair, arbitrary increases in registration and fuel excise costs. While commitments were made in 2008 to improve the relationship between the industry and the National Transport Commission and this has worked successfully in the past few years, it appears issues have reoccurred in 2011-12 and those relationships have now broken down. In this case, despite consultation beginning in late 2011 and the National Transport Commission providing its recommendations to the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure in February 2012, industry was not provided with detailed information on the formula used by the National Transport Commission or the input data and assumptions it relies on until March 2012. This information was discovered only as a result of a freedom of information request.

So that this parliament understands the process, I provide the following summary. The NTC calculates the total cost base by gathering yearly figures from the states and territories on road expenditure and then adds this to the figure local governments report to the ABS for road expenditure. The NTC deducts expenditure on non-road costs—for example, amenity expenses—to obtain the allocated cost base. This figure is allocated to the entire vehicle fleet by analysing the Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage to determine how much should be collected from each vehicle class, whether it be car, truck, motorbike, you name it. It takes into account weight, kilometres et cetera. This allows the NTC to calculate how much is owed by the heavy vehicle industry for cost recovery across the board, not just across a certain class. This figure is divided between the amount collected by the road user charge and state and territory registration fees on a basis of 62 to 38. The split is largely historical and reflects the revenue shared between the Commonwealth and the states and territories at the time the national charges were implemented. Fuel consumption and vehicle number figures from the SMVU are used to derive the level of registration and the road user charge to recover the cost of their impacts on the road network.

Conclusion: I believe that the coalition's proposal of, let me say, a more modest increase of 5.7 per cent, is a better solution to redefining the road user determination charge. As well as being in line with the annual adjustment used in previous years, it would eliminate an unexpected $144 million surcharge being imposed to correct an earlier miscalculation.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flynn does not seem to understand what this irresponsible motion would do. It is not to reduce the charge; it is to take it to zero. The government does not support this motion, which puts at risk the extension of a vital program aimed at improving heavy-vehicle safety and, in doing so, threatens our nation's road freight transport.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the nongs opposite, I have not spoken in this debate. This is a motion from the member for Wide Bay.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Settle down, big feller!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They now want to stop the minister from speaking on this motion. The member for Wide Bay's motion would disallow the legislative instrument increasing the heavy-vehicle road user charge as of 1 July 2012. What I say to them is there are a range of National Party ministers who sat around the table and made this decision not once but twice and who continue to support this decision. If they want to lobby they should lobby their own political party because the coalition, which is in government in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, has supported this decision.

This is a negative and short-sighted move. It has the potential to leave taxpayers footing a bill of up to $700 million for wear and tear on our roads caused by heavy vehicles. That is an outcome that would clearly be unfair. Furthermore, in this year's budget the government announced a $140 million extension to the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. This is a program initiated by this government. Before we came to office there was no such program. Members should consider the fact that this is a change under the Fuel Tax Act 2006. This is the coalition's legislation. This is the coalition's system that they established when they were in government. They determined the way the road user determination would occur by the National Transport Commission. It is possible it was the member for Wide Bay, when he was a minister, who did it. It might have been Mark Vaile, the former member for Lyne. But it was certainly done by the federal National Party. Then they come in here and complain and say, 'Oh no, the system's no good.'

Let us have a look at what we have done and what they did not do. They had charges without anything going back to the industry. The charges are based upon cost recovery, based upon costs already spent. We have invested record amounts into the nation's roads. We ensured with this determination that we discounted all of the road expenditure that occurred as a result of the floods in Queensland. What is more, we put in place the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, which is building rest stops in electorates, particularly those held by coalition members right around the country. It has already delivered 236 projects. Members, such as the member for Gippsland, have written to me—and they are going to vote against the funding for this program—about rest stops on the Princes Highway from Sale to the New South Wales border, saying that funding should be given for it. The funding comes from this program, which will cease to exist if this instrument is not carried and if the member for Wide Bay—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wide Bay yet again shows his knowledge of economics and adding up. I assure the member for Wide Bay, if you have a fund that comes from this determination, which we do, the fact is this program will not exist. It is something acknowledged by the ATA and the Livestock Transporters Association. A recent review, which included industry and jurisdictional road authorities, found there is an overwhelming positive response to this program continuing strong demand for new and upgraded rest areas and other safety measures across the nation. That is why we doubled the amount of funding dedicated to this program.

