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

In continuation, I finished by making the point that I will not be supporting the government on this disallowance motion even though I still await the letter from the Leader of the Nationals after having written to him last week seeking some guidance as to why on earth this House is being asked by the Leader of the Nationals federally to do what the New South Wales Nationals did not.

It is my understanding that the New South Wales Nationals roads minister, Duncan Gay, voted for this road user charge increase through state and federal processes. I have therefore asked for some guidance from the federal Leader of the Nationals to get the New South Wales roads minister to put in writing an explanation of why I should do what he did not when he was given the chance to do so.

If the Nationals as a body support the transport industry, the movers of product, the movers of food and the movers of 80 per cent of products to Australian households then surely this is a fight that should have been run and won through the processes of COAG and the National Transport Commission and the processes between the state and federal governments. It is disappointing now that it looks to be this House, the federal Nationals leader, myself and others who are now doing a job that should have been done by the New South Wales roads minister.

I would also like to make a point about where some of that money ends up going. There was an announcement over the weekend which, on the surface, looked to be a good announcement. It looked to be the completion of the Pacific Highway by 2016. It looked to be an new 80/20 agreement between the federal government and the state government. And it looked to be one that involves new money. It is this last point I would like some clarification on from the Nationals because I would like to remind them to look at the budget papers of the last two years if they are making this announcement based on a redirection of funds from the Epping to Parramatta rail line. If they look at the budget papers of 2011, they will see the four-year forward estimates for the Pacific Highway are around that $1-billion mark. If they then compare that to the forward estimates from May this year, they will see a significant, in fact record, increase in funding from the Commonwealth to the Pacific Highway completion going from $1 billion in 2011 up to $3.56 billion in 2012. It is my understanding that at the same time the Epping to Parramatta rail line forward estimates have moved roughly comparably, so there is only $67 million in the 2012 budget for the forward estimates for the Epping to Parramatta rail line. Again, it is my understanding that that money has already been allocated for the record Commonwealth funding in the 2012-13 budget—and you cannot allocated it twice. As anyone knows: you cannot spend money twice. So, already, in the $3.56 billion allocated in the May budget this year, the Epping to Parramatta rail-line money has been redirected. It is a good idea, which I saw come from the Nationals' federal conference over the weekend—it is just 12 months too late.

The question therefore is: are the Nationals double-accounting the money from the Epping to Parramatta rail-line? If they are, this is once again a trick from opposition that does not contribute to the completion of the Pacific Highway at all. If they are not, and if they are genuinely talking about new money, if they are talking about a new funding model that is different from the fifty-fifty split between the Commonwealth and the state of the Howard and Vaile years, and they are now talking about an eighty-twenty model funding arrangement between the federal government and the state, and if they are now locking into a 2016 completion deadline based on that model and based on new funding of $2 billion coming in from somewhere, then I will back the Nationals and the Liberals 100 per cent for that commitment. But, if they are doing that based on redirecting Epping-to-Parramatta rail money that has already been redirected, I will not—that is a trick, that is a con and that adds to the cynicism of North Coast residents, who are completely sick of both political parties saying one thing in opposition and doing another in government. So I would ask for clarification on that.

The third point I would like to make—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You mean like a carbon tax!

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

Well, I have been completely consistent about an emissions trading scheme. I just wish the shadow minister was equally consistent for an emissions trading scheme. It is a great pity! I wish the person in the Chair had been as consistent on an emissions trading scheme!

Mr Tehan interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Lyne is now reflecting on the Chair. He might not realise that. So I am going to ask him to stop dealing with the interjections and return to the motion before the House.

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

The third point I would like to make with regard to road funding relates to the situation of local government. Seventy per cent of the road network in Australia does fall under the local government network. I hope many members in this chamber are of a view that the local road network has failed. The rate base of most councils, particularly regional councils, is low and has difficulty keeping pace with the current costs and current expectations in new local road building of roughly $1 million per kilometre. Local councils cannot keep pace with that sort of—

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

Why did this government cut the grants to them!

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

Order! The member for Wannon is warned!

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

Thank you. If you don't want me to respond, please don't start it! Roughly $1 million per kilometre, in 2012 terms, is too much of an ask for the 650-odd local councils in Australia. They do need a new funding model, and it does need some sort of conversation from both the state and federal governments, that is not only about highways, is not only about state and regional roads, but is also about the status of and the funding commitment to local roads.

