Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is all spin and no shovel. I say it is all spin and no shovel because the primary function of this bill is to change a name—to change the name from the AusLink National Project to the Nation Building Program National Project; to change AusLink Transport Development and Innovation Project to the Nation Building Transport Development and Innovation Project; to change the AusLink Strategic Regional Project to the Nation Building Program Off-Network Project; to change the AusLink Black Spot Program to the Nation Building Program Black Spot Project; to change the AusLink Roads to Recovery program name to Nation Building Program Roads to Recovery. This is all spin and no shovel. This will create business and work for printers and bureaucrats and very little for the community. I want to give you a classic example of why I say that. I quote from the Bills Digest, which says:

The Rudd Government subsumed Auslink into its Nation Building Program and expanded it to include boom gates for rail crossings and rest areas for heavy vehicles. Still, it seems that in 2009-10, land transport infrastructure funding will be lower than in 2008-09 by about $2 billion ($6 436 million less $ 4 427 million) as shown in Table 2. This seems to be at odds with providing fiscal stimulus to the economy during the recession.

I suppose that every government deserves to tag and brand what it does, but the statements by the previous speaker that the government did absolutely nothing in its 12 years are untrue. The former government established AusLink and AusLink 2, which was the first time that we had a nationally established program consolidated for funding. The previous Commonwealth government, under Howard, also took over the rail corridors and made sure that spending in investment, particularly in the Hunter, was concentrated because of the years of neglect from the state government, and in that I particularly point to the years of the Carr, then Iemma and now Rees government in New South Wales where investment in infrastructure was terribly neglected because, at the same time, the state Labor government in New South Wales was ripping out all the coal royalties and the biggest problem was actually getting our coal to the port and then exporting it.

As I said, this is the all-spin-and-no-shovel program designed to brand it so that this government can take control. But this bill also reminds me much of the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure program, where programs and money were set aside for people in regional and rural Australia. But it was this Labor government that, prior to the election as part of its nation building, decided to take the $2 billion set aside in a trust fund of which the interest could be spent only on rural and regional telecommunications infrastructure and consumed it into the consolidated revenue, I suppose in part to fund the massive debt that this government has created. This government is all about debt. It is about debt and spend.

What concerns me is the hypocrisy that flies fast with this government. I want to bring to account a project which is now called the ‘Hunter Freeway’. People in the Hunter have not worked it out yet, because they still call it the F3 link. The F3 is a road that started many years ago and, for the life of me, it escapes me how under any government—state or federal—there was never consideration or serious determination of the actual link from down the Wahroonga end to the M2. You spend all your time getting down the F3 only to be stuck in a traffic jam. In the northern area, the F3 link road or now the ‘Hunter Freeway’ is an interesting piece of infrastructure where politics has played supreme. According to the Senate estimates and responses from the minister for infrastructure’s own department, I would like to state to the House and make sure it is on the record that in a written response to question II 40 that Senator Nash asked about the study into the transport needs of the lower Hunter, it stated:

A proposed route for an external bypass of Maitland was announced by then federal minister for transport the Hon P Morris in 1983 as a part of the National Highway between Sydney and Brisbane.

Extensive works were undertaken on the proposal, resulting in a recommendation for further investigation into significant changes to the overall concept of the project, due to constraints such as the requirement for long crossings of flood-prone wetland. This resulted in the proposed external bypass route being abandoned in favour of the Kurri Kurri corridor (Seaham to Braxton via Kurri Kurri)—which has been called the F3 link and is now called the Hunter Freeway—which was endorsed by the Federal Minister for Transport in 1993.

The preferred route was announced in May 1994 by the New South Wales government and the EIS was exhibited in August/September 1995. The New South Wales Minister for Planning approved the route and design, subject to 129 Commonwealth conditions and 15 New South Wales conditions, on 7 November 2001.

And this is perhaps the most important part—

The RTA’s modified design for the project to reduce the environmental impact, including minor changes to the route alignment, received planning approval in August 2007.

