Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

In the short time I have before 90-second statements I will put on the record that I am opposing government on this disallowance motion for different reasons than the ones that have been presented by the Leader of the National Party in introducing this disallowance, but they are important ones all the same.

Last week I wrote to the Leader of the National Party seeking confirmation that he is fully aware, in introducing this disallowance motion, that this road user charge increase has come about from agreement between federal and state roads ministers. Therefore, in blunt terms, it is the New South Wales National Party minister who has voted for and signed off on this road user charge increase. I therefore wrote last week to the Leader of the National Party for him to (a) acknowledge that it is a member of his own party in government in New South Wales who signed off on this road user charge increase, and (b) if he acknowledges that, to then get that New South Wales National Party roads minister to write directly to me and ask me to vote against this disallowance motion and against the vote that the New South Wales National Party took on this matter.

Unfortunately, over the last week I have had silence. There has been no response from the Leader of the National Party to that letter about the hypocrisy of the position being taken by the National Party when you compare their federal position to their state position in New South Wales. I would welcome that letter and I would welcome the explanation of how they are managing to walk both positions at once.

Despite that, I will still vote against this disallowance motion. I do it as someone whose first job was to work with the road transport forum, which has changed its name now, which used to be the peak lobby group for the long-distance road transport industry. It basically represents the 80 per cent of commodities that reach every home in Australia and arrive via the necessary transport model in a large country like ours and that is by road.

Those that move food and produce by road are quite often, understandably, given a bum steer by this chamber because the vast majority of people use cars and they do not like trucks on the road next to them. In reality 80 per cent of the products that hit our homes come via road. Yes, it would be preferable if it was rail or some other model, but it is not. In a country like ours they arrive by road and quite often public policy does not respect nor reflect that and we are seeking that again today. From here on in I am going to lay a challenge to this chamber and that is around linking road user charging to the broad sweep of comprehensive tax reform and to look at areas like urban congestion charges.

See this speech in context