Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Apart from musical theatre, I love talking about roads. And, judging by the speakers list on this legislation, just about every second person in this parliament loves talking about roads. If any of them like talking about musical theatre they might like to give me a ring! The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 has two main purposes. The first is to change the definition of ‘road’ in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 to allow for the funding of heavy vehicle facilities such as off-road rest stops. This is done in the name of road safety, and that is why everyone in this House totally supports the bill. As to how we go about that, there are some differing views. This is being done in the name of road safety for an important sector of the transport industry. We want to fund this through a $70 million package tied to a heavy vehicle road users charge, which was knocked back in the Senate, so we have some argy-bargy to do on this. But, come what may, we want those funds expended on this and related programs for road safety in this important sector.

The second purpose is to allow the Roads to Recovery program, which the previous speaker and everybody else in this place thinks is the bee’s knees, to continue. We support that and we do not have to have one-upmanship in this, or me-tooism, which some have accused us of. If it is a good idea and a good program, it belongs to everyone. That is what we are doing in continuing it. It is not silly politics; it is good politics and good policy with good results, and we are happy to recognise that. So this legislation is to allow the Roads to Recovery program, which is funded under the same act I have just mentioned, to be extended for another five years, to 2014. These are all good things.

For the simple folk of this world, like me, it is useful to have a bit of background for the record. ‘AusLink’ is the term we use to try to explain the national land transport program, and it is a great name. AusLink elements involve national projects for the defined national network, and the national network is the network of road and rail transport corridors, which include urban areas and links to ports and airports. That national network comes right into my electorate. I have the privilege of travelling on that network nearly every day that I go to my office or around my electorate. It plays a very important connecting corridor role in my electorate, as it does in many other electorates around Australia.

There are also several strategic regional projects in my electorate. I have been banging on about these since 1996, so I am very pleased to be able to talk about these strategic roads, and I will continue to go on about them until we have them where we need them. We are all agreed that black spot projects are very important. I was very pleased to announce just recently a couple of these projects in my electorate, and I hope everyone else has shared in those as well. The Roads to Recovery program is fantastic. There are research and technology projects, and I would like to talk about one of those in the little time available to me.

I would also like to explain, for the record, the Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery Act 2000 established the Roads to Recovery program—that is very good! From 1 July 2005 the program became part of AusLink, and that is good to know for historical purposes. The first phase, pre AusLink, ran from 2000-01 to 2004-05. The program is now in its second phase, which is from 2005-06 to 2008-09. Items 9 and 10 of this bill seek to extend the funding until 30 June 2014 rather than where it currently ends, which is 30 June 2009. In the Roads to Recovery program, which we all agree is fantastic and is the bee’s knees, grants are paid directly to councils if there is a council for the relevant area, and that is set out in items in the bill. All councils receive the funds, and the money is intended to supplement, not substitute for—which is very important—council road spending. Councils will nominate the projects to be funded, and the program will also apply to unincorporated areas—that is, where there is no local council. So, hopefully, where there is a need everyone will get a slice of the pie, and we all accept that.

Before I talk about roads per se, I would like to share with you, if I can, that aspect of the legislation dealing with heavy vehicle safety and productivity. This particularly relates to a group of innovative Tasmanian transport operators, including a very significant one in my electorate, the well-known and highly respected Chas Kelly of Chas Kelly Transport. Together with six other operators, Mr Kelly has bitten the bullet in what he readily admits is a risky move but a calculated risk—this man has always lived by these principles, and that is why he is successful and that is why what he does is highly significant in my electorate—to convert their substantial trucking fleets to run on liquefied natural gas. This is a first for Australia and it is being compared in its gravity to the change from the steam engine to the internal combustion engine.

The group has formed a new company known as LNG Refuellers, which has just secured a deal with industrial gas company BOC to supply natural gas for its heavy vehicles in Tasmania. It will result in the establishment of the first commercial pipeline-to-truck supply for heavy vehicle transport in Australia. Mr Kelly tells me that the incentive to pursue this ambitious move is to stabilise the price of fuel for the transport fleet, an objective one can fully understand given the volatility of the petroleum industry throughout the last decade.