I am going against this disallowance motion, not because it came from the Leader of the Nationals, and not because he has failed to get me this letter from the New South Wales National Party leader, who voted for this increase in road user charges; it is because I want to start to get better outcomes in comprehensive tax reform and a greater commitment from political leaders, federal and state, on some of the issues that have been talked about for too long and on which the conversation has failed to progress.

In my previous contribution I started to talk about urban congestion charging. It was recommended to government and opposition by Treasury, that the time has come for the conversation to begin on how we start to introduce, over time, something akin to urban congestion charging—as per the Henry tax reform report, and as per most who are trying to get better outcomes in road use funding models and the contribution back to things like public transport and local roads.

So if the idea is to once again just load up the heavy-transport sector, to once again load up those who produce the food and move the food—and move 80 per cent of the retail product to the homes of Australia—I am not interested, unless it is a comprehensive conversation around how we deliver better transport funding models across the board. We cannot keep picking off the truckies and leaving the rest of the conversation unaddressed. I know there are many in this House who will see that as political fodder, and probably attack me in the west of Sydney and in Melbourne, but if we are going to load up one sector, if we are going to load up regional Australia, if we are going to load up the trucking industry, we have to have a much better conversation across the board about how we tax and transfer in the transport sector, and in the public transport sector, than we have today.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll be running soon!

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

It will all be a tragedy. I will be delighted to enter that debate. I know that the member in question was here over the weekend. The member resides along the Pacific Highway and I am absolutely delighted to see that the Independents, Rob Oakeshott, who actually has the Pacific Highway running through his seat, and I, are the cause of this great largesse that is going to be expended by the National Party, if in fact they do come to power at the next election. There seems to be some degree of debate about that in today's press.

I was so chuffed I left a message on the member for Lyne's phone to suggest that the Independents had had such a significant impact on these people that at a federal conference they would announce that they had even moved the Pacific Highway into my seat so that they can fund it and, in a theoretical sense, it will get rid of me at the next poll. I congratulate you, Member for Lyne. The recognition of the brand 'Independent' in this particular case is an outstanding one. I think the community along the Pacific Highway, as has quite rightly been pointed out, has been taken for granted for many years by past governments. It is on the agenda with both the current government and possibly with a future government, if they do come to power.

I would like the shadow minister for transport, if he could, to clarify the portion of the Pacific Highway that actually does go through my electorate so that I can make some release on the funding stream that will come across to what I call the New England Highway, but apparently it is being renamed.

Safety is a very important issue for the road transport industry. Irrespective of whether or not we agree with the Transport Workers' Union or various players within the industry, such owners of large fleets, all of us recognise the pressures that owner-drivers, particularly, and others, are put under from time to time in the delivery of their products. I am delighted to see that $40 million out of these funds was going towards safety—lay-bys et cetera—that the road transport industry can take advantage of. In my discussions with the minister for transport he has indicated that another $10 million will go towards the livestock and road transport industry, particularly in relation to sale yard safety, loading ramps, wash-down bays, the sort of things that the industry for many years has been crying out for. Even though, in a sense, this is about cost recovery—and the various states and the Commonwealth have agreed to that—part of that cost recovery is a benefit back to those industry groups that are using the roads and have been subjected to quite great stresses in terms of safety. Whether it is wash-down bays, loading ramps or gates at sale yards where trucks are loaded, there will be an additional funding, which I think will be announced in December, available to various shires and interest groups and the industry itself to apply for to incorporate into the benefit that will flow to the industry in terms of safety.

I am very pleased to have been associated with this. I believe that the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association, the CEO of which is Philip Halton, will be indicating by way of press release some of the issues they have raised—legitimate issues—through this process. I am pleased to see that they have been able to obtain some recompense for some of the issues they raised in terms of this additional $10 million, as well as the $40 million that was also going to be made available out of this funding, to go towards shoring up lay-bys and making sure that the roads are safer, particularly for the heavy vehicle road users, who use the system so effectively.

