Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to note the contribution of the member for Parkes and say that perhaps he is a little more fortunate than me in that today we are counting Blacktown City Council votes. I have a great deal of interest in the outcome there. I also share his acknowledgement of the good role that local councils serve in our community. I am a little intimidated, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the honourable member for New England is to follow me. He has drawn to my attention my significant failures as Chief Government Whip, having pointed out that, since the last election, the number of Independents has increased by 50 per cent and my poor efforts do not match that at all.

The bill before us, the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008, is an important bill. It is aimed at streamlining the current system and increasing the heavy vehicle industry’s accountability so that they pay their share of infrastructure costs incurred by governments for building and maintaining roads they drive on. AusLink is the government’s national land transport program. It provides funding for national projects, strategic regional projects and black spot projects, along with Roads to Recovery research and technology projects.

In my electorate, Blacktown City Council this year has received some $16 million directly from the federal Labor government. More than $3 million of that is for roads, the rest being financial assistance grants which are completely untied. I think it is fair to say that the government see local government as an important player and one through which we are able as a federal government to deliver more and better services.

The heavy vehicle safety and productivity package will provide local infrastructure needed by truck drivers, remove red tape and restructure the process of providing funding, not only for roads but also for other necessary facilities. The amendment bill will allow the government to provide funding of just under $70 million for the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package announced in the budget. It will provide rest areas on key interstate routes, decoupling areas, heavy vehicle parking and facilities in outer urban and regional centres, new technology in vehicle electronic systems and vehicle capacity enhancements to allow access by high-productivity vehicles to more of the road network.

Land transport remains very important not only for capital cities like Sydney and areas like Western Sydney—which has an economy larger than that of Singapore and is a warehousing hub for Sydney—but also for rural and regional areas. It is the principal means of transporting goods, and we do need to look at further improvements. I also think we need to be more mindful of what we are asking of the drivers of semitrailers and B-doubles. We need to look to their welfare and safety and the safe delivery of the cargo.

There is a proposed increased charge to fund some of these facilities. It was a unanimous decision by the federal, state and territory ministers to increase the heavy duty vehicle charge. It was actually a policy of the former government—that is, the coalition government—but what a change going from government to opposition has made! They are now opposed to it; they are now blocking it in the Senate. We have got a new Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Wentworth, and of the measures that were contained in the first federal Labor budget that Opposition Leader Nelson said he would be opposing, something like $20 billion worth, the new Leader of the Opposition has said, ‘Yes, I support those measures.’

Whilst I do not wish to stray too far from the bill, it is interesting that the member for Wentworth says, ‘We are in the middle of a very serious financial crisis in New York, a crisis of financial institutions.’ Here in Australia we are blessed, I think, with a very strong financial system and an appropriate regulatory authority, but just because we have that we should not be abandoning good economic management. We should not be saying, ‘Well, yes, the Labor government has provided a surplus, but it’s there to be raided at will,’ or announcing promises like a reduction in the excise on petrol of 5c or 10c a litre—depending on  which opposition person you wish to quote—and have that completely unfunded. That is irresponsible. I would like to be able to reduce petrol prices. The truth is, of course, that the prices are dominated by the world market for petrol. If Australia does have a problem in that regard, it is the fact that our own reserves are dwindling and have dwindled quite considerably, and if we continue to import petrol, as we do, then we are going to have a serious charge on the current account balance.

That is why I know I share the concern of the Independent members of this House that we need to diversify our petroleum supplies: the more that we can be self-sufficient or aim towards some form of self-sufficiency, the better. In particular, we have opportunities in terms of biofuels, and I am repeatedly on the record in this place as favouring ethanol, not as the only solution to the problem but as part of a suite of solutions—and we need to take them up.

The extra funding that is being provided in this bill is contingent on passage of legislation in the Senate. You cannot say here as a parliament, in a bipartisan way, ‘Yes, we’re in favour of all these facilities that should be provided and should have been provided in the past for the heavy vehicle sector in our economy,’ and then say, ‘But we are not going to allow what was an agreed charge and a policy of the former government.’ I think that it is just utterly irresponsible. I am really quite staggered that the new Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, is still taking this approach.

If there was ever a time for us to be a little cautious, given the world markets, it is now. If there was ever a time to husband a surplus and try, as best we can, to insulate Australia from the strains of the overseas financial meltdown, now is the time. Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is doing? Regrettably, no. Perhaps he will have an opportunity to revisit these issues once he announces a major reshuffle, promotion and sacking on his front bench. I sincerely hope that he does. I value this program and I value its contribution to my electorate.

I will finish on a note about the M7. It is silly, I suppose, for a member to report on his failures, but I was always very disappointed that the former government did not see the utility of the M7 and provide greater funding for it. It was only a very modest amount of funding that was agreed between the federal coalition government and the state Labor government. As a consequence, the M7, which was always the major infrastructure program in Australia with the best cost-benefit return, in the end has a levy of $7 if you traverse its length.

In Western Sydney, probably as a result of this decision, we have more tolls, I suspect, than any other area in Australia. We have the M4—and, yes, there is a cash-back but not everyone claims it. We have the M7, which arguably is very worth while—and I must say that I use it frequently—but costs $7. Then there is the M2, which is also an excellent tollway. It amuses me that, when people in the inner city get a tollway—for example, the Cross City Tunnel, which I think is a great piece of engineering and saves heaps of time—they whinge like stuck pigs about paying what is a much lower toll than those in Western Sydney.

We do need infrastructure. Having established Infrastructure Australia and our $20 billion fund for it, perhaps we will not have to repeat the experience of the M7 tollway in Western Sydney. A federal Labor government will be able not only to have more of these projects built, as public-private partnerships, but also to actually put more money into them so that we do not have to have tolls that are so high.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was pleased to listen to the member for Chifley and particularly his earlier pronouncements on the significant change in the balance of the parliament in recent days. I think that the 50 per cent increase in Independent representation is one of the most significant changes that have occurred. It is quite possibly the most significant change in politics this week!

It is with pleasure that I speak to the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. Transportation is obviously a very important issue. It is very important particularly—and I note that the member for Chifley said this—to people in regional areas. The equity issues of funding are obviously issues that raise their heads quite often in this place.

I am also pleased to see the member for Page in the chamber, because there are a number of common transportation issues that affect our borders. I was going to mention this a little later, but I will do it now. One of the transportation issues that we would like looked at in the New England electorate and, I am sure, in Page as well—and also in the southern Queensland federal seats—is the interconnecting road from Legume to Woodenbong. A lot of people will not know where those places are. Legume is in the electorate of New England; it is just south of the Queensland border. Legume and Warwick are on the edge of the Darling Downs. There are large transport movements through to the North Coast—Lismore, Casino, those areas. The Legume to Woodenbong road is currently considered a local road. It is obviously in need of major repair, and it is completely unaffordable for the local council, which happens to be a council of New England, the Tenterfield Shire Council.

I, along with the member for Page and others from the Darling Downs, South-East Queensland and northern New South Wales areas, had a series of meetings with the Downs to Rivers Action Committee. They have been meeting for many years. Some funding has been coming through to them to alleviate some of the very bad spots on that particular road. I think they attracted some funds under the former government’s ‘roads of regional significance’ program. Under the new government, roads like that really need to be looked at because the benefit flows not just to the ratepayer or the council area through which the road goes. An obvious linkage benefit and economic benefit could be accrued to South-East Queensland, New England and the North Coast. I know the member for Page has been very active on that issue as well. We have attended a couple of meetings together on that issue.

Whilst I am talking about a wish list I will raise a couple of other issues relating to the electorate of New England. As most people would be aware, a lot of the freight movements—in fact, 50 per cent—in eastern Australia originate from the Hunter Valley or the north-west of New South Wales. There are 220 million tonnes of identified freight that move somewhere on the east coast—Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland. Half of it is in that corridor.

I think people are well aware of the development of the coal industry north of the Liverpool Range, which is adjacent to the Hunter Valley, where there have been massive coal deposits. A third coal loader is currently being built at the Newcastle port, which will make it the biggest coal port in the world. Once the third loader is put in place, obvious bottlenecks are going to accrue at some of the passing loops in the Hunter and the north-west. Another issue is the capacity to get large trains over the Murrurundi range or the Liverpool Range. There is a tunnel, which is highly inadequate. They use what are called bank engines to try to push trains and help them over the range. They have recently been able to increase the size of the trains from I think 42 wagons to 72 to alleviate a particular problem.

If Minister Albanese were serious about doing something about major bottlenecks, major pieces of infrastructure, where the economy would benefit, this is a classic example, where, for some hundreds of millions of dollars—probably $200 to $300 million—this bottleneck at the Murrurundi range could be alleviated. The size of trains could again be doubled and the capacity to have an impact on the cost of freight and to export coal could really open up. That is a real priority, not only for my seat, because it would impact on the seats of Parkes and New England, the various Hunter Valley seats and the member for Shortland’s community of Newcastle. There are a whole range of flow-on effects. Most importantly—and it is not only about coal but about grain and other exports as well—it would have a significant flow-on effect to the economy of Australia.

We have the AusLink document, which is the blueprint for the future, and we have Infrastructure Australia currently looking at priorities. If we are going to be serious about the future, we have to really look at these particular areas. In some cases, that might damage the politics of the day, but under the previous administration we saw far too many cases where infrastructure was targeted not based on priority but based on location—on the politics of particular seats. To be fair, I would have to say that I am smelling a similar brew with the new government, particularly with some of the talk, in our chamber at least, about the money that needs to be spent in Sydney and how the previous administration ignored Sydney, so they say, in relation to some infrastructure needs.

I would argue that there are significant infrastructure needs in Sydney, particularly in terms of rail and some in terms of ports. But this constant devotion to more freeways in Sydney—and I know some of those are pay as you go, but there is a lot of government money going into those projects as well—this devotion to clogging up those arteries and then building new arteries, will never solve the problem. There are solutions out there, and I think the government has got to start looking at some of those solutions rather than responding with the knee-jerk reaction when people start whingeing to their local members about getting stuck in traffic jams: they build another freeway to stop them whingeing for five minutes, and then they crank up again. They will always do that. Given this carbon-conscious economy that we are supposedly living in now, particularly given the health impacts of what is happening in Sydney with the geography of the Blue Mountains et cetera, continually promoting the use of the family car to drive to a central point—doing what we are doing now—and then pouring more money into that sort of system is, I think, very short-sighted at the very least.

