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

At 2.09 pm on 27 November 2000, I rose in this chamber to advise the Senate that the Howard government was putting an additional $1.6 billion into nation building towards our nation’s roads. That was the start of what has proved to be one of the most significant, one of the most useful and one of the most popular road funding programs in Australia, the Roads to Recovery program.

You might recall that the Labor Party at the time famously labelled the Roads to Recovery program as a ‘boondoggle’. They said it was a pork-barrelling exercise. For the next five, six or seven days Mr Beazley, the then leader of the Labor Party, and other members of the Labor Party—and I see from my research, noting that Senator Hutchins is in the chamber—like Senator Hutchins criticised the program, said it was a ‘boondoggle’ and really criticised the government for introducing this very popular program. Well, what a difference eight years makes because, today, the Labor Party are introducing a bill to continue what they called a ‘boondoggle’.

The coalition is delighted that the Labor Party have copied this policy of the coalition and have agreed to extend the Roads to Recovery program by another six years. This government will now continue funding under this program to 2014. This program has been one that has been most significant in improving local roads and road construction right round Australia.

You will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this program sends money from the federal government direct to local government, cutting out the middleman—the state governments—who always take a cut for ‘administration’ and always hold up the payments and include their own rules and bureaucracy, which to a great degree limit the benefit of money going to local government. Indeed, local government would dearly love the financial assistance grants to go direct from the federal government to local government rather than being diverted and skimmed off by the various state governments. This program, no matter where you go in Australia, receives universal commendation from local governments and from those who appreciate what is happening with local roads.

Many years ago state governments used to assist local authorities with money for local roads. But over the years, particularly when Labor governments have been in charge of the states, that funding from the state to local governments has whittled away to practically nothing, as it is today. This program has come along and given local governments, particularly those in country areas, a really significant boost in funding that allows them to do things.

I have to say, with some humility, this program was designed in the office of the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and in my office as at the time I was Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. It was a program that spread this $1.6 billion fairly across Australia to go to road funding. So big councils like the Brisbane City Council received money up to something like $26 million. But, importantly, for smaller councils out in the inland areas of Australia, councils that I know well like Boulia, Carpentaria and Diamantina shires, this road funding was an absolute lifeline to them in getting road funding done.

I have been concerned over the years, though, that the funding that was given by the Commonwealth to local authorities for local roads has in instances been diverted—with permission, I might say—from local roads to what are in fact, in my own state of Queensland, labelled as state roads. These are roads that, under arrangements made years ago, the states were supposed to be funding. You would recall in the original stage—and I appreciate this has changed in recent times—there was an arrangement where the federal government would look after the national highways, state governments would look after state roads and local governments would look after local roads. This program commenced putting the money into local roads.

But there are instances, and I mention the Diamantina shire based in Birdsville and Bedourie in south-western Queensland, where they have used their money to build the road from Birdsville to Bedourie and from Bedourie to Boulia. Why have they spent that on a state road that is the responsibility of the Queensland government? They have done that because the Queensland government simply will not put funds into those roads for which the Queensland government has responsibility. I am generally concerned about it but this program was all about doing with the money what local communities want to do—local communities represented by their local authority. In Diamantina, what the people wanted more than an anything was a decent connecting road between Birdsville and Bedourie. So they spent this money on that and they did it with the then government’s approval.

It does show how the states have abrogated their responsibilities when it comes to state roads. This happens in a lot of the areas across western and north-western Queensland and it is a pity. I would urge the state governments to accept some of their responsibility and help these small local communities with road funding not only for local roads but also, more importantly perhaps, for roads that are for what used to be termed under the old language, state roads.

I congratulate the current government for changing its mind. I remember Senator O’Brien, on 6 December 2000, talking about this program and saying:

It could be the RTR Program, or some people might ungenerously call it the ‘rorter’ program just to spin that out, or it could be the road wreck program.

