Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure today to support the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 and to congratulate the government for continuing this vital program, which was initiated by the coalition. In fact, it was initiated by a small group of people. As I stand here today, I refer to my notebooks of June 2007 when former Deputy Prime Minister the Hon. John Anderson asked us to set up a small task force of Nationals to determine what we believed would be an appropriate response to the issue of road funding. There was John Forrest; there was the member for Parkes, who at the time was Tony Lawler; there was Bob Katter before he became an Independent; and there was Stuart St. Clair, the former member for New England. I was also in that small group of people. As I was looking at this legislation, I came across my working out of exactly what we would require in order to put back into local roads the strength and security required particularly in rural and regional areas—and, obviously, it would be available to some metropolitan areas as well.

We all signed off. We determined what we needed. We had about $400 million which was given to local councils. The total road funding at the time was about $1.3 billion. I wanted to go down the hypothecation process whereby you would hypothecate a certain amount of excise to go into roads, because about $155 billion in total revenue was being raised, yet only limited amounts of that money were going into road works. We signed off on two proposals. One was a hypothecation of 1.8c a litre excise into a purpose-designed roads account; the other one was to provide $1.2 billion over a four-year period to be distributed on the same formula as the federal assistance grants, which at the time were going to local government.

I took our case to the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Development, John Anderson. It was through the representation of this small group of working people that we devised, with the department and others, a proposal that would enable us to establish the Roads to Recovery program of $1.2 billion, which was implemented in November 2000. When you come into this House, you may think, being just one of many people in such a big place, that individual members cannot make a difference, but this just shows that you most certainly can.

This was an example of how local members, passionate about road transport and local issues, were able to collectively put together a very sensible proposal which was worked through by the department and the minister in charge. They came up with what was undoubtedly the most popular funding program outside Investing in Our Schools. I think Investing in Our Schools became equally as popular, but Roads to Recovery was the most significant program. It sidestepped the state so that roads funding was actually delivered to the people who are doing the work—the states were not creaming off serious amounts of money off the top of it and leaving a small percentage of money to go into on-the-ground work. It was a perfect example of how you could have federal and local government working in close cooperation to deliver huge benefits to local communities right across the nation.

Some of those road projects funded in the Riverina electorate were quite significant. The Riverina received $1.55 billion in transport and regional services funding, including very significant roads funding. The Roads to Recovery program has been a particularly successful initiative. The continuation of the Roads to Recovery program comprised $350 million per year from 2009-10. I certainly welcomed that additional funding on top of the pledge of $1.2 billion.

The figures for councils in Riverina under the Roads to Recovery program include Carrathool Shire Council, which received $8.25 million. Carrathool Shire Council is one of those shire councils that have a significant issue, because they probably have one of the most extensive networks of roads in New South Wales. They would be comparable, I think, to anywhere in the nation, but with very few ratepayers. So there is a very, very limited rate base to do the improvements and the upgrades that are required. Carrathool Shire Council has certainly made good use of its $8.25 million. Other figures for the Riverina include: Coolamon Shire Council, $4.61 million; Cootamundra Shire Council, $2.55 million; Griffith City Council, $5.6 million; Gundagai Shire Council, $2.87 million; Junee Shire Council, $3.2 million; Leeton Shire Council, $3.65 million; Murrumbidgee Shire Council, $2.18 million; Narrandera Shire Council, $5.5 million; Temora Shire Council, $4.39 million; and Wagga Wagga City Council, $11.2 million. The total amount of revenue for these councils under the Roads to Recovery program has been $64.56 million. This is $64.56 million of funding that these local councils would have had to have found for themselves to do the extensive works that were required.

I am a past member of Wagga Wagga City Council, having been involved in that council for eight years and having been deputy mayor for some five years. As we know, there has been much cost-shifting onto local government, and they are picking up more and more costs along the way. So this was a welcome relief and extremely well received by local governments right across the nation.

Our Roads to Recovery program cuts red tape and, as I said, delivers our vital road funding right where it is needed—and that is directly to the councils. Our vital local road upgrades were needed to continue to support our local communities, who have been doing it tough over a long period of time in drought. Unfortunately, it appears that again, for many of our producers, this year, which we thought would be our get-out-of-jail-free year, is shaping up exactly the same as last year: a great start with a very, very bad ending. It has also assisted in boosting our local industries and has increased our road safety. The funding was determined independently, using those formulas, as I said, that were already in existence for the Financial Assistance Grants.

Over my time as the federal member for Riverina, I have worked extensively, I believe, to ensure that vital improvements have been made to many of our roads. One of those roads is the Hume Highway. There was a specifically difficult area of road in Coolac. The roadworks near Coolac are very difficult to traverse at the moment and have been for some time, but it was a relief for me when former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson agreed to fund the Coolac bypass and the duplication and safety works; $136.5 million went towards that. That work is well underway on that stretch.

From January 2002 to December 2006, there were 44 significant crashes on that single carriageway section of the Hume Highway at Coolac. Just 11 kilometres of road, I think, saw five fatal crashes, 21 injury crashes and 18 tow-away crashes. They were significant crashes and many of them occurred on a three-kilometre section of road. It was appalling to be contacted time after time with the news that these major accidents had occurred. A lot of them were crashes involving heavy vehicles, with no real fault to be attributed. It was a phenomenon. We really could not understand why the crashes happened on the same section time after time.

We were also able to implement the construction of a 140-metre single-lane flyover of the Hume Highway at West Street in Gundagai. Twenty years prior to the construction of this, Gundagai was the first town that was bypassed by the Hume Highway; it was the first of the bypasses. I do not know what happened. A road and section were built for a flyover across the Hume Highway. All of the works banked up and stopped and then it went no further. There were lots of stories. You can imagine how many stories were floating around as to who stopped it, who got the advantage or the disadvantage of it, why it stopped and where it stopped. Most definitely, for 20 years nobody was able to rectify this very dangerous area. I had photographs taken in fog of school buses coming out of West Street when the visibility distance was down to almost a few metres, and they had to deal with that over many, many fog-bound mornings.

It was not a question of if there might be a major catastrophe but when. I was not sure how it had not happened in the 20 years prior to me becoming the member for Riverina. As I said, it was not a question of if it would happen but of when. I took it upon myself to drive, harass and intimidate and be belligerent about this area, because I did not want a busload of children being killed on my watch as a federal member. I needed to be able to say, ‘I have given my all to rectify this situation.’

The area was not even on a black spot program for the RTA; they did not even have it listed. We had accident after accident on this very small section of road, where West Street met the highway. You had to go across four lanes of absolutely flying traffic to get children to and from school. It was a ridiculous scenario, yet the RTA, for some reason, had never listed fixing it as one of their priority works. It was not even on their list. I could not believe it when we were able to elevate it through the federal department so that it would be addressed. It was a sensational outcome for the people of Gundagai—of great benefit over the past few years, since it was put in place, and also for the future. As I said, there were significant problems with that area, and I was very happy to achieve that outcome when Gundagai came into the Riverina electorate in 2001.

We also have the construction of a second Sheahan Bridge at Gundagai. That is currently taking place, following approval by the former government, which made the plans and provided the funding to build the second bridge. It has been a bit of a problem spot for some time. It is, of course, named after a very strong local member, Billy Sheahan, and the Sheahan family of Gundagai. So now we will have a second Sheahan Bridge. It would have been great to have a Hull Bridge on one side and a Sheahan Bridge on the other, for the two good members for Gundagai, but Mr Sheehan was there before me, so I will gracefully step to the side! I am really pleased that that is going ahead at the moment. That two-lane bridge is being built beside the existing one.

We also contributed, as a result of very strong lobbying, $3 million—and the states were to match that $3 million but they did not, unfortunately—towards the cost of a truck stop at Tarcutta. We had all of the transports merging in Tarcutta at night. When you went there, there might have been 140 transports that would be uncabling and changing over their rigs and loads in very dangerous conditions. There were two deaths that I know of where drivers were unfortunately killed as a result of this very unsafe practice at Tarcutta. We were able to provide a parking bay there for 40 prime movers and their accompanying trailers. That is about the number you would have coming in at any given time, when they would take off their trailers, swap over and do their return travel. It is a great area because it is about halfway between Melbourne and Sydney.

Other works on the Hume Highway have included the realignment at Kyeamba Hill, south of Tarcutta, where we saw a significant accident that killed a Canberra couple and their family, which was absolutely tragic. It is sad that on many occasions urgent works take place after these accidents. Sometimes you cannot achieve that, but we were able to achieve some works to take significant danger out of that area. We have had upgrades on the Ladysmith Road at Kyeamba Hill and the Olympic Highway. There will now be bypasses. I notice that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Minister Albanese, just announced, in my local paper yesterday, the actual routes of the bypasses at Tarcutta, Holbrook and Woomargama. That is fantastic. That will actually give security to the people who for some 20 years have been in discussions with the RTA as to how that is going to happen. We would look at construction of these projects starting beyond 2009. I think the funding has been in the bank for some time, so it will be great to see the AusLink objective of a four-lane highway being met by 2012.

Since I was elected in the Riverina electorate, the total amount of funding under the AusLink national network program since it was implemented stands at just over $1 billion. That has been extraordinarily beneficial to the many tourist operators, the many community members and indeed the heavy vehicle transport industry. It is no secret here that I am enormously supportive of the trucking industry. I think that they do an enormous job. Without these people our country would be at a standstill. I do not think the country would be at a standstill without politicians but, on most occasions, it would be without truck drivers. They certainly do not get the credit that they are due. They are entitled to leave for work and come home to their families safely. In Tarcutta we have a memorial for all of the truck drivers who lose their lives whilst in pursuit of their duties of driving trucks, crisscrossing the nation and delivering our daily needs. It is a sad indictment that many of them have been lost on our inadequate roads. The AusLink strategic program, the AusLink national network program, is most definitely one of the better programs that have ever been implemented in my time in this parliament.