There are other areas that I would like to raise in relation to this piece of legislation. I mentioned the Legume to Woodenbong road that the member for Page has been involved in. The New England Highway traverses about seven electorates, I think, but a significant part of it is in the electorate of New England. There is one section of that road, only about 1.8 kilometres, that is highly dangerous—probably the most dangerous section left on the road. There has been quite a lot of money spent over the years on fixing up the really bad spots on it. We would all like more money spent on roads. I would like more money spent on those key priority areas where there are real dangers. As some members of the chamber would know, the Bolivia Hill, south of Tenterfield, is a highly dangerous area—there was a death there a few years ago. It is narrow and it would involve a major reconstruction. But I would place on notice again for Minister Albanese that that section of road is possibly the worst of the New England Highway between Sydney and Brisbane, the worst piece of road that is left. It is a short piece, 1.8 kilometres, to fix, and there will be deaths on that section of the road otherwise. There have been in the past and there will be again.

There is a farcical situation that develops in this place where the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority claims to have ownership of all the money and all of the decision-making processes and then, when something is built, the minister and the Commonwealth claim the accolades for having supplied the money to have it built. This tennis match of who makes the decision about prioritising major upgrades of our roads, which is quite handy for the political players, has to stop as well. I implore the minister to go and have a look at this piece of road south of Tenterfield on the New England Highway, the Bolivia Hill. It is very, very dangerous indeed. Even at low speeds it is quite dangerous, particularly with heavy transport using that road.

The other area—and I have spoken to the minister privately about this particular issue—is the need for a bypass around Tenterfield. Tenterfield is probably one of the most beautiful little towns in my electorate, with some magnificent buildings, but it does have a very narrow main street. There is a slope coming in one side and a slope coming in the other. They have tried to slow the traffic flow and do a whole range of things. Because of the narrowness of the street and the location of the shopping precinct et cetera, B-doubles and other heavy transport should not be going down that street. So I have asked the minister for some funding to go into a feasibility study to design a bypass for the future. That will have to happen. Again, I would not be doing my duty in this place if I did not raise that, because it is a deathtrap waiting to happen. There have been people killed there and there will be again. It is something that we really need to start looking at.

There are many other areas in the electorate that I could mention, but I believe money in any area should be spent on priorities. If that has a negative impact in terms of my electorate, I am not happy but I will go along with it if there are more important areas to spend the money on and some logical basis to that. They are the priorities in my view. Others in the electorate will say, ‘Why didn’t you mention such and such?’ They are the priorities that I see in my electorate at the moment.

Another issue that I would raise is AusLink. The reason for AusLink is to develop transport policy for the future. It seems to me that most of that future is predicated on the assumption that the sorts of transport movements that we have had in the past will be the sorts of transport movements we will have in the future. That might be all very well, but the other player—the elephant in the room in all of this—is this so-called climate change, carbon emissions, global-warming debate and what that means for the future of transportation. Will we be part of the same sorts of global transportation systems that we have had in the past?

I will raise an example, which one or two people in this room might have heard before. It is something that we do in this country that involves a lot of those transport movements. One of the things we do as a global player is grow wheat. We grow more wheat than we can eat, so we send it overseas and exchange it with whoever we can. Occasionally we have to offer some money to an Arab or something to try and sell it but we exchange it for currency. Because we do not produce all the energy that we need here, a lot of that money goes into purchasing energy, in the form of oil. If—and the member for Chifley touched on this briefly—we are going to go into a carbon footprint type economy globally, what will that mean in terms of those transportation movements?

Look at that wheat grower, for instance, whom I have referred to as the Walgett wheat grower, who is 500 kilometres from the port. Because of changes in technology, his carbon footprint on the farm has been reduced in the last 20 years, and with those sorts of farming technologies he is actually starting to accumulate carbon in the soil, which could be part of the solution to the carbon problem. But he has a carbon footprint from the farm to his silo; he will have a carbon footprint from his silo to the Port of Newcastle; the ship that takes the grain to Egypt or wherever will have a carbon footprint to the Middle East; and the product that he is carrying, the starch in that grain, will have a carbon footprint of itself. What is all that going to mean not only in terms of the profitability of growing the product, to start with, but in terms of who pays for the carbon movements, and why are those movements occurring in the first place? Is there another way of reducing those transport movements and, if there is, what does that mean in terms of the requirements for AusLink and others to make investments in some of that infrastructure?

I have argued from time to time—as the member for Chifley did a moment ago—that in that context, rather than sending that grain overseas, with all those carbon footprints, and buying oil and sending it back, with all those carbon footprints, to feed a domestic industry with energy, maybe what we should do is look at either converting that grain or changing the land use of that land to the production of cellulosic ethanol, for instance, which would have another positive carbon footprint on the soil. Maybe we should look at using that energy domestically rather than growing something we have too much of to send to someone else to buy something else that we do not have enough of, which is what we do in global trade.

A lot of people would say, ‘You can’t do that; we’ve got to feed the starving millions.’ We have an obligation to feed the starving millions but, as you would realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, to feed the starving millions you have got to be able to feed yourself. The profitability of agriculture starts to come into that context. If all of these carbon footprints are going to become negatives in terms of agriculture, surely we have to look at other aspects of agriculture, and maybe not all of our land should be tied up in producing food. As I said, it might go into producing cellulose, which can be converted into a range of products, including ethanol and biogas produced through anaerobic digestion. Other technologies can play an important role if we are serious about the climate change arrangements.

People will say, ‘But you can’t just walk away from the starving millions.’ I suggest that the government have a very close look at Africa, for instance and what we are not doing there to encourage food production. The country of Sudan, for instance, has 100 million acres of Walgett-style country. It is a similar environment with beautiful soil, but they are starving. Australia produces, in a good season, seven per cent of the world’s total grain production, I think. Sudan could produce 10 per cent. In that context, I suggest that we need to review what we are doing, why we are doing it and what this means in terms of the debate about food, fuel and carbon. It is a significant debate that we have to have, and it should have real relevance to AusLink and the transportation movements that we are planning. The planning process that has gone into this has been based on the planning process of the previous government, which was based on prehistory. I do not see any allowance for a carbon conscious society in any of this move forward. (Time expired)

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin my contribution to this debate on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 by addressing a few comments made by the honourable member for New England. The honourable member raised the issue of the Legume to Woodenbong Road and the Downs to Rivers Action Committee. We both attend meetings of that committee and are trying to further some of the needs that they have in terms of roads. It is difficult because that is a local road. There has never been a lot of money there for the electorate of New England. Previously in my electorate I have managed to get some money—as I know the member for New England has over the years—but it is never quite enough. It is something that we are really conscious of and seized with. We are trying to promote that issue. I am glad that the member for New England raised it. I was going to do it later on in my contribution but I thought I would do it while he was still here. And, yes, I do know about Bolivia Hill and how dangerous that area is as well, because they are roads that I travel over.

There are three other issues the member for New England raised that I will touch on. One is to do with Sydney and toll roads. I do not begrudge my city cousins their roads and transport and all of that, and I am sure that the honourable member for New England does not—that is what he was saying in his speech—but, when people say they are debating New South Wales, they are really only debating Sydney. It really struck home this morning when I was reading the Sydney Morning Herald, I think, and there was an article where somebody was talking about the need to debate transport in New South Wales. But the three projects they talked about were all in Sydney. I thought, ‘That is not a debate about New South Wales; that is a debate about Sydney,’ yet it was couched as being a debate about transport in New South Wales. It just galls me, because we have to have a debate about the whole of New South Wales and a debate about the country. Just because the numbers are different in country New South Wales and in the city, it does not mean that we in the country are not as deserving of the roads that we need to have for the safety issues and for the transport to carry our food, our fuel and our goods and services.

The food-fuel-carbon debate is a key debate that we do have to have in a broader sense. At the moment, the debate that I hear is an ‘either-or’ debate. That debate is happening nationally and internationally, and we have to have it in a more meaningful way. To that end, I would like to thank the honourable member for New England. We recently co-hosted a carbon-for-farming roundtable with Southern Cross University where we debated, discussed and started having a conversation about the sequestration of soil on farms and how farmers can get involved in that. At that roundtable we were able to at least start to touch on the fuel-food-carbon debate.

The last point that the honourable member for New England raised was that the quota of Independents has gone up by 50 per cent with the election of the member for Lyne, Rob Oakeshott. I would like to congratulate the member for Lyne on his election. I have had the privilege of serving in another place with both the member for New England and the now member for Lyne. I know that the contribution that he will make in this place will be quite significant.

I will now turn to the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. The bill amends the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 and gives effect to the following provisions. Firstly, it broadens the definition of ‘road’ contained in the enabling act to include rest areas for heavy vehicles 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 from the funds allocated under the act. The way I read the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act, there was some ambiguity as to whether the act allowed for that. This bill certainly puts it beyond doubt.

Secondly, the bill extends the Roads to Recovery program until 30 June 2014. The current funding ends on 30 June 2009, and the government have decided to extend it. I know the five local government areas in my electorate of Page—that is, the Clarence Valley, the Richmond Valley, Kyogle, Lismore and Ballina—were all cheering at that decision because the Roads to Recovery program is a popular program with local government right across the nation, particularly in my seat of Page. That program allows much-needed funds to go to local road projects that are of fundamental importance to local communities for issues such as safety and for key transport routes—the stock and food routes—and it will therefore contribute even more to our local economy.

These amendments also allow the funds to be preserved whilst processes can be established to provide funds for roads in unincorporated areas where there is no council and to provide bridges and access roads in remote areas. Speaking of bridges, one of the local government areas in my electorate, Kyogle, has about 432 bridges. That is a lot of bridges in a very small local government area, and it is something that we are seized with and that we talk about all the time in Kyogle. Over the years, funding has been provided for those bridges, but it can never be enough. In an area that has a very low ratepayer base, that is something that we are mindful of and that we work towards. I think it was just a few months ago that the council got funding for another eight bridges, which they were quite delighted about. That funding came through a state government program.

This bill also amends the principal act to put beyond doubt the continued eligibility of those projects listed. Again, my reading of the act is that it had that ambivalence in it, and it is always good to put it beyond doubt so it cannot be a matter of contestation sometime down the track.

I want to return to the definitions section and, more specifically, the funding of heavy vehicle safety projects that will come on line from 1 January 2009. I note here that it will not include—correctly—commercial development for food, or fuel or motel outlets that would be covered by the broader definition but would be the regular sidings, as I call them. I travel the Summerland Way between Grafton and Casino, and there is one—and only one—on that 100-kilometre stretch. Whiporie is halfway, the 50-kilometre mark, and there is a toilet stop there where the trucks can pull up, but it is a small area and it could do with some work. I am not saying it is directed specifically to that one, but I know it is directed to areas like that.

