Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to discuss the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2010. The bill was introduced into the House on 12 May and is designed to ensure that owners of heavy vehicles registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme, FIRS, will not pay a higher registration charge next financial year than owners of trucks registered under state or territory registration schemes.

There are about 20,500 heavy vehicles registered under FIRS, a scheme designed for operators running heavy vehicles engaged in interstate operations. The scheme was established as an alternative to state based registration for heavy vehicles weighing more than 4.5 tonnes. It is designed to provide uniform charges and operating conditions for heavy vehicles engaged in interstate operations. Registration charges for such vehicles are imposed by the provisions of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 and are contained in the Interstate Road Transport Charge Regulations 2009. These regulations apply a formula based on a calculation developed by the National Transport Commission, the NTC. These calculations are endorsed by Australia’s transport ministers via the Australian Transport Council.

The National Transport Commission is responsible for reviewing national heavy vehicle charges and calculating an annual adjustment. These calculations, designed to capture the cost of heavy vehicles on Australian roads, were last prepared by the NTC in its 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination. These charges are applied to heavy vehicle registration charges and the road user charge, or the amount taken from the rebate that heavy vehicle operators may claim from the fuel excise. The new adjustment figure was established by the NTC in its 2010 Heavy Vehicle Road User Charge Annual Adjustment, which was agreed to by the Australian Transport Council on 30 April 2010.

The opposition accepts that it is appropriate that the NTC regularly review the means by which it calculates the cost of trucks on our roads, particularly given that the mix of heavy vehicles using the road system has changed. The new adjustment rate is 4.2 per cent. Unfortunately, it seems that there are administrative complexities that mean this new rate cannot be applied without this legislation. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 stipulates that regulations made under this act take effect not from when they are tabled but 15 parliamentary sitting days from when the new regulations are made. This means that a new regulation made under the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985, applying the lower rate, would not take effect until late September 2010—and even that assumes that there will be no election called by that time. As a consequence, at least 1,000 FIRS owners will be charged, under the old formula, a 9.7 per cent increase. By repealing subsection 5(6) of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985, this legislation permits a subsequent regulation made under this act to apply immediately. The new regulation, stipulating a 4.5 per cent annual increase, could apply from 1 July 2010. It will still be a disallowable instrument and consistent with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

If this amendment is not passed, owners of FIRS registered heavy vehicles will receive a renewal registration notice which will charge the rate as stipulated by the regulation in force—the regulation applying the old formula. This old formula would impose a charge increase of 9.7 per cent—clearly, unacceptably high. Under a 9.7 per cent increase, the owner of a typical B-double would pay an additional $808 in registration—and that is too much. Of course, it needs to be remembered that, because of changes and a phase-in of new registration arrangements for various sizes of vehicles, the 4.2 per cent will not be the figure that will apply automatically to all registration increases. Some will pay more as a result of the phasing-in of newer charges.

The coalition understands that state governments are now applying the 4.2 per cent increase to over 400,000 heavy vehicles registered in their jurisdiction. Obviously, if FIRS heavy vehicles remain under the old charging formula, the scheme would simply collapse. People would migrate to the place where the registration charges are the lowest. The coalition has been assured that there is no non-legislative option for remedying this problem. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 does not have refund provisions, so it is not possible for the government to collect the higher registration charges calculated on the basis of the existing formula and then refund the money in excess of 4.2 per cent to the affected operators. Therefore, the coalition does not oppose the legislation.

I take the opportunity that this legislation provides to raise a number of other issues which I have been bringing to the attention of this committee and also to the House on occasions when legislation altering road transport charges has been before the parliament. The Rudd government raises a considerable amount of money from the heavy vehicle sector. The main source of this revenue is the road user charge or the amount taken from the rebate heavy vehicle operators may claim from the fuel excise. Currently the road user charge is levied at 21.7c per litre. This charge raises for the federal government approximately $1.4 billion every year from the heavy vehicle sector to cover the costs to our road system inflicted by trucks.

