Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to rise today to speak on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. Not only is the AusLink program very important in my electorate but it remains at the front of mind for many people in regional electorates as well as urban electorates. The bill has several purposes. Most importantly, it extends the coalition’s popular and successful Roads to Recovery program. It also changes the definition of a road to allow for the funding of heavy vehicle facilities such as rest stops and parking bays and allows funds under the Roads to Recovery program to be preserved while determinations are made as to who is the most appropriate entity to receive them.

AusLink, which was established by the Howard government, has been extraordinarily successful in delivering transport infrastructure on a national scale and, just as importantly, at a regional level. It has been a forward-thinking and forward-reaching plan that has provided crucial road and rail upgrades right across Australia. Some of those road and rail upgrades have not only made our communities safer but boosted our productivity and particularly our export ability. This was not a haphazard plan but a carefully detailed and implemented series of projects to provide for the needs of both city and regional residents.

The AusLink program was so effective in providing for Australia’s infrastructure requirements that in May last year the coalition government announced a record amount of $22.3 billion for AusLink 2 to continue the work. That formed the centre of an overall $30 billion in roads and rail infrastructure that we took to the last election. AusLink has been a successful program because it is so comprehensive. It considers large-scale projects of national significance alongside smaller community projects under the Roads to Recovery program. With the Roads to Recovery program in particular, we are able to bypass the state governments, who, in the past, have squirrelled this money away and allocated it on a political seat basis rather than see local communities and local councils receive the money.

As I mentioned, one of the features of this bill is that it retains the popular Roads to Recovery program. I am glad to see that on this issue the Rudd government has embraced the foresight of the previous government. This bill extends the Roads to Recovery program from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2014, allowing for this good work to continue. The Roads to Recovery program provides for road upgrades right across this vast nation of ours. These are roads that workers and families travel on, day in, day out, to get to their jobs, their schools, their rural properties or to businesses or commercial operations the length and breadth of Australia.

The Roads to Recovery program has made a real difference to people’s lives. That is not a theory; that is actually what has happened in practice. Upgrades and repairs made under this program have addressed priorities across Australia’s vast network of roads. This has been of great assistance to local councils. In my electorate of Groom we have seen real road improvements fast-tracked because this money was able to be delivered direct to the council. The council, the local people on the ground who are using the roads every day, are able to ensure that the money is spent in the right place. As I said, doing that bypasses the state governments, who have tried to use this money in the past for other purposes.

It has also been able to address particularly—again, in my electorate but I know this is the case right across the nation—the neglect of Labor state governments of roads that are absolutely their responsibility, address the neglect that Labor governments have continued particularly in regional Australia. We have seen the final realisation of that in the backlash of regional areas towards the Western Australian government. That government, which was a terrible government in so many regards, luckily has been thrown out of office and replaced by a government which will be an alliance between the Liberal and National parties and which will, between the Liberal Party and the National Party, ensure that regional areas are taken care of. The Roads to Recovery program will be part of that but the funding will still, as I said, go directly to councils.

It is concerning that as we look at roads in Australia we see that the Rudd government, as it is doing everywhere, is all talk and no action. If we look at the situation with roads, we see quite clearly that the Rudd government is not listening when it comes to the rest of the AusLink package. Instead, it is imposing shackles on motorists and families so that this government can use AusLink for its political advantage. I am disappointed that the member for Oxley has left the chamber, because he knows only too well the problems that his constituents face as a result of changes this Rudd government has made to the Howard government’s plans to build roads. I will come back to that in a moment.

This government must live up to its obligations to deliver road and infrastructure funding, not just in capital cities but in regional and rural Australia as well. So far there have been alarming signs on this count as the government has overlooked the needs of regional Australia, not just on roads but practically on every service provision coming from the Commonwealth. While local communities may be relieved that the Roads to Recovery program has avoided the Rudd government razor gang, the Rudd government has shown that it is able to in fact even mess that up. It is disappointing that this government refuses to honour the other commitments made under AusLink.

Along with providing millions of dollars to fix local roads, AusLink projects of particular significance in Queensland have been delayed or in some cases completely put off the page. In my area, the proposed Toowoomba Range crossing is a road that I accept has been very difficult to get past the bean counters. It is a $2 billion road that would service only 25,000 to 27,000 vehicles a day. If you compare that to Ipswich Road, which services 100,000 vehicles a day and is at capacity, or the Gateway motorway, which services a similar number, the investment required in the Toowoomba Range crossing is enormous.

It had taken me 10 years—which I accept is 10 years too many—to get to the stage where we had government funding for that proposal, where we had $700 million allocated in last year’s budget as a result of my relentless efforts to ensure that the residents of Toowoomba do not have driving down their main street heavy vehicles like cattle trucks and what goes with them. I will not enlighten the chamber as to what falls out of cattle trucks while they are driving along: it is legal but smelly, and I am not talking about engine emissions. That sort of heavy transport, along with trucks carrying heavy freight, minerals and coal, are all traversing Toowoomba’s main street, not only endangering the lives of people who have to use that road to get to school but also creating an enormous cost for the transport industry as they negotiate the traffic lights up and down James Street and, as a result of that, add to our greenhouse gas emissions. The Toowoomba Range crossing has been on the drawing boards for probably 30 years, and now we are seeing the residents of Toowoomba taking up the issue themselves, because what we have seen from this government is a minister who is prepared to play politics now with the lives and the needs of the people of Toowoomba.

On the previous sitting Thursday, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government stood up in the House and said to the coalition members, including me, who had asked for funding for roads that if we did not support the new taxes that his government was trying to pass in the Senate then he would make sure we got no money. He would make sure that the coalition seats were not funded. In case anyone has any doubt about that, they can consult the Hansard, where the minister said:

Well, they cannot have it both ways.