The Roads to Recovery program will now be funded to the tune of $350 million each year from 2009 and consecutively until 2013-14. It has risen from $300 million to $350 million—the government has been able to put it up that extra $50 million, which is very welcome.

I want to turn to the Northern Rivers and particularly Page, but also the Northern Rivers-North Coast and South-East Queensland, because when we are looking at transport and roads, that is the area where Page is involved. It is vital for our region that northern New South Wales and indeed the South-East Queensland area have an effective and efficient system of highways to transport our people and our freight. Like a lot of people, I would love lots of trains, but I am realistic enough to know that we have to give good attention to the roads. We have a large land mass and a small population, and about 80 per cent of all goods and services are moved by road. Therefore it is vital that we give that attention to the roads—as much as I love trains and was an avid train traveller. A lot of people always talk about putting the trains back on, as I do, but I say to them: ‘You have to use them. When we have the trains, you actually have to get on them.’

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Page willing to give way?

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you aware of the report that the transport committee in the last parliament brought down dealing with the very things you are talking about—the road and rail links across the northern New South Wales and southern Queensland borders? There is an extensive chapter on that in that report, and I am sure members of that committee, including the member at the table today, would recognise the amount of work that went into that. Would you like to comment on that?

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I have the book here. The honourable member for Shortland was just reading it. I am aware of it and it is one of the things I am looking at now in thinking about this whole issue of transport planning. I thank the honourable member for his intervention by way of a question and comment and for directing me to that report. Thank you.

The Northern Rivers is forecast to be the fastest growing region in New South Wales over the next 20 years. The current population is projected to increase by over 60,000 to approximately 333,000 by 2031. In addition, 51,000 new homes are forecast to be required and an additional 32,500 jobs. That is from the New South Wales Department of Planning. It is quite a strong growth area.

The Pacific Highway, which we hear a lot about, runs through my electorate of Page and my neighbouring ones of Cowper and Richmond, and it is one of my local roads that I use frequently, so it is not just the Pacific Highway; it is a road that I have to traverse when I am driving around the electorate. That was why I was pleased that during the 2007 election campaign federal Labor committed to the continued upgrade of the Pacific Highway to the tune of some $2.5 billion. That includes upgrades in the following areas: Tintenbar to Ewingsdale, Woolgoolga to Sapphire, Sexton’s Hill, the Alstonville bypass and the Ballina bypass. They are all now part of the AusLink 2 package, with some money having come on line in the budget this year to kick-start them.

It is very pleasing when I am driving around to see the extent of work that is happening with the Ballina bypass—and also with the Alstonville bypass, because $13½ million was allocated in this budget to allow that to get started. People in Alstonville are pleased that they are finally seeing a project that they have long desired, advocated and lobbied for. I have to give credit to them and the Alstonville Bypass Action Group, led so ably by Bob Wilson, for their efforts. It was something that they were promised and had commitments to. Things had not happened and now it is finally happening, so they are quite delighted. It has quite a potted history.

Recently, or post budget, I hosted a visit by the federal minister, Anthony Albanese, and his then state counterpart, Eric Roozendaal, to launch the substantial works of the Ballina bypass. I also hosted a visit to Alstonville with the local mayor and the Alstonville Bypass Action Group so we could at least detail that project and say, ‘Yes, it’s all systems go.’

I also have the Summerland Way in my electorate. The Summerland Way is about 199 kilometres long and it runs from Grafton up to the Queensland border. There is a Summerland Way action committee, which is a really old committee. They have been operating for many, many years with the same effort, energy and dedication, trying to make sure that that road got upgraded. They are led by a very able leader at the moment, Councillor Lindsay Passfield, from Kyogle Council. I attend their meetings, and recently my colleague the honourable member for Forde also attended one of the meetings because we are looking at the development of that Northern Rivers-South-East Queensland nexus and what can happen there, and we are turning our minds to some planning issues on it, along with the Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils. To that end, we have also met with the honourable member for Richmond, which takes in that other area in the Northern Rivers.

The Summerland Way connects with the Pacific Highway at Grafton. I would be remiss here if I did not say that the local community in Grafton have been calling for a second bridge crossing for years. The bridge that crosses the Clarence River, which connects South Grafton and Grafton, is a very narrow, windy route with a big bend in it. They actually got that bridge at the same time as the Sydney Harbour Bridge was built because then there was a movement that was agitating and saying, ‘Hey, what about us?’ We are pretty good at doing that in Page, and they actually got the bridge at the same time. But they do eventually want a second bridge. They have been promised that over the years, but it has never been delivered. I put on record here the community’s desire to have another bridge there.

The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority did a study in 2006 and found that generally, while the Summerland Way is an important priority in terms of safety, the safety upgrades should be directed to the Pacific Highway. I cannot help but agree that the safety upgrades have to be directed to the Pacific Highway, because we all know of the safety issues and the tragic deaths that have happened on the Pacific Highway, but I have to be mindful of the Summerland Way and the fact that it does need an upgrade. In another place many years ago I was able to secure money for the Summerland Way to the tune of $50 million. That was surprising to a lot of people because it was not a major road, because it was not seen as a major election priority and because of things like that, but I got a commitment of $50 million to be implemented over a four-year period, with the first $12 million coming on line in six months, and it happened. That was under Premier Bob Carr. That allowed the Pacific Highway to upgrade. It also meant that the federal government then gave some money to it. The member at the time was the Hon. Ian Causley, and I know he then got some money federally that was added to that mix. So it is one of those roads that we have given particular attention to.

I would like to mention in closing that in my area there is an organisation called Coast to Coast 100, set up as a national safety organisation. It started around heavy vehicles but has now extended to safety. It is run by a local woman called Lyndal Denny. It has gone national, and it is targeting driver behaviour and safety on the roads. The heavy vehicle package correctly targets the infrastructure, and her organisation targets the safety. It is about us, about speed, about fatigue and about things like that. Ms Denny is promoting a national safety hotline. I have a copy of some of the material; she has sent it to a lot of members of parliament. I have given that to the federal minister, Anthony Albanese, and asked him to consider it. I am not sure if it is the way to go, and I said that to Lyndal, but clearly we need to be giving more attention and more effort to the issue of safety. We have to be responsible people when we are on the road. It is just directed towards that.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition is supporting the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 because we have long championed better transport funding, particularly road funding, even for roads which have traditionally fallen outside the purview of the Commonwealth. It was a coalition government which created, implemented and delivered record funding levels through the AusLink program, and in fact it was the vision of my former leader John Anderson, who was Deputy Prime Minister and transport minister. It was the coalition which developed and promoted the crucial Roads to Recovery program and the Black Spot Program after the Keating government had closed the latter down. It was the coalition which committed to spending $100 million over five years on 100 rest areas on the AusLink network. I might add that that is $30 million more than the current government is contemplating in its recent budget announcements.

I previously chaired the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts and, more than most, I have a good grip of what is required for Australia’s roads. My colleague opposite and I served on the last committee, where we did an intensive study over two years into the arterial road and rail systems of this country. There is some excellent reading in that, and there are still matters to be addressed, especially around the port areas, that were not addressed in the last budget. In October 2000 I handed down the committee’s report called Beyond the midnight oil. It was an inquiry into managing fatigue in transport. In part, it recommended the creation of higher quality rest stops for heavy vehicles, which is one of the focuses of this bill.

Evidence received by the committee based on American research and statistics showed that we needed about 2,400 new rest areas in Australia. Where did we get that figure from? We did some study on what the Americans were doing, and they found that they were at least 30,000 rest areas short, and we said, ‘On a population basis, 2,400 would be about the right figure.’ Some might argue it should be higher on the basis that Australia, although it does not have the population, has a similar area to the United States. Let us assume it was 2,400: 100 is a good start, and I do not denigrate that in any way, but it is only just the start and nothing more.

At that time there were a significant number of submissions, especially from the transport industry, indicating that rest areas for heavy vehicles were inadequate in both quantity and quality. What areas were available were frequently of a poor standard: they lacked shade, toilets, garbage bins and water; exit and entry points were poorly designed; and they were not properly designed for heavy vehicles, lacking space to line them up.

The findings of the committee in this area were not just about scheduling and road safety measures; they referred to the welfare and dignity of the drivers, both for their own safety and for the safety of the motoring public. We went out there in the middle of the night to places along the New England Highway and looked at service stations. What sort of food did they have? We went to one which I think was north of Tamworth. We went there at about one or two o’clock in the morning to see what sort of food the truckies were eating, and that was another point that we brought up. But the thing that really did stick out was these rest areas, and I think we need to do a lot more work on them.

When they are on the western side of a highway, they need to have shade. That is very important, especially if a driver pulls up in the afternoon on the western side of the highway. They must have shade. They need a reliable supply of water, tanks of some sort. At the very least they need biological toilets, but preferably septics. It has even been suggested that there should be a key system. Sometimes members of the public and hoons come and make a bit of a mess around those places, so a dedicated set of toilets should be available to truck drivers only using a plastic key system. It is more likely that they would look after those as they would be dedicated for their particular use.

Of course, these things become even more important when you are out in isolated areas. Rest stops also require solar cell night lights that deliver sufficient light to keep the troublemakers and the hoons away, but not so much as to interfere with the drivers getting some sleep. It goes without saying that these facilities need to be kept clean and well maintained, which is a problem—I do not doubt that. It will present some challenge to the RTAs and the MRDs of the world, or to the local councils who might look after them on a subcontract basis. Some of these rest stops are quite remote from townships—they are 50, 60, 70 kilometres away—and they do require that someone go out there and attend to them, so I do not underestimate the problems. Someone is going to have to go out there periodically to mow and do things like that. It is same with phone boxes around Australia: some of them are a pleasure to go into and some of them are like a dirty urinal; they are just absolutely foul. If we want to do these rest areas properly, we must look at those things as part of an ongoing maintenance program.

It is my personal view that, when a road is being straightened or realigned, the old highway is sometimes of sufficient order that it can become the rest area, especially if it has got shade. Quite often—and it frustrates me—you get a dead straight stretch with something like that and someone comes through with a ripper and pulls up all the old asphalt—just crazy stuff. It is a less expensive way of getting some of these rest areas in place.

This idea of now trying to blackmail the opposition because of our opposition to the heavy vehicle charges does the government no credit. The safety and dignity of the drivers is of paramount importance not only to themselves but, as I said before, to the safety of the travelling public. You cannot put people’s lives at risk for some childish retribution from the government to the opposition for what they do in the Senate. You have got to be above that sort of thing.

