Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the importance of the road transport industry to Australia's economy;

(2) notes that intergovernmental agreement on heavy vehicle regulatory reform was reached at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 19 August 2011;

(3) acknowledges the significance of this agreement to Australia's road transport sector; and

(4) commends the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport for his work in bringing about this agreement.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform, reached at the Council of Australian Governments meeting of 19 August this year, is aimed at resolving a century of inconsistent regulatory practices between the states and territories which have constrained and frustrated transport business operating across our borders. The introduction of national laws and single national regulators for heavy vehicles, rail and maritime will generate a range of benefits for businesses. Elements of the agreement also aim to improve occupational safety in the industry by removing confusion and applying best practice across jurisdictions. Single national regulators will also enable heavy-vehicle owners and operators to conduct business with government at one place—that is, there will be a 'one-stop shop' approach. For example, heavy vehicle registration renewals and access permits would be managed through a single contact point.

The road transport industry is critical to Australia's economy. In Australia, our expansive land mass and dispersed city and regional populations require us to rely heavily on road transport. Whilst the Australian rail network is a valuable mode of transport, it is not sufficiently developed to transport goods to all places, particularly between remote areas. I understand that the majority of goods are transported within Australia by road trains, a trucking concept used to transport goods, particularly in remote areas. Australian governments have invested substantial funds in developing good roads. As part of that investment, safety barriers and other safety features are of a high standard on new roads in Australia. It has not been a simple task nor a cheap one. The total network length of all public roads in Australia is over 810,000 km—it is the most expansive road network of all developed nations.

Transport specific businesses contributed 4.63 per cent of total GDP in 2006-07. This amounted to $46.2 billion in 2005-06 prices. The transport sector provided 492,875 jobs, or 4.7 per cent of total employment in Australia, in 2007. Despite this, there are some troubling issues that need to be addressed in this sector. Around 20 per cent of workplace deaths in Australia occur in the trucking industry. Road transport results in around 300 deaths each year. Anything that can be done to address this situation should be urgently explored. The impact of deaths and serious injuries from road accidents inevitably flows on to family members, and the economic costs to the nation are also significant. A report prepared by the Hon. Lance Wright QC and Professor Michael Quinlan for the National Transport Commission, released in 2008, asserted that the high level of control exercised by clients over price, timing, destination and route means that operators have to bear costs that are ordinarily borne by customers. They sometimes attempt to recover this cost by not paying truck drivers for all of the work performed and by paying them incentive rates. In a survey of truck drivers undertaken by the Transport Workers Union of Australia two years ago, 64 per cent of respondents said that they had been pressured by their employers to use unsafe work practices. In the same survey, 29 per cent of respondents had been pressured into carrying illegal loads and 44 per cent had been pressured into driving excess hours, all of which obviously compromises the safety of truck drivers. Truck drivers are the people we rely upon to literally drive an industry that enables our economy to function.

It would be trite to say that truckers can choose not to carry illegal loads and drive excess hours as employment is often conditional on compliance with an operator's direction and client deadlines. To meet such unreasonable demands, truckers often drive tired, exceed the speed limit, take drugs and cut costs on the maintenance of their vehicles. The survey I referred to showed that 56 per cent of respondents said that, due to economic pressures, they were forced to lower maintenance standards.

Several academic and judicial reports have found a direct relationship between remuneration and safety outcomes, yet truck drivers continue to receive poor salaries for work that is a critical function of the national economy and, indeed, of the nation. Reducing their overheads and time demands through simplified compliance standards will make their lives so much better, and the agreement is a step in the right direction.

When the Australian Transport Council established a plan to reform the transport industry in 2008, one of the proposals was the establishment of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. The Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform agreed to by COAG on 19 August will overhaul the existing outdated transport regulations. I note that Western Australia did not formally sign the Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform but expressed support for the reforms. I understand that the Western Australian minister wishes to consult with his government before Western Australia formally agrees to sign the heavy vehicle intergovernmental agreement. I also understand that national transport regulators should be in place for heavy vehicles by January 2013. The signing of the intergovernmental agreement represents a landmark economic reform through the establishment of national standards which, when complete, will significantly reduce the number of regulators.