It is also for this reason that, when the member for New England approached me about increasing the funding available in the program and expanding the scope of projects eligible for funding, I said 'yes' to his representations. As a result, I can advise the House that the government will increase funding for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program by $10 million, in the round. That will be announced in December. I have also expanded eligible projects under this program to include rural and regional heavy-vehicle infrastructure. That is something that has been asked for, particularly by the Livestock Transporters Association. They have made strong representations on this issue—unlike those opposite, who are simply trying to stop funding for this program.

I have also included demonstration projects to facilitate innovative safety measures across the heavy-vehicles sector. The member for Wide Bay, clearly, has not been paying attention, because these guidelines have already gone out—in rounds 1 and 2 that will be announced later this year. I have already met with the ATA, the Livestock Transporters Association and other industry groups about how we make the most of this program. The extension of this important program comes on top of our recent establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to set safe rates, to stem risky behaviour by heavy-vehicle drivers. And there is our historic achievement of establishing the first ever national heavy-vehicle regulator, which will commence on 1 January 2013.

The national heavy-vehicle regulator, along with the national maritime and rail safety regulators, will cut the number of transport regulators operating across Australia from 23 down to three. That is a boost to national income by up to $30 billion over the next 20 years. It has been talked about for years, but delivered by this government.

These reforms are vitally important to the heavy-vehicle transport sector that employs hundreds of thousands of Australians and plays a central role in getting our goods and services to our towns, cities, airports and ports. The freight task is growing and it will continue to grow, putting even greater pressure on our road networks.

Heavy-vehicle crashes also contribute substantially to road trauma, often involving the occupants of light passenger vehicles and pedestrians. We see around 5,000 people seriously injured in trucking incidents each year, and 230 people killed in trucking incidents. The program is all about funding practical measures to reduce risk and improve road safety, not only for truckies but for all who share the roads with the big rigs.

Let me remind the member for Wide Bay that in 2004 the then Australian Transport Council established the pricing principles upon which heavy vehicles are calculated. These principles were further reinforced when COAG directed the ATC, in April 2007, to ensure that charges deliver, and continue to deliver, full cost recovery while removing cross-subsidisation between vehicle classes. These were principles agreed under the Howard government's watch and under National Party transport ministers. These pricing principles were instrumental in the calculation of charges agreed by transport ministers in March 2012.

Let's be clear: the charge calculation methodology has not changed. The principles have not changed. And that is why we see National Party roads ministers—in New South Wales, for example—voting in favour of this determination. But the shadow minister comes in here and says that he cannot possibly support it. Why doesn't he pick up the phone to Duncan Gay and other coalition ministers who have supported this determination?

The new charges agreed by transport ministers will see A-trailer charges reduced by over 50 per cent . We have heard nothing from those opposite about that. This delivers on a key 2011 industry call that governments address high A-trailer charges which were particularly impacting operators in the rural and agricultural sectors. The new charges also incorporate the 2012 annual adjustment to ensure ongoing cost recover consistent with the 2007 COAG directive.

The opposition's claim of over-recovery are simply not correct. The total amount of revenue to be collected from industry consistently reflect the trend in government road expenditure. Since 2007, this government has doubled the road expenditure. Look at any of the major roads around our country. Take, for example, the Pacific Highway: $1.3 billion by those opposite over 12 long years. Even though they had transport ministers who were on the highway the expenditure over 12 years was $1.3 billion. This government has spent $4.1 billion already.

