Debate resumed from 21 October 2009.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [4.07 p.m.]: The Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill 2009 will amend the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 to enable registration charges for heavy vehicles to be imposed in accordance with nationally agreed reforms, and consolidate all road transport Acts into a single Act. I hope that this amending bill will achieve the aim of nationally agreed road rules for heavy vehicles—an issue about which we have been talking for a number of years.

At present many truck owners in New South Wales go to Queensland and to South Australia to register their vehicles, and many trucks in this State are registered nationally. The other day, when one of my friends said she thought that all the trucks in this State came from the Northern Territory, I informed her that they were all registered nationally. I hope that the bill achieves nationally agreed road rules. I note with concern the increased charges for trucks on roads in this State. The annual registration charge for a tri-axle semi-trailer will increase from $5,084 to $5,200, which is a reasonable increase. However, the annual registration charge for a tri-axle B-double will increase from $8,041 to $14,340. The registration charge for a B-triple will increase from $9,016 to $20,340.

The Government's excuse for this monumental increase is that smaller trucks currently cross-subsidise the running costs of larger trucks. That may be so, but many truck drivers have difficulty making ends meet with increased running and fuel costs. The NRMA does not oppose the bill, nor does the Australian Trucking Association, although it is not entirely happy with it. As I have said before in this House, B-doubles are an accepted and efficient mode of transporting freight around this State, across this country and all over the world. On Thursday 27 August the Minister for Roads, Michael Daley, reaffirmed the Government's persistence that B-doubles will not be allowed to use the Great Western Highway over the Blue Mountains. That is an unbelievable decision in this day and age.

One sees B-doubles daily travelling along the congested Parramatta Road, through to Port Botany, to the north of Sydney and south to Melbourne along the Princes Highway, but they will not be allowed along the Great Western Highway over the Blue Mountains to the most vital part of this State: the Central West of New South Wales. The Minister's press release referred to the upgrade of the deficient Great Western Highway, but when that upgrade is complete—if it ever is—the highway will remain deficient and for the foreseeable future B-doubles will not be allowed to travel along that road over the Blue Mountains. I am sure the member for Bathurst privately would agree with me, but he is not allowed to do so in this place. He sees B-double transport operators heading for the Central West daily, but they are not allowed along the Great Western Highway.

Mr Gerard Martin: For obvious reasons.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER: Because the Government will not upgrade the highway sufficiently. The Government even talks about an easier route down Victoria Pass.

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: I am sorry to interrupt the member for Orange when he is animated because it does not happen that often. However, I thought the bill—

Mr Thomas George: What is your point of order?

Mr Gerard Martin: It is relevance. When we want the monkey to dance, we will grind the machine, Thomas. We are debating the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill, not the dream of the member for Orange for a 400-mile tunnel under the Blue Mountains.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will listen further to the member for Orange.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER: The bill refers to B-doubles, which should be allowed access to the Central West. The Government has no plan in the foreseeable future to allow B-doubles to use the Great Western Highway even after its current upgrade is completed. In his press release the Minister said:

I also want to assure the local community that the NSW Government has no plans to allow B-double trucks over 19 metres along the Great Western Highway.

That assurance includes also the Bells Line of Road. What does that mean for the people in the Central West? Bathurst and Lithgow have many factories that provide many industrial goods for consumption. Orange has the world-class Electrolux factory, which builds about 2,000 refrigerators and freezers daily. It is a highly-efficient factory that still employs 500 or 600 people. Electrolux loads its whitegoods onto B-doubles that then travel overnight to Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide but not into Sydney, the most important market for the metropolitan area and for importing. Electrolux is increasing the export of its top-end refrigerators into south-east Asia and other countries. What support does Electrolux get from this State Government? It cannot transport those goods down to Sydney in the most efficient way using B-doubles because the Government is trying to appease a few people on the western side of the Blue Mountains and will not allow it.

The Opposition does not oppose the extra charges outlined in the bill, although the impact will be significant on B-double and B-triple drivers operating north and south of the metropolitan area. Unfortunately, not all truck drivers can pass on those charges as many have long-term contracts that do not allow for such increases. Some truck drivers may be able to pass on increased fuel costs, but will not be able to pass on these exorbitant registration increases—not bad inflation just to bring us into line with other States. I acknowledge the need for some uniformity, but many more rules and regulations for trucks and their loads that have to be brought into line will not cost any money. These increased heavy vehicle registration charges will cost our trucking industry a considerable amount of money that, in most cases, will not be passed on to customers because of contracts and competition.

What will the State Government do with all this extra revenue? Of course, the automatic response will be that it will go into extra road funding. I hope that is the case and that consolidated revenue does not reap the reward, as so often happens because not enough ever comes out the other side.

Mr John Williams: It was spent on the breakfast on the Harbour Bridge.

Mr Gerard Martin: Come on, Rusty, be nice to us.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER: It is a bit difficult, Gerard, but I am nice to you when I can be. I cannot help but use this opportunity to push for improvements to the Great Western Highway. Government members call the current work on this highway an upgrade, but I remind them that some years ago we in the Central West and everyone over the Blue Mountains were promised a four-lane highway through to Katoomba and three lanes through to Lithgow to be completed by 2012. This Government will have no chance to live up to that promise because it is still negotiating on the route, and we are almost at the end of 2009. The Government is still negotiating running the route through Lawson. I do not believe there will be four lanes through to Katoomba, let alone three lanes through to Lithgow.

The Government will take increased registration charges from truck drivers, yet does not provide decent and efficient access over the Blue Mountains. The Government is not being fair to the people of the Central West. The Government also is not being fair to the residents of the Blue Mountains because they still face constant traffic jams through the many changes already implemented on the Great Western Highway. Most of the highway between Emu Plains and the Blue Mountains is four lanes, but the maximum speed is 80 kilometres an hour, which drops to 60 kilometres an hour in some sections and then 40 kilometres an hour for school zones. That poor road is a local road servicing the needs of local residents as well as a highway to the Central West, including Bathurst, and beyond. It never will be able to sustain such a demand with the Government's current upgrade plans because of the many changes in speed limits for the towns and villages along that route. That is not fair to the residents. As far as this Government is concerned, once the upgrade is eventually finished—whether it is 2012 or 2015—that will be it for another 50 or 60 years.

Mr Gerard Martin: Oh!

Mr RUSSELL TURNER: The Government will not continue spending money on upgrading the Great Western Highway. The member for Bathurst can scoff at my remarks, but what are the plans for the three lanes through to Lithgow? The Government has not got the courage to complete the Great Western Highway bypass between Lithgow and Katoomba. The Government finally came up with a proposal to upgrade the existing road instead of having the courage to adopt the Opposition's policy of constructing a brand new four-lane highway following the Bells Line of Road. The Government listed numerous excuses for not adopting that option, the latest excuse being the condition of a couple of bridges and the presence of a munitions dump on Newnes Plateau, which could quite easily have been bypassed. The Government used that as an excuse not to adopt the Opposition's policy, or even consider it as an option.

