Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak briefly to this motion. I will be supporting the government, and I will make some comments in relation to that in a moment. But I think it might be appropriate, if people are listening to this debate—because there are some interesting positions that have been taken by a number of people on this issue—to give some context, to look at the history of the decision-making process. One of the major determinants of my decision is that there has been a process in place, and that process has essentially been followed—and I would like to go through that. I had a similar recourse to process last week on the fishing industry debate. A process had been established, and in that case the government saw fit to walk outside that particular process.

Just for those who are not familiar with this particular issue, I will walk through it briefly. The National Road Transport Commission was formed in 1991. Prime Minister Howard, in 2003, beefed this up with the National Transport Commission Act. The National Transport Commission was then formed in 2004. The ministerial council was then called the Australian Transport Council and is now called the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure. This change occurred this year and was agreed to at the February 2011 meeting of the Australian Council of Australian Governments. The National Transport Commission presented a new charging model to the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure. The outcomes of the agenda papers clearly show that the National Transport Commission charging model recommended an increase in the road user charge from 23.1c to 25.5c a litre, on page 25 of the National Transport Commission's Heavy vehicle charges paper. Hence what came to be known as resolution 3(b), I think it is, of the meeting of the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure committee was passed.

There has been a lot of debate in here, and the member for Lyne a moment ago asked the shadow minister for transport for some documentation as to how New South Wales had voted on this particular issue. It is very clear, if one takes the time to go through the documentation, that in the New South Wales case the Hon. Duncan Gay—who was represented by Mr Tim Reardon, Deputy Director General, Policy and Regulation, Transport New South Wales—supported the resolution. I think, from memory, that the Northern Territory and Western Australia had some reservations in terms of the future model. But essentially all states, as part of that COAG process, through that National Transport Commission—or SCOTI—supported the concept.

So it is very strange, when you have had a process that has been supported by both sides of government—the Liberal-National government and the Labor Party, when it came to power—to suddenly find that there is a disallowance motion in this particular bill. That would not have anything to do with the nature of this particular parliament, of course—the fact that it is a hung parliament. I am sure that would not have entered into the political discussions that the various players have had. But I would adhere to the process in terms of this particular motion and hence will be supporting the government.

I have some history in relation to these issues, but particularly with the A-trailer issue that was raised a few years ago and is being addressed through this documentation as well. But there are also people within the transport sector who are supportive of the changes, who are supportive of the process. There are people who actually believe that safety is important in terms of this particular industry and that cost recovery, which a lot of political parties have spoken about over the years, is important in terms of the road users. This is about a road user charge. I could enter into a whole range of debates both with the government and with the opposition about the 38c per litter that car road users pay and the amount of that that is returned to the roads. For those who might be listening, that is about $362 million that is raised.

There has been a lot of talk from time to time about the significance of Roads to Recovery, which is a good policy. It was put in place during the Howard Anderson years and has been substantially supported—and increased, actually, in a number of budgets—by the government. It is a good policy. But when people suggest that that is as far as the string should go, I would say that it is only about a cent per litre out of the 38c that is actually returned to the Roads to Recovery program. Something like $2 billion in total is returned to roads, in associated grants and other things. But something like $15 billion is raised. So a very small proportion of what is raised from the motorist actually goes back into some form of road construction.

Nonetheless, the transport industry and others—both sides of government, the Howard governments as well as the Rudd and Gillard governments—have supported the concept of cost recovery as a component of the structure of transport arrangements within the Australian nation. And the states and territories have supported that concept as well, because they are the recipients of some of that money. The Council of Australian Governments process was set up to deal with these issues. There are cross-border issues and different legislative structures are put in place. In this particular case, the various states and territories have walked through, they have agreed with the process, they have agreed with the increase. I could read out the actual wording, if people are interested in it, but 3(b) of the agenda was accepted by all of them. And all of a sudden, because of the nature of this particular parliament—and I can hear them out there now—the dogs will be whistling about the way in which the votes are taken, and the man who just looked at me will be one of them; he will be whistling away at his dogs. I'll be running, and it will all be a tragedy.

See this speech in context