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

Mr Temporary Chairman, the running sheet shows that Family First will be moving the first amendment. But Senator Fielding has just left the chamber to get some notes so, while he is doing that, can I briefly explain where the opposition is at. We are delighted that the government has seen the sense of the amendments which both the opposition and Family First, in different ways, have proposed. We were very concerned with the bill, as it came to us, about the indexation of the fuel tax. Senators will remember that Prime Minister Keating introduced a provision for the automatic indexation of fuel tax. Fuel tax used to go up every half-year and it was a great impost on Australians. The Howard government, to its great credit, got rid of that indexation. We wanted to make sure that the Labor Party did not reintroduce it, by stealth, in the bill before the chamber. As I said, both the opposition and Family First have proposed amendments in relation to indexation and in relation to it being a disallowable instrument. We wanted to make sure that, if the road user charge were to be increased in the years ahead, it would have to come before this parliament and would be subject to disallowance. It was not in the original bill but, again, the government has picked up the amendments of both the opposition and Family First and has made it a ministerial determination—and the ministerial determination is said to be a disallowable instrument.

I have just distributed a revised amendment sheet on behalf of the opposition. This follows some discussion between me and Family First and government officials. In this second set of amendments we have simply taken our amendments that will not be required off the piece of paper because we are going to be agreeing, first of all, with Senator Fielding’s first amendment and then with all of the government amendments, which pick up the issue of indexation by ensuring it is not indexed and the other issue of a disallowable instrument. The new opposition amendments are simply the old ones put differently.

For explanation, particularly for Family First and Senator Xenophon, we are proceeding with our amendment which on the original sheet was shown as opposition amendment (2) but on the new sheet is shown as opposition amendment (4). We have removed amendments (1), (2) and (3) and now only have opposition amendment (4). We have done that in the hope that either the government or the crossbenchers will agree with us on one or all of those provisions, whereas they may not agree on other positions. I see that Senator Fielding is now here and I assume the Senate will be happy if we now move according to the running sheet.

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

I thank Senator Macdonald for allowing me to get to the chamber. I move Family First request for amendment (1) on sheet 5680 revised:

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

(1)    Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program

        (1)    The Minister must cause a review of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program to be conducted.

        (2)    The review must:

             (a)    start on the third anniversary of the commencement of this section; and

             (b)    be completed within 6 months.

        (3)    The Minister must cause a written report about the review to be prepared.

        (4)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after the Minister receives the report.

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.

This is about a review of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program which the government has announced and has allocated $70 million for additional truck stops, which is good news. The amendment is pretty straightforward. It says that the minister must cause a review of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program to be conducted and says when the review should start. It says that there must be a written report prepared and that a copy of that report must be laid before each house of parliament. That is very important so that we can ascertain how this productivity program has progressed and also have a review of it. It is a very important program and I am hoping that all senators will support this amendment as this review is important to make sure that we look at what else needs to be done in the future.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate my support for this amendment and commend Senator Fielding for moving it. I think having a review of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program is worth while. In relation to this issue I am grateful for the briefings from the minister’s office, and I have put the case that I think it is important with respect to the moneys being raised in part for a safety program for truck stops. It is important that this be rolled out as soon as possible. I put it very clearly to the minister and the minister’s office that I am concerned that in my home state of South Australia, which has about 8½ per cent of the population but takes up about 15 per cent of the national freight travelling through, it is important that this program be rolled out and that South Australia get a fair share of that in terms of appropriate truck stops.

In the lead-up to Christmas last year I went to Bordertown to visit a number of local community groups that were running a voluntary truck stop or rest stop. A lot of them were ex-truck drivers and operators and they were quite despondent about the lack of truck stops in their neck of the woods. I commend the government for ensuring that there will be significant funds to deal with this issue on a national level and I commend Senator Fielding for moving this particular amendment.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say that the Australian Greens will support this amendment.

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

As I mentioned before, the opposition appreciates the reason for this amendment and will be supporting it.

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—I move government amendments (1) and (3) to (7) on sheet PD357 together:

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

(1)   Schedule 3, item 1, page 5 (lines 6 to 8), omit the item, substitute:

1  Subsection 43-10(3)

Omit “, determined by the ^*Transport Minister”, substitute “for the fuel”.

