Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014will enable the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program beyond 30 June, 2014.

Like every member in this parliament I am a very big supporter of the Roads to Recovery program as it is direct funding to local councils, distributed according to a formula based on population and road length. As my electorate of Paterson is spread out, and a very rural electorate, roads are a link for my constituents to all services and business. I have always maintained that good roads are a pathway to prosperity for communities. Each council's Roads to Recovery allocation is fixed for the life of the program, so they are guaranteed a source of funding. In other words they can plan, prepare and initiate works with a guaranteed source of funding.

The government will now provide an additional $1.75 billion to extend the program for another five years. That is $1,750 million of additional road funding going into local community roads. This bill was a 2013 election commitment by the coalition, and it is an important one to implement. The bill will simplify the current system and also ensure that the funding promises that were made for my electorate's deteriorated roads will be fulfilled.

Currently, the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 specifies the Roads to Recovery program funding as ending on 30 June, 2014. When considering these bills, I think about the concerns and funding needs of my electorate of Paterson. One of the most critical issues in my area is funding for local roads. Under Labor's reign, local road funding in my electorate eroded. As I stated previously, I will continue to fight for better services in infrastructure and, in particular, funding for my electorate. One common theme that is communicated to me by my constituents is the condition of their local roads, and that is why I am happy to support this bill.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Premier of New South Wales, announced a new road project. It is time that rubber should hit the road on the F3-M2 connect. I note that my colleague on the opposite side of the table is agreeing, because it will reduce traffic flow in and around his area. This $3 billion project, the NorthConnex project, will have a contribution of $405 million from this federal government. We want to see this project commence. I drive the F3 to Canberra regularly. On the trip from my home near Thornton I go through one set of traffic lights until I get to the F3, and once I get to the M2 there are no more traffic lights until I get to Canberra. But what I have is a plethora of traffic lights, 21 of them, all the way through as I go down Pennant Hills Road. In fact at times it can be the longest part of the journey.

I welcome this funding, this commitment and this start to these road works. This connection from the M1 to the M2, a nine-kilometre route, has now been revealed. There will be twin tunnels and it will become one of the state's major freight routes. It also has the added benefit of reducing fatigue, creating jobs and improving productivity and cost efficiency for our transport industry.

I always support new projects. That is why when we talk about the rubber hitting the road and work beginning, it was amazing that on the eve of the election we saw the Labor government—the Minister Albanese—announce funding for two projects. Mind you, they had had six years to initiate them, but we saw the announcement of a two-lane bridge to be built at Tourle Street. This was quite a surprise to the state minister because previously it had been rejected by the federal government on their calls.

But can I tell you about the ineptitude of Labor when it comes to roadworks and planning? The Tourle Street bridge was a two-lane bridge, and the former New South Wales Labor government determined that the bridge was unsafe and needed to be replaced. I agreed. So they replaced a two-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge. Had they have had the foresight they would have made it a four-lane bridge for an additional $15 million. Now the cost is $100 million to build the extra two lanes. Ineptitude reigns supreme. But the rubber is hitting the road: the coalition is tipping $51 million into that project and that will be matched by the state government.

The other project on which there has been a lot of rhetoric and talk, particularly by the member for Hunter, is the Scone level crossing. All he had been able to deliver during his six years on the government bench was more money for studies. No rubber hit the road. It was announced on the eve of the election that the Labor government if re-elected after six years would actually spend the money. I am very proud of Minister Truss for picking up the mantle and putting $45 million, our share, in to get the work at Scone underway. The main traffic route going north will no longer be cut off every time a coal train comes through. We want to see more coal trains because they provide prosperity for our nation. This work will begin. We sat down with the state government, we developed a plan, the funding is there and it is going to commence.

So there are these two projects. The former member for Newcastle, Ms Grierson, talked a lot about the Tourle Street Bridge and delivered nothing. I can remember almost all the time I have been in this place that the member for Hunter has talked about the Scone level crossing but done nothing about it. They are two key projects that will commence.

Tomorrow there will be the official opening of the M15. The M15 is known locally as the Hunter Expressway. It is the link road between Seahampton and Branxton. There has been a lot of comment about it, including in a doorstop on 18 March by the former minister for transport, the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese. He was worried that his invite to the opening had not arrived. He said:

Of course you’ll see Coalition Members queuing up to be a part of this. Joel Fitzgibbon was only invited yesterday. I’m sure my invitation’s in the mail, but Joel Fitzgibbon is the local member had to wait until yesterday before he received an invitation to this project.