If that is not him saying to me, ‘If you don’t pass our new taxes you will get no money,’ I do not know anything. That was not only a threat against the constituents of Toowoomba but a threat against the democratic processes of government. We have a Senate which is entitled to review legislation, but this government has quite dishonestly gone to the electorate not mentioning new taxes and then has said to the Senate, ‘If you don’t pass our new taxes, all of the people who have written to me aren’t going to get anything.’ He had a folder which was quite big, and I asked him to table my letter and he did. I was proud to have it tabled because it showed that as a local member I was standing up for my people. In doing that he said to all those constituents of all those coalition people, ‘You are going to get nothing unless they agree to our new taxes.’ That is an absolute disgrace.

I sit here after having spent 10 years on this and having successfully got $43 million for the prefeasibility works on that range crossing, having successfully used my influence and my persuasive powers and, dare I say, my charm to get $2 billion out of the federal government, to get them to commit $700 million in the budget last May. Now that money has been ripped off the table and I have been threatened across the chamber by a minister who is only ever interested in politics and looking after his people in his seat in Sydney. The inner-city seats are important but they are no more important than all those other seats that make up this wonderful country of ours.

Without this range crossing, not only will Toowoomba’s economic growth be affected but the economic growth of seats right across northern Australia will be affected. If the minister looked closely, he would see he is affecting the economic growth of Labor held seats, of seats like those of the members in the Northern Territory, seats like Solomon, as trucks pass through my city to take freight to Darwin. What the minister does not understand, as he plays politics at every opportunity, is that he is actually hurting people he claims to represent, not to mention threatening the people that I represent.

Whenever we talk to the Rudd government these days about money for roads, we get a long litany of reviews and reconsiderations and buck-passing and blame—all the things we have got used to from this government. And at the same time the safety of motorists and the economic efficiency and growth of Australia and its people are stalled. As in so many areas of the Rudd government, we see a review taking place that kills the momentum that was already building up.

AusLink was a program that was introduced by our government. Everyone would have liked to have seen more money in it but we cannot forget that we had to pay off $96 billion worth of debt. In doing that we set aside money to ensure that telecommunications and universities of the future were also funded and that the superannuation of defence personnel and public servants was also covered. But that is done. We gave this government a balance sheet which would be the envy of any government in the world. We gave them a balance sheet where they had the opportunity to honour the commitments that our government had made. In the case of the Toowoomba Range crossing, we provided the money for it in the May budget last year; we gave them the opportunity to do something.

What have they done? They have cut the budget. They cut the budget so that they could build up an enormous slush fund. Probably next year and perhaps the year after—if they go that far—they will reallocate this money to urban seats that the Labor Party hold and want to win. The process has gone out the window. The certainty has gone out the window. The $43 million that has been spent on the Toowoomba Range crossing as a result of my efforts and the beginning of work on that new road, which was due to commence this year, have been put on the backburner while we have yet another review. Roads are very important, but we see the Rudd Labor government ‘announcing’ the scoping study of a project in my electorate which had already been given the green light by the previous Howard government. It was not just a green light: $700 million was allocated in last year’s budget.

It is not just roads that are important under AusLink: there is a very strong need for the development of rail links in Australia to carry the freight task. This is a freight task which will double over the next two years, a freight task which will grow as we grow and prosper—and we can only hope that we grow and prosper; I must admit that the first 10 months are not too hopeful. We have seen real wages fall because inflation is eating up the gains made by the previous government. The government cannot do anything about petrol even though they said they could. They have admitted they cannot do anything about grocery prices even though they had said they could. They have admitted that they cannot do anything about just about everything unless they have a review. So we are seeing unemployment starting to go up. We see concerns out in the community amongst small business and amongst the investment community. But, if the economy keeps growing, we are going to see that freight task double and we are going to need more freight carried by rail.

Depending on the foresight of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government—and I hope that foresight is there—we will see in my electorate the establishment of an inland rail link, which initially may terminate at Toowoomba. That freight will then have to be moved to Brisbane by road, which is why the range crossing is so important. That inland rail link will link, predominantly by rail, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. By continuing that rail link up to Gladstone, we will have the opportunity to open up the resources of western Queensland. But this does need a coherent policy from government. It needs a government that is prepared to make the hard decisions. It needs a government that does not continually pass the buck and try to blame other people for the situation.

In the last moments of this speech, I will also touch on an area that the current government is trying to ram through—increases in heavy vehicle registration fees—where it is making a $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package dependent on parliamentary approval of the fee hikes. The transport industry in Australia plays an incredibly important part in servicing not only our economy but also the needs of people with goods and consumables. Making the safety package contingent on the passing of another tax grab against truck drivers shows again that this government is putting politics ahead of safety and ahead of the viability of the trucking industry.

There are things that can be done in the trucking industry, things that both sides of this House should support. There is the technology now to use things like GPS and satellite communications to ensure that the performance of drivers is compliant with the rules and regulations in relation to truck driving. As one of the few people in this House who has a heavy vehicle licence, I am all for strong regulation and strong enforcement of that regulation, but I am not in favour of truckies being fined because they have forgotten to put a full stop or to cross a ‘t’ in their logbooks.