Importantly, it will also help to assist with emissions, which is of major importance in this era of environmental responsibility. Australia’s plentiful supplies of natural gas release up to 25 per cent less greenhouse gas than the diesel powered trucks currently used on our roads. Mr Kelly says that, while the group are putting their necks on the line, they see it as heading to the forefront of the next generation of fuels. He will put new trucks on the road as he upgrades his fleet, and it will cost on average about $150,000 more for each rig to run on gas. He says there will be a payback time, and because of the innovative nature of this project it is still a little unclear just how quickly the payback will come.

Mr Kelly says there will also be better outcomes for maintenance of the fleet, which will add to the cost savings for the operators. The LNG Refuellers group is anticipating savings on fuel costs of up to 30 per cent, even given the higher amounts of liquefied natural gas required in comparison to diesel. That is a 30 per cent saving on the fuel bill—substantial in anyone’s business. Considering that it is for a major transport company using thousands of litres of fuel a year, that is a sizable saving.

The bold move by this group of transport operators will also no doubt encourage others to take the steps to convert their vehicles to this more environmentally and economically friendly fuel source. Isn’t this one of the great things about this debate that is going on now? This is an opportunity. It is not seen as a cost; it is seen as an opportunity and an investment. The technologies that are developed from this will be able to be replicated by others, so there is this cost-benefit to the country as well as to these businesses, and it is really very important.

The Chairman of LNG Refuellers, Mr Ken Padgett, who is another noteworthy transport operator from Tassie, says this represents a $150 million vote of confidence in the commercial merits of natural gas as an alternative to wholesale use of diesel fuel for road transport in Tasmania. For your interest, the group began working on the project back in 2006, when they met with the Tasmanian Department of Economic Development seeking advice on the opportunities to use natural gas for heavy vehicles. It grew from a feasibility study, and the company was registered in September 2006, before an application was made to the Commonwealth for funds under the Tasmanian Forest Industry Development Program. One of the major sectors of Mr Kelly’s operations is the transport of woodchips, and this allowed the project to be dovetailed into the Forest Industry Development Program.

In July 2007 LNG Refuellers invited two companies to tender for the provision of an LNG plant, the supply of refuelling stations and the provision of two refuelling tankers—so this is an ongoing refuelling scheme. This led to the deal with BOC and the commitment to a plant in Westbury, in the electorate of Lyons, near Launceston, which is working through the planning approval process. But there is a lot more to this project than just pumping a different fuel into these heavy vehicles.

Mr Alvaro Ascui, who is managing the new company, says this major change in approach to heavy transport is not without its hurdles, including current legislation surrounding the industry. This is quite interesting: these new vehicles need a greater fuel capacity to cover distances equivalent to those covered by diesel fuel trucks, but simply making them longer to carry extra fuel is not that simple. It never is, is it. It never is. That would put them outside current regulations and render them illegal on Australian roads. So they have got to find other, innovative ways of putting these greater capacity tanks onto rigs. I know they can do it in the United States; I really hope we can do it in Australia. That is something they are going to have to look at.

Perhaps this innovative move will also lead us as legislators to be a little creative and to consider changing our approach to heavy transport. With projections of looming increases in the amount of freight on our roads in the next few years—and we hear that day in, day out as fact, and hopefully it is going to be complemented by rail—maybe we have to look at the pigeonhole we have placed the current heavy fleet in. Perhaps it is better to let them find some more productive options for the fleet which are also more environmentally friendly. Surely it is better to have a few more vehicles carrying one-third more freight than to have three times as many heavy vehicles on the roads. If we are trying to encourage people to be more environmentally responsible in the face of climate change then it is up to us to make it possible for innovators to come up with better and more efficient ways to meet the transport demands of our country.

So I reckon that is a great project and I am really looking forward to doing everything I can to support it. I look forward to its environmental results in Tassie particularly.

Now, roads: my electorate actually has—

See this speech in context