There are numerous inconsistencies between state road laws and regulations that hopefully will be addressed by this agreement, which will improve safety for Australian drivers. Earlier this year I raised a private member's motion in this place about inconsistencies in our national road laws and the problems caused for all road users. The same applies with respect to the trucking industry. There are many examples that could be referred to which highlight the discrepancies between the regulations that apply from one state to another. In fact, on 22 August, in response to a question on this issue by the member for Moreton, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport referred to the cartage of cattle and how the number of cattle allowed on a truck changes as soon as you cross a border. Similarly, there are discrepancies with respect to the number of hours a heavy vehicle driver can spend behind the wheel after a rest break. If you look across the country, from Queensland to New South Wales to Victoria and South Australia, you will find that there are different regulations with respect to the rest period required—again, causing all kinds of confusion to the drivers of those vehicles. The inconsistencies cause serious problems at times because, as you cross from one state to another, whilst you have complied with the law in one state you have not complied in the next, and that leaves you in a real quandary. I am sure other members will refer to many of the inconsistencies that currently exist which they are familiar with when they speak on this motion.

These reforms are well past their time. The benefits to Australia's $61 billion transport industry that will come from the agreement will certainly be welcomed in terms of the additional productivity that will arise, as well as efficiency and safety outcomes. It is expected that the heavy vehicle regulator reforms alone will provide a $30 billion boost to the Australian economy over the next 20 years. That is a considerable amount of additional funds that will go into the Australian economy. The industry will also see the harmonisation of laws across states and, again, that is something that will no doubt be welcomed by transport operators across the country.

In closing, I commend the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The agreement is long overdue and has been talked about for years and years. I am sure it has been lobbied for by the trucking industry around Australia. It would not have happened if some leadership had not been shown, and that leadership was shown by Minister Anthony Albanese in his discussions with the states and by finally bringing about the consistencies that have been called for for a long time. They will benefit not only the trucking industry in Australia but the whole Australian economy. I commend the minister for his actions.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on the motion by the member for Makin, I commend the member for his ongoing advocacy, particularly in relation to road safety matters and transport issues more generally. Members on this side of the House also recognise the importance of the road transport industry to the Australian economy. Australia's trucking industry in particular is an incredibly important part of our economy, providing a vital statistical link between the community, Australian businesses and of course our agricultural sector. Australia's freight task is estimated to triple by 2050, from 503 billion tonne-kilometres to 1540 billion tonne-kilometres, with local demand for total freight movements increasing by as much as 60 per cent by 2020. As a member from a regional area, I am sure that you, Deputy Speaker Scott, like many other members in regional communities, well understand the importance of our road transport industry and challenges it faces. One particular challenge is the confusing regulatory regime which exists. The coalition acknowledges the significant benefits that can be achieved by harmonising the many conflicting and contradictory regulations in the heavy vehicle industry. It has been estimated—and I take up the member for Makin's comments—that harmonising regulations in this area has a potential total gain of $12.4 billion. The gains to be made, particularly in terms of productivity, are quite significant. It is fair to say that, over the years, state governments have failed to respond to the industry's needs and improve their efficiencies by implementing nationally consistent transport regulations.

At the last election the federal coalition committed to pursuing regulatory harmonisation to build a truly national and seamless road freight sector. We understand the great importance of this task to the productivity of the Australian economy. Determining the appropriate parameters of such a detailed and overarching scheme, which is intended to have a broad scope, is extremely difficult and it is a necessity to ensure, through a very extensive consultation, that the right scheme is implemented and that any unintended consequences are avoided and handled quickly if they do arise. I understand, for example, that the Australian Trucking Association has identified 245 issues in the draft regulations that it would like to see resolved prior to their complete introduction.

I urge the government to continue to work with such key industry bodies. This government does not have a great record of listening to the people on the ground. I urge the government in this circumstance to actually listen to the people on the ground who are dealing with these issues on a daily basis. However, we support the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and efforts to deliver productivity improvements and the potential to cut red tape, remove inconsistencies which currently exist—obviously to save money for the operators involved—and reduce the confusion that currently exists throughout the heavy vehicle industry.

In the time that I have available to me I would also like to make some more general comments about heavy vehicles and the issue of road safety, which the member for Makin also touched on. This year the federal government released its 10-year National Road Safety Strategy. As with all such strategies the true test will be in its implementation. The strategy sets a target to reduce the annual number of deaths and serious injuries on Australian roads by at least 30 per cent. I think both sides of the chamber would acknowledge that, while that is an ambitious target, it does recognise that there are many severe road crashes which are preventable in our community. I am sure there are members on both sides of the House who are committed to the task of reducing the incidence of road trauma in our community.