The Opposition's policy was a good, reasonable compromise which would have resulted in stage one of the Bells Line of Road completely bypassing the Great Western Highway between Mount Victoria and Lithgow and following a route across the Darling Causeway and up through Newnes Plateau. That would have been a good option, and the Opposition would have supported it. But, no, the Government backed down. Now everyone in the Central West will be stuck with a compromise of an upgrade of the Great Western Highway, in whatever form that takes, and through Little Hartley. The option selected by the Government will not please anyone. I do not know why the Government is going ahead with it. In any case, that is the Government's decision, and Labor members will have to live with that.

While the Opposition will not oppose the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill, we are not happy with it. We acknowledge the hardship that it will create, especially for truck drivers that have upgraded to B-doubles and B-triples. I note that although the Australian Trucking Association initially opposed the legislation, it reluctantly will not oppose it now. I urge the Government as much as is possible to keep heavy vehicle operating costs to a minimum and to amend road transport legislation to bring the New South Wales into line with national guidelines and guidelines in other States that are operating far more efficiently than those of New South Wales.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [4.21 p.m.]: I am not sure where to start, but I know I will have to correct a great deal of what has been stated by the Opposition before I deal with the substantive parts of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill 2009. It is not difficult to see why the Orange branch of The Nationals is being stacked in the advent of the next State election. The first person who will be most upset by the contribution to this debate made by the member for Orange is the Leader of The Nationals. In the past few weeks the Leader of The Nationals has been visiting the Blue Mountains and grandstanding with one of the local action groups. He has been saying that over the dead body of The Nationals would B-doubles be driven over the Blue Mountains. Pie in the sky! The member for Orange has just said that the Opposition's policy provides for B-doubles to travel along the Great Western Highway, but the Leader of The Nationals is telling everybody that The Nationals policy is that that will not happen.

The upgrade of the Great Western Highway will extend from Penrith to Orange. The plan originated with the former member of the Blue Mountains, Bob Debus, and has been carried on by his successor very successfully. Currently the Government is undertaking a consultation process on the selected route that will bypass Mount Victoria and two black spots on the Great Western Highway at Victoria Pass and River Lett Hill. While a number of options had been canvassed, the document announcing the selected route was released last Friday. Although the member for Orange may think the proposed route is a waste of time, no-one in my electorate has any qualms about the Government remedying black spots at River Lett Hill and Victoria Pass; nor do heavy transport operators.

The selected route will allow 19.5-metre B-doubles to travel along the upgraded highway, but for a number of reasons 26.5-metre B-doubles will be banned. The member for Orange would be aware of all of the reasons for that, but he adheres to the Opposition's pie-in-the-sky solution of constructing a tunnel that would start somewhere in the Megalong Valley, which is quite near the Hartley Valley, and finish somewhere near Walgett. That is the solution espoused by the member for Orange, regardless of what it would cost. Leaving aside the in-depth discussion of the Bells Line of Road option, the selected route will bypass Mount Victoria and go through Hartley Valley. The selected route is the subject of a consultation process currently and does not preclude consideration of the Bells Line of Road option. The member for Orange referred to the bypass beginning from Katoomba, but is mistaken. The bypass will be constructed from Mount Victoria to Lithgow.

The cost of the Bells Line of Road alternative route probably will be close to $1.5 billion, which is why it has been placed on the backburner. Consultation between the Federal Government and the State Government is still underway, and there may be movement in the position adopted by the State Government relating to the Bells Line of Road option, but it is a massively expensive proposal. Let me examine the Opposition's proposal relating to the Bells Line of Road. The Opposition has expressed its intention to construct that alternative route in five minutes, figuratively speaking, without any community consultation, preservation of national parks or discussion of other important issues that people who live in the Blue Mountains should be consulted about. The Opposition has a bulldozer mentality. During the most recent State election campaign, the Opposition promised that the Bells Line of Road route would be constructed during the first term of a Coalition government. That was an absolute lie—and no-one believed it.

Mr Russell Turner: Point of order: We promised it in the first 10 years.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: No-one believed the Opposition. The Opposition promoted the smiling candidate in Dubbo, the current member for Orange and the lady who opposed me in Bathurst, Mrs Williams. The Opposition used massive billboards and brought in the Leader of The Nationals and his silver shovel—with which he tried to dig through granite, and then wondered why he could not dent it. The Nationals campaign was promises, promises, promises—and no-one believed them. They have no credibility in relation to this issue. I invite the member for Orange and Opposition spokesman to visit the Blue Mountains, particularly Mount Victoria, and publicly contradict the Leader of The Nationals by outlining his plan for the upgrade of the Great Western Highway. I know what the people of the Blue Mountains will tell him. He cannot have it both ways.

This year the New South Wales Government is spending a record amount to build, upgrade and maintain the State's roads network. We know that the freight industry is a major beneficiary of improvements, and it has acknowledged that it is reasonable to pay a fair share of the cost of that work. I note that the New South Wales Government listened carefully to the transport industry. As recently as June this year the industry told the Government that it was suffering from the global economic crisis and required more lead-time to prepare for the implementation of a new round of charges. The Government is working with all the other States to provide lead time. That is the hallmark of the approach adopted by the New South Wales Labor Government over the past 10 years and by the Federal Labor Government. As a result of that request, the then Minister for Roads deferred implementation until a comprehensive information campaign could explain how the charges would work. That provided a much-needed financial break for the industry. Rather than being an enemy of the transport industry as suggested by the Opposition, the New South Wales Labor Government is a friend.

Mr John Williams: Oh, I do not know about that.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: Let me cite Ron Finemore. Anyone who knows anything about the transport industry would know that Ron Finemore has been a leading player in transport for decades. He is Chairman of Ron Finemore Transport and recently stated:

We were in difficult economic times and the Government's initiative showed they were on top of the issues involved.

Ron Finemore is hardly a captive of the Labor Party. He went on to state:

Times are still tough but a deal is a deal. We all need to work together to show the customer that increased charges mean better roads on which we move their products to market more efficiently and effectively.

That is what will be happening as a result of the Government's upgrade of the Great Western Highway and all ancillary roads associated with the project. That is what is happening in my electorate, and my constituents appreciate expenditure on roads along the mid-western highway around Blayney, where people such as George Tanos has invested in massive cool rooms and nationwide product distribution. The Government has spent tens of millions of dollars on the mid-western highway between Blayney and Lithgow because we recognise the value of heavy transport. I can point to numerous examples of the benefits that the upgrade of the Great Western Highway will bring to my electorate alone.

The bill's administrative amendments will support New South Wales and ensure that road spending and infrastructure spending continues to match the rapid technological and productivity gains being made in the industry, such as advances in braking systems and suspension in trucks. The amendments include the establishment of new classifications for some larger prime movers and all heavy trailers, such as B-triple trucks. The new charges will be applied nationally. They have been designed to recover the cost to State and Federal governments of the impact on Australian roads of an increasing number of heavy freight vehicles. Section 9 of the Act presently provides a legal safeguard that prevents New South Wales registration charges being set at a level that exceeds those approved by the Australian Transport Commission. This protection is guaranteed to remain in place.

