Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will begin my contribution to this debate on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 by addressing a few comments made by the honourable member for New England. The honourable member raised the issue of the Legume to Woodenbong Road and the Downs to Rivers Action Committee. We both attend meetings of that committee and are trying to further some of the needs that they have in terms of roads. It is difficult because that is a local road. There has never been a lot of money there for the electorate of New England. Previously in my electorate I have managed to get some money—as I know the member for New England has over the years—but it is never quite enough. It is something that we are really conscious of and seized with. We are trying to promote that issue. I am glad that the member for New England raised it. I was going to do it later on in my contribution but I thought I would do it while he was still here. And, yes, I do know about Bolivia Hill and how dangerous that area is as well, because they are roads that I travel over.

There are three other issues the member for New England raised that I will touch on. One is to do with Sydney and toll roads. I do not begrudge my city cousins their roads and transport and all of that, and I am sure that the honourable member for New England does not—that is what he was saying in his speech—but, when people say they are debating New South Wales, they are really only debating Sydney. It really struck home this morning when I was reading the Sydney Morning Herald, I think, and there was an article where somebody was talking about the need to debate transport in New South Wales. But the three projects they talked about were all in Sydney. I thought, ‘That is not a debate about New South Wales; that is a debate about Sydney,’ yet it was couched as being a debate about transport in New South Wales. It just galls me, because we have to have a debate about the whole of New South Wales and a debate about the country. Just because the numbers are different in country New South Wales and in the city, it does not mean that we in the country are not as deserving of the roads that we need to have for the safety issues and for the transport to carry our food, our fuel and our goods and services.

The food-fuel-carbon debate is a key debate that we do have to have in a broader sense. At the moment, the debate that I hear is an ‘either-or’ debate. That debate is happening nationally and internationally, and we have to have it in a more meaningful way. To that end, I would like to thank the honourable member for New England. We recently co-hosted a carbon-for-farming roundtable with Southern Cross University where we debated, discussed and started having a conversation about the sequestration of soil on farms and how farmers can get involved in that. At that roundtable we were able to at least start to touch on the fuel-food-carbon debate.

The last point that the honourable member for New England raised was that the quota of Independents has gone up by 50 per cent with the election of the member for Lyne, Rob Oakeshott. I would like to congratulate the member for Lyne on his election. I have had the privilege of serving in another place with both the member for New England and the now member for Lyne. I know that the contribution that he will make in this place will be quite significant.

I will now turn to the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. The bill amends the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 and gives effect to the following provisions. Firstly, it broadens the definition of ‘road’ contained in the enabling act to include rest areas for heavy vehicles so as to put beyond doubt that projects for the development of off-road facilities used by heavy vehicles in connection with travel on the road may be funded from the funds allocated under the act. The way I read the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act, there was some ambiguity as to whether the act allowed for that. This bill certainly puts it beyond doubt.

Secondly, the bill extends the Roads to Recovery program until 30 June 2014. The current funding ends on 30 June 2009, and the government have decided to extend it. I know the five local government areas in my electorate of Page—that is, the Clarence Valley, the Richmond Valley, Kyogle, Lismore and Ballina—were all cheering at that decision because the Roads to Recovery program is a popular program with local government right across the nation, particularly in my seat of Page. That program allows much-needed funds to go to local road projects that are of fundamental importance to local communities for issues such as safety and for key transport routes—the stock and food routes—and it will therefore contribute even more to our local economy.

These amendments also allow the funds to be preserved whilst processes can be established to provide funds for roads in unincorporated areas where there is no council and to provide bridges and access roads in remote areas. Speaking of bridges, one of the local government areas in my electorate, Kyogle, has about 432 bridges. That is a lot of bridges in a very small local government area, and it is something that we are seized with and that we talk about all the time in Kyogle. Over the years, funding has been provided for those bridges, but it can never be enough. In an area that has a very low ratepayer base, that is something that we are mindful of and that we work towards. I think it was just a few months ago that the council got funding for another eight bridges, which they were quite delighted about. That funding came through a state government program.

This bill also amends the principal act to put beyond doubt the continued eligibility of those projects listed. Again, my reading of the act is that it had that ambivalence in it, and it is always good to put it beyond doubt so it cannot be a matter of contestation sometime down the track.

I want to return to the definitions section and, more specifically, the funding of heavy vehicle safety projects that will come on line from 1 January 2009. I note here that it will not include—correctly—commercial development for food, or fuel or motel outlets that would be covered by the broader definition but would be the regular sidings, as I call them. I travel the Summerland Way between Grafton and Casino, and there is one—and only one—on that 100-kilometre stretch. Whiporie is halfway, the 50-kilometre mark, and there is a toilet stop there where the trucks can pull up, but it is a small area and it could do with some work. I am not saying it is directed specifically to that one, but I know it is directed to areas like that.

The Roads to Recovery program will now be funded to the tune of $350 million each year from 2009 and consecutively until 2013-14. It has risen from $300 million to $350 million—the government has been able to put it up that extra $50 million, which is very welcome.

I want to turn to the Northern Rivers and particularly Page, but also the Northern Rivers-North Coast and South-East Queensland, because when we are looking at transport and roads, that is the area where Page is involved. It is vital for our region that northern New South Wales and indeed the South-East Queensland area have an effective and efficient system of highways to transport our people and our freight. Like a lot of people, I would love lots of trains, but I am realistic enough to know that we have to give good attention to the roads. We have a large land mass and a small population, and about 80 per cent of all goods and services are moved by road. Therefore it is vital that we give that attention to the roads—as much as I love trains and was an avid train traveller. A lot of people always talk about putting the trains back on, as I do, but I say to them: ‘You have to use them. When we have the trains, you actually have to get on them.’

See this speech in context