Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Hansard source

I do not wish to be petty; I will withdraw. The Road User Charge Determination (No. 1) 2012 slugs truckies with higher fees—that is what it does. If you were a small transport operator listening to the debate in the House today and just listened to the minister talk in such a petty and ill-meaning way about the trucking industry and about the rationale behind this determination, I think you would be disgusted. This is a determination that slugs truckies with higher fees.

This is classic Labor. Their methodology is always to tax, spend and interfere, and in this case they are calling this tax a 'reform'. We had the member for Moreton earlier in his remarks saying, 'Thankfully, we were able to build a national regulator,' as if we should all breathe a sigh of relief that Labor has once again found something to regulate and therefore increase charges to people—in this case, the trucking industry. For the Labor Party, rural Australia is not just another country; it may as well be another planet. This minister comes from western Sydney. It is clear from his remarks that he does not understand what it is like to drive the long, lonely roads of rural Australia as a trucking operator, the stress that family businesses are under, the stress that truck drivers are under or the stress surrounding an industry that struggles to make money, cannot pass on its costs and has to absorb every single increase—in this case, a significant increase to their budget.

What is this road user charge doing? It is increasing by 10 per cent the rate of the heavy vehicle road user charge from 23.1c a litre to 25.5c a litre, to, in the words of the determination:

… recover an attributable portion of heavy vehicle's share of increased government road expenditure to ensure they continue to pay their way.

That is Treasury terminology, and we understand that they do not understand the real world in some instances either. But I take offence, on behalf of the truck drivers I represent, to the phrase 'to ensure they continue to pay their way'—as if somehow the trucking industry has to bear the cost of the rehabilitation and maintenance of every road in Australia.

We do not criticise the road user charging system, because we created it, as the minister said. We recognise that fact. But we do really object to this particular tax—and that is what it is—being used, this bucket of money being increased, this system being plundered to pay for pink batts, BER, $700 set-top boxes and other financial failings of this government. There is no proof that the money raised by this road user charge goes anywhere but straight into consolidated revenue. We do not have a clear link between this funding and improving the roads that Australia's truck drivers drive on. This increase from 1 July from 23.1c to 25.5c a litre is highly significant. Thirty to 35 per cent of trucking operators' budget is fuel costs. This will hit their bottom line, and it will hurt.

The government talks about savings, as if that should be a rationale for us to think that this is a good thing. The government would have us believe that this change to the road user charge was recommended by the National Transport Commission and agreed by the Commonwealth and state and territory transport ministers. The NTC is responsible for conducting an annual assessment of these charges to ensure they remain in line with heavy vehicle share of road use. It is our argument that documents provided to industry were altered before being given to those ministers for a decision. The industry was not provided with detailed information on the model used by the NTC or the input data and assumptions underpinning them. These documents were only made available after a freedom of information request, and even then only after the NTC's recommendations had already been accepted by the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure.

The Australian Trucking Association believes the decisions were based on outdated truck numbers which inflate the amount drivers must pay to the government and overstate road building and maintenance calculations. The ATA believes that, instead of counting the actual number of truck registrations, the NTC took old registration figures and concluded a theoretical fleet size, which will now see drivers fork out $700 million more than they should.

The coalition agrees, and we called on the government for a halfway compromise. Not only are the increases based on flawed modelling; it is our view the proposed 10 per cent hike in the charge comes in addition to the effects of the carbon tax and occurs at a time when the transport industry is already struggling to survive big cost increases. The charge is also collected through the fuel excise system and truck registration fees, many of which will rise, by more than 30 per cent in some cases—a classic double whammy for the industry, attacked at both ends at a time they can least afford it.

We also argue that, despite the National Transport Commission's recommendation that flood recovery expenditure be excluded from the calculations, about 25 per cent of that expenditure remains in the formula. In addition, $144 million was unexpectedly added to the amount to be collected because of a recalculation of past obligations under the model—now, what does that mean? The Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association has also estimated the impact of the revised pricing model will see road trains overcharged by $27.9 million each year. That is a 40 per cent hike that can and should be avoided.

In May this year, state and federal transport ministers agreed to review the NTC formula, accepting the general view that it may not be an accurate reflection of the costs attributable to all heavy vehicle classes. Since all parties seem to agree that the calculation model is in need of a review, it would be grossly unfair to apply this model to justify such a huge increase.

Deputy Speaker, as you have heard, we have not said: do not make increases. We have not said: do not ask truckies to pay their way. What we have said is: make it five per cent, not 10 per cent. Let's meet the government halfway. Let's recognise the reality for our struggling truck drivers. I represent 30 per cent of the state of New South Wales in the electorate of Farrer, so I have known a lot of trucks, a lot of truck drivers and a lot of family firms over the last 10 years. I called a few and asked them what they thought about this. I know that they are hardly going to say that it is a good thing. What I wanted to hear from them was what life was like for them, right here and now, as a small transport operator in rural Australia. I remind the House that there is nobody in the government benches, that I am aware of, that has had skin in this game. There does not seem to be anyone who has invested a dollar of their own money in a real job in rural Australia. There is nobody in the government who understands the life of the trucking operators that I represent. If there were, I would have expected to have more speakers lining up to speak on this bill and we would have had a more sympathetic response from the minister in terms of our offer to meet him half way.

As a trucking operator in Albury said to me this morning:

It's a huge issue for the industry!

With all the other costs hitting us it's going to devastate some of the smaller transport operators particularly.

Subcontracted Truckies simply can't pass on these costs, so must absorb them, reducing their margins to such an extent many are leaving the industry.

Add this to the other taxes, rising cost of parts, registration, compliance and general cost of living, this will be a fatal blow for some.

I spoke to my friend, Leann James, from Broken Hill whose husband runs a livestock transport business. She said:

It's disappointing to hear this federal government has again knocked money off the trucking industry and hit us so hard. We are aware that in 2014 we will be hit again with the carbon tax on diesel. Any increase in costs are going to have to be passed onto consumers. In a typical month we pay anywhere up to $10,000 for our fuel. In a busy month this can and has been up to $15,000.

We are continually getting rego price hikes and parts and oils are continually creeping up. It is very demoralising for any truck operator to see this continual whacking we are getting from the government. I would envisage the professional drivers, ie blokes like my husband who has been a truck driver for 42 years, might say that enough is enough if this trend keeps up. Hitting an industry already very competitive with pricing will only push the operators who are competent and good at their job out. It is unfair to continually use this industry as a milking cow.

She asks the federal government:

Can they name anything they buy, from furniture to fresh meat and vegetables that has not been on a truck? What plan would they have to service this huge country when the truckies say that enough is enough?

I want to reflect that frustration here in the House. If I go particularly to the far west of New South Wales and look at the life of a livestock transport operator—they get up at 4 am, come home at midnight, eat dust all day with a truck and two dog trailers, the yards are bad and the sheep are not running and they just do not have time to stop. They have a deadline and many rules and regulations. We should in this House be moving motions of support and thanks to the truck drivers of this country instead of saying, 'Oh, we've found another way of slugging you, of using your industry as a milking cow to help us attempt to put our books back into balance.'

I want the minister to demonstrate that every single cent that he raises from this charge, if he manages to get it through the House today, goes directly to support the roads that trucks drive on and not into consolidated revenue, which is where I strongly suspect it goes. We on this side of the House want to make a strong statement in support of small business generally and the truck driving industry in particular and say that we will resist this increase because we know how much it will hurt and we actually care.

See this speech in context