There are some around who do not appreciate just what a significant contribution the road transport industry is making towards the cost of our road network and, indeed, the impact of its operations on road. Too often people in the rail transport sector, for instance, like to suggest that road transport is undercharged and that is therefore an excuse as to why rail performs poorly in competition. However, the people who make those claims do not acknowledge, it seems, that just the road user charge alone collects $1.4 billion every year from the road transport sector. That is a significant contribution, indeed, towards maintaining and upgrading roads.

I think that it is time that the government committed more of the tax revenue that it receives to deal with one of the key issues our truckies on Australia’s road system face, and that is the problem of the lack of adequate roadside stops. This is a long-running issue that has been made more urgent as a result of the introduction by the Queensland, New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian governments of the fatigue management laws on 29 September 2008. These laws reduce the number of hours that truck drivers can work before they must take a break. The problem is that there are not enough rest areas where truck drivers can stop. This problem will only get worse as the number of trucks on our highways continues to increase.

The problem is becoming so urgent that we are now seeing the absurd situation where drivers are unable to comply with the mandatory breaks stipulated by the fatigue management laws because there is nowhere for them to stop. It is really almost dishonest of a legislature to pass laws which require vehicles to stop but then not provide places where that can happen. In some states, it is not even a defence against fatigue management laws that there was simply no place available to stop. So I think there needs to be greater sensitivity to the impracticality of actually abiding by some of these laws when there are inadequate places provided for roadside rest facilities.

After undertaking a study of the state of Australia’s roadside rest stops, the National Transport Commission in November 2005 issued its National Guidelines for the Provision of Rest Area Facilities. This report sets out where rest areas should be built in order to comply with various road agency guidelines and cater for the needs of heavy vehicle drivers. An independent government research agency, Austroads, then audited Australia’s major highways against those guidelines. Their report showed that none of the audited routes met the national guidelines—none of them. There were particular problems in Queensland and the Northern Territory and in New South Wales. Only about half of the major rest areas on the Hume and Pacific Highways in New South Wales meet the spacing requirements of the guidelines. In fact, according to the industry, there needs to be another 900 rest areas on the 22,500 kilometres of the national highway network to bring it into compliance with the national rest area guidelines.

The guidelines also apply to state roads. With many of the state roads, the situation is even worse than it is on the national highways. That is why, during a parliamentary debate earlier in the government’s term, the opposition moved a series of legislative amendments to require the government to commit to the construction of 500 rest areas over the next 10 years. We are satisfied that this number of rest stops would at least bring Australia’s road network into broad compliance with the rest area guidelines. Unfortunately, the government rejected this sensible compromise that would have done much to make our roads safer. Instead, the government is pressing ahead with its so called Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. This program will provide $70 million out to 2011-12 to fund a number of rest stops. I understand that the first round of projects, with funding worth $30 million, is now fully allocated and that the second round, worth $40 million, will be allocated fairly soon.

Looking through the first round of projects, I am amazed to find how few of these projects actually involve the construction of new rest areas. In fact, for New South Wales, only six new rest areas are being constructed. In the Northern Territory, three new rest areas are being built; in Queensland, seven; in South Australia, 13; and in Victoria, just one—a trailer exchange on the Western Highway in Nhill. While I commend many of the other projects, such as bridge strengthening for higher productivity vehicles, it is obvious that the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program is woefully inadequate.

I want to emphasise that when the opposition raised these issues with the government we said that our future support for increases in the road user charge would be conditional on fair and reasonable progress being made on achieving the objective of providing rest stops broadly in accordance with the Australian standards. With only 30 having been constructed so far, the government is clearly falling behind its obligations in this regard. I repeat the statement that I made at that time: the government cannot count on the opposition continuing to support increases in road user charges if in fact fair and reasonable progress is not made on delivering roadside rest stops for the trucking industry, which is obliged to stop under the new fatigue regulations. Frankly, 30 or perhaps 40 or 50 over the period between now and 2011-12 is not good enough.

