Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 reinforces what we already know about the Rudd Labor government: it is all about spin. It has certainly been about debt, spending, unemployment and running an economy into the ground, but fundamentally it has been about spin. We are all amazed that this government has managed to blow a budget deficit of more than $20 billion and turn it into an astonishing $58 billion deficit in just 18 months. We already know that Australia is facing a gross debt of at least $315 billion, or around $15,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. And of course that $315 billion does not include the $40 billion that is going to have to be borrowed for the broadband fantasy or the $60 billion for projects that have been referred to by the government in its Nation Building Program, for which additional money is required. We do not know how much we are up for with the Ruddbank or how much for defence commitments and any number of other spending initiatives that the government may be intending to take between now and the time when that debt peaks. We also know that a very large proportion of this debt is due not to revenue downturns but to reckless spending decisions that the government has taken.

But what is worst of all is that there is no plan to repay this money. Labor has no idea where the funds are going to come from to repay the spending spree that has been going on in recent times. We all know that there is really only one plan: to spend, spend, spend and then rely on the next coalition government to pay it off. It took 10 years to pay off the last debt. How long is it going to take to pay off the current one?

Labor often criticises the coalition for not having spent enough when in government. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is a frequent offender in this regard, saying, ‘We are spending where the previous government didn’t spend.’ What the minister for infrastructure needs to remember is that when we were in government we were paying for what Labor spent the last time it was in government. The key issue is not so much how much you can spend in a day but how much you can actually pay for.

In fact, there are many things that the previous coalition government would have loved to have done—worthwhile projects we would have liked to have pursued—but we could not because we had an interest and redemption bill to pay on the previous government’s mismanagement. Of course, the next coalition government is going to face similar difficulties. No-one believes that any Labor government will ever retire debt. The reality is that the next coalition government will also not be able to spend as much as we would like on roads, rail and other things because we will be paying off debt. But that is not something that Labor should be boasting about; they should be ashamed of the fact that they will leave behind such a deficit for future governments and future generations to repay. To be out there boasting about how much is going to be spent, when all of that money is going to have to be borrowed, much of it from overseas, so that these projects can proceed, is only telling a very small proportion of the story. There are potholes that will not be filled in the future because of the expenditure that is going on today. When you buy a new car, you get the pleasure out of the purchase of that car, but you cannot afford to buy another one until you have paid off the one you have. You spend the next few years going without other things because you are paying off your car. This kind of simple lesson in household budgeting seems to have been lost on the incumbents on the government benches.

The government uses a lot of rhetoric and spin to talk about the work that it has been doing—the so-called revolutionary processes and the biggest spending program in history—all of which is essentially empty spin. Infrastructure Australia, for instance, is not the first to have some kind of a process to assess projects on their merits. Infrastructure Australia is not the first to have transparent opportunities for public input into assessing road projects and making decisions about infrastructure expenditure. AusLink was established to achieve those sorts of objectives. It involved consultation with the states. The community even had opportunities to make suggestions about projects which should be considered, and that entire process was undertaken in a fair and appropriate manner. If there is some suggestion that there was a coalition conspiracy about the projects that were funded, I would remind you that all of the state governments were Labor for a fair proportion of that time and they were actively involved as partners in this process and were generally co-funders. So, in reality, there has always been an open and transparent process. In fact, a stark change in the way in which this government is dealing with issues is that the processes of Infrastructure Australia are clearly not open and transparent. They are not available for public scrutiny. None of the documents are going to be released. We saw the spectacle during Senate estimates yesterday of the minister flatly refusing to provide any of the data that might support the choices that the government has made in relation to the funding announcements. I am going to talk more about that later.

This legislation is another example of where spin is actually triumphing over economic sustainability. It is an example of spin to cover up economic incompetence. The key element of this bill is a name change. That is right; it is just a name change. It is changing the name of AusLink to the Nation Building Program. It is remarkable that the government would consider using the resources of the public purse, the time needed to draft legislation and the priority given in parliament to what is essentially a piece of spin-doctoring. It is perhaps not surprising, though, because the government think that using the time of this place for a rebranding exercise, to change the name of something that was a great success but is also linked to the previous government, is a worthwhile activity. The government are trying to wipe out the memory of AusLink. AusLink in the hearts of Australians is associated with the previous government, and we cannot have anything good that the people love find its way through a Labor government. So they changed the name. This has been a successful program and its name is being changed for no other reason than it was associated with the previous government.

