Senator SHERRY (6:24 PM) —There are a couple of issues I want to raise. I think we have had a fair debate on this issue so far. I can anticipate—the Labor Party being a positive opposition—

Senator Kemp —Ha, ha!

Senator SHERRY —We can be negative if you want us to be, but at the moment we are attempting to be positive. We would certainly like to see this come to a vote very shortly after the dinner break. There are a couple of points that I want to raise, Senator Kemp, and you might give them some deep thought over your dinner this evening.

Senator Kemp —Over my fish and chips.

Senator SHERRY —If it is fish and chips it is fish and chips. I will just go back to the question that Senator Harris asked about the boundaries. You cannot have estimates, as the government has given, without knowing the boundaries or at least having some fair idea of what the boundaries are, and the minister will not tell us or show us what the boundaries are. Senator Kemp is being very evasive about what these boundaries are going to be. He must have a good idea what they are, to be able to come up with these financial estimates.

I make the point to Senator Harris—as he may not be aware—that we do have the power to disallow the regulations, but it is an all or nothing scenario. We either have to vote them down in total or allow them to pass in total. If the boundaries were included within the legislation, we could amend as it suited us. But we do not have that option under the regulation route. We will look with interest at the boundaries of these so-called urban conurbations.

I want to make a comment about battlers. What concerns me about the Liberal-National approach is that we know that there are battlers in the trucking industry, but they are not just in rural and regional Australia. I have met and talked to drivers who operate in urban conurbations—in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, the Gold Coast, wherever these boundaries are going to be. I have met couriers and drivers in the trucking industry who operate just in those areas, and they are battlers too, Senator Kemp. So we are going to have the battlers in the bush and rural and regional Australia who are advantaged over the battlers in urban conurbations. That is not treating people in the same business equitably. It is unfair. Senator Kemp, what you are saying is that you care about battlers in rural and regional Australia but you do not care about battlers in the outer suburbs of Australia's large cities, and there are a lot of battlers there.

From reading the press this week and last week, I think a number of your backbenchers from those outer urban areas and those so-called conurbations are getting a little bit nervous about the approach of this government on policy areas. This is a prime example of battlers in one area being assisted—and there is no argument about that—when, in the same industry, people on low incomes, working extraordinary hours, in urban areas are not going to be advantaged. They are in the same industry. In some cases, they will be competing against each other. It is a very competitive industry, as I think anyone who has participated in or listened to this debate knows.

We are just about to come to a close, but there is another point that I want to raise, Senator Kemp: the issue of private roads versus public roads. I understand the legislation applies only to public roads. I would think that there are a lot of journeys in this country where at least part of the journey is on a private road—across a property—and that may form a considerable part of the journey. Again, it depends on how these boundaries are drawn. I do not see a valid reason why the distances travelled on private roads should not be allowed. The minister may be able to give me an answer to that. It just seems to me to be a bit unfair if you have some distance to drive on a private road, and I am sure we do have those circumstances existing in this country.