John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that when that quorum was called I was in a part of the building where, as far as I know, the bells did not ring. I know there were some power difficulties in the chamber previously and I would ask that action be taken to ensure that the bells are operating in all parts of the building. Otherwise it is confusing for senators on some occasions.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the button was not pressed properly, so we reset the clock after that was discovered and then the bells rang throughout the building.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008 make adjustments to the charge-setting mechanism that applies to the trucking industry. The two key elements of the charge structure that apply to Australia’s road freight sector are registration fees and the diesel fuel excise system known as the road user charge. The determination of the appropriate level of these charges occurs through the National Transport Commission, which makes recommendations to Australia’s transport ministers, meeting as the Australian Transport Council, to recover road expenditure attributable to heavy vehicles.

The principle behind the charge-setting arrangements that apply to the trucking industry is that the industry should pay its way. The trucking sector accepts this. Specifically, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 updates definitions contained in the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and grants the Australian Transport Council the power to determine the charges that will apply to Commonwealth registered heavy vehicles. The Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008 ends a system whereby the Australian Capital Territory set the reference charge for other jurisdictions to follow, currently based on the Commonwealth provided ACT law, the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993.

Senators may be aware that, on 29 February 2008, Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers at the Australian Transport Council agreed to a revised set of charges that will apply to Commonwealth registered heavy vehicles. These charges will be used as reference fees by the states and territories in relation to their own heavy vehicles. Essentially, that is what these bills are about: the application of charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council to heavy vehicles registered under the Commonwealth and the subsequent take-up of those charges to vehicles registered under states and territories. We are talking, therefore, about the costs that are imposed upon Australia’s road freight sector.

The opposition, however, has some specific concerns regarding these bills. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, for example, will require the Commonwealth to always impose the charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council to trucks registered under the Commonwealth. This is known as the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme or FIRS. This provision may be found in proposed section 5(4) on page 9 of the bill. The relevant part reads:

Regulations made for the purposes of this section must implement the national charge imposed on the registration of heavy vehicles, and any adjustment process of that charge, that is agreed by the Australian Transport Council.

This provision is dubious in the extreme, since under it the Commonwealth loses its discretion to dissent from the ministerial council and would be unable to determine in its own right the charges that should apply to Commonwealth registered vehicles. Given the charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council are reference fees used by the states and territories, should the Commonwealth wish to apply competitive pressure on the charges imposed by the states and territories on its own heavy vehicles it would be unable to do so. Moreover, decisions made in the Australian Transport Council are not always made by consensus. In the case of disagreements between jurisdictions, it is possible for a majority decision to occur and, in theory at least, it could be possible for the Commonwealth to be saddled with a decision it does not like.

While I accept that when it comes to regulatory issues the states and Commonwealth are essentially sovereign, I am still uncomfortable with a legislative provision that removes the right of the Commonwealth to dissent from a charge regime agreed to by the states. This is something that seems to have escaped the Rudd government. It is the job of the Commonwealth to provide national leadership and to ensure, where possible, that competitive pressure applies to state based charge-setting arrangements. What we are seeing is the abrogation of this role: the Labor run federal government is letting its state Labor mates have a free rein when setting fees that will have to be carried by a crucial sector of the economy—Australia’s road freight industry. I suspect this is another example of what is meant by ending the blame game: that the Commonwealth is walking away from any attempt to impose accountability upon the decisions of the states. This is, at best, highly regrettable.

The second unpleasant element of these bills is the associated regulation that will be tabled in parliament after the passage of the bills. This regulation will schedule the details of the heavy vehicle registration charges. These charges will contain significant increases, to be implemented over three years from 1 July 2008. The basis for these increases is the view of the Rudd government that the trucking sector is somehow not paying its way. This is by no means clear, with independent research commissioned by the trucking industry suggesting that the sector is already overcharged by $130 million per year.

Yet, in spite of the case for these increases in charges being unclear, the Rudd government has decided to press ahead anyway. It will determine these charges by applying an annual road cost adjustment formula. This formula is largely based on the expenditure costs associated with the impact of trucks on our road system. It will be a particularly expensive formula for Australia’s road freight industry, since it is common knowledge that costs associated with road maintenance and construction, such as steel, concrete and asphalt, are skyrocketing.

Registration costs will go up higher than the CPI. What does this mean? It means that 69 per cent of Australia’s truckies are going to be paying more, underwriting rising costs associated with road expenditure that are completely outside of their control. Secondly, the structure of the charges penalise productivity, since the costs agreed to by the Australian Transport Council fall heavily on highly productive multicombination vehicles such as B-doubles and B-triples. For example, the registration charges for B-doubles will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, including a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050. B-triple charges will skyrocket to $20,340, including a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050.

The result of this fee structure will be to remove the incentive for operators to use high-productivity vehicles. Operators will be inclined to use prime movers to pull semitrailers instead. For a government that has long proclaimed its greenhouse credentials, it seems extraordinary that it has now agreed to a charge arrangement that will in fact encourage more greenhouse emitting vehicles on our roads. Shocking though that seems, there is more. As the second part of the fee structure imposed on heavy vehicles, the Australian Transport Council decided to increase the road user charge, or diesel excise, from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre. And, most importantly, this fuel excise will be indexed to the same formula used for heavy vehicle registration charges.

This regulation under the Fuel Tax Act 2006 was tabled by Labor on the quiet, on the sly, in the House on 13 March. It will take effect from 1 January 2009. In other words, the indexation of fuel excise is back. Indexation of fuel excise, people may recall, was introduced by the Keating government and then abolished by the Howard government, thankfully, in early 2001. After a seven-year absence it is back, pegged to a formula that will lock in a tax take greater than the CPI. This is a highly significant decision by the Rudd government. In one of its first acts of office, it has sneaked in a new tax that will increase at a rate greater than the cost of living.