During the election campaign Labor were quite happy to talk about projects that were going to be funded under AusLink and AusLink 2. They allowed the word to pass their lips on hundreds of occasions during the election campaign, but when they came into office they started choking on the word. So we started seeing new descriptions of the program that everyone knew was AusLink 2. First they started talking about a ‘building Australia program’. Those words were attached to projects in December 2008, but on 5 February 2009 in a COAG communique AusLink was turned into the Nation Building Program. That is the term that the George Orwell robots in the minister’s office have settled on, and that is why we have this bill of spin and the rewriting of history. It says so much about the government that they consider this legislation a priority to be brought on in budget week.

The bill is designed to encourage the error and create the myth that nation building is something unique to Labor. It is not. We see the Prime Minister running around with his helmet on and the tractors starting up behind him while the television cameras are in sight. That is the kind of thing we are getting—spin and the image but no substance. The commitment to infrastructure lies with those who have delivered it over the years and delivered the sound economic management to be able to build things and pay for them—namely, the coalition. I remind members of the Labor Party that infrastructure spending in Australia boomed during the years of the coalition government. In spite of what you may hear the minister say during question time about us having done nothing in government, the reality is that, according to the engineering construction activity index published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in constant 2007 dollar terms infrastructure spending increased from $21 billion in 1996 to over $56 billion by 2007. Put another way, infrastructure spending in Australia rose from just under three per cent of GDP in 1996 to nearly 5½ per cent of GDP in 2007.

So much for Labor’s claims that infrastructure spending declined under the coalition. It is true that, in the early years of government, the task of repaying the debt consumed resources that might otherwise have been spent on road funding. But when AusLink was introduced there was a massive increase in road funding. For the first time we had a national plan which dealt with infrastructure requirements in the years ahead, a plan which schematically dealt with the corridors around the country, identified the task and looked at the best way to deal with it, whether it be road or rail—and there was a significant increase in expenditure at that time. It was the coalition, not Labor, that established AusLink. It was the coalition, not Labor, that developed Australia’s first national land transport plan since Federation, It was the coalition, not Labor, that massively increased expenditure on upgrading road and rail.

Under AusLink the coalition government spent more on nation building than any other Commonwealth government since Federation. In terms of AusLink 2, the former coalition government in 2007-08 pledged to invest $31 billion in transport infrastructure. Labor have never matched this. They are committing less money over the next five years on transport infrastructure than the coalition had pledged over the same period. In 2009-10, Labor will spend nearly $1.5 billion less on transport than in 2008-09. There are two key points here. Firstly, the Labor Party say they have a huge program on road and rail infrastructure. The truth is that they will spend less on road and rail over the next six years than the coalition had committed—less, not more. This program represents a reduction in expenditure on road and rail from what the coalition had committed. Secondly, the government are talking about an increase in expenditure to deal with a recession, and they say we need to have some kind of stimulus program. They are actually going to spend $1.5 billion less in 2009-10 than has been allocated this year. So the whole of what Labor are talking about is empty spin.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am opposed to the cuts in expenditure on road funding that Labor have introduced—and I will explain why I am opposed to that as we go further. The key element of Labor’s proposal was the idea that Infrastructure Australia would transparently assess projects on their merits. Sir Rod Eddington was appointed, with a group of mates, to make these assessments and deliver advice to the government on which projects should be funded. But they will not tell us what any of this advice was. They will not release any of the documents. They will not release any of the data. In fact the only thing we have from Infrastructure Australia is a list of 97 projects last year—and now we have Labor’s national infrastructure priority report of 2009.

But Labor have not chosen the projects on their list that are identified as ones to be funded. Some of those projects are included, but other projects that merely have potential have been funded—they have been brought forward. And other projects that are on none of the lists have been funded. In fact the government have now publicly admitted that they chose the projects. The Infrastructure Australia exercise was completely irrelevant. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money and a waste of the resources of people who meaningfully made contributions to the assessment process. Their advice was simply ignored. Labor had already made up their minds which projects were going to be funded. Many of the projects appeared on Labor’s election promises list and were therefore somehow immune from Infrastructure Australia’s processes. Are they being funded on the basis of their merits—or not? It sounds like the Better Regions Program to me—the Better Regions rort—under which Labor’s election promises are being funded whether or not they have any merit. No-one other than Labor candidates could even apply for this particular scheme—and won’t I be looking forward to the Auditor-General’s report into this program! I hope the Auditor-General will also do a report into the Infrastructure Australia process, because it too has been designed to cover up the facts rather than expose them.

