Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition is supporting the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 because we have long championed better transport funding, particularly road funding, even for roads which have traditionally fallen outside the purview of the Commonwealth. It was a coalition government which created, implemented and delivered record funding levels through the AusLink program, and in fact it was the vision of my former leader John Anderson, who was Deputy Prime Minister and transport minister. It was the coalition which developed and promoted the crucial Roads to Recovery program and the Black Spot Program after the Keating government had closed the latter down. It was the coalition which committed to spending $100 million over five years on 100 rest areas on the AusLink network. I might add that that is $30 million more than the current government is contemplating in its recent budget announcements.

I previously chaired the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts and, more than most, I have a good grip of what is required for Australia’s roads. My colleague opposite and I served on the last committee, where we did an intensive study over two years into the arterial road and rail systems of this country. There is some excellent reading in that, and there are still matters to be addressed, especially around the port areas, that were not addressed in the last budget. In October 2000 I handed down the committee’s report called Beyond the midnight oil. It was an inquiry into managing fatigue in transport. In part, it recommended the creation of higher quality rest stops for heavy vehicles, which is one of the focuses of this bill.

Evidence received by the committee based on American research and statistics showed that we needed about 2,400 new rest areas in Australia. Where did we get that figure from? We did some study on what the Americans were doing, and they found that they were at least 30,000 rest areas short, and we said, ‘On a population basis, 2,400 would be about the right figure.’ Some might argue it should be higher on the basis that Australia, although it does not have the population, has a similar area to the United States. Let us assume it was 2,400: 100 is a good start, and I do not denigrate that in any way, but it is only just the start and nothing more.

At that time there were a significant number of submissions, especially from the transport industry, indicating that rest areas for heavy vehicles were inadequate in both quantity and quality. What areas were available were frequently of a poor standard: they lacked shade, toilets, garbage bins and water; exit and entry points were poorly designed; and they were not properly designed for heavy vehicles, lacking space to line them up.

The findings of the committee in this area were not just about scheduling and road safety measures; they referred to the welfare and dignity of the drivers, both for their own safety and for the safety of the motoring public. We went out there in the middle of the night to places along the New England Highway and looked at service stations. What sort of food did they have? We went to one which I think was north of Tamworth. We went there at about one or two o’clock in the morning to see what sort of food the truckies were eating, and that was another point that we brought up. But the thing that really did stick out was these rest areas, and I think we need to do a lot more work on them.

When they are on the western side of a highway, they need to have shade. That is very important, especially if a driver pulls up in the afternoon on the western side of the highway. They must have shade. They need a reliable supply of water, tanks of some sort. At the very least they need biological toilets, but preferably septics. It has even been suggested that there should be a key system. Sometimes members of the public and hoons come and make a bit of a mess around those places, so a dedicated set of toilets should be available to truck drivers only using a plastic key system. It is more likely that they would look after those as they would be dedicated for their particular use.

Of course, these things become even more important when you are out in isolated areas. Rest stops also require solar cell night lights that deliver sufficient light to keep the troublemakers and the hoons away, but not so much as to interfere with the drivers getting some sleep. It goes without saying that these facilities need to be kept clean and well maintained, which is a problem—I do not doubt that. It will present some challenge to the RTAs and the MRDs of the world, or to the local councils who might look after them on a subcontract basis. Some of these rest stops are quite remote from townships—they are 50, 60, 70 kilometres away—and they do require that someone go out there and attend to them, so I do not underestimate the problems. Someone is going to have to go out there periodically to mow and do things like that. It is same with phone boxes around Australia: some of them are a pleasure to go into and some of them are like a dirty urinal; they are just absolutely foul. If we want to do these rest areas properly, we must look at those things as part of an ongoing maintenance program.

It is my personal view that, when a road is being straightened or realigned, the old highway is sometimes of sufficient order that it can become the rest area, especially if it has got shade. Quite often—and it frustrates me—you get a dead straight stretch with something like that and someone comes through with a ripper and pulls up all the old asphalt—just crazy stuff. It is a less expensive way of getting some of these rest areas in place.