Look at the Bruce Highway. Again, those opposite spent $1.3 billion over 12 years; this side of the House has spent $2.8 billion. The member for Wide Bay goes around and says that the area from Cooroy to Curra—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. This is a motion about the disallowance of the road-user charge. This road-user charge is not used to fund the roads that the minister is talking about so his comments are irrelevant.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been a pretty wide-ranging debate.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These shows how little this bloke understands. The road-user charge—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's out of order and—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down and you might learn something. The road-user charge—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

looks at the previous years' expenditure on roads. It calculates it over a period of time and then works on the formula that was established by those opposite to say, 'We'll recover the costs.' So our expenditure on the Bruce Highway, the Pacific Highway and the Hume Highway is absolutely relevant. That is the basis of the determination—and yet you have the shadow minister just show, with that point of order, how ignorant he is about the system. That is the most extraordinary point of order. I have seen some crackers in this House but none worse than that one, because what that did was expose that the shadow minister does not even understand how this determination occurs.

The more you spend on roads the greater the cost recovery under the system. That is the way it works. It works not on an annual formula but on a seven-year formula. So, because we have been in government for five years and we have doubled the road expenditure—guess what!—the road-user charge, which is there for cost recovery, goes up. It is not hard but this bloke showed, with that point of order, why his motion should be rejected. He showed, not only why it should be rejected but why he should be embarrassed.

This is a system established by the federal coalition. We have not changed the formula or the National Transport Commission. The person in charge of the National Transport Commission is the person that they appointed. Coalition state ministers voted for this change, and yet the opposition come in here and argue against it. And then they say that the spending on roads is not relevant. It is unbelievable, from those opposite. At the same time, they argue that there is no connection between the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program and these charges. Well, there is no connection as far as they are concerned, because they never had one. What they had was increased charges giving nothing back to the industry. Well, we have not taken that view.

The fact is that those opposite need to do more than just come out with rhetoric. We saw the farcical announcement of them delaying the Pacific Highway upgrade that they made over the weekend. We have seen, today, the complete failure to understand the system that they are seeking to disallow with this motion here today. And, for no reason other than the point of order from the member for Wide Bay, he shows that his motion is not worthy of support.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this disallowance motion in the House tonight, after the shrieking of the minister, who had to leap into the debate because there were actually no government members prepared to speak on it—the list was very short.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the member withdraw. I am the minister; I was always going to speak on this motion. It was brought on by my motion.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Farrer would assist the chamber if she—

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry—I—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hang on; the member for Farrer has not got the call. The member for Farrer would assist the chamber if she would accept the call from the Leader of the House, who was down to speak.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not wish to be petty; I will withdraw. The Road User Charge Determination (No. 1) 2012 slugs truckies with higher fees—that is what it does. If you were a small transport operator listening to the debate in the House today and just listened to the minister talk in such a petty and ill-meaning way about the trucking industry and about the rationale behind this determination, I think you would be disgusted. This is a determination that slugs truckies with higher fees.

This is classic Labor. Their methodology is always to tax, spend and interfere, and in this case they are calling this tax a 'reform'. We had the member for Moreton earlier in his remarks saying, 'Thankfully, we were able to build a national regulator,' as if we should all breathe a sigh of relief that Labor has once again found something to regulate and therefore increase charges to people—in this case, the trucking industry. For the Labor Party, rural Australia is not just another country; it may as well be another planet. This minister comes from western Sydney. It is clear from his remarks that he does not understand what it is like to drive the long, lonely roads of rural Australia as a trucking operator, the stress that family businesses are under, the stress that truck drivers are under or the stress surrounding an industry that struggles to make money, cannot pass on its costs and has to absorb every single increase—in this case, a significant increase to their budget.

What is this road user charge doing? It is increasing by 10 per cent the rate of the heavy vehicle road user charge from 23.1c a litre to 25.5c a litre, to, in the words of the determination:

… recover an attributable portion of heavy vehicle's share of increased government road expenditure to ensure they continue to pay their way.