(3)    Schedule 3, item 4, page 5 (line 15), omit the heading to subsection 43-10(7), substitute:

Determining the rate of road user charge

(4)    Schedule 3, item 4, page 5 (lines 16 to 18), omit “The road user charge for taxable fuel means the following rate (as indexed in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection (8))”, substitute “The amount of road user charge for taxable fuelis worked out using the following rate”.

(5)    Schedule 3, item 4, page 5 (lines 19 and 20), omit “prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition”, substitute “determined by the ^*Transport Minister”.

(6)    Schedule 3, item 4, page 5 (lines 22 and 23), omit “prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition”, substitute “determined by the Transport Minister”.

(7)    Schedule 3, item 4, page 5 (lines 24 and 25), omit subsection 43-10(8), substitute:

        (8)    For the purposes of subsection (7), the ^*Transport Minister may determine, by legislative instrument, the rate of the road user charge.

        (9)    Before the ^*Transport Minister determines an increased rate of road user charge, the Transport Minister must:

             (a)    make the following publicly available for at least 60 days:

                   (i)    the proposed increased rate of road user charge;

                  (ii)    any information that was relied on in determining the proposed increased rate; and

             (b)    consider any comments received, within the period specified by the Transport Minister, from the public in relation to the proposed increased rate.

      (10)    However, the ^*Transport Minister may, as a result of considering any comments received from the public in accordance with subsection (9), determine a rate of road user charge that is different from the proposed rate that was made publicly available without making that different rate publicly available in accordance with that subsection.

I also indicate that the government opposes schedule 3 in the following terms:

(2)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 5 (lines 11 and 12), to be opposed.

(8)    Schedule 3, items 5 to 8, page 5 (line 26) to page 6 (line 8), to be opposed.

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

This is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation and therefore, any amendments to the bill must be moved as requests. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

The first one is a minor drafting amendment describing how fuel tax credit is removed by the transport minister after the road user charge. The second one is a minor amendment that opposes item 3 of the bill, which would have formerly defined a road user charge. This reference is no longer needed given the definition that will be found in government amendment (4).

The third one changes the heading and is a consequence of reverting the adjustment of the rate of the road user charge back for ministerial determination. The fourth one is a consequence of removing the ability to automatically index the rate of the charge by regulation to a determination by the transport minister. The fifth one removes the ability to automatically index the rate of charge by regulation to a determination by the transport minister.

The sixth one reverts the setting of a road user charge to that of a determination by the transport minister rather than by regulation, in response to concerns by industry and by senators about indexation by regulation. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that any variations to the rate of the road user charge must be brought back to parliament for scrutiny through a disallowable instrument.

The seventh one, subsection 8, replaces the ability to make regulations that may index the rate of the road user charge with a provision that allows the transport minister to determine a rate by disallowable legislative instrument. The effect of this subclause is to ensure that any variation to the rate of the road user charge must be brought back to parliament for scrutiny through a disallowable instrument. It also provides a new subsection 9, which establishes two conditions that must be met by the transport minister in making a determination to vary the rate.

The eighth is a 60-day consultation period where the minister must make the proposed rates and any information used in this calculation publicly available for a period of public consultation and must consider any comments received from the public. It provides a new subsection 10, which provides that the minister may at the conclusion of the consultation period vary the rate of the charge from that originally proposed without needing to reconvene another 60-day consultation process. The clause reinserts definitions of ‘transport minister’, ‘transport secretary’ and ‘transport department’. The bill proposed to repeal them because they were no longer necessary. This amendment reinserts them because the determination to vary the rate of road user charges is to be made by the transport minister and this needs to be defined.

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

As I indicated before, the opposition will be supporting the government’s amendments because they have picked up amendments that had been flagged by the opposition. We will not now be proceeding with our amendments because the government’s amendments to its amendment bill pick up those things. Can I just make it clear to the chamber, though, that what we are doing today is agreeing to a legislative increase of the road user charge from 19-odd cents a litre to 21c a litre. The opposition is totally opposed to any increases in taxes and we did a bit of soul searching before coming to the decision that we would support what is effectively an increase in tax by the Labor government. We have recognised that a lot of work needs to be done on the roads insofar as the transport industry is concerned. We have particularly recognised that a lot of money needs to be spent on rest areas, or truck stops—call them what you will. So, on the basis that this increase in tax will be spent appropriately to help the trucking industry, we have—as I say, somewhat reluctantly—agreed to the increase. The bill and the amendments moved by the government provide that the rate will, I think on the bill receiving royal assent, go up to 21c a litre from the 19-odd cents that it now is.