Who will pay for it? Initially, it will be the sector that is responsible for moving 75 per cent of Australia’s domestic freight. Those who drive the nation’s 365,000 trucks, many of whom are struggling small business operators—that is who will pay. So much for defending working families. But Australia will also pay. The increased costs will be passed to the consumer and raise the prices for every one of the everyday items working families need—from cornflakes to building materials, from medicines to school shoes. For the Rudd government to increase taxes when so many Australians are hurting due to interest rate rises exposes the emptiness of its claim to be serious about fighting inflation.

Remember the Prime Minister’s promises in the election campaign about putting downward pressure on grocery prices? He has done exactly the opposite. This is not a Prime Minister; this is a heartless bureaucrat. The decision also clarifies another element of what ending the blame game means. It means that now we have wall-to-wall Labor governments no Labor transport minister will blame another for raising taxes. It is also worth recalling that this increase is similar to the one the coalition government blocked two years ago. Now it appears there is no longer any protection for Australia’s hard-working truckies or, indeed, the struggling farmers and cash-strapped mums and dads who will have to pay more as the increases flow down to them.

It also flies in the face of the reassurance by Labor frontbencher Martin Ferguson who, when shadow spokesman for transport, told the trucking industry at the Australian Trucking Convention in Cairns in April last year that ‘squeezing profitability from the trucking industry is in no-one’s long-term interests’. I am glad one member of those on the other side has got it right, but certainly his view has not persevered. Either the member for Batman was being indifferent to the truth or he got rolled. Regardless, the Rudd government has introduced a new tax that is inflationary and will make life harder for working families.

Let us look at the revenue implications of raising heavy vehicle registration and reintroducing fuel indexation via the road user charge. Labor state and territory government revenue will rise substantially as a result of increased fuel tax and registration charges, with the annual revenue stream to Labor governments growing by $168 million. Put another way, the fuel tax take to Labor states and territories will rise from $1.146 billion in 2007-08 to $1.226 billion in 2010-11, an increase of $80 million.

The increase in heavy vehicle registration charges will put up the tax take for Labor state and territory governments from $638 million to $727 million in the same period of time, an increase of some $88 million. Labor run New South Wales will see its registration tax take rise from $150.3 million in 2007-08 to $166 million in 2009-10. Victoria’s registration revenue will rise 15 per cent, from $171.4 million to $197.9 million in the same period. Given the poor track record of the Labor states in project management, we do not have any guarantees that we will actually see an improvement in transport infrastructure arising from these higher charges.

These bills support a new fuel tax and an increase in registration charges, the case for which is unclear. The fees will discourage the use of efficient vehicle combinations and will increase truck traffic on our roads. The taxes and charges are inflationary and will make worse the financial struggle of not just the families of transport operators but all Australians. They include a new tax—an indexed fuel excise—that will rise faster than the CPI. The taxes fly in the face of the Rudd government’s statements about fighting inflation. The decision represents an abrogation by federal Labor to ensure that the taxes imposed by their state Labor mates are competitive. For these reasons, the opposition will oppose the bills.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a bit surprised by the contribution of Senator Scullion. In relation to how this legislation got to this place, Senator Scullion may not be aware that in 2006 or 2007 the then coalition Treasurer, Peter Costello, referred the whole issue of heavy vehicle charges to the Productivity Commission. As a result of this course, last year your then federal leader, Mr Vaile, put heavy vehicle charges on the agenda of the Council of Australian Governments. As a result of taking that path, the National Transport Council was then advised to prepare a new heavy vehicle charges regime. This all happened while your party was in power. If you had won the last election, these charges would be being introduced today.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they wouldn’t be.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They would be. We got to this point because your government put it on the agenda—not this government; your government. I find it very interesting that you say that you would not have done it, because you put it on the agenda, you put it through the bodies that make the recommendations and the council that your minister was the chairman of put it through. So do not mislead anybody who may be listening to this broadcast that the coalition would not be acting in the same way. The various bodies, from the Productivity Commission to the National Transport Council to COAG, all had undoubtedly reasonable cases put to them to make the decision that they did.

As a result of the changes, 25 per cent of the transport fleet in the country will get a decrease. For 69 per cent of the fleet, there will be a small increase. The remaining five per cent get a significant increase. However, the previous government was going to introduce these charges on and from 1 July this year. The decision made by this government was to introduce the road user charges from 1 January next year and to phase them in over three years. That is what this government is doing. Let us get it right: for 25 per cent of the transport fleet there will be a decrease; for 69 per cent there will be a small increase; and for five per cent there will be a heavy increase indeed.

In that period, one of the things that was recognised by the ministers was the fact that safety and transport are inextricably bound. On 29 February this year, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Anthony Albanese, announced a $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity plan. My old union—Senator Sterle’s old union—has been subject to a bit of controversy in the last few days. One of the things that the Transport Workers Union has been very serious about for some time is making sure that heavy vehicle drivers—and small vehicle drivers as well—are able to operate in a safe environment. Senator Sterle and I know the pressures that truck drivers are under. One of the things that the TWU has done in New South Wales, and which it wants to launch nationally, is to make sure that chain of responsibility legislation is in place.

As my colleague and I know, and as I want people to understand, people put goods on vehicles to get them from A to B. Ultimately, the people responsible for that are the driver and the transport operator. What we know actually happens is that vehicles are expected to get from A to B in unrealistic times. Vehicles are also overloaded. The unrealistic times and the overloading are unsafe. The unrealistic times mean that they speed or they spend too long in the cabin of the vehicle. That means—and this has been proven—that they use illegal drugs to make themselves stay awake. That is why I welcomed the announcement by the minister on 29 February this year. That will take on that problem.