Australia has a long and quite proud history of continually improving its road safety record—from historic legislation making it compulsory to wear seatbelts through to programs which have targeted drink-driving, speeding and other aspects of driver behaviour. Road crashes still cause 1,400 deaths and 32,500 serious injuries each year across Australia. The social and economic impacts are obviously devastating, and there would not be anyone in the Australian community who has not been touched by the consequences of road trauma.

I welcome the government's development, in conjunction with various organisations, of a National Road Safety Strategy for the next 10 years and acknowledge the importance that the heavy vehicle sector will play in achieving the desired outcomes I just referred to. I think one of the key issues—which is not often understood—about working to reduce road trauma is the importance of investing in infrastructure to improve the safety of the road environment itself. It has been said in the past that providing for a safer road environment has the potential to save more lives than improved driver behaviour and enforcement measures put together. It is an important point to remember when we talk about issues of road safety. Investing in safer vehicles has had some very significant impacts, particularly in reducing the severity of accidents. The road enforcement measures right across Australia are a given. We have various road blitzes by state jurisdictions, and there are community information and advertising campaigns initiated by governments across Australia which have been very successful in targeting improved driver behaviour. They all have an important role to play.

There will be no simple solution to driving down the road trauma in our nation. We need to acknowledge that humans will always make mistakes and we need to provide a transport system that is more accommodating of these mistakes. I think that is one of the most critical points in reducing road trauma—particularly in our regional communities, where the incidents on country roads tend to involve higher speeds and where the potential for severe injuries and deaths is heightened. There are infrastructure improvements which can have a major affect on reducing crashes. I believe it is up to governments of all levels to continue to invest in improving the road conditions, to work closely with industry and to consult with local communities to identify potential accident black spots. The investment will pay a long-term dividend not only in the economic sense but also in the social sense with reduced trauma in our communities.

There are a wide range of road treatments and road designs which need to specifically consider the needs of all road users, particularly the heavy vehicle industry that we are taking about today. Things like wider shoulder treatments, the tactile road edges and even the design aspects of curves, which accommodate the larger vehicles on our roads, are all very important issues which require substantial and ongoing investment right across our nation. In addition to those various road treatments, another key safety matter which sometimes escapes much public attention but is particularly relevant to our heavy vehicle operators is the need for investment in our roadside rest areas. Under the transport policy which the Nationals advocated at the last election we made a commitment in conjunction with our coalition partners to fund 500 new roadside stops for truck drivers. We understand that the nation's truck drivers are facing mandated rest breaks as a result of the heavy vehicle driver fatigue reforms and that there is a need for adequate roadside rest points. It is becoming increasingly important for the safety of drivers.

I am disappointed that Labor's current $70 million Heavy Vehicle Safety Strategy and productivity package is simply not going to go far enough to bring Australia's national highways close to meeting the National Transport Council guidelines. Labor's funding for truck rest stops is simply not going to be enough to achieve this goal. In fact, the funding for the current 2011-12 financial year has already been fully exhausted. The government has a long way to go in this regard. It is all very well to talk about the heavy vehicle industry and its support, but when it comes to delivering these services and facilities on the ground the government still has some challenges it needs to meet. The coalition, to its credit, has promised to build an additional 500 roadside stops over the next 10 years at an approximate cost of $300 million to bring the 22,500 kilometres of Australia's national highways into broad compliance with the National Transport Commission guidelines. This is an issue which the Australian Trucking Association recognised in its submission to the National Road Safety Strategy earlier this year. I quote from the ATA's contribution in relation to rest areas. It says:

Appropriate rest areas, with shade, amenities and minimal noise allow drivers to comply with fatigue regulations. The Austroads' Audit of Rest Areas against National Guidelines, shows the quantity and quality of rest areas are below national standards. This is a symptom of planning and funding problems.

…   …   …

A further problem is the removal of existing rest areas. Rest areas that are temporarily removed due to capital works should be immediately replaced. New road planning that expects significant heavy vehicle traffic should include rest area facilities.

It is an important bit of feedback from the industry and something the government should take on board.