In the other amendments that the opposition will continue to press, we want to make sure that, in the future, any increases in the road user charge are spent on these rest stops. I do not want to go through our amendments now, except to flag that the reason we are agreeing with the 21c is that we want the bill to say that any future increases must be spent on rest areas. We also want to provide that the road user charges do ensure a degree of harmonisation between the various state regimes, which currently are all over shop. There are some stupid examples that have been mentioned in this chamber by many senators over a long period of time. We want to make sure that that harmonisation stands. So our amendments again ensure that the government are only going to get this extra money if they help the trucking industry with some of the difficulties they have encountered.

We have also agreed with this on the basis that indexation is never, ever to be used. The government’s amendments, which we support, just say that there is ministerial discretion. We have an amendment coming up later that puts it beyond doubt that, in looking at future increases, the minister must not use any reference to indexation. We are also going to move an amendment later that reflects that, in giving support for this, we want it confirmed that the transport minister will not make more than one determination a year. Hopefully he will not make any determinations—so it will not go up—but, if he does make a determination to increase it, there cannot be more than one increase a year. I think the minister will tell us later that that is the intention. My argument will be: if that is the intention, let us put it in the act so that it is clear to everyone.

The third amendment we are putting forward—and I will explain it now because it is relevant to the whole thing—is an amendment that says, because this is now a disallowable instrument, we do not want the situation where the government brings in an instrument that says the road user charge is increased by 1c to 22c and the Senate and the House of Representatives have 15 sitting days to disallow that increase. The 15 sitting days, as we all know, may take two, three or four months to reach. We want to make sure that the government do not start collecting the additional 1c from day one, which they are entitled to do under the ministerial determination, and then find two months later that the Senate has knocked it off and they have to give back the 1c a litre to anyone who has paid it over that period of time. This is similar to the alcopops issue, as senators might recall: ‘If the Senate knocks these off, what do the government do with the money they have collected?’ With our third amendment we want to say, ‘If you put it up, fine, but let’s leave the collection until after the 15 days allowed for the Senate to disallow it have expired.’ Again, that seems sensible and appropriate.

I have mentioned those opposition amendments because it is on the basis of those amendments that the opposition has agreed to this increase in the road user charge at the present time.

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

The government’s amendments do pick up similar things to Family First’s amendments on sheet 5680 revised—amendments (2), (3), (4) and (5). So we will be withdrawing those requests when we get there.

Question agreed to.

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

I seek leave to move opposition amendments on sheet 5671 revised together.

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

Is leave granted?

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I wonder whether I can seek your guidance. I am minded to support two of the three amendments that Senator Macdonald has referred to. I wonder whether it would be possible to split those amendments. The nub of my question is: can we still vote on them separately?

The Temporary Chairman:

Yes, we can vote on them separately. I can put two separate questions.

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

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

I indicate on behalf of the government that we will not be supporting request (1), we are happy to support (2) and we will not be supporting (3) or (4). I will briefly speak to our position on those as a collective. Request (4) has ambiguous terminology and lacks detail. For example, ‘other charges’ could be interpreted to include tolls and environmental charges that are not related to road construction costs. The NTC uses a seven-year averaging of road expenditure to soften the impact of spikes in road funding, strongly supported by industry. This amendment jeopardises that. It is unnecessary: all information associated with the charges, including precise definitions, will be defined in the determination and consultation process.

The government has identified rest stops as an important issue for the industry and moved to act. The government has already committed, with the passage of this bill, to a $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package which will provide heavy vehicle rest stops. The minister has already written to industry and the states seeking their views as to where the rest stops should be. Those submissions have been provided. It is bad policy to link adjustment of the charge in the future to the construction of an arbitrary number of rest stops. The road user charge is determined based on all road expenditure attributable to heavy vehicles, not just rest stops. Also, putting in an arbitrary quantitative target such as 50 only encourages expenditure on smaller projects to meet the target. There is no logic or transparency to why 50 a year has been chosen.

Claiming that this bill can force the states to harmonise inconsistent transport law is an absolute furphy. There is no logical reason to link road user charge adjustment to harmonisation of transport law. This process has absolutely no impact on the states and will place no pressure on states at all. All the revenue from this bill comes to the Commonwealth. The Rudd government is pursuing national transport law in the heavy vehicle area through the ministerial council process.