I go back to what I was saying earlier about the chain of responsibility. Up until this point, what happened was that the driver and the transport operator were responsible. But now their client and the person at the other end who wants something delivered earlier than is possible are being held accountable in New South Wales. They are not going to be let off the hook, as they have been for many years. If a big retailer says, ‘We want that vehicle out of Western Sydney and into Coffs Harbour, we want it there in about three or four hours and if you can’t do it that’s not my problem,’ then under New South Wales awards it is that big retailer’s problem if there is an accident. They can no longer just wash their hands of it and say, ‘It’s not my problem.’ They are now held accountable because they are in the chain. That chain of responsibility is important, because that is where the difficulties have been occurring. The transport operator—the owner of the truck—is undoubtedly held accountable. So is the driver. But so now are the clients.

The union has been pushing for this to become national so that no-one can wipe their hands and say that it is not their problem, that they are not responsible and that it is the truck driver’s fault or the truck owner’s fault. No, it is their fault, because they are the ones who said that it must be got here in unrealistic times. That has been a campaign by that organisation for some time. There were, across Australia in 2006 and 2007, 228 fatalities in the heavy transport sector. In New South Wales, there were 1,000 injuries last year in road transport. It is one of the most dangerous occupations in the country. Legislation to make sure that drivers and owners are looked after by the authorities is very important. The TWU has been pursuing the issue of the chain of responsibility. As a result, there will be fewer deaths on the road of drivers and of other road users.

I also want to comment on some of the strange beliefs held by some of the senators who spoke yesterday on the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008. Those of us who have followed and been involved in the transport industry for most of our lives know very well that there is not a conflict between road and rail. Road and rail are integrated and the companies are almost the same. There is not the competition there that some people simplistically think there is—road versus rail. And it is not a matter of getting it off the road and onto a railway and the congestion problems would be solved and it would be safer. As you may be aware, a number of rail lines and companies have been privatised over the past few years and some of those companies have actually been bought by large transport companies which have had to divest themselves into two separate boards, like Toll and Asciano.

So it is not an issue of competing modes of transport. In fact, here in Canberra only a few weeks ago, the Australian Logistics Council held its annual conference at which all the users of transport met to work out more effective means of maritime, air, road and rail transport. Often the same companies are involved in the same areas from that chain of responsibility or supply chain. So it is simplistic to think that it is just a matter of road versus rail, as some of the senators said yesterday.

No-one likes to pay more than they have to. It will be up to the various authorities to ensure that any decreases in fuel and transport fleet costs are passed on to consumers. The vehicles I am referring to are the rigid vehicles, the smaller vehicles that do a lot of the transport tasks in cities and regional Australia. Undoubtedly the heavier vehicles will face significant increases over three years from 1 January next year. But a lot of the freight tasks are in the smaller areas. If rigid vehicles have their registration costs decreased, the government should ensure that those savings are passed on to consumers—and, undoubtedly, we would argue that the increases should be balanced against each other. This is a result of initiatives of the previous government, and I am sure the previous government would be implementing those charges that are before the Senate now if they had won government.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those Australians who might be driving home at the moment and listening to this broadcast might consider these things next time they go to the grocery store. When they notice their grocery bill increasing yet again, they should understand that it is the Rudd Labor government that is adding to the cost of their grocery bill, adding to the cost of their electricity bill and adding to the cost of their fuel bill. This government is putting upward pressure on inflation and that will mean increased interest rates. And we all know the Labor government’s record when it comes to interest rates—17½ per cent on housing loans back in the Keating days. This bill continues the approach of the Labor government to continue adding to the cost of the weekly grocery bill.

I understand that this bill effectively brings back the indexation of the fuel excise. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will remember the half-yearly indexation of the fuel excise, which was brought in by Mr Keating, the last Labor Prime Minister. It increased the price of fuel enormously back in those days, probably from something like 70c a litre to 75c a litre, and then to 80c as the excise went up each six months. That is how Labor manages the economy and their money. They sneak a bit in every six months by stealth. It does not go through the budget; it just automatically increases every six months. That was a disgrace.

One of the best things the Howard government did was to stop back in 2001 the automatic indexation of the fuel excise that the last Labor government introduced. That was seven years ago. Since then, the Commonwealth’s take from the taxes on fuel has remained constant in finite terms, which means that in real terms it has actually gone down. That is what the Howard government and the coalition were all about—reducing costs, reducing imposts, reducing pressure on inflation and pressure on working families.

Under this legislation—one of the first pieces of legislation from the next Labor government—what do we have? We have the indexation of fuel excise being brought back in. That is a disgrace. No-one from the government side has talked about it. My understanding is that the Fuel Tax Act—which is related to this and which was introduced on the sly in the House on 13 March to take effect from 1 January next year—is in fact bringing back the indexation of fuel excise. That is just going to add to grocery prices each day.

I pointed out in an earlier speech today that this is on top of the Labor Party’s approach to the mandatory renewable energy target, which, according to the experts, will add a cost of around $1.5 billion to the economy and drive up power bills by six per cent. You do not have to be a great economist to work out that, with those sorts of imposts on the Australian people, the cost of living is going to skyrocket. I am particularly distressed for people who live in rural and regional Australia, as I do. I live 1,500 kilometres from my capital city, and a lot of the produce that is produced up my way is, under the arrangements that seem to be the norm these days, sent down to Brisbane or Sydney or Melbourne and then trucked back to Woolworths or Coles or IGA up in the north. Just imagine the cost of transport on that—it is horrendous. But if you then think of what the cost of transport will be in the future under this legislation from the Labor government, you can understand that the cost is going to escalate enormously.

