Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Being very conscious of the time and the wishes of this place to get on with all sorts of other business, while I still want to make a full contribution I will try to limit it to a shorter period of time. I have spoken in this place on countless occasions, I would have to say, about roads, road issues, AusLink funding, road and rail infrastructure development and a whole range of issues—for good reason, because they are very important to our communities, to people’s lifestyles, to the way that we support the economy and to the way the economy works. I think that all members of this place and of the community share, let us say, some common goals and views. We are all very supportive of trying to promote roads and making sure that our road infrastructure and road systems work effectively and are good for society as well as for the economy. So I always take pleasure in speaking on these types of bills, particularly the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008.

Of course, I could not make a speech in this place without raising the Ipswich Motorway. I see people looking at me, taking note of that! But I do it for very good reason. For me it has been a very long journey of almost 11 years since I first raised the issue of the Ipswich Motorway and how important it was, not just to my local community but to the whole western corridor and South-East Queensland. I understood back then just how big a task it would be. I never imagined it would take me 11 years and a change of government for it to be realised, almost as a dream, but that is the case. Today we again heard the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government make that point, but it is great to be in this House and to have another opportunity to put that on the record.

I am here today to speak in support of the AusLink amendment bill specifically and a number of changes to the legislation in particular, with regard to heavy vehicle safety and the extension of funding to the Roads to Recovery program, both of which I think are very important matters. I am certainly supportive of both. Let me start by saying, too, that Roads to Recovery is a very important and essential roads funding program that the federal government administers. In my part of the world, in the western corridor, it has meant the flow of some serious dollars in terms of fixing up some very important roads—arguably some of the most neglected roads over a long period of time. So I am very thankful for all of that.

I want to give a few examples of some local projects that have occurred, in particular in Algester and some roads there—particularly some missing links that have been fixed, increasing safety for motorists and reducing congestion, such as on Nottingham Road—and also new roads that have been created in the suburb of Bellbird Park and construction that is currently going on at Redbank Plains, at Progress Road in Inala and at Old Logan Road in Camira. Without this funding, these essential projects would never have gone ahead. The reality is that local governments, which are typically responsible for these roads, do not have the financial resources; they just do not have enough money to take on these types of projects, particularly when you consider the booming growth that we have in the western corridor. My part of the world is the fastest growing patch in all of Australia. We have an enormous load to carry for the rest of the country in terms of the number of people who are coming to the region, and it puts a lot of pressure on our local government authorities, our road infrastructure, our water, our energy infrastructure and so forth. Passing this bill and allowing the extension of the Roads to Recovery program until 30 June 2014 will see a further $350 million flow into the program every year for the most urgent essential upgrades of our local roads right across the country, something which I very much support.

I also recall that it was only last sitting week that we had the Council of Mayors (South East Queensland) down here in Canberra to lobby as a group. I think it is some important work that the collective of mayors in the south-east of Queensland are doing. I think they have touched on an issue that I have been talking about for many years and will continue to talk about and try to garner support for: that we need to work in partnership—between local councils, the state and the Commonwealth—to achieve projects that otherwise would not happen and to take a strategic approach to the way that we deal with growth, development, planning, infrastructure and roads.

I think local councils are beginning to understand the situation. Certainly my local council of Ipswich has fully understood the task it has ahead of it in managing future growth. They are looking for support. They are not just coming to Canberra cap in hand asking for money. They are actually saying, ‘We have got a plan and there are things we can do.’ I am working with a group of 20 mayors and I am currently in discussion with those mayors about coming to Canberra and providing us with some information on the things that they are working on.

I do not want to be overly political in this particular debate, because I think it covers some really important issues. But, after 12 years of the previous government, you have really got to ask yourself how so much could have been left undone, how so little was achieved in these really important infrastructure program areas. I shudder to think what would have happened had the previous government actually continued. A whole range of projects would not have gone ahead, the Ipswich Motorway being one of them—an essential road upgrade project. Perhaps, as certainly was the plan during the last election campaign, money would have been diverted to programs which would have been non-essential compared to much higher priorities. Let us be thankful for small mercies. A change of government can make a real difference. You often hear people criticise and say, ‘All governments are the same, all parties are the same—what difference could it possibly make?’ I keep reminding people of the difference in my electorate. I say: ‘This road project wouldn’t have ever gone ahead. We would have missed the opportunity had the previous government been re-elected. It would have gone off and done another project counter to it.’ So the decisions that individual people make in terms of delivering these really big infrastructure projects are very important.

I can recall the previous government carrying on about how much more money they stuck into these programs and how supportive they were. But on careful reflection and a simple look at some of the data, particularly that compiled by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, we see that the Howard government actually reduced annual road funding by an average of $244 million or about 11 per cent. That was the reality. Given the environment that we had—an environment in which there was massive population growth, particularly in the south-east of Queensland, enormous pressure, a doubling of the freight task and high-end needs in delivering infrastructure—we actually saw a reduction in the amount of money that was available. While federal road funding averaged about $2.3 billion a year under the Labor governments of Hawke and Keating, it fell to just $2.05 billion a year during the first eight years of the Howard government—a stark contrast. Over their first eight years in office, the period for which data is currently available, those funding cuts amounted to almost $2 billion—a substantial amount.

The extension of the Roads to Recovery program is just one important part of the commitment that we have made in the area of road infrastructure. If you took that on its own you would say, ‘That is good,’ but it is not on its own; it is actually part of a broader program and part of a much bigger picture. The extension of Roads to Recovery is also part of the Building Australia Fund, part of Infrastructure Australia, part of Major Cities and part of us getting on with the job of nation building. It is something we are going to hear a lot more of, because it really is an important part of how we manage and properly set in place a chain of events and some programs that will carry on and deliver benefits a long way out, not just for the election cycle but in 10 years, 15 years and 20 years time—things that the Labor Party in government have been very good at historically and something that we will continue to do. We have our eye firmly on not only what we need to do for people’s benefit today but also what we need to do in the national interest, in the best interests of all people, into the future.

As I have said, the western corridor is a hugely important growth area in Queensland, as probably are most western corridors, whether in Sydney, Melbourne or other places. I have got to put on the record here—it is probably well known in my caucus—that I will work very hard and continue my campaign to ensure that people fully understand the sorts of pressures that we face: real pressures where people’s lifestyles are impinged upon by congestion, by all the things that need to be done. Working on ending the blame game and working on making sure that we set up the right partnerships between federal, state and local governments are important parts of doing all of that.

In the recent 2008 budget we made an announcement about the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, which will include a number of things: additional heavy vehicle rest areas on key interstate routes; heavy vehicle parking, decoupling areas and facilities in outer urban and regional areas; new technology in vehicle electronic systems; and road capacity enhancement to allow access for high-productivity vehicles to do more on our road network. These are all part of our program. This program is a very important part of the steps that we are taking to ensure that we can deliver not only for commuters but also for professional drivers and to ensure that we deal with the freight task that is ahead of us. This is a good bill, something that everyone should support. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Marles) adjourned.

See this speech in context