We have had other road projects in the Riverina, Griffith, Adjungbilly and many of those areas. We had $723,565 allocated to Griffith to go towards the sealing of a 2.6 kilometre gravel section of the Murrumbidgee River Road at Darlington Point from Kidman Way. I thank the former minister for that project, because it was something that was holding Griffith industries back from reaching their full potential. It provided an all-weather transport link for our primary producers, processing plants and transport depots in the region. And our Adjungbilly Creek bridge construction was made possible with the announcement of the funding of $950,000 for the project when that took place.

It is always fabulous to stand here and talk about great initiatives that have taken place in the electorate. There is still one to be delivered, and that is the Gocup Road, between Gundagai and Tumut. I am sure that the member for Eden-Monaro is working his hardest to restore some funding for that road to ensure that this vital link enhances the Visy upgrade and also provides a safety standard for all the people who utilise the Gocup Road to perform their work duties and also those who utilise it as their general school road. (Time expired)

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 has two main purposes, and it is interesting that one is directly relevant to comments that the member for Riverina just made about the heavy transport usage around Tarcutta. Firstly, this bill will change the definition of a road in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act so as to allow further future funding of heavy vehicle facilities such as off-road rest stops. The government has made it clear that the funding of this part of the program will depend on the passage of the legislation to increase road user charges. Secondly, this bill will allow the Roads to Recovery program to be extended for another five years with additional funding allocations attached to it.

In the comments I want to make this afternoon I firstly want to talk about the importance of some of the subsets of the AusLink program, particularly the Roads to Recovery program and the Black Spot Program, and also draw attention to some pressing issues that still need to be addressed in the Illawarra. I note that there are representatives of the department here. I hope that some of these comments get passed on to the minister. We will certainly be making further submissions in a presentation both to Infrastructure Australia and directly to the minister once our economic case has been concluded. But I will get to that later on in my speech on this bill.

The Roads to Recovery program is greatly valued in my community. Recently, my three local government authorities were notified of the balance of their program allocation to the end of the 2008-09 period. Wollongong City Council was to receive $1.176 million, Shellharbour was to receive $468,000 and Kiama was to receive $175,000. Most importantly, I was able to tell my local government authorities that the Rudd Labor government committed to an increase of $50 million a year for this program when it recently announced that the program would be extended for another five years.

This bill will deliver new money to help make local roads safer for motorists. In that regard, it will certainly be very welcomed by my community. Around Australia, councils are responsible for maintaining more than 655,000 kilometres of local roads, which are used by millions of working Australians and other community members on a daily basis. My three local government authorities always welcome the additional assistance that can be provided for a range of activities—and, particularly in the transport area, the funds that come from the federal government. I am advised that each council’s individual allocation of the new funding commitment will be determined later in the year by state and territory grants commissions. I think that local governments in my area can now confidently plan for continued improvements of their road networks.

I want to particularly thank the minister for the $900,000 that my electorate received to fix nine local dangerous black spots. The Black Spot Program, like the Roads to Recovery program, is very welcomed by our community. It is specifically targeted at roads that have a history of fatalities, injuries and crashes and roads where there is a significant risk of crashes occurring.

The $900,000 will be spent on fixing nine local black spots. Each of the three largest grants of around $200,000 will see improvements at Knights Hill Road, Jamberoo; at Shellharbour and Addison Streets, Lake Illawarra; and, very importantly, on a dangerous stretch of road, the Jamberoo Mountain Road, Jamberoo, which has newly been incorporated into my electorate of Throsby.

From next year, the Rudd government will deliver on its election commitment to increase black spot funding by 33 per cent, up to a record $60 million nationally. We are all aware that the funding which goes into addressing black spot problems has a very important multiplier effect. As the chair of the New South Wales consultative panel said:

For every $1 invested in fixing black spots, around $14 is returned to the community through a reduction in the number and cost of crashes—

let alone the terrible fatalities and the injuries we see on many roads.

I would like to spend most of my contribution this afternoon talking about issues which I think need to be addressed by the minister and the federal government. We hope that we will have compelling evidence to put before Infrastructure Australia to see a more significant commitment of federal funds to the Illawarra region. Currently the road links south of Gwynneville to our port at Port Kembla are not on the AusLink national network, nor is the Princes Highway from Wollongong to the Jervis Bay turn-off. And yet the existing and current Sydney-Wollongong Corridor Strategy document rightly points out that the future of the Sydney-Wollongong Corridor Strategy will be shaped by factors such as the expansion of Port Kembla—the port—and population growth in the southern region. The port of Port Kembla will be a key driver of economic growth for the Illawarra region and a major generator of traffic flows.

Reading from that corridor strategy document, let me point out the impact that expansion of the port will have. We will see the progressive relocation of cars from Glebe Island in Sydney, which will result in approximately 250,000 cars arriving at Port Kembla yearly. It is anticipated that approximately 50 per cent of these will be processed on site and the remainder will be delivered by B-double road transport to Western Sydney, around the area that is so well represented by my colleague the member for Werriwa.

Allowing for both single run and return trips, the document estimates that this will result in an additional 93,750 truck movements a year or approximately 120 B-double and 250 rigid-single articulated daily return trips. It is likely that such trucks would use Mount Ousley Road, then Picton and Appin Roads and the Hume Highway to access Western Sydney rather than heading north along the F6. That is the impact that relocation of cars is going to have on our road system. Along with the cars, we will see expansion in containers and general cargo, which will also be progressively relocated from Port Jackson in Sydney. This trade could represent approximately 250 additional ship calls and up to 40,000 to 50,000 containers and 125,000 tonnes of break-bulk cargo such as timber, machinery and steel.

The expansion of activities at the port—very much promoted by the New South Wales state government—together with the expansion of industrial activity in south-west Sydney, will inevitably put increasing pressure on sections of the existing corridor and arterial links such as the Picton and Appin roads. As the Sydney-Wollongong corridor is the primary transport route to the South Coast of New South Wales, there being no railway beyond Bombaderry, just north of Nowra, naturally this increased economic activity will place increasing pressure on the Princes Highway.

Currently the New South Wales and Victorian state governments have responsibility for the highway between Wollongong and Sale. It is true, and it has been welcomed, that funding has been supplemented over the past few years by the Australian government through the Black Spot and Strategic Regional programs. As I said, that has been welcomed. But there is still a desperate need for additional funding. So I believe, as does my colleague the member for Cunningham, that there is a strong argument to have the section of road between Gwynneville and the port incorporated into the AusLink network and for greater federal assistance for the upgrade of the Princes Highway into a dual carriageway to the Jervis Bay turnoff. If this section of the highway were to be included in the AusLink network it would be easier to access federal sources of funding.

A local lobby group known as PHocus was created some years ago with the aim of lobbying to speed up enhancements to the highway. A report they completed in conjunction with the NRMA suggested that extending a four-lane dual carriageway to just north of the Jervis Bay turnoff—which would enable full B-double access—would reap considerable long-term economic reward, yielding a positive net present value ranging from $611 million to just over $1 billion over the next 30 years. Their analysis showed that these improvements would come from reduced travel time, avoidance of crash costs and B-double productivity gains.

According to the most recent data I have seen, traffic volumes on the Princes Highway continue to grow at an average of two per cent to three per cent per annum. There is a significant proportion of heavy-vehicle traffic on the highway, particularly at the point closest to Port Kembla. As the growth of the port accelerates, more heavy-vehicle traffic can be expected, leading to congestion and greater safety issues if the matter is not properly addressed.

In 2001, our region attracted and generated over 20 million tonnes of freight. The freight task is expected to grow at a conservative four per cent per annum to 2035, which obviously is going to place even more stress on the highway. That extra freight comes on top of increasing numbers of visitors to the South Coast—a beautiful part of the coast, which attracts many visitors, who reach it through this highway—particularly in school holiday time.

Therefore it is not surprising that this section of the Princes Highway compares very poorly with other roads around the nation in terms of crash rates. The NRMA reported crash rates of between 29.3 and 50.6 per million of vehicle-kilometres travelled on the highway. The level of both crashes and casualties is high when compared, say, to the similar Hume Highway link between Campbelltown City and Mulwaree. In 2005, there were some 318 people killed and injured on the Princes Highway. This is much higher than the equivalent figure of 174 on that section of the Hume Highway link that I mentioned. So I think that the appeals that have been made, to give greater consideration to federal allocations of funding to the Princes Highway, are well justified—on economic grounds and on human grounds too.

It is not unusual for the Illawarra Mercury, our local paper, to have front-page stories like this one from a couple of weeks ago—headed ‘Husband’s mercy dash death on Princes Hwy’—telling of another family torn apart in a bizarre tragedy on the Princes Highway. It recounts the death on the highway of a man who was on his way to pick up from hospital his terminally ill wife, who died not long thereafter, leaving two orphan children. As you would be aware, the state coroner in New South Wales has recently conducted an investigation into some of the fatalities on that stretch of road.

In short, there are a number of reasons for the inclusion of this section of the Princes Highway in the AusLink network. They include the increasing activity that will be planned for the port at Port Kembla, the economic importance of the highway to our region and to the intra- and interstate movement of goods, the fact that there is an appalling crash record and continuing fatalities on that road, and because we have seen the inclusion of other corridors in the AusLink network that have smaller traffic counts and less road freight than the section of road I am referring to along the highway. If we can get the highway upgraded, it will produce long-term productivity and economic benefits.

In cooperation with my colleague the member for Cunningham, I recently organised a transport infrastructure forum in the Illawarra. We brought together all the local stakeholders to try to arrive at some consensus on what we as federal members consider to be significant infrastructure projects for consideration by the new Infrastructure Australia authority. Both my colleague Sharon Bird and I were of the view that it was not sufficient just to rely on the submissions coming from the state government to the department and to Infrastructure Australia, particularly if they did not encompass the broader range of issues that the federal members thought we should rightly bring to the attention of the national government. It was surprising and very heartening to see the outcome, which was unanimous agreement by all the major local stakeholders that the development and expansion of the port should and would, we hoped, determine the land transport links needed for the Illawarra region.

