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

The member for Wide Bay yet again shows his knowledge of economics and adding up. I assure the member for Wide Bay, if you have a fund that comes from this determination, which we do, the fact is this program will not exist. It is something acknowledged by the ATA and the Livestock Transporters Association. A recent review, which included industry and jurisdictional road authorities, found there is an overwhelming positive response to this program continuing strong demand for new and upgraded rest areas and other safety measures across the nation. That is why we doubled the amount of funding dedicated to this program.

It is also for this reason that, when the member for New England approached me about increasing the funding available in the program and expanding the scope of projects eligible for funding, I said 'yes' to his representations. As a result, I can advise the House that the government will increase funding for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program by $10 million, in the round. That will be announced in December. I have also expanded eligible projects under this program to include rural and regional heavy-vehicle infrastructure. That is something that has been asked for, particularly by the Livestock Transporters Association. They have made strong representations on this issue—unlike those opposite, who are simply trying to stop funding for this program.

I have also included demonstration projects to facilitate innovative safety measures across the heavy-vehicles sector. The member for Wide Bay, clearly, has not been paying attention, because these guidelines have already gone out—in rounds 1 and 2 that will be announced later this year. I have already met with the ATA, the Livestock Transporters Association and other industry groups about how we make the most of this program. The extension of this important program comes on top of our recent establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to set safe rates, to stem risky behaviour by heavy-vehicle drivers. And there is our historic achievement of establishing the first ever national heavy-vehicle regulator, which will commence on 1 January 2013.

The national heavy-vehicle regulator, along with the national maritime and rail safety regulators, will cut the number of transport regulators operating across Australia from 23 down to three. That is a boost to national income by up to $30 billion over the next 20 years. It has been talked about for years, but delivered by this government.

These reforms are vitally important to the heavy-vehicle transport sector that employs hundreds of thousands of Australians and plays a central role in getting our goods and services to our towns, cities, airports and ports. The freight task is growing and it will continue to grow, putting even greater pressure on our road networks.

Heavy-vehicle crashes also contribute substantially to road trauma, often involving the occupants of light passenger vehicles and pedestrians. We see around 5,000 people seriously injured in trucking incidents each year, and 230 people killed in trucking incidents. The program is all about funding practical measures to reduce risk and improve road safety, not only for truckies but for all who share the roads with the big rigs.

Let me remind the member for Wide Bay that in 2004 the then Australian Transport Council established the pricing principles upon which heavy vehicles are calculated. These principles were further reinforced when COAG directed the ATC, in April 2007, to ensure that charges deliver, and continue to deliver, full cost recovery while removing cross-subsidisation between vehicle classes. These were principles agreed under the Howard government's watch and under National Party transport ministers. These pricing principles were instrumental in the calculation of charges agreed by transport ministers in March 2012.

Let's be clear: the charge calculation methodology has not changed. The principles have not changed. And that is why we see National Party roads ministers—in New South Wales, for example—voting in favour of this determination. But the shadow minister comes in here and says that he cannot possibly support it. Why doesn't he pick up the phone to Duncan Gay and other coalition ministers who have supported this determination?

The new charges agreed by transport ministers will see A-trailer charges reduced by over 50 per cent . We have heard nothing from those opposite about that. This delivers on a key 2011 industry call that governments address high A-trailer charges which were particularly impacting operators in the rural and agricultural sectors. The new charges also incorporate the 2012 annual adjustment to ensure ongoing cost recover consistent with the 2007 COAG directive.

The opposition's claim of over-recovery are simply not correct. The total amount of revenue to be collected from industry consistently reflect the trend in government road expenditure. Since 2007, this government has doubled the road expenditure. Look at any of the major roads around our country. Take, for example, the Pacific Highway: $1.3 billion by those opposite over 12 long years. Even though they had transport ministers who were on the highway the expenditure over 12 years was $1.3 billion. This government has spent $4.1 billion already.

Look at the Bruce Highway. Again, those opposite spent $1.3 billion over 12 years; this side of the House has spent $2.8 billion. The member for Wide Bay goes around and says that the area from Cooroy to Curra—

See this speech in context