Having said that, I would like to turn to some of the more grassroots views of road funding. I think the Roads to Recovery program is unquestionably one of the most popular programs to be put in place by any government in the last 50 years. This is because it recognises the role of local government and empowers councils to choose where they spend funds. While in principle I believe this payment should go to the councils, I note that in the bill they are looking for mechanisms for unincorporated areas. My appeal to the federal department, which will probably take the burden of this, is to consult widely with organisations like the NFF, AgForce and mining companies, because if there is no council in an unincorporated area you have to get a feel for what people need in that area, and then finally consult with the RTAs or the MRDs on carrying out the works. Where they exist, councils should continue to be the focus of RTR funding. In my old electorate of Hinkler it was interesting to note that two of the smallest councils—Perry, which was the smallest council on the east coast of Australia at the time, and Eidsvold, with only about a thousand people—were extraordinarily effective in driving the government dollar further. They would make every extra hundred metres count.

The other aspect of the Roads to Recovery scheme was the strategic funding reserve. On my reading of the government’s bill, I am not quite sure how that is going to be implemented or whether it is going to exist. But, for things like a boundary road between shires or a road that was not a conventional one or a highway that had an arterial significance in a region, I think that strategic funding was incredibly important and I used it quite extensively in my old electorate.

I would like to talk about some specific roadworks in my electorate. I am proud of my track record in delivering major roadworks, especially in developing areas of the electorate. In my old electorate, the port city of Gladstone was a prime example, where key industry and arterial roads like the port connector road, Kirkwood Road, which is currently under construction, and the Calliope River and Landing roads were built thanks to Commonwealth contributions. I know the department did not agree with me at the time, nor Main Roads in Queensland, but I think Kirkwood Road is an absolutely essential feature—and I call on my successor to make sure that that is brought to fruition. That ring road to the south of Gladstone is absolutely critical to the future economic development of Central Queensland. Without these roads Gladstone would now be choking on its own success. Industrial and commuter traffic would by now have been creating logjams at places like Kin Kora, and local businesses would have suffered the consequences.

Other much-needed funding delivered to communities which were previously part of the Hinkler electorate included $560,000 to help seal 17 kilometres of the Eidsvold-Cracow Road. That was done by that Eidsvold council I was talking about. These guys, with that very small population, drove a road from Eidsvold right out almost to the town of Cracow, which is in the adjoining shire of Banana. Now that the Cracow mine is back in production, it just shows you how important insightful councils can be in using these over-and-above federal government funds to make things happen. There was $700,000 to upgrade the Monto to Kalpowar section. That is the back road, for want of a better expression, from Gladstone into the hinterland at Monto. That may have great significance if the mining ventures around Monto go ahead. There was also one project that I really championed, and that was for a dreadful and dangerous piece of the back road from Bundaberg to Gladstone. I got $600,000 for the Essendean Bridge and its approaches. I drove on that just the other day, and it is a pleasure now. It has gone from being one of the most dangerous and ugly pieces of that alternative route from Bundaberg to Gladstone to a lovely wide section that abuts the bridge in a much safer alignment.

Each of the communities that I have talked about is now in the seat of Flynn, and I urge my successor as their representative, the member for Flynn, Chris Trevor, to continue to fight for better roads for his constituents. That area really has been neglected over the years, and there is still a lot of work to be done.

Having said that, I now turn to the southern part of my new electorate. In what was the northern part of my old electorate and is now in the southern part is the city of Hervey Bay—there are two cities in my electorate, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—and parts of the old Shire of Burnett, Childers, Biggenden and Woocoo. They are now incorporated into new councils, but I will not go into the detail of that.

Hervey Bay in particular has great infrastructure needs. It needs about $10 million injected into it almost immediately. Let me describe it. Hervey Bay is a bit like the Gold Coast. Whereas the Gold Coast has a north-south feature, Hervey Bay has an east-west one. You would all remember the Gold Coast of 40 to 50 years ago: long, thin arteries and frequent traffic hold-ups. It needed eight lanes eventually to get through to Brisbane. There was all that sort of stuff but, in particular, the internal roads were a menace, and more and more arteries had to be created. That is exactly the situation we now face in Hervey Bay. That $10 million could be used to create a new east-west artery on what is called Urraween Road, which should be connected to Boundary Road. That would give you an almost 14-kilometre additional artery right through the middle of Hervey Bay. That is the sort of vision I want for Hervey Bay.

In the lead-up to the last election, I proposed that $10 million went into those strategic roads, on the basis of the Commonwealth picking up two-thirds and the local council picking up a third. Cities like Hervey Bay that are expanding at six or seven per cent a year just cannot keep up with infrastructure. Governments can put their hands on their hearts and say: ‘They should be able to deal with those things. They should be able to borrow against their future.’ Rubbish! This is a city that has not got a civic centre or a town hall or a community centre, but it has 50,000 people. The Commonwealth should at least provide the means for normal commercial and suburban intercourse to take place. That will not happen unless there is a Commonwealth injection of funds into the roads of that area. The Urraween to Boundary road would be one. The River Heads Road, which is one of the jump-off points for Fraser Island, would be another; it is quite dangerous. There is another one, Old Toogoom Road, which is on the north-western side of Hervey Bay and feeds traffic in from the Bruce Highway to the western coastal areas of Hervey Bay. These are things that should be addressed.

Despite my best efforts and the best efforts of the local community, my Labor opponent refused point-blank to make any commitments at all to roads in that area, which really shocked me. That has left a very slack state government and a newly amalgamated council which is struggling with the cost of amalgamation to do all the heavy lifting. I think that is simply not good enough. These three projects are important to Hervey Bay, a rapidly growing city that faces unique infrastructure pressures.

I now turn to Bundaberg, where I live. It is the other city in my electorate, a city that has been established for much longer. It has been around for over 100 years; in fact, I think that we are coming up to 150-odd years. It has had the advantage of long-term, better street planning. It also has the advantage of a $92 million ring-road, funded by the state government, which is being put around the city and will divert traffic to the port of Bundaberg without taking it through the city. It will also facilitate a lot of ring-road type traffic on the southern side of the city. But it, too, has its challenges, and in giving this speech today, appealing for this Commonwealth funding for Hervey Bay, I do not in any way diminish the challenges that are faced by the new Bundaberg Regional Council.

The other thing that we have been able to do with the Roads to Recovery program was get $1 million when the sugar industry was deregulated. The deregulation meant that the cane tramlines did not go to the right places anymore, so all the arterial roads around the sugar mills had to be upgraded. I am very grateful for the $1 million; we were able to get the councils in the area to match that with another million to upgrade those arteries to the sugar mills, which are most important.

I would like to say something about country Queensland. We heard about the Pacific Highway earlier today. I support the Pacific Highway. I remind members that the former member for Cowper, Garry Nehl, and the current member, Luke Hartsuyker, have been great champions of that. They have not always been assisted by their state government. It was largely Gary Nehl’s work that identified the dreadful problem that was emerging with the Pacific Highway. But I want to say something in this last minute about the Bruce Highway, which is the continuation of the Pacific Highway artery right through to Cairns. There needs to be a lot of spending on that, almost on an equal basis with the Pacific Highway, because Brisbane is going to have huge problems; we recognised that. We support the heavy spending on tunnels and bypasses, and the Ipswich bypass and all these things are terribly important. But the productive area of Queensland where the wealth comes from—the mineral wealth, the agricultural wealth and the horticultural wealth—should not be abandoned. I make an appeal to the government that they do that.

Finally, I acknowledge the work of John Anderson. AusLink was his vision; he brought it about. To the credit of the new government, they are continuing with it. May its work go long into the future.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the commencement of my contribution to this debate on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008,  I would like to acknowledge the hard work that has been done in the past by the member for Hinkler. I know that he is totally committed to all matters that relate to transport—road, rail and sea—and he has been a wonderful advocate in this parliament on those issues. Whilst there are some things that we may disagree about, I would have to say that his commitment in this area is beyond question. I just want to have that on the record. In doing so, too, I will refer to the last parliament, in which I was privileged to be on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, which the member for Hinkler chaired. The work that was done in this book that I hold in my hand—The great freight taskis a blueprint for a lot of the work that needs to be done throughout Australia. I know that, when the government is looking at directions in its planning through the Infrastructure Australia Fund, this will be of great assistance and the work that was done there will not be wasted. It really does set out a blueprint. It identifies many of the areas that we really need to concentrate on.

I would also like to pick up on what the member for Windsor said—that the last government tended to allocate money where it was advisable to allocate it for electoral purposes rather than where it was needed. I will put on the record, for the member for Windsor, that the one thing we are committed to is transparency—making sure that the money goes where it is needed and that there will not be an allocation of money based on where it is electorally expedient rather than on where the need is. That has been identified in this and will be identified in other studies, and that is why we are adopting a really planned approach to where we are going, rather than just throwing money willy-nilly into areas that will see that members are re-elected. I would like to assure the member for Hinkler that I have had conversations with the member for Flynn and he is committed to seeing that his electorate gets a really fair deal as far as making sure that those roads that you identify are well and truly on the table when we are looking at allocations.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The port cities are very vulnerable.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Port cities, yes. As I live on the outskirts of a port city, I realise that and I know the infrastructure needs that relate to that port city, particularly with the third coal loader being built at the moment. There are a number of infrastructure needs that need to be looked at within my local area or adjoining electorates, and they do impact very much on what happens within the electorate of Shortland.

The bill amends the AusLink (National Land Transport Act) 2005. It demonstrates the government’s ongoing commitment to road safety and local road infrastructure. The amendments in this bill will enable funding of the projects, including heavy vehicle safety, from 1 January 2009, allow for the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program beyond 30 June 2009 and allow for better management of the Roads to Recovery funding lists. I think it is really important that there be better management of the Roads to Recovery funding list, which sets out funding recipients in Australia and the amount they receive, which is not currently able to be amended except in very limited circumstances, and it is the government’s feeling that that is not the best approach.

The main provisions in the bill amend the definition of roads contained in the act, including heavy vehicle facilities, such as rest stops, parking bays, decoupling facilities and electronic monitoring systems. Once again, the member for Hinkler spent a great deal of time discussing the issues that surround rest stops, and the government is quite mindful of those issues. This will enable the government to provide funding for these facilities under the $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package.