The proposed amendments will improve the ability of New South Wales to respond in a timely manner to current and future national reform commitments—that is important—and reduce the risk of this State experiencing financial disadvantage due to any delay in implementing the approved national change. I support the bill for all those reasons and for the benefits it will bring to the people of New South Wales, including our freight industry, into the future. As I said, I am happy to debate this issue with the member for Orange anywhere at any time, but he should talk to his leader and ensure that they are singing from the same song sheet; otherwise his prospects in The Nationals are dim and dimmer.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [4.30 p.m.]: Unfortunately in the electorate of Murray-Darling we have no Ron Finemores applauding the increase in heavy vehicle registration charges. Indeed, the opposite is the case. For some time the trucking industry in Murray-Darling has been echoing concerns about increased registration costs, which it was aware would be introduced. As we know, people in the industry are battling drought conditions. The volume of freight movements today is not what it was historically, and the volume of work for transport companies has reduced substantially. So these increased costs will come at a very bad time in the business cycle.

We note that a national cap was placed on the increases. The New South Wales Government will impose charges up to the highest limit. My question is: What will happen in the other States? What will happen in Queensland? Will registration of a B-double be cheaper in Queensland than it is in New South Wales? Many people will be disappointed if registration is cheaper in Queensland because those who travel across the border regularly are always questioning why they conduct business in New South Wales rather than in Queensland. Many freight companies in my electorate are not specialist carriers; in most cases, they need to adapt. They have trailers registered to carry grain, flat-bed trailers registered to carry general freight and trailers registered to carry stock. One problem the companies face is the time that the trailers sit idle; they still need to be registered and ready to go. Obviously the offset work that needs to be carried out is not done in most cases. The increased charges will be simply another impost on their business.

Unlike specialist carriers, some carriers have contracts involving a good volume of work and they can easily amortise these charges on a per kilometre basis. However, that is not the case for most operators in the Murray-Darling area, who have struggled to maintain their business. In most cases, bigger freight companies have reduced their staff substantially and reduced their fleet, which is a clear indication of the current economic times. The increase in charges does not offer them any flexibility; it is simply another impost on their business. No doubt this does not augur well for truck operators in my electorate. The Opposition has chosen not to oppose this bill—I guess there is no value in opposing the legislation because, regardless of our opposition, the changes will go ahead. I speak on behalf of the freight companies in my electorate. I only hope that they can find a way of absorbing these increased costs.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [4.34 p.m.]: The Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Road, Rail and Intermodal Transport, known as IGA, was signed in 2003 by the Commonwealth, States and Territories to enable the ongoing provision of nationally consistent registration charges for heavy vehicles. In February 2008 the Australian Transport Council endorsed a three-phased approach to implement reforms contained in the 2007 National Transport Commission Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination. In addition to the national approach being managed by the National Transport Commission, the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreed in April 2007 to a three-phased COAG road reform plan for heavy vehicle charging to be implemented over the next decade. Each jurisdiction is required to implement appropriate changes on an expected annual basis.

In July 2009 the New South Wales Government announced that the second phase of the reforms would be implemented for New South Wales registered heavy vehicles in January 2010, giving industry in this State a six-month delay in recognition of the impact of the global economic crisis and the impact the increase would have had on regional Australia at that time. This delay has been supported by the industry—in particular the Livestock and Bulk Carriers Association, whose members have advised their appreciation of the opportunity it has allowed operators to communicate the upcoming increase to their customer base. The National Transport Commission estimates that in 2007-08 heavy vehicles underpaid their fair share of road costs by $100 million. The changes that will be introduced over time in the regulations will give us cost recovery—nothing more.

It is important to emphasise that the charges will be based upon costs that have already been incurred by the Government in maintaining roads. So any reforms introduced over time by the regulations will contribute only to cost recovery of government expenditure that has already benefited heavy vehicle road users. The bill's amendments establish a mechanism to allow for the ongoing adjustment of registration charges by regulation. These regulations will be subject to review in the normal manner. A transparent process has been undertaken by the National Transport Council and the New South Wales Government in formulating the staged reform process. The bill allows for the ongoing modernisation of registration charges applicable to the heavy vehicle industry and provides substantial benefit to the economy. The bill will also facilitate the ongoing commitment of New South Wales to national reform priorities. I commend the Minister for this approach.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [4.37 p.m.]: The Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill 2009 amends the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 to enable registration charges for heavy vehicles to be imposed in accordance with nationally agreed reforms, and consolidates all road transport Acts into a single Act. Technically, I agree with that. In terms of background, in February 2008 the Australian Transport Council of Ministers approved a new heavy vehicle charges determination, which includes incremental charges for heavy vehicles to pay for additional road wear caused by heavier loads. The agreement means that registration charges for heavy vehicles in Australia will increase by approximately 69 per cent, to be phased in over three years from 1 July 2008.

In July this year the State Government delayed the introduction of the new heavy vehicle charges for six months in order to give operators more time to adjust to the changes. The new charges will take effect on 1 January 2010, and will affect approximately 150,000 heavy vehicles and trailers registered in New South Wales. The registration charge on a tri-axle semitrailer will increase from $5,084 to $5,220. The annual registration charges for a tri-axle B-double will increase from $8,041 to $14,340; and for a B-triple, from $9,016 to $20,340. They are significant increases. Earlier speakers have said that this legislation will bring New South Wales into line with other States, but I have received information that registration charges in Queensland—even in relation to private motor vehicles—are significantly less.

Companies have been given six months to adjust to these new charges. Recently I talked to a number of transport operators in the Tweed. Three out of four are moving their businesses north to Queensland, where not only registration but also workers compensation charges and payroll tax are cheaper. Queensland is open for business on a regular basis, and it attracts businesses from the southern States. I recall recent media reports about the Treasurer, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, being short-changed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting to the tune of approximately $800 million, particularly in relation to road wear. Many members will be aware of a major road issue concerning the notorious Sexton Hill black spot in the Tweed, upon which work is still to commence. The Minister for Roads assured us that the work would commence at the beginning of December 2009. Once again, through traffic will be looked after but not local traffic that enters and exits the road.

At present that part of the Pacific Highway—which is a major arterial link between New South Wales and Queensland—has just on 27,000 truck movements a day. If there is cost recovery and the money is spent improving road wear, it will surprise people in the Tweed electorate. Less than 12 months ago Anna Bligh, the Labor Premier of Queensland, used Queensland taxpayers' funds to build five kilometres of road in New South Wales. The Tugun bypass is seven kilometres long: five of those kilometres are in New South Wales and two are in Queensland. The then Minister for Roads in New South Wales refused to contribute any funds to the project. In fact, the former Treasurer sent Queensland a land tax bill for $250,000. I was the only New South Wales politician to receive an invitation to the opening of the bypass. The Queensland Labor Government gets on with the job of building roads and looking after local people.

Mr Richard Amery: They use our money!

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: The member for Mount Druitt says they use our money, but how does Queensland get our money? It is because our Treasurer could not negotiate when he attended the Council of Australian Governments meeting. He will not be sent on any more negotiations because he always loses. New South Wales is $800 million down the tube. My chief concern with this legislation is that the costs will be borne by the trucking industry, which will pass them on to consumers—the poor mums and dads of New South Wales. The poor working class people of New South Wales who are trying to earn a decent living and to look after their children and give them a better future will be forced to pay more for their groceries, such as bread and milk, and for other daily living expenses. Is anyone concerned? It is only members on this side of the House, whose chief concern is looking after people, particularly those in regional New South Wales who have been doing it tough. Once again, the Government is kicking them in the teeth. It whacks on more fees and says, "It's not our fault; it is a national problem." It is unbelievable. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the trucking industry in the Tweed.

Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [4.45 p.m.]: Under a process introduced by the Hawke Labor Government, laws affecting heavy vehicles in Australia are developed by the National Transport Commission and approved for implementation by the Australian Transport Council, which comprises Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers. This reform process has significantly promoted a national market for transport services in Australia. Since 1995 the national transport reform process has delivered nationally uniform registration charges for heavy vehicles throughout Australia. The charges are calculated independently by the National Transport Commission, in consultation with the States and stakeholders.

Truck companies are the lifeblood of the freight industry in country New South Wales. As industry representatives noted recently, the six-month deferral in introducing this round of reforms gives customers and transporters a fair go. As one of their leaders said, "Some other States slugged operators straight away, but not New South Wales." The deferral has also given the industry extra time in which to understand and prepare for the changes. When the decision was announced, the former Minister for Roads said that the Government believed a short deferral served everyone's interests, allowing industry some breathing space without denying the community the benefits that the reforms will deliver in the long run. I ask the House to note that the impact of the reforms on rural and regional areas is likely to be negligible as the costs are simply being redistributed between the vehicle types already servicing these areas. Furthermore, the Government continues to offer the existing registration concessions and exemptions to all primary producers. I support the bill.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [4.46 p.m.]: The wordy title of this legislation is the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill 2009. But it should be called what it is: a tax. We know that the Australian Labor Party never saw a tax it did not like or a tax it would not hike. That is what this bill does.

Mr Richard Amery: Are you going on that poetry show?

Mr ANDREW STONER: It reminds me of the comparison between the Labor taxman and a taxidermist. Has the member for Mount Druitt heard that one? At least the taxidermist leaves the skin. This bill ostensibly brings New South Wales into line in relation to heavy vehicle registration charges on a range of trucks from semitrailers to B-doubles and B-triples. This is part of the Federal agreement that was reached between a Federal Labor Government and State and Territory governments, most of which were Labor controlled. For a long time, the former Federal Government resisted increasing registration fees for heavy vehicles across the nation. Road transport is an integral part of our economy and increases in road transport taxes, which this bill introduces, flow through the economy to consumers who depend on the goods that are moved by the road transport industry. In other words, effectively this bill is almost a negative stimulus measure.

The Nationals represent many transport operators in regional New South Wales, a number of which are small businesses and owner/drivers who borrow money to buy their truck. They are living the dream and having a go. It grieves me that they will face much steeper costs to go into business and maintain their operations, and so will have to borrow more money. My fear is that as interest rates rise, living the dream will become very difficult for many who are not part of conglomerates. They are not Lindsay Brothers or Linfox-style operators but very small operators who will struggle to cope with these increases.

For B-doubles, the tax will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, which is substantial. However, the increase for B-triples is even bigger: from $9,016 to $20,340. That is a massive tax increase. I have spoken to the Australian Trucking Association, which campaigned initially against the increases. However, it now recognises that they are going to happen and is resigned to that fact. The association has recommended that the Opposition not oppose the bill. I have spoken also to the Australian Road Train Association, whose members have bigger rigs with multiple trailers. Association members are not happy with the increases but are fairly fatalistic.

The Coalition does not oppose the bill. I make the point that essentially the increases are a tax that will flow to consumers—the hardworking families of New South Wales. I point out also that the State and Federal Labor governments are keen to promote nationally consistent fees and charges—in other words, taxes. However, when it comes to consistency of rules and access to New South Wales roads, they are not so keen. Time after time, road transport operators have told me that they are able to transport a particular type of freight of a particular weight interstate, but the minute they cross the border into New South Wales the Roads and Traffic Authority will not allow them to do so.

Similarly, Queensland is quite happy for some longer vehicles, such as B-triples, to travel the State's roads. But as soon as those vehicles cross the border into New South Wales they face very tough restrictions on exactly where they may go. We do not mind some restrictions because we do not want B-doubles and B-triples passing through small communities or the central business districts of towns and villages. There ought to be restrictions. But New South Wales is totally out of step with the other States, particularly Queensland and Victoria, when it comes to the rules and regulations governing the road transport industry. New South Wales rules should be consistent with national rules. We should reduce red tape for New South Wales road transport operators and give them some value for money, which is what the increase in registration fees should represent.

Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [4.52 p.m.]: The Cumberland Highway, the Hume Highway, the M7, the M4 where it joins the M7, the M5 to the south, the Smithfield-Wetherill Park Industrial Estate—which, until a few years ago, was the largest industrial estate in the Southern Hemisphere, and we still class it as such—pass through the Fairfield, Cabramatta and Smithfield electorates, and a massive number of trucks traverse the area. Erskine Park is not far away, and the Government is considering building a road to allow direct access from there to the Smithfield-Wetherill Park Industrial Estate. Hopefully, that will happen in the not too distant future. The Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill 2009 goes to the heart of the trucking industry in our municipalities and electorates.

Targeted infrastructure improvements are crucial to allowing increased access to higher productivity vehicles. In New South Wales registration charges go directly into a fund that may be drawn on for road improvements only. There is considerable evidence that increasing government investment in road infrastructure is required in order to improve the productivity and safety of the trucking industry. Heavy vehicle charges need to keep pace with these investments. Crucially, section 9 of the Act will provide legal safeguards to ensure that the regulation cannot be used as a means for this or future governments to implement heavy vehicle registration charges in excess of those agreed to by the Australian Transport Commission. Only charging reforms that have been the subject of national consultation and agreement may be implemented through the regulation. I commend the transparency of this approach.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [4.54 p.m.]: I have long advocated in this place that States and Territories should cooperate on particular issues. One area of many inconsistencies is the heavy vehicle transport industry and regulation regarding road management. There appears to be general agreement about the provisions in the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill 2009 regarding annual registration charges for heavy vehicles. For example, the charge for tri-axle B-doubles will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, and the registration charge for B-triples will increase from $9,016 to $20,340. With those increases in costs comes the expectation on the part of the heavy vehicle industry that road maintenance and infrastructure will keep pace with its needs. However, I question whether the increased funding gained through registration fees will be invested in B-double and B-triple infrastructure.

I highlight the example of the Gocup Road. Members, including the member for Burrinjuck, would have heard me speak in this place about that road. The road dissects the Wagga Wagga and Burrinjuck electorates. It runs from the Hume Highway at Gundagai to Tumut and is a main thoroughfare for the communities of Tumbarumba and Batlow and surrounding areas. The Gocup Road has had a very interesting history since investment was made in the Visy paper and pulp mill. In 2001 the New South Wales Government gave a commitment to spend $7.7 million over nine years on the Visy road connections. Ultimately, investment in the Gocup Road has been widely exaggerated and certainly underinvestment has occurred. My point is that if the Government is going to increase taxes through charges and registration fees it needs to ensure that that money is invested in roads such as the Gocup Road.