We have a list of projects that have been announced. It is in fact Labor’s list. It is not Infrastructure Australia’s list at all. These are projects that Labor have chosen. The list includes some projects which Labor had committed to but the coalition had not. It does not include some projects that we had committed to but Labor had not. It commits to some projects that both sides of politics had committed to. If the government want to make decisions about which projects are going to be funded, they should be honest about it and say they are making all the decisions for their own political reasons. Don’t try and blame Sir Rod Eddington or someone else and try to pretend there is some kind of open process when clearly it has not been there.

I will now discuss some of the specific projects that are being funded by the government. There are two projects that have been brought forward on the government’s claim that they are shovel ready. This is part of the government’s problem: they have all these grand ideas but none of the projects are ready to start. Not only do they not have the money; they do not have the engineering plans, and the planning process has not been gone through. So some of these projects are years and years away. Indeed, many of the projects in this budget go out for more than a decade before they are actually funded. So much for them being a stimulus package.

But there are two projects that are genuinely shovel ready. One of them is the F3 extension to Branxton in the Hunter Valley. That is genuinely ready because the previous government had spent $109 million getting it genuinely ready. We purchased the land and got the design process underway, and it was ready to go. Indeed, the member for Hunter was very supportive of this project before the last election. But on the very day after the election he withdrew his support and the project was put on hold for 18 months. Here is a project that was shovel ready 18 months ago and Labor did nothing. Instead they commissioned a new study, a new report, on the traffic needs of the Hunter.

I do not know what has happened to that study—it has not seen the light yet—but they are going ahead with the project that we had ready to go. All Labor have done with this project is delay it for 18 months, by which time the cost has gone up further. So it was ready, all right, but give the credit where it was due: it was shovel ready because the previous government had got it shovel ready. But, of course, we cannot have the previous government being given too much credit for it, so it is not going to be called the F3 to Branxton anymore. In a new piece of spin, it is now going to be called the Hunter Expressway so somebody might think that it is actually a different project from the one that they held up for 18 months.

The second project that was genuinely shovel ready is the 12-kilometre Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway. That is shovel ready because the Queensland government got it shovel ready because it is the road that goes around the Traveston Crossing dam. We all hope the Traveston Crossing dam will not be built and that the Commonwealth will have the good sense to honour its environmental responsibilities and stop the project. But, if it goes ahead, nine kilometres of the Bruce Highway will be flooded. Nine kilometres will go under water by 2011, so if the government does not start building this road now there will be a nine-kilometre gap in the national highway that you will have to traverse by boat. That is why this project is shovel ready. In fact, the Queensland Minister for Main Roads said before the last state election that they were going to pay for the whole road themselves. The Queensland government intended to build this, to actually fund it—and they had the money there to fund it. The Commonwealth government has been conned into funding a project that the Queensland government intended to pay for, and it is trying to make some kind of a virtue of it.

The second thing that the minister often says is that they are doing it when the previous government did not do it. Again, let me make this point absolutely clear: it was the previous government that got the four-lane highway up to Cooroy; it was the previous government that significantly upgraded the existing road, including the work that is being done through Gympie at the present time; and it was the previous government that did the design work to get it to the stage where, with a route identified, the project can proceed. That had not been done by previous Labor state governments, but we did all the work to get it to that stage. This is a project that is shovel ready because it is a part of a dam scheme that the state government had already developed.

I will also make some comments about the quite appalling way in which the minister and the Prime Minister have tried to make out that this is some kind of compassionate program. He referred to the 13 people who have been killed on this section of road over recent years. There have in fact been 54 lives lost between Cooroy and Curra over that period, only 13 of them on this section, and very few, if any, since the road was upgraded in 2006. A significant amount of money was spent on safety improvements on that section of the road, including a centre fence, because this section had been laid with a stone mastic service which proved to be unsafe in wet times. Most of the accidents and fatalities that have been referred to have in fact been on a section of road that has subsequently been repaired, so if they actually want to fix the places where people are dying at the present time they should choose other sections. Indeed, there was a serious accident earlier this week—the news report said ‘Mother critical’—but it was not on the section where the Prime Minister has been out with his hard hat on, pretending that they are doing this to deal with the safety problems on the road.