Another thing that is wrong with this bill—there are lots of things wrong with it—is that it will selectively have a greater impost on the more productive vehicles. As Senator Scullion quite rightly pointed out, the registration on B-doubles is going to increase from $8,000 to $14,000-odd and on a B-triple the charge is going to skyrocket to $20,340, to be exact. That impost on the more productive transport vehicles is going to discourage the trucking industry. I hear Senator Hutchins’s pious words about the tough time the Transport Workers Union has. Well, with him and Senator Sterle and Senator Conroy being part of the TWU, does one wonder why the truckies have not been terribly well looked after? Senator Conroy is a very senior man in this new government and obviously knows the trucking industry back to front—well, he knows the union industry back to front; I am not sure he knows which is the steering wheel on a truck. But one would have thought that at least someone like Senator Conroy, as an old TWU executive, would have been in there fighting for the industry and fighting to keep costs down and therefore to keep jobs in the industry. It seems that this government has absolutely no interest in the trucking industry and certainly no interest in those who use the trucking industry.

As I mentioned, these imposts in this legislation, this huge increase in taxes on the trucking industry, will impact more heavily on those who live outside the capital cities. I am trying desperately to think of any of the ministers in this government who might live out of the capital cities.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do? You are not in Hobart anymore, Senator Sherry?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fourth in Tasmania.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fourth in Tasmania?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, Senator O’Brien—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not sure that Senator Polley was a minister. Anyhow, I take your word for it. Senator Sherry, you used to live in Hobart. You must have been shuffled out of there by the powers that be in the Labor Party. But there cannot be too many in the Labor Party cabinet who live outside the capital cities. Perhaps you could help me there, Senator Sherry, if you could name one or two, because I am struggling. I think it is symptomatic of this government, which has no real interest in people who live outside the capital cities. All the votes come from the capital cities; there are lots of people there—look after them and you will win the election. But for those of us who have to rely on transport and particularly road transport to get the food we eat, these imposts are going to have an enormous impact.

I understand some independent research commissioned by the trucking industry—I think Senator Scullion might have referred to this research—has suggested that the sector is already overcharged by $130 million a year.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that not right?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are supporting the bill.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators, would you please direct your comments through the chair.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indicating that the industry is already overcharged by $130 million a year, so where is the argument for this industry to be slugged with additional tax? Senator Sterle, according to Senator Hutchins, is also a good TWU man. I would be very interested to hear his contribution to this debate and to hear how he justifies another impost on his industry, an industry that is already said to be overcharged by $130 million a year. So why do we have this additional increase? Senator Sterle is from Western Australia. If there is anyone who should be opposing this bill it would have to be a Western Australian. You are probably even worse off than we are in North Queensland. Everything you get comes by road or rail transport, most of it by road these days. So I am sure Senator Sterle will get up in this debate and join us in opposing this bill to make sure that these additional taxes are not put on the road transport industry.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! I am sorry, Senator Macdonald, I was going to intervene in relation to the time for this debate. You can continue.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Until when, Mr Acting Deputy President?

The Acting Deputy President:

Ten to seven.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no!

The Acting Deputy President:

You have 10 more minutes.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take your timely intervention as a suggestion that perhaps I have had my say. I know my colleagues Senator Boswell and Senator Nash want to have a few minutes in this debate. I would not want to deprive them of time to do so before 10 to seven, and I know Senator Sterle will want to enter the debate as well to oppose this horrendous legislation.

But I will conclude on the point on which I started. The Howard government will go down in history as a government that has produced the best economy this country has ever known. We have taken this country from a $96 billion deficit to a position where, in the last couple of budgets, we have actually locked money away for the future in surpluses. Well, we thought we had locked it away, but I understand the Labor Party are already attacking one of the funds we had set up to pay for the future—but you expect that from Labor.

We left this new government an economy which was the envy of the Western world. There were huge surpluses, low interest rates, low unemployment and low inflation—a dream economy—and already, in a few short months in power, the Labor Party are turning it round. In spite of the promises made by Mr Rudd to decrease grocery prices, to decrease interest rates and to decrease petrol prices, we find that not only are they not decreasing the things they said they would but they are actually, by this bill and by some other measures, increasing those taxes. The horror of again getting those automatic fuel excise indexations is too much to fathom. I certainly hope that the trucking industry and those of us who live remote from the capitals and rely on transport start to understand just what this automatic indexation does. I hope that Family First are listening to this as well because they seem to have a lot to say about fuel prices. I wonder if Family First have caught up with the fact that, from 1 January next year, this bill will reintroduce those automatic excise indexations. If the government were intending to honour its commitments to reduce fuel prices, what they should be doing is cutting the excise, not putting it onto the automatic indexation, as it used to be under the Keating regime. I conclude on that point.

As people who are listening to this broadcast drive home tonight, they should not be surprised when the grocery bill goes up in a few months time. The reason the grocery bill will go up in a few months time is that legislation like this, brought in by an inexperienced government, will add taxes to the transport industry and therefore add pressure to the costs of the weekly grocery bill and put real pressure on inflation. Those particular points, I hope, would be understood by those who might be listening to this broadcast.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008. As Senator Macdonald has said, these bills are very important for people who live outside the metropolitan areas.

On 29 February 2008, Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers, who are all Labor, agreed at the Australian Transport Council to a revised set of charges that will apply to Commonwealth registered heavy vehicles. These charges will be used as reference fees by the states and territories on their own heavy vehicles. These bills concern the application of charges agreed to by the Australian Transport Council to heavy vehicles registered under the Commonwealth and the subsequent take-up of those charges to vehicles registered under the states and territories. This debate, in other words, is about what costs are imposed upon Australia’s road freight industry. The costs have a direct effect not only on the many small business truck operators and their productivity but also on the final price paid by consumers for the goods being transported, particularly food. In addition, there are environmental concerns. It is important to get the policy settings right to provide incentives for lower emission vehicles.

The two key elements of the charge structure that apply to the road freight sector are registration fees and the diesel fuel excise system, known as the road user charge. The real impact of these bills will be felt in regulations that are to be tabled in parliament after the passage of the bills. The regulations will schedule the details of the heavy vehicle registration charges. These charges will contain significant increases to be implemented over three years from July 2008. The key feature is the way in which the government will determine these charges by applying an annual road cost adjustment formula. This formula will be particularly expensive for Australia’s road freight industry due to the rising costs of materials associated with road construction and maintenance. This means that registration costs are going to go up at a higher rate than the CPI.