It is not the role of Infrastructure Australia to audit the construction of heavy vehicle rest stops or the extent of harmonisation of transport law. IA is a very small body whose purpose is to give high-level strategic advice to the government on its infrastructure agenda. It is currently preparing the priority list for infrastructure projects of national significance. It is made up of eminent business leaders with significant strategic policy experience. Can senators seriously envisage Rod Eddington, Heather Ridout, Mark Birrell and Gary Weaven measuring up rest stops with tape measures on the nation’s highways to see if they comply with the NTC guidelines?

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

I assume they would have staff to do that.

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

Unfortunately you do not seem to understand the role and nature of IA. It is almost completely wrong. This is a ludicrous amendment, and there are other bodies better placed to undertake the task.

On request (3), determinations so made have effect until they are disallowed. The minister will propose the date of effect with each determination. It is better to have the flexibility to determine date of effect. Finally, it is unnecessary. The consultation process would contain the relevant information, including road expenditure. The act already defines application of the road user charge.

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

Request (4) has got something that is fairly important in regard to additional truck rest stops or rest areas. I wonder whether the minister could give us a bit of a feel on the $70 million for the government’s heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. It may also help some listeners listening in on this. Roughly how many truck stops would that be on an average? I know some take a lot and some take a little. Can you give us a bit of a feel for that $70 million? I know it is split over the forward forecast of $10 million in 2008-09, $20 million in 2009-10, $20 million in 2010-11 and another $20 million in 2011-12. Can you outline it for us?

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

I am advised that a large truck stop can cost around $5 million and a small one around $500,000. It does vary depending on each individual site that is chosen.

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

I understand that the $70 million was allocated and that in the budget papers it was linked to the 21c increase. Is that correct?

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

Yes.

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

Was the $70 million that was allocated as part of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package conditional on further increases above the 21c charge?

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

No, I do not believe so.

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

I am trying to think ahead. This is where I have some sympathy with the opposition’s request because it is talking about additional heavy vehicle rest areas to be done before the next increase. What I am worried about is that if another increase comes no more money is being spent on rest stops other than the $70 million. The $70 million is tied to the 21c increase. If you actually increase the charge again, I would have expected the government to have some commitment to additional funding on rest areas above the $70 million. The issue is a fairly significant one, given that the Transport Commission, as highlighted before, issued a set of national guidelines about the provision of rest areas, and an audit of major highways found that none of the highways met the guidelines—none. What I am concerned about is that the $70 million probably falls very short. Even though it is welcomed and definitely the industry welcomes the $70 million, I am worried about future road charge increases and then no corresponding commitment to additional funds above the $70 million for rest stops and truck stops. This is a safety issue for all Australians who use the roads. We all get concerned about it. It is an issue that I have had people come to me about in relation to extra rest stops and truck stops. I would like to know whether the minister is going to reassure us. This is what the coalition have picked up here, the additional rest areas, and that is why they have gone for, say, an additional 50 not just for the first part of the increase but if there are ongoing increases.

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

We have specifically amended the AusLink guidelines to include rest stop funding. I understand the point you are making, Senator Fielding—I think I have got it—and I would probably say that, because of other amendments, it is not just automatically indexed; it is now going to be voted on by the Senate. At this stage there isn’t a proposal on the table to increase it. It is a little hard for us to allocate money to a future increase when we have not got a future increase.

I think the point you are trying to make is that if there were to be an increase in the future there should be an increase in funding. I think that is the point you are trying to get to. What I would probably say is that, given that it is a disallowable instrument, I am sure the Senate would take a view about the level of funding for road stops into consideration when deciding how to vote on the increase in the charge. But it is a little hard for us to talk about future increases in money for roadside stops when we do not have a proposal for a future increase at this stage. I am not sure that there is much more that I can suggest.

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

I will give you a different explanation to the one the minister has given you. What this is saying is that we are increasing it today from 19-odd cents to 21c, so they are getting a lot of extra money. They have promised to use that on rest stops. What our amendment is saying is, ‘When you come back to us in a couple of years and want to increase that, we’re telling you now that we’re not going to increase that beyond the 21c unless you can show us that, for this year and for next year and for however many years it is until you come back to us, you have actually done what you have been talking about.’