We need to look at the opportunities. We need to work with the trucking industry to introduce and trial some of these technologies that will allow truckies to get on with the business—that is, driving these trucks safely—and will allow their driving to be monitored in such a way that the pedantry and pettiness that go on now over whether or not the logbooks are filled out correctly can be set to one side. Not only will we get a more accurate picture of how these trucks are being driven but we will enhance the safety of all road users. I recommend that members of the House look at proposals that are being put forward by the Australian Trucking Association and people like David Simon from Simon Transport, in my electorate, not only to have better and safer monitoring but to relieve truckies of the burden of paperwork that they inevitably find themselves tied up in by those who sit opposite.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. I listened with great interest to the member for Groom. Through you, Deputy Speaker, I suggest that in future, when negotiating for better outcomes for his electorate, he rely on a little more than his own personal charm, but I think he acknowledged that in his comments.

There are a number of elements to this bill that I wish to support. There are, of course, some elements that go to issues of heavy vehicle safety. I would like to begin by speaking to the allocations that are made under this bill for the Roads to Recovery program. I have to say that, whilst those of us on this side of the House will be the first to acknowledge the weaknesses of the former government, this is perhaps one of the initiatives of the former government that does need some acknowledgement. The efforts of the previous government to introduce the Roads to Recovery program were very widely welcomed throughout local government and local communities right across this country. It is pleasing to see that the new government, the Rudd Labor government, is not only continuing this program but delivering a greater commitment to the program in increasing the money available for expenditure under it. Indeed, this particular bill will extend the funding under the Roads to Recovery program, which was to come to an end in June 2009. It will extend the program from 30 June 2009 through to 30 June 2014, which will provide considerable certainty to local government authorities right across this country.

We should not underestimate the magnitude of the challenge that local government authorities have in trying to confront the infrastructure challenges that they have within their local communities. I know that in my time as a councillor, part of it as mayor, of the City of Penrith those were issues that were very dear to my heart in that capacity. They continue to be matters of great interest and concern to me, but I know that the Roads to Recovery program, in providing funding directly to local government authorities, really does make a significant difference.

Before I look at some of the specifics of what that means, we should acknowledge that the task that faces local government across this country can be understood by having a look at just the sheer size of the road network for which local governments are responsible. Approximately 810,000 kilometres worth of the road network is in the hands of or under the care and responsibility of local government.

In my local area, the Penrith City Council for many years has been doing some great work in identifying the infrastructure needs of the community and developing strategies and robust funding models to address those needs in the medium and longer term. I know that this is something for which the council has developed a lot of resources. Mr David Burns, the director of city operations, has taken the council’s approach towards road funding to a much more evidence based and technical level than it had ever been previously in Penrith City.

To acknowledge the scope of the challenge for the Penrith City Council, 1,018 kilometres of roads are within its responsibility. That is a significant size; the figures speak for themselves. The capacity of local government to deliver not only the new works, the reconstruction works, but also the vitally important remediation works is something that would be very difficult for local government to achieve without supplementation of their funding through the Roads to Recovery program.

Indeed, the Penrith City Council in its management plan—the budget document governing the operations of the council—for the financial year 2008-09 has allocated $10.7 million for road reconstruction and road remediation. I talked to people in the community; they would probably like to see twice as much being spent, but that is a significant amount of money. A significant component of that, almost $1 million, is provided by way of funding under the Roads to Recovery program. Obviously, the financial assistance grants that the councils receive give them the capacity to undertake their operations more generally, but the specific allocation to Penrith council of almost $1 million for the purposes of roads under the Roads to Recovery program is a significant contribution that allows the council to address the very significant challenge of keeping its infrastructure up to scratch.

I should say that, importantly, the technical and evidence based approach that the council has applied is based upon a measure of the council’s road assets called the pavement condition index, or the PCI. This index gives each road segment a score out of 10, and this is something that the council has done right across the city to undertake an audit of all existing roads and rank them, giving them a score out of 10 under the pavement condition index. The score is reduced for roughness, cracks, potholes, rutting and ravelling. The roughness deduction incorporates the annual average daily traffic volume, so it takes into account the anticipated wear and tear that those roads will endure in the future.

Council’s average PCI, or pavement condition index, was falling at an unacceptable rate prior to 2001-02. Of course, that was shortly after the Roads to Recovery program, but this was a matter of concern to the council and had been identified separately. But, certainly, the Roads to Recovery program, through its earlier manifestations, has allowed the council to make some significant inroads on that. Indeed, all of the evidence is indicating that the average pavement condition index of roads throughout the council area has not only stabilised but is now starting to increase. That essentially means that the overall average quality of roads throughout the city of Penrith is increasing. As I said earlier, no doubt many people in our community would suggest that there is still a long way to go, and I think that is a fair comment, but it acknowledges the significant challenge that councils face, particularly in states like New South Wales where the ability of a council to raise its own revenue, to increase its revenue, to meet the increasing costs of governing are not within its control as a result of rate pegging.

In terms of the some of the specific projects that have benefited from the Roads to Recovery program, I note that back in the 2007 financial year a number of roads of significance and roads that I know, through my contact with the community over many years, were roads that urgently needed addressing. Camellia Avenue in Glenmore Park was one that I received many inquiries about over the years. That was a project that was funded out of the 2007-08 Roads to Recovery program, along with other upgrades to Kenneth Slessor Drive at Glenmore Park, Grimley Close at Penrith, Kenny Avenue in St Marys and Thompson Avenue in St Marys. Under the 2008-09 program, there are a range of roads to be addressed, but probably the most significant ones, so far as I am concerned, are the intersection of Andromeda Drive and the Northern Road, particularly the area west of Goldmark Crescent, which is located in Cranebrook. That area will receive an upgrade that is well and truly overdue—but certainly that will be the case under the Roads to Recovery program.