This was the Labor Party’s approach to this bill back in 2000. They used to complain that it was a pork-barrelling exercise by the then coalition government. Much as I tried to point out very seriously that the funding went across the board, I could never quite get that through to the Labor Party in those days. I did point out to them at the time that the electorate of Capricornia, which was then and still is held by the Labor Party, got $22 million out of this program but that Hinkler, held by the National Party, only got $10 million—though that is still a pretty good figure—and Herbert, based around Townsville a bit further north, got $5 million, which was a great boost to funding there. But the Labor Party still used to say, ‘This is a program that will help coalition electorates.’ Of course, it went to councils in accordance with the Local Government Grants Commission formula of funding, which had been in place for some time. But you could not get that through to the Labor Party.

I pointed out to them at the time that large amounts of this money did not go to coalition-friendly councils, although they all got their fair share, but that it went to councils like the Brisbane City Council, the Townsville City Council and the Rockhampton City Council, which were all then Labor councils. I am pleased to say that all three councils are now no longer held by Labor, and Brisbane, for example, is well administered by the Liberal Party in that state. But you could not get it through to the Labor Party at that time. We had speech after speech about boondoggles—in fact, I would say Mr Beazley brought a new word into the lexicon. He did not really; it was always there in the dictionary if you delved down. But the rest of us mere mortals had never heard of it, and Mr Beazley, with his penchant for that sort of thing, brought a new word into common usage—’boondoggle’—and this was the ‘boondoggle bill’. Nowadays, of course, it is no longer a boondoggle and the Labor Party have discovered that it is a pretty good program. They are not quick learners, the Labor Party, but they do eventually get the message and have approved of and continued the program. I am grateful to them for doing that. I can say to the Labor Party government, without fear of overstating my understanding, that every council in Australia will today applaud the passage of this bill insofar as it relates to Roads to Recovery. Long may it continue.

I am pleased the Labor government have also resisted the call from their mates in the state governments for this funding to pass through the states and have continued it federally, which is one of the greatest strengths of the program. This program was introduced, as I say, by the coalition in 2000. In 2003, after a review, the government announced a further $1.2 billion would be provided up to 2009 and it became a component of the AusLink program. It was supplemented in the 2005-06 budget with a further $307.5 million to provide an extra boost for council road programs. It is very simple to administer and it goes directly to local government.

Insofar as this bill is concerned, that is the good news. We on this side will be supporting it and we certainly applaud the continuation of that program. But I just sound a word of warning. The heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, the government’s policy, is outlined in the minister’s second reading speech. It seems to me—and I want to alert the Senate to this—that the policy announced by the Labor minister is apparently one of blackmail. The minister states that funding for the safety package:

… is contingent on the passage of the enabling legislation for the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination …

This legislation will authorise an increase in the heavy vehicle registration fees announced by the minister at the same time he trumpeted this safety package.

You will recall that we rejected these increased charges in this place earlier this year. We did that because we understand that the heavy freight sector is doing it tough, with very high interest rates under the Labor government and fuel prices rising in spite of the fact that they promised before the election they would bring fuel prices down.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

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

I beg your pardon, Senator Sterle? Say that again; I did not catch it.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle, do not interrupt.

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

Please do. I would like to hear the ongoing saga of Senator Sterle’s rude and irrelevant objections—but he is not going to repeat them, so I cannot respond. Let me repeat what I said, in case that encourages him: under the Labor Party’s high interest rate regime, where fuel prices continue to rise in spite of a promise by Mr Rudd before the election to bring them down, we realise that the heavy freight sector is doing it tough. I understand Senator Sterle is a former Transport Workers Union operative.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And a truck driver.

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

And a proud one—good on you, Senator Sterle! Why are you supporting what the Labor government is trying to do to the heavy freight industry? Tell me that. If you are such a supporter of the industry—and I hope the union is—why are you acquiescing to this proposal to increase taxes on the heavy freight sector?

We all know all Australians are battling to meet their daily requirements in the face of higher cost-of-living pressures under the Rudd government. Why would you put an extra tax on the road freight industry which will be passed on to battling Australians? The response of the Labor government to increasing costs of living is to slap higher taxes on alcopops, on people movers, on four-wheel drives and on a range of things. Having more taxes will make it more difficult for struggling small businesses and push up costs for all Australians.