I have received a letter from the mayor of Tumut Shire Council, Trina Thompson. She has written also to the Minister for Transport and members of the Legislative Council Tony Catanzariti and Mick Veitch, who often taken credit at the opening of a building or the unveiling of a plaque but when it comes to providing funds for this important infrastructure are nowhere to be seen. Under New South Wales planning laws Visy received that welcome investment, which has been a great boon for the Tumut and Tumbarumba shires and surrounding areas. It has resulted in jobs and other investment in the town. Associated timber industries and the Tumut area as a whole are experiencing enormous growth. We understand that growth is accompanied by a need for infrastructure.

Tumut council has campaigned tirelessly for the upgrading of Gocup Road. The council has assessed that Gocup Road is no longer able to carry B-doubles travelling at a speed of 100 kilometres an hour, and has moved to reduce the speed limit to 80 kilometres an hour. The council even suggested banning B-doubles from the road. I remind members that Gocup Road is the main thoroughfare from the Hume Highway to the Visy mill, other companies, including Weyhauser, and various timber operations. This road carries logs from Bathurst and surrounding areas to the Visy mill. The council does not have $82 million to upgrade this road. That is what is required, according to the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] study that was completed and given to the Minister. Subsequently, the Minister decided that rather than invest in the road he would ignore the recommendation of the report and not upgrade it to a State road. It means that not only did the council miss out on upgrading the road to a State road but it also was left holding the baby, unable to fund $82 million in infrastructure.

The reason I raise this matter in the debate is that the Government and the council will be asked to allow B-triples on this road. As industry tries to find the efficiencies that are demanded and as fuel costs rise it will be looking for ways to minimise costs. Who is going to pay for this piece of desperately needed infrastructure? It is quite clear that it is not the New South Wales Government that will pay because in all the years that council, individuals and others have been campaigning to have this road upgraded the closest they got to the necessary money from the Government was a total of $7.3 million that was spent on the private access road to the Visy mill and $7.7 million over nine years. If this Government is serious about development of infrastructure and regional development it needs to ensure that some of the taxes that are raised from the increased charges for registration are invested in roads such as Gocup Road.

There have been protests about Gocup Road. The Tumut Shire Council has met with Federal Minister Albanese and it has certainly taken up the issue with the Federal member, Mike Kelly. The softwoods working group, in which all the timber industries are partners, has made a commitment to dedicate funds to Gocup Road. So far there has been no response from the State Government except for $500,000 announced two weeks ago, which will allow for some remedial works. This is such an important issue that Tumut Shire Council has seen fit to hold a special meeting to which the Minister, David Campbell, has been invited. Tumut Shire Council will host the meeting. It has invited the member for Burrinjuck, Tony Catanzariti, MLC, Mick Veitch, MLC, Kay Hull and me. I understand that Mike Kelly has also been invited.

Visy stage 2 will come on line within the next few weeks and the road will have to cope with an increased number of trucks that it was never built to carry. The road is disintegrating before the council's eyes. It is unable to raise the $82 million to fix the road between Gundagai and Tumut. The Minister has provided $500,000 and the Federal member says, "Isn't it great? I have intervened and got the $500,000. Minister Campbell listened to me." What a load of codswallop! Honest to goodness, if anyone should take the credit for that small amount of $500,000 it would be Tumut and Gundagai councils, which have been working tirelessly to obtain funding.

This issue is far too important for individuals to run off press releases and claim credit for something they did not do when there has been a concerted effort by all to achieve an outcome. We hear very little from the Government. The previous Minister for Roads agreed to inspect Gocup Road. With the change of ministerial portfolios the present Minister, David Campbell, needs to accept the invitation to the roundtable that is being held. Tumut Shire Council is trying to do the impossible with the limited funds it has. If the Government is going to raise taxes and charges on the trucking industry it needs to ensure they are invested in places where funds are desperately needed. I can point to other timber areas that are suffering the same fate as the south-east slopes, where the timber industry has expanded by 30,000 hectares of plantings.

This is an important issue. I have said that lives will be lost. Gocup Road does not have overtaking lanes because it was never designed for the traffic that is using the road. It was never designed to carry the massive loads it is being asked to carry. It has never had the investment that it desperately needs. There would not be a member in this place that does not support regional development. We all want jobs in our communities and we all want to provide better lifestyles and opportunities, but we cannot do it without investment in the foundations of a community, which is infrastructure. That is what is lacking and it has been lacking for a number of years since this great Visy project was welcomed to our community. Tumut and Gundagai councils, with the support of Tumbarumba and others, have been campaigning relentlessly for funds.

Members may ask what the member for Wagga Wagga was on about in his speech. I am about calling this Government to account and appealing to the Minister to do something about this road. He should get Minister Albanese out to Tumut and come up with an agreement that will allow the $82 million of investment to occur. If that does not happen I fear that lives will be lost. There is no doubt that if members travel on the road and understand the amount by which traffic will increase they will agree that the increased taxes should be invested in this road and the others I have talked about. The time is long gone when we can ignore this issue. It is critical.

To rub salt into the wound, there is a bill before this House that will allow the Minister to sign off on the sale or lease of disused railway lines. The railway line that the Minister can sign off on, although it is disused, passes the Visy mill. There is a possibility it could be used and the logs from Bathurst and elsewhere could be brought to the Tumut mill to be used to feed it. That opportunity will be lost if the bill is passed. That is another avenue, albeit long term. The fact is that the Minister, by a stroke of his pen, can get rid of that corridor any way he pleases.

I am not going to speak against the fact that the States have got together and proposed measures and industry seems to be reasonably supportive of those measures. When it comes to the heavy vehicle industry, there is no doubt in my mind it is about time governments got together to fix some of the inadequacies created by the States having differing legislation. You have only to talk to the heavy vehicle industry and to truck drivers and others to learn about their pure frustration with differing legislation. It does not stop there, as I have said before. Sadly, however, the community cannot be assured that the money raised from the increased taxes will be spent on important infrastructure to support the trucking industry. Indeed, the Staysafe committee, of which I am a member, is currently conducting an inquiry into the implementation of chain of responsibility legislation. Infrastructure is lacking that would allow truck drivers to pull up on the roadside and take their scheduled breaks as required by the legislation. We are looking into that lack of investment in infrastructure.

I hope the Government will hear my words and act on them and start to invest some of these increased taxes and charges in supporting an industry that will become more valuable. The trucking task will double in the next 20 years. That means more trucks on our roads and with the closure of the branch lines and rail lines to which I have referred the Government can expect more requests for funding, because the roads were never built to handle the axle loads they are being asked to carry.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [5.09 p.m.]: I will make a few comments on the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill 2009, which is designed to amend a number of pieces of legislation but generally speaking bring in uniform charges for the industry, which in effect is a national industry. I wish to respond to some of the issues raised by Opposition members. It is pleasing to note that they support the bill, although they used this opportunity to highlight many negatives about this State Government—

Mr Andrew Fraser: The deficiencies of your Government.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: As the member for Coffs Harbour said, they took this opportunity to highlight the Government's deficiencies. The member for Tweed made an interesting comment. He said that the Queensland Government was funding the construction of a small piece of road from Tugun to the New South Wales border and that some of that funding included the construction of several kilometres of road in New South Wales. I was pleased to hear him report that the Queensland Government—a good Labor Government—is spending some of the money given to it by the New South Wales Government on roads in New South Wales. I respond to the observation of the member for Tweed by stating that New South Wales and Victoria subsidise States such as Queensland.