I reiterate my support for the Roads to Recovery program. I note that the bill also contains some provisions that deal with making funding available to state governments where there is no incorporated body within an area, and I think that they are sensible amendments that ensure that there are mechanisms for delivering funding to those areas.

I turn my attention now to the very important issue of heavy vehicle road safety. There are measures currently before the Senate, which the opposition have indicated that they are intending to block. The bill before us foreshadows some changes that would be required in order to implement the legislation that is currently being blocked in the Senate. The extension of the definition of ‘road’ to include some of these other significant facilities that are of real interest in particular to heavy vehicle users is a fairly common-sense initiative and a change that in its own right should not really be the subject of any controversy. To extend the definition of ‘road’ to include rest stops, parking bays, decoupling facilities and electronic monitoring systems merely allows funding to be delivered into those areas which are essential components of the overall road network if we examine some of the challenges that face the people involved in the transport industry and in particular the heavy vehicle industry.

My electorate of Lindsay has a very high proportion of truck drivers. In my electorate alone there are over 3,000 truck drivers. Many of them are employed drivers and the others are owner-operators. I know they are all doing it quite tough at the moment. The massive increases we have seen in the price of petrol, driven by the spike in world oil prices, really have had a crippling effect for many people in the transport industry, particularly those in the heavy vehicle transport sector.

I have received delegations from local trucking groups and local drivers. They have taken me through in considerable detail the challenges that they face. In many cases the income that they have been receiving for some years now is either at the same level or in some cases lower. At the same time their costs have blown out considerably, given that fuel costs are such a significant component of the cost of doing business. A statement was provided to the National Transport Commission inquiry into safe rates and conditions for employees and owner drivers by a resident of my local community. Mr Maurice Girotto, who lives in Werrington in the heart of my electorate, set out some of the challenges that he is facing. His statement said:

1.

I am an owner driver and have worked in the industry for over twenty years.

2.

I drive a specialised truck and tanker trailer, carting bitumen locally, intrastate and interstate. I am paid a rate equivalent to tonnage per kilometre, plus waiting time and other services.

3.

The rate of remuneration I currently receive is just enough to cover my fixed and variable costs. I am able to cover these costs only because I am in a financial position where I own my equipment and do not have any finance owing. I am also in a position where I am able to do a lot of my own maintenance and repairs. Compared to a driver who has additional cost I’m in a better position. They have to cut down or cut out wages and vehicle maintenance. If you’re in trouble you’ll accept lower rates to get the work.

4.

The rate I receive is enough to cover my labour costs as long as I don’t pay myself more than $50 000 per year. If I paid myself accurately for all hours worked I could double this salary. By keeping my wages low I am able to keep the business running in a sustainable fashion. But with cost of living increasing it is becoming more difficult.

5.

I have previously been offered work at rates that would not cover my fixed, variable and labour costs. I rejected this work because I am financially not in a position where I am forced to accept this work.

6.

I agree there is a need to introduce enforceable safe rates and conditions for owner drivers. People need to earn a living, if they are going to go into business they need to come out at the end in a decent position. If not it goes from being about earning a decent living to keeping your home.

These concerns and issues raised by Mr Girotto are frequently raised with me by members of my local community. The safety of those in the heavy vehicle transport sector not only is a concern for those individuals, the suppliers they work for and the contractors or the companies they are employed by but is an issue which affects every single one of us as fellow users of the road. The implications and consequences of having truck drivers on the road who are really struggling to make ends meet, to run their business and make a decent living, and who are forcing themselves to go to work and carry out their duties in conditions that would not be acceptable in any other sector of our community is creating more and more of a safety threat and more and more risk for other road users.

It is imperative that we address these issues. This bill goes a very small way towards doing that by at least allowing the inclusion of some truck stop and rest stop areas, but there are some massive issues that are much broader than those contemplated within this bill. I certainly hope that we can continue to develop strategies to ensure that truck drivers not only are given the opportunity to earn a decent living for the many hard hours of work that they contribute but also are able to do that in a way that ensures safety on our roads.

There are a range of other considerations that impact on our truck drivers. Mr Robert Ireland recently gave sworn evidence in proceedings. When I was provided with a copy of this document I was horrified to see some of the detail of his experience as a truck driver. In his statement Mr Ireland said:

When I was at home I spent all the time I could sleeping or trying to sleep. Initially, my wife Sam, not understanding what I was going through, would always try to wake me up so that I could spend time with my children. One day I said,

“You’re coming with me. I’m going to show you what it’s like on the road.”

I wanted her to understand that it wasn’t that I didn’t want to spend time with our family but that I was so exhausted that I didn’t have a choice. So I took her on a trip up to North Goonyella mines. As we set out I said,

“You are not to sleep unless I’m sleeping. You are going to stand out in the heat while I’m loading.”

When we got to the mines however it was 55 degrees, so I let her stay inside the truck with the air conditioning on while I loaded. Also, I stopped the night at a motel rather than sleeping in the heat of the truck. I was loading salt the next morning and looked over at Sam. She was nodding off while standing up. From the salt mines I would usually drive 15 hours straight home however I could not do it to her and pulled up for a couple of hours for a rest. Sam never woke me when I said I was tired again.

When I started driving, I was 6 foot 1 inch tall. When I stopped, I was 5 foot 10. One day, I stood up from playing with my daughter on the couch and collapsed from the sudden agony. I could not move the bottom half of my body. It turned out that all the joints in my spine had compressed. My doctors informed me that this was most likely caused by me spending so much time in a seated position. I was required to lie flat on my back to allow my spine to slowly return to normal. It took many weeks before I got any feeling back in my legs and I was not able to walk for many months. I had to go on anti-depressants to reverse the chemical imbalance that drugs had caused in my body

Before the back injury I had to have an operation to remove one of my testicles. This was because of bad circulation from sitting down in the vehicle for long periods at a time in the vehicle.