This idea of now trying to blackmail the opposition because of our opposition to the heavy vehicle charges does the government no credit. The safety and dignity of the drivers is of paramount importance not only to themselves but, as I said before, to the safety of the travelling public. You cannot put people’s lives at risk for some childish retribution from the government to the opposition for what they do in the Senate. You have got to be above that sort of thing.

Having said that, I would like to turn to some of the more grassroots views of road funding. I think the Roads to Recovery program is unquestionably one of the most popular programs to be put in place by any government in the last 50 years. This is because it recognises the role of local government and empowers councils to choose where they spend funds. While in principle I believe this payment should go to the councils, I note that in the bill they are looking for mechanisms for unincorporated areas. My appeal to the federal department, which will probably take the burden of this, is to consult widely with organisations like the NFF, AgForce and mining companies, because if there is no council in an unincorporated area you have to get a feel for what people need in that area, and then finally consult with the RTAs or the MRDs on carrying out the works. Where they exist, councils should continue to be the focus of RTR funding. In my old electorate of Hinkler it was interesting to note that two of the smallest councils—Perry, which was the smallest council on the east coast of Australia at the time, and Eidsvold, with only about a thousand people—were extraordinarily effective in driving the government dollar further. They would make every extra hundred metres count.

The other aspect of the Roads to Recovery scheme was the strategic funding reserve. On my reading of the government’s bill, I am not quite sure how that is going to be implemented or whether it is going to exist. But, for things like a boundary road between shires or a road that was not a conventional one or a highway that had an arterial significance in a region, I think that strategic funding was incredibly important and I used it quite extensively in my old electorate.

I would like to talk about some specific roadworks in my electorate. I am proud of my track record in delivering major roadworks, especially in developing areas of the electorate. In my old electorate, the port city of Gladstone was a prime example, where key industry and arterial roads like the port connector road, Kirkwood Road, which is currently under construction, and the Calliope River and Landing roads were built thanks to Commonwealth contributions. I know the department did not agree with me at the time, nor Main Roads in Queensland, but I think Kirkwood Road is an absolutely essential feature—and I call on my successor to make sure that that is brought to fruition. That ring road to the south of Gladstone is absolutely critical to the future economic development of Central Queensland. Without these roads Gladstone would now be choking on its own success. Industrial and commuter traffic would by now have been creating logjams at places like Kin Kora, and local businesses would have suffered the consequences.

Other much-needed funding delivered to communities which were previously part of the Hinkler electorate included $560,000 to help seal 17 kilometres of the Eidsvold-Cracow Road. That was done by that Eidsvold council I was talking about. These guys, with that very small population, drove a road from Eidsvold right out almost to the town of Cracow, which is in the adjoining shire of Banana. Now that the Cracow mine is back in production, it just shows you how important insightful councils can be in using these over-and-above federal government funds to make things happen. There was $700,000 to upgrade the Monto to Kalpowar section. That is the back road, for want of a better expression, from Gladstone into the hinterland at Monto. That may have great significance if the mining ventures around Monto go ahead. There was also one project that I really championed, and that was for a dreadful and dangerous piece of the back road from Bundaberg to Gladstone. I got $600,000 for the Essendean Bridge and its approaches. I drove on that just the other day, and it is a pleasure now. It has gone from being one of the most dangerous and ugly pieces of that alternative route from Bundaberg to Gladstone to a lovely wide section that abuts the bridge in a much safer alignment.

Each of the communities that I have talked about is now in the seat of Flynn, and I urge my successor as their representative, the member for Flynn, Chris Trevor, to continue to fight for better roads for his constituents. That area really has been neglected over the years, and there is still a lot of work to be done.

Having said that, I now turn to the southern part of my new electorate. In what was the northern part of my old electorate and is now in the southern part is the city of Hervey Bay—there are two cities in my electorate, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—and parts of the old Shire of Burnett, Childers, Biggenden and Woocoo. They are now incorporated into new councils, but I will not go into the detail of that.

