Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

In fact, Senator Xenophon, I did actually check the same thing with the clerks before I started. We can discuss them together but vote separately.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1)    Schedule 3, item 4, page 5 (after line 25), at the end of section 43-10, add:

      (11)    In determining the *road user charge, the *Transport Minister must not apply a method for indexing the charge.

(2)    Schedule 3, item 4, page 5 (after line 25), at the end of section 43-10, add:

      (12)    The *Transport Minister must not make more than one determination in a financial year if the effect of the determination would be to increase the *road user charge more than once in that financial year.

(3)    Schedule 3, item 4, page 5 (after line 25), at the end of section 43-10, add:

      (13)    A determination made under this section must not take effect earlier than the first day after the end of the period in which the determination may be disallowed under Part 5 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

(4)    Schedule 3, page 5 (after line 25), after item 4, insert:

4A  After section 43-10

Insert:

43-15 Determining the road user charge

        (1)    The *road user charge must be based on the figure (the net figure) that is the difference between:

             (a)    the amount of government expenditure on construction and maintenance of public roads that is allocated to heavy vehicles; and

             (b)    the amount of government revenue raised through registration of heavy vehicles and other charges imposed as a direct result of heavy vehicle use.

Note:   Government revenue, government expenditure and heavy vehicle are defined in subsection (8).

        (2)    The rate of the *road user charge must not be increased unless:

             (a)    the net figure has increased since the date the existing road user charge became effective; and

             (b)    an average of at least 50 additional heavy vehicle rest areas have been constructed each year on the National Land Transport Network, as defined in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005, since the date the existing road user charge became effective; and

             (c)    the type of rest areas constructed, their spacing and amenities are consistent with the goal that rest areas in the National Land Transport Network will comply by 2019 with the recommendations in the National Guidelines for the Provision of Rest Area Facilities Final Report, Revised November 2005, prepared by the National Transport Commission; and

(d) substantial harmonisation has been achieved in State and Territory transport regulations, including heavy vehicle fatigue reform measures; and

             (e)    Infrastructure Australia has advised the *Transport Minister in writing that:

                   (i)    the matters referred to in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) have occurred, or will have occurred, at the date the proposed increase in the road user charge is to become effective; and

                  (ii)    the construction of heavy vehicle rest areas makes reasonably adequate provision for current and future use by high-productivity vehicles; and

Note:   Infrastructure Australia’s functions include functions conferred by laws other than its enabling Act―see paragraph 5(2)(k) of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008.

              (f)    the Transport Minister has released publicly, at least 60 days before making a determination under this section (the public consultation period), the net figure mentioned in subsection (3), all the expenditure figures and revenue estimates, statistics, formulas, methods, models, and inputs used to calculate the net figure, the advice of Infrastructure Australia referred to in paragraph (e) and a statement explaining the reasons for the proposed rate increase, and has called for submissions; and

             (g)    the Transport Minister has had regard to submissions received within the public consultation period.

        (3)    The arterial road and other expenditure figures provided by the Commonwealth, States and Territories and released in accordance with paragraph (4)(f) must contain a statement of verification by the Auditor-General in the jurisdiction to which the figures relate.

        (4)    In this section:

government expenditure means the amounts of expenditure by the Commonwealth, States, Territories and local governments for a financial year calculated in real terms as averages over a seven-year period using the latest:

             (a)    available arterial road expenditure figures provided by each of the States and Territories; and

             (b)    local road expenditure information based on Australian Bureau of Statistics figures.

government revenue means the total of the amount of revenue expected to be raised by each of the Commonwealth, States, Territories and local governments in the financial year immediately following the date the determination made under this section is to commence.

heavy vehicle means a vehicle with a gross vehicle mass of more than 4.5 tonnes.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

These amendments are framed as requests because they are to a bill which imposes taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

As this is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendment to the bill must be moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

I have briefly mentioned what are now amendments (1), (2) and (3). I have explained them but, if the government has an opposition to them and indicates that opposition, I will perhaps take the argument further. Suffice to say, we just want it made absolutely clear that indexation will not be used. In the second amendment, we want to make it absolutely clear that the government cannot do more than one determination in a financial year. In amendment (3)—and I think we are doing this more or less to help the government in the administration of this whole scheme—we want to make sure that if the charge does go up it is not actually collected until after the 15-day disallowance period. That just seems to make good common sense and will not leave us in the situation where we would have been with the increased excise on alcopops. I hope those three amendments are relatively simple to understand, and I will not take the time of the Senate by arguing them further at this stage.

I will move on to amendment (4) and explain it particularly to the crossbenchers. This amendment accepts that, at the moment, the road user charge has gone up to 21c. This amendment talks about the rate of the road user charge in the future. The amendment says the rate of the road user charge must not be increased unless certain things happen. Paragraph (a) lists one of those things—what we call the net figure—and says: ‘the net figure has increased since the date the existing road user charge became effective’. I refer senators to the first paragraph of our amendment (4), which defines what the net figure is. Effectively, without going into a very technical description, the net figure is the figure that represents the difference between what has been collected from the trucking industry by federal, state and local governments over the relevant period minus what has been spent on roads by all levels of government in that same period. We are saying that we have to show that the governments are spending more on roads, fixing them up, than they are collecting in revenue from the trucking industry. It is one way—quite a clever way, I might say to those who drafted this for the shadow minister in the other house—of making sure that these funds do go to help the trucking industry.

