David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I will just respond to Senator Cameron. I take it that by moving amendments (8), (1), (4) and (9) on 7477 the opposition is adopting the Greens amendment? This is very similar to Greens amendments (8), (1), (4) and (9) on 7495. We will be opposing these amendments. They propose a definition for heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects to allow the amendments to support amendment (7) to have effect, as we have dealt with. These amendments provide for heavy vehicle projects. This provision is totally unnecessary and I do believe that the opposition understands that.

It still insists on eight pages of amendments to provide for a separate section on the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, which is a program that is already provided for under legislation. Creating an entirely new section on heavy vehicle projects duplicates existing provisions in parts 3 and 6 of the current act. Parts 3 and 6 are being combined in this bill to reduce red tape, to reduce duplication and to streamline the operation of the act. But it is important to understand the government sees heavy vehicle administration in public policy as a very important responsibility and an important program. It has committed more funding to that program than ever the opposition did when it was in government.

These amendments create cumbersome, burdensome and expensive red tape. The opposition and their allies in the Greens are about creating regulatory burdens and not reducing them. There is not a regulation that they have ever seen that they did not want to like or add into legislation. That is what they are doing here. This group of amendments does not value-add one iota in terms of heavy vehicle safety and productivity. It just creates more process and compliance burdens.

Heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects are already catered for in the current legislation. These provisions place additional reporting obligations on funding recipients, on top of the audit and financial reporting already required. Road accident data is already collected by the bureau of infrastructure and regional development, which is a well-respected research organisation. If these amendments were to be supported, funding recipients will have to do all of this work, effectively repeating the data collection that is already taking place. What is the point of that? If the desire is to make mum-and-dad trucking businesses work longer hours for absolutely no benefit, then this should be supported. Please, do not support it. Please, crossbenchers, do not support these amendments. We do not want to increase the burden, particularly to small and medium enterprises and family businesses.

The opposition talks about being committed to productivity, but here we have evidence that what they want to achieve actually heads in the opposite direction, ensuring project proponents are doing the work that is already being done by government. I have heard claims that unless heavy vehicle projects are given their own section in the act there is no guaranteed funding. The opposition has been predictably and habitually misleading in dealing with this bill, providing crossbenchers with the string of erroneous so-called facts on the bill. The facts are these. This bill is about a very minor amendment to a very successful act; extending—as I have said on several occasions—much-needed funding to the Roads to Recovery program; changing the name of the act; and, reducing red tape. It is very, very simple.

The Greens and the opposition have colluded on these pointless amendments to jam up the operation of the progress of this vital funding. I have no doubt the crossbenchers are somewhat drawn in two different directions, and, as time goes by, they are coming to grips with a multitude of legislation and process. I want them to be very, very careful that what is happening here is understood by them. This bill is simple. It is about funding local government. What is being sought in these particular amendments, with respect to the heavy vehicle program, are entirely pointless and misleading.

To ensure that the program would receive funding under legislation, all Mr Albanese needed to do was to amend the definition of 'road' in this act and that is exactly what he did. In 2008, he introduced the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill to add to the definition of 'road' in section 4. I quote:

(va) a facility off the road used by heavy vehicles in connection with travel on the road (for example, a rest area or weigh station);

So what this amendment seeks to do has been done. Mr Albanese knew that it was not necessary to include it in a full, separate section. It was necessary then and it clearly is not necessary now.

The government is committed to a number of other programs that are not provided separate legislation or status in the legislation. If the heavy vehicle program were to be included, then, for consistency, and to ensure no doubt about the status of those other programs, we would probably also need to include them in the legislation. That is the incongruous nature of these misconceived amendments. This could potentially add up to 40 pages of unnecessary process to the bill. The government is committed to reducing red tape, not creating it. These other programs include the Bridges Renewal Programme, the managed motorways program, the regional roads program and the national highways program. Not one of these is named in the legislation.

Simply naming a program in legislation does not guarantee its funding. Funding is appropriated by a parliament through the budget process. In this case, we are absolutely committed to funding projects under the heavy vehicle program and money was appropriated for that program by the parliament in July. If the opposition amendments were to be agreed to, funding to this program would be held up because the guidelines under which applicants are applying would be inconsistent with the legislation. Applications for the fourth round close on 28 August—that is, today.

Changing the status of this funding round will create uncertainty for the applicants as well as waste time and money for those applicants, for local and state governments and for our hardworking officers inside the federal government. Having said that, I hope I have established, particularly with the crossbenchers, that these amendments are completely counterproductive to common sense and to achieving what the bill achieves—that is, the funding of local governments for the Roads to Recovery program.