It was agreed to pursue as a priority project for funding the Maldon-Dombarton rail link, which, for those who do not live in the Illawarra, was abandoned by a former state Liberal government but which will increasingly play, we think, an important role linked to the expansion of the port. That was indicated as a very high priority. I want to place on record my thanks to the Rudd government and to the former shadow minister for transport at that time, Martin Ferguson, who at the insistence of the member for Cunningham and her lobbying efforts finally delivered a grant for an economic feasibility study to be conducted into the completion of that rail link. I understand from the port authority and the federal department that the parameters of that study have now been determined, and that study will now go out for tender. We are hoping that the economics do stack up and that the Maldon-Dombarton rail link will come about through the considerations of the minister and Infrastructure Australia of important national infrastructure projects.

The second issue they wanted to list as a priority was the upgrade of the Princes Highway to the Jervis Bay turn-off and an upgrade of the Picton Road. The community has put in funds to enable the best case that we can present in a short time frame before the closing date of submissions to Infrastructure Australia. So we are now busily working on preparing our economic and business case for the Maldon-Dombarton rail link, the upgrade of the Princes Highway and the upgrade of the Picton Road.

In speaking to this bill I want to commend our government and the minister, in particular, on their enormous commitments to clearing the backlog of important national infrastructure projects, a backlog that is causing capacity constraints in our economy. It is obvious, as the member for one of the seats in the Illawarra said, that we have huge capacity constraints because of the inadequacy of investment in road and rail infrastructure in the Illawarra region. I am hopeful that, finally, given the opportunity, we will be able to present an impressive economic and business case for the attention of the minister and for the people sitting on the board of Infrastructure Australia when they determine the very important national projects for the future.

There were other matters that were considered at the transport forum. Some of those matters related mainly to responsibilities of state governments like making sure the trains run more smoothly and the F6 expansion into the southern suburbs of Sydney. As far as national projects are concerned, I think the upgrade of the highway, the upgrade of Picton Road and, hopefully, bringing the rail link between Maldon and Dombarton to its conclusion would greatly assist our economic underpinnings to ensure the prosperity of the Illawarra region into the future. Concluding with those few words, I hope that representations will fall on fertile ground in the coming round of negotiations about infrastructure projects.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Throsby. Before I call the honourable member for Forrest, I would like to draw to the attention of the member for Throsby the provisions of standing order 64, pursuant to which she ought to refer to other members by the names of their electorates or their ministerial positions. On two occasions, I think, she transgressed, but I was reluctant to interrupt the honourable member.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. As someone from one of the pioneering cartage contracting and road transport families in the south-west of Western Australia, I am very well aware of the importance of AusLink and road-funding programs, as well as the issues facing those in the transport industry. My father was the very first milk carter for the Peters and Brownes factory in Brunswick Junction, and my early experience was in a five-tonne 1948 Diamond T truck carting TD-6 and TD-9 tractors up the Collie Hill and carting Worsley sand down the Collie Hill. This was followed by time in a 12-tonne International BCF-180 truck that carted just about everything, followed by a 27-tonne Mack, White Fords and now the road trains, the Aeromax and the Louisville. The majority of this time was on roads right throughout the south-west. As a result of this, I would like to recognise and congratulate the many local shires and city councils around Australia, especially the 11 shire councils in my electorate of Forrest, that plan, implement, manage and administer the federal government’s Roads to Recovery program.

The Roads to Recovery program—first established in 2000 under the previous coalition government and, since 2005, one of the components of AusLink—has proven to be a very popular, practical program. Councils view this program as an essential element in assisting local government’s ability to maintain and upgrade the local roads network. Indeed, all local government authorities have accepted the Roads to Recovery program as the mainstay of their roads programs. Grants provided under the Roads to Recovery program are intended to supplement, not substitute for, council road spending.

The previous coalition government ensured that grants were provided directly to local councils and not filtered through state governments, to ensure all Roads to Recovery funds were indeed received by all councils. This was a direct, practical process to deliver federal government funds to communities—on the ground, where it is needed—a process relied on by local councils, particularly those with a small rate base but with significant road networks within their shires. The Shire of Manjimup, in my electorate of Forrest, is just one example of a council fitting this particular demographic. However, there are many shires in regional Australia that are just like Manjimup. The councils themselves determine which roads will be upgraded and when the roads will be upgraded, according to their priority list. Councils have had unfettered choice as to how they spend their funds on roads within their own council boundaries.

But now it seems that the minister will be the one to sign off on who will receive funding. In fact, if this bill is enacted, the minister will be the one who determines if a council like Manjimup will receive funding and how much. I certainly will not endorse the decision-making process being taken away from individual councils by a Canberra-centric regime that has little idea of the significance of a road upgrade in the community of Walpole, in my electorate of Forrest, or even the tourist-cum-scenic forest road route through the Donnelly River area in the Manjimup shire. It is a Canberra-centric regime with certainly no understanding of the effect on the lives of Greenbushes residents of cancelling funding for no other purpose than to divert the funding to another project, for work on road-grading, bituminising or safety-proofing a lower grade road on a country regional bus route out in the back blocks of Greenbushes. It will matter. These decisions need to be made at the local council level.

In the 2006-07 year, the funding level for Roads to Recovery was $304 million. I am concerned that forward estimates have noted that funding has only been identified up to the 2011-12 year. However, the current government has clearly acknowledged the success of the Roads to Recovery program and indeed intends to extend the program for another five years, to 2014. I note that budget items 9 and 10 permit payments under the Roads to Recovery program to be made until 2014. The Roads to Recovery program has been a highly successful program, and over the life of the program allocation, the 11 local councils in my electorate have shared in over $16 million—almost 9.4 per cent of the Western Australian total allocation of $180 million.

My concerns now go to the technical amendments to the bill that aim to change the definition of a road in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 to put beyond doubt that projects for the development of off-road heavy vehicle facilities used by trucks may be funded under the AusLink program. Facilities to be funded were announced by the government in February 2008 under the banner of a $70 million Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Plan to improve roadside facilities for truck drivers, such as the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops, decoupling areas along highways and on the outskirts of major cities, and trials of new electronic monitoring technology to monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed—aimed at reducing driver fatigue and increasing driver safety.

At the same time as this announcement was made, we find that the Labor government had also decided to increase heavy vehicle registration fees and the effective rate of the diesel fuel excise by introducing the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Repeal Bill 2008. Significant increases to the heavy vehicle registration charges were to be implemented over three years from 1 July 2008, resulting from the application of an annual road cost adjustment formula—a formula that would result in charges higher than the CPI. From 1 January 2009 the road user charge would increase from 19.633c to 21c per litre and would be indexed annually thereafter to the same formula as that used for registration charges.

I spoke in this House, voicing my opposition to these bills, as these two measures would have imposed an increasing cost burden on Australia’s struggling truck operators and their families. With some 75 per cent of Australia’s domestic freight carried on the back of a truck, including the majority of items on the shelves of regional, rural and remote supermarkets, the flow-on effect of increased prices will ultimately be passed on to all consumers. Obviously any cost increases to transported goods increase the cost of living and will also hit regional Australia very hard, particularly regional Western Australia. Those living in regional Australia and those in the transport industry have benefited from both of these increases having since been rejected by my opposition colleagues in the Senate.

We are committed to protecting Australia from yet another round of inflationary tax rises at a time of higher cost-of-living pressures, including those same grocery prices that the Prime Minister promised to reduce during the election campaign. However, this particular $70 million funding package can only go ahead if the Senate agrees to pass the increase in heavy vehicle registration, as the $70 million package has been budgeted from the revenues this measure will collect. It is ironic that, on the one hand, the Rudd Labor government wishes to raise taxes on diesel fuel used by trucks and the transport industry and, on the other hand, provide the sector with a rebate under the proposed carbon pollution scheme.

The Rudd government is claiming that the opposition, Australia’s alternative government, is putting the safety of truck drivers at risk by rejecting the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination. That is simply not true. This is just another Labor government tax. This Labor government is a high-taxing government and ultimately all increases in pricing will be passed onto consumers.

There is no doubt that many owner-operators and small trucking businesses are doing it tough. Most truck drivers have been and still are working overtime to absorb the extra costs they incur with the recent surges in the price of fuels. Not all of them can pass on these extra costs in a contemporaneous manner. Many drivers are locked into contracts which can have as long as three- or five-year terms with no capacity to pass on cost increases. It has even been alleged that larger supermarket corporations are exacerbating driver fatigue and taking unfair advantage of truck drivers, as they are being used as free warehouse storage facilities by being forced to wait long periods for their cargoes to be unloaded. In the case of refrigerated loads, the additional cost to the truck owners is significant. Tim Eaton, of National Trucking, said on Lateline recently: ‘Woolies are bullies.’

Many truckies have reached breaking point and have exited the industry—indeed, I have been told that there were 3,600 repossessions of trucks in the first six months of this year. We have all the economic indicators that show people are losing jobs and growth is slowing. Inflation is going to be higher under the Rudd government and this will adversely affect those involved in the trucking industry. The costs of registration and diesel, the behaviour of contractors and the attitude of the major retailers all add to the pressures on the trucking industry—and many of these are family owned businesses.

The trucking industry has long accepted the principle of paying its way. All moneys currently collected under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme are paid to the states and territories. As I have previously said, once the proposed measures are fully implemented, the revenue of states and territories will increase by a further $168 million annually. I would like to know exactly how much each state and territory government has already invested back into roads from the revenue they are currently receiving. And where are the guarantees and the audit processes to ensure that the states and territories will actually spend the proposed revenue windfall on roads, in particular on facilities to assist heavy vehicles? Who will pay for these audit processes?

Truck drivers already know that there are not enough rest stops. In fact, the logbooks used in the eastern states that show that drivers have exceeded their driving hours do not take into account that, when they try and pull up at a rest stop, they invariably find that it is full and the drivers have no alternative but to keep driving, sometimes for an extra hour or more, before they can safely pull off the road into the next vacant rest stop. Mr Speaker, the government’s proposed $70 million—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the honourable member resume her seat for a moment. I thank the honourable member for the promotion but the correct means of referring to the Deputy Speaker is ‘Mr Deputy Speaker’ and not ‘Mr Speaker’.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. The government’s proposed $70 million supplement, to be spread over four years, is only a fraction of the investment needed to improve safety facilities for our road transport industry. How many rest stops is the government actually going to construct? Are these rest stops going to provide toilets, showers and appropriate lighting? What is the cost of construction and how many of these rest stops will be constructed in Western Australia? With the Western Australian election result of a Liberal-National government, I am reassured somewhat that the new state government will take Western Australia in a stronger, more confident direction, will reinvest in our regional areas and will direct funding to the construction of regional safety facilities for truck drivers.