You have been talking about 50 truck stops or $70 million—which we calculate to be 50. That is what you are promising to do today, and we take you at your word. But just because we are a little bit suspicious we are actually giving you notice in today’s bill not to come back to us in three years time looking for an increase unless you can prove to us that you have put in, on average, 50 truck stops a year. I say to the government: you are telling us that you are going to do that and we believe you, so why would you not agree to this being in there?

While I am on that, perhaps Senator Conroy is right when he says that Infrastructure Australia is not the appropriate body. Senator Conroy said to the Senate that there are more appropriate bodies. You are the government, so you have a team of advisers, whereas we have practically none, so you tell us what the body should be that assesses it and I will make the amendment on my feet as we go. We picked Infrastructure Australia because it was supposedly absolutely independent. We did not expect Rod Eddington to go out with his tape measure and measure up these truck stops, but we assumed that it would have some staff and a budget and it could employ contractors to go out and measure them up. But, if it is not the appropriate body, tell me which one is and I will seek the leave of the Senate to delete Infrastructure Australia and put in its place Senator Conroy’s suggestion as to who is right for it. That would overcome that.

I do not want to take it any further except to say that we are giving them an extra 2c a litre today on the basis that they have promised us they are going to build 50 truck stops every year for the next several years. We are just giving them notice with this amendment, which says, ‘Look, brother, don’t come back to us for an increase in four years time unless you can demonstrate to us that you have done the 50 truck stops a year and you have harmonised the state regulations.’ If you come back in four years and want to increase it to 23c a litre and you do your disallowable instrument for it, we could knock it off, as Senator Conroy said, but putting it in the bill in this way today makes it indelibly clear. The minister will not even be able to put in a determination in four years time unless Infrastructure Australia, or some other body, has said to the parliament: ‘These guys were true to their word. They have done the 50 a year. They have substantially harmonised with the states and territories, so you can therefore put in your determination.’ We can then knock it off for other reasons, but what we are saying is: don’t even bother with the determination unless Infrastructure Australia has told us that you have honoured your pledge to give us 50 truck stops a year and you have substantially harmonised.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will state in less than two minutes my position in relation to the four requests moved by the opposition. In relation to request (1), I see no harm in that; I see it as further clarifying what the position is in terms of definitional matters. In relation to request (2), which concerns there being not more than one determination in a financial year, I think that is fair enough and it gives, in a sense, some certainty to the industry that there will only be one determination per year. I support that measure. In relation to request (3), the amendment concerns the disallowable instrument. The difference is between not being able to raise the funds until 15 days, the time under the Legislative Instruments Act, has passed, or raising it now—the alcopops situation that Senator Macdonald has referred to. My question to the minister in relation to that is: what happens if, with respect to the government’s position, for some reason the Senate disallows that amount? Will there be a refund with respect to that? What actually happens with the funds that were already collected if, 15 days later, the Senate disallows it?

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

Just to help Senator Macdonald, the state RTAs are the relevant bodies to deal with that. There seems to be a little bit of confusion that the 2c is directly linked to the road stops or the harmonisation. This is not the case. They are not directly linked. The government has made the commitment that it will build these road stops in an ongoing manner. They are not tied together in the way that Senator Macdonald is trying to tie them together. As I have already mentioned, the funding for these comes from AusLink.

For Senator Xenophon, a disallowable instrument is a legal instrument until it is disallowed. I have done this myself. I disallowed an accounting standard, as funny as you may find that. In the 14-odd days that it took to disallow it, one company in particular, who was a major beneficiary of the change in the accounting standard, was able to conduct its business. This actually then went to court and the judge ruled that a disallowable instrument stands until it is disallowed by the Senate. So it has full force of law until it is disallowed.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I still have one other amendment to refer to. Whilst I am quite sympathetic to the opposition’s amendments moved by Senator Macdonald in relation to subclause 3, my concern is that there could be some administrative complexity with respect to that. I have discussed that privately with Senator Macdonald. We still have the mechanism of disallowing it. I am just worried about what would occur in the context of the consultation and all the steps that are required by having that 15-day period. I just think that is unduly onerous. If the Senate are minded to knock this out, they can do so well within that 15-day period. The flip side of it is that we can deal with it earlier. Presumably, if the new charges are so obnoxious, the majority of the Senate will get its act together and get onto it. So I cannot support that.

