CHAIR—Welcome, Mr Harper, from the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in Australia. This is an inquiry into Australia’s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels, with references that I am sure you have already read. We have had our time for reporting extended to 19 October. These proceedings are public, although we may agree to requests to hear evidence in camera. You may ask for evidence to be heard in camera and the committee will determine if it should be heard in camera. I remind you that evidence to the committee is covered by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee, and such action may be treated as a contempt by the Senate. It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence to a committee.

If you object to answering a question, you should state your reason, and then the committee will determine whether we will insist on an answer, having regard to the ground which is claimed. If the committee determines to insist on an answer, you may request to have the evidence given in camera. I will invite you to make an opening statement.

Talk
Mr Harper—Thank you for the opportunity of being here. The debate on alternative fuels, pricing and effects on pollution has been going on now for close to 40 years, certainly in my lifetime, and the institute has been behind that in a number of ways in terms of summits and conferences designed to find a way ahead for the future. I say ‘for the future’ because we all recognise that in relation to reserves of oil, gas and fossils within Australia—and, in fact, worldwide, particularly within the developed companies of OPEC groups—shortage is not an issue, reserves being the 30- to 50-year standards and opportunities being available perhaps to even extend it beyond there. The real question is what do we do beyond that period of time?

The institute has been pushing as well as anybody else, and for that reason we welcome this form of inquiry to progressively design an understanding and an analysis of the benefits and costs of going ahead beyond the 30-year program that I am talking about and doing it now, so that we have a firm national government intent to ensure that what we do is understood, accepted and made aware to the people who are going to be affected by it. Our main interest in all of this is ensuring that not only do we become, and remain, an active part of what is happening as a professional group but, importantly, that we are there to ensure that somebody is progressing this in a way that has some effectiveness in the longer run.

Senator MILNE—You talk in your submission about road use pricing. Would you like to elaborate on that? You have mentioned the Singapore and London experiences with a congestion tax. What is your view about that?

Mr Harper—Clearly, in areas where it has been introduced—I mentioned Singapore because it goes back to the original 1974 model, but it has since been introduced in London and in Stockholm—the principal findings have been reduced congestion, fewer vehicles coming into the CBD area, better use of public transport, as buses in particular have been speeded up through the more open opportunities of transit lanes, and also the two issues of importance, reduced emissions of pollution and a reduction, although not all that significant, in traffic deaths.

Senator MILNE—Did London and Singapore put in all their transit lanes and all that before they introduced the taxes or was it the other way around?

Mr Harper—It occurred progressively over a period of time before then. Singapore did not have any transit lanes and London still does not have transit lanes. They got better use out of existing resources. It is the first step of improvement—get better use out of what you already have—and they said, ‘We’ve got space here, let’s make sure that that space is better utilised for the benefit of the greater number.’ That was the principle that they endorsed. In Stockholm there are bus transit lanes and priority lanes, but they were there before the introduction of this measure. Australia is a very good example, where we have introduced bus lanes in a number of our capital cities. They are not as extensive as they could be. Having said that, it is an indication of what you can do, and you get better use out of the resources—in this case, space—that you have.

Senator MILNE—Do you think it would be feasible for Sydney to introduce a congestion tax right now?

Mr Harper—It is feasible but it does not have the political gumption to make it happen.

Senator MILNE—I am not talking about the political will. Let us assume that we move to a congestion tax for Sydney tomorrow. Is there an adequate capacity on public transport and in relation to rapid conversion to free up enough lanes, to actually get the flow-through that you might require, in order for it to be a realistic proposition?

Mr Harper—The issue is not the congestion tax, the issue is the timing of its introduction. You would not bring it in tomorrow. I go back to something I said earlier on: people need to understand and be aware and be prepared to accept changes over a period of time. I am not talking about a ‘sell’ package, I am talking about the opportunity to introduce a change in a sensible way that will have a minimal adverse effect on traffic flow and the movement of people. The movement of freight is also very much affected. It is something that would need close analysis. In every city of the world where an analysis has been undertaken, I say again: it has never been introduced in those places, simply because there has not been the political will or they have seen the possible fallout that could affect their political standings at the time.

Senator MILNE—If you made a decision today to have a congestion tax in Sydney and Melbourne, let us say, what sort of lead time do you think would be realistic before it could be managed at a logistical level?

Mr Harper—This has been tried before, so let us not reinvent the wheel. My advice would be to find out the sort of information that we could gather from those who have tried it and seen it work and ask, ‘What are some of the things we should do and what are some of the things we should not do?’ I would see a minimal 12 months lead time being involved. That would be my advice. Part of that lead time would certainly be in the collection of information in the first few months that would enable me to understand what I should be doing and what I should not be doing.

Senator MILNE—Were there any other road pricing initiatives, apart from a congestion tax, that you were thinking of when you wrote your submission?

Mr Harper—It is an inherent argument here in Australia that there should be a balanced expense on road and rail charging, and the economic effect of this is important to ensure that there is no bias in the cost and, therefore, in the prices that reflect on either mode that would enable a marketplace balance of road and rail distribution. That is one of the ongoing arguments. I do not want to get too much into that because there are too many details. But, having said that, the government recently decided not to proceed in any further road taxing arrangement but it is not an issue that should be left off the plate.

Senator MILNE—You talk strongly in your submission about people having an inherent