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. One in five road deaths involves heavy vehicles, with speed and fatigue being significant factors. I have met with drivers and they have told me about the issues that really impact on them and impact on road safety. I have given an undertaking to those drivers and to union members that have come to see me about the impacts in their industry that are causing them enormous stress and affecting safety on the roads. This government is keen to look at those issues, because there is no other industry that I can think of where the safety of so many people can be impacted upon by the strains and stresses that are put on drivers, so I think it is very important that we look at that.

In fact, in 2007 there were over 200 road deaths in Australia involving heavy vehicles. Talking to drivers, I found that they really put a lot of emphasis on the impact that fatigue has on them, the impact that meeting deadlines has on them, the impact that rising costs have on them, the contracts that are in place and how those contracts, not being negotiable, are in some cases actually leading to the drivers operating at a loss or a very small profit.

The bill also extends the Roads to Recovery program until 30 June 2014, and it makes it clear that under the program funds can be allocated to use in particular states while the most appropriate entity to finally receive the allocation is determined. This will allow funding to be reserved whilst arrangements are being put in place to provide funds for roads in unincorporated areas where there is no local council. I think that once again the member for Hinkler dealt with that very well when he was talking about possible organisations that could be responsible for preserving these arrangements, but I think there are many others besides those he mentioned. The bill also provides for bridges and access roads in remote areas. The current funding period ceases on 30 June 2009. We realise just how effective and important the Roads to Recovery program has been, and the government has decided to continue the funding from 2009 to 2014. I am very pleased that the opposition is supporting this legislation.

Spring 2008 is a critical time for the Roads to Recovery measures of the bill to be passed in order to allow councils adequate time to plan their works during 2008-09. This is the time when the councils are developing their budgets and identifying their priorities; therefore we need to get this legislation through to give certainty to local government areas. Each local government authority across Australia is guaranteed a share of the AusLink Roads to Recovery program funding. The formula that the shares are determined by is based on population and road length. It is set by the local government grants commission in each state and the Northern Territory, and the money is paid directly by the Australian government to each council—no middleman. This allows for the maximisation of the money that local governments receive, and once again it is a very transparent way to allocate funds.

Also, local governments are responsible for three-quarters of Australians’ roads—over 810,000 kilometres. The Roads to Recovery program provides much-needed funding to local councils around Australia to enable them to make urgent repairs and upgrade their roads. The continuation of the program means that local governments can confidently plan for continued improvement of their road network. The Australian Local Government Association, which represents councils across Australia as a parent body, has welcomed the extension to the Roads to Recovery program and considers it to be an essential element in local governments’ ability to maintain and upgrade local roads. In 2008-09 the government will deliver $2,028,091 to local councils in my electorate for urgent safety upgrades and repairs. Lake Macquarie City Council will receive $1,124,365 and Wyong Shire Council will receive $903,726.

One of the points that were made by the member for New England and also the member for Hinkler was the need to make sure that areas outside the capital cities get their share of funding. I know that in the past the simple fact that we are close to Sydney has often led to the local government areas within the Shortland electorate not getting the profile that they need. I can say that the use of this formula and this money that has been given to the local councils in the Shortland electorate demonstrate that they are being looked at and being looked after. There are many more things that need to be done in that area.

Some of the projects undertaken by AusLink Roads to Recovery to make much-needed repairs in my area have been Cadaga Road at Gateshead, Redhead Road at Redhead, Cams Wharf Road at Cams Wharf and, I think, Elizabeth Bay Road in Lake Munmorah. If you add to that the money that has been given to the Shortland electorate through the Black Spot Program, it means that the needs of the people in the area that I represent are being looked after through the Roads to Recovery program—a program that I think is a very, very good program.

The legislation not only secures the program for five years but also increases funding by $250 million to a record $1.75 billion to councils. That is needed and it will be greatly appreciated. At present, the Roads to Recovery program is due to run out on 30 June 2009. Local roads are critical for efficient and safe freight movement. Often the last kilometre from the highway to the port is under local government control, and that was identified very much in The great freight task, which I referred to earlier. This money will make it easier and make it more likely that those roads are looked after in the way they should be. Subject to the Senate allowing the increase to the road user charges, the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program is anticipated to receive $10 million in 2008-09, $20 million in 2009-10 and $20 million in 2011-12. The Roads to Recovery program is anticipated to receive $350 million in 2009, $350 million in 2010-11, $350 million in 2011-12 and $350 million in 2013-14.

Roads are an issue that impacts on everybody’s life. About five years ago I conducted a survey in the Shortland electorate. I asked people to identify the issues that they thought were most important. I expected something like health or education to be identified as the most important issue. The way I structured the survey meant people could identify the issues, and they numbered them accordingly. Over 94 per cent identified that roads were an issue of great importance to them. If I could just go over the survey: they could identify whether an issue was of great importance, minimal importance or of average importance, and roads were identified by 94 per cent of people as being of great importance. That was the issue that had the highest number of people identifying it as being of great importance. To me that says that we need to get it right. To me that says that AusLink is the way to go. It is imperative that we give this money to our local councils and, in addition, it is imperative that all levels of government work together in relation to roads to see that the best outcome for all Australians is achieved.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. Many people take for granted that the food we buy is waiting for us on supermarket shelves. The role of truck drivers who move freight around our country should not be underestimated. They and their families make sacrifices to ensure there is money in the budget to pay the bills and to put food on the table. It often comes at a great cost not only physically but also socially and psychologically. According to one report by the New South Wales transport industry, many work an average of 62 hours a week and some are working more than 100 hours. Mr Deputy Speaker, could you imagine yourself spending that much time behind the wheel focusing on a long strip of road ahead?

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The strain on families is severe, with many truck drivers divorcing because the strain is too much. We also need to remember that many truck drivers are owner-operators who have taken out substantial mortgages so they can cover the cost of their rigs, which are replaced approximately every five years.

We have the Rudd Labor government now wanting to add to the burden and increase heavy vehicle registration fees plus the effective rate of the diesel fuel excise, also known as a road user charge. This would place additional pressure on truck drivers across Australia who already feel the strain. But I am pleased to say both of these increases were rejected by the opposition in the Senate. The Labor government misled the community when they announced the $70 million heavy vehicle safety and production plan and failed to mention it was contingent on the Senate passing these changes. They forgot to mention that the funding for this $70 million package would come from the $70 million collected from these charges imposed on truck drivers. These increased charges will be relayed to the cost of transport, which will flow on to our supermarket shelves. This will create even more pressure when trying to balance the family budget. The Rudd Labor government try to paint themselves as a caring government who want to put people first, but only through scrutinising their bills do we find their true intentions—to take with the one hand and give back with other.

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indian giving.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Indian giving. If this Labor government had not extended Roads to Recovery, they would have yet again let the people of Australia down. It was the coalition who worked to address the problem that faced local roads in our nation. It was the coalition government who also recognised the need not only to maintain the current road network but also to ensure that our sealed road network expanded. It was in fact the coalition government who introduced Roads to Recovery in November 2000 and invested $1.2 billion over five years.

As of June 2005, less than 43 per cent of New South Wales roads were sealed, and let me run through what is happening with other states. In Victoria, 41.8 per cent of roads are sealed; in Queensland, only 28.7 per cent of roads are sealed; in Western Australia, only 27.2 per cent of roads are sealed; in South Australia, only 21.8 per cent of roads are sealed; and, in Tasmania, 48.8 per cent of roads are sealed. Imagine these numbers if Roads to Recovery had not been introduced some four years earlier. What is interesting is the link between these appalling unsealed roads—they are all run by Labor. This means the combined effort of all these Labor states, as of June 2005, was their ability to seal only 33.7 per cent of Australia’s roads.

The impact that Roads to Recovery has had on regional roads since it was introduced in November 2000 is significant. DOTARS states:

Local roads are important to national transport safety, efficiency and overall economic performance. They provide basic access from farms, factories and homes to schools, hospitals, work, shopping and to families and friends.

So for this Labor government not to extend this funding would have been criminal, and I welcome the extension to 30 June 2014. I wish to note that Labor has taken the coalition’s plan to increase Roads to Recovery funding to $350 million, effective in 2009-10. On 8 May 2007, the coalition government announced that they planned to extend the Roads to Recovery program to June 2014. Of course, that planned increase was to $350 million.

I would also like to take the opportunity to raise the issue of the financial strain that the New South Wales local councils experience in their efforts to maintain local roads. They feel this strain as a result of a reclassification that took place in 1995. This reclassification meant that many regional roads in New South Wales were reclassified as local roads. The New South Wales Labor government reclassified 18,600 kilometres of state roads and transferred ownership to local councils. This meant that these regional roads suddenly became the responsibility of local councils rather than the state government, which meant an additional financial responsibility for local councils. Local councils receive some annual grants; however, this is nowhere near enough to cover the rising costs of road maintenance, such as resurfacing. It is estimated that 80 per cent of Australia’s public roads are now classified as local.

This is another example of state Labor governments shifting responsibility—in this case, to local councils. Local councils such as the Hawkesbury City Council, in my electorate of Greenway, could not have maintained many of their reclassified local roads without Roads to Recovery. The projects that have been assisted include Commercial Road, Vineyard, for which the council received $128,796; Valder Avenue, Richmond, at a cost of $121,591; Chapman Road, Vineyard, at a cost of $126,936; Slopes Road, North Richmond, at a cost of $169,576; Church Street, South Windsor, at a cost of $108,270; East Kurrajong Road, at a cost of $196,885; Lennox Street, Richmond, costing $260,220; Tennyson Road, Tennyson, costing $175,356; Kurmond Road, Kurmond, costing $197,587; and Old Bells Line of Road, Kurrajong, at a cost of $188,814.

The coalition believes in empowering communities, and the purpose of the Roads to Recovery program was to give councils the opportunity to decide what the priorities were for their community. Programs such as Roads to Recovery empower local councils to decide what roads have the greatest need for upgrades and sealing. Roads to Recovery has enabled councils to receive direct funding without bureaucratic red tape. This also means that the council receives all the funding. Money does not get lost in administration through states and territories. Roads to Recovery is a very successful program. The coalition initiative has delivered over 25,000 local projects across Australia. The Australian Local Government Association also believe that the program is essential, and they describe the program as being:

… an essential element in local government’s ability to maintain and upgrade the local roads network.

