Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

This $1 billion of extra and new money into the Pacific Highway project does lay down a challenge. It reaches out to New South Wales to match that commitment in what has been traditionally a fifty-fifty funding agreement for what is a very important nation-building project. The challenge is there for the New South Wales government in its first budget after campaigning heavily on this issue, visiting sites such as the site of the Clybucca bus crash and making plenty of noise that it would commit to a 2016 completion date. It will not get there unless it matches the funding that was in the Commonwealth budget. Unless an extra $2 billion goes into this project, the Pacific Highway dual carriageway will not be completed by 2016.

We can bang on like the member for Berowra is banging on about party politics and about the conflict between the Commonwealth and the state or we can focus on getting the job done. I would hope the member for Berowra, like all members in this parliament, wants to focus on getting the job done. It is that simple. This project can go in one of two directions: it can be a cooperative project that does have a real chance of completion by 2016, making a more efficient road, a safer road and a road that contributes to productivity in this nation, or it can be an ongoing squabble about funding. I would hope this place works closely with other chambers—in particular for this project New South Wales—to focus on the state and national interest in completing the job.

Here is the rub: in my view, cooperation in public policy beats conflict every time. Personally, I have done all that I can at my level to ensure full completion of this project by 2016. We should not sneeze at $1 billion of extra money. I have read comments over the last 48 hours from members of this chamber who are local members on this highway not only sneezing at this money—

Ms Saffin interjecting—

I know the member for Page is not, but there are some who are really trying to bag this project and the money going in. They should be focusing on the importance of this money to getting the job done.

The New South Wales government has a challenge—I hope it takes it up and commits. It campaigned on it and if it is going to fulfil its promise of completion by 2016 it has to match the Commonwealth commitment; otherwise, a significant broken promise will have taken place in New South Wales. I reach out to Barry O'Farrell to do the deal—let us get this project done. Through cooperation, let us do what former governments—state and federal, Labor and Liberal—have failed to achieve. The Regional Development Australia model of cooperation that I began my speech with is the answer. The Pacific Highway can be an example of similar and further cooperation. If not, the message and the big warning bell for this chamber is that this will be the start of a significant threat to public policy and the national interest. In Tuesday night's budget, we saw for the first time a separate regional Australia document. There is a great deal of money coming down the pipe from the Commonwealth largely to state assets, whether it be for infrastructure, hospital projects or education projects. If the Pacific Highway is the first part of an ongoing game that goes on between the Commonwealth and the states, between Labor and Liberal, it will be the greatest threat to nation building in this country. I would hope—

Opposition members interjecting—

I hear nothing but confirmation of my argument. I hope that this is a parliament that, regardless of minority status or otherwise, is focused on the national interest, cooperation and partnerships. This is a test for federal Labor, as it is a test for New South Wales Liberal. Their political positioning must come second to state and national outcomes. It is being done as an example through the Regional Development Australia network. I think that is a good example for us to hang our hat on and to try and exemplify in other areas of public policy. But it is, as of today, under threat in regard to the Pacific Highway, despite the $1 billion of extra money in Tuesday night's budget. As I said before, of greater concern is the significant partnership projects, particularly those in health and education, that are coming quickly down the pipe and that we must work on sensibly and together. So, yes, I think it is there for all to see: federal Labor gain power by a millimetre and the New South Wales Liberals gain power by a mile. But my request to the House today, which I hope gets support, is to get over it and to get on with it. This is too important a moment to lose. Building a better, stronger and more resilient nation and building better, stronger and more resilient regions is the best path for both parties. It is the only path that will maximise the value of taxpayers' money, because the other path is one of squabbling and conflict and of achieving a lesser outcome for taxpayers' money.

I put this request to the House in relation to good examples where the states and the Commonwealth can do it: they can work together when they want to. Labor and Liberal can work together—we all can. Greens and Independents can also work together when they want to.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Even the Nationals and the Greens do at times come together to work together. They do it when they want to. The mining and farming conflict is an area where the Nationals and the Greens quite often take similar positions, and they do so for the right reasons on many of the issues at stake in that very difficult public policy area. So it can be done if we want it to be done.

I hope the Pacific Highway funding commitment made on Tuesday night is not under threat. I hope the focus is on the election commitments of both federal Labor and the state Liberals to try and complete this project by 2016. The $1 billion of extra money in Tuesday night's budget is the start of that commitment at a Commonwealth level, and it is now stump-up time for the new New South Wales government to at least match that if we are going to get to 2016. Today's comments in the paper are of concern if New South Wales will not match that money and 2016 will not be delivered. There is an opportunity for everyone to speak in this debate—

Opposition members interjecting—

If I heard what I think I just heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, the federal coalition would put more money into the Pacific Highway. Is that the commitment?

Opposition members interjecting—

I think I just heard a commitment from the federal coalition to put in more money than $1 billion, and I look forward to the contribution of other speakers to either confirm or reject that—$1 billion is good money; it should be welcome money. And we should be welcoming New South Wales to commit similar money to get the job done. That is a simple request. There are examples in other areas of government. There are opportunities or threats in other areas of public policy, and the Pacific Highway project is the first test. I hope we focus on the opportunities, I hope we push for cooperation and I hope we keep the focus on the national interest.

See this speech in context