That is Treasury terminology, and we understand that they do not understand the real world in some instances either. But I take offence, on behalf of the truck drivers I represent, to the phrase 'to ensure they continue to pay their way'—as if somehow the trucking industry has to bear the cost of the rehabilitation and maintenance of every road in Australia.

We do not criticise the road user charging system, because we created it, as the minister said. We recognise that fact. But we do really object to this particular tax—and that is what it is—being used, this bucket of money being increased, this system being plundered to pay for pink batts, BER, $700 set-top boxes and other financial failings of this government. There is no proof that the money raised by this road user charge goes anywhere but straight into consolidated revenue. We do not have a clear link between this funding and improving the roads that Australia's truck drivers drive on. This increase from 1 July from 23.1c to 25.5c a litre is highly significant. Thirty to 35 per cent of trucking operators' budget is fuel costs. This will hit their bottom line, and it will hurt.

The government talks about savings, as if that should be a rationale for us to think that this is a good thing. The government would have us believe that this change to the road user charge was recommended by the National Transport Commission and agreed by the Commonwealth and state and territory transport ministers. The NTC is responsible for conducting an annual assessment of these charges to ensure they remain in line with heavy vehicle share of road use. It is our argument that documents provided to industry were altered before being given to those ministers for a decision. The industry was not provided with detailed information on the model used by the NTC or the input data and assumptions underpinning them. These documents were only made available after a freedom of information request, and even then only after the NTC's recommendations had already been accepted by the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure.

The Australian Trucking Association believes the decisions were based on outdated truck numbers which inflate the amount drivers must pay to the government and overstate road building and maintenance calculations. The ATA believes that, instead of counting the actual number of truck registrations, the NTC took old registration figures and concluded a theoretical fleet size, which will now see drivers fork out $700 million more than they should.

The coalition agrees, and we called on the government for a halfway compromise. Not only are the increases based on flawed modelling; it is our view the proposed 10 per cent hike in the charge comes in addition to the effects of the carbon tax and occurs at a time when the transport industry is already struggling to survive big cost increases. The charge is also collected through the fuel excise system and truck registration fees, many of which will rise, by more than 30 per cent in some cases—a classic double whammy for the industry, attacked at both ends at a time they can least afford it.

We also argue that, despite the National Transport Commission's recommendation that flood recovery expenditure be excluded from the calculations, about 25 per cent of that expenditure remains in the formula. In addition, $144 million was unexpectedly added to the amount to be collected because of a recalculation of past obligations under the model—now, what does that mean? The Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association has also estimated the impact of the revised pricing model will see road trains overcharged by $27.9 million each year. That is a 40 per cent hike that can and should be avoided.

In May this year, state and federal transport ministers agreed to review the NTC formula, accepting the general view that it may not be an accurate reflection of the costs attributable to all heavy vehicle classes. Since all parties seem to agree that the calculation model is in need of a review, it would be grossly unfair to apply this model to justify such a huge increase.

Deputy Speaker, as you have heard, we have not said: do not make increases. We have not said: do not ask truckies to pay their way. What we have said is: make it five per cent, not 10 per cent. Let's meet the government halfway. Let's recognise the reality for our struggling truck drivers. I represent 30 per cent of the state of New South Wales in the electorate of Farrer, so I have known a lot of trucks, a lot of truck drivers and a lot of family firms over the last 10 years. I called a few and asked them what they thought about this. I know that they are hardly going to say that it is a good thing. What I wanted to hear from them was what life was like for them, right here and now, as a small transport operator in rural Australia. I remind the House that there is nobody in the government benches, that I am aware of, that has had skin in this game. There does not seem to be anyone who has invested a dollar of their own money in a real job in rural Australia. There is nobody in the government who understands the life of the trucking operators that I represent. If there were, I would have expected to have more speakers lining up to speak on this bill and we would have had a more sympathetic response from the minister in terms of our offer to meet him half way.

As a trucking operator in Albury said to me this morning:

It's a huge issue for the industry!

With all the other costs hitting us it's going to devastate some of the smaller transport operators particularly.