I would like to conclude by saying that the Rudd Labor government cannot continue their spin for long before their shine fades. Our country’s truck drivers deserve support with no strings attached, and everyday Australians deserve a decent road system. For this reason, I commend the bill to the House.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apart from musical theatre, I love talking about roads. And, judging by the speakers list on this legislation, just about every second person in this parliament loves talking about roads. If any of them like talking about musical theatre they might like to give me a ring! The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 has two main purposes. The first is to change the definition of ‘road’ in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 to allow for the funding of heavy vehicle facilities such as off-road rest stops. This is done in the name of road safety, and that is why everyone in this House totally supports the bill. As to how we go about that, there are some differing views. This is being done in the name of road safety for an important sector of the transport industry. We want to fund this through a $70 million package tied to a heavy vehicle road users charge, which was knocked back in the Senate, so we have some argy-bargy to do on this. But, come what may, we want those funds expended on this and related programs for road safety in this important sector.

The second purpose is to allow the Roads to Recovery program, which the previous speaker and everybody else in this place thinks is the bee’s knees, to continue. We support that and we do not have to have one-upmanship in this, or me-tooism, which some have accused us of. If it is a good idea and a good program, it belongs to everyone. That is what we are doing in continuing it. It is not silly politics; it is good politics and good policy with good results, and we are happy to recognise that. So this legislation is to allow the Roads to Recovery program, which is funded under the same act I have just mentioned, to be extended for another five years, to 2014. These are all good things.

For the simple folk of this world, like me, it is useful to have a bit of background for the record. ‘AusLink’ is the term we use to try to explain the national land transport program, and it is a great name. AusLink elements involve national projects for the defined national network, and the national network is the network of road and rail transport corridors, which include urban areas and links to ports and airports. That national network comes right into my electorate. I have the privilege of travelling on that network nearly every day that I go to my office or around my electorate. It plays a very important connecting corridor role in my electorate, as it does in many other electorates around Australia.

There are also several strategic regional projects in my electorate. I have been banging on about these since 1996, so I am very pleased to be able to talk about these strategic roads, and I will continue to go on about them until we have them where we need them. We are all agreed that black spot projects are very important. I was very pleased to announce just recently a couple of these projects in my electorate, and I hope everyone else has shared in those as well. The Roads to Recovery program is fantastic. There are research and technology projects, and I would like to talk about one of those in the little time available to me.

I would also like to explain, for the record, the Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery Act 2000 established the Roads to Recovery program—that is very good! From 1 July 2005 the program became part of AusLink, and that is good to know for historical purposes. The first phase, pre AusLink, ran from 2000-01 to 2004-05. The program is now in its second phase, which is from 2005-06 to 2008-09. Items 9 and 10 of this bill seek to extend the funding until 30 June 2014 rather than where it currently ends, which is 30 June 2009. In the Roads to Recovery program, which we all agree is fantastic and is the bee’s knees, grants are paid directly to councils if there is a council for the relevant area, and that is set out in items in the bill. All councils receive the funds, and the money is intended to supplement, not substitute for—which is very important—council road spending. Councils will nominate the projects to be funded, and the program will also apply to unincorporated areas—that is, where there is no local council. So, hopefully, where there is a need everyone will get a slice of the pie, and we all accept that.

Before I talk about roads per se, I would like to share with you, if I can, that aspect of the legislation dealing with heavy vehicle safety and productivity. This particularly relates to a group of innovative Tasmanian transport operators, including a very significant one in my electorate, the well-known and highly respected Chas Kelly of Chas Kelly Transport. Together with six other operators, Mr Kelly has bitten the bullet in what he readily admits is a risky move but a calculated risk—this man has always lived by these principles, and that is why he is successful and that is why what he does is highly significant in my electorate—to convert their substantial trucking fleets to run on liquefied natural gas. This is a first for Australia and it is being compared in its gravity to the change from the steam engine to the internal combustion engine.

The group has formed a new company known as LNG Refuellers, which has just secured a deal with industrial gas company BOC to supply natural gas for its heavy vehicles in Tasmania. It will result in the establishment of the first commercial pipeline-to-truck supply for heavy vehicle transport in Australia. Mr Kelly tells me that the incentive to pursue this ambitious move is to stabilise the price of fuel for the transport fleet, an objective one can fully understand given the volatility of the petroleum industry throughout the last decade.

Importantly, it will also help to assist with emissions, which is of major importance in this era of environmental responsibility. Australia’s plentiful supplies of natural gas release up to 25 per cent less greenhouse gas than the diesel powered trucks currently used on our roads. Mr Kelly says that, while the group are putting their necks on the line, they see it as heading to the forefront of the next generation of fuels. He will put new trucks on the road as he upgrades his fleet, and it will cost on average about $150,000 more for each rig to run on gas. He says there will be a payback time, and because of the innovative nature of this project it is still a little unclear just how quickly the payback will come.

Mr Kelly says there will also be better outcomes for maintenance of the fleet, which will add to the cost savings for the operators. The LNG Refuellers group is anticipating savings on fuel costs of up to 30 per cent, even given the higher amounts of liquefied natural gas required in comparison to diesel. That is a 30 per cent saving on the fuel bill—substantial in anyone’s business. Considering that it is for a major transport company using thousands of litres of fuel a year, that is a sizable saving.

The bold move by this group of transport operators will also no doubt encourage others to take the steps to convert their vehicles to this more environmentally and economically friendly fuel source. Isn’t this one of the great things about this debate that is going on now? This is an opportunity. It is not seen as a cost; it is seen as an opportunity and an investment. The technologies that are developed from this will be able to be replicated by others, so there is this cost-benefit to the country as well as to these businesses, and it is really very important.

The Chairman of LNG Refuellers, Mr Ken Padgett, who is another noteworthy transport operator from Tassie, says this represents a $150 million vote of confidence in the commercial merits of natural gas as an alternative to wholesale use of diesel fuel for road transport in Tasmania. For your interest, the group began working on the project back in 2006, when they met with the Tasmanian Department of Economic Development seeking advice on the opportunities to use natural gas for heavy vehicles. It grew from a feasibility study, and the company was registered in September 2006, before an application was made to the Commonwealth for funds under the Tasmanian Forest Industry Development Program. One of the major sectors of Mr Kelly’s operations is the transport of woodchips, and this allowed the project to be dovetailed into the Forest Industry Development Program.

In July 2007 LNG Refuellers invited two companies to tender for the provision of an LNG plant, the supply of refuelling stations and the provision of two refuelling tankers—so this is an ongoing refuelling scheme. This led to the deal with BOC and the commitment to a plant in Westbury, in the electorate of Lyons, near Launceston, which is working through the planning approval process. But there is a lot more to this project than just pumping a different fuel into these heavy vehicles.

Mr Alvaro Ascui, who is managing the new company, says this major change in approach to heavy transport is not without its hurdles, including current legislation surrounding the industry. This is quite interesting: these new vehicles need a greater fuel capacity to cover distances equivalent to those covered by diesel fuel trucks, but simply making them longer to carry extra fuel is not that simple. It never is, is it. It never is. That would put them outside current regulations and render them illegal on Australian roads. So they have got to find other, innovative ways of putting these greater capacity tanks onto rigs. I know they can do it in the United States; I really hope we can do it in Australia. That is something they are going to have to look at.

Perhaps this innovative move will also lead us as legislators to be a little creative and to consider changing our approach to heavy transport. With projections of looming increases in the amount of freight on our roads in the next few years—and we hear that day in, day out as fact, and hopefully it is going to be complemented by rail—maybe we have to look at the pigeonhole we have placed the current heavy fleet in. Perhaps it is better to let them find some more productive options for the fleet which are also more environmentally friendly. Surely it is better to have a few more vehicles carrying one-third more freight than to have three times as many heavy vehicles on the roads. If we are trying to encourage people to be more environmentally responsible in the face of climate change then it is up to us to make it possible for innovators to come up with better and more efficient ways to meet the transport demands of our country.

So I reckon that is a great project and I am really looking forward to doing everything I can to support it. I look forward to its environmental results in Tassie particularly.

Now, roads: my electorate actually has—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has roads?

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it has lots of roads because there is a lot of hinterland. My electorate has these beautiful coastal townships in a linear or ribbon development, if you like, right along the coast, all with their unique and intriguing characteristics. They feed and service and are fed by the hinterland for agricultural produce and by the sea for marine produce, and they are linked by roads. My councils have a lot of roads—like the councils of many of my colleagues here. I know that the member—

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Forrest interjecting

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Vamvakinou interjecting

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the member opposite has got roads everywhere! Anyway, our roads are really important and we do a pretty good job of servicing those roads, but we need a lot of assistance. That is why I think the Roads to Recovery program is such a great idea. Indeed, we have just benefited from some more allocations, and I would like to share them with you. The Burnie municipality got $308,000; Central Coast, where I live, got $397,000—it just happened to be more! Circular Head, in the beautiful far north-west, got $908,000. That tells you just how many roads they have got in the hinterland there. Devonport got $337,000; the beautiful King Island, $245,000; Latrobe, $342,000; and Waratah-Wynyard, $377,000.

On top of that—and I would like to share this with you—there was an earlier announcement, last month, of $195,000 being provided to two north-west roads under our Black Spot Program. This funding is made up of $170,000 to build a roundabout at the intersection of Nicholls Street and North Fenton Street in Devonport and $25,000 to build a traffic island at the intersection of Inglis Street and York Street in Wynyard. Now, you know your community is growing if you are building traffic islands! They are very important. But we are very, very grateful for that road funding.

In the little time left to me—I thought I would have more time to talk about roads—I would like to talk about the Bass Highway between Burnie and Circular Head. This is the road I have been banging on about since 1996. It took until 2004, as some of my colleagues here might remember, for the other side to finally match Labor, in an election, to fund this crucial corridor in my electorate. Admittedly, it was outside the national highway system. Year in and year out, election in and election out, win or lose, I heard, ‘It is not our responsibility; it is the responsibility of the state government.’ Then they got a whiff of victory in 2004 and, lo and behold, they finally funded that corridor. They funded it with the state government, at $15 million each. Good on them, but I tell you what: I will be claiming that road till the day I go under it. They said that there was no reason to fund it—why would you?—and that it was not their responsibility.

I spoke to my colleagues about it so often, year in and year out, that they would have been sick of hearing from me about it. Finally we came up with the figure of $15 million as a co-contribution with the state government, and whoopee! The other mob in 2004, with a week to go before the election, said, ‘Our policy is $15 million.’ I wonder where they got that from! The main thing is that we got it. Do you know what? I thank them for it, because they did the right thing. It is like Roads to Recovery: they did the right thing. They saw that we had a good idea—it was worth nagging on about for so many years—and they finally supported it, and my community benefits from it.