So I serve notice on the government once more that they will need to do very much better in that regard. I call on the government to use some of the road user charge revenue to fix this problem, and I also call on the government to stop its wasteful and reckless spending in so many other areas, which would enable resources to be allocated to an infrastructure project of economic significance such as this one. How much better would Australia have been if the government had not thrown away so much money on cash handouts worth $23 billion that disappeared without trace? What could have been done with the over $2 billion that was squandered on the Home Insulation Program? What about the $1.7 billion of taxpayers’ money that has been wasted in funding overpriced school halls?

And now we have an interest bill rising to $8 billion per year. That would be enough to complete the duplication of the Pacific Highway and have some change left over. Had so much money not been wasted we could have done so much more to upgrade the national road system and to ensure that these rest areas are built.

These are important issues, also, for the trucking industry. Recently I had the pleasure of visiting the federal electorate of Dawson with the new LNP candidate for Dawson, Councillor George Christensen, whom the government was kind enough to mention in dispatches this afternoon. He is an excellent young candidate who will make an outstanding representative in this parliament. We travelled around a number of the areas of major road concern in the Mackay area and we also met with the Mackay Road Accident Action Group, which has done a fantastic job to heighten awareness in the road transport industry of the importance of safety, and developing a culture of safety within the industry. They have also identified a number of significant areas where the road conditions are contributing to safety concerns. We visited the Nebo Range, for instance. It is sometimes impossible for heavy trucks to climb up the range because the surface is so slippery. Those sorts of things are dangerous, and it is no fault of the truck driver if the truck starts to roll backwards when it should be going up, because there is not an adequate grip on the road surface.

Also in those meetings, concerns about the quality, quantity and adequacy of the various truck roadside stops was raised with us very strongly indeed. The roadside stops there are often dirty and not properly maintained. Some of them do not have adequate facilities. There are women truck drivers; they are making up an increasing proportion of the drivers around the country, even in the heaviest rigs. In fact, they are prized because of their carefulness as drivers. But I was informed that at one roadside rest area the women truck drivers who pull up have to walk two kilometres to get to the ladies toilet and then walk back. That is hardly satisfactory.

I notice that the member for Capricornia wandered briefly through the room a moment or so ago. This particular rest area is in her electorate. I am disappointed that she allows this sort of circumstance to continue to fester. That is only one example. There is also an issue where tourists and others choose to camp in the roadside truck stops. The tourist industry is very important, and there are lots of grey nomads who move up and down the coast, particularly at this time of year. We need to provide adequate places for them to park rather than to have them using the truck roadside stops, which are specifically designed and essentially funded by road transport operators to meet their obligations under the new fatigue management laws.

So we need to have many more of these roadside stops. They need to be properly maintained. There needs to be a system of maintenance. The quality of the facilities that are provided needs to be suitable for people who are going to spend quite a number of hours there. Drivers are not stopping for five minutes under the fatigue management laws; they might be spending the whole night there, so the facilities that are provided need to be adequate for that purpose.

I think it is important that the government devote sufficient funding to upgrade our national road system so that the road transport sector is able to operate efficiently. The truckers certainly contribute significantly to government revenue. They provide a vital service to our nation to move freight and goods to market and to stock the stores right around the country. Things have changed dramatically. With central warehouses and with just-in-time manufacturing techniques, the road transport sector is being required to play an increasingly important role in moving goods around the nation. So there are wider economic benefits to be gained from providing the facilities that are so important to make that sector work well.

It is regrettable that the government has not spent more of the stimulus money on key, productive infrastructure such as roadside stops. Far less money would have been required and it would have resulted in safer and more productive roads if the government had in fact invested in these stops much earlier. The coalition will support this legislation, but as it does so it calls upon the government to stop wasteful spending and focus instead on dealing with the sorts of infrastructure issues that I have just raised.

See this speech in context