In conclusion, I refer people to a bit of historical documentation on this. We can all play the short-term game of politics, but there has been a fairly long established process that has been brought in by both sides of parliament. We need to try to adhere to those processes otherwise you have this convoluted tennis match going on where you can just score points against the other. It is quite obvious to me. I have great respect for Warren Truss. I hope he stays here and the other fellow stays where he is, because I think Australia would be better off with Warren Truss in this particular part of the parliament than some of the others who aspire to get here.

I say to Warren Truss that this is not the time to play a game with this particular process. This has obviously been adhered to by the states and territories and by the Commonwealth and I would be very reluctant to support bombing that process out. Hence I will not be supporting the disallowance.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Road User Charge Determination (No. 1) 2012. I come from the electorate of Grey, which is almost 1,000 kilometres across and 1,000 kilometres from top to bottom. Transport is the lifeblood of an electorate like Grey. We are an agricultural region and a mining region. We supply resources to the rest of the state and the nation, and we pay freight both ways, so any policy artificially increasing the price of freight has a very real impact on all of my communities, and not just the truckies that service them.

We in the coalition have concerns there is overcharging in the case of the new road users charge, which I will explain later on. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are dealing with a tax and spend government, a government that has spent itself into a very unviable position and is looking to try in any way possible to claw back any of the debt they have run up. Unfortunately, in this case it seems to be coming, at least partially, from the transport industry. The old sticker that we used to see on the back of windows that said 'Truckies carry Australia' is as true today as the day they were printed.

Just to give some framework to the road user charge, I would also like to have a brief look at the recent changes in state taxation for road users. From 1 July 2012—apart from a couple of states, it must be said—the fuel tax credit claimed by truck operators decreased from 15.043c to 12.643c per litre, and so the effective tax paid by the industry increased by 10.4 per cent from 23.1c to 25.5c a litre. There was also a decision to increase many truck and trailer registration charges, even though the registration charge on an A-trailer did fall. Registration charges for multicombination prime movers increased by almost 22 per cent, with the charge for a three-axle multicombination prime mover increasing by $1,693 from $7,764 in 2011-12 to $9,457 this year. The registration for many rigid trucks also increased substantially and the total registration charge for the trucks that really do service this area of Australia, my electorate—the nine-axle B-doubles—will fall $1,300 from the $15,000, but the registration charges for the triple road trains—and I might point out that B-doubles are not the flavour of the month in South Australia because we have the option of the B-triples—increased from $13,693 to $16,607.

It is certain the transport industry does not have a lot of friends in government, but it is also certain that there is a lot of public misinformation about trucks and truckies and the transport task in Australia. Truckies are constantly demonised for filling up the road with these monstrous great road trains. I point out to people that in the unfortunate case of an accident the effect of a car getting hit by a 22-tonne rigid tipper or a 90-tonne B-triple is exactly the same. If you do not have the B-triples on the road, you are going to have five to six times as many rigid tippers on the road. It would be a far more dangerous place. People should think about that argument before they start getting stuck into truckies. In fact, their safety record is very good. More often than not, when trucks are involved in an accident, it is not their fault.

Even before the carbon tax, which is set to give another effective 25 per cent increase to the road user charge in 2014, we have loaded up this industry. A large regional operator in the industry recently told me that, despite government rhetoric that transport will not pay carbon tax until 2014, since July almost all of his suppliers have raised prices, not blaming the carbon tax alone, it must be said, but citing the tax as part of the reason and taking the opportunity to lift prices. If they had solely blamed the carbon tax they would have the government and the ACCC on their backs. But the increases have been significant.

The Australian Trucking Association has maintained since day 1 that the mechanism used to calculate the road user charge is flawed, leading to overcharging to the tune of $700 million. I was listening to the member for Windsor's comments and he pointed to this side of the chamber and said we are playing politics because the House is hung. He said there is a process and we should follow it. But the problem is that the process is flawed. I would have thought that the member for Windsor would be backing a review of the process before these charges are implemented to make sure that we have the process right.

In effect, the National Transport Commission is using an estimate of truck numbers based on the 2008 figures. This figure is allocated to the entire vehicle fleet by analysing the survey of motor vehicle usage to determine how much should be collected from each vehicle class—that is, cars, each type of truck, motorbikes et cetera—taking into account size in passenger car units, weight, kilometres driven and the equivalent standard number of axles. Supposedly this allows the National Transport Commission to calculate how much is owed by the heavy vehicle industry for cost recovery.

