Dissenting Report
Opposition Senators
Interstate Road
Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008 and the Road Charges
Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008
Introduction
1.
On 15 October
2008 the Selection of Bills Committee referred the above bills to the Senate
Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (the Committee)
for inquiry and report by 21 November 2008.
Background
2.
The above
bills seek to implement the recommendations made by the National Transport
Commission and agreed to by the Australian Transport Council in February 2008.
These recommendations, called the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination,
establish a new heavy vehicle charging regime.
3.
The first
element, contained in the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No.2)
2008 will permit the making of regulations to apply new registration
charges to the less than five percent of Australia’s heavy vehicles that are
registered under the Australian Government’s Federal Interstate Registration
Scheme (FIRS). The second element will amend the Fuel Tax Act 2006 to
reduce the amount business are permitted to recover from the excise tax paid on
diesel and petrol. It will do so by increasing the Road User Charge from
19.633 cents per litre to 21 cents per litre. These changes are contained in
the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008.
This bill will also allow the ACT Government to set its own heavy vehicle
charges.
4.
The Committee
received several submissions, reflecting the fact that road charging is a
divisive issue. Put simply, the trucking industry believes that it is paying
its way and the rail industry considers that it is not. The submissions from
the rail sector argued that the National Transport Commission has been unduly
conservative in its Determination, its cost allocations are unduly restrictive
and that trucks are treated favourably at the expense of rail as a result.
This causes uneconomical and unfair distortions between the transport modes.
5.
While the
Opposition members of this Committee accept that arguments will always occur
between various transport proponents, this inquiry is not the place to review
the relative charging treatments between rail and road. The Opposition members
of this Committee will therefore confine their views on the particulars of this
legislation – is charge-setting regime proposed by these bills appropriate and
does it warrant support?
The bills
6.
The Interstate
Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008 applies the new
registration charge to Federally-registered vehicles. This increased fee will
affect approximately 21,500 trucks out of a total of 470,000. Most of
Australia’s vehicles are already subject to the charges agreed to by the
Australian Transport Council, since the States have applied them. We accept
the argument that the minority registrations that take place under the FIRS
should be brought into line with these nationally agreed changes. We also note
that this bill does not include an annual adjustment component.
Recommendation – the Interstate Road Transport Charge
Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008
7.
The Opposition
Members of this Inquiry support the Interstate Road Transport Charge
Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008.
The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill
2008 – ACT charge-setting
8.
The Road
Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 repeals the Road
Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993 so that the ACT
may set its own heavy vehicle charges. This means that the ACT will be able
to align its charges with the nationally agreed schedule. We also note that
ACT has a high proportion of rigid locally registered vehicles. This means
that the majority of ACT-registered truck owners will see their registration
fees go down if the ACT was able to apply the new registration charges.
Recommendation
9.
The Opposition
Members of this Inquiry support this component of the bill.
The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill
2008 – Road User Charge
10. The Road Charges Legislation
Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 also increases the Road User Charge from
19.633 cents per litre to 21 cents per litre. This charge will raise
approximately $490 million over four years or, assuming an indexing rate of 7
percent per annum, around $2.5 billion over ten years. This is a considerable
sum and the issues surrounding this impost must be considered carefully.
11. The Road Charges Legislation
Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 allows the indexation of the Road User
Charge. It does so by amending the Fuel Tax Act 2006 to permit the
making of a separate regulation. Section 43-10, clause 8 of the bill when
defining that regulation states:
a.
The regulations may prescribe a method for indexing the ‘road user
charge’.
12. This means the Government may make
a regulation that contains an indexing formula that defines subsequent
increases in the Road User Charge. What follows is that the Government need
not make such a regulation again. Should Parliament pass such a regulation,
the Road User Charge would go up every year without the opportunity for
Parliament to debate or disallow such an increase.
13. We also note that the Australian
Trucking Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association have
expressed concerns about this issue. Their submissions point out that if the
National Transport Commission’s indexing model is applied, the Road User Charge
could go up, without Parliamentary approval, every year at a rate of over seven
percent per annum. This would occur without industry consultation until the
National Transport Commission makes another Determination. This could be five
years. The argument that defends an automatic indexing arrangement - administrative
convenience -seems inadequate.
14. The Opposition Members of the
Inquiry regard the failure of this bill to preclude the prospect of automatic
indexation as a significant weakness.