I know Senator Sterle and Senator Hutchins would not appreciate this perhaps as much as Senator Williams and I do, living in areas as remote from the capital cities as we do, but everything that comes to country Australia comes by freight, most of it by road freight. By putting increased taxes on the heavy freight industry, what you are doing is yet again slugging country people with higher taxes to meet some ideological goal of the Labor government here in Canberra. We saw evidence of this in the tax on four-wheel drive vehicles. We have seen it with the slashing of the Regional Partnerships program. You can go on and on—the slashing of the Natural Heritage Trust and the salinity programs that put money into country areas. All were slashed under this city-centric Labor government.

So we make no apology for rejecting the higher charges. They are a tax grab. They build on a road cost adjustment formula associated with road construction, and these costs, such as for steel and concrete, are skyrocketing—again due to poor financial management of the Rudd government and, importantly, of the state Labor governments. If you have a look at the report from the Senate Select Committee on State Government Financial Management, you will see how evidence to the committee showed that the mismanagement by state Labor governments of infrastructure spending, or lack of it, has meant that upward pressure has been put on inflation. This is because of the mismanagement of state governments—all controlled, until very recently, by the Australian Labor Party.

These charges penalise productivity, since they fall heavily on the highly productive multicombination vehicles such as B-doubles and B-triples. I hope that Senator Sterle, with his experience in this industry, will get up and tell me why it is that the Labor Party, supported by his union, is putting increased charges on the highly productive multicombination vehicles. I very much look forward to hearing that.

At the same time, the Rudd government wants to increase the effective rate of diesel fuel excise, or the road user charge, as well. This is true, although it seems hard to believe. But it continues on. You will recall the Rudd government sought to increase diesel excise from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre on the same formula used for the heavy vehicle registration charge. In other words, the Rudd government sought to reintroduce the indexation of fuel excise based on a higher rate than the CPI. You will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it was the Keating government who introduced indexation of fuel excise, and you will recall as well that it was the coalition government that abolished this in 2001. So I am very concerned about these tax grabs designed to raise another $168 million. Put another way, the fuel tax take to the Labor states and territories will rise by $80 million and the increase in heavy vehicle charges will lift Labor’s tax grab by another $80 million.

My time has almost finished, but there are some concerns with what the minister indicated in his second reading speech—notwithstanding that, as I indicated earlier, the coalition support this bill and we do congratulate the government on continuing the coalition’s policy of Roads to Recovery. For that reason, we urge support for the bill.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the things you can use as a barometer of how well we are going in this place is how angry Senator Macdonald gets. The angrier Senator Macdonald gets, the better we are going and the better we are delivering. You just saw an example of that then, Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop, in how cranky he was because we are delivering.

I do not recall using the word ‘boondoggle’ at all. Mr Beazley may have used it. It may be a Western Australian thing, with you and Senator Sterle being Western Australians, Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop. It may be a word used by them—I do not know—but for some of my colleagues that is too big a word. We would not even be able to spell it.

I only have a few minutes to contribute today, but I do need to take issue with some of the points that Senator Macdonald raised. The Senate this year did reject the heavy vehicle charges legislation and, as Senator Macdonald outlined, it relates to increasing charges for the heavier vehicles. The thing is that the Australian Trucking Association agreed with the government on that package. In fact, with the B-doubles and B-triples, they will pay extra money because that is part of the road user charge. They do take their toll on the road and it is expected that they will have to pay compensation for it. What Senator Macdonald did not outline is the fact that a number of vehicles will have their road user charges reduced, particularly the rigid vehicles that make up the majority of transport in this country.

I want to briefly outline today—and this is part of the package which Senator Macdonald has generously supported, albeit reluctantly it sounded—is that in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 there is $70 million provided for the facilitation of a safer road transport system. Mostly, that is involved with the construction of a few more truck stops along the highway. That in itself is a good measure to address road safety, but it is not enough. The government announced earlier this year that the National Transport Commission would conduct an inquiry into safer payment systems for heavy vehicle drivers. This inquiry is underway at the moment. One of the things people would expect out of the inquiry is that there is some reform of driver remuneration and payment systems, and I hope not just for employee-drivers but for lorry owner-drivers as well.