Paragraph (b) of amendment (4) says:

(4) The rate of the *road user charge must not be increased unless:

             (b)    an average of at least 50 additional heavy vehicle rest areas have been constructed each year on the National Land Transport Network, as defined in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005, since the date the existing road user charge became effective; and

I know other senators and other parties are very keen about heavy vehicle safety—the minister has made speeches about this—and the provision of rest areas. I think all senators understand that the national guidelines for the provision of rest areas, facilitated by the National Transport Commission in 2005, require a major rest area every 100 kilometres, with sufficient parking for 20 trucks. They also provide that there must be a minor rest area every 50 kilometres, with parking for up to 10 trucks, and a truck parking bay every 30 kilometres with enough space for four or five trucks so that their drivers can do safety checks.

Senators would know that independent government research agency Austroads recently audited Australia’s major highways against those guidelines. The report released in March this year showed that none of the audited routes met the national guidelines and 60 per cent of the audited routes had substantial deficiencies. There were particular problems in my home state of Queensland and in the Northern Territory.

The highways named as having the worst deficiencies included the New England, Mitchell, Great Western, Barrier and Princes highways in New South Wales; the Calder, Princes and Sturt highways in Victoria; the Bruce, Cunningham, New England and Gore highways in Queensland; the Barrier, Dukes, Eyre and Sturt highways in South Australia; the Great Eastern, Coolgardie-Esperance and Eyre highways in Western Australia; the Bass Highway in Tasmania; and the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory. Only about half of the major rest areas on the Hume and Pacific highways met the spacing requirements of the guidelines. Because we are pressed for time, I will not elaborate on that. I am sure that all senators taking part in this debate understand how awful the position is on rest areas and how difficult it is for truck drivers to get the proper rest and proper facilities that they need.

Our proposed section 43-15(2)(b) requires that an average of at least 50 additional heavy vehicle rest areas be constructed each year. Some may say, ‘How do you prove that?’ If you look down to proposed subsection (2)(e), you will see that we are requiring Infrastructure Australia—the body that has just been set up by the government and which is completely and absolutely independent, or so we have been told—to be the judge of whether 50 additional heavy vehicle rest areas have been constructed each year. It is a workable way of ensuring that the heavy vehicle rest areas, which I know all senators support, are actually built. Too often over history we have seen governments putting up taxes and charges, saying, ‘We are going to use those for good purposes,’ and the moneys just getting lost in general revenue, just becoming another revenue source, and not going to where the problem is. We want to make sure through these requests—and I do not think that the government could argue with them—that the promise to construct these rest areas is actually carried out and provided for in the act.

In proposed subsection (2)(c) of request (4) we talk about the type of rest areas being ‘consistent with the goal that rest areas in the National Land Transport Network comply with the recommendations’ in the national guidelines for the provision of rest areas that I mentioned previously. In this way, we can make sure that happens. In proposed subsection (2)(d), we are saying that road user charges cannot increase unless ‘substantial harmonisation has been achieved in state and territory transport regulations, including heavy vehicle fatigue reform measures’. All state governments and the federal government have agreed that there must be harmonisation. I think that the government will say to us, ‘Look, substantial harmonisation is already happening.’ We concede that there have been some moves towards it. But what we want to ensure by this legislation is not just a state government saying, ‘Yes, we’re gonna do it; we’re gonna do it.’ We want to have some control over the fact that they actually do it, so we are putting in this provision about substantial harmonisation. You may well ask, ‘How are you going to judge that?’ Again, we are asking Infrastructure Australia to make the assessment of whether there has been substantial harmonisation. If the government are telling us that there is substantial harmonisation then they will not in any way object to this clause going in—because, as they say, it is happening anyhow. This will just give us the confidence that it is there.

The next provision of request (4) is about Infrastructure Australia having to look at the previous three things I mentioned. I will not spend any more time on that. It seems to me that that is a reasonable and practical way of ensuring that any increase in the tax is properly spent. Proposed subsections (2)(f) and (2)(g) relate not to the road user charge as such but back to proposed subsection (1)—that net figure. Putting it in shorthand, that is the difference between what all governments collect from the trucking industry less what all governments pay in construction of facilities for the trucking industry. Proposed subsections (f) and (g) are just saying that to get to that figure you have to do some calculations. We are just saying that the minister must release the details of how he came to the net figure. That seems quite reasonable.

Proposed subsection (3) of request (4) says that the details of what the Commonwealth, states and territories spend on roads have to be verified by the Auditor-General. That is a reasonable request. We take the states’ words for it, providing it is confirmed by the Auditor-General. That seems to be a reasonable request. Proposed subsection (4) is simply definitions of ‘government expenditure’ and ‘government revenue’ in relation to that net figure I spoke about. It can be read by senators, but ‘government expenditure’:

… means the amounts of expenditure by the Commonwealth, States, Territories and local governments for a financial year calculated in real terms as averages over a seven-year period using the latest:

(a) available arterial road expenditure figures provided by each of the States and Territories—

it is not terribly onerous to get that, and—

(b) local road expenditure information based on Australian Bureau of Statistics figures.

Again, it is a doable and practical way of getting to that figure. ‘Government revenue’ is defined as:

… the total of the amount of revenue expected to be raised by each of the Commonwealth, States, Territories and local governments in the financial year immediately following the date the determination made under this section is to commence.

‘Heavy vehicle’ is defined in the ordinary way.

I think requests (1), (2) and (3) are uncontroversial, and I would urge all other senators to support them. Request (4) is really just making sure that the extra moneys charged do not get lost in consolidated revenue but are actually spent on the highways. We also, by the same provision, want to make sure that we move towards harmonisation. The government will say, ‘We are only going to spend any increase on these things anyhow and we are going to have harmonisation.’ My urging to them is this: you are going to do it anyway, so why not put it in the bill so that we can all be assured that that will happen?