In conclusion, I briefly mention that I had a recent meeting in Lakes Entrance, in my electorate, with representatives from the South East Australian Transport Strategy. I commend the SEATS members for their ongoing advocacy work on behalf of their respective communities. They are taking very much a holistic view of the transport needs of their region. One of the key focuses of their work is the need to upgrade the Princes Highway in south-east Australia. This, as a policy position, is very close to my heart; it is also close to the hearts of many thousands of Gippslanders who have signed petitions, written letters and supported my efforts in this place. It is an issue that I have raised with the current Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and will continue to raise in the interests of road safety for all road users.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the motion put forward by the honourable member for Makin, and I do so because the Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform at COAG in 2011 is an historic agreement that has been reached. I commend the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport for the really good work that he has done to get to this agreement. Road safety is an issue that has dogged the heavy vehicle industry in Australia for a long time, and everybody at meetings at state, territory and federal levels would agree: 'Yes, we have to fix it. Yes, we have to act on it.' But everybody would go home, and it would not always bear fruit. This time it has; hence my commendation.

This agreement peels back inconsistencies across jurisdictions that seem incomprehensible to some. We live in a federation, so these inconsistencies grow up, but they cost money and time. The agreement will cut the number of transport regulators operating across Australia from 23 to three. The benefits to our national productivity are clear beyond dispute—it will boost national income by up to $30 billion over the next 20 years. It seems incomprehensible that these things have gone on for so long at such cost to our national income. It will also cut the burden of red tape on our $61 billion transport industry. I know there are issues to work through. Yes, there is extensive consultation being undertaken; but everyone is at the table and everyone is agreed that this has not come before time. Heavy vehicle operators will not have eight separate regulatory regimes—one in each state and territory—and their associated rules to deal with, and that will lead to increased productivity and efficiency for the operators.

It is an issue that is frequently talked about at many levels in my electorate. I will give an example of a case study of the inconsistencies across jurisdictions. It relates to my area. A livestock carrier transporting cattle from Queensland to a station just inside the New South Wales border faces the prospect of unloading some cattle at the border onto a second truck to complete the journey to ensure that the vehicle meets the lower mass limits in New South Wales. Not only is this inefficient but it also unduly stresses the livestock and adds significantly to cost. There are two big imposts there. One is cost, which everybody, naturally and understandably, is always looking to save. There is also the animal welfare issue. An Australian Lot Feeders' Association survey identified costs of $4 to $9 per head in additional freight and carcass value losses over a trip from the Victoria to Queensland border.

I know what this means in New South Wales and Queensland because of the agriculture industry in my area. A few months back we had discussions at the Northern Meat Co-operative Meat Company, the meatworks in Casino, and Michael Deegan was there with a group of other people having discussions on this very issue. This was before the agreement came into place. They were talking about how it would be good if we got to an agreement so that these issues could be dealt with. It is like, 'Hallelujah—it's here and they can be dealt with.' I know it will take time, but it will be such a significant boost to our national income to cut the burden of red tape that I talked about. Heavy vehicle operators will not have nine separate regulatory regimes to deal with, and that will make such a difference to how heavy vehicle operators are able to get about and do their work.

There are a whole range of areas, but in the few seconds I have left I cannot go through them all. Heavy vehicle driver fatigue, counting time, access, oversize loads, log books, multiple dealings and one-stop shops will all be dealt with. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The harmonisation of regulations, as we have heard today, is important to driving practical productivity and road safety improvements. However, the member for Makin's commendation of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport may well be premature. I note that, in relation to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform, in the 19 August communique, COAG stated that Western Australia did not formally sign the agreement but expressed support for these reforms. Subject to its concerns being addressed, Western Australia will sign the Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform. So there are concerns still there and more consultation is required. The Australian Trucking Association also said the same thing: that it did not support mass-distance-location pricing for myriad reasons. Today we have heard there are 245 issues. However, I agree that the road transport industry and road safety issues are critical to the Australian economy and in particular to regional and rural Australia. This is why I will move the following amendment:

That the following words be inserted:

(5) condemns the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Gillard Government for its introduction of a carbon tax on transport fuel.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we know, one of the biggest issues that has been raised here is the issue of driver safety and issues in regional areas. We do know that the carbon tax will have a significant impact on transport costs across Australia, and that it is a major threat to the economic development of regional areas. It will apply to road, and, in particular, to truck transport from 2014. Every vehicle and every product to be received and transported will have to pay the cost of this tax. These imposts will mean higher costs and greater impacts in regional areas.