Close to 70 per cent of Australia’s truckies and all those at the heavier end of the industry are going to be paying more tax. This means that there will be a rise in costs associated with road expenditure that will eventually flow through to consumers. Productivity is affected because the costs agreed to by the Australian Transport Council of all the Labor ministers fall heavily on the highly productive multicombination vehicles such as B-double and B-triple trailers. For example, the registration charges for B-doubles will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, including a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050. B-triple charges will skyrocket to $20,340, including the multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050.

The government is imposing very substantial increases in charges on the most efficient sector of the road freight industry. The government’s fee structure will reduce the incentive for operators to use high-productivity vehicles. Operators will be inclined to stick with semitrailers instead—so much for the government’s concern about greenhouse gases and climate change. While it plans to make working families pay through the nose for plastic grocery bags, it has agreed to a charge arrangement that will actually encourage more greenhouse gas emitting vehicles onto our roads.

At its February meeting, the Australian Transport Council decided to increase the road user charge—or diesel excise—from 19.633 cents per litre to 21 cents per litre. This occurs by reducing the amount of rebate going to on-road diesel users. Most importantly, this fuel excise increase will be indexed. This is the first time it has ever been indexed since 2001, and it will be indexed using the same formula that is used for the heavy vehicle registration charges. This regulation, made under the Fuel Tax Act 2006, was tabled by Labor on 13 March, before this legislation had been brought into the parliament. It will take effect from 1 January 2009.

The coalition will be moving to disallow this instrument. Why? Because this instrument brings back fuel excise indexation. One of the great achievements of the coalition government was to put a stop to the rise and rise of fuel excise and fuel prices because of the impact on working families and inflation. Well, senators on the Labor side, you can walk the walk and you can talk the talk, but you have nowhere to hide on this one. This is against every principle that Prime Minister Rudd went to the election on: working families, the environment—the lot. Yet Labor is bringing back taxation indexation on fuel. Paul Keating has re-entered the parliament! The indexation of fuel excise was introduced by the Keating government, and the Rudd government is bringing it back for the road transport industry—only the Rudd version uses a formula that will lock in a greater tax take than under the old CPI method. Rudd is Keating on steroids! Seventy-five per cent of Australia’s domestic freight is moved by trucks on our roads. The Rudd Labor government has just raised those transport charges.

Many of the country’s 365,000 trucks are operated by small business. They will be the first to suffer by being slammed with the increased charges. It is a difficult life being an owner-operator in the freight transport business. The hours are extremely long, the debt is extremely high and the competition for the contracts is fierce. An extra squeeze on profit margins is totally against the interests of the small transport operators. The small operators will find it more difficult than the larger operators who move groceries to pass on the increased costs. The extra costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everyday items that people need to buy to survive: food, groceries, medicine, clothes, building materials, water tanks and all kinds of products. Here we have a government that on one hand says they are doing something about rising grocery prices and on the other hand slugs a new tax that raises the transport costs of getting the groceries to the market and to the consumer.

Labor state and territory governments’ revenue will rise substantially as a result of the increased fuel tax and registration charges, with the annual revenue stream to Labor governments growing by $168 million. The fuel tax take to Labor states and territories will rise from $1.146 billion in 2007-08 to $1.226 billion in 2010-11—an increase of $80 million. The increase in heavy vehicle registration charges will push up the tax take for Labor state and territory governments from $638 million to $727 million in the same period—an increase of $88 million. But that is okay: more money for the state Labor governments to use on giving their former premiers cushy overseas jobs at $200,000 or $300,000 a year. The fundamental flaw in the Rudd government’s road user charge scheme is that the money collected from the registration or the fuel excise does not have to be spent on better roads, road maintenance or transport infrastructure for heavy trucks. There is no guarantee at all that any of this money will actually be spent on roads. They can spend it anywhere they like—even on sending a former Premier on a $200,000 or $300,000 excursion to America.

I remind the Senate that, contrary to the myths recently put out by Labor, the coalition’s funding commitments for land transport were at a record high some years before the last election. In fact, not only did we build new and more roads; we had to pay for the ones Labor built before us and put back on the national bank card. It now looks likely that the Labor government will halve the coalition’s AusLink commitments of $31 billion between now and 2013. Labor could end up spending $15 billion less than what the coalition promised. That is a huge hole in the road. It means that there will be projects right around Australia at risk from Labor’s razor gang. We already know that there will be $500 million slashed from the Bruce Highway funding for work between Cooroy and Curra. Labor has made no commitment on continuing Roads to Recovery and the $350 million funding that has been so essential for local governments to keep their roads up to date. Labor has also made no commitment as to the $300 million we had committed to spend on the development of roads around regional Australia.

We are a big country. We cover a huge geographical area. We have responsibilities to those Australians working hard, thousands of miles from here, to see that they can live a decent life with access to basic goods at a fair and reasonable price. Roads are our lifeblood, whether they are bringing exports to ports or consumer goods to the independent grocery store at Cloncurry. We rely on an efficient road transport system. The change in government is certainly going to change this country. Bit by bit, day by day, tax by tax, the Rudd government is unravelling what makes Australia tick.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to make a contribution to the second reading debate on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008. I am very honoured to follow my National and Liberal colleagues who spoke last night in the other place and then here today on this particular legislation, because I do not know that a bill that shows such hypocrisy from a government has come into this place for quite some time.

On 29 February, as people would realise by now, the Australian Transport Council made adjustments to the cost recovery charge setting mechanism that applies to the trucking industry—that is the formal term. Basically, they lifted registration charges and made changes to the diesel fuel excise system. Those registration charges on the trucking industry go straight to the hearts of those truckies, their families, the trucking companies and the people that they deliver to. The Labor government know this and they are hiding behind weasel words over there to try to justify what is an incredibly bad decision and very bad legislation.

What we have seen with the heavy vehicle registration charges is that there is some kind of belief that the trucking sector is not paying its way. I know that the trucking sector takes its responsibilities for paying its way very seriously. It knows that it has a responsibility to the Australian people, to the communities out there, to ensure that it does pay its way—and it does. But what have we seen from the Labor government? We have seen them bring in legislation that is going to mean that truckies are going to pay 69 per cent more in registration fees. I do not know if I am missing something here, but slugging truckies with an extra 69 per cent charge is not something that is productive either for the industry or for the country as a whole and yet we see the Labor government, with no qualms at all on the other side, speaking about this as the best thing since sliced bread. Well it is not. It is hurting those industries and it is going to hurt communities right across the board.

Let us look at what this will actually do. For example, the registration charges for B-doubles will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, including a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050; and B-triple charges will skyrocket to $20,340, including, again, that multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050. Do you know who drives these trucks? Mostly people in working families. To my mind it is appalling to be slugging them with more charges when they come from working families that the Labor government professes to know so much about. It is not fair and it is not right.

The other thing the government is doing with this legislation is increasing the diesel excise, or the road user charge. I have only been in this place for three years, but I have been involved in politics for quite some time and one of my very first memories of becoming involved in politics was when people were complaining about the indexation on fuel. They complained and complained about it, so the previous coalition government did the right thing seven years ago and removed it. Yet what do we see with this legislation? It is back. The wonderful indexation that we saw under the Paul Keating government is back—in another form, mind you—under the Rudd government. What this government has done is to increase that excise from 19.633c to 21c. That might not sound like very much, but I can tell you it is. Billions of litres of diesel fuel get used by the trucking industry in this country every year, and this indexation is coming back. Whilst it might have escaped the notice of people out there in the Australian community until now, I can tell you right now that they are going to know about it from today, because it is wrong. I cannot understand how the Labor government can sit over there and profess to be doing everything it can for working families—and, mind you, making sure it does everything it can to bring down inflation—when this very measure targets both those things.

What is really interesting is that on 12 April last year at the Australian Trucking Convention in Cairns—Innovation and productivity in Australian trucking: unlocking tomorrow’s prosperity—Martin Ferguson, who was the then shadow minister for transport, roads and tourism, said:

We appreciate the importance of the trucking industry and we are committed to investment in the infrastructure and regulatory framework needed to improve its efficiency and viability for the long term.

I started my speech by talking about hypocrisy. If that is not the most hypocritical thing that we could possibly see coming from the Labor government, I do not know what is. Last April the then opposition were saying, ‘We’re going to support the trucking industry; we’re going to make sure we get the regulatory framework right.’ What have they done? They have brought in bills that slug the trucking industry, that raise registration and that bring back indexation.

I might not be particularly bright, but putting those two things together—this quote from the then opposition and what they are bringing into this chamber today—shows the absolute hypocrisy, and they should be ashamed that they would on the one hand profess to support the trucking industry and on the other hand rip the rug out from underneath it with these bills. Unfortunately, time precludes me from saying more on this matter, but it is indicative of their approach in a whole range of policy areas—all the things they said prior to the election, now we are seeing something different; all the flip-flops from what they said before,

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like on the wheat bill.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Boswell, I will take that interjection—the wheat bill. Before the election they were talking about supporting the single desk and now what are we seeing? A move towards deregulation. They cannot be trusted.

The other interesting thing is that this bill actually discourages the use of efficient vehicle combinations. It will actually increase truck traffic on the roads. We do seem to hear quite an amount, colleagues, about the environment from the other side of this chamber—and rightly so. I am a farmer from out in the middle of New South Wales, and probably no-one more than farmers understands how important the environment is. So it is vitally important we continue to talk about it. The hypocrisy of this! How can the Labor government talk about how important the environment is and then introduce bills which introduce measures which discourage the use of efficient vehicles?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Crazy.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is crazy, thank you, Senator Scullion. It does not make sense. It just highlights the hypocrisy of the Labor government. They say one thing and expect us to believe it and then they do another. They are hoping that the people of Australia will not notice that what they say is not what they do. But they will notice, because it is not right, it is not fair and it is not on.

Then we come to the Australian Transport Council. Under these bills the Commonwealth actually loses its discretion to dissent from the ministerial council. What it means is that in its own right it is not able to apply charges that should apply to Commonwealth registered vehicles if they choose to do so. I understand that the decisions of the group that make up the Australian Transport Council are often not by consensus. So the federal government could be held to a decision with which they do not agree and have no mechanism to dissent from and apply a different charge to their Commonwealth registered vehicles. What does that do? First, it reduces competition, because there is no ability then for any competition out there within the charges, and it is absolutely locked up tight. Again, the Commonwealth would be bound by a decision that it may well not agree with. This might be about ending the blame game, but obviously the current Labor government is just giving a free kick to the Labor states—including, as my very good colleague here, Senator Boswell, said, about $170 million in taxes to the states. I bet they are delighted about that, because there is no requirement on where that funding should go—there is none. There will be no check and balance about where it is going to go. It is a windfall in tax for the state governments; it is a slamming of working families through the trucking industry through this bill.

I think Labor senators on the other side should be hiding, not speaking on this bill. I note that Senator Sterle, who I know has a very, very longstanding and genuine interest in the trucking industry, is not even in the chamber. He has not spoken. I wonder why that might be, colleagues. Because he knows and he understands how important the trucking industry is to this nation. It is often the backbone of this nation.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is he?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is Senator Sterle, I wonder. Thank you, Senator Ronaldson, for that interjection. For those of you who did not know, 75 per cent of the freight task, which is going to double in this nation by 2020, currently goes on trucks. We would like that to be different; we would like to see a lot more go on rail—and thank you very much to the ALP government for slashing $65 million from the Parkes to Cootamundra railway line. That was not very helpful either, in terms of getting freight off the roads. We see here the absolute targeting of an industry. If anything it needs assistance to streamline, to be better and to find ways to get the trucks off the roads. But, no, we are seeing an increase in the registration and indexation being brought back.

What is also interesting is the lack of understanding from the Labor government about the effect this is going to have on local communities. Real people living in real communities are going to feel the effects of this. Do you know what is going to happen? The charges the Labor government are imposing will be passed on to working families and people living in communities—and even more so to those people who live out in the bush and have the added burden of tyranny of distance. They live great distances from major cities and they cop extra costs anyway. Now we see these extra costs going onto the trucking industry. Guess where they are going to go? As I said, to those working families and those local communities.

Interestingly, this came up not very long ago. I was travelling up on the New South Wales North Coast, where I am duty senator. I had a range of discussions with people up there about the impact of rising costs and what was going to happen in the future. Which brings me to the fact that running up to the election the Labor government said they were going to bring those costs down—they were going to bring down the cost of petrol and it looked like they were going to bring down the cost of food. What has happened? Exactly the opposite, because these charges will be passed on to people in those local communities—local homes and local businesses—and they are going to have to wear the costs. I notice that the Labor members for Richmond and Page last night both blindly supported these ALP bills. On one hand they are up there in their electorates, saying, ‘We’re such a great government; we’re going to address the cost of living,’ and on the other hand, in the very next breath they are supporting bills that are going to increase costs for their working families. That is not right. It is not on. These bills—the charges themselves and those flow-on effects into the community—will do nothing but hurt this country.

I do not comprehend how the Labor government can think these bills are in any way, shape or form a positive change to the laws of this country, because they are going to hurt an industry that is the very backbone of this country. They are going to hurt the families that operate those businesses and drive those trucks. These families, including working families in all of our communities, are going to bear the brunt of these increased costs. For those reasons, the opposition will be opposing the bills.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I would normally thank members who have contributed to the debate on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008, but unfortunately on this occasion, despite my generally courteous manner, I am not going to thank members opposite for their contributions.

In the descriptions of this legislation we have heard such terms as hypocritical, crazy, not fair and not right, and the last speaker said, ‘I do not comprehend how the Labor government believes the bills are a good thing and in the best interests of the country.’ What we have heard, frankly, is a set of speeches that represent some of the greatest hypocrisy and cant that I have heard in this chamber in the last 18 years, and I will explain why shortly. According to members of the now opposition, you would think the previous government had no role in developing this bill. In fact, it comes from the previous government. I will explain how it came—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But we never voted for it. We knocked it back and voted against it.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell is getting himself in a lather and getting all red-faced. If he was so concerned about this issue, why didn’t he say this to his own leader last year? What we have today is a real example of how an opportunistic opposition that cannot adjust to opposition has really lost its way. The genesis of this package of legislation goes back to work touted and boasted about by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard. He was the one who commenced this work, back in 2004, when with great fanfare he announced an energy white paper as the policy framework for ‘securing Australia’s energy future’. Mr Howard presumably signed off on it. The document said:

The transport sector has long argued that the current excise arrangements for heavy vehicles, defined as those with a gross vehicle mass of 4.5 tonnes or more, are inefficient and need reform. The government—

that is, the Liberal government—

has listened and will introduce reforms to remove inefficiencies and ensure the excise system plays a more positive role in supporting Australia’s transport task.

Mr Howard went on:

The existing partial excise applying to fuel used in heavy vehicles will be formally recognised and set as a non-hypothecated road user charge from 1 July 2006.

Mr Howard, the former Liberal Prime Minister, went on:

The value of the charge will be set in accordance with the National Transport Commission’s heavy vehicle charging determination process. This cooperative federal-state process—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order, regarding his honesty. It may be true that the Prime Minister did put those plans—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Boswell, there is no point of order.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition never once voted for these increases and rejected them on about five occasions.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge Senator Boswell’s intervention. He admits that Mr Howard led the charge to develop these bills that we are considering in the Senate today. Mr Howard, the former Liberal Prime Minister, went on:

The value of the charge will be set in accordance with the National Transport Commission’s heavy vehicle charging determination process. This cooperative federal-state process assesses the impact of heavy vehicles on road costs, and is used by the states and territories to set and adjust registration charges for these vehicles.

Mr Howard, the former Liberal Prime Minister, went on:

The excise-based charge will be adjusted annually in the way that the states and territories adjust registration fees. Changes to the charge will be made by varying the level of effective excise through adjustments in the level of the excise credit paid for fuel used in heavy vehicles.

This is Mr Howard, the former Liberal Prime Minister, outlying the basis of this legislation which you are now voting against. What monumental hypocrisy!

But the evidence gets even better, Senator Boswell—and I will get to a National Party minister in a moment. The 2006 Productivity Commission study into road and rail infrastructure pricing commissioned by the Howard government found underrecovery of infrastructure costs occurring in the heavy vehicle industry. In April 2007, COAG, led by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, required the ATC to devise new charges determinations that fully recovered costs from the heavy vehicle industry, ended cross-subsidisation between heavy vehicle classes and indexed charges to ensure costs continued to be recovered—which is exactly the content of the bill we are dealing with tonight. The National Transport Commission and the independent body devised a determination with these charges and commenced consultation with the industry in July 2007, when the now opposition was in government.

Here is a speech that was given on 28 June 2007 entitled ‘The coalition government’s transport reform agenda’—note: the previous government’s transport agenda—by the member for Lyne. Who is the member for Lyne? The former National Party minister Mr Vaile. The federal transport minister and Leader of the Nationals said:

The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008. The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.

That is exactly what we have in the bills being presented to the parliament tonight, outlined in principle by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and endorsed in principle and commenced in detail by the former National Party leader, Mr Vaile. So what we have here in opposing this legislation is monumental hypocrisy from the now opposition.

It is disingenuous of the so-called coalition to oppose these bills. Previous governments—Labor and Liberal-National Party—have set the principles of cost recovery and established the process. In terms of impact on cost, let me remind the Senate that registration charges will be decreased for 25 per cent of the fleet who currently pay too much by any objective criteria. Senator Boswell might like to explain to those ‘struggling truckies’—as he refers to them—why 25 per cent of them will not have their fees decreased. Go and explain that, Senator Boswell, to people who are currently paying too much. They are paying too much and you want to prevent them having a reduction in their fees, which any reasonable and rational examination shows are too much. Go and explain that, Senator Boswell.

The small three- and four-axle rigid heavy vehicles currently cross-subsidise B-doubles. That is a gross injustice. This legislation will bring an end to that injustice. The larger increases are for the fleet B-doubles because the principle is to recover costs of the vehicles on the roads. It might not be apparent to members in the Liberal-National Party that B-doubles cause greater harm to the roads and therefore there is a greater cost to the roads. Not even that logic has sunk into the particularly thick heads of members of the National Party. The impact will not be to bring more trucks onto the road; it will be to do exactly the opposite, Senator Boswell and members of the National Party. It will put road and rail on an equal footing. Hasn’t that got through to members of the National Party? Obviously not.

The opposition have said that the indexation arrangements will be higher than inflation. That is untrue—again. The principles involved in indexation were developed by Mr Vaile, the former head of the National Party, and the former Liberal Party Prime Minister Mr Howard. They are making an untrue claim. It is not indexed to inflation—that is not right. The indexation is linked to historical road funding. The National Party is wrong again.

The opposition have also claimed that the bills would force the Commonwealth to adopt charges forced on it by the states. That is nonsense. Why did the former Prime Minister Mr Howard sign off on this arrangement? Why did he think this was a reasonable approach? Were the members of the Liberal-National Party getting up and saying to the former Prime Minister, ‘Mr Howard, you’ve been dudded; Mr Vaile, you’ve been dudded by the states’? They did not say it. They are saying it now but they did not say it last year when they were in government. It is utter nonsense.

The previous government played the blame game against the states. They did not on this particular issue because it was their own proposal. So we have got a lot chest-beating from members of the Liberal-National Parties and lots of posturing in dealing with the states. It is nothing more than rhetoric. I know it is tough adjusting to opposition. I have been there myself; I know it is tough. But when you come into a chamber and oppose what you yourself initiated and developed when in government it is just a bit hypocritical.

In terms of the road user charge, this Labor government has made the decision to delay the increase in the road user charge to 1 January 2009. We have listened to industry and we have given them a chance to adjust—unlike the previous government. We have actually put back the operative date that was proposed by the previous government. The former Howard government were going to introduce this on 1 July 2008. They were actually going to be tougher than us. Now that they have moved to opposition they have suddenly discovered that they can no longer deliver on their own policy package.

The new charges will be supplemented by the Rudd Labor government’s $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, and that will ensure trials of new black box technologies that will facilitate better speed and fatigue management. Fatigue management is something that the National Party in particular need, given where they are headed. It will provide more heavy vehicle rest stops and bridge strengthening projects. The package has been warmly received by industry.

In 2007, 1,611 people died on the roads. Accidents involving heavy vehicles account for nearly 20 per cent of these deaths, with speed a factor in around 30 per cent and driver fatigue in up to 60 per cent of cases. The opposition has not referred to this particular element of the package at all. They have remained silent on this particular element that we have added.

There are two bills before the Senate. There is the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, which adopts new national heavy vehicle charges for vehicles registered under the federal interstate registration scheme from 1 July 2008 and ensures federal charges are consistent with state and territory registration charges. There is also the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008, which repeals the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993. This will allow the ACT government to introduce a new heavy vehicle registration charge into its own legislative arrangements in the same manner as the other states and territories. In total the bills deliver road transport reform requested by the Council of Australian Governments with broad agreement of industry. The reform was endorsed by the former Liberal-National Party government before they were defeated, was initiated by the former Liberal Prime Minister Mr Howard and was endorsed in detail with work starting under the former National Party leader Mr Vaile when he was transport minister. That is what we are dealing with here today.

The reform follows the self-evident principle that the heavy vehicle industry should pay its way for its share of infrastructure costs by government. I commend the bills to the Senate. We will be dividing on this legislation to show the rank hypocrisy of those opposite who come in and rant against this set of bills in a totally irrational and illogical manner—legislation that their own leadership developed when they were in government. We will expose that hypocrisy. There will be a vote. The other hypocrisy in all of this is of course that there will be a loss to revenue. As I have said, it is hard adjusting to opposition. I concede that. But what we have is this opposition opposing any cutbacks to the budget, anywhere, in any shape or form—except for a tree in Queensland. I will concede that there is one area where the Liberal-National Party have suggested we can save on the budget, and that is a tree in Queensland. That is their one positive suggestion to delivering savings in the budget.

Here we have a revenue measure which they themselves endorsed and ensured was developed in government, and they are opposing that. What fiscal irresponsibility! It is no wonder we have got 3.6 per cent inflation. They ignored that. It is no wonder we have got upward pressure on inflation, because, in that last year in particular, they lost total control of the budget process. What we have got here tonight is yet another contribution of a totally irresponsible approach to a budget process. This will cost revenue if they vote it down. It costs revenue. It is an unfair approach. We have got the monumental hypocrisy of the former government voting against their own legislation that they developed while in government. We are happy to see the vote on the record.

Question put:

That the bills be now read a second time.