This review is overdue. It relates to people pushing themselves to the limit when they really should not be put in that position. Last year 200 deaths occurred as a result of people driving heavy vehicles. The main contributor is fatigue. A recent report by the University of Queensland found that 65.5 per cent of drivers in New South Wales—that is, heavy vehicle drivers—spend over 60 hours a week at work. Nearly 20 per cent of all drivers work more than 80 hours a week. This is a concern that has been highlighted to the National Transport Commission. It puts at risk not only those men and women drivers but also people on the road. That is why the commission has conducted this inquiry.

I want to quote from two men who have given evidence before the inquiry. One is Ken Clinton, who lives in Gosford on the Central Coast of New South Wales. He made the following statement:

I have been offered work with conditions that created an unsafe driving environment. I accepted this work because I was desperate at the time and needed to take care of my family.

I would work all day from 8 am making local deliveries and freight pick ups, my truck would need to be loaded by 7pm and I would drive 5 hours to Tarcutta for a midnight changeover. I would then turn around and drive home, arriving about 5 am, getting about 2 or 3 hours sleep a night. The faster I did this the more time I got at home to sleep.

One night while performing this work I can recall pulling off the road in the middle of nowhere because I was going to sleep and didn’t want to have an accident. I went to sleep as soon as the truck stopped. When I got back to the depot I was abused because the freight was late. I quit because of that.

In my opinion, many employee drivers are paid rates that are unsafe. Drivers who are paid low rates are forced to do more trips to earn a decent living. Those who are paid on kilometre rates are the ones pushing the hours up.

Maurice Girotto, who lives in Werrington in the seat of Lindsay in Sydney’s west and has been carting bitumen for over 20 years, said to the commission:

The rate of remuneration I currently receive is just enough to cover my fixed and variable costs. I am able to cover these costs only because I am in a financial position where I own my equipment and do not have any finance owing. I am also in a position where I am able to do a lot of my own maintenance and repairs. Compared to a driver who has additional cost I’m in a better position. They have to cut down or cut out wages and vehicle maintenance. If you’re in trouble you’ll accept lower rates to get the work.

I congratulate the government on the actions that they have put forward here today. It is long overdue, particularly the highlighting of road safety. Hopefully, when the National Transport Commission completes its inquiry we will be able to address not only hours of work but also rates of pay.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like Senator Hutchins, I could talk about the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 and roads and trucks for the next half-hour with a mouthful of marbles underwater. Time constraints are against us. I seek leave to incorporate my speech.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to speak in support of the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. This bill amends the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005.

The main Provisions of this bill are to:

• Amend the definition of ‘road’ contained in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005, and to
• Extend the Roads to Recovery program until 30 June 2014.

The legislation also makes clear that funds can be allocated under the Roads to Recovery program for use in a particular state whilst the most appropriate entity to finally receive the allocation is determined.

This will allow funds to be preserved whilst, for example, a decision is made on who should receive funds so as to provide roads in unincorporated areas where there is no local council, or to provide bridges and Aboriginal Access Roads in remote parts of a State.

The Roads to Recovery program provides much needed funding to local councils around Australia so they can make urgent repairs and upgrades to their roads. Funding is provided for both urban and rural roads.

Roads to Recovery program funds are provided in the form of grants directly to local government bodies. The focus of the program has been on the renewal of local roads to meet safety, transport connectivity, social and economic needs.

The program recognises that at any one time a significant proportion of local road infrastructure in Australia is about to reach the end of its useful life.

The level of required replacement of local road infrastructure is often beyond the capacity of local governments, particularly when you consider that local councils are responsible for more than three-quarters of all Australian roads amounting to over 810,000 kilometres of road, 19% of which is the responsibility of local governments in my home state of WA.

In a state the size of Western Australia the task of maintaining and upgrading essential road links, often over vast distances, is a huge.

Almost universally, local governments have endorsed the targeting of improved road safety as a major focus of the Roads to Recovery program. This is also a major target of the Rudd Government.

Having spent many thousands of hours in a previous life as a truckie and heavy vehicle owner/driver traversing the roads throughout Australia, I am more than aware of the problematic road conditions that drivers and operators of heavy vehicles, too often, have to contend with.