However, the reality is that truck registrations are much higher than the survey of motor vehicle usage indicates—and it is not hard to find the correct figures. All NatRoad had to do was go to the state registration authorities and get the actual numbers. We do not need an estimate based on 2008 figures; we need the actual numbers. Why wouldn't the National Transport Commission use those actual numbers? It really does make one wonder if they are on the job.

If the number of registrations is higher, if there are more trucks on the road and their individual accounts are collected as a proportion of the total maintenance bill, obviously the collections will far exceed the required amount. That is not even an error; it is a dereliction of duty. If we are to raise taxes on the road by a significant amount, we should have the figures right. In fact, in South Australia alone, according to the National Transport Commission's formula, the government should collect $75.4 million. That is, if they went off the current registrations, the tax would be $75.4 million. However, based on the registration figures from 2008 extrapolated through to 2012 they will be collecting $110 million—a $35.6 million overrecovery. That is just in South Australia. The government's efforts to achieve national laws and regulation once again seem to be failing. These laws and regulations are not performing as we would all like them to and as I would hope the government would like them to do. Despite a majority of the ministers on the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure agreeing to the increase, various state governments have subsequently implemented alternative proposals. I have drifted onto the registration area, so I will continue and then come back to the road user charge. The ministers did disagree, and the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments, as I alluded to earlier, have implemented significantly lower registration increases. There is not a coherent view across all governments in Australia at the moment. Quite simply, this is a problem that should not have arisen.

It seems clear to me that the government, in establishing its total road maintenance figure, have used the amount of money that was spent on roads in Australia in the financial year. In that case, it includes much of the flood reparations in Queensland. Flood damage can hardly be blamed on the truckers of Australia. It was an act of God. The government have imposed a levy on all Australians to help pay for the flood damage, yet they have still rolled that figure into the total road repair bill for the year to establish the total cost. So it is misleading, mean and sneaky. Not only is the mechanism flawed, because there are more trucks on the road than the extrapolated figures indicate; the government has been inflating the amount of money—the total road rebuilding figure—that is spent within Australia by adding in the Queensland flood figures. That simply should not be part of the equation. This is the reason for the disallowance motion: the sums are not right.

The government are trying to claw back money from the stimulus package. Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, the stimulus package was about keeping the economy going. They are trying to draw back funds from the stimulus package and from the flood reparations and put them into the total road maintenance bill and say, 'This is what we spend on roads every year,' underestimating the number of trucks and then dividing it up between the truckies and the road. No wonder the trucking industry is not happy.

I support the disallowance motion because the increases in road user charges are based on dodgy modelling and are yet another example of a government seeking to cover its out-of-control spending.

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

I support the comments made by the member for Grey in relation to this road user charge determination disallowance motion moved by the member for Wide Bay. The member from Grey and I are from regional electorates and we do know about the cost of transport, we do know what job the trucking and transport industry does for us in regional areas and we do know that road transport is basically the artery of our lives, providing us with everything that we use, that we eat and that we build with. It is the artery of life in rural and regional Australia.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely right, member for Forrest!

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

Exactly. We do know, from listening to the member for Grey, that the government's modelling and process in coming to this increased cost are flawed. I will not go through it again, because the member for Grey has done so. I know not only that the transport sector is one of the most competitive in Australia but also that a lot of operators in my electorate—and, I suspect, right around Australia—are doing it particularly tough already. The question is: do they need another one of this government's taxes? No, they do not. They do not need to help this government recover all of its waste and mismanagement, but that is what they are being used for in this process.

We do know that there is an over-recovery in this program, and we heard the member for Grey express exactly what that was. I was very interested in one of the Independent's comments that additional funds for this would be used for other purposes. If it is just about cost recovery, why will additional funds be used for other purposes? Either it is overcharged or it is not. Either there is sufficient for cost recovery to go to the purpose intended or there is an additional amount being recovered from the transport industry to use for the government's alternative purposes because of the amount of money they have wasted right across the board.