It took me almost 2 years to return to normal from those physical traumas. I have only just started to get close to my children over the past 18 months.

I think all members would share in my horror at the details of that gentleman’s story, but Mr Ireland’s statement that I have just read out is representative of the challenges and consequences that end up flowing from working in the heavy vehicle industry.

Whilst this initiative does contribute in a very small way to some of those issues, there is a much bigger agenda that this government needs to take up. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced a review to investigate issues such as safe rates of pay. I am hopeful that these huge challenges that people in the trucking industry face will be given a voice through that review. Hopefully, there will be responses that come forward that allow this government to give those involved in the heavy vehicle transport sector a fair go.

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

I am pleased to join in the debate on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. As the explanatory memorandum informs us, the main provisions of the bill seek to amend the definition of ‘road’ contained in the act so as to put beyond doubt that projects for the development of off-road facilities used by heavy vehicles in connection with travel on the road may be funded and to extend the Roads to Recovery program until 30 June 2014.

When the Australian Constitution was framed, it was probably conceived by our nation’s founding fathers that roads, and land transport more generally, would be funded by the former colonial governments, which became the state governments, in Australia. I suppose that as the power of the purse has moved away from the several states towards the centre and as the Australian government became financially more powerful than the states, it has become necessary—and it is widely recognised and agreed on both sides of politics—for the Australian government to now involve itself, and, indeed, it should involve itself, in providing infrastructure in areas which, under our Constitution, might technically be the responsibility of state governments.

The Liberal-National government recognised this obligation and responsibility and, through sound economic management whereby we paid back $90 billion of Labor debt, we were able to find the financial resources to establish AusLink way back in 2004. This was the first national land transport plan in Australia since Federation and is the means by which the Australian government, the state governments and the territorial governments work together to develop a single, integrated national land transport network. In other words, we are now thinking as a nation and we are funding important transport initiatives, as indeed a nation should, in the 21st century.

Under the first AusLink program, from 2004-05 to 2008-09, the former Liberal-National government provided $15.8 billion in land transport infrastructure funding. For the second AusLink program, the Liberal-National government pledged another $16.8 billion over five years for national road and rail projects. That is a total of $32,000 million to improve Australia’s roads and rail. Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, you would be aware that it was this money that built the Alice Springs to Darwin rail and that has resulted in the dramatic improvement of road systems throughout the nation.

It is always a challenge for government in Australia, given our large land area and the fact that we have a small population, to fund desirable transport initiatives. In the area of public transport, such as rail, in Europe where countries have large populations concentrated in relatively small areas, it is quite easy to improve infrastructure dramatically in that area with user-pays funding by the travelling public. In Australia, with a small population and a large area—huge distances to traverse—we always have a challenge because we never seem to have enough money to provide the infrastructure needed for a country the size of Australia. The challenge of building a solid road network in Australia is simply a fact of life in this country. The challenges will continue, as it is estimated that road usage will increase, with figures suggesting a doubling in the amount of freight that is transported by trucks, semitrailers, couriers and trains over the next 12 years. This growth in demand coincides with our growth in population and the expansion of our cities and communities. I think it is a pity that the former Labor government killed off the coastal shipping trade, because if we did have a viable coastal shipping trade we would not need the highways that we now require as a country.

I am privileged to represent in the Australian parliament the central and southern Sunshine Coast and also parts of the Caboolture region north of Brisbane. These areas are experiencing dramatic increases in population as people move from southern Australia to the sun belt to enjoy the wonderful lifestyle that we have in that part of Australia. One of the challenges we have got is that the infrastructure for the growing population never seems to be available when it is needed. It has been projected that the population of this area will double over the next 10 to 15 years, and that provides important policy challenges which must be met by state and federal governments. The population growth has been significant for some decades and will accelerate and continue as more and more Australian residents start acting on their wish, I suppose, to enjoy a wonderful lifestyle, beautiful scenery, a hospitable population and easy access to high-quality medical attention and also easy access to the capital city of Queensland.

It really is important that the road infrastructure in areas like the Sunshine Coast and Caboolture is maintained, upgraded and added to to ensure that there is an adequate road network that is able to support these communities in their transport needs. For instance, 80 per cent of the people who visit the Sunshine Coast do so by road. Most people would accept that the Queensland state Labor government has fallen down in the area of infrastructure generally, including roads. That is one of the reasons why AusLink is so important: we are meeting an unmet need where the state government has vacated the field to a certain extent and in doing so has failed to meet its constitutional obligations.

The bill being debated today is simple and non-confrontational and is supported by both sides of the chamber. I welcome the fact that the government is adopting a Liberal-National initiative, both with respect to AusLink and, as part of that, with respect to the extension of the Roads to Recovery program. It is important, however, in particular, that road infrastructure in the Sunshine Coast region, where population growth demands improvements to roads, including the widening of the Bruce Highway between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane to six lanes, is addressed. The former government funded the upgrading of the Bruce Highway to six lanes from Brisbane to Caboolture, and that certainly removed the worst bottleneck between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast, but there is now a desperate need to increase the number of lanes to and from Brisbane to six lanes all of the way from Caboolture to the Sunshine Coast proper.

