Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Because there are a number of issues on an important bill that we need to try and facilitate this evening, I have shown my speech to the shadow spokesman and to the whip and I seek to incorporate my remarks.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to oppose the disallowance of the Road User Charge Determination 2008 (No.1) made under the Fuel Tax Act 2006.

The Coalition’s motion to disallow this instrument and its previous decision to block amendments to heavy vehicles charges under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme in this place will:

• threaten safety on our roads;
• fragment heavy vehicle registration charges around the country;
• and set back the case of progressive economic reform.

In opposing the increase of the Road User charge for heavy vehicles from 19.633 to 21 cents per litre, the Coalition has put at risk reforms which would see increased productivity for the trucking industry flow on to the Australian economy.

State Governments and the public are reluctant to wear the increased cost of road damage and infrastructure strengthening attributable to heavier and larger trucks transporting freight on our roads.

This is why successive governments and a number of key heavy vehicle industry groups, including the Australian Trucking Association, support the principle that heavy vehicles must pay their way.

This reform commenced in 2004 when the former Prime Minister released a Government White paper which committed the Commonwealth to reform of fuel excise and registration charges.

The 2006 Productivity Commission study into Road and Rail Infrastructure Pricing found under-recovery of infrastructure costs occurs in the heavy vehicle industry.

In April 2007 COAG, required the Australian Transport Commission to devise a new charges determination for implementation on 1 July 2008 that:

• fully recovers infrastructure costs from the heavy vehicle industry,
• ends cross-subsidisation between heavy vehicle classes
• indexes charges to ensure costs continued to be recovered.

The National Transport Commission conducted a rigorous analysis of road expenditure and proposed a Determination which fully recovered infrastructure costs from the industry.

This was achieved through amendments to the Road User Charge recovered through Fuel Excise and amendments to Commonwealth, state territory registration charges.

That Determination was unanimously adopted by Australian Transport Ministers on 29 February 2008.

The registration charges would have decreased charges for smaller heavy vehicles, had smaller increases for other heavy vehicles, and larger increase for very large heavy vehicles, such as B Doubles which had been previously cross-subsidised.

The Government decided to complement the package with a $70 million safety and productivity package.

The package would fund trials of technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed, construct more heavy-vehicle rest stops, and strengthen bridges.

That package will now be delayed as its implementation is inexorably linked to the implementation of this determination and the registration changes. Safety and productivity measure will now be delayed.

Operators of small heavy vehicles will now not get the registration reductions as proposed by the bill. They will continue to cross-subsidise B Doubles, who by independent costing currently don’t pay their fair share of infrastructure costs.

The Opposition has muddied the water of this debate by claiming Road User Charge represents a reintroduction of fuel excise tax indexation.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Fuel excise that motorists pay is currently and remains at 38.143 cents a litre.

However heavy vehicle operators, including operators of B doubles get a rebate so they only pay 19.633 cents per litre.

Heavy vehicle operators pays a lower rate of fuel excise than the drivers of motor car.

Amending the Road User Charge to 21 cents per litre simply delivers cost recovery.

The Road User Charge is part of the heavy vehicle cost recovery mechanism and the Opposition knows this.

In fact, the Opposition put in place the Road User Charge system.

This Opposition motion, if successful, would prevent cost recovery from the vehicles that do the most damage to our roads.

It perpetuates current unfair cross subsidies and provides a disincentive to the sorts of productivity improvements the economy needs to contain inflation.

The opposition is directionless and has lost its way. I urge members to vote against the disallowance.