Hervey Bay in particular has great infrastructure needs. It needs about $10 million injected into it almost immediately. Let me describe it. Hervey Bay is a bit like the Gold Coast. Whereas the Gold Coast has a north-south feature, Hervey Bay has an east-west one. You would all remember the Gold Coast of 40 to 50 years ago: long, thin arteries and frequent traffic hold-ups. It needed eight lanes eventually to get through to Brisbane. There was all that sort of stuff but, in particular, the internal roads were a menace, and more and more arteries had to be created. That is exactly the situation we now face in Hervey Bay. That $10 million could be used to create a new east-west artery on what is called Urraween Road, which should be connected to Boundary Road. That would give you an almost 14-kilometre additional artery right through the middle of Hervey Bay. That is the sort of vision I want for Hervey Bay.

In the lead-up to the last election, I proposed that $10 million went into those strategic roads, on the basis of the Commonwealth picking up two-thirds and the local council picking up a third. Cities like Hervey Bay that are expanding at six or seven per cent a year just cannot keep up with infrastructure. Governments can put their hands on their hearts and say: ‘They should be able to deal with those things. They should be able to borrow against their future.’ Rubbish! This is a city that has not got a civic centre or a town hall or a community centre, but it has 50,000 people. The Commonwealth should at least provide the means for normal commercial and suburban intercourse to take place. That will not happen unless there is a Commonwealth injection of funds into the roads of that area. The Urraween to Boundary road would be one. The River Heads Road, which is one of the jump-off points for Fraser Island, would be another; it is quite dangerous. There is another one, Old Toogoom Road, which is on the north-western side of Hervey Bay and feeds traffic in from the Bruce Highway to the western coastal areas of Hervey Bay. These are things that should be addressed.

Despite my best efforts and the best efforts of the local community, my Labor opponent refused point-blank to make any commitments at all to roads in that area, which really shocked me. That has left a very slack state government and a newly amalgamated council which is struggling with the cost of amalgamation to do all the heavy lifting. I think that is simply not good enough. These three projects are important to Hervey Bay, a rapidly growing city that faces unique infrastructure pressures.

I now turn to Bundaberg, where I live. It is the other city in my electorate, a city that has been established for much longer. It has been around for over 100 years; in fact, I think that we are coming up to 150-odd years. It has had the advantage of long-term, better street planning. It also has the advantage of a $92 million ring-road, funded by the state government, which is being put around the city and will divert traffic to the port of Bundaberg without taking it through the city. It will also facilitate a lot of ring-road type traffic on the southern side of the city. But it, too, has its challenges, and in giving this speech today, appealing for this Commonwealth funding for Hervey Bay, I do not in any way diminish the challenges that are faced by the new Bundaberg Regional Council.

The other thing that we have been able to do with the Roads to Recovery program was get $1 million when the sugar industry was deregulated. The deregulation meant that the cane tramlines did not go to the right places anymore, so all the arterial roads around the sugar mills had to be upgraded. I am very grateful for the $1 million; we were able to get the councils in the area to match that with another million to upgrade those arteries to the sugar mills, which are most important.

I would like to say something about country Queensland. We heard about the Pacific Highway earlier today. I support the Pacific Highway. I remind members that the former member for Cowper, Garry Nehl, and the current member, Luke Hartsuyker, have been great champions of that. They have not always been assisted by their state government. It was largely Gary Nehl’s work that identified the dreadful problem that was emerging with the Pacific Highway. But I want to say something in this last minute about the Bruce Highway, which is the continuation of the Pacific Highway artery right through to Cairns. There needs to be a lot of spending on that, almost on an equal basis with the Pacific Highway, because Brisbane is going to have huge problems; we recognised that. We support the heavy spending on tunnels and bypasses, and the Ipswich bypass and all these things are terribly important. But the productive area of Queensland where the wealth comes from—the mineral wealth, the agricultural wealth and the horticultural wealth—should not be abandoned. I make an appeal to the government that they do that.

Finally, I acknowledge the work of John Anderson. AusLink was his vision; he brought it about. To the credit of the new government, they are continuing with it. May its work go long into the future.

See this speech in context