The state government has highlighted some of these areas to have accelerated population growth, even above and beyond what we have come to expect, but it has not yet indicated adequately that it is prepared to fund the infrastructure required to meet the needs of the growing population. In fact, I went to a public forum at the Lake Kawana Community Centre recently which some hundreds of people attended. This was organised by the state member for Kawana, Steve Dickson MP. Representatives were there from the state Labor government, and also the Leader of the LNP in Queensland, Lawrence Springborg, was there to highlight just how important it is that infrastructure is provided if we are going to have increased population growth. The community present at that particular function made it absolutely clear that they are completely opposed to development without infrastructure being provided.

During the election campaign last year the government promised some $50 million to keep the Bruce Highway safe and to fix up highway black spots in Caboolture and the Sunshine Coast. They also committed some $195 million to upgrade several road interchanges, including Pumicestone Road, which is in the electorate of Fisher. I anticipate of course that the government will meet those commitments and I look forward to seeing all of this work commenced and completed to ensure the highest level of safety possible.

Just last week, on 4 September, further north on the Bruce Highway south of Gympie, three people lost their lives in a multivehicle crash in wet conditions. Sadly, one of those who died was 18 weeks pregnant at the time of her death. Less than a week later, on 11 September, two more people were killed on the Mary Valley Highway at Amamoor, also just south of Gympie. These road tragedies are devastating and are repeated far too often on the roads. I suspect, Madam Deputy Speaker, coming from Victoria as you do, that you could also highlight the fact that many people have lost their lives in unsafe conditions on roads in your state. We must strive for the best possible road network, and that is one of the reasons why AusLink is so important.

It is vital that roads in Australia are maintained at satisfactory and safe levels while construction of new roads continues at an acceptable rate to ensure that our road network is able to meet the needs of our increasing population. The Roads to Recovery program was a particularly important initiative of the former Liberal-National government because it meant that we were able to reach over the heads of state governments and go directly to local authorities and local councils.

I do welcome the fact that an amendment contained in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 does make it clear that funds can be allocated under the Roads to Recovery program for use in a particular state while the most appropriate entity to finally receive the allocation is determined. As the explanatory memorandum sets out, this will allow funds to be preserved whilst, for example, a decision is made on who should receive funds so as to provide roads in unincorporated areas where there is no local council or to provide bridges and Aboriginal access roads in remote parts of the state.

AusLink is one of those initiatives that enjoys the support of both sides of politics. I do hope that the government will not focus on pork-barrelling and that it will make sure that AusLink funding gets through to communities where that funding is needed regardless of how the constituents in those particular communities voted at the last election. I appeal to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and also to the government to make sure that the government governs for all Australians and that AusLink funding goes to areas like the Sunshine Coast. Though it might well enjoy conservative representation, the needs of the Sunshine Coast are certainly very great given the fact that so many people are moving from Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales—the rust belt areas of southern Australia—to come to the sun belt. When they get there we do want appropriate levels of infrastructure; we want high-quality roads. Let us face it: there is no point in having large increases in population unless we are able to provide the services and infrastructure required by those people who choose to move to the best part of the best state in the best country in the world. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his contribution but will point out that Victoria is getting a lot of people back from Queensland!

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 is perhaps one of the more simple bills that will be passed through this chamber, but it provides me with a good opportunity to talk about some important road related matters. There are essentially two parts to the bill. Firstly, it extends the Roads to Recovery program. This bill will continue the Roads to Recovery program until 30 June 2014. Secondly, this bill introduces some technical amendments to include related road infrastructure in the road funding mechanisms.

The Roads to Recovery program is absolutely essential in providing good Australian roads. It provides certainty to local councils and their planning around road upgrading and maintenance programs. Local governments are responsible for more than three-quarters of Australia’s roads, almost a million kilometres of road. That is a huge cost for most councils and they need to plan over very long lead times.

So many good projects have been delivered from this program in my electorate. Since 2005 the raw numbers of projects that have been delivered under this program are very impressive. Colac Otway Shire has had over 50 roads projects. The Surf Coast Shire has had over 60. There have been over 60 projects in Golden Plains Shire and 50 projects in the City of Greater Geelong. There is no way at all that these shires would have been able to deliver these roads projects without the assistance of the Commonwealth. Many of these projects have saved lives or prevented serious injury from road accidents.

This amendment bill supports the government’s commitment to increase our investment under the Roads to Recovery program over the next five years. I would like to draw attention to the fact that, as a clear commitment to this program by the Rudd government, we are increasing the allocation from $300 million per year to $350 million per year. This means that, over the next five years, we will provide $1.75 billion directly to councils to fix local transport issues. This money, of course, comes on top of some very generous commitments to upgrade major highways and ring-roads in my region. What we are effectively doing, through a joint state and federal partnership, is building a whole new modern road network within our region.

The federal government has committed $110 million to duplicating the Princes Highway between Geelong and Winchelsea. This is a critical commitment that will again save lives. It will also make life much easier for commuters and be a huge boost for the road transport industry within my electorate. This is a strategic commitment that will allow new industries to develop in Colac by bringing down the cost of road transport and reducing transport times. It gives Colac another competitive advantage. The duplication of this section of the Princes Highway will see Winchelsea transformed, with a big boost to the local economy as people and jobs come to the town.

Between Colac and Lavers Hill we have a notorious road where there are constant road accidents. It is a perilous drive in a range of conditions every day, and the road is very, very important for the truck transport industry serving the Otway region. The federal government have promised $7 million to upgrade this road, a decision that has been joyously received by the people of this region. This is another project that will save lives.