The Leader of The Nationals took a swipe at the legislation introduced by this Government and said that the former Howard Liberal Government was against increased heavy vehicle charges. If my memory serves me correctly—the recollection of the Leader of The Nationals was incorrect—the original agreement was signed in 2003 by all State and Territory governments and the Commonwealth. Let me give members some examples of why I believe that our heavy vehicle transport industry should be regulated nationally. Heavy vehicle registration charges and fees in New South Wales are higher or lower than they are in other States, which causes many disreputable people in the industry to abuse the registration charges.

In the 1970s, when I worked as a police officer in Parramatta, some trucking companies found that vehicle registration in South Australia was much cheaper than it was in New South Wales. One company, which operated out of western Sydney, was registered to an industrial site on the outskirts of Adelaide. The company's name comprised the first three letters of the name of Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and the last three letters of the name of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. When various Adelaide police authorities checked out the site it was found to be a vacant block of land. I am pleased to report to the House that early one morning the man involved was arrested before he had had his breakfast. Some of the consequences of not having uniform laws and registration fees between different States are that practices are put in place and the door is opened for some of those disreputable organisations to abuse the laws of the day.

All State governments want to eradicate that sort of nonsense in industry. Costs for anyone registering a semi-trailer or a B-double in Adelaide, Brisbane or Sydney should be more or less the same. The Leader of The Nationals also said that not all operators in the industry were Fox or Lindsay Brothers type of operators. A number of tragic incidents have occurred in my electorate and several owner-drivers have been financially ruined because their financial position was not sufficiently secure. Those who go into this industry may mortgage their homes to pay for their semi-trailers or B-doubles. If the operators of a company go broke or lose their long-term contracts with a large operation they not only lose their trucks and businesses; they also lose their homes and everyone suffers. People embarking on a career in the difficult heavy vehicle industry should seek the highest possible level of financial advice.

As I said earlier, I support the bill. The New South Wales Government's contribution to the whole national framework should be applauded and not criticised. Earlier the member for Wagga Wagga said that he hoped the money recovered from these registration charges would go towards upgrading rural roads. That money is already going into rural roads. However, there is a shortfall of about $100 million because of the damage caused to those roads by the heavy vehicle industry. This user-pays legislation will ensure that truckies are aware of the damage that they cause to country roads. I am sure that all members are aware of the damage that these vehicles cause to our roads. This legislation will seek a more substantial contribution from industry to enable road restoration for the damage caused by heavy vehicles that are using our roads in ever-increasing numbers.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.15 p.m.]: I support the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill 2009 but I, like other members, express concern generally about roads and road maintenance in New South Wales. I concur with what the member for Wagga Wagga said earlier about Gocup Road and the rail link in that area. When I was shadow Minister for forests I was aware of the efforts being made to get that rail link up and running so that heavy vehicles could be taken off our roads. The promises made by this Government and by the Federal Government relating to Gocup Road have all gone down the drain.

Last Friday I again spoke in this House about the loss of life on the Pacific Highway. Over the weekend several people were killed on a new section of that road. I am not aware of the full details of the accident in which a woman lost her life, but I understand that she drove her vehicle into the back of a parked semi-trailer. In two weeks four people have been killed on the Pacific Highway—a road that this Government promised would be completed in 2006, which was three years go. Currently the road is about 60 per cent completed. The member for Lismore informed me today that Federal Minister Albanese, who recently visited Lismore, said that by 2016—the revised date for the completion of that highway—only 75 per cent of the dual carriageway would be completed, which puts us 10 years over the original completion date. Even though the Pacific Highway is being upgraded there is a lack of attention to the provision of truck stops.

Twelve months ago an accident occurred at Eungai in which the driver of a heavy vehicle was killed because there was nowhere along that road for him to pull off, exchange the rig and head back to Brisbane. He did a U-turn on the road in order to go back to a private truck stop and, while performing the U-turn, was hit by another vehicle and killed. His young son was in the vehicle with him. For a long time Opposition members have been asking for the construction of more truck stops along that highway. I refer also to the $250 million upgrading of the Bonville bypass, an area that includes the Sid Burke Reserve. The original cost of that upgrade was estimated to be $48 million. I would like to see a full audit of the funds provided by the Federal Government for that section of road as the costs blew out from $48 million to $250 million.

I wonder what proportion of those funds is being siphoned off to justify a huge and bloated Roads and Traffic Authority bureaucracy and what proportion is going into road construction or, alternatively, the 10-year maintenance contracts that have become part and parcel of those road upgrades. How much money has been pulled out? How much money could have been put back into that road? This Government is already $1.5 billion over budget on the Pacific Highway upgrade. Referring again to truck stops on the Pacific Highway, the truck stop on the Bonville bypass section of that road was closed. That much-used truck stop, which was located in State Forest land, was handed over to national parks. National parks decided to close it but public pressure resulted in its being reopened. When the new road was opened that truck stop was again closed—a truck stop that truck drivers and caravaners have used for generations. Today I again ask the Government to spend some money on that truck stop to bring it up to an acceptable standard. When that section of the road was upgraded only a small amount of money was provided for the truck stop in the Sid Burke Reserve. Truck drivers and motorists should be given a place at which to stop.

This bill will raise a huge amount of revenue. Will that revenue be returned to regional roads? Wal Murray, Minister for Roads in 1990-92, tried to get uniform legislation for heavy vehicle registration through the Council of Australian Governments. It has taken since then to finally get something done, and in the process we have lost millions of dollars. The member for Mount Druitt said that many New South Wales firms registered their trucks in South Australia, the Northern Territory or other States purely to save money. Those firms did save money, but it has cost this State because we did not get revenue returned from the registration of those vehicles. New South Wales trucking firms that register their vehicles in other jurisdictions should pay a penalty. The vehicles should be registered in New South Wales and that revenue should contribute to the upkeep of our roads. We all acknowledge that the heavier the vehicle the more damage to the road surface.

We should look closely at whether we can impose a condition that all businesses registered and operating in New South Wales must register their vehicles in New South Wales. The cost of doing business in New South Wales forced one of the oldest family-owned trucking firms—Lindsay Brothers in my electorate—to move its operations to Queensland a couple of years ago. I forget the actual cost involved for the move, but the company paid something like $300,000. However, it was able to recoup that money within three months due to the lower cost of doing business in Queensland. We have the opportunity to provide a level playing field to make firms more viable and have heavy vehicle registration revenue returned to New South Wales for road maintenance.

Only last week I received information that $10 million in road maintenance funding was cut this year from what had been allowed in the budget for the Pacific Highway between Newcastle and the Queensland border. That will result only in an increased number of deaths on that road. Many people have been killed by semitrailers because of sections of undivided carriageway on the Pacific Highway. I have raised before in this House the death a couple of years ago of young Dixie Gibson, a grand-niece of a former New South Wales police commissioner. Dixie was killed just south of Kew. She was one of the most attractive young girls one would ever meet in both personality and appearance. We never will know what happened, but her car went under a Pearson's semitrailer and she was killed. Dixie's unfortunate death resulted in that section of road being earmarked for improvement and it has now been improved.

