Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

The debate on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 centres around road charges for trucks and how the cost of trucks using the road system can be recovered in the future. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 is now relatively uncontroversial. It is intended to establish a more uniform system of truck registration charges across Australia. But the road charges bill is more contentious. It sets a charge that is collected from truck drivers through the cost of every litre of petrol. Family First approaches the road charges bill with a number of concerns. Firstly, as a general principle trucks should pay their own way and the charges imposed on them should be fair in relation to the costs of the road network. Secondly, we need a fair and transparent system for truckies so that they can pay their own way. But the way the charges are determined should be clear and truckies should have a chance to provide feedback to the government. Thirdly, there is a need for money for truck rest stops to improve the safety of trucks on the road. That should include a review of the government’s heavy-vehicle safety productivity package.

Family First has been in negotiations with the government over the last couple of weeks to find a way to achieve these aims. Most would agree it is fair that truckies should pay a road user charge that covers the general cost of the use of the roads. But the government tells me that the road user charge for trucks has fallen behind and trucks have not been covering that cost for a number of years. The bill is important because it increases the road user charge for trucks from 19.6c per litre of fuel to 21c a litre, moving the road user charge back towards full cost recovery.

The next question is: how best do we make sure that the road user charge continues to keep pace with the cost of trucks using the roads? The government proposed a system of automatic indexation, by regulation, which would see the charge being automatically increased each year according to a formula and a system of consultation. Family First was concerned that a system set up through regulation takes the annual decision away from parliament and that parliament would not have an opportunity to stop increases in the charge if they were unreasonable. Family First has argued with the government for a system whereby parliament has the chance to prevent a change in the road user charge if it is an unreasonable change. The road user charge is, in effect, a charge on trucks for using the roads. It is a ‘rear-mirror tax’, with trucks now paying a charge for the previous year’s use of the roads. Changes in taxes generally come before parliament for consideration, so it is reasonable for changes to the road user charge to come before parliament as a determination which can be considered and disallowed if deemed to be unfair.

Family First has also been in negotiation with the government to improve the transparency and fairness of road user charges. Family First wants a 60-day consultation period so that truckies and other members of the public can make their views known on any proposed increase in the road user charge before the minister makes a final decision. Family First has also urged the government to spend more money on truck rest stops to improve the safety of our roads. The National Transport Commission estimated that, in one year alone, truck driver fatigue was a possible cause of 33 fatal accidents and more than 3,000 other crashes.

The National Transport Commission has issued a set of national guidelines for the provision of rest areas stating that there should be six to 12 rest areas for every 100 kilometres of road, depending upon whether the road is a single or dual carriageway. An audit of major highways found that none of the highways met the guidelines and the majority had major deficiencies. In Victoria, for example, the Sturt Highway, which runs through north-west Victoria and is a major connection between Sydney and Adelaide, has a lack of major and minor rest areas. There is also a need for a number of projects, including construction of rest areas on the Western Highway between Nhill and the South Australian border, and upgrades to existing rest stops on the Hume Highway between Wodonga and Melbourne. Additional rest stops on the Princess Highway/Freeway and the Calder Highway/Freeway are also necessary. All this of course costs money. The government’s heavy vehicle safety productivity package has allocated $70 million for additional truck stops. Family First has urged the government to increase that funding to improve the safety of all drivers on our roads.

The Australian Trucking Association estimates that 900 more rest areas are needed across the Auslink national highway network to meet the National Transport Commission’s minimum guidelines. Truck drivers have a hard slog working long hours and driving long distances. They need adequate rest stops to ensure they get the breaks they need and to ensure improved safety for all road users. This is about keeping families safe on the road. We have all had trucks thunder along near us on the roads and we have all been concerned about our safety in case of an accident.

Extra truck stops give drivers an opportunity to stop and rest and make our roads safer for everyone. Family First believes in the general principle that trucks should pay their fair share generally and that trucks should generally pay for the wear and tear they cause on the roads, but this should not be a blank cheque for the government. There needs to be a transparent and fair process for determining the road user charge. Family First believes that this bill needs to be amended to achieve the right balance between allowing the government to increase road charges and allowing truck users to comment on and test the fairness of those charges.