The AusLink policy now needs to focus on the national standardisation of roads to facilitate a seamless but consistent approach for the transportation of goods across state and territory borders. Australian truck drivers are always very conscious of safety. They know that the multi-combination vehicles such as the B-doubles and B-triples are highly productive, safer and more efficient; and there are fewer trucks on our roads due to these combinations. But, more importantly, I know that each one of these drivers want to get home safely to their families.

There are over 220,000 people employed in the transport industry. Out of these there are 160,600 truck drivers and approximately 365,000 heavy vehicles registered. Our heavy vehicle drivers, like all who participate in the commercial sector, need to be economically viable. Some owner-operators are currently faced with fuel increases of more than $5,000 per month, and those who are not able to increase their freight rates can only absorb these increases for a short period of time before they inevitably close up shop. One large company I am aware of has seen fuel increases go from $5 million a month to over $7 million a month. There are trucking companies that need to increase their freight rates by over 10 percent to bring themselves up to a break-even point—and, if they cannot renegotiate their contracts, they too will shortly be out of business.

Australia’s heavy vehicle drivers acknowledge they should pay their share for the upkeep of roads they use. But they believe they are already paying their fair share through current registration charges. Our heavy vehicle drivers should not be subject to the Labor government increasing registration fees and road charges so that the transport industry can pay yet again for the upgrades to the roads they use. To introduce such tax rises when the cost of living pressures have escalated is a highly inflationary policy and the Rudd Labor government will surely be caught out on its claim that fighting inflation is its No. 1 priority.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008, which we are debating today, reflects the Rudd government’s ongoing commitment to road safety and local road infrastructure. 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. This will enable the government to provide funding for these facilities under our $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package.

During the election I had, and since I have been elected I have had, the opportunity to meet a good number of truck drivers from my electorate. The F3 and the Pacific Highway go right through the middle of my electorate. I have found that truck drivers take real pride in the work they do in carrying Australia. Truckies add a lot to the Central Coast community, as they do to the Australian community generally. The Transport Workers Union’s ‘Convoy 4 Kids’ is in its 12th year on the Central Coast. This year over 300 trucks participated in a convoy from Tuggerah to Gosford, and every year they pick a charity to which they donate the money. This year they donated much-needed funds for children with polio and to an organisation involved with lending a hand to grandparents raising grandchildren. I would like to thank the 30,000 Central Coast residents who went to this fantastic initiative, particularly the truckies who gave up their Sunday morning to do their bit for children’s charities, as they have done for the last 12 years.

There are a large number of transport workers in my electorate of Dobell. These men and women in the trucking industry feel changes in our national economic conditions with great intensity. A large number of them felt the pinch of the Liberals and Nationals Work Choices laws, with many truck drivers telling me about their concerns. Transport workers are also more adversely affected by higher petrol prices than just about any other industry. As well as feeling the condition of our economy, the transport industry is one of the most dangerous in Australia, with 228 deaths reported in the last financial year nationally. This is 228 road deaths too many. One in five road deaths involves heavy vehicles, with speed and fatigue being significant contributing factors. By building heavy vehicle facilities such as rest stops, parking bays, decoupling facilities and electronic monitoring systems, we will be going a small way towards making this industry a little safer and a little fairer for those whose job it is to carry the commerce of Australia on the roads. We also make it safer for all of us who use the roads, and that is something we should all think about when we get into a vehicle.

The Rudd government, however, in terms of safety for heavy vehicle drivers, is not just looking at ways to improve the roads and the rest stops. Earlier this year the National Transport Commission was given the task of investigating and reporting on driver remuneration and payment methods in the Australian trucking industry and making recommendations for reforms. Professor Michael Quinlan of the University of New South Wales, who has done a lot of work in this area, and the Hon. Lance Wright QC, former President of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, have been given the job of looking into this very important issue, another initiative of the Rudd government to make sure that transport workers have a safer environment in which to work.

Funding for the package to create rest stops, parking bays, decoupling facilities and electronic monitoring systems is contingent on the passage of the enabling legislation for the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination, which was unanimously endorsed by the Australian Transport Council of Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers in February this year. That legislation would enable the heavy vehicle industry to pay its fair share of the infrastructure costs incurred by governments for building and maintaining the roads they drive on. Unfortunately, the legislation has been blocked by the coalition in the Senate, even though the determination and policy were proposed originally by the former government. The facilities that will be delivered under the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package will improve road safety and provide a better deal for truck drivers of the Central Coast and Australia generally.

The Rudd Labor government used its first budget to make a substantial down payment on its pledge to fix and modernise the nation’s infrastructure. In over 100 years we have never had a coordinated national approach to infrastructure development. Governments of all colours have been guilty of this inaction. We have seen great prosperity, particularly in the past 15 or 16 years. For 12 of those years the now opposition did nothing in this area. As John F Kennedy once said, ‘The best time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.’ Unfortunately, over the last 12 years, that opportunity was squandered by the then government.

Fortunately, the Australian people agree with Labor that nation building is the business of the Australian government. It is the Rudd government that is moving forward with nation building. The government has taken the far-reaching decision to allocate an initial $20 billion to its Building Australia Fund, money which in years to come will be used to build critical economic infrastructure such as roads, rails, ports and broadband. These funds will be sourced from the budget surpluses expected in 2007-08 and 2008-09, with a possibility of further deposits being made from future surpluses.

The Communications Fund will also be rolled into the Building Australia Fund. Having determined the quantum of our initial deposit, the government will now spend the coming months finalising the fund’s governance arrangements. We expect to have the fund up and running by 1 January 2009, with the first allocations to be made in 2009-10. Allocations from the fund will be guided by Infrastructure Australia’s national audit and infrastructure priority list, the first of which will be presented to the March 2009 COAG meeting. As well as being a key element of our national macroeconomic strategy for tackling inflation and boosting national productivity, the fund will help our manufacturers, farmers and miners get their goods to market as quickly and cheaply as possible. It will help equip households and businesses with the tools to take advantage of the internet and the information revolution that it has sparked, and it will help to improve the functioning of and the quality of life within our major cities and major regional centres.

For too long there has been a lack of investment in the nation’s infrastructure. We are now living with the consequences of this underinvestment as well as a lack of national leadership and poor planning. This leads to higher business costs and inflationary pressures as the economy is wracked with constraints and bottlenecks. Inadequate or poorly planned infrastructure also produces a social cost. For example, as a result of urban congestion at least one in 10 working parents are spending more time commuting in their cars than they are at home with their kids. This is a particular issue in my electorate of Dobell, where we have up to 30,000 residents who commute daily to Sydney or Newcastle, taking up to four hours each day to commute to and from their place of work.

We on this side of the House are determined to overcome the legacy we have inherited. Unlike our predecessors, we will use the financial dividends of today’s mining boom to secure tomorrow’s prosperity. The creation of the Building Australia Fund, together with the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, confirms and builds upon Labor’s tradition as a nation-building party. The Commonwealth government is back in the business of nation building.

This bill also extends the Roads to Recovery program. Under the current act, it will end on 30 June 2009. This bill will continue the program until 30 June 2014. The Roads to Recovery program provides much-needed funding to local councils around Australia so that they can make urgent repairs and upgrades to their roads. Local governments are responsible for more than three-quarters of all Australian roads. That is over 810,000 kilometres. The Rudd Labor government is trying to secure the Roads to Recovery program for another five years, to 2014, and to deliver $1.75 billion in new money to improve the safety and condition of local roads. The funding will be an increase of $50 million a year or $250 million over the five years compared with the previous annual allocation under the program.

The quality and safety of roads is a huge issue on the Central Coast. As I said earlier, we have upwards of 30,000 people who commute to Sydney and Newcastle each day. They use the F3 and sometimes the old Pacific Highway, and I would argue that the F3 is one of the most important arterial links in Australia. For these reasons, on the Central Coast we also have a very high patronage of cars compared to other transport. Therefore, there is a very high usage of local roads. The geography of the Central Coast is such that, with mountains in the middle, lakes in the centre and the coast on the edge, roads have been the traditional way of transport around the Central Coast, and without them people are completely isolated.

The quality of roads and transport on the Central Coast is probably the issue that is the most complained about. At the 2020 forum that we held in Wyong, where Australia’s best and brightest from the Central Coast met, transport was the No. 1 issue. In every person’s submission there was mention of transport and the need to do something about our roads and improving transport on the Central Coast.

In 2008-09, the government will deliver funding of $2.36 million to local councils in Dobell for urgent safety upgrades and repairs: close to $1½ million for Gosford City Council and close to $1 million for the Wyong Shire Council. This is much-needed funding for the local roads of the Central Coast. I am very happy with the contribution the Commonwealth is making—happy that we are not playing the blame game, that we are actually in there doing the hard work and making sure that local councils get some funding to improve their roads. As I said, it is vitally important that roads on the Central Coast are looked after. I have committed myself to continue to fight to make sure that we get our fair share of roads funding for the Central Coast.

Some of the AusLink projects in and around my electorate include the construction of school protection zones using raised traffic control devices for Brooke Avenue Public School, Killarney Vale East, and the sealing of the remaining 900 metres of unsealed carriageway on Brush Road, which is a connecting road between the Central Coast regions of Ourimbah and Tumbi Umbi. Before that sealing, we had a gravel road on a link road that had a lot of traffic. It was a dangerous road for people to drive on. We increased the safety of aged pedestrians crossing a busy distributor road to the local shopping centre at Goobarabah Avenue at Lake Haven by signalising the pedestrian crossing, with associated kerb and median works.

