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

In continuation, I finished by making the point that I will not be supporting the government on this disallowance motion even though I still await the letter from the Leader of the Nationals after having written to him last week seeking some guidance as to why on earth this House is being asked by the Leader of the Nationals federally to do what the New South Wales Nationals did not.

It is my understanding that the New South Wales Nationals roads minister, Duncan Gay, voted for this road user charge increase through state and federal processes. I have therefore asked for some guidance from the federal Leader of the Nationals to get the New South Wales roads minister to put in writing an explanation of why I should do what he did not when he was given the chance to do so.

If the Nationals as a body support the transport industry, the movers of product, the movers of food and the movers of 80 per cent of products to Australian households then surely this is a fight that should have been run and won through the processes of COAG and the National Transport Commission and the processes between the state and federal governments. It is disappointing now that it looks to be this House, the federal Nationals leader, myself and others who are now doing a job that should have been done by the New South Wales roads minister.

I would also like to make a point about where some of that money ends up going. There was an announcement over the weekend which, on the surface, looked to be a good announcement. It looked to be the completion of the Pacific Highway by 2016. It looked to be an new 80/20 agreement between the federal government and the state government. And it looked to be one that involves new money. It is this last point I would like some clarification on from the Nationals because I would like to remind them to look at the budget papers of the last two years if they are making this announcement based on a redirection of funds from the Epping to Parramatta rail line. If they look at the budget papers of 2011, they will see the four-year forward estimates for the Pacific Highway are around that $1-billion mark. If they then compare that to the forward estimates from May this year, they will see a significant, in fact record, increase in funding from the Commonwealth to the Pacific Highway completion going from $1 billion in 2011 up to $3.56 billion in 2012. It is my understanding that at the same time the Epping to Parramatta rail line forward estimates have moved roughly comparably, so there is only $67 million in the 2012 budget for the forward estimates for the Epping to Parramatta rail line. Again, it is my understanding that that money has already been allocated for the record Commonwealth funding in the 2012-13 budget—and you cannot allocated it twice. As anyone knows: you cannot spend money twice. So, already, in the $3.56 billion allocated in the May budget this year, the Epping to Parramatta rail-line money has been redirected. It is a good idea, which I saw come from the Nationals' federal conference over the weekend—it is just 12 months too late.

The question therefore is: are the Nationals double-accounting the money from the Epping to Parramatta rail-line? If they are, this is once again a trick from opposition that does not contribute to the completion of the Pacific Highway at all. If they are not, and if they are genuinely talking about new money, if they are talking about a new funding model that is different from the fifty-fifty split between the Commonwealth and the state of the Howard and Vaile years, and they are now talking about an eighty-twenty model funding arrangement between the federal government and the state, and if they are now locking into a 2016 completion deadline based on that model and based on new funding of $2 billion coming in from somewhere, then I will back the Nationals and the Liberals 100 per cent for that commitment. But, if they are doing that based on redirecting Epping-to-Parramatta rail money that has already been redirected, I will not—that is a trick, that is a con and that adds to the cynicism of North Coast residents, who are completely sick of both political parties saying one thing in opposition and doing another in government. So I would ask for clarification on that.

The third point I would like to make—

See this speech in context