Regional primary producers might end up bearing the increased registration costs mooted by this bill. Primary producers are price takers, not price makers. If the market cannot bear any increased cartage costs to cover the new registration fees those costs will be borne by the producer. This will mean another increase in production costs and, therefore, a reduction in gross income to the primary producer. Obviously, increased registration costs will be a blight on country consumers because the price of many goods—refrigerators, telephones, beds or whatever—manufactured in or imported into Sydney will increase comparatively. Those in regional New South Wales, which is the food bowl for Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong, will suffer through the increased cost of transporting goods and perishable products to the Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong markets. The growers are at the mercy of market forces. If registration increases are forced back to the farm gate the growers will be the ones obliged to pay.

While I support the bill, I again make a plea to the Government to get off its backside and put more money into the Pacific Highway. My Federal colleague raised in Parliament recently that the Federal Government has provided $3.1 billion of the five-year plan for the Pacific Highway. I pay credit to the Rudd Government for continuing the Howard Government plan and, in fact, for increasing the funding arrangement. I damn and condemn this State Government for contributing only $500 million for that plan. The Pacific Highway is a State road that effectively causes the loss of one life a week. In less than two weeks four lives were lost on that section of road. Three of those fatalities occurred on non-upgraded sections. It is time this Government kept its promise to the people of New South Wales. It is not just North Coast people who get killed on that highway; it is also people holidaying on the North Coast and people visiting relatives.

We saw a particularly horrific accident in Bonville in which a woman and two children were killed. They were not constituents of mine; they were from the Central Coast. The upgrade of that section of road has now been completed, but on other sections of the Pacific Highway that remain to be upgraded lives are being lost and people are being maimed weekly, if not daily. The State Government must increase its commitment from $500 million. As Federal member Mr Albanese pointed out on the weekend, the Federal Government actually is carrying the State in regard to the Pacific Highway. The State Government should pour the money it receives from the increased registration charges for heavy vehicles back into regional roads. Truck owners, drivers and firms are paying for it. It is only fair that that money is returned to the areas those trucks utilise for the benefit of all New South Wales people.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.26 p.m.]: The objects of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Bill 2009 are:

(a) to amend the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 to enable registration charges to be imposed on heavy vehicles in accordance with nationally agreed reforms,

(b) to repeal the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Act 1995 and the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Regulation 2006,

(c) to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts and Regulations.

In February 2008 the Australian Transport Council of Ministers approved a new Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination, which includes incremental charges for heavy vehicles to pay for additional road wear caused by heavier loads. This agreement means that registration charges for heavy vehicles in Australia will increase by approximately 70 per cent, to be phased in over a three-year period from 1 July 2008. In July this year the State Government delayed the introduction of the new heavy vehicle charges for six months to give operators more time to adjust to the changes. The charges will take effect on 1 January 2010 and will affect something like 150,000 heavy vehicles and trailers registered in this State.

The annual registration charge on a tri-axle semitrailer will increase from $5,084 to $5,220, on a tri-axle B-double the charge will increase from $8,041 to $14,340, and on a B-triple it will increase from $9,016 to $20,340. The higher registration costs for B-doubles and B-triples reflect the need to correct the current situation where larger trucks are cross-subsidised by smaller trucks. The consolidation of road transport Acts is aimed at simplifying the application and interpretation of road transport law in New South Wales.

The legislation will result in overall truck operating costs increasing by up to 1.9 per cent. B-double operating costs will increase by between 2.3 per cent and 3.9 per cent, or an average of 2.8 per cent. The cost increases will be passed on to freight users and ultimately consumers through the increased price of consumer goods. However, it may not be only consumers who will be impacted upon by this increase. As the member for Coffs Harbour pointed out, the increase will also impact upon producers. However, the Government indicated that price increases would bring New South Wales into line with other Australian States and Territories and reflect the requirements for heavy vehicles to contribute their share towards meeting the costs of roads expenditure. Not one truck operator would dispute that justification.

I differ slightly from the view expressed by the member for Coffs Harbour that action should be taken against trucks registered in States other than New South Wales for taking advantage of differential registration charges throughout Australia. While it is all very well to impose registration fees evenly throughout Australia, operators have been forced to exploit whatever advantages are available simply to survive in competition against their interstate counterparts. The only reason that truck operators have actively sought cheaper registration charges, cheaper fuel and cheaper everything else is to survive.

While it may be desirable to have uniform registration charges applying throughout Australia, New South Wales transport operators are disadvantaged by mass load limits applying in this State. I know from personal involvement in the Northern Co-operative Meat Company in Casino that New South Wales transport companies are not able to pack containers to full capacity because export products must be transported 80 kilometres along New South Wales roads where a weight limit, which is lower than that of other States, applies. They are limited by legislation to packing containers to two-thirds of their capacity. When a truck crosses the border into Queensland, the legal load limit is higher and the container is one-third empty. That is what is being done to New South Wales transport operators.

An equally anomalous situation applies in relation to livestock, such as cattle and pigs, that is transported from Queensland to New South Wales. It is well known that New South Wales markets depend on Queensland for a supply of livestock. A truck could be loaded at Dalby with 300 pigs and remain within legal limits while it is in Queensland, but as soon as it crosses the New South Wales-Queensland border, 60 pigs have to be offloaded because lower load limits apply in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government is pressing ahead with legislation to create uniform registration charges, but does not want to address the disadvantage suffered by New South Wales truck operations caused by different load limits applying throughout Australia.

I ask the Minister during his reply to explain why the Government will be charging the same registration fees as apply in other States, but is not giving transport operators the same load limits. This is another example of the Government hitting New South Wales transport operators. The Government allows a disadvantage to operate against the New South Wales transport operators, but wants to increase registration charges. The member for Orange highlighted problems of the condition of the Great Western Highway that preclude B-doubles from using certain stretches of road. I assure him and the member for Wagga Wagga that that is also a problem with the roads network of northern New South Wales, which is the fastest-growing area of the State.

A transport operator who wants to send a B-double from Warwick in Queensland to Lismore in New South Wales must ensure that the B-double travels all the way from Warwick through to Glen Innes and on to Grafton and then turns onto the Pacific Highway to arrive at Lismore. The direct route is approximately 100 kilometres but the prescribed B-double route is 250 kilometres. The road from Woodenbong to Legume is widely recognised as being the worst road in Australia. The Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, who is at the table, does not have to take my word for that: there are plenty of Internet sites where people have complained about the condition of that road. Single trailers travel along that road, but B-doubles are banned. That is what transport operators in regional and country electorates of New South Wales have to put up with.

The Government has given transport operators six months grace before implementation of the new charges. That concession pales to insignificance when compared to the competitive advantage of transport operators from every State except New South Wales that are able to transport heavier loads than those that their New South Wales counterparts are allowed to carry. The new charges will be subject to automatic indexation every three years. As I understand it, a formal review will take place every three years, but the review is not transparent. Indexation will be invoked automatically throughout that three-year period. How do we know that the roads will have been improved over that three-year period of automatic indexation? We will not know, and we may never know.