The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 will, if passed, deliver new money to help make local roads safer for motorists. The legislation will secure $1.75 billion funding for the Roads to Recovery program for another five years to 30 June 2014; increase annual Roads to Recovery funding from $300 million to $350 million a year, providing an extra $250 million for local roads over five years; and improve the management of the program.

Around Australia, councils are responsible for maintaining more than 657,000 kilometres of local roads, which are used daily by millions of working Australians. They are actually responsible for a bit over 800,000 kilometres, but 657,000 kilometres are used daily. Local roads are critical for efficient and safe freight movements, because often the last kilometre from the highway to port is a local government controlled road. The Rudd Labor government is working in partnership with local councils to deliver safer roads. Local councils have so far used Roads to Recovery money to repair and upgrade around 27,000 separate road sites around Australia. Each council’s individual allocation of this new funding will be determined later in the year by state and territory grants commissions. The continuation of this program means that local governments can confidently plan for the continued improvements of their road network.

This bill fits in with the rest of the Rudd Labor government’s plans in terms of the infrastructure and the capital expenditure that is needed for nation building. Without making sure that our roads are improved we not only put at risk the safety of those who use the roads—and I spoke earlier about the deaths of 228 heavy vehicle drivers every year nationally—but also put the economic growth and prosperity of our country at risk. With bad roads, our transport system is clogged and we have infrastructure blockages, and that affects the way our economy moves. This has not been addressed in a long time.

I am proud of the nation-building efforts of this government. I am proud of this bill that has come before this chamber. I hope that those opposite, when they look at the legislation that they are blocking in the Senate, do the right thing and make sure that the total package of legislation is passed. I commend this bill to the chamber.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. As a rural based member who has driven some two million kilometres in my 20 years as a state and federal member, I understand only too well the need for infrastructure and a funding injection into our rural and regional roads. My electorate of Hume not only has the Hume Highway running through its centre; it is also home to an extensive road transport industry, including subsidiaries of national road freight companies and many family owned smaller road transport operators which freight the likes of livestock, grain, fodder, minerals and general freight.

The two main purposes of this bill are, firstly, to change the definition of a ‘road’ in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 to allow funding of heavy vehicle facilities, such as off-road rest stops; and, secondly, to allow the Roads to Recovery program, which is funded under the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005, to be extended for another five years. AusLink is the government’s national land transport program and its elements include: (1) national projects; (2) strategic regional projects; (3) Black Spot projects; (4) Roads to Recovery; and (5) research and technology projects. The national network is a network of road and rail transport corridors which includes urban areas and links to ports, airports and, in the Hume Electorate, to the many medium, small and farm based businesses.

I welcome the new government’s decision to continue yet another effective Howard government policy. However, I question the increase in taxes on an already overtaxed and struggling trucking industry to assist with the funding of the first purpose of the bill, the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. I am very aware of how difficult and demanding the trucking industry is physically and emotionally, not to mention financially. In my younger years I became aware of the demands of a heavy vehicle transport business, as my wife was raised in a family that was reliant on the income from the family transport business. In 1988, in my blue singlet and stubbies—dread the thought!—I rode the Hume Highway with a number of owner-drivers. They made me very aware of the demands and challenges faced by not only owner-drivers but also drivers employed by large transport companies. I might add that not much has changed regarding these demands and challenges over the years. I did that exercise in that period of time because I was concerned, as the state member, about the significant number of accidents occurring on the Hume Highway.

Increasing taxes on vehicles with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 4.5 tonnes will also impact heavily on many farming families still struggling with the burden of the worst drought in a hundred years. Together with the Australian Trucking Association, I welcome the Senate’s rejection of these proposed increases.

I acknowledge the government’s $70 million supplementation to help implement the four-year heavy vehicle safety and productivity package will fund trials of technologies that electronically monitor drivers’ work hours and vehicle speed and will also fund the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops and decoupling areas along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities to assist truck drivers’ rest. The construction of rest stops must also include facilities that allow drivers to rest and sleep without too much disturbance and to be able to refresh themselves before continuing on their journey.

I implore the government not to make the same mistake that other governments have made in terms of rest stops on major arterial roads. I refer specifically to the needle disposal units that have been placed in toilets and nappy changing facilities on rest stops on major arterial roads such as the Hume Highway. Why do I say that? Because in 1992 I spent significant time on the Hume Highway following a huge number of truck smashes and deaths. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that people are injecting illicit drugs and using those facilities to dispose of their needles—if, in fact, they can see the hole to put them in—then going out onto the highway and driving. As an example, I saw in the Gundagai trucking facility and service centre—I took photos and got it on film—drugs being exchanged between truck drivers. Over a period of about six weeks, I drove with police and other concerned truck drivers and my name got out into the community. I received some death threats because of what I was saying about those practices. Hopefully that is not happening now, but I have grave concerns that some of the accidents occur because drivers are being forced to use illicit drugs to stay awake or because irresponsible private commuters have an illicit drug habit.

The $70 million put towards the construction of rest stops is a good start but it is not nearly enough to build all the rest areas we need. It is vitally important that state and territory governments agree to match the federal government’s funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis, rather than increasing heavy vehicle charges. Roads to Recovery and the Black Spot Program have made such a difference, not only to roads and streets in the provincial centres in the Hume electorate but, more importantly, to the country roads, often gravel based, which continue to provide farming families on outlying properties with a vital link to the provincial centres where they travel regularly to do their shopping and to conduct other business.

More importantly, Roads to Recovery funding has not only accelerated much-needed improvements to roads but also contributed directly to the saving of the lives of many rural people and travellers who use the national highways and other regional and rural roads in my electorate and across the country. Projects in my electorate which have been funded by this program since its inception include the Towrang-Carrick intersection upgrade on the Hume Highway just north of Goulburn, the Bookham bypass and the Mittagong bypass pavement subsidence and other works totalling over $310 million. Black spot funding has been used for projects such as the roundabout on the Olympic Highway in Young; the installation of a pedestrian and median island in Goldsmith Street, Goulburn; the reconstruction of the horizontal and vertical alignments on Murrumbateman Road; the widening and delineating of Picton Road from Maldon Bridge Road to Matthews Lane; and other works totalling over $3.8 million.

Roads to Recovery funding totalling well over $37 million has been spent in the seven local government areas within my electorate for rural roads such as Taylors Flat Road in Boorowa shire; Brayton Road in Marulan, Oallen Ford Road in Bungonia and Wayo Street in Goulburn, all in the Goulburn Mulwaree Council area; Back Creek Road in the Harden shire; Majors Creek Mountain Road, Araluen, in the Palerang Council area; the Crookwell to Boorowa road; Blakeny Creek crossing on Pudman Lane and Range Road in the Upper Lachlan shire—and so on and so on.

I mention those roads to illustrate the amount of money the previous government put into worthwhile road projects which local governments found very difficult to fund. To take you back to a little bit of history, I was one of the very successful candidates to be elected to the Greiner government in the New South Wales parliament in 1988. The Greiner government introduced what they called the three-by-three program, where 3c a litre was added to the average price of fuel and 60 per cent of that went into the upgrade of council, local and state government roads in rural New South Wales because the roads were over 60 years old and the shoulders were deteriorating rapidly and becoming dangerous. That was a very good process. Communities in general thought it was good because they could see the money going into the improvement of their local roads. Unfortunately, when the coalition government lost power in 1995, that program was removed by the then Carr Labor government.

I make that point, for what it is worth, to illustrate to the current federal government here that it is very important that these significant infrastructure funding programs continue to be seen for what they are: very important programs for rural and regional people in particular. Any projects should be funded on a needs basis, not on a political basis, and I say that in all honesty because as a member of the former government I experienced the politicisation of the road-funding program from my own coalition colleagues on roads that, quite frankly, should have been funded because of need, not because I happened to be a Liberal member of the coalition and not a National Party member of the coalition. Once again, I make no apologies for making those comments, because I tell people how it is. That is the way I am built and that is the way I will continue to operate.

I also trust that the current Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will recognise this, as I said, and not politicise the Barton Highway duplication from the Hume Highway interchange to the ACT border, including the bypass of the town of Murrumbateman. This project has been held up because of political ineptitude for the past 20 years, and it is a classic example of what I have just mentioned here in this place tonight.

Roads to Recovery also has a simple administrative arrangement and is provided directly to local government, allowing local decision making and giving local councils the ability to implement their own priorities according to their needs and requirements. I welcome the fact that the government has resisted state demands to have the funding channelled through them, which may see some of the funds siphoned off in administrative costs, thereby diminishing the net amount of funds available to local councils. Go directly to the local councils and get more bang for your buck—that is sensible stuff—and do it not only in this portfolio but in other portfolios.

I note that the Australian Local Government Association, in its August newsletter, has also welcomed the decision to continue Roads to Recovery in its current form. It would be of great assistance to local governments if the Rudd Labor government could encourage their Labor colleagues in the states to pick up the slack and provide the top-up funding for the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. The former, coalition government, despite its many failings, remained committed to the success of this program, providing $150 million in its first year, 2000-01, and increasing that to approximately $300 million by 2006-07. It is heartening to see that the new government is continuing it—in the main in the same form as it has served the community over the last five years—for a further five years, to 2013-14. There is absolutely no doubt that the Roads to Recovery and black spot funding programs have significantly and most effectively made our roads much safer for the travelling public. It is, however, abundantly clear that more needs to be done to improve our road infrastructure in the interests of road safety.

I do, however, have strong reservations about the Rudd government’s ability to not emulate the process of pork-barrelling which they constantly and quite rightly criticised the National Party for and to make funding available for the duplication of the Barton Highway and the bypass of the township of Murrumbateman in the electorate of Hume. Money has already been spent on acquiring property and identifying the route, and that money is well spent. I think it was a package of about $20 million. Prior to the last election, with a lot of pressure from me, we as the former government made a commitment to finally fund that program. I am saying to Minister Albanese: Minister, please do not play politics with this particular piece of road infrastructure. Too many innocent people have died on it because it needs to be duplicated and the township of Murrumbateman needs to be bypassed. With all of the work that has been done, all we need to do is to make sure that the money that the former government promised is committed to that project, and then it can go ahead. I trust that the minister understands where I am coming from. I am trying not to be too political on the issue. I have a very deep concern for my constituents and for all of those people who travel the Barton Highway and, for that matter, any of the roads in the area that I represent, the electorate of Hume.