But perhaps the most important project in my region is the Geelong Ring Road. The Geelong Ring Road will benefit hundreds of thousands of people every week. We have promised to jointly fund the important next stages, stages 4A and 4B, of the Geelong Ring Road, which are the links to the Anglesea Road and the Princes Highway. We have promised $45 million to build stage 4B of the Geelong Ring Road, from Anglesea Road to the start of the Princes Highway West near Waurn Ponds, and $62.5 million for stage 4A of the Geelong Ring Road.

This is critical for this area in my electorate. It means that the residents of Jan Juc, Anglesea, Moriac, Bannockburn and many other towns in the region, within roughly 100 kilometres of Melbourne, will be able to pull out of their driveway and hit the first set of traffic lights when they hit Melbourne. Geelong residents will be able to get around their city much more easily. Traffic in Geelong will be very significantly lightened. Car pollution in Geelong city and its surrounds will be lessened. What Labor is doing for roads in my region is absolutely tremendous. It will be profoundly important for saving lives, saving time and boosting industry.

It is important to put on the record the opposition’s policies on roads in our region, because they are very significantly different to ours. At the last election, the Liberals refused to fund the last stages of the ring-road. They just bailed out of the project completely. They have also refused to match our commitment on the duplication of the Princes Highway. They have also refused to fund the Lavers Hill Road upgrade. These are very important projects for boosting my region’s economy and boosting safe movement of traffic within these regions, and I think they will give our region a competitive edge over many other parts of Australia. The opposition are obviously completely out of touch on the priorities within Geelong.

I would like to put on record my thanks to the former shadow minister for transport, Martin Ferguson, for his commitment to and passion for our region. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Anthony Albanese, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, for the follow-through that he has shown on these projects. I, and the whole region, did a whole lot of lobbying to achieve these projects, and the response to Labor’s initiatives by our community has been absolutely fantastic. These commitments were very warmly received by the people of Corangamite and Corio and they certainly will be tremendously important for the future prosperity of our region.

I would also like to say that roads and building a modern road transport system are, I think, critical to building one’s economy. That is, of course, a very big statement, but I think it is absolutely true. For years Corangamite languished as a blue-blooded Liberal seat where nothing much happened for our roads within our region. I think the Liberal Party took the voters of Corangamite for granted. In contrast, we are transforming Corangamite’s road system and very much updating our capacity within our region. We are transforming the capacity of our economy to deliver to world markets. This bill, I think, changes the existing situation within my seat, but it also goes further. It gives us the capacity to fund rest stops, parking bays, decoupling facilities and electronic monitoring systems to increase the productivity of our road transport system. We are allocating $70 million for some of these purposes. This is an important reform that ensures that major road users will be able to make a contribution to our economy.

Before I finish my comments I would also like to put on the record my hope that the new Liberal Party, under the new leadership of Malcolm Turnbull, will embrace the reforms that we are undertaking within my seat. This is an important initiative to get these roads within my region updated to be able to deliver for our growing area. I commend this bill to the House.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. I am pleased that the Roads to Recovery program will be continued for another five years. AusLink is one of the great achievements of the Howard government. The Prime Minister continues to make grand statements about his government’s so-called nation-building agenda, but the real nation-building agenda was pursued by the previous government.

Prior to the AusLink white paper, Australia had never developed a comprehensive land transport strategy. It was the Howard government that initiated this plan, and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson was instrumental in the development of AusLink. We should also remember that AusLink was possible only because of the coalition’s responsible economic management, which paid off Labor’s debt and established a culture of saving. If you drive north from Sydney, you will see AusLink at work. The New South Wales state government has been underfunding our roads for many years, and the AusLink program has been a godsend for the people up and down the coast of New South Wales, who have been enduring the substandard Pacific Highway for far too long. Great lengths of the highway have already been upgraded to dual carriageway, and there are significant lengths of dual carriageway under construction. Massive projects like the Bulahdelah bypass and the Coopernook to Moorland upgrade are currently under construction.

But, despite the work currently underway, the completion of a dual carriageway from Sydney to Brisbane, a task that is urgently needed to be completed, remains absolutely daunting. Towns such as Kempsey, Macksville, Urunga, Coffs Harbour, Woolgoolga and Ulmarra are all in urgent need of a bypass. These communities have tolerated heavy vehicles in their main streets for far too long. I will continue to advocate on behalf of my constituents to complete these urgent projects.

The Kempsey Bridge is a source of long traffic delays during busy holiday periods, and the Macksville bridge, which was built in the thirties, belongs in another era. The load limits which apply to this outdated piece of infrastructure are restricting the ability of firms on the North Coast to transport extremely heavy loads by road. The Macksville bridge is narrow, dangerous and way past its use-by date and it must be replaced as a matter of urgency.

There is some good news, however. On the weekend, Bonville deviation was officially opened. It replaces the notorious Pine Creek section of the highway, which was responsible for the loss of too many lives. The New South Wales government was not interested in building this road until the federal government stepped in and forced the issue.

In building Australia in the 21st century, we need to focus not only on road but also on rail. If rail were not upgraded our road system would choke under the weight of the massive increases in the freight task which is forecast to occur. Rail is the key to moving freight efficiently and AusLink has addressed this. Rail infrastructure around Australia benefited from the AusLink program. On 28 March this year the ARTC laid one million new sleepers on the Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne rail corridor.

Whilst rail has proven competitive on the east-west corridor, rail has performed far less favourably with road freight on the east coast corridor. In order to compete with road, AusLink has invested to make rail more efficient, to improve on-time running and to reduce journey times for trains. Of particular interest to the people in my electorate has been the investment in the upgrade of the line between Sydney and Brisbane, taking trucks off the Pacific Highway and out of the main streets of towns and putting that freight on rail where much of it belongs. Funds have been invested in extending passing loops, bringing the signalling system into the 21st century, reducing the radius of curves and replacing sleepers. This investment will allow longer and heavier trains onto the rail network and reduce the Brisbane-Sydney travel time by around three hours.

