Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Road User Charge Determination 2008 (No. 1), made under the Fuel Tax Act 2006, be disallowed.

This government made a lot of noise during the election campaign about reducing the costs for working families—just as we have heard them say over the last few days. I think it is appropriate that Australia has focused on a couple of Labor’s promises and a couple of the assertions that they made throughout the election campaign and before the budget, particularly the assertion that they are all about reducing pressure on Australian families. When I came to this place a little while ago and we debated the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008, it was very disturbing to find that that legislation in fact does absolutely the opposite thing. It is very unfortunate for Australians that the Labor Party’s actions have certainly not matched their rhetoric.

One of the very earliest actions of this government was to overhaul the registration charges that apply to the trucking industry by introducing the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008. My colleagues and I have some concerns over the changes imposed by the legislation. We are specifically concerned about the significant increases in the registration charges for heavy transport. These increases fall heavily on productive multicombination vehicles—B-doubles and B-triples. People who live in the northern parts of Australia or those areas where much of the road transport takes place would recognise that these are a part of everyday life, because they are the most efficient way to transport goods around Australia. I will just give an example of the outrageous nature of these registration charges. The B-doubles are going to increase from a bit over $8,000 to $14,340—no small amount. That of course includes a multicombination prime mover charge of $7,050. B-triple charges will skyrocket to over $20,340—and, again, that is with the $7,050 multicombination prime mover charge. This is a government who committed to increasing productivity, so it absolutely beggars belief that it would then come into this place and target and penalise the most productive end of the transport industry.

Additionally, this government is applying a formula that mysteriously links increases in registration charges not to CPI but to the cost of improving and maintaining roads. With any other cost, we would simply say, ‘We need to index this to CPI,’ because that is the normal and reasonable thing to do, but these increases in charges are being indexed to the cost of repairing and maintaining roads. And, as you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, the cost of repairing roads is in fact linked to the cost of oil. Bitumen is the primary ingredient and that is of course linked very closely to the cost of oil—which has also skyrocketed. It is almost a double jeopardy situation for those people who are relying on the transport industry to deliver goods and those people who are part of that transport industry itself.

But the increase in the registration charges is not what I am actually challenging in this disallowance motion today. In addition to increasing the vehicle registration charges, the government has increased excise tax on diesel fuel from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre, and it has linked further tax increases to the same formula used for vehicle registration charges. In other words, indexation of the fuel excise is back. That concerns me a bit. It seems to me that those on the other side have tried to sneak this through. I thought they were the ones who were saying that they would ensure that fuel prices would go down—yet the first thing they do when they come into this place is introduce a piece of legislation to put the price of fuel up. There is no mystery to that. That is exactly what this legislation seeks to do. It seeks to put the price of fuel up.

The Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, has said: ‘I will get fuel prices down. In the budget, I will make sure that fuel prices go down.’ And here we have a piece of legislation before us that says: ‘Senate, we want you to pass this legislation so that we can put fuel prices up.’ It absolutely beggars belief! The original indexation of fuel excise was introduced by the Keating government and was then abolished by the Howard government in 2001—a seven-year absence. It is now back and it is pegged to a formula that will lock in a tax grab even bigger than the CPI. It is linked to these very esoteric issues about the price of oil and that sort of stuff that actually links this to the cost of roads.

The government could have introduced this tax increase in a number of ways, but they have chosen to do it almost on the sly by introducing, on 13 March 2008, a regulation under the Fuel Tax Act 2006. One would normally expect those opposite to have some sort of a major fanfare. There would normally be trumpets and often small children are involved. There would normally be a lot of cameras and the press are normally encouraged to attend. There would also normally be plenty of media statements about ‘this wonderful piece of legislation we are rolling out’. We are starting to get used to the spin of government. Instead, almost like a bunch of Senate ninjas, they have decided to creep into this place hoping it will somehow slip under the radar. But I am happy to say that those on this side are alive and awake, and we are very much onto the Labor Party in this matter. If Labor thought that they could sneak this past us, they have another think coming.