I am concerned about governments of the day using taxpayers’ money wisely and for the intent that taxpayers pay their taxes, which is to address an issue on the basis of need and for the safety of all people who use our road infrastructure. I just hope that the minister listens to me. As I said from the outset, I make no apologies for any comments I make about the shortcomings of the previous government or, indeed, governments before that. I listened intently to the member for Riverina talking about the wonderful work that she did in getting some funding for the duplication of the Sheahan Bridge at Gundagai. I went into politics by beating Terry Sheahan in a three-cornered contest. I had a great deal of respect for him as a local member, and for his father before him, Billy Sheahan. But what I do not have respect for is that, as the state member representing that area and as the federal member representing that area up to 2001, I wrote to numerous ministers for transport, including Labor ministers and then coalition ministers, about the need to duplicate the highway from Tarcutta to the Sheahan Bridge and to duplicate the Sheahan Bridge itself, and also to get the money injected into the Coolac Bypass, and I was knocked back simply because I was Liberal rural member and not a National Party member, and that is the reality of it. That is what I do not like about pork-barrelling. Can I please say to the members of the Labor Party: make sure that you tell your minister of the day to ensure that the funding goes into projects of need, not into the pork-barrelling process that decent minded people do not appreciate from any political party.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution on this important bill. As people have said before me, the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 is an important piece of reform that is of paramount interest, particularly if we are to address two key issues: driver fatigue and better infrastructure. This bill has two main purposes. The first purpose is to change the definition of a road in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 to allow funding of heavy vehicle facilities, such as off-road rest stops, parking bays, decoupling facilities and electronic monitoring systems, to improve heavy vehicle safety. The second purpose is to allow the Roads to Recovery program, which is funded under the act, to be extended for another five years.

We know that driver fatigue is a major concern affecting road users, from the truck drivers who haul freight to the mums and dads who use our nation’s roads to travel to and from work, or to those who use our roads to enjoy a well-earned holiday. We know that one in five road deaths involves heavy vehicles, with speed and fatigue being significant contributing factors. In my home state of Tasmania there have been 31 road deaths already this year and 173 serious injuries. That is far too many people and far too many families that have been affected by tragedy. In 2007 there were some 250 deaths in Australia involving heavy vehicles. I think that both sides of parliament can agree that safety is a primary concern and we must do all we can to improve safety on our roads. Amendments in this bill will provide for a $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity program that will help make local roads safer for all motorists, and this program is just one of several measures which are looking to reduce fatigue and make our roads safer.

This bill is also important if we are to continue to build the nation’s infrastructure. This government has put $41 billion into long-term nation-building funds. Around half of this—$20 billion—has been put aside specifically for the Building Australia Fund. This fund is to provide for the nation’s long-term prosperity in rail, ports, broadband and roads. This funding is in addition to the $26 million of AusLink funding that we have already committed to road and rail infrastructure projects, many of which we have brought forward in this budget because we consider them important priorities. We must, as a matter of national interest, continue to build upon the significant infrastructure and investment that this government has made. I was pleased to hear the previous speaker on the other side talk about needs based funding because, certainly in my home state of Tasmania, under the former government 90 per cent of AusLink funding went to the north of Tasmania and none to southern Tasmania, other than that small amount of 10 per cent.

The government will fund roads and infrastructure on the basis of need, and our election commitments most recently in relation to AusLink bear this out, because we are funding projects all over the state. We are funding things like the Brighton bypass, the Bridgewater Bridge refurbishment, the Pontville-Bagdad bypass feasibility study and corridor planning, the Brighton transport hub, maintenance on roads, the Kingston bypass in my own electorate, and numerous other road and rail investment infrastructure projects—all on the basis of need.

Also, our government will be extending the National Highway to include the capital city of the state, its port and its airport—something that we in the Labor Party in Tasmania have been calling for for some time. So I would like to reassure those on the other side of the chamber that certainly from the perspective of Tasmania I will be doing everything I can to make sure that our federal government applies funding on the basis of need, because we need to increase capacity in our economy. Infrastructure is a vital part of this. It is critical for freight movements, for tourism and for regional development in this country.

The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 extends the Roads to Recovery program for a further five years, from 2009 to 2014. Continuing this program will make a significant difference. It will certainly improve the safety and conditions of Australia’s local roads. The program has, to date, delivered much-needed funding directly to local councils so that they can make urgent safety repairs and upgrades to local roads. I know the constituents of my electorate of Franklin have already benefited from the Roads to Recovery program and I would like to think that they will continue to benefit from this funding arrangement well after June 30, 2009.

This bill will provide for the delivery of new money to help make local roads safer for motorists and pedestrians. Annual funding will be increased from $300 million to $350 million a year, providing an extra $250 million for local roads over the five years, in addition to that provided under the previous program. This is a significant funding increase and I congratulate the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government on getting this bill before the parliament and extending the program.

In my electorate of Franklin the local councils will be allocated $1.5 million worth of funding through the Roads to Recovery program in the 2008-09 budget. This money will make a difference to my electorate. It is intended to supplement—not be a substitute for—the councils’ road spending. I welcome this funding. It will help pay for urgent upgrades and repairs to maintain local roads and help make them safer for the thousands of working families, pensioners, carers and people with disabilities—all road users—who travel in their cars, on their bikes and on foot each and every day.

Local roads are also critical for efficient and safe freight movements. In my own electorate we have many industries—such as the fishing industry, the salmon industry, forestry and others—that rely on many local government roads to move their freight. That is why this government is committed to working in partnership with local councils, who are responsible for maintaining more than three-quarters of all Australian roads. Around the country this equates to more than 800,000 kilometres of local roads.

I would like to give members an understanding of why we need to move into phase 3 of the Roads to Recovery program. Tasmanians have benefited greatly from the first two stages. If we look back over the life of the program to date it is easy to see why we need to continue the program beyond 30 June 2009. As I said before, local councils in my electorate have received much-needed funding. Over the life of the program Brighton Council has received $520,000, Clarence City Council has received around $1.4 million, the Huon Valley Council has received $1.8 million and the Kingborough Council has received $1.4 million. These are significant amounts of money in regional areas in my electorate, and I welcome the program continuing.

The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 represents an important commitment—a commitment to repairing and reconstructing roads and footpaths. Without this funding and without this commitment from this government, vital infrastructure would fall into disrepair. I know the residents of the electorate of Franklin expect good local roads and I want to assure them that they will have access to safe roads in years to come.

The Roads to Recovery program has enabled local councils to complete a large number of significant projects that have improved safety for all road users. I would like to give some examples to show exactly how this program has benefited constituents in my electorate. In the Huon Valley, to the south of Hobart, the conditions of roads, footpaths and bridges have all improved. Significant work was recently undertaken on Mary Street to upgrade the poor and unsafe conditions of the kerb and channel. A new footpath has been installed in Thorpe Street. The existing Bakers Creek Bridge had structural damage and was replaced with a new concrete bridge. Roadworks have been carried out on Short Street to reconstruct and seal the substandard road. All this has been under the Roads to Recovery project.

The residents of the city of Clarence have also benefited from this project. Recent pavement reconstruction in Hookey Street along a busy bus route has improved the safety for many local residents who use that footpath to walk from their local bus stop to their homes. There is also a road and roundabout construction at the junction of Winkleigh Place and Bligh Street to provide internal circulation within the CBD of Rosny and to facilitate development of abutting land. The cost of this project was over $600,000.

As you can clearly see, these projects have benefited my electorate. They may just be small improvements but they are making a big difference to the lives of people in my electorate, to the businesses in my electorate and to the tourism operators in my electorate, particularly in the Huon Valley. With safer roads, better accessibility for pedestrians and road users, as well as boosted tourism, it all makes reasonable and logical sense to continue the Roads to Recovery program.

The purposes of this bill work hand in hand. The fundamental nature of the reforms focus on improving the safety and conditions of our roads as well as address issues around driver fatigue. But the amendments in this bill go one step further. The bill is also a step forward in ensuring we continue to build the nation’s infrastructure. It confirms and builds upon Labor’s tradition as a nation-building party. In partnership with the states, territories and local governments the Rudd Labor government will continue to plan and build for the nation’s infrastructure needs. This bill secures the Roads to Recovery program for five years. It will ensure an increase of funding by $250 million over that five years to local councils across Australia. This is why I support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 highlights a range of issues that are very dear to the heart of Gippslanders—and, I suspect, to all rural and regional communities. I seek to make several points in relation to a key aspect of the bill: to extend the Roads to Recovery program from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2014. I notice that in the gallery today we have some of the departmental staff. I encourage them to keep up the good work because, out in Gippsland, we love the program—and long may it continue!

In my handful of days in this place I have had to listen to a lot of rhetoric from the government in answers to a range of questions in question time as it has desperately tried to rewrite history and attack the legacy of the previous government. But, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has ever attacked the Roads to Recovery program, because it has stood the test of time as a great policy initiative, driven by former Leader of the Nationals John Anderson and implemented by the coalition government. I refer to a statement by Mr Anderson in 2001, which I think explains the simple beauty of the Roads to Recovery program:

Local councils right across Australia have embraced Roads to Recovery and demonstrated that the government’s decision to give them discretion to determine their own road funding priorities has been absolutely correct.

Roads to Recovery is helping build the social and economic infrastructure of local communities, enhancing road safety, access to education, health care and other amenities and creating sustainable jobs.

As I said, it is a great program that has stood the test of time.

I will focus on the issue of road safety in a moment, because I believe that if you fix country roads you will save country lives. That is one of the key reasons why major investment in the regional road network by all levels of government is so important. But going back to Roads to Recovery, local councils in my electorate have repeatedly told me that they love this program. It bypasses the state government and lets them decide on the best course of action in their local area. It really does build on the common sense of local councillors. I strongly believe that it goes to the heart of local people developing local solutions to local problems. I have a great deal of respect for councillors in these local areas, because they have that knowledge and the practical experience of their local area. They get to set their own funding priorities and they gain the maximum value for their region as well, because on many occasions they can then package the work in a way that makes it more efficient for contractors, if they have to travel to the region, or for their own shire staff.