In addition, the government's proposal to slash the fuel tax credits for heavy vehicles by almost 7 cents a litre from July 2014 will cost the industry and its customers. I am very concerned about owner operators, owner drivers and those who are working on very finite margins right now. We know of the distances and we know the east to west route. I know that the member for Hasluck is aware that it could cost $3,000 to transport a load from east to west and probably another $2,800 from Perth through to Kununurra. There are going to be some major costs associated with this.

The additional cost is going to compound for regional Australia and increase the impact of road freight transport costs. It is how that comes back to the individual trucking owner operators and, again, how that may or may not be passed on to families and consumers that is the issue. The additional costs will be felt by all of those in the industry. I know that there are so many of them who are working on very finite margins and that this is a major issue for rural and regional Australia. Basically, everything that you eat, drink, use or do in regional Australia comes from the back of a truck. Any increase to the costs is going to have a flow on not only to the individual trucking enterprise but also to individuals, families and communities right across this nation.

With the additional cost that is going to be borne I am concerned that in this latest round of Regional Development Australia funding there was no funding for roads in my electorate at all. I do know that the carbon tax will add to the cost of producing those roads in rural and regional areas. This is going to be a compounding cost; I am very concerned about the issues in relation to the economics, the practical issues, and the road safety issues. Any additional cost to the trucking industry and to the individual owners and drivers either has to be absorbed by them because it is such a competitive market or passed on by them to consumers.

I am concerned about the road safety issues that go with this and the impact on the families and those who are involved in this industry. They deliver produce right around Australia on a daily basis; they do it very, very well. This country cannot do without the road transport sector, and I support their efforts for Australia. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member's amendment is not in writing, signed and on the table, she leaves me in a precarious situation. I will advise that for an amendment to be considered it should be before the House so that everyone can actually read it. You cannot just spring it; it actually has to be in writing, signed and on the table. I will leave it with the clerks to determine how to go forward, but the common courtesy and the procedure is that it is on the table at the time.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just heard the member for Forrest, and the point of the matter is that the Regional Development Australia funding process is opposed hand over fist by the coalition. The roads funding which she alluded to in her speech is dealt with in the nation building and the budget processes. But those opposite have voted against every road-funding project in South-East Queensland in the last term of parliament—everything from the Ipswich Motorway to the Blacksoil Interchange. They did not support the funding for that, for the nation building roads or for the Warrego Highway funding. The member for Forrest can talk about road funding, but the coalition is opposed to it.

We have doubled the road funding that is so important to the trucking industry in South-East Queensland; $8.5 billion in road, rail and port infrastructure is more than double what the previous coalition government contributed. One of the things about Australian politics is that it behoves Labor governments to make amendments to a seamless national economy: to get rid of the oddities and the stupid things that we see in terms of federation in this country. There is the eccentricity of the dingo fence, which provides such an embarrassment and an obstacle to a seamless economy. The federal minister for transport and infrastructure should actually be commended for the work he has done.

In the last couple of years I attended the Australian Trucking Association meeting at the Gold Coast, where I represented the minister. One of the things said over lunch in private discussions that I had was about the trouble that the Australian Trucking Association had with bureaucracy, red tape and difficulties in going between Queensland and New South Wales. I have five meat works in my electorate in my home state of Queensland—and, as the member for Page said, there is a difference between how many cattle you can put on a truck in Queensland and how many you can put on a truck in New South Wales. I know from speaking to meat works, farmers and people in the trucking industry in my area how important this legislation will be and how important this COAG process will be. If you have cattle in Queensland—66 cattle on a truck—and you get to the New South Wales border, where you are only allowed 60, you have to offload the beasts. These are stupid and really ridiculous differences in regulations between states. Whether it comes to business names, to a national competition policy, to national consumer and competition situations or to trade practices legislation in the 1970s under the Whitlam government, it behoves a Labor government always to support business and small business in this economy and to support the operation of the national economy. The Australian Trucking Association is not primarily made up of really big players, such as Linfox and the other big trucking associations; its members are often owner-operators. We cannot get produce—whether it is cattle, coal, food or clothing—across the country without the trucking association and the trucks.