This is a highly significant decision by the Rudd government. One of its first acts of office is to try to sneak in a new tax that will increase at a greater rate than the cost of living. Of course, as we often have to do in this place, we have to ask ourselves: who will pay for it? Initially, the sector responsible for moving 75 per cent of Australia’s domestic freight—those who drive the nation’s 365,000 trucks, many of whom are struggling small business operators—will be the ones who will pay for it. The government claims to be concerned about working families and claims to be concerned about small business. Well, truckies have families too. Trucks and the people who operate them are the essence of a small business. Would it have been too much for the government to agree that Australia’s truck drivers have concerns that are every bit as legitimate as those of other small businesses?

I have come across truckies across Australia who are struggling with rising costs. There is one trucking company I know of that uses over a million litres of diesel a month. The extra cost on this million litres of diesel is nearly $14,000. That is $150,000 a year at a time when they are already stretched. That kind of money could go a long way, and anyone in small business would recognise that huge impost that in many cases will send people under. The owner of this trucking company has estimated that the total cost of the diesel hike and the registration charges increase will be in the neighbourhood of $1 million annually. We are not talking budgets here; we are talking about, effectively, a small business. I do not know what sort of small businesses could possibly cop along the side of the head a sudden million dollar bill out of left field and survive. The margins of those trucking companies and organisations that I have had a bit to do with are getting slimmer and slimmer every day, and, as I said, it is going to take very little to tip them over the edge. I think this is a bit of a bulldozer. It will not take anywhere near as much as this to do that. This particular individual employs 250 people—250 families. Indeed, many have already been forced to leave the industry or have already gone broke through other issues.

Unfortunately, the plight of the truckies does not seem to be of any interest to the Labor Party, or to the Transport Workers Union, which has been conspicuous in its silence on an issue that will impact on truckies across Australia. I wonder if there are any Labor senators in the chamber who are members of the TWU. If so, I would invite them to join us and stand up to protect Australian truck drivers.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Conroy.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know, and I note that Senator Conroy has stuck his claw in the air. I am glad that you have confessed to that, Senator. In fact, I understand you were once an industrial officer—perhaps not a truck driver; we have Sterlie for that. But that is terrific stuff, and I am sure that you worked very hard in that post. And I am sure that many of the people you once worked for would appreciate you putting your shoulder to the wheel once again, Senator. As a former TWU operative, I want to know if you are going to be standing up for transport workers by defying the Prime Minister and opposing this tax hike on diesel. And, if you do, I will welcome your support, because it will be the first time that you have shown me and the rest of Australia that you are fair dinkum.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair, Senator Scullion.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you do not, well, so much for defending working families. The costs associated with this tax hike are not going to stop here; Australians will also pay. The increased costs will be passed on to the consumer. You cannot expect the trucking companies to bear the weight of this on their own. How will those costs be passed on? Every time you buy a loaf of bread, every time you buy a litre of milk, every time you buy a box of cornflakes, every time you buy something that is shipped by a truck, you will feel the impact of this tax grab. I cannot believe that the Rudd government would increase a tax when so many Australians are hurting. Every time I listen to Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, he is talking to me about driving down the cost of groceries. Here we have before us a piece of legislation that quite patently works in the opposite direction—that is putting prices up. Has he managed to deal with economics 101, because that excise actually pushes up inflation? This is an inflationary piece of legislation. It just beggars belief that at this time after a budget and after all the chest beating about dealing with inflation, here we are dealing with an inflationary piece of legislation.

Do senators remember the Prime Minister’s promises about putting down grocery prices and putting down the prices of diesel and petrol? Raising diesel taxes is going to put upward pressure on inflation. I am not really sure exactly where the Prime Minister is on this but perhaps someone should give him a quick ring and remind him of what is happening in the Senate today.