Let me say that there are safety problems on all of the road, it all needs to be fixed, and it is reasonable that this section be considered in that context. However, the government has not solved the safety problems on Cooroy to Curra by building this section of road. The most dangerous sections still remain to be done. So I call on the government to honour the coalition’s commitment made at the last election to complete this section by 2020. Put forward the necessary funding to make sure there will be an ongoing program so that this ‘death’ highway can in fact be rebuilt.

There are many other projects of this nature that remain on the list, but key Labor election promises remain unfulfilled. Labor’s pledge to allocate $840 million for a dedicated freight line between Strathfield and Gosford, dealing with one of the most serious rail freight bottlenecks on the east coast, remains delayed for another study. We are still waiting for Labor to duplicate the Western Highway from Bacchus Marsh to the South Australian border, as it promised, and for Labor to honour its commitment for $2½ billion for the missing link from the Gateway Motorway to Nudgee in north Brisbane.

We need to look at some of the other projects that are being funded. It is quite interesting that the government is going to spend significant funding on the Pacific Highway, as did the coalition. However, Labor has made a significant change. Previously, this was a project that was being jointly funded by the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments—it was a 50-50 project. The Commonwealth is now going to pick up the full cost of the Pacific Highway, letting New South Wales off their 50 per cent of the cost. That is a $5 billion plus gift to the bankrupt New South Wales Labor government. Instead of paying their share, they are being let off the hook. Look at some of the other projects that are on this list, such as the proposal to do a $91 million study on the Sydney West Metro. The actual cost of this project will be about $6 billion. There is a $20 million study for the Brisbane inner-city rail. That project is going to cost about $14 billion. Labor cannot pretend they are actually building these things; they are just studying—so we are going to have a study-led recovery.

What about the increased expenditure on the Ipswich Motorway? This is because the cost of the scheme has blown out of all proportion. There is $365 million for the Gold Coast railway, and that is only a possible equity contribution, with no guarantee the project is even going to go ahead. It is described only as a possible equity contribution, so who knows whether we will get any real benefit from that as well. The Darwin port and the Oakajee port also require significant investments by other parties. And if anyone had any idea that perhaps this was some kind of genuine and honest process they only have to look at the Adelaide O-Bahn project. It was announced as a priority project, but it was not even requested by the South Australian government. It was never on the short list that was published by IA in December last year, and yet it is being funded. When it was announced, the minister in South Australia was honest enough to say, ‘Well, that’s a nice surprise; we didn’t even ask for it’—and yet it is supposed to be such a magnificent priority. This is the hypocrisy of the way this government has been behaving. It is addicted to spin.

In the few minutes that are still available to me I want to deal with some of the other features of the bill which again demonstrate some disturbing trends. It is clear that Labor is firing another bullet in its war against regional Australia in this legislation. We already know that most of the $8.4 billion for new projects, funded from the former government’s surplus, will be spent on urban passenger transport projects. There is a significant shift in funding in what the government has announced away from road and rail projects, especially in regional areas, to urban public transport.

This bill modifies part 6 of the principal act, the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005, to enact a basic change to what was known as AusLink strategic regional projects. Members may recall that the AusLink Strategic Regional Program was designed to assist state and local governments to build better transport networks, to support industry, tourism and economic development. The purpose of the strategic regional program was to foster partnerships and to develop networks to upgrade infrastructure related projects in areas off the National Land Transport Network. Around $469 million went to fund projects under the strategic regional program between 2004 and 2007, and there are many very worthwhile projects around the nation that benefited from that funding. That is going to change because the government want to amend section 55 of the act to remove all references to ‘regional’ and simply re-name the strategic regional initiative to become a nation-building program for off-network projects. In other words, the key characteristic of the strategic regional program will cease to exist and funding will now be available for urban Australia. You have got regional strategic roads program funding and now it is going to be spent in the cities. This is a clear shift in the priorities of the Labor Party and it will be opposed by the coalition. Clearly, Labor have identified a long list of projects that they intend to fund with this money and $762.5 million, or 86 per cent of what is to be available, has been set aside to fund their election promises. Many of these promises were made for areas that could not be funded under the strategic regional program because they did not meet the guidelines, so Labor are getting rid of the program so they can fund ill-thought-out, ill-considered and ill-valued projects that were simply Labor Party election stunts. This amendment clears the legislative path to use these significant funds for transport related infrastructure away from regional Australia.

