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

I thank the shadow minister, the member for Wide Bay, for outlining again some of the reasoning behind the amendments that he has moved to the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. I want to point to why the government specifically opposes these amendments, and I will work in reverse order from the way that the shadow minister put them. The problem with clause 4(d) is that the road user charge does not impact on state funding; all it does is impact on Commonwealth funding, so it does not actually provide any pressure whatsoever on state governments to move towards the adoption of uniform laws. Already there has been substantial progress made between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments through the Australian Transport Council towards that objective. That is why we will be meeting in Adelaide for the fourth time since February: to make sure that that agenda is progressed. But it is no good putting up amendments that are meant to achieve an objective that simply cannot be achieved, and that is the problem with that amendment.

The problem with the amendment about Infrastructure Australia auditing the construction of heavy vehicle rest stops is that it confuses completely the role of Infrastructure Australia. That is not its role. It does not have people out there auditing whether rest stops have been built or not. The idea that Sir Rod Eddington, as the Chair of Infrastructure Australia, is going to be going around counting the number of rest stops and conducting an audit is an extraordinary distraction from what the job of Infrastructure Australia is.

Rest stops are important. That is why this government has put them on the agenda. The inadequate number of rest stops for heavy vehicles is not something that has been created since 24 November 2007. It has not just arisen. In relation to the appropriate number of rest stops, the guidelines have not been adopted by the Australian Transport Council. They were never adopted under the previous government. They have not been adopted yet. This government agree that there is a need to address the issue of rest stops. That is what we have done. That is why we have said that $70 million over the forward estimates will be available for taking action on rest stops. It is of course expected that that would produce much more than $70 million worth of outcomes, because there would be negotiations and discussions with state and territory governments about that issue.

I think the clauses that have been suggested and put forward by the opposition do not achieve the objective that the shadow minister has outlined. And there is the extraordinary proposition that many of these measures were not undertaken when the shadow minister was the actual minister two years ago—not undertaken by him, his predecessor or his successor. So it is a bit rich, frankly, to hear the position that has been outlined by the shadow minister.

With regard to the calculation of costs to be recovered and the suggestion about road user charge future indexation (Extension of time granted) the fact is that the proposition advanced in this legislation does not conclude the discussion about what the regulations should contain for the future. That would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. So I say to the shadow minister, in good faith: this does not conclude that debate. This parliament would have to consider the nature and detail of the regulation. As the minister, and as any minister would be, I am certainly committed to ensuring there is proper consultation with industry about the nature of that regulation.

So let us not have this used as an excuse to oppose this legislation, because it should not be. Essentially, I say to the shadow minister: that is a debate which is not concluded by the carriage of this legislation. All that is concluded by the carriage of this legislation is the process of increasing the road user charge in accordance with the determination begun by the former government and a political commitment arising from that, which was not there from the former government, to allocate $70 million for the safety and productivity package. I do not argue that $70 million will satisfy over the long term all of the needs of the industry for heavy vehicle rest stops. I do not argue that. I argue that this is $70 million specifically on top of the process that currently exists and existed under the former government, whereby rest stops were built into some of the AusLink funding and road funding agreements between the Commonwealth and the states. This is additional funding specifically for that purpose, and it should be supported by the opposition. I commend the bill to the House. I encourage the opposition to engage in constructive discussion to ensure that this bill is carried by both houses of parliament.

See this speech in context