Worse still, truck drivers and consumers across Australia will be hit with higher costs and no guarantee that the tax rise will mean a single metre of asphalt on Australian roads. There is a thing called a hypothecated tax. I had to rush over to Senator Colbeck a little while ago to bring that word to mind. It is effectively a tax that is taken off people and is hypothecated directly to something. But there is no guarantee of that in this matter. The money is going to go straight to state Labor governments and, given their very poor track record in project managing just about anything, there is no way they are actually going to improve transport infrastructure with the extra money. So here we have again Robin Rudd stealing from Australians and giving to the states and territories. We are seeing it time and time again. They have only been here six months. He is certainly the busiest robber we have had here for a while.

The fuel tax pay-off to the Labor states and territories will rise, and this is a very important number; this is just startling. The fuel tax pay-off will rise from $1.146 billion in 2007-08 to $1.226 billion in 2010-11—an increase of $80 million. So we steal from the truckies and we give it to our Labor mates. I do not understand what that is about. Every single Australian, when they hear this, should be deeply ashamed of being involved in anything that takes from truck drivers and gives to state and territory governments. All in all, increasing diesel excise will hurt struggling Australian truckies. It is going to put the pinch on Australian families when they go to the shops and it is going to put upward pressure on inflation. It will do all of these things without providing any guarantees that Australia’s highways will see a single cent of this. For all of these reasons, I ask the chamber to support me in disallowing this regulation.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because there are a number of issues on an important bill that we need to try and facilitate this evening, I have shown my speech to the shadow spokesman and to the whip and I seek to incorporate my remarks.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to oppose the disallowance of the Road User Charge Determination 2008 (No.1) made under the Fuel Tax Act 2006.

The Coalition’s motion to disallow this instrument and its previous decision to block amendments to heavy vehicles charges under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme in this place will:

• threaten safety on our roads;
• fragment heavy vehicle registration charges around the country;
• and set back the case of progressive economic reform.

In opposing the increase of the Road User charge for heavy vehicles from 19.633 to 21 cents per litre, the Coalition has put at risk reforms which would see increased productivity for the trucking industry flow on to the Australian economy.

State Governments and the public are reluctant to wear the increased cost of road damage and infrastructure strengthening attributable to heavier and larger trucks transporting freight on our roads.

This is why successive governments and a number of key heavy vehicle industry groups, including the Australian Trucking Association, support the principle that heavy vehicles must pay their way.

This reform commenced in 2004 when the former Prime Minister released a Government White paper which committed the Commonwealth to reform of fuel excise and registration charges.

The 2006 Productivity Commission study into Road and Rail Infrastructure Pricing found under-recovery of infrastructure costs occurs in the heavy vehicle industry.

In April 2007 COAG, required the Australian Transport Commission to devise a new charges determination for implementation on 1 July 2008 that:

• fully recovers infrastructure costs from the heavy vehicle industry,
• ends cross-subsidisation between heavy vehicle classes
• indexes charges to ensure costs continued to be recovered.

The National Transport Commission conducted a rigorous analysis of road expenditure and proposed a Determination which fully recovered infrastructure costs from the industry.

This was achieved through amendments to the Road User Charge recovered through Fuel Excise and amendments to Commonwealth, state territory registration charges.

That Determination was unanimously adopted by Australian Transport Ministers on 29 February 2008.

The registration charges would have decreased charges for smaller heavy vehicles, had smaller increases for other heavy vehicles, and larger increase for very large heavy vehicles, such as B Doubles which had been previously cross-subsidised.

The Government decided to complement the package with a $70 million safety and productivity package.

The package would fund trials of technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed, construct more heavy-vehicle rest stops, and strengthen bridges.

That package will now be delayed as its implementation is inexorably linked to the implementation of this determination and the registration changes. Safety and productivity measure will now be delayed.

Operators of small heavy vehicles will now not get the registration reductions as proposed by the bill. They will continue to cross-subsidise B Doubles, who by independent costing currently don’t pay their fair share of infrastructure costs.