There is a second element of major change which we will oppose. I refer to the changes to the Black Spot Program, a very successful program that has saved many lives. The then Bureau of Transport Economics estimated that by 2007 the Black Spot Program had saved at least 130 lives and prevented 6,000 serious accidents by upgrading 4,200 dangerous sites on state and local roads. This was a coalition initiative. We had to restore it after Labor had abolished the program. The government allocated $30 million in 2008-09 and $60 million in 2009-10 to extend its coverage. This is on top of the government’s announcement in December 2008 that it would more than double the Black Spot Program funding for 2008-09 from $50 million to $110 million. So it is pleasing that this Labor government has not done what the previous Labor government did and abolish the program but has indeed committed some additional funding. We welcome that. However, what Labor is now doing is proposing to change the very nature of the Black Spot Program so the benefits will not flow in the future to projects in local communities, to the roads and streets where there have been accidents. In fact, the black spot funding is now going to be available to be spent on the national network, so it will be subsumed into the highway system.

I accept that there are dangerous spots on our highways, but there is a very substantial funding program that provides support for upgrading the highways. We should not be taking away money from projects for local streets and roads to spend it on the national highway network. I wonder whether we will see any money left for the local roads. I wonder whether it is all now going to go on one or two projects for the national highway that would take all this money away. So we will be opposing that element of the bill and will be putting forward an amendment to keep the black spot funding for areas off the National Land Transport Network. They can be in either city or country, as they are now, but the funding should not be allocated into an area which is already funded in substantial quantities through other programs.

This bill is all about government spin and, unfortunately, Labor are attempting to rewrite history to take out of the public’s memory some of the excellent work that the previous government did with road and rail funding. In particular, well-known names like AusLink are to disappear so that any association with the projects of the previous government can be written away. That is just typical of the way in which Labor governments behave: it is all spin. It is all about TV images and 30-second spots on the news. It is all spin and there is no substance. (Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say there is nothing like living in the past and dwelling on memories of things well back in the past, particularly when those opposite did not deliver on any of this stuff. They may have wanted to just speculate at one point of time, but in terms of delivery I have got to say the shadow minister for transport and regional development has got a lot to answer for. They had 12 years to do the various things that he has just mentioned. They did precious little.

As I address the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009, I note the Australian Labor Party in government has always been a party that has been dedicated to building this nation. It is worth acknowledging that this has been evident over a long period of time. Any student of politics would know the values of the Chifley government and its initiation of the hydroelectricity scheme for the Snowy Mountains. It was a nation-building government. Indeed, take the Hawke government, which opened up the economy to competition, and Paul Keating’s government, with the Building Better Cities program that was introduced. All were part of a broad range of strategies and reforms that indicated innovation, with housing programs with a renewal focus and also urban consolidation. They were big-ticket governments. I know they might get a few criticisms from the people opposite, who want to dwell in the past, but they should look at the contributions that those governments made in not only putting innovation forward but building for this nation’s future. That is a vast contrast from the previous Howard administration with its wasted opportunities. It failed to build on that tradition of nation building. It actually squandered the nation’s future. We saw that with education. Its contribution to education was to rip $1 billion out of the system. That wasn’t bad as that was their first year in government! They also managed to take billions of dollars out of the healthcare system. Those are not exactly what you would put down as being nation-building efforts.

For too long national budgets under coalition governments had been short-sighted as they focused only on the next election. They continued to ignore the big challenges faced by this country. They squandered the proceedings of the mining boom and the opportunities with resources that we had. What they did not do was invest in this country’s future. There just cannot be an argument about that. Those opposite cannot get up here and try to spin their way out of it. They had the time. They have a track record and, in this regard, their track record was failure.