For owner operators out there, truck drivers—I know a lot of them because I come from the industry—every single cent that adds to their cost of doing business means that they are less likely to be in business, or it is part of their profit margin that is very tight. It is an extremely competitive market and environment. We know that every single additional burden placed on the trucking companies and their drivers by this government is cumulative. They have seen it over and over and it has not stopped yet—we know the carbon tax will go directly onto fuel in 2014. They know this is just the next hike in taxes, not the last one.

The compounding impact on regional Australia is far greater than it is anywhere else. But unfortunately this government ignores regional Australia, does not consider how tough it is in regional Australia, does not consider the amount of kilometres we have to do both ways. My electorate is 12½ thousand square kilometres. So the tax applies both ways. It is 320 kilometres from Perth. The transport companies in my electorate travel thousands of kilometres interstate, and they are doing these kilometres day after day and night after night. That is what is required to get all that we need to us in rural and regional Australia. It does need those people to be on the road, to be committed to the work that they do and do well.

What we see is a never-ending litany of government red tape, compliance, tax upon tax, and fees and charges. It is making the transport business not only more expensive but very difficult to manage. We know, as I said earlier, that the transport sector is the lifeblood of rural and regional Australia. It delivers the staples of life. The government seems to forget that. In rural and regional areas, we do not have choice. If it does not come on the back of a truck to us, it does not come—we do not have it; it does not arrive. Australia's 597,000 trucks travel 16.1 billion kilometres a year. It is an industry that employs 220,000 people. It is an extremely vital industry that we in regional areas know we cannot do without. We cannot walk around the corner to a shop. But even if we did, I guarantee you, even in a city, the majority of goods are delivered on the back of a truck—and those people go all night. I drive constantly throughout my electorate and I have enormous respect for the industry—not just because I was brought up in the industry but because I see those men and women on the road at all hours of the day and night doing a great job for Australia.

Western Australia has had the highest growth of total interstate road freight—from, to and through—from 1972 to 2007. As I said, my family is in the road transport, heavy haulage and earthmoving sector. Ay father was a pioneer of cartage, contracting and earthmoving in the south-west of Western Australia and my broader family is still involved. We were a small business—and my brother is still involved. I know that every single cent that adds to a small business is a cost that basically means they are less profitable, less able to stay in business. I understand exactly what every additional cent of cost adds to this industry and to these individuals.

Way back in 2007, Australian trucks transported 277 million tonnes of food and animals around our nation. Both the diesel fuel excise rise and the carbon tax will add cost to every single tonne, as will this road user charge. From what I can understand from listening to the debate today, a fair proportion of this is not going to cost recovery; it is going to go into consolidated revenue and be used for a range of purposes. We know that from what we have heard in the debate today. So that does not stack up. As the member for Grey mentioned, there is an overcharge of $700 million. We know that it has been a flawed process.

The minister gave a fairly shocking rant earlier, I must say. The minister has never worked in this industry and does not understand how it works and what it takes on the ground. I would say that owner-drivers will find it very difficult to manage this additional cost impost in spite of what the minister said earlier. In my electorate there are people like Collie Freightlines delivering daily general freight between Perth and the south-west. Whether you are a courier, or delivering waste bins or involved in freight of any sort, in freight and haulage every cent matters and every additional cost matters.

In spite of what the minister said, not every state minister agrees with this. The transport minister in Western Australia, Troy Buswell, who, incidentally, comes from my electorate, very directly understands the cost. He expressed his concern at those meetings about the additional cost for the transport sector in Western Australia. He understands our distances. Western Australia is a huge state where every additional sent in fuel costs has an impact.

What I have got back from my industry is about the additional cost of not only this but also the carbon tax. They know that this is going to add cost from 2014. It will come in the form of the reduction in the diesel fuel rebate of nearly 7c a litre. We are not talking fish and chips here. In anybody's terms, that is an awful lot of money in a fuel bill in any operator's situation. You know the number of litres it takes for the freight task in this nation—and this is 7c a litre on the truck transport sector from 2014. So that is what they have got to look forward to—and I am sure they are excited about that. And they are expected to absorb this. These are people who have already spent money on the Euro 5 and Euro 6 engines—they are applying the blue to their engines—and often the actual air that goes in comes out cleaner. They are doing their bit, and have done so for a long time. But they are going to have to pay a second time. We have got the road user charge and we have got the carbon tax as well. Any truck drivers out there watching this would literally be spitting chips. There is also an assumption that they are making great profits and can absorb this and the carbon tax easily.

