House debates
Monday, 14 July 2014
Motions
Local Government
10:56 am
Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
I am very pleased to speak on this motion. You always know that it is serious when the member for Grayndler comes in here and does not plagiarise lines from a movie. I would have thought that Weekend at Bernie's IIwould have been a good start—you know, Albo, you're still dead. But I will compliment him on his choice of ties. It is a great colour for today. The member for Reid, I and the member for Grayndler are all wearing royal purple.
While I understand the misapprehension, the anguish and the feigned indignation from the member for Grayndler and others who have spoken on this, we went to the last election promising a series of things. We promised to axe the carbon tax—hopefully that will happen today; we promised to stop the boats and, pretty much, that has happened; we promised to build the roads of the 21st century, and you have seen our infrastructure program—we are getting on with business; and the last thing that we promised was to fix the budget mess. This is part of it, but this plays into two of the three major issues that we have to do with the federation white paper and the taxation white paper still to come.
The problem I find, when it comes to local government funding and funding agreements between state and federal, is that we tend to see that where the federal government comes in other levels of government can actually exit that space. We find that the federal government is backfilling and funding in these areas. Until we get that flow of funding correct and right, what you will see is that the more that the federal government puts in the less other governments will. I think when we get the federation white paper and we bring that down—when we sort out how COAG is supposed to work, what we are supposed to do in this space, where local government fits and how we get those things going—we will be better off. I note that in my electorate of Herbert the federal government has done a great job. We have brought road projects through such as the fixing of Dalrymple Road, the Ring Road and Vantassel Street. All these things are coming through from infrastructure spending.
The other issue I would like to bring up is not so much the funding but how we get value for funding. I was in Charters Towers with Senator Arthur Sinodinos. A local council there told us—and I do not know it for fact as I have not seen the paperwork—that they had a road project which they costed at $9 million. Because it was above the limit they had to go to national tender. A national tenderer won it at a cost of $27 million. They flew in their crew, they drove in their camp and they drove in their plant and equipment. The local council got their piece of road fixed at a cost of $27 million, $18 million more than they would have done it for themselves—and not even the pie shop got a lick out of it.
At the moment in Townsville there is a $120 million project underway, the joint logistics hub. It was brought forward under the previous Labor government. Baulderstone, the contractor, won the tender fair and square through the tender process as it stands. Their major subcontractor is Shamrock Civil Engineering, who are also a Brisbane based firm. Whilst the federal government can stand back and be very proud that we have $120 million of infrastructure going into the Townsville area, very few local tradesmen and very few local businesses are going to get a lick. The Hungry Jack's across the road is doing very well. They are even putting on more staff to cope with the blokes coming across the road. The pie van is doing okay there as well. But no local business, no local construction firm and no local contractors are getting a go at this money.
For us in the regions to get the full benefits we want to see from our infrastructure spend, the money wash through our economies. I am not saying we have to be protectionist on behalf of the regions and I am not saying that we should go for more expensive tenders or anything like that. The issue is how the tenders are structured between state and federal governments—that is what we need to address to allow that money to be spent correctly in the regions. There is an old saying that no public servant ever lost his job by awarding a job to John Holland, Teece or a company like that. If they give the job to a local contractor and something goes wrong, the answer is obvious: the big guys did not get it. What we have to do, through this Federation white paper, is look at how the tenders are structured. We need to make sure that, when we do infrastructure in our regions, when we do spend money—whether it be the $925 million they say has been cut or through fiscally responsible decisions—we look at the way this money is spent in our communities. Everyone would be upset if a Chinese firm were given a major project in Sydney. I do not see why we in the regions should be second-class citizens. I thank the House.
No comments