Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 proposes technical amendments to the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005. The bill’s first purpose is to extend the Roads to Recovery program from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2014. Insofar as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the opposition welcomes the new government’s decision to continue yet another effective coalition policy. As a regional member, I know of few government programs more universally popular than Roads to Recovery; it has made such a difference to country roads and urban streets. Roads to Recovery began in November 2000, with a decision by the then coalition government to provide a new support program for local roads of $1.2 billion over five years. Funding was allocated to all councils in receipt of financial assistance grants according to the traditional formula used to distribute Commonwealth road funding to councils.

In January 2004, after a review in 2003, the coalition government announced that a further $1.2 billion would be provided over the four years from July 2005 to June 2009; from that date, it became a component of AusLink. This was supplemented in the 2005-06 budget with a bonus $307.5 million payment to provide an extra boost to councils for their roads program in that year. Roads to Recovery has simple administrative arrangements and goes directly to local government. It recognises the virtues of local decision making, allowing councils to implement their own priorities according to their own requirements.

I welcome the fact that the government has resisted the ongoing demands of the states to have this funding passed through them or to be administered, no doubt at great cost, by the states. The direct and largely unconditional payment of Roads to Recovery to councils is one of the great strengths of the program.

The coalition government recognised that much local road infrastructure in Australia was reaching the end of its useful life and its replacement was beyond the capacity of councils. After all, local governments are responsible for 650,000 kilometres of roads, slightly over 80 per cent of Australia’s total road length. Roads to Recovery is needed because the states have failed to provide adequate funds to local councils to meet their infrastructure requirements, and their own revenue raising capabilities are constrained. It took a coalition government to provide a practical solution, and it is deplorable that some of the Labor states actually used the Roads to Recovery funding as an excuse to further cut their assistance to local government. So some of the benefits which could have been achieved from this program were whittled away by state governments that were not prepared to honour their responsibilities to also fund some of these key road networks. Under Roads to Recovery, councils have delivered over 25,000 local projects. This amazing figure is testimony to what local communities can do when given the resources to act.

The former coalition government remained committed to this program’s success, providing $150 million in the first year of its operations in 2000-01 and then lifting that to approximately $300 million by 2006-07. In the recent election year the coalition government raised the amount further, pledging that the program would continue at $350 million per year from 2009-10. I note that the Australian Local Government Association in its last newsletter of Friday 29 August welcomed the minister’s decision to continue Roads to Recovery. We too support the government’s decision to continue this popular and effective coalition government initiative. It would be helpful if the Rudd Labor government could encourage its state Labor mates to provide enough funds to support their local governments the way they should. This has been an extraordinarily successful program, and it is great to see that it has now developed a degree of bipartisan support and that the new government is continuing it in the same form as it has served the community over the last five years or more.

The second purpose of this bill is to allow certain funds allocated under Roads to Recovery to be preserved in particular states or territories while arrangements can be made to determine the most appropriate entity to receive funds. There are parts of Australia that are not subject to local government jurisdiction. They are unincorporated areas in north-west New South Wales, outback South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. In terms of the provision of roads, these areas are subject to the jurisdiction of the relevant state or territory departments. I also understand that in Western Australia seven per cent of Roads to Recovery funds are provided for special projects, being divided up between bridgeworks and access roads to Indigenous communities. With regard to these cases, it has been necessary to preserve these funds while a suitable authority is found to receive and manage their expenditure. The amendments to this bill provide legislative clarity to this longstanding practice.

The third purpose of the bill is to amend the definition of ‘road’ contained in the act to put beyond doubt that future funding under AusLink may be applied to roadside projects such as rest stops, parking bays and decoupling facilities. The opposition has no problem with this change to the act, as again it gives legislative clarity to what is already occurring. I am puzzled, however, by the comments of the minister in his second reading speech on this issue. The minister said:

The bill amends the definition of a road so that it includes heavy vehicle facilities such as rest stops, parking bays, decoupling facilities and electronic monitoring systems.

The amendment to ‘road’ in the bill, subsection 4(1) after subparagraph (a) (v), reads:

... a facility off the road used by heavy vehicles in connection with travel on the road (for example, a rest area or weigh station);

Plainly this amendment has nothing to do with funding electronic monitoring systems. In fact, the act already allows funds under AusLink to be expended for such purposes. Section 30 of the act, entitled ‘What projects are eligible for approval’, states:

A project is eligible for approval as an AusLink Transport Development and Innovation Project if the project is for either or both of the following:

(a)

planning, research, investigations, studies or analysis of matters related to the present or future development or usage of the National Land Transport Network;

(b)

research or development related to technology or practices that will, or may, be used in connection with transport operations on the National Land Transport Network.

So I conclude from my reading of the act that the legislation already permits expenditure of funds for the purposes cited by the minister. I am left with the conclusion either that the minister has simply been careless and sloppy in his second reading speech or that the bill before the House is in fact silent on the electronic monitoring systems.

I would also welcome the minister’s clarification of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. The minister’s media release said that the $70 million package was to fund ‘trials of technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed—one using an on board ‘black box’ or electronic log and one which makes use of the global positioning system’. The second reading speech makes no mention that this initiative is to be a trial. Likewise, from the section of the act that I read out, it seems clear that such projects are authorised only on the basis of planning, research, investigation and studies. So I would be grateful if the minister in his response to these remarks, whenever that might happen, in a week or two’s time, could reassure me that the funding package is, as he stated in February, for a trial only. There are other elements of the minister’s second reading speech which require clarification. It was poorly worded, but it outlines government policy on the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. This policy is apparently one of blackmail.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the Leader of the Nationals will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.