But that is not the end of it, because I will be coming for more. I hope to have a rail line parallel to the road as well. The far north-west and Circular Head region of my electorate is a wealth-producing region. This is the only corridor into the far north-west. I hope you have a chance to come up and travel it. That is the road you take into Stanley and into Circular Head, into that incredible forestry experience and to Dismal Swamp. It is fantastic stuff. This is where the wind farms are, and it is continually growing.

I must congratulate the state government and the contractors who have been working on the Sisters Hills road and the road into Circular Head, because they have managed to find savings of about $3.5 million. That means they will be able to now go and do about three or four new projects with those savings, so I congratulate them. I think where praise is due you should give it, and I congratulate everyone involved in that.

I also must thank both sides of the chamber for the support we have on the national highway system. The north-west coast has benefited greatly from the national highway system. One of the great privileges you have as a member is that you are able to open parts of roads. Recently I was able to open the last stage in the national highway through to Burnie—the Penguin to Ulverstone section, up to where I turn off to the beautiful Forth Valley. I congratulate both governments for their support of the national highway system. There is one remaining part to that: the off-ramp to Castra Road, which I look forward to opening in the near future with my colleagues.

This is great legislation. It is about road safety; it is about Roads to Recovery—everything we agree on. Maybe there is a bit of argy-bargy about how we are going to fund it, but we will leave it up to the opposition to come to their senses and pass the Recovery package so that we can get on with it. I thank my colleagues.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge your forbearance on the wide-ranging topic area around AusLink. I also acknowledge the enthusiasm of the member for Braddon for his electorate.

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

It has been a far-ranging debate, and I will continue to let it be so.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your forbearance is very much appreciated. I am encouraged by it, in fact. We are here—initially at least—to talk about the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. The member for Braddon touched on that in his opening remarks. Essentially, the bill contains a number of provisions, the most important of which involve the extension of the highly successful Roads to Recovery program for another five years. This was a coalition initiative and was introduced by the Howard government to almost nationwide acclaim. The benefits of the Roads to Recovery program, particularly for local government with its responsibilities for some 800,000 kilometres of roads across our country, are well acknowledged and the extension of the program is well justified.

Before I touch on AusLink and the Roads to Recovery program, I want to briefly share some thoughts about another provision of the bill which redefines what a road is. There is some concern that the definition of ‘road’ in the act as it stands may put in doubt the development of off-road facilities. Important off-road facilities include roadside rest stops—these are particularly important for our interstate trucking fraternity—parking bays, decoupling facilities and also some support for new technology as it relates to electronic monitoring systems and the like. These initiatives are important. Transport safety and transport success are not just about pavements; they are about innovation. The member for Braddon touched on a fuel innovation that he is familiar with. I also share his optimism about those alternative fuel pathways, having had some involvement of a similar kind with compressed natural gas measures. The only constraint with that measure was that it was mainly for a transport system that kept coming back to the same base every day. So issues about refuelling et cetera, which are real challenges, were overcome. However, that is a challenge for the future. I certainly share many of the member’s thoughts on alternative fuels for the heavy transport sector.

New technologies are very important. I have learnt—particularly through Fletcher Davis, who was one of the organisers of the recent transport sector protest where many of the concerns of drivers were brought to the attention of the Australian public and political leaders, and also through the insights that Brendan Nelson gained on his road trip in the big rig—about the regulatory burden on drivers. The state transport regulations are heavy-handed, prescriptive, inconsistent and punishing. Hopefully, we will achieve some consistency in those regulations through the use of electronic monitoring systems whereby truck drivers will be able to record in their logbooks not only the direction but also the duration, rest times and the like during their journeys. Technology that captures that information should be embraced. It will be a key tool in the armoury to ensure that vehicle drivers are acknowledged as a very important part of our economy and that appropriate measures are in place to tackle the risk of fatigue, not only for the drivers themselves but also for others.

When I am on some of these highways and B-doubles are whizzing by me, I can assure you that I would like to be comforted that the driver, the pilot of that potentially lethal projectile, has their full faculties and is fully functioning, alert and attuned to their responsibilities as a driver. That is a big responsibility, given the weight of those rigs and the activities of other road users and people adjacent to the road carriageways. The initiative for AusLink to include electronic monitoring systems as part of the national land transport system is a very good one.

The rest stops, as I touched on, provide drivers with the opportunity for some respite, away from the hum, then the approaching roar and later diminishing roar of heavy vehicles as they go by. Hopefully, the driver is able to rest some distance away from a refrigerated unit. There is nothing worse, I understand, than pulling up at a rest stop, ready for a four-hour kip, only to find yourself parked beside a refrigerated unit. The hum of that refrigeration system potentially sees you stop for four hours but not rest for those four hours. I think those things go to soundly and thoughtfully developed rest stops and parking bays. We know that issues concerning rest and respite from the noise of heavy transport are a very important priority for drivers who are seeking those periods of respite—rest and recovery—to regain their alertness to continue on with their work. This is also a very important issue for residential areas.

I note the congestion on the Frankston Freeway, already a very important part of our transport network but now with EastLink funnelling more traffic onto it. I feel for and have been working actively on behalf of the residents who are adjacent to the Frankston Freeway. Those who visit the great Mornington Peninsula to enjoy all that it has to offer would know the Frankston Freeway. It has been there for some time but now, where the merge occurs with EastLink, some of the vegetation that used to act as a sound barrier to buffer the noise of that traffic has gone. The traffic itself has increased in volume, and the increased proportion of heavy vehicles is making traffic noise a real curse, a real burden and a real source of frustration and despair for people who are adjacent to the Frankston Freeway.

When thinking about new transport innovations, EastLink is a magnificently engineered piece of infrastructure, but I am sure you will lament with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the tolls being imposed. As you travel along there, there are some magnificent sound barrier structures with great sensitivity to housing—particularly around Bangholme, where you can see a house just the other side of a local access road. Some thoughtfulness has gone into that sound barrier. If you then head down a little bit further to Frankston, around the old war service estate there at Belvedere Park and adjacent to the light industrial area, there has been no such thoughtfulness for them.

I was troubled to learn of some statements made some years ago that there would be no sound barrier treatment on the Frankston Freeway. I find that bizarre and disappointing, given that some of the sound abatement fixtures, be they trees, were lost during the construction of that road, so even what was modestly there has gone and people are very close to that road that is suffering from a great deal more traffic. I just think a more responsible and thoughtful approach of the kind shown with the construction and engineering solutions on EastLink applied to where EastLink runs into the Frankston Freeway is long overdue.

I am told some sound monitoring will start shortly on that. I have already received some copies of correspondence suggesting some sound monitoring has been done at particular locations. Sound monitoring has suggested volumes in excess of 68 decibels, which is one of the trigger points for remediation in sound barrier terms, but then that was discounted because the wind was blowing the wrong way. I appreciate that wind has an impact on sound, but if it is 68 decibels then those residents are not going to be fussed about whether the wind has contributed to it. It still is 68 decibels, and I think a thoughtful, sensitive and more forward-looking approach to tackling this issue is a very important call that I make on behalf of the local community.

I welcome wholeheartedly the sound barriers, the rest stops and the parking bays that AusLink will now be able to incorporate. I urge the state government, ConnectEast, SITA and VicRoads—you can imagine the jurisdictional jumble that is involved here—to understand as we do that respite is important for the good health of truck drivers and that some respite from trucking noise for those who do not drive the trucks is good for their wellbeing as well. I encourage and call on the state government and its agencies to take more decisive thoughtful action in that regard.

The electorate of Dunkley has been a major beneficiary of the Roads to Recovery program itself. Projects have been carried out particularly on roads that I would call roads in transition. We have the national highway network, we had the Roads of National Importance program, we have local roads and the state has arterial roads, but for growing and developing communities an acknowledgement that roads in transition are a public policy challenge is something that is long overdue. Down on the Mornington Peninsula and in the greater Frankston area we see new suburban developments and in some places a conversion of housing use. Holiday houses that used to get plenty of use over summer, thus bolstering the population, now house permanent residents. So there is quite a change in the complexion, even though you might not see a physical change in housing construction, and there are also new urban areas where housing construction reaches out over areas like Langwarrin, Mornington East and the like.

What happens, though, once you move away from those subdivisions is that you get to roads that in some cases it was never envisaged would carry this kind of traffic. I think about Warrandyte Road, Bungal Road, Mornington-Tyabb Road and the like, just to name a few—even the Frankston-Cranbourne Road and its duplication. These are all important projects, many of which were supported by the Howard government under Roads to Recovery. I am optimistic that the new government will be able to play a constructive role there as well, but the key thing is that a once rural road, now acting as an important arterial to a growing suburban area, might have a pavement that is 3½ metres wide.

That might have been okay in the rural days; you might have had a couple of wheels leave the sealed area and go onto the shoulder. But, when you are getting enormous volumes of traffic, kids trying to get to school, a mixture of pedestrians and cyclists, new urban development and roads built and designed for a time that is now past, you get a terrible coming together of factors. We must be mindful that changing population patterns will require some remediation of the road network well beyond what the subdividers and developers would have responsibility for. I am hopeful that the Roads to Recovery program will be an ally and an asset for that kind of work into the future. We have seen North Road in Langwarrin—the importance of the traffic lights being installed there at the intersection with McClelland Drive. Again, the traffic congestion that was there was horrendous. In the growing areas of Langwarrin and Mornington East, many roads are groaning under the weight of the population growth, and I look forward to working effectively with the government and the local councils to make sure something is done about that in the future.

There is a particular provision in this bill that I like, that I wish had been around—and perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have wished was around—in the past. I think of the half a billion dollars plus that the Howard government committed to a toll-free Scoresby Freeway. We all know the shame and scandal of the state government promising before the election to build a toll-free Scoresby and then doing completely the opposite just months after the election. In this bill there is actually a provision for the allocation or the setting aside of funds to a state for Roads to Recovery projects without specifically knowing to whom that will be paid eventually—some quarantining or warehousing of those resources while the detail is resolved. Wouldn’t we have loved to have had our half a billion dollars for a toll-free Scoresby Freeway quarantined so that we could have seen those resources applied to the benefit of the east and south-east of Melbourne?

I mentioned yesterday in this chamber that we in the east and south-east are the only part of the metropolitan community that pays to use the arterial ring-road. There was that horrendous front page of the Herald Sun just a couple of days ago pointing to the state government—the Brumby government—talking with the constructors of EastLink about building the Frankston bypass as a tollway. Sixty kilometres out of the CBD, the communities I represent will be paying tolls.