I am also more than aware of the risks that truckies face every day in doing their job because too many roads are not up to acceptable standards for today’s heavy haulage vehicles. This applies also to other essential road transport infrastructure such rest stops, truck parking bays and decoupling facilities.

Unsatisfactory road conditions affect heavy vehicle driver safety and other road user safety as well being a very significant drag on heavy transport haulage efficiency and productivity.

The Rudd Government learnt when it came into office that the National Road Safety Strategy target of a 40 percent reduction in road deaths by 2010 was unlikely to be achieved.

In fact the 2010 national target of 5.6 deaths per 100,000 that was agreed to by the previous government has turned out to be a figment of the previous government’s imagination. The eventual figure is likely to be much higher with the current rate sitting at 7.7.

This is an appalling situation which is made worse by the stance being taken by coalition Senators who are seemingly intent on blocking the flow of funds to enable the implementation of government initiatives specifically designed to improve heavy vehicle transport safety.

The message today in regard to heavy vehicle road crashes and fatalities is a stark one. It shows that there is substantial work to be done to turn the current situation around.

In 2007, there were over 200 road deaths in Australia involving heavy vehicles. In fact one in five road deaths involve heavy vehicles, with speed and fatigue being significant contributing factors.

In other words the heavy vehicle transport sector is a significant contributor to Australia’s road toll.

There are between 70,000 and 80,000 articulated trucks on the roads in Australia. The annual distanced travelled by these vehicles is approximately 3% of total vehicle kilometres travelled. On the other hand road fatalities each year involving these vehicles make up approximately 11% of total road fatalities. This latter percentage appears to increasing over time. In 2007 road fatalities involving an articulated truck increased by 5.4%.

Trucks as whole account for approximately 6% of total vehicles kilometres travelled but are involved in approximately 15% of all road fatalities.

Over the past five years over 1000 Australians have died as a result of a road accident involving a heavy truck, three quarters of these fatal accidents involved an articulated truck.

These are sobering statistics.

No wonder that truck road safety should be a concern to us all and not only to the trucking industry itself, and to my union, the Transport Workers Union.

This bill amends the definition of a road so that it includes heavy vehicle facilities such as rest stops, parking bays, decoupling facilities and electronic monitoring systems.

This amendment to the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 will enable the government to provide funding for these facilities under its $70 million Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity package. This package has the support of the Australian Trucking Association but apparently it doesn’t have the support of the coalition.

This says a whole lot about the coalition and the way it operates. It is apparently more than willing to put its political objectives ahead of providing a safer driving environment for thousands of truckies and other road users.

I remind Senators that road accidents cost the lives of over 1600 Australian annually. There can be absolutely no justification for blocking funding for a $70 million program aimed largely at reducing heavy vehicle road crashes.

The government’s four year Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Plan will fund:

• The construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops and parking areas along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities;
• Upgrades to freight routes so they can carry bigger loads; and
• Trials of technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed - one using an onboard ‘black box’ or electronic log, and one which makes use of the Global Positioning System (GPS).

With speed a factor in around 30 per cent of heavy vehicles crashes and driver fatigue in up to 60 per cent, action to improve speed and fatigue enforcement is the key to achieving a substantial reduction in road deaths.

The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Package has been developed following consultations with the states and territories and stakeholders such as the Australian Trucking Association, Australian Livestock Transporters Association and NatRoads to identify the most urgently needed works.

The facilities that will be delivered under the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package will improve road safety and provide a better deal for truckies.

For example, numerous studies have shown that one of the leading factors that contribute to road crashes involving heavy trucks is driver fatigue. An important contributing factor to driver fatigue in Australia is the very long distances that many truckies have to travel to deliver their loads.

The need for appropriately spaced and adequately designed truck rest stops along Australia’s intrastate and interstate transport routes is essential. This has been recognised by local governments over a number of years in their use of Roads to Recovery Program funding. But much more still needs to done.

An audit of road side rest areas against National Guidelines conducted by Austroads and published in March this year found that sixty per cent of the audited routes had substantial deficiencies in the provision of rest opportunities. Furthermore none of the audited routes met the spacing requirements of the National Guidelines.