15. The heavy vehicle sector argues that
the National Transport Commission did not consult adequately in developing its
Determination. The Australian Trucking Association maintains that the
Commission refused to provide the raw data submitted by the States and
Territories used to calculate the charges or the model to determine the
charges. They also provided examples where the modelling assumptions used by
the Commission did not reflect ‘real world’ results. We believe deliberations
should be open and transparent at all times.
16. While respecting the rebuttal of
these claims by the National Transport Commission in its submission, the Opposition
Members of this Inquiry are concerned that there appears to be a disconnect
between the sector paying the charge and the organisation that develops the
charge. Unfortunately this bill does nothing to mandate the levels of
consultation that should occur between the Commission and industry in the
Determination process.
17. The failure of the bill to mandate
adequate levels of consultation between the organisation calculating the Road
User Charge and the industry paying it is the second major weakness of this
bill.
18. The Road Charges Legislation
Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 does not address the extraordinary lack of
heavy vehicle rest areas on Australia’s highway system. The Government has
promised a $70 million Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Package which,
after deductions for the trials of monitoring technologies, will presumably be
able to fund slightly more than 60 roadside rest areas.
19. Plainly, this is not enough. The
Australian Trucking Association in their submission point out that Australia’s
national highway system is no where near compliant with the National Transport
Commission’s 2005 National Guidelines for the Provision of Rest Area
Facilities. They note that the audit of 13,823 kilometres of Australia’s
major highways conducted by an independent government research organisation –
Austroads – came to this conclusion. The Australian Trucking Association
estimates that there needs to be another 900 rest areas on the 22,500
kilometres of the AusLink National Network.
20. The Opposition Members of the
Inquiry are also concerned that with the implementation of the national fatigue
laws introduced by Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia on
29 September 2008, there is an even greater urgency for roadside rest areas.
At the moment, truckies are faced with the absurd situation of facing
legislated limits on driving times, but without places to park to be compliant
with those times.
21. This bill does not mandate the
construction of adequate numbers of roadside rest areas. This is its third
significant weakness.
22. Finally, the Opposition members of
the Committee note that the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment
Bill 2008 does not place any obligation upon the Commonwealth to push the
States harder to harmonise road transport regulations. The most egregious example
is the failure by the States to implement the national heavy vehicle driver
fatigue reforms on a consistent basis. There are other absurd examples, such
as contradictory treatments of weights and loads and the failure of some States
to open up designated routes for B-triples and higher mass limit vehicles with
road-friendly suspension. We also note the strong support by the Australian
Trucking Association for national road transport laws.
23. This bill does not require the
Commonwealth to encourage the States to harmonise contradictory heavy vehicle
transport regulations. This is its fourth weakness.
24. The Opposition Members of the
Inquiry are of the view that the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and
Amendment Bill 2008 is flawed. It fails to preclude automatic indexation, does
not mandate adequate levels of consultation, fails to address the shortage of
roadside rest areas and does nothing to deal with the problem of contradictory
state transport regulations.
25. The amendments proposed by the
Opposition deals with these matters. They specifically rule out automatic
indexation, define the nature of consultation that must take place between the
National Transport Commission and the industry that pays the Road User Charge, stipulate
the number of roadside rest areas that must be built and oblige the
Commonwealth to push the States to harmonise regulations.
26. With regard to the roadside areas,
the Opposition proposes that the Government be required to construct over a
period of ten years 500 rest areas. This would bring Australia’s national
highway system broadly into compliance with the Guidelines stipulated by the
National Transport Commission. The construction of such a number would cost approximately
$300 million – a modest sum given the large amount of money the Road User
Charge will raise over this time.
27. The Australian Trucking
Association has suggested amendments that address some of the concerns raised
by the Opposition regarding this bill. They do not, however, deal with the
failure by the States to harmonise inconsistent transport regulations. Their proposal
that the Government should be required to build 900 rest areas, while
desirable, is perhaps unrealistic. The fallback proposal by the Australian
Trucking Association to extend the $70 million Heavy Vehicle Safety and
Productivity Package to $100 million over four years and to require the States
to provide matching funds is worthwhile. It is, however, only a partial
solution.
Recommendation
28. In light of the weaknesses of this
bill, the Opposition members of the Committee recommend that the Road
Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 be rejected unless the
Government accepts its amendments.
Senator John Williams
Senator
the Hon. Bill Heffernan
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page