Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I join with the member for Bruce in urging the minister to reconsider support for these practical amendments. It is important to look at what these amendments will do. It is pretty simple. They will enshrine the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program to make sure that the program exists. It does not exist because, as the opposition, we cannot allocate funding and seek an appropriation. All we can do is put in place a framework in which funding is possible.

Have a look at round 3 of the program. I want to outline just some of the projects and put on record to the House why this is important. Firstly, in New South Wales there is a Smart Rest Area Cooperative Intelligent Transport System trial on the Newell Highway—$1.06 million from the Commonwealth, matched by the state. This project is aimed at exploring the use of cooperative intelligent transport systems for drivers of heavy vehicles so that they can locate where the rest stops are as they are driving, looking at the potential integration of this technology. This is an important change and an example of an innovative use of this program, jointly with the New South Wales government. Similarly, there is the New South Wales Mount Ousley Road Rest Area project. People in Sydney or Wollongong who drive on those routes would know the circumstances around that particular area of Mount Ousley Road. This is a $4.045 million project from the Commonwealth, matched by the state—more than $8 million for a heavy vehicle rest stop on Mount Ousley Road, Mount Keira, northbound. It is aimed at increasing capacity from four to between 10 and 15 B-double bays. It will also significantly improve the amenity on the site—a big difference—ensuring that co-investment is there.

Again on the Newell Highway, there is the $1.65 million Gillenbah rest area upgrade—again, a vital project. Just one project from the livestock area of the program that was added is Dubbo Regional Livestock Markets—a project that will upgrade the access roads, loading ramps and security safety lighting and improve line marking and signage. There will be $1.14 million from the Commonwealth, matched by $1.68 million from Dubbo Council—a good example of cooperation between the Commonwealth and Dubbo Council for projects that I am sure were on Dubbo Council's books for a long time but that they could not afford to do by themselves. Together this program has ensured that it will occur, creating jobs in that local regional community and improving both safety and outcomes.

In Victoria, there is the Hume Highway Truck Rest Area Vacancy Information System, aimed at developing and installing a rest area vacancy information system on the southbound carriageway of the Hume between Wodonga and Benalla. For this, more than $2 million came from the Commonwealth and more than $2 million from the state of Victoria—again, an innovative use of this program and one that will make a substantial difference.

A Queensland project is the Warrego Highway, at Cemetery Road east of Chinchilla—supplementing existing project works, including paving and sealing of ingress and egress and providing greater amenity on that site. For this, $310,000 came from each area. And then there is sealing the hard surface of all access circuit roads and the truck-park area at the Blackall saleyards, with $1.2 million from the Commonwealth and $300,000 from the state. (Extension of time granted) In Western Australia—and this is a topic of some conversation at the moment in this chamber—there is the expansion of the Wubin road train assembly area on the Great Northern Highway just 25 kilometres north of Perth, with $1.5 million from both the Commonwealth and the Western Australian government. Further afield, in between Port Hedland and Newman on the Great Northern Highway, with $950,000 from both the Commonwealth and the state government, is a project to construct two layover bays to permit oversized mass vehicles to leave the highway during daylight hours for rest. It is very important that these projects are able to be funded.

In South Australia, almost $2 million is being provided by both the Commonwealth and the South Australian government, leading to the planning, design and construction of seven new or upgraded rest areas on the Sturt, Stuart and Eyre highways. In Tasmania, examples of the use of the program for bridge upgrades are the Esk Main Road Bridge, with $1.25 million from each level of government, and the Railton Main Road Bridge, with $1.14 million from each level of government. And here in the ACT a program of almost $1 million, shared equally between the ACT government and the national government, proposes to strengthen the Barry Drive Bridge to allow larger vehicles to use it.

All up, if you look at just round 3, that is $45 million from the Commonwealth, matched by $36 million from the private sector and local government but also primarily from state governments that have made applications to this program. These are examples of why the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program should be continued. If the government is committed to its continuation, there is no reason that it should not be included in this act, as other programs are included under the act. The nation building program was of course where it was funded from, and the nation building act was legislation that was passed by this parliament prior to this particular program being included. I would ask the minister to tell us why he believes Roads to Recovery should be included in the act in a way that does not ensure the program, as of a particular period, in this case 30 June 2014, does not require further rollover, but will be permanently included in the act. I would ask why this program is any different. It would certainly be up to the government of the day to determine at what level the funding would be included for the program. It would also be up to the government of the day to determine specific aspects of the program, such as the former government did when we received the representations from the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association.

I am at a loss. If the government does not have an intention to remove future funding rounds of this program, either in this budget or some budget in the future, why does it not support this amendment being included in the act? I would ask that question to the minister opposite. (Extension of time granted) I asked the minister opposite a question, and this is the appropriate place to ask it.

See this speech in context