The bill before the House today reiterates Labor’s commitment to being a nation-building party. This bill should be fully supported by all members of this parliament, if they genuinely do believe in nation building. This is not like the support which was offered by the member for Sturt, the Manager of Opposition Business, in his motion of privilege yesterday. It seems that members opposite are becoming hopelessly embarrassed. When they have to visit their local electorate to talk to schools and local councils about road based infrastructure and claim credit for it and then come into this place and vote against it, it is no wonder they feel embarrassed. They should be embarrassed. People did not put those opposite into parliament to try to capture as much press as they can in their local electorates by aligning themselves with Labor led projects and then coming into this House and voting it down. That is what they have attempted to do and what they continue to do. My colleague here probably wants to have another go at it. (Quorum formed). I know it is embarrassing for those opposite to have to sit down and hear this and for someone to have to come in here and point out the facts.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is embarrassing for somebody here.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Greg, I had wished that during that quorum a few of your other colleagues would have turned up. I would have liked to have seen the member for Cook here. This bill is very much concerned about the issue of black spots. That is very significant and goes to the heart of this bill. Those opposite want to oppose important aspects of the Black Spot Program, as it is contained in this bill. But what do they say when it gets down to their electorates? The member for Cook just got $50,000 for the installation of guard rails on the Pacific Highway at Sylvania. I am glad he did not run down for this quorum. The member for Paterson—big, bold Bob—is likely to do many things in this House, but he has not come in here and said how he welcomed the $450,000 for the installation of traffic lights on the New England Highway at Metford. The member for Cowper, who just sat behind in the House during the diatribe from the Leader of the Nationals, got $75,000 for three separate projects on the Pacific Highway in Clybucca, Urunga, and Corindi. They made much of these projects in their electorates. They went out and tried to claim credit for these things. But the fact of the matter is that they are here, and they will be here again today, voting against this part of the program. When it comes to the issue of what this opposition should be tagged as, ‘hypocritical’ comes to my mind. This bill is central to the delivery of a $26.4 billion road and rail program—the Nation Building program. The bill proposes changes to ensure the more effective provision of major road and rail infrastructure projects throughout the national network, as well as various projects that are off the network. The bill also provides for a more efficient application of the Roads to Recovery Program and the Black Spot Program. As I have mentioned, these are three projects that fall into coalition electorates now.

We need to make these changes now to make sure that we can deliver on our road and rail infrastructure program in the most efficient and effective way. This budget has been carefully crafted to stimulate the economy now to support jobs. But it has also been crafted to build the long-term savings infrastructure to ensure fiscal stability so that the net debt level of this country remains the lowest of all major advanced economies in the world. That might be a tall order, but that is something we have committed to.

Despite all the ranting and raving of the opposition, we have heard absolutely nothing yet of their plan. At this stage they like what we are doing in relation to schools—at least in the local media they like it. Yet they came in here and opposed our $17.4 billion investment in education. They opposed the bill that led to Building the Education Revolution. They came into this place and opposed our commitment to social housing and building of 200,000 additional houses. They also opposed the maintenance and refurbishment of existing public housing stock. They have a track record. They have already been tagged. They are hypocritical to the extreme.

They do not have a position with respect to the economy. That is pretty clear when you look at the exchanges that have occurred in the media, particularly when you contrast the views of the shadow Treasurer with those of his leader. If you listen to what they have actually said—listen to what the shadow Treasurer has said in relation to borrowings—you know they would be running a debt. Of course they would. Not once in the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply speech did he refer to the effect of the world financial crisis. They have tried to perpetuate this myth that the difficulties we now find ourselves in are a consequence of 18 months of a Labor government. They do not believe that. No-one in the Australian community in their wildest dreams believes that. Most people have a TV set and if they do not they read the newspaper. They actually know what is going on out there. Yet the opposition want to come in here and try to perpetuate these myths with a view to avoiding saying what they would do and simply voting against the initiatives that have been taken by the government.

I concede that the opposition leader has a very hard job. I often said that when we were in opposition. I think the hardest job in the parliament must be that of an opposition leader. Clearly, it is a difficult job. I feel sorry for the bloke.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chris, you’re all heart, mate!

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am all heart. I have feelings too! But look at what has occurred. Nothing has occurred that has not been for someone’s own personal, political interest. This is an opposition based on spin. It is not based on anything that is contributing to the national debate; it is about running a scare campaign. That is what this is opposition is about.

While I am on the topic of the opposition leader, he has one of those problems we would all love to have. I notice in reading the Australian