Mr LAWLER (5:49 PM) —It is stating the obvious somewhat to state that there is something of a revolt stirring in my electorate and most other electorates in Australia concerning the recent dramatic increases in fuel prices. Although the overwhelming cause lies with soaring oil prices and a falling Australian dollar, nonetheless it is from their elected representatives that the public are now demanding solutions.

I strongly believe that the only way to in some way attempt to address this widespread and bipartisan discontent is to make amends through an avenue that is within the domain of the federal government. I understand the government's reluctance to freeze fuel excises, although the proposal received my support initially when it was suggested as a way to reduce prices—and I do not pretend that is not the case. With the New South Wales Service Stations Association forecasting more fuel price rises on the horizon, freezing the February excise would perhaps only be a stopgap measure. Its temporary effect on prices would immediately be swamped by the next increases, leaving the government faced with the same scenario but being at the same time many millions of dollars worse off, followed by the possibility of financial markets putting further pressure on the dollar, followed by interest rate increases and inflation—which would help no-one.

But if prices cannot be artificially manipulated then motorists should at least have the added burden of dangerous roads lifted from their collective shoulders. Watching as costs spiral while country roads decline is infuriating to the otherwise resilient people of my electorate in western New South Wales. I strongly believe that their considerable anger would be reduced if they could see that real action was being taken to drastically improve the quality of their roads.

I raised this issue in the House last month after a 2½ thousand kilometre trip around the northern part of my electorate, which is in the far west of New South Wales where, despite the complete absence of GPs and most other professionals or services, the overwhelming concern was dangerous or impassable roads. But we need not look to the outback to see examples of where our approach to maintaining country road networks has not evolved to keep pace with the modern world. Take the example of Warren shire, north-west of Dubbo, a reasonably prosperous cotton growing region with a ratio of sealed and unsealed road surfaces similar to that of many other regions across the country. According to the 1998-99 council figures, the money required by Warren shire to maintain roads at a satisfactory level, without capital improvement or reconstruction, was almost $1 million in arrears. The shire valued its road network as a $33.5 million asset and, in 1998-99, spent $1¼ million on maintenance alone—no upgrades, no new roads.

But, to meet a level of satisfactory maintenance, council estimated the job at $2.23 million, meaning the funding allocated to this region fell short by $975,000. Imagine the effect that that has on an asset year after year—quite aside from the fact that the traffic pressure on these roads has never been greater. To get some indication of the volume of traffic on country roads, the Dubbo City Development Corporation estimates that more than 4,000 semitrailer trucks pass through Dubbo every day. Add to that the findings of a study commissioned by the RTA that each heavy vehicle has the impact on road surfaces of 10,000 passenger vehicles—a sobering statistic at this time of increased agricultural output and, therefore, haulage. Private traffic is also climbing, as rail funding over a period has declined and small, cheaper vehicles ferry people in an increasingly mobile populace between centres. Yet, as a constantly heavier traffic volume batters road surfaces, state and federal taxes, which are passed on to local government as the authority responsible, have not increased at the rate necessary.

Over the years local government bodies have found their spheres of responsibility expanding and their financial resources being additionally drained by providing such things as youth services or environmental requirements, while many sport and recreation grants these days are based on a dollar-for-dollar arrangement. In short, there is now less money to address the condition of roads that have never been subject to heavier usage. That is why both federal and state governments need to radically overhaul their approach to funding country roads.

There is a precedent for the federal government to intervene. We do spend money on funding for Roads of National Importance and Black Spot, for example. If passed to local government, the funds must be tied. Also, the current money allocated to roads, which is untied, must be retied. Conventional wisdom of past decades is redundant in the case of country roads: the pressure on them, the funding they receive and the role they play. Consider the safety aspect alone and how that has taken on a new urgency with the current state of roads. Motorists, in increasingly smaller passenger cars, now share the roads with thousands more semitrailers, B-doubles and road trains that ambush them with potholes and dangerous shoulders, as well as having to face the danger of roos at dusk. Tourism is often touted as an economic tonic for regional areas such as mine. But luring metropolitan families away from the Pacific coastal highways and onto hours of frightening uncomfortable roads will take a hell of a lot of country charm.

No immediate action being taken will result in these vital transport arteries collapsing further and requiring infinitely more funding to correct. These roads are not just used for social visits or shopping. In country areas, where subsidised public transport never existed and services are too often dwindling, people drive to access basics like health care or financial services. For sick elderly people to be expected to negotiate an unsatisfactory road to get access to medical advice in this country, in this day, in this age is frankly outrageous. I have already said that government manipulation of fuel prices is perhaps not a viable long-term solution, which is extremely unfortunate, because soaring fuel costs are causing a lot of harm.

Many trucking operators and anyone else in business off-farm are being pushed to the wall by the present increases, especially those unfortunate enough to be contracted into arrangements that do not take account of fuel cost fluctuations. It is evident that there must be federal funding for roads that is tied to one or the other of the government's indexed revenue raising sources. Providing relief to country road users nationwide will take more than a one-off grant that, like a proposed excise freeze, will be quickly absorbed and then ineffectual, unless it is of considerable proportions.

It is time to completely rethink the way that we as a nation maintain our transport network, because the demands on that asset have increased at a rate unimaginable when our current approach was formulated. If, for example, there is an increase in the amount of resource rent tax gathered by the Commonwealth, this money should not be saved for future tax cuts prior to a looming election. Such windfalls should be put to use maintaining roads at a satisfactory level in both the country and the city. The benefits would be for the whole community and more equally distributed among all stakeholders rather than those with high incomes getting a larger slice of the benefit than the low income wage earner and the unemployed, who probably contribute more than their share of excise as they generally drive older, petrol guzzling vehicles. This may not be—in fact it probably isn't—a sexy issue for most voters. But, if it is left unchecked, the nation, and therefore everyone in the nation, will pay the price in the future.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I put the question:

Question resolved in the affirmative.