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

I want to support the comments of my colleague, the member for Perth, and take up the issues raised by the minister. We, in good faith, provided the amendments to the government in advance of moving them so that they could have the opportunity to receive advice from the department, and we know they need that advice. We have attempted to do something very simple—that is, create provisions in the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 which are very similar to the provisions which exist and are being included in the Roads to Recovery program.

The question that the minister has not addressed adequately is: why is it good enough for the Roads to Recovery program but not the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program? I agree that it is an excellent program with bipartisan support that enabled it to be extended in the 2013 budget across the forward estimates to make sure that local government would have certainty in the future. The benefit of the Roads to Recovery program is that it is untied so that local government—the elected local officials in a community—can determine the priorities according to local feedback. They are in the best position to do so, as opposed to the bureaucracy in Canberra.

With the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, we did not have people sitting in the offices in Civic saying, 'I think a heavy vehicle rest area on the Newell Highway is best positioned at place X.' What we did was consult with the sector and the industry itself and ask for that process to occur. We went to state government and local government. We did so in a way which, I believe, produced an extraordinarily successful range of projects—rest areas, parking decoupling bay projects, technology trial projects, road enhancement projects, demonstration projects and livestock transport industry projects. We did this in a way which, because we requested some matching funding from the state government, the local government or the private sector, ensured that there was real economic stimulus in those local communities. If you look at where the projects took place and what electorates it took place in, over 90 per cent of the funding presided over by me as minister for infrastructure under this program went to coalition-held seats across the program.

Mr Truss interjecting—

Those opposite are still having their obsession with the former member for New England—he was someone who would stand up for his seat and someone who has my ongoing respect. Here we are today moving a program of which 90 per cent went into coalition seats because funding was determined on its merit. When we have road safety issues, it is merit that matters, which is why for the Pacific Highway, the member for Cowper who was here before, we have either completed or funded—the former government—the entire duplication of the Pacific Highway throughout his electorate. That is the whole lot, including of course the Kempsey Bypass, which is the longest road bridge in Australia.

That is the commitment that I brought to the program of making sure that we made a difference to the national interest, not just to political interest. The next amendment is a real test for the government over whether they will continue that role, but I commend these amendments to the House.

See this speech in context