So Gippsland has perhaps benefited more than most. I take up the point made by previous speakers that I tend to think this is because of the good work of the local member and that it is based on need rather than any allegations of pork-barrelling in relation to this program. But Gippsland has benefited more than most, to the tune of about $28 million over the past four years. That is a very significant sum of money. I think that reflects the fact that Gippsland has a vast geography and a network of roads and bridges that demand such significant development.

East Gippsland Shire, for example, has 2,719 kilometres of road and 230 bridges—and many of those bridges are wooden and, as we would all be aware, wooden bridges there are well past their life expectancy in many cases, and the council is in desperate need of additional assistance in the future. Wellington Shire faces very similar issues. I meet with my local councils on a regular basis to discuss their concerns and, although work has started in many cases, over a period of years through Roads to Recovery, the work ahead of the councils is never-ending. I think that probably reflects the need for infrastructure investment in our regional areas, Wellington Shire in particular. It has 3,168 kilometres of road, 100 concrete bridges and 77 timber bridges. Latrobe city, although a somewhat smaller municipality, still has 1,500 kilometres of road and 71 bridges. Quite simply, the task in front of these councils, with their restrictive rate base and their very limited opportunities to raise additional revenue, makes the Roads to Recovery program vitally important to them.

I argue that Roads to Recovery should not just be extended into the future in terms of time lines; I would encourage the government to work towards increased funding in the future. Having said that, I acknowledge the government’s commitment, because $350 million per year is a very substantial investment. I regard it as a very positive step in the right direction and a continuation of the good work of the Nationals and the previous, coalition government, because the need is enormous and councils will continue to struggle to keep up with the demand for infrastructure in the future. Our bridge network throughout Gippsland is deteriorating, as I mentioned before, and councils do have a very limited capacity to raise funds themselves through rates or from other sources.

I must stress that roads and bridges are going to be the critical arteries in the Gippsland region for a long time to come. They certainly link our towns for economic and social activities, and we will be relying on our private vehicles to move throughout our region on an ongoing basis into the future. It is actually one of the main reasons why I have campaigned so strongly for an increase in the single age pension: we need further support for our pensioners, for our people with disabilities and for our carers, because in the Gippsland environment, with the high costs involved in travelling throughout our region, strong, safe local roads will always be a critical element of life in the Gippsland community. Fuel costs do have a disproportional impact on regional people, and pensioners and people on low incomes certainly fall into that category, and our regional areas are so dependent on private vehicles for work and pleasure.

I urge the government to continue to take action to assist pensioners and low-income earners in this regard because, although public transport is something that is gradually improving in my electorate, it will never serve the more rural and remote areas of electorates such as Gippsland. I wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in relation to this issue after the matter was raised by local constituents and the Wellington Shire Council in particular. In terms of passenger movements on the public transport network, I note that the numbers east of Traralgon are rising faster than in any other part of the state of Victoria. While the delivery of public transport services is primarily a state responsibility, previous Commonwealth governments have cofunded major infrastructure and rolling stock improvements. So I urge the minister to look at joint funding opportunities for public transport in Victoria in addition to the great work that we are doing here with the Roads to Recovery program.

As I mentioned in my first speech just a couple of weeks ago, Gippsland is a world-class producer, and we need further investment in our transport links, not just for those social opportunities and for safety but also to move goods more efficiently to and from our region. Our timber industry, our agricultural sector, our food manufacturers and, as I will point out in a few moments time, our tourism industry all rely very heavily on a good road network.

Programs like AusLink and Roads to Recovery are significantly important in regional areas across Australia but perhaps no more so than in Gippsland with the Princes Highway project. Major projects like the upgrade of the Princes Highway east of Traralgon and all the way to the New South Wales border are essential developments for my region, and it is good to see that there is some bipartisan support for it. Although there has been a lot of talk about duplicating the Princes Highway east of Traralgon under AusLink, Gippsland is really looking to see more action from the current government.

I must say that I was surprised and disappointed by the minister for regional development when he attempted to use that particular highway upgrade as an opportunity to score cheap points when speaking in question time recently. The minister was correct on that occasion in claiming that I had written to his office in relation to the $140 million required to upgrade the highway, but what the minister did not tell the House on that particular occasion was that the project was actually promised by his own government, and the Prime Minister himself has repeatedly made the promise in relation to the highway duplication project. So I was somewhat disappointed that the minister did not provide an update on progress on his own promise and that he attempted to belittle the people of Gippsland and the Shire of Wellington on whose behalf I had written to his office. I have subsequently written to the office of the Prime Minister to get an update on the progress of this important project. Of course, the upgrade of the highway must not stop at Sale; we need upgrades right throughout the Gippsland region, through to Bairnsdale, into the future. It is something I will work on with the government whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Members who are familiar with the AusRAP star ratings would know that the stars are awarded to roads depending on the level of safety which is built into the road. The safest roads attract the four- and five-star rating, are likely to be straight, have features like two lanes in each direction separated by a wide median, have good line marking, wide lanes and sealed shoulders. But the highway through Gippsland only attracts a two- and three-star rating in most areas, which the RACV regards as unsatisfactory for a major highway, and I certainly support the RACV’s position. In the far east of my region the highway between Orbost and the New South Wales border is in urgent need of safety upgrades. The road is regularly used by very heavy vehicles and an increasing number of grey nomads towing caravans or driving the larger recreational vehicles. The highway is very narrow and winding and has many sections where the lack of sealed shoulders is a major hazard for us. Work has been undertaken in some areas and I do congratulate both the current and previous governments for the work that has been undertaken. But there is an enormous amount still to be done and I urge the federal government and the state government to work in partnership to improve the safety of the Princes Highway right through Gippsland.

I want to comment further on the need to build safer roads, which I think is a critical element of the Roads to Recovery program. Sadly, as we are all aware, a disproportionate number of people continue to be killed or injured on country roads, and that includes in my electorate of Gippsland. I know we have all been touched by road trauma in our own lives through family and friends. In addition to the deaths we have experienced, serious injuries are quite horrific and there is a long recovery process. Some people never fully recover from those accidents. In addition to this huge emotional toll, the shattering of families, there is also a significant economic toll, if I can be so crass as to measure it in those terms. So the investment in better roads actually makes economic sense for governments as well, because every dollar spent on improving road safety has an economic pay-off as well as a social bonus.

That brings me right back to road funding in regional Victoria and particularly the Gippsland area, which of course I am most interested in. The Victorian road toll has trended downwards over the past decade but unfortunately the regional road toll has remained disproportionately and stubbornly quite high. During 2007 a total of 27 people were killed on roads in the east Gippsland, Wellington and Latrobe city areas. This year unfortunately the trend is worse and it has prompted a major effort by Victoria Police in trying to improve driver behaviour and cracking down on illegal activities like speeding, drink-driving and those types of activity. I strongly endorse the police in their efforts but recognise that it really is only part of the answer. In my previous role in the state parliament of Victoria as a chief of staff we pushed a very strong message out into the community that if you fix country roads, you will save country lives. I make that point here again today: if we fix country roads, we will save country lives. I refer to the AusRAP report from February of this year and quote from the report:

Most crashes occur when ordinary people make everyday human mistakes. Sober, drug-free, responsible drivers obeying the speed limit and wearing seat belts frequently die on our roads. Safe roads minimise the chances of these crashes, and if they do occur they minimise the severity of the crash.

The AusRAP report goes on to make what I believe is a very critical and salient point for us all to remember and one that governments should acknowledge: safer roads have the potential to save nearly as many lives as safer vehicles and improved driver behaviour combined. Further, the report goes on to say that if we improve the safety of roads, improve driver behaviour, improve the safety of vehicles and adopt smarter safety technology we will save as many as 700 lives every year, most of these through modern, safe roads.

This is not solely a federal government responsibility. All three levels of government are involved in road funding, which I must admit often adds to the confusion in my community. We are sometimes unsure which level of government we need to go to about responsibility or funding for black spots or upgrades to certain roads. I simply reinforce the point made by the RACV that there is a funding shortfall in road construction and maintenance in Victoria. I do believe the previous government deserves to be commended for initiating the Roads to Recovery program and I am pleased to see that it will continue after 2010. I congratulate the current government for that. I also will be making sure that my electorate of Gippsland receives its fair share of the funding pool and I will work collaboratively with the government to improve road safety in my electorate in the future.

The bill also amends the definition of a road so that it includes heavy vehicle facilities such as rest stops and parking areas, which is another important component. I have mentioned this in the context of discussions that I have had with transport operators in my electorate. The land transport sector is certainly doing it tough with increased fuel costs, high interest rates and strong competition from some of the larger operators. But there are many small business owners who are struggling to meet the overheads of running their trucks in what is a very competitive environment. They are telling me that they are nervous about their future and that of their families with the Rudd Labor government proposing to increase taxes on trucks. There is also some confusion over the heavy vehicle regulations between jurisdictions.

Operators are telling me that they cannot understand why the government is pushing for a massive increase, for example, in registration charges, with B-doubles increasing from $8,500 to $14,000 per year. They make the point clearly that B-doubles are a very efficient way of moving freight. These small business owners feel that they are being unfairly targeted by this approach. They simply cannot pass on the costs; they cannot boost their rates. So some of them are running the very genuine risk of rescheduling their maintenance or cutting corners in the future—maybe servicing will be cut back—and, again, that could have an impact on safety. I think everyone supports a safe work environment, particularly across our transport sector.