One of the saddest things that I have seen in my time as a federal member was dealing with Lights on the Hill, the memorial in Gatton, which used to be in my electorate and is now in the electorate of Wright. I had dealings with Kathy White; Garry, her husband; Dionne, her daughter; and all those people associated with the Australian Trucking Association, and the coach drivers as well. The road deaths of the people commemorated by the memorial are such a tragedy.

One of the things about this motion moved by the member for Makin is how he has stressed the importance of the road transport industry to the Australian economy—and it is important. We cannot get that produce and those things to the markets—you cannot take things from the Brisbane Valley and the Lockyer Valley to the markets at Rocklea—without trucks run by owner-operators. You see big entities like Nolan's in the Lockyer Valley, for example, but you also see others who run trucks.

We are making a big difference here, and this will boost the national economy by $30 billion in the next 20 years. Cutting red tape will make a difference, and those opposite have constantly frustrated us. Even today, with a historic agreement made between Labor and Liberal governments at different levels, those opposite still have to politicise this. They cannot accept that Labor governments have a legitimate right to exist and to reform. We are reforming the economy. This is a very, very important measure that will improve efficiency, effectiveness and productivity in the economy. It will make a big difference to safety. It will also make a big difference to time, taking people off the road. It will make a big difference when people cross borders, because sitting there at the borders doing paperwork and red tape and dealing with those issues makes a difference to the lives of people. I support the motion. (Time expired)

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the first three parts of this motion. I cannot, sadly, support the fourth, which says 'commends the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport for his work in bringing about this agreement', because, sadly, he has failed to put any money where his mouth is as transport minister, and regional and rural Australia, in particular, is suffering as a result. But I acknowledge the importance of the road transport industry to Australia's economy, note that the heavy vehicle regulator intergovernmental agreement was reached at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 19 August 2011 and acknowledge the significance of the heavy vehicle regulator intergovernmental agreement to Australia's road transport sector—although there is still a little bit to be worked out when it comes to finalising the agreement.

Australia's trucking industry is incredibly important to our economy, and nowhere can it be as important as in the electorate of Wannon, where we have the port of Portland and the freight task in delivering our goods in our electorate to the port of Portland, which handles 25 per cent of Australia's dairy products and 17 per cent of Australia's plantation forestry and wood processing. We have significant heavy mineral exploration, and those heavy minerals also go out through the port of Portland. One million tonnes of grain exports annually go out through the port of Portland, and 67,000 tonnes of livestock exports go out through the port of Portland. We also have aluminium heading out there. As a matter of fact, throughput and trade volumes through the port of Portland are projected to double to seven million tonnes in the next seven to eight years.

It is great that we have this agreement and can talk about road safety, but if we do not have money to put into road and rail infrastructure there is going to be a deterioration in our roads and our rail infrastructure, and that is going to harm the Australian economy. That is why it was so disappointing that we did not get one cent more for road infrastructure in the last budget. The minister, sadly, has betrayed Australia's road and rail users. There was not one single cent of extra road funding.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a shame; it is an absolute shame because, while it is great to have the regulatory burden eased off our freight industries, it is also important that we continue to get proper funding into important road and rail infrastructure, and we have not seen that.

The minister also stands condemned for what he has done with regard to the carbon tax. I support the honourable member for Forrest's amendment to the motion because the minister has shown quite clearly that he has no understanding of the impact the carbon tax will have on Australia's freight industries. As a matter of fact, I think one of the saddest things we saw in our last parliamentary sitting week was that the National Road Freighters Association had travelled from across the country to come and oppose the carbon tax and the minister arrogantly stood up in this place and called this Convoy of No Confidence a 'convoy of no consequence'. What arrogance! It shows how out of touch this minister is.

So, while the states and the COAG process have delivered some regulatory reform, we have not seen from the minister any understanding of the importance of road and rail infrastructure. He will dismiss the highly important National Road Freighters Association as being irrelevant and of no consequence, even though they have come to him and said that his government's carbon tax will hurt this industry. He just dismisses that. When it comes to putting real money into road and rail infrastructure, what does he do? He fails to deliver one extra cent. It is so important, especially out in the regions, that we have the proper infrastructure so that we can get our goods to market and make sure that our families travel in a safe manner to and from school, to their sporting— (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.