Subcontracted Truckies simply can't pass on these costs, so must absorb them, reducing their margins to such an extent many are leaving the industry.

Add this to the other taxes, rising cost of parts, registration, compliance and general cost of living, this will be a fatal blow for some.

I spoke to my friend, Leann James, from Broken Hill whose husband runs a livestock transport business. She said:

It's disappointing to hear this federal government has again knocked money off the trucking industry and hit us so hard. We are aware that in 2014 we will be hit again with the carbon tax on diesel. Any increase in costs are going to have to be passed onto consumers. In a typical month we pay anywhere up to $10,000 for our fuel. In a busy month this can and has been up to $15,000.

We are continually getting rego price hikes and parts and oils are continually creeping up. It is very demoralising for any truck operator to see this continual whacking we are getting from the government. I would envisage the professional drivers, ie blokes like my husband who has been a truck driver for 42 years, might say that enough is enough if this trend keeps up. Hitting an industry already very competitive with pricing will only push the operators who are competent and good at their job out. It is unfair to continually use this industry as a milking cow.

She asks the federal government:

Can they name anything they buy, from furniture to fresh meat and vegetables that has not been on a truck? What plan would they have to service this huge country when the truckies say that enough is enough?

I want to reflect that frustration here in the House. If I go particularly to the far west of New South Wales and look at the life of a livestock transport operator—they get up at 4 am, come home at midnight, eat dust all day with a truck and two dog trailers, the yards are bad and the sheep are not running and they just do not have time to stop. They have a deadline and many rules and regulations. We should in this House be moving motions of support and thanks to the truck drivers of this country instead of saying, 'Oh, we've found another way of slugging you, of using your industry as a milking cow to help us attempt to put our books back into balance.'

I want the minister to demonstrate that every single cent that he raises from this charge, if he manages to get it through the House today, goes directly to support the roads that trucks drive on and not into consolidated revenue, which is where I strongly suspect it goes. We on this side of the House want to make a strong statement in support of small business generally and the truck driving industry in particular and say that we will resist this increase because we know how much it will hurt and we actually care.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the short time I have before 90-second statements I will put on the record that I am opposing government on this disallowance motion for different reasons than the ones that have been presented by the Leader of the National Party in introducing this disallowance, but they are important ones all the same.

Last week I wrote to the Leader of the National Party seeking confirmation that he is fully aware, in introducing this disallowance motion, that this road user charge increase has come about from agreement between federal and state roads ministers. Therefore, in blunt terms, it is the New South Wales National Party minister who has voted for and signed off on this road user charge increase. I therefore wrote last week to the Leader of the National Party for him to (a) acknowledge that it is a member of his own party in government in New South Wales who signed off on this road user charge increase, and (b) if he acknowledges that, to then get that New South Wales National Party roads minister to write directly to me and ask me to vote against this disallowance motion and against the vote that the New South Wales National Party took on this matter.

Unfortunately, over the last week I have had silence. There has been no response from the Leader of the National Party to that letter about the hypocrisy of the position being taken by the National Party when you compare their federal position to their state position in New South Wales. I would welcome that letter and I would welcome the explanation of how they are managing to walk both positions at once.

Despite that, I will still vote against this disallowance motion. I do it as someone whose first job was to work with the road transport forum, which has changed its name now, which used to be the peak lobby group for the long-distance road transport industry. It basically represents the 80 per cent of commodities that reach every home in Australia and arrive via the necessary transport model in a large country like ours and that is by road.

Those that move food and produce by road are quite often, understandably, given a bum steer by this chamber because the vast majority of people use cars and they do not like trucks on the road next to them. In reality 80 per cent of the products that hit our homes come via road. Yes, it would be preferable if it was rail or some other model, but it is not. In a country like ours they arrive by road and quite often public policy does not respect nor reflect that and we are seeking that again today. From here on in I am going to lay a challenge to this chamber and that is around linking road user charging to the broad sweep of comprehensive tax reform and to look at areas like urban congestion charges.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Lyne will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.