My attention has also been drawn to the state transport regulations, including the national heavy vehicle driver fatigue reforms. Opposition members have already expressed their concern about the lack of uniformity between states on these regulations. I am concerned about the ability of truckies to comply with the law because of the lack of services, particularly in my region. One of the key issues for the truckies in my region is the provision of rest areas. Very limited facilities are provided along the major transport routes linking Gippsland to Canberra, Sydney and beyond. In the absence of these safe rest areas, it is difficult to understand the somewhat heavy-handed approach and the extraordinary penalties that will be handed out for relatively minor logbook infringements. This is causing a great deal of concern in the transport industry in Gippsland. With no disrespect whatsoever to many of the operators in my region—they are excellent drivers—bookwork is not always their strongest point. To be fair to them, we must avoid making the process of filling in the logbook too complex and time consuming; otherwise, it becomes another inefficient impost on a small business operator. I am concerned about small breaches in terms of timing or filling out logbooks. There are areas in the logbook process where significant fines and demerit points will apply. This will severely affect the opportunity for these small business operators to earn a living in the future. I think there is goodwill on behalf of the transport industry, but we need to make sure that some reasonable tolerance and common sense prevails on this issue.

A further point on rest areas concerns an emerging issue that I am not sure members in the metropolitan areas would be aware of, and that is the growing force of the grey nomads, which I referred to earlier. Those who are in the fortunate position of owning a recreational vehicle and of possessing a desire to get out and tour our nation are certainly welcome in Gippsland; however, tourism infrastructure must be upgraded to meet modern demands. In our community of Gippsland, there is a pressure point developing. The large recreational vehicle owners and the traditional caravan park operators, it is fair to say, are not necessarily getting along very well. The RV owners do not want to pay for a site in a caravan park because their vehicles are largely self-contained and they do not need the facilities which are on offer. So many of them are parking illegally in our streets and in our parks, but that is a very difficult concept to prove when the owner of the vehicle can argue that he or she is just resting. It would dangerous to force them to keep driving.

I raise this issue in the context of this bill, because it is an emerging issue in regional areas. We are going to need more funding to provide rest areas which meet the demands of the modern traveller in regional Australia. You will find that, in addition to the heavy transport industry, many recreational vehicle operators are very keen to stay in rest areas. There is safety in numbers. If we provide them with toilets, shower facilities and other associated facilities, they will certainly appreciate it. I know that a toilet pump-out facility is not the most glamorous piece of road infrastructure that we can talk about, but the provision of such a facility would certainly add to the holidaying public’s enjoyment of our regional areas. It will also get rid of the friction that is developing at the moment in many country towns between the caravan park operators and the RV owners who do not desire to pay for a site because they are in a self-contained vehicle. State and federal governments, both past and present, have not managed to fully support the regional tourism industry and so allow us to develop the opportunities that exist. I think this is an important piece of infrastructure, and I will certainly promote it and encourage the government to provide it in the future.

Providing safer and better roads, along with infrastructure such as quality rest areas, has benefits for the tourism sector as well as for the heavy transport industry. I know from my own experience in Gippsland that once we improve roads and the links between our major towns—in this case, from Melbourne through to Gippsland—there is increased traffic. We have experienced this as a direct result of government investment in roads like the Pakenham bypass. I congratulate the state Labor government for that. It has developed into a major link for our region and benefited the tourism and small business sector.

In closing, I certainly support the Roads to Recovery investment in upgrades to rest areas and parking facilities as this will lead to a safer roads. There appears to be at least some level of bipartisan support for major government funding in these vital roadworks to improve safety and transport efficiency, and I welcome that. I certainly look forward to working with my community to ensure that the needs of Gippslanders are not neglected in this process.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Being very conscious of the time and the wishes of this place to get on with all sorts of other business, while I still want to make a full contribution I will try to limit it to a shorter period of time. I have spoken in this place on countless occasions, I would have to say, about roads, road issues, AusLink funding, road and rail infrastructure development and a whole range of issues—for good reason, because they are very important to our communities, to people’s lifestyles, to the way that we support the economy and to the way the economy works. I think that all members of this place and of the community share, let us say, some common goals and views. We are all very supportive of trying to promote roads and making sure that our road infrastructure and road systems work effectively and are good for society as well as for the economy. So I always take pleasure in speaking on these types of bills, particularly the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008.

Of course, I could not make a speech in this place without raising the Ipswich Motorway. I see people looking at me, taking note of that! But I do it for very good reason. For me it has been a very long journey of almost 11 years since I first raised the issue of the Ipswich Motorway and how important it was, not just to my local community but to the whole western corridor and South-East Queensland. I understood back then just how big a task it would be. I never imagined it would take me 11 years and a change of government for it to be realised, almost as a dream, but that is the case. Today we again heard the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government make that point, but it is great to be in this House and to have another opportunity to put that on the record.

I am here today to speak in support of the AusLink amendment bill specifically and a number of changes to the legislation in particular, with regard to heavy vehicle safety and the extension of funding to the Roads to Recovery program, both of which I think are very important matters. I am certainly supportive of both. Let me start by saying, too, that Roads to Recovery is a very important and essential roads funding program that the federal government administers. In my part of the world, in the western corridor, it has meant the flow of some serious dollars in terms of fixing up some very important roads—arguably some of the most neglected roads over a long period of time. So I am very thankful for all of that.

I want to give a few examples of some local projects that have occurred, in particular in Algester and some roads there—particularly some missing links that have been fixed, increasing safety for motorists and reducing congestion, such as on Nottingham Road—and also new roads that have been created in the suburb of Bellbird Park and construction that is currently going on at Redbank Plains, at Progress Road in Inala and at Old Logan Road in Camira. Without this funding, these essential projects would never have gone ahead. The reality is that local governments, which are typically responsible for these roads, do not have the financial resources; they just do not have enough money to take on these types of projects, particularly when you consider the booming growth that we have in the western corridor. My part of the world is the fastest growing patch in all of Australia. We have an enormous load to carry for the rest of the country in terms of the number of people who are coming to the region, and it puts a lot of pressure on our local government authorities, our road infrastructure, our water, our energy infrastructure and so forth. Passing this bill and allowing the extension of the Roads to Recovery program until 30 June 2014 will see a further $350 million flow into the program every year for the most urgent essential upgrades of our local roads right across the country, something which I very much support.

I also recall that it was only last sitting week that we had the Council of Mayors (South East Queensland) down here in Canberra to lobby as a group. I think it is some important work that the collective of mayors in the south-east of Queensland are doing. I think they have touched on an issue that I have been talking about for many years and will continue to talk about and try to garner support for: that we need to work in partnership—between local councils, the state and the Commonwealth—to achieve projects that otherwise would not happen and to take a strategic approach to the way that we deal with growth, development, planning, infrastructure and roads.

I think local councils are beginning to understand the situation. Certainly my local council of Ipswich has fully understood the task it has ahead of it in managing future growth. They are looking for support. They are not just coming to Canberra cap in hand asking for money. They are actually saying, ‘We have got a plan and there are things we can do.’ I am working with a group of 20 mayors and I am currently in discussion with those mayors about coming to Canberra and providing us with some information on the things that they are working on.

I do not want to be overly political in this particular debate, because I think it covers some really important issues. But, after 12 years of the previous government, you have really got to ask yourself how so much could have been left undone, how so little was achieved in these really important infrastructure program areas. I shudder to think what would have happened had the previous government actually continued. A whole range of projects would not have gone ahead, the Ipswich Motorway being one of them—an essential road upgrade project. Perhaps, as certainly was the plan during the last election campaign, money would have been diverted to programs which would have been non-essential compared to much higher priorities. Let us be thankful for small mercies. A change of government can make a real difference. You often hear people criticise and say, ‘All governments are the same, all parties are the same—what difference could it possibly make?’ I keep reminding people of the difference in my electorate. I say: ‘This road project wouldn’t have ever gone ahead. We would have missed the opportunity had the previous government been re-elected. It would have gone off and done another project counter to it.’ So the decisions that individual people make in terms of delivering these really big infrastructure projects are very important.

I can recall the previous government carrying on about how much more money they stuck into these programs and how supportive they were. But on careful reflection and a simple look at some of the data, particularly that compiled by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, we see that the Howard government actually reduced annual road funding by an average of $244 million or about 11 per cent. That was the reality. Given the environment that we had—an environment in which there was massive population growth, particularly in the south-east of Queensland, enormous pressure, a doubling of the freight task and high-end needs in delivering infrastructure—we actually saw a reduction in the amount of money that was available. While federal road funding averaged about $2.3 billion a year under the Labor governments of Hawke and Keating, it fell to just $2.05 billion a year during the first eight years of the Howard government—a stark contrast. Over their first eight years in office, the period for which data is currently available, those funding cuts amounted to almost $2 billion—a substantial amount.

The extension of the Roads to Recovery program is just one important part of the commitment that we have made in the area of road infrastructure. If you took that on its own you would say, ‘That is good,’ but it is not on its own; it is actually part of a broader program and part of a much bigger picture. The extension of Roads to Recovery is also part of the Building Australia Fund, part of Infrastructure Australia, part of Major Cities and part of us getting on with the job of nation building. It is something we are going to hear a lot more of, because it really is an important part of how we manage and properly set in place a chain of events and some programs that will carry on and deliver benefits a long way out, not just for the election cycle but in 10 years, 15 years and 20 years time—things that the Labor Party in government have been very good at historically and something that we will continue to do. We have our eye firmly on not only what we need to do for people’s benefit today but also what we need to do in the national interest, in the best interests of all people, into the future.

As I have said, the western corridor is a hugely important growth area in Queensland, as probably are most western corridors, whether in Sydney, Melbourne or other places. I have got to put on the record here—it is probably well known in my caucus—that I will work very hard and continue my campaign to ensure that people fully understand the sorts of pressures that we face: real pressures where people’s lifestyles are impinged upon by congestion, by all the things that need to be done. Working on ending the blame game and working on making sure that we set up the right partnerships between federal, state and local governments are important parts of doing all of that.

In the recent 2008 budget we made an announcement about the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, which will include a number of things: additional heavy vehicle rest areas on key interstate routes; heavy vehicle parking, decoupling areas and facilities in outer urban and regional areas; new technology in vehicle electronic systems; and road capacity enhancement to allow access for high-productivity vehicles to do more on our road network. These are all part of our program. This program is a very important part of the steps that we are taking to ensure that we can deliver not only for commuters but also for professional drivers and to ensure that we deal with the freight task that is ahead of us. This is a good bill, something that everyone should support. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Marles) adjourned.