Despite the fact that the coalition had provided $107 million to the government of New South Wales for planning, property acquisitions—and I understand that all but two of the affected properties in this 40-kilometre corridor have been acquired—the reality is that physical, groundbreaking work could not have commenced until August 2007. With that in mind, on 9 November 2007, Jim Lloyd—who was then Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads—announced that an additional $780 million on top of the $107 million would be provided for the project. Immediately everyone thought that this was wonderful, including the Support the Link or Sink Group. That group is headed by Fred Brown, who is a long-time stalwart of the Labor Party who made his politics very clear but also made it clear that this road was more important to him than party politics.

I would like to report a chronology of events that were reported in the local papers. On 6 November 2007 the Maitland Mercury reported:

Mr Fitzgibbon was a long-time advocate for the F3 to Branxton Link Road but he was longer convinced it was the best option for the area and he wanted a new independent assessment of the project.

A couple of days after the election, the newspaper reported that Mr Fitzgibbon—who had been a long-term, no-holds-barred campaigner for the road—was:

… no longer convinced it was the best option for the area and he wanted a new independent assessment of the project.

In his first interview after the election, the newspaper reports that Mr Fitzgibbon was asked: ‘Is the F3 link still the best and right solution for our traffic problems?’ and he answered, ‘Maybe yes, but we don’t know.’ Such was the confusion of the member for Hunter, who was so strong and so blind in his support for the road, that two days after coming into government—when he finally had to deliver something—he did not know what he should do. The newspaper article went on to quote Mr Fitzgibbon, who said that there could be a cheaper and better option but:

I’ve asked the minister to review the cost … I will continue to take up the fight.

The reality is that the community never lost its passion. We went through the façade of Minister Albanese, the member for Hunter, and the then state Treasurer, Michael Costa—and, indeed, the whole Labor apparatchik—coming up to this big powerhouse meeting and the best that the community got was: ‘We didn’t know whether this would happen.’ On 18 February, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, told this parliament that the project did not add up.

There was all a downplay of expectations, and they announced a package of $800,000 from the Commonwealth government and $200,000 from the New South Wales government. Mr Fitzgibbon thought that it was a great victory that he had secured a million dollars to determine whether the F3 should be built. The Cessnock Advertiser at the time stated:

Mr Fitzgibbon described the meeting as successful and that for the first time we have the State and Federal Governments talking to one another constructively.

So proud was he that he boasted:

We have also secured $1 million ($800,000 from the Commonwealth and $200,000 from the NSW Government) to fund a review of both the cost of the F3 link to Branxton and whether it is the best and most cost-effective solution to our traffic issues.

These are the facts as put to the meeting. First, the F3 link was conceived in the mid 1980s and there have been big changes in traffic movements and residential and commercial settlement patterns since then. Second, the cost of the project is now $1,700 million ($1.7 billion) and it has a very low benefit to cost ratio (meaning it provides tax-payers with a low-value solution). Third, notwithstanding these facts, we should not rule out the F3 link as a solution …

So what we have is: the minister for transport and local government, Mr Albanese, says that it does not add up. The local member, the member for Hunter, says that he is not convinced now; that the project has been going for too long and that he is not sure that it would add up. It was included in the AusLink 2 package by the current government but managed to come in on an ad hoc basis on budget night. For 18 years he was a passionate advocate that the road had to be built—mind you, it did not get the sign-off on the EIS until August 2007—and then, on coming to the treasury bench, the member for Hunter had a dramatic change of heart and all of a sudden it was not the best solution. We all know how he handles the Defence budget and the people in there, so it is no surprise that he has changed his mind and cannot understand where he is going with this.

At least I was honest with the people about the F3 link road. It is not in my electorate. It benefits my electorate but it does not come into my electorate. I have always said to the people that the Pacific Highway is the main road in my electorate. On being elected in 1996 and continuing until now, I always said that once the Pacific Highway upgrade in my electorate had started or was locked in, then I would start to change and support the F3 link road. Prior to the last election, the Pacific Highway upgrade was nearing completion and it was time to divert some support and attention to this project. As you would know in your own position and the work that you have done on the Hume Highway, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, it is very hard to push for roads outside your electorate when your constituents expect you to focus on roads within your electorate. What we have seen is a change from ‘Yes, I support it’ to ‘Now, I’m not sure. It’s a lot of money—the cost-benefit analysis does not shape up.’ I welcome the funding, because we had committed to it as a government.