Roads traversing the State from the coast to the tablelands and beyond must be improved to B-double standard for the reasons stated by the member for Wagga Wagga and the member for Orange. Currently the privilege of having direct B-double access to major regional towns and cities is non-existent, with the result that the transport component of commodity prices is much higher in those areas than in other areas throughout the State. The increased cost is borne by consumers simply because regional roads are not good enough to take B-doubles. That situation continues because the Government constantly neglects its responsibilities in relation to the critically important road networks of country and regional areas in New South Wales.

Earlier I referred to the Northern Co-operative Meat Company and the penalties that have been imposed on the company because it has not had the same weight limits as those applying to trucking operators in other States. Even if that company packed containers to their full capacity for transportation by rail at Casino, which would involve traversing a maximum of three kilometres of roadway to the rail head, it would be illegal for the company to transport that load; the truck would be overloaded. There would not be one operator who would argue against uniform registration charges, but there should be a level playing field. The lack of uniformity in interstate weight limits represents a penalty for New South Wales transport operators. They have problems coping with the laws that operate in New South Wales compared with laws that operate in other States, and that is a disgrace.

As the Leader of The Nationals and the shadow Minister indicated, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, I request the Minister to address during his reply the level of disadvantage to New South Wales transport operators as a result of different weight limits. I ask him to explain why New South Wales transport operators, who are using the same roads as are transport operators from other States, cannot carry the same weights as do others. I assure the Minister that the roads in New South Wales are constructed in exactly the same way as are roads interstate—they simply follow a line on a map—so that cannot be the reason for different load limits. I cannot understand why uniform registration charges cannot be matched with uniform transportation load limits.

Mr DAVID BORGER (Granville—Minister for Housing, Minister for Western Sydney, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport) [5.30 p.m.], in reply: The Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Bill 2009 will align the New South Wales heavy vehicle legislation with other jurisdictions and reduce the risk of New South Wales facing a comparative financial disadvantage. I must clarify that everyone is in furious agreement on this legislation. I mention that in case people who are listening to the debate are not sure. This bill will be passed without dissent, and that is what should happen. Australia needs a national system of transportation. We have been working towards a common system of rules for heavy vehicles across the country for a long time. The process began during the term of the Hawke Government. These reforms have been agreed to by the Australian Transport Council. Everyone seems to agree that it would be untenable for New South Wales to have a charging system that was inconsistent with the other States.

The current Act requires a Cabinet decision and legislative amendment each and every time a national decision is implemented or new, more productive heavy vehicles are introduced. That is called red tape. Having to bring a bill to the Parliament every time there is a change so that we can be consistent with the national law is called red tape. That is why we are introducing a more effective system. The trucking industry agrees with our approach; indeed, I think everyone agrees with that. The current process is cumbersome and treats heavy vehicles different from the way we treat other vehicles and other things in this place. Placing the descriptions of heavy vehicles and the annually adjusted charges in the regulation will improve the agility of the New South Wales Government in responding to rapid technological and intergovernmental changes.

In response to the contributions of members, one point I make—in case this has not been made clear—is that in New South Wales vehicle registration funds go directly to a fund specifically required to be used on road improvement. All money raised goes back into fixing roads and on road improvement. It is as simple as that. I understand that all members have things in their electorate that they would like prioritised, but the system must always be based on equity and fairness—that is, all roads in the system must be compared and those that are deemed to be the most important must be done first. So all the money that is raised from these charge increases will go back into roads.

The trucking industry is a tough industry. It is a tough job, and people work long hours. Over time these sorts of changes are all about ensuring that people in the industry have reasonable and humane work conditions. Most of the charges that are proposed to be increased are modest charges. In relation to B-doubles, obviously a principle that is held by everyone is that the impact that heavy vehicles make on the road system should be paid by the roads users in some way. This bill will enable that to happen. It will facilitate the timely introduction of newer, safer and more productive heavy vehicle configurations, providing New South Wales with the opportunity to better address significant changes including, over time in a broader sense, climate change, safety, efficiency and urban congestion.

The amendments in the bill will ensure that New South Wales continues to fulfil its commitment to national consistency in administering heavy vehicle registration charges. I am pleased to note that this bill is the result of extensive consultation by the National Transport Commission between all States, Territories and relevant industry groups. In addition, the New South Wales Government has undertaken extensive consultation with the road transport sector in New South Wales. In fact, we delayed the introduction of the changes by six months following feedback from the industry, which was concerned about the fall-out from the global financial crisis. I thank the previous Minister for Transport and the role he played in that.

Mr Thomas George: What about the weight issue?

Mr DAVID BORGER: In relation to the weight issue, I am happy to look into the specific roads to which the member for Lismore referred. However, it must be remembered that local government plays an important role in terms of deciding which trucks can go down which roads. I understand that the member for Lismore, who is obviously an advocate for the heavy vehicle industry, is frustrated about the weight issue. As I said, I am happy to look at the specifics he raised and get a response for him. However, we have to deal with the fact that local government has a major role to play in the allowances of B-doubles using certain local roads. New South Wales must fund improvements in road infrastructure to support the valuable contribution of the heavy road freight and passenger transport industries to the people of New South Wales.

The National Transport Commission Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination aims to ensure that users pay, and the industry accepts that expenditure on road maintenance and improvement needs to be proportionate to the use by heavy vehicles. The bill acknowledges that the current rate of innovative technological change means that more productive heavy vehicle combinations must be recognised by the determinations at regular intervals. It is sensible that New South Wales is able to respond swiftly to these changes. The bill also ensures transparency in charging for truck drivers. Increases cannot be introduced without reference to an Australian Transport Council or intergovernmental agreement.

The bill also brings forward part of the planned consolidation of road transport Acts into a single Act, which was scheduled to be undertaken in late 2010. Consistent with the better regulation principles, the consolidation will simplify the application and interpretation of road transport law for legal practitioners, administrators and all users of New South Wales roads. The New South Wales Government is determined to ensure that the national reform program causes minimal disruption to freight operators at a time when the global financial crisis means that, as we know, many of them are doing it tough. The industry is supportive of this bill. Jim Savage, the President of the Livestock and Bulk Carriers Association, which has members in all States, has advised that the industry fully supports the principle of paying its way for road use and that these increases are part of that formula.

He also said that his association greatly appreciated the Government's decision earlier this year to defer these increases to 1 January 2010 in recognition of the real impacts of the global financial crisis and the impact the increases would have on regional Australia at that time. Not every State did that. New South Wales went down that path, and that decision has been respected by the industry. He also said that no-one likes increases in costs, but if we are to have better roads the trucking industry is prepared to pay its fair share to get them. That is consistent with the comment I made earlier. The measures in this bill will enhance the ability of New South Wales to implement the ongoing national reform commitments.

I can advise the House that Queensland has higher limits in some respects. In terms of the issues raised by the member for Lismore, I will certainly get a response to him. Stakeholders who operate nationally will benefit from the amendments as they will be able more readily to interpret their rights and responsibilities. The proposed changes will also facilitate the introduction of newer, safer and more productive heavy vehicle configurations, providing New South Wales with the opportunity to better address significant challenges, including climate change, safety, efficiency and congestion. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.