Direct funding of transport infrastructure has its place. I am not against tolls; I know they have a role to play. But when will there be consistency in the application of this financing tool so that it is not used to discriminate against one part of a metropolitan community and then set to one side for another? Some consistency is required. The Howard government, when it was elected, committed some funding through AusLink to assist in a toll-free construction of the Frankston bypass: $150 million with the condition that it be toll free, with environmental sensitivity to the design, with some thoughtfulness about non-motorised vehicle use—something that is now being retrofitted to EastLink, with pedestrian access over that magnificent piece of infrastructure, and it is hardly a few months old. But now we are hearing about tolls again.

What is it about the state Labor government that thinks tolls are not okay for some people in greater Melbourne, but the community I represent keeps copping them at every turn? We did not get any compensatory projects as a result of the imposition of the tolls; we did not get a Ringwood bypass without tolls; we did not get an extension to the Knox light rail and we did not get the toll-free Dandenong bypass. We got zip when there was the imposition of the tolls. And now what are we going to get? To add insult to injury, now they are talking about another tollway, when really the Frankston bypass needs to be built to be toll free. That is at least the honourable thing to do after being done over by the state government in relation to tolls and EastLink. It is just outrageous that such a further insult to the community I represent could be even contemplated.

One of the things that I am optimistic about, though, into the future and that may well be accommodated by the AusLink funding framework is the very real challenge we are facing in terms of urban planning. Bernard Salt, a demographer and someone I have known for some years, has an article in the Australian today, and I draw the chamber’s attention to it, on page 24 of the business section. I am not talking about the Herald Sun, where there has been some assessment of particular neighbourhoods and the great city of Frankston has been omitted because it is too Anglo apparently—we are not even on as one of the best places to live in Melbourne because we are too Anglo. That is an interesting reason to rule us out: we do not get a pic fac in the Herald Sun for the best suburbs because we are too Anglo.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There’s not enough character there!

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I invite the member for Banks to come and visit; he could add to the complexion and then we might actually get a look in as a great place to live! But that is a discussion for another day. But what Bernard Salt talks about are these urban-planning strategies and how they have popped up right across the capital cities of Australia. It started in our great city, Melbourne, with the Melbourne 2030 plan released in October 2002. Lots has been said about Melbourne 2030 and imposition of the urban growth boundary, how it was arrived at and what it actually means, but one of the things that Mr Salt points out is that the factual foundation on which it was determined has already been blown out of the water. In the article, he points out:

… Melbourne 2030 is designed to contain the city’s expansion via an urban growth boundary … This boundary was set when it was thought that Melbourne might add 831,000 residents between 2006 and 2031.

He then says:

But now the ABS has weighed in with a very different outlook: it says Melbourne will add 1.611 million over this time frame.

That is a difference of over three-quarters of a million people. That is more than a statistical blip. That involves a little bit more than putting another floor on some high-rise development to accommodate just a few extra households. That is more than half a million extra households that now need to be accommodated. It points to a gross underestimate of the planning foundation on which the growth boundary was developed.

Mr Salt identifies some strategic responses and introduces the concept of Melbourne as a flower. With Victoria the garden state, I can live with Melbourne as a flower, but he goes further, talking about the concept of the petals of that flower. There would be a hub, a high-order functional city centre, in Melbourne and then petals coming out from that to follow the transportation corridors.

I would point out that in the great area of Dunkley there is a transportation corridor called the Frankston rail line—it has been there since long before I was around—and people used to catch it to go on their holidays. Now they catch it to get somewhere near the edge of the urban sprawl and then wrestle for a car park and then realise that, in cities where there is a rail network and a key focal point, the smart thing to do is to actually take the rail line to a couple of stations past the main focal point. That is where the land is cheaper. That is where you can build intermodal systems, a park-and-ride capability and proper car parking so that you do not have to arm-wrestle TAFE students for a space, hope the local footy club does not give you a hard time for parking there or have to park at the Seaford RSL, where the car park desperately needs resealing, because you think you can sneak in there although it is actually for the RSL members.

The smart thing to do is to recognise that Frankston is an urban centre of some significance—I think, appropriately, it needs to be seen as being more significant—and then extend the rail line out further and put these intermodal connections in beyond the focal point of the rail line. You can then build fast rail to the city, have a metro flyer and stop at only one or two places, turning the hour train ride from Frankston into a much shorter trip. You can get to the city more quickly from Ballarat; you can get to the city more quickly from Geelong—and we are in the city; we are in the metropolis.

Some forward thinking is what Bernard Salt is saying is needed. I agree with his concept of the petals, but it needs to go further and pick up some of the ‘city of cities’ flavour that you see in Sydney, where a place like Frankston is identified as a city—as fully functioning, fully self-contained and able to meet all people’s employment, education, social and cultural ambitions—and thus limit the need to travel as often to the ‘high-order functionality of the city centre’, as Bernard Salt describes it. That is a vision where transport is a key part of the planning. That is where AusLink then says, ‘There are some connections here we can play a role in.’ That is where, with the Frankston bypass, without tolls, you would factor in a park-and-ride location where you can car pool or at least interconnect with the rail transport further into the city. That is strategic planning for transport. (Time expired)

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

As the member has shown by his contribution, it has been a wide-ranging debate! The question is that this bill now be read a second time.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I enjoyed what I heard of the member for Dunkley’s contribution. It makes me think that the federal government should have a major cities unit. And guess what? Now we have one. The Labor government have introduced a major cities unit; we are putting up our hands and accepting responsibility for infrastructure and planning in our cities in a way that the previous government, in which the member for Dunkley was a minister, never did. I will let the member for Dunkley stand up for his urban electorate and I will get on with making sure that my regional electorate gets its fair share of the infrastructure, planning and investment that is now happening under the Rudd Labor government.

As I make my contribution on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008, I note that it is such a pleasure to be able to speak with such regularity these days about what is happening in the area of infrastructure, planning and investment. It is one of the major priorities of the Rudd Labor government and it is certainly not before time. This bill has two main purposes: the first is to change the definition of a road that is contained in the AusLink act to allow funding of heavy vehicle facilities, such as off-road rest stops, and the second is to allow the Roads to Recovery program, which is funded under the AusLink act, to be extended for another five years.

I turn firstly to the Roads to Recovery program, which has been warmly welcomed and made much use of by my local councils since its inception in 2000 or 2001. Roads to Recovery provides funds to local councils to upgrade and maintain their road networks, to make them as efficient and as safe as possible. The Rudd Labor government is increasing funding under this bill, so increasing the funding that goes direct from the Commonwealth government to councils to do that important work at the local level. We are now going to be providing funding of $350 million per year—that is an increase of $50 million a year—to councils for those important works. I was speaking to one of my Rockhampton regional council councillors yesterday. Greg Belz has been one of the driving forces at the local level in making good use of the Roads to Recovery money. He is certainly welcoming the increase that Rockhampton Regional Council will receive under the new funding arrangements.

This bill confirms the government’s commitment to extending the Roads to Recovery program. It was set to expire on 30 June 2009. We are now extending that for a further five years. As I said, we are increasing the total funding by $50 million a year, or $250 million over the five-year program, compared to the previous government’s allocations under the Roads to Recovery scheme. My councils can now get on with making plans to improve our local roads, and I am very sure that they will be doing that as we speak. Just to confirm the funding that those councils will be receiving under the next round of Roads to Recovery: Rockhampton Regional Council is getting $1,845,000 this year; Mackay Regional Council, $1,719,000; Isaac Regional Council, which contains the mining towns in my electorate, is getting $2,368,000, which reflects the size of that council and the many local roads that that council is responsible for; and the Whitsunday Regional Council, which represents a small portion of Capricornia, is getting just over $1 million in the next year. I look forward to benefiting from those road improvements as I spend time driving around my electorate with the other road users in Capricornia. As I said, this is a program that local councils have very much come to rely on. It is a very popular program. With the announcement that the Rudd government will extend the program for five years, the Australian Local Government Association gave its endorsement, saying that the Roads to Recovery program is an essential element in local government’s ability to maintain and upgrade the local road network.

As I was saying, the other part of this bill is to make a technical amendment but one that has significant implications. It is to change the definition of a ‘road’ in the existing act. That is to facilitate the work that the government want to do in rolling out our heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. This was announced earlier this year, in the May budget. It is one of several measures aimed at reducing fatigue which include the new heavy vehicle driver fatigue laws coming into effect later this month. We are now set to dedicate $70 million of funding towards the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. Much of that will go towards building additional rest stops on our highways, rest areas and parking areas, heavy vehicle bays, decoupling areas, weigh stations and similar facilities, and we are waiting on the Senate to agree to the road user charge increase that we brought before the House earlier this year. It is curious that the opposition have taken the position that they have on the road user charge, because it was actually proposed by them when they were in government in 2007. They are now playing a spoiling role in the Senate, which I guess we are getting used to, and holding up the funding under that charge. What we want to do is to get on with implementing our heavy vehicle safety and productivity package and using the $70 million earmarked out of the road user charge to do that important work of building rest areas and parking bays, particularly for our truck drivers, who are out there working hard and need more opportunities to rest and to stay safe.

In a release in March this year the Australian Trucking Association commented on the release of the Austroads report. The report is pretty damning reading, to be honest. The release says:

… the report audited the rest areas along 12,700 kilometres of Australia’s major freight routes against the national guidelines for rest area facilities.

Austroads is a government research agency that was commissioned to do that work. It continues:

The report concluded that none of Australia’s major highways fully meet the national guidelines, which require a major rest area every 100 kilometres, a minor rest area every 50 kilometres, and a small truck parking bay every 30 kilometres …

This is of particular concern to me, as someone who represents an electorate in Queensland where there is an incredible amount of not just your standard semis and B-doubles but trucks hauling huge pieces of machinery on roads that are getting busier and busier with normal traffic as well. The report found that the problem of the shortage of rest areas was especially acute in Queensland and particularly on the Bruce Highway. I have about 400 kilometres of the Bruce Highway running through my electorate, and that is of particular concern to me on behalf of the thousands of people and trucks using that road every week. The Labor government, as I said, have committed to doing something about that, to doing our bit to increase the number of rest areas, and we look forward to the opposition supporting us in that effort by passing the road user charge and allowing those funds to flow.

Another part of the government’s commitment to road safety is the spending that we have committed to for the Bruce Highway. Of course, that funding is being pledged through the next round of AusLink. It is coming forward between 2009 and 2014. This formed a major plank of our election commitments to Queensland, and to Capricornia in particular. We have committed $2.2 billion to the Bruce Highway over the five years of the AusLink 2 funding program and we are already seeing work starting in my electorate on some of the highest priority road projects. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government was in Mackay just last week. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned.