Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Indeed, as I am reminded, especially on which way those opposite voted in relation to the pension rise, and especially on which way those who were in the former cabinet voted on the rise in the pension. ‘Some legacy’ is all one really need say. That is all the member for Higgins can think of that was wrong about the former government—his areas in which ‘the coalition could have done better’. One can, of course, say, ‘Hear, hear!’ to moving earlier to remedy Indigenous disadvantage; one can say, ‘Hear, hear!’ to having a go at solving constitutional issues; and, absolutely, one can say, ‘Hear, hear!’ that there should have been a rebuff to the challenges of One Nation. But there is, in fact, a much longer list than this suggestion by the member for Higgins that this was all that was wrong with the former coalition government. Chief on that list is the failure to attend to the infrastructure needs of this country.

One could look at the conduct of the former Treasurer in running stimulatory budgets while the economy was booming from resource exports. One could look at the way in which the former Treasurer managed the economy, guaranteeing the need for 10 interest rate rises in a row and running the economy in such a way that compelled the Reserve Bank to seek to slow the economy. One could look at the legacy of the former Treasurer, which was inflation at a 16-year high. One could look at a whole range of other things that the former Treasurer should be regretting, like: halving the capital gains tax rate and thus massively contributing to housing price inflation; the former Treasurer’s failure to build on the superannuation reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments; and—most importantly and relevantly to the debate on this bill—the failure to invest in infrastructure.

This bill demonstrates that the Rudd government is not going to fail to invest in infrastructure, that the Rudd government is going to attend to the infrastructure needs of this country. This bill demonstrates that the Rudd government is committed to continuous road safety improvement and to the delivery of local road infrastructure. The heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, which is relevant to this bill, is part of the heavy vehicle driver fatigue laws which were adopted unanimously by the Australian Transport Council in February 2007 and which are due for implementation on 29 September 2008. In a vast country like Australia, where large amounts of goods are transported in large road trains, this bill will amend the definition of ‘road’ to put beyond any doubt that $70 million of funding can be delivered to fund technologies which will make our highways safer for drivers and other commuters. These technologies include electronic monitoring systems on drivers’ work hours and vehicle speeds. Decoupling facilities, rest stops and heavy vehicle parking bays will also be provided in this package. The Australian Trucking Association has welcomed this announcement and has since provided 18 priority areas for funding.

This government is committed to ensuring that there are quality roads for all users to drive on. It is appropriate and equitable that the heavy vehicle industry matches the government’s significant investments in roads. Thus, this bill seeks to reintroduce the heavy vehicle charges to pay back the money required to maintain the roads which these vehicles use. When I use the word ‘reintroduce’, I refer of course to the coalition’s deliberate obstruction of this legislation in the Senate in May 2008. The same Senate which gave us Work Choices was not willing to leave Canberra honourably and allow the democratically elected government of Australia to deliver its election promises. This is all the more inexplicable given that this very same charge was also proposed by the coalition government in June 2007. This is another example that the coalition are not committed to delivering what is best for the nation’s interest. The coalition and particularly the National Party are so preoccupied with their internal struggles that they neglect the safety of Australian truckies and road safety for short-term political gain.

Indeed, the National Party have really been quite an embarrassment to their constituency. It is no wonder that the Nationals have had continuous drops in their primary vote and the number of members which they send to Canberra. With a national primary vote of just 5.49 per cent in 2007, from a high of 8.2 per cent in 1996, the National Party are very un-national these days. The troubles that the National Party are having in Queensland are really just a small indication of their problems. If the Nationals had truly delivered for their constituents, then maybe they would have held on to Hume, Capricornia, New England, Kennedy, Dawson, Page, Farrer, Richmond and, lately, Lyne. Maybe if the National Party would concentrate on delivering genuine—

See this speech in context