That is how courteous the coalition is. We have actually invited members of the opposition to openings. I would like to reflect for a minute on two road projects in my electorate. One driven by the coalition, but built by taxpayers, was the Weakleys Drive Interchange. It cost $50 million. It is in my electorate. All of the money was allocated by the coalition government. I read about the opening in the paper and saw all of the Labor members. Did I get an invite? No, I read about it in the newspaper. Not to be outdone, I read about the Bulahdelah bypass in my electorate, which was commenced by the coalition, in the paper too. You hear the former minister bang on about the courtesy of invitations. He wants to take a reality check. The member for Hunter has been invited, and I will welcome him there.

The member for Hunter has some form in relation to the F3. If we listen to his rhetoric in the parliament, we hear that he singularly drove the project. Let us look at the front page of The Maitland Mercuryof 26 November, just days after the election. I will quote some sections because the member for Hunter was then backing away from any funding commitment to build this infrastructure. He said in that article:

It's an ugly mess. When I was elected in 1996 this project was on track and it was worth $285 million.

Member for Hunter, the reason it did not commence was that the state Labor government refused to prioritise it. Then he said:

Eleven-and-a-half years later, we haven't turned a sod of soil and it's apparently worth $1.2 billion.

So we've got a hell of a mess to sort out. The design and treatment was done in 1994/1995. We're in 2007.

Here is the killing part:

Is the F3 link still the best and right solution for our traffic problems? Maybe yes, but we don't know.

The article further states:

He denied he was backing away from statements made during the campaign where he said Labor would "absolutely match" a $780 million Howard government commitment of construction money for the link if it were properly costed and budgeted from the AusLink program.

I don't mean to back away from it because the money and the arrangements are not there. There was never a final costing, there was never an agreement.

That was in 2007. The works and funding did not commence until 2009. More telling is an article on 18 March in the Newcastle Herald written by Greg Ray, who is perhaps one of the most independent writers I have read. He quite often attacks the coalition for its points. He has put a very good precis together of the whole funding arrangement, except there is one mistake in here, which I will correct as I go through. He said:

MONDAY was a great day for flying over the Hunter Valley.

He actually took a plane trip and saw the infrastructure that is laid out. He goes on to say in the article:

Building it was, by all accounts, a pretty challenging exercise in engineering terms.

But getting the money out of the federal and state governments—now that was a once-in-a-generation achievement.

When the thing gets officially opened, everybody and their dog will be scrambling for a bit of credit, and good luck to those who deserve it. Many do.

The article then goes on to say, and quite rightly so, that it was only proceeded with because it was shovel ready and designed to inject stimulus funding into the frightened economy. We all agree with that. Then he said:

The earliest I can remember people promoting this roadway was in the 1990s, when they reckoned it was going to cost about $180 million.

Everybody agreed it was a great project with a lot of benefits, but because it wasn’t in Sydney or in a state with a government that cares about its non-capital cities, it languished.

The state allocated some planning funds pretty early in the piece, but it never looked like chipping in any serious money, arguing instead that it was a federal job.

By 2006, Hunter Labor MP Joel Fitzgibbon, in whose electorate the road lies, was telling the Coalition federal government that he didn’t care if the road had to be a private tollway, just so long as it got built before it got too expensive for anybody to ever contemplate.

The Coalition feds found about $250 million to get it started.

I have to correct the record. It was closer to $50 million that we put up for land acquisitions and planning. The article continues:

But it didn’t start, because the state—

and it was then a state Labor government—

didn’t want to contribute.

It took the Rudd-slide election to put the project on the map. That’s when Paterson MP Bob Baldwin promised that the Coalition would stump up another $780 million if his mob got back in. Fitzy, for his part, said Labor would match that promise.

Until Labor got in, when all bets were suddenly off because, Fitzy said, the money hadn’t really been allocated. Oh, and the NSW government didn’t have its $240 million share to spare anyway.

Enter the financial crisis …

The project has been completed and I congratulate all who have been involved. I acknowledge the financial contribution and commitment by the previous Labor government. I acknowledge the contribution by the former coalition government. I acknowledge the delaying factors by the former state Labor government that would not prioritise it. Even when the former federal Labor government went to build the project there was no prioritisation for the project. It took a $1 billion federal allocation to get more studies and planning done to actually get the project up.

This project has actually been funded by the taxpayers. It has not been funded by the coalition, it has not been funded by the Labor government; it has been funded by the taxpayers of Australia and they deserve the credit. I pay recognition for the contribution to all those who worked on the project, particularly as it became an award-winning project. It has been a great engineering feat. Tomorrow I will be there. I know that the member for Hunter, who is in the chamber, will be there because we have extended an invitation, contrary to the—

See this speech in context