The Opposition has muddied the water of this debate by claiming Road User Charge represents a reintroduction of fuel excise tax indexation.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Fuel excise that motorists pay is currently and remains at 38.143 cents a litre.

However heavy vehicle operators, including operators of B doubles get a rebate so they only pay 19.633 cents per litre.

Heavy vehicle operators pays a lower rate of fuel excise than the drivers of motor car.

Amending the Road User Charge to 21 cents per litre simply delivers cost recovery.

The Road User Charge is part of the heavy vehicle cost recovery mechanism and the Opposition knows this.

In fact, the Opposition put in place the Road User Charge system.

This Opposition motion, if successful, would prevent cost recovery from the vehicles that do the most damage to our roads.

It perpetuates current unfair cross subsidies and provides a disincentive to the sorts of productivity improvements the economy needs to contain inflation.

The opposition is directionless and has lost its way. I urge members to vote against the disallowance.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is most extraordinary that a former union representative of the Transport Workers Union does not take this opportunity to get up and defend his government.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He put his speech down and used the excuse that we are running out of time. With due respect, that is a bit of a coward’s way of avoiding getting up and speaking. If you want an extension of time, I am sure this side of the politics will give it to you.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the senator has reflected on the minister with that comment, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, it was not a reflection on the minister; it was a general description of conduct.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, your comments are verging on being unparliamentary. I suggest you mind your language in this debate.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to be unparliamentary, Madam Acting Deputy President. If Senator Conroy has taken offence then I withdraw it, but it is extraordinary that a former representative of the TWU would not be prepared to put his position openly in the Senate. Nevertheless, let us go forward. I am certainly going to support my colleague on this motion to disallow the road user charges because they are totally unfair. This instrument brings back fuel excise indexation. The day after the Rudd government’s first budget the coalition opposition has to act to stop fuel excise indexation. This is the day after we heard that this budget has got to be an attack on inflation. Well, the people who are attacking inflation are on this side of the parliament. One of the great achievements of the coalition government was to bring to a stop the rise and rise of fuel excise and fuel prices, because of their impact on working families and inflation. Yet Labor are now bringing those back, so we have to ask: where are the great economic conservatives and inflation fighters of last night? They have gone down at the first hurdle. They have swapped sides in this chamber. It is the coalition opposition who are acting with prudent concern for working families and the economy by moving to disallow this instrument, not Labor.

The indexation of fuel excise was introduced by the Keating government. The Rudd government is bringing it back for the road transport industry, but the Rudd version uses a formula that will lock in a greater tax take than there was under the old CPI method. In February the Australian Transport Council agreed to a revised set of charges that will apply to Commonwealth registered heavy vehicles. These charges will be used as reference fees by the states and territories on their own heavy vehicles. In other words, this debate is about what costs are imposed upon Australia’s road freight industry. The costs have a direct effect not only on many small business truck operators and their productivity but also on the final price paid by consumers for the goods being transported—in particular, food. In addition, there are environmental concerns. It is important to get the policy settings right to provide incentives for lower emission vehicles, and Labor fail again on that issue.

The two key elements of the charge structure that apply to the road freight sector are registration fees and the diesel fuel excise system, which is known as the road user charge system. The heavy vehicle registration charges contain significant increases to be implemented over three years from July 2008. Hopefully, the Senate will offer enough support to stop this situation. The key feature is the way in which the government will determine these charges by applying an annual road cost adjustment formula. This formula will be a particularly expensive formula for Australia’s road freight industry due to the rising cost of materials associated with road construction and maintenance. This means that registration costs are going to go up at a higher rate than the CPI. Close to 70 per cent of Australia’s truckies, and all of those at the heavier end of the industry, are going to be paying more tax. This means that there will be a rise in costs associated with road expenditure that will eventually flow through to consumers. Productivity is affected because the costs agreed to by the Australian Transport Council fall heavily on highly productive multicombination vehicles such as B-doubles and B-triples. For example, the registration charge for a B-double will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, including the prime mover charge of $7,050. The B-triple charge will skyrocket to $20,340, including the prime mover charge of $7,050.

One of the first actions of the government when it came into power in parliament was not the taking of a lot of initiatives for rural and regional Australia but the imposition of this very substantial increase in charges on the most efficient sector of the road freight industry. The government’s fee structure will reduce the incentive for operators to use highly productive vehicles. Operators will be inclined to stick with semitrailers, which are less efficient. You have got to take into consideration the concerns about greenhouse gases and climate change. The government has agreed to a change in the charge arrangements that will actually encourage more greenhouse gas emitting vehicles to be on the road.

At its February meeting the Australian Transport Council decided to increase the road user charge, or diesel excise, from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre. This occurs by reducing the amount of rebate going to on-road diesel users. Most importantly, this fuel excise increase will be indexed using the same formula that is used for heavy vehicle registration charges. Seventy-five per cent of Australia’s domestic freight is moved on our roads by truck, but the Rudd Labor government has just raised transport charges on many of the country’s 365,000 trucks that are operated by small businesses. Those businesses will be the first to suffer by being slammed with increased charges. But it will not stop there. The charges will be passed on through higher consumer costs for everyday items that people need to buy—food, groceries, medicines and clothing—and for building, water tanks and all kinds of products.

The government have espoused that they want cheaper groceries and have promised the Australian electorate that they would have cheaper groceries, but this will have the opposite effect. This is inflationary and this is pushing the cost of groceries up. It does not matter how many commissions or committees you hold, what advice you give to the ACCC or whether you have a grocery ombudsman, it will not make the slightest bit of difference—you have implemented a policy which is going to increase the price of groceries and the price of fuel.

We have a government here saying, ‘We’re going to do something about rising prices,’ and then they slug a new tax that raises the cost of getting groceries to the markets and to the consumers. Labor state and territory governments’ revenue will rise substantially as a result of the increased fuel tax and registration charges with the annual revenue stream to Labor governments growing by $168 million. The fuel tax taped to Labor states and territories will rise from $1.146 billion in 2007-08 to $1.226 billion in 2010—an increase of $80 million. The increase in heavy vehicle registration charges will push up the tax take for Labor state and territory governments from $638 million to $727 million in the same period—an increase of $88 million.

Once again, the Labor federal government is acting as a bagman for the state Labor governments. The state governments spend and spend, borrow and spend, mismanage their health, education, roads and water. ‘But don’t worry fellas, we’re coming to the rescue. The federal Labor government will help you raise revenue and fill your coffers.’ The government have even put billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money towards delivering infrastructure projects which the state governments have failed to provide. COAG—the council of Australia’s state and federal Labor governments—will sit down and divide the booty amongst themselves. The biggest winners from last night’s budget are the state Labor governments. The new COAG Reform Fund is especially designed to channel funding to the states. Labor have dealt themselves billions of dollars to keep themselves in power for as long as the federal taxpayers’ moneys last. Talk about political market power. We certainly saw it here last night.

The worst flaw in the Rudd government’s road user charge scheme is that the money collected from the registration or the fuel excise does not have to be spent on better roads, road maintenance or transport infrastructure for heavy trucks. It just goes into a fund that is then transferred to the state Labor governments. There is no guarantee that any of this money will be spent on roads. Who suffers the most from these increases? It is the people that are the farthest from the marketplace: regional and rural Australians. They are the ones who are bearing the brunt of Labor’s increased charges and decreased commitments to rural and regional Australia.

We are a big country. We cover a huge geographical area. The government have a responsibility for those hardworking Australians who live thousands and thousands of miles from here. We want them to live a decent life with access to basic goods at a fair price. It is no wonder we want, and we will move, a disallowance motion. If ever there was a piece of legislation that deserved to be disallowed, this is it. This Senate would be totally irresponsible if it did not move a disallowance motion to this piece of legislation that is going to penalise rural and regional Australians more than any other Australian. Everyone will go in the net, but the ones that live furthest from the market will be affected the greatest. This regulation fails that responsibility and should be disallowed. I will have great pleasure in supporting the disallowance motion moved by my colleague.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am inspired by the previous speakers. I too want to express why I would also vote for this disallowance motion. We will be disallowing it, just as we disallowed the legislation. Senator Boswell summed it up in just one sentence before he sat down: ‘If ever there was a piece of legislation to date of this six-month-old government that ought to be rejected and disallowed, it is this,’ because this legislation and the regulation accompanying it, as the previous speakers have said, was introduced in February. Just picture that: three months in government, their first sitting of parliament and the Labor government have reverted to kind. We should have seen the signals then—in fact, we did because we rejected the legislation—when, in the first session of parliament after being elected, the Labor government lifted the taxes. They went straight to the pockets of the most vulnerable. This was the time they were raging at their highest, at their peak against the previous government’s so-called expenditure and the inflationary pressures. This was the time that they were wringing their hands for the working family, the working Australian, the ordinary Australian. It was in February that they tried to bring in these increased taxes. This was the time that they were wringing their hands with regard to the increased interest rates. Three months in, the first session back, they introduced a new tax upon the truck drivers of Australia: people whom two senators across there—perhaps even the third one—all once represented. They introduced a new tax.

Since the government handed down the budget yesterday, we know it is very much to their liking. It is old Labor all over again. They have not only increased the taxes on diesel but, I stress, they have also indexed them. In yesterday’s budget they increased the taxes on alcohol, energy, computers, software, fringe benefits, so-called luxury cars, passports, visa applications and the costs of private health. Labor, reverting to kind, have been a high-taxing government in their first six months. But the extraordinary thing is that, within their first two months, they decided to slug truck drivers and the trucking industry of Australia and index the taxes. To what advantage? As the previous speakers have pointed out quite clearly, the initial costs will be absorbed by the 360,000 trucks on our roads that transport some 75 per cent of Australian products. But, of course, there will be a knock-on effect for consumers. What was the point of the Labor Party establishing a grocery inquiry, when all the time they could not restrain the knock-on effect that will increase grocery prices and have an inflationary effect and even have an effect on interest rates? Within their first few months of government they have implemented an inflationary policy against the very people they claim to represent. Do they think the independent truck drivers are rich? Are they above the threshold?

This is really saying something, but, even after reading the devil in the detail in yesterday’s budget, I believe this is probably the worst piece of legislation this government have yet put forward, because in every single way it betrays their public spin. The government gloss things over. It is not for nothing that we call them spin merchants, fakes, hypocrites and phoneys; we have got the evidence right here in this legislation. Within two months of taking government they have not only increased taxes but also increased the most inflationary taxes upon the very people over whom they wring their hands. The knock-on effect, we know, is going to go right to the supermarket shelf. How could it not? We have 365,000 trucks on the road, driven by independent truck drivers and small business people, which cart 75 per cent of the produce. Of course, this affects the rural sector as much as anyone else. It affects not just the working family and the small business person, the truck driver; it affects the rural sector too—the regional areas that depend so much on the truck drivers who deliver the groceries.

What is the point and the effect of this? The federal government caved in to their state colleagues. That is their idea of ending the blame game. The end point of the blame game is that none of them will blame each other for increasing taxes. There is no assurance of, and no guarantee about, the revenue, which in the first year was $80 million but is now indexed. Probably not a cent of it will go to state roads. That is the state governments’ form; we know that. There is no assurance that this new tax and the indexation of diesel will go towards state roads. You can pretty much be assured that it will not, given the state governments’ form.

The bottom line of the government was not so much yesterday, when we saw, with their increased taxes, the old Labor coming to the fore. It was spotted in February this year, when they tried to introduce this disgraceful legislation—and they are still clinging onto it now. I register my objection and my support for the disallowance motion.

Question agreed to.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Mr Deputy President, under the standing orders I ask that the names of all government senators be noted as being opposed to the motion.