I have seen the effect of this in my part of the world with Giacci's, Leeuwin Transport, Livestock Transporters, AgSpread, Couriers, Meeres, Dino's Bulk Haulage, Cawara Transport, Piacentini's, Catalano's—all of them. South West Express, a local transport company based in Bunbury, has already been hit by the carbon tax—through refrigerant. They have three trucks whose cooling units have broken down and needed to be replaced. The cost of the refrigerant has gone up by $75 a kilo—and from July, following the imposition of the carbon tax, the cost of replacement gas is going to be $750 more! That is just one example of how this is affecting South West Express.

And they are not the only ones. The amount of refrigerated transport that has to run from the city areas right through to the country areas and interstate is significant. Whereas it might previously have cost South West Express $500 to regas each of their new trucks, it is now over $1,000 a unit. So we are seeing layer upon layer of costs and the government just keeps adding to that—taxing and increasing costs for the transport sector. Some of them can pass on the costs and some of them cannot—in particular, small businesses. And consumers who need to regas their car will find out exactly what this does as well. So on top of the 2.4c a litre rise in the diesel fuel excise this will mean greater costs and greater impact in regional areas. It is that compounding effect in regional Australia that the government just does not understand or does not want to understand—I am not sure which. It does not understand or it does not want to understand. We just keep loading up and adding cost to regional and rural businesses and regional and rural Australians. How much of a load does this government expect us to bear out in regional Australia? It is just compounding, and there is almost an absolute disrespect in the way that this government handles issues affecting rural and regional Australia.

As I said, perhaps the government could argue that we should be grateful for the two-year delay regarding the fuel excise. After all, we do know that mining, marine and rail services are all paying this additional tax right now. They are paying that right now. But someone should really point out to the Prime Minister that mining, oil and gas production and fishing generally take place in regional areas, so the impact is direct. I do not know where the government thinks Western Australia's wheat, gas and iron will come from if not a rural and regional area.

Concerns have been highlighted, also, by the Australian Trucking Association, who did not support these reforms, for so many reasons. The most worrying impact would be as a result of location charging, where it would appear that rural and regional Australia will suffer the consequences. They get it. They operate in our part of the world. They are part of us. They understand the impacts that this will have on them, their businesses, their drivers. I really want to stand up for the smaller operators in this discussion today. As I said earlier, it is the staples of life that the transport industry delivers to every Australian. Those of us who live in regional areas have enormous respect for that. We see these men and women working day and night to deliver the staples of life that we need, that we cannot do without.

We hear a lot of complaints about truck drivers, and we do know that a lot of those are totally inaccurate. I would say in this place that I have enormous respect for those who work in this industry in any form of the transport, freight, heavy haulage and earthmoving sector. I understand the job you do for us. Yes, my family has been and is part of it. That is quite possibly the reason why I have a far greater understanding than this government and many members on the opposite side.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this disallowance motion because it is the coalition who understands the difficulty the transport industry is facing at the moment. It is the coalition that understands the stresses that are imposed on small business. We recognise that many small business operators have their house on the line. Every time that truck goes out it has to make a profit because they have repayments to make, they have the bank to keep happy. It is a very difficult environment.

And what does this government do when businesses are facing falling traffic volumes, falling freight volumes and falling profitability? It increases the road user charge by some 10.4 per cent. That is the action of a government that does not understand business. That is the action of a government that does not understand the fact that the heavy lifting in the freight task is done by the heavy haulage industry, that every item we export begins its journey on a local road. It is transported—so much of it—on the back of a truck. Rail has its place in the transport task but, unfortunately, road will still be doing the major part of the heavy lifting, particularly in regional and rural Australia.

Those regional electorates will be facing and bearing the biggest brunt of this cost increase that will be passed on. It will be impossible, given business conditions at the moment, for businesses to absorb increased transport costs. Businesses are too competitive. The environment is too competitive. But, rather than listen to the concerns of business, we have a government pushing up the road user charge by 10.4 per cent. That is why the coalition, in introducing this disallowance motion, is bringing some common sense to this debate. We need a viable road transport industry. We need viable trucking operators. We need to support small business. We need to keep transport costs as low as possible because it is vitally important for the people of regional Australia and the Australian economy more generally.