One of the great programs within AusLink is Roads to Recovery. The program provides funding directly to local communities to pay for vital road improvements. For many years the New South Wales government has been chronically underfunding local government. Councils have also been expected to take responsibility for major regional roads without receiving the necessary resources from the state government to achieve that task. Many councils simply do not have the funds to conduct necessary road improvements and maintenance. Roads to Recovery requires limited administration and allows the money to be spent where it is needed most. This program provides real bang for the taxpayers’ buck. It bypasses the state government bureaucracy and sends the money where it is needed—to the front line, to local government. Put simply, it allows local people to make the decisions, instead of faceless bureaucrats in Macquarie Street.

Local councils understand what local communities need in terms of infrastructure. If an old timber bridge is about to fall down, the council will know that first. If rain causes potholes on a road, the council will be first to know about it. Councils have the equipment and the knowledge to meet local needs but often do not have the funding to meet those needs. That is where Roads to Recovery steps in and fills this gap. So far councils have used Roads to Recovery funding on over 27,000 different projects. In my electorate scores of projects have been completed using Roads to Recovery. In 2007-08 alone, some $3.6 million has been allocated to Cowper’s five local government areas.

To give you an example of the difference this program has made, in 2004 Bellingen Shire Council used Roads to Recovery funding to rehabilitate Lenehans Bridge on Darkwood Road. The mid-north coast is home to hundreds of small creeks and several major rivers. Many of these waterways are crossed countless times by ageing timber bridges. Over the decades many of these bridges have deteriorated to the point where they need to be replaced or significantly repaired. Most councils do not have enough money to replace the dozens of bridges under their control. Roads to Recovery allowed Bellingen council to repair this bridge and has assisted in the repair or replacement of other bridges on the mid-north coast and Northern Rivers.

For some councils, even the most prominent of road developments are out of reach without federal assistance. In 2004-05, the Nambucca Shire Council used $100,000 in Roads to Recovery funding to help pay for improvements to the streetscape in the main street of Nambucca Heads. The development also improved traffic flow through the centre of the town. In Coffs Harbour the city council has used Roads to Recovery funding to upgrade the link road which connects Sawtell in the south with Park Beach in the north. Kempsey council faces the challenge of running a large area with a low socioeconomic base and ageing infrastructure. Roads to Recovery has allowed the council to undertake projects that are often taken for granted, like resealing residential streets and fixing potholes.

I welcome the government’s decision to match the coalition’s promise to continue the Roads to Recovery program with $350 million for the next five years. This is good news, especially for regional Australia. I also welcome the clarification that AusLink funding can be spent in unincorporated areas. Although this part of the bill does not affect my electorate, remote locations around Australia have been abandoned by the Rudd government and I am sure that these areas are grateful for this consideration.

The other major issue addressed in this bill is rest stops for truck drivers. I strongly support the move to use AusLink funding for heavy vehicle safety initiatives. The recent report by Austroads found that none of Australia’s major freight routes meet national guidelines for rest stop frequency and spacing. Sixty per cent of the routes surveyed were substantially deficient in rest areas. With the exception of Victoria, the states and territories lack rest stops for truck drivers. The situation was worst in Queensland and the Northern Territory. This lack of action by state and territory governments is placing at risk the lives of truckies. The Australian Trucking Association chief executive, Stuart St Clair, said that heavy vehicle driver fatigue is responsible for about 30 fatal crashes, 150 serious crashes and 3,200 minor crashes each year. This represents a huge human and economic cost. State and territory governments have recently introduced new, tough laws to combat fatigue. Unfortunately, they have rushed these plans into place without providing enough rest stops to meet the needs of the trucking community. Once again the Commonwealth has been forced to bail out the states, and provide funding to construct rest stops along our major highways.

I am strongly in favour of improving safety for our truck drivers but I do not support the Rudd government’s attempts to slug the trucking industry with higher taxes and increased registration charges to pay for this safety campaign. The National Transport Commission has advised the government that Australia’s truck drivers are not paying for the wear and tear that they cause on our roads and infrastructure. The trucking industry dispute these findings and advise that these claims come from unverified data from the states and territories. The industry believe that they are already overcharged by some $130 million a year. Increased diesel excise and registration costs would impose an enormous burden on the industry, especially smaller operators and owner-drivers. Increased charges for truckies would eventually flow through to the consumer and have an impact on inflation.

Even the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, admitted that this increase in taxes and charges would be passed on in the form of higher grocery prices. After all of Labor’s rhetoric on cheaper groceries for working families, this makes no sense whatsoever. Living in his taxpayer funded world, Mr Rudd does not realise that the papers he reads in question time were delivered by a truck; the food prepared by the chef at the Lodge was delivered by a truck; the petrol that powers the Prime Minister’s Comcar was delivered by a truck. The Prime Minister does not understand why increasing operating costs for truckies are a problem because he does not have to pay those bills. But ask young families in my electorate what they think of higher grocery prices caused by this tax hike; ask the small business owners in Maclean, Woolgoolga and Macksville what they think of high delivery charges. It just takes a quick look through your home or your office to see that almost everything we use has come to us on the back of a truck. Increasing a tax on trucks will only increase the cost of doing business and increase the cost of running a family.

I certainly welcome this legislation, this increased or extended investment in the Roads to Recovery program and the investment in new truck stops for increased safety. These are both worthwhile programs and worthwhile initiatives, and I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate (on motion by Mr Marles) adjourned.