In relation to subclause 4, I understand the intent of what is being moved by the coalition. My concern is that the conditions, the trip-wires, that have been set up here are simply too prescriptive. I think that the government will be judged by what it does with this money and by the commitments that are made. I think the danger is that if we are simply too prescriptive about, for example, the meaning of ‘substantial harmonisation’—this is the sort of stuff that we lawyers salivate about; it is judicial review—it will not be a lawyers picnic but a lawyers smorgasbord. I am concerned, but I commend Senator Macdonald for raising this. There are some legitimate concerns. I think, simply by raising them, it really sets on the agenda the sorts of things that need to be considered. But making it that prescriptive is something that concerns me. I can just see it fraught with a number of legal minefields. In summary, my position is that I support the first and second amendments of the coalition, but I cannot support the third and fourth.

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

I refer back to Senator Xenophon’s last question to the minister. I think we all knew that legislative instruments take effect from the day they are signed. But I thought Senator Xenophon asked you: what happens to all the money you collect if, within the 15 days, the Senate knocks that off? Once you increase the price of the fuel, every truckie, as he goes into the servo, will pay the increase. If it is knocked off in 15 working days of the Senate, which could well be two or three months down the track, what happens to that money? Are you going to give it back to every truckie? What are you going to do? That is what I thought Senator Xenophon’s question was.

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

Thank you on behalf of Senator Xenophon! You are probably just misunderstanding how the process works. My understanding is that you do not pay any more at the bowser. The bowser price is the bowser price. You actually claim it when you do your BAS, whether it is on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. It is about the rebate that you get back. I think that probably mitigates on two fronts: firstly, I thought Senator Xenophon was answering his own question, to be honest, when he said that the Senate can get its act together fairly quickly; and, secondly, because of the way the BAS system works, the combination of the Senate getting its act together and the BAS rebate actually mitigates that fairly substantially, I would have thought.

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

Just on that, if the quarterly BAS statement has occurred in that time, are you saying that the government will have sufficient records, if it is knocked off, to actually refund the money?

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

I was not suggesting at any stage that there would be a refund of the money. It is a legal instrument while it is a legal instrument.

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

I will just try to bring a bit of clarity here. You could get the situation that the government of the day lowers the rebate, effectively increasing what I call a tax but what you would call a charge, but I do not want to go there. The price immediately goes up through the rebate going down. Some days, weeks or months later—it could be months—it is disallowed in this chamber. All of a sudden, there is this money that has been collected unfairly because the parliament has not actually agreed to it. You are saying it is not going to be refunded—that it must go into a generous Christmas fund somewhere. This is the problem that I think the opposition is trying to address here. We are not trying to muck around. We are trying to work out what actually happens. Whose fund does it go into? Santa Clause’s?

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

The government’s intention is to try to align the tax situation with the introduction, so there are three steps to minimise the impact. But a disallowable instrument works on the basis that it is legal. That is the way the parliament works. As I described before, one company chose to use the new accounting standard while I had a notice of motion on about disallowing it, and the court upheld that the process undertaken by the company was completely legal and the accounts did not have to be restated. The company were making a fairly major amount of money for themselves along that process. The alignment of the rebate process and the timing of it will see this potential danger become fairly minimal, in the government’s view. I am not suggesting for a moment that it will be zero. I am not trying to mislead any senator. I am not suggesting it will be a zero issue, but we believe that, with all these other measures, the likelihood of it happening will be minimal.

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

I will not make any further comment on requests (1), (2) and (3). I do not intend to call a division. I am clear about what Senator Xenophon is doing, unless I have changed his mind in the last little while.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

I am not absolutely sure of what Senator Fielding is going to do with all the requested amendments, but he will no doubt tell us so that we do not have to have a division. I will just have one more go at request (4). I am repeating myself, but I just want to make this absolutely clear to Senator Xenophon. The tax is going up to 21c today and we are unhappy about that. We are unhappy about any additional charges on the road transport industry. But we have conceded it because the government have said, ‘We’re going to spend $70 million on it.’ You would not be surprised if I said that we do not always treat everything the government promise to do as accurate. I could give you about 10 examples of that in 10 seconds if it were relevant. We do not always accept that everything they promise is true.