We saw the coalition at the weekend, at the national party conference, pledging to invest $5.6 billion in the Pacific Highway to make our freight task more efficient, to make the transport industry more efficient—$5.6 billion, $2 billion of new money. It took the coalition in opposition to commit the funds that are needed to finish the Pacific Highway. We have a government that pledged funds in the budget and we had the member for Lyne come out and say he had expended all this political capital on securing certain concessions in the budget. But what really happened was not a budget commitment. It was a hoax; it was a confidence trick. Because that $3.5 billion commitment depended on matching funding from the state—funding that the states did not have. It was a cruel hoax on the people who live on the North Coast.

We had that same budget announcement supported by the member for Page, also supporting the cruel hoax. The member for Page knew, the member for Lyne knew and the government knew that the state government could not match that funding, and there was a $2 billion hole. That caused a $2 billion hole in that commitment, because the state in financial difficulty just could not match it.

There is a clear choice in the election that is coming up, between the coalition, who are committing $5.6 billion in real money, and the Labor Party and the member for Lyne and the member for Page, who are peddling an illusion. The difference is in the order of $4 billion. A vote for Labor and the member for Lyne and the member for Page at the next election is a vote to have $4 billion less committed to the Pacific Highway. A vote for the coalition is an additional $4 billion over what the current government and what the Independents and what the member for Page are promising to commit to the project. It was a cruel hoax; it was a confidence trick. The current minister for transport knew the states could not match the funding. So he thought he was on pretty safe ground. He could claim the moral high ground—'We're putting extra funding into the Pacific Highway'—in the full knowledge that that funding would not be drawn down because of the condition he put on that it had to be matched dollar for dollar by the state of New South Wales, and he knew that that was just not going to happen. The people in my electorate and the people on the North Coast know the importance of the Pacific Highway to the freight transport task and to safe travel along the highway. They know the importance of getting those heavy vehicles out of the main street. They know the benefits in transport time and travel time that will be achieved through an improved highway. But what did we have? We had the government, with the support of the Independents, contriving a confidence trick—to be seen putting money into the highway when, in fact, the investment was going to be substantially less because New South Wales could not match the funding. That shows the depth of their commitment: a $4 billion gap now between what the coalition will put into the highway and what the Independents, the member for Page and the government are going to put into the highway. It is a gap in our productivity.

A completed Pacific Highway will mean greater national productivity. It will mean a massive return on investment in the funds already invested in the road by reducing travel time. It is a project that is welcomed not only by people on the east coast but also by the entire country, because we are increasing the productivity of our nation through improved transport. I welcome the opportunity to talk on this disallowance motion. Reducing costs to the transport sector is vital. Having a more sensible approach to the road-user charge, as proposed by the coalition, is an important step in providing some relief to the transport industry and at the same balancing the need for some degree of increase in the road-user charge—but one that is manageable, not 10.4 per cent, which is not a manageable increase. That flies in the face of business doing it tough. That flies in the face of common sense.

We also see the transport industry, I am sure, looking forward to 2014. We will have the member for Lyne, if he is re-elected, the member for New England and the member for Page queuing up to vote for a carbon tax on the heavy vehicle industry, to put further burden on the transport industry—to make it that much tougher. Not happy with a 10.4 per cent increase in the road-user charge today they will be backing up their cart again to put more burden on the transport industry and to have a carbon tax on heavy transport as of 2014. That is a further burden that this industry cannot afford to bear. So they should hang their heads in shame that they would propose a carbon tax that is going to ultimately be foisted on the road-transport industry.

Again, as with the Pacific Highway, people have a clear choice. A vote for the coalition is a vote to get rid of the carbon tax. It is a vote to take pressure off the transport industry and a vote for a party, a coalition, that knows what the transport industry needs, that knows how small business works and that knows we need to have an efficient transport sector free from the cost burdens that this government seeks to impose. I look forward to this disallowance motion being voted on in the House. It is very important that the motion is successful, because we have a government that is out of touch—out of touch with the transport sector, out of touch with the needs of small business and out of touch with ordinary Australians. Through proposing a 10.4 per cent increase in the road-user charge they just make it even more clear how out of touch they are.

Question put.