The Support the Link or Sink Group convenor, Fred Brown, wrote a letter to me. It reads:

Dear Sir,

At the final meeting of the above Group—

that is, the Support the Link or Sink Group—

It was resolved that I write to you to express our appreciation of your help. I am pleased to acceed to that resolution.

While we were an apolitical group our aim was purely political go get funding for the F3-New England highways link. We reasoned your involvment was mainly political but your effort was also driven by the absolute need for the link. Maybe after Weakleys Drive.

It appears that the Coalition always intended to build the Link after completion of the Albury by-pass. The fact that preconstruction was almost complete and the job was ready to go proved crucial.

We thank you for your effort and wish you well in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Fred Brown.

Fred Brown is politically diametrically opposed to me but he is a person that I have a lot of respect for because he put the people of his region well above party politics. He was admonished by many in the Labor Party for stating in the media to all and sundry during the last election that if they wanted the road built they should vote for the coalition.

It is 18 months on and we are in the middle of the economic crisis, as the Prime Minister keeps reminding us. He talks down the economy so much that this has now become not the global financial crisis but Kev’s financial crisis. He cannot talk down an economy and destroy confidence without it having a dire effect. But this project has been ready to go for 18 months and we see this spin-and-no-shovel bill debated in the House today. This work could have been tendered out and started and we would have seen jobs committed. The member for Hunter has been deliberately misleading people in the electorate by saying that this project will be completed in four years. I put it to you that the budget papers state clearly that the funding for this project will be over six years. So the member for Hunter cannot even read the budget papers. You cannot keep spinning people all the time. You are either committed to the project or you are not.

The other thing of question in the budget papers is how there is an amount of money allocated in the first year, next year, and there is an amount of money allocated in the final year, the sixth year, but there is no specific allocation for any of the four years between. So we do not know whether it will be front-end loaded to get jobs on the ground and make sure that more people are employed, to get our area and the country through this economic crisis, or whether it will be back-ended, because with the amount of debt that this government has created it will not be able to financially commit to the road project quickly.

An amount of $1.4 billion is a lot of money, but if this government were serious about having a positive impact on our community and creating jobs, as we see with the photos the Prime Minister splashes around in this parliament, why wasn’t the funding loaded at the very front end? Why isn’t a major amount of money provided right at the very beginning? This 40-kilometre road project could be broken up between two, three or even four contractors, all starting at the same time at different sections of the road to get the road built as quickly as possible. The reality is that what we are seeing is more spin and not a lot of shovel. I would ask the government to seriously consider making sure that the investment is made at the front end and not at the back end.

The second point that concerns me in relation to this bill is the change to black spot funding. What concerns me about the change to the black spot funding it is not only the name change but the fact that, for the first time, projects that would normally come under the national highway system as part of the broader government program will now be included in these projects. I can only speak highly of the black spot funding. My electorate has received a very generous amount of money because the roads were in appalling conditions and there were a lot of tragedies. I remind the House that it was the former Labor government that actually abolished the black spots funding program. It was reintroduced to this parliament by Tim Fischer in his role. It is a program that has received continual funding. I only encourage that to be continued because, as people travel greater distances and as some roads improve and others remain in the same condition, people do not change their driving habits and we will see an increase in the number of accidents.

It is also disappointing that in this program of funding we have not seen an increase in funding for roads like Buckets Way. Buckets Way was funded by the coalition government initially under a Roads of National Importance project but it needs more funding. The coalition has provided around $26 million in Roads of National Importance and black spot funding for this road and the state government has contributed very little. It is very unfortunate that on Saturday a week ago there was another fatality on Buckets Way. I heard the transport minister here talking about funding for a road in Queensland that did not fit the criteria and admonishing people for questioning it because there had been fatalities on that road. I say to the minister: Buckets Way is a dangerous road. The upgrades have been very much welcomed, but it is changing driving habits. People are driving a little more recklessly at times and consideration of funding needs to be provided.

See this speech in context