This does not apply today. It applies in four years time. We are just saying to them that the minister cannot issue a determination: ‘Do not even think about it; do not bother about it unless you can demonstrate that you have these 50 additional rest areas a year.’ If we put that in the bill, it will make sure that it happens. The government will know that, if they ever want to get more money out of the trucking industry through the fuel excise, they will have to have done this. It will not come to a vote in the Senate. It will not be an issue. The minister will just know that they should not even try it unless they can demonstrate through some independent authority that the additional rest areas have been provided. I suspect it will be done through Infrastructure Australia. I would not go for the state road transport authority, Senator Conroy. That is like Caesar appealing to Caesar. That is why I think they are good amendments. They will just keep the government to their word. If the government are going to do it, why would they possibly object? We just want to make sure that we are keeping the Bs honest, and this is an easy way of doing it.

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

I will sum up a little bit. Family First will support request (1), which is to make sure that there are not any formulas going with the indexation. We will support request (2), which says that there should not be more than one increase in the financial year. Regarding request (3), I have listened to both arguments. I am a bit nervous about the idea that it can be disallowed. You might come back and say that it is tough to give it back. I think I will support request (3).

I am still not sure about request (4). This is about safety. That is the core of it for me. Rest areas are something that I think most Victorians and Australians would be fairly concerned about. Were you saying that the $70 million is not tied to the transport charge? I thought it was linked to this bill. I am a little bit uncertain there. The $70 million covers 14 big truck stops or 140 small ones or somewhere in that range. I think quite a number still need to be done across Australia, so the funding certainly needs to be increased. I am worried that having no set increase in truck stops is a real concern. The situation is basically: ‘Trust me. There’ll be more coming.’ At the other extreme is the opposition putting in a little too much detail. I am probably erring on the side of saying that I would rather have more road stops than not.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assure Senator Macdonald that I maintain my position. I am concerned that the requested amendments are simply too prescriptive. I admire the intent, but I believe they are simply too prescriptive. I will not go through all the matters that have been raised previously. But, for example, what does ‘substantial harmonisation’ mean? Request (2)(c), for instance, says:

(c) the type of rest areas constructed, their spacing and amenities are consistent with the goal …

That is too prescriptive. That is my concern. My favourite phrase for the day is: let’s cut to the chase. The fact is that what is going to happen here is that we are going to see a substantial increase in expenditure for truck stops in this country as a result, in part, of this road user charge. That has to be a good thing. I commend Senator Fielding for his work on this and for ensuring that there will be an assessment of it in three years time. I respect Senator Macdonald’s arguments but I cannot support request (4) moved in his name.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens will not be supporting the opposition’s requested amendments.

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

I propose to put opposition requests (1) and (2) separately and then opposition requests (3) and (4) together. The first question is that opposition request (1) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I would ask that opposition requests (3) and (4) be put separately.

The Temporary Chairman:

Okay; we will put them separately. The question is that opposition request (2) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that opposition request (3) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that opposition request (4) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Fielding, are you proceeding with your requests?

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

As I indicated earlier to the committee, the government’s amendments picked up the issues that we had, so Family First withdraws requests (2), (3), (4) and (5) on sheet 5680 revised.

Bill agreed to, subject to requests.

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

Mr Chairman, I seek your guidance here. Is there a third reading of this Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008?

The Temporary Chairman:

No, not of this one; but there is a third reading of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008.

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

On the last question you have raised, Mr Chairman, I wish to indicate to the committee that, in relation to the questions of the bill standing as printed and the report of the committee being adopted, my instructions are that the opposition will be voting in the negative. We will not, however, be calling a division, which is why I am indicating to the Senate that the coalition is taking this view. I am particularly grateful that at least two of the four amendments have been agreed to, and I hope that the government will accept them in the other place.

The coalition’s position is that we really did not want to have any increase in this road tax charge. We think the trucking industry already suffers heavy imposts. They do not get much for the road charges they pay. The roads around Australia are in a shocking condition, and the rest stops are not there. Regarding the question of harmonisation, we have heard time and again in this chamber about the stupidity of differences in regulations when driving from one state to the other. It has been agreed that they will be harmonised, but the question is when. For all these reasons, the coalition believes it should support the trucking industry and there should not be an increase without the guarantees that we have sought here. It is for this reason that my instructions are that the opposition will be voting against the whole bill. I wanted to put that on the record but, because of the inevitable time delay that would be involved, I will not be calling a division.

Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 Bill reported without requests; Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 reported with requests; report adopted.