In my State of Western Australia, for example, the Austroad audit found that only 2 of the major rest areas on the road from Perth to the SA border are spaced closely enough to satisfy the National Guidelines and only 25% of the rest areas along the route were duplicated correctly on both sides of the road.

Overall the rest areas on the Western Australia road routes covered by the Austroads audit had an average compliance of 46% with recommended design and layout features. Obviously there is still a lot to be done along Australia’s transport routes.

As well as improving road safety, our Plan will help lift national productivity by funding upgrades to the road network such as the strengthening of bridges.

Targeted investment in the road network will open more roads to heavy vehicles, freeing up the movement of freight across the country and easing congestion.

Funding for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Package is contingent on the passage of the enabling legislation for the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination, which was unanimously endorsed by the Australian Transport Council of Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers in February this year.

That legislation would ensure that the heavy vehicle industry pays its fair share of the infrastructure costs incurred by governments for building and maintaining the roads that they drive on.

This legislation has been blocked by the coalition in the Senate, even though the determination and policy was proposed by the former government.

In a speech given on 28 June 2007 entitled ‘The coalition government’s transport reform agenda’, the then federal transport minister and Leader of the Nationals said:

‘The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008.

The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.’

There is therefore absolutely no valid reason why the coalition should not support this bill and the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination legislation to enable upgrades to be rolled out as soon as possible after 1 January 2009.

This bill also extends the Roads to Recovery program. Under the current Act, it will end on 30 June 2009. This bill will continue the program until 30 June 2014.

The continuation of this program means that local government can confidently plan for the continued improvement of their road network.

This amendment supports the government’s commitment to increase our investment under the Roads to Recovery program over the next five years. The government will increase the allocation from $300 million per year to $350 million per year.

This means that, over the next five years, the Rudd Government will provide $1.75 billion directly to councils to fix local transport issues.

As well the Rudd Government is not standing still in respect to other factors affecting Australia’s transport industry costs and productivity.

In particular, the Rudd Government is committed to regulatory reform to ensure that overly burdensome government regulation is tackled and addressed. The Government has already identified areas in the transport sector where regulatory reform has a large potential to reduce the cost to industry of state and commonwealth government regulation and which should act to improve transport industry productivity.

Top of the list of the government’s planned regulatory reforms is finally achieving national harmonised occupational health and safety laws, a key concern to the trucking industry.

There can be no doubt that there is need for a national approach if Australia is to have a seamless transport market. Through the Australian Transport Council, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and state transport ministers agreed in May this year to policy objectives and principles which underpin the Government’s National Transport Plan.

The National Transport Plan recognises that competitive and truly national transport markets will reduce costs for business and consumers, improve Australia’s productivity and the quality of life by better connecting Australians to their family and friends.

The National Transport Plan will encompass the existing COAG transport reform program. In addition, the Australian Transport Council has commissioned new work on a national registration scheme for trucks and a single national drivers licence for truck drivers. These reforms will cut red tape for drivers and transport businesses.

They will build on one of the major successes of past regulatory reform, the development of uniform national road rules by the National Road Transport Commission, now the National Transport Commission. The process continues, but we should acknowledge that much has been achieved.

The safety, efficiency and effectiveness of our road transport system is of concern to all Australians, to all who work in the sector and to members of the Australian Trucking Association, but it does not seem to be a matter of great concern or urgency to Coalition Senators who are apparently happy to stand in the path of better safety and improved productivity in a vital industry.

I am very proud to be a member of a Government that right from the start has given high priority to improving heavy truck road safety.

I am also proud to be a member of a trade union, the Transport Workers Union, that has been and continues to be, at the forefront of efforts to improve the working and safety conditions of road transport industry workers including owner/drivers .

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up this debate on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008, I want to thank senators for their comments and reiterate the importance of this bill in demonstrating the government’s ongoing commitment to infrastructure investment. We have heard the details of the bill from the speakers, but the extension of the Roads to Recovery program to 30 June 2014 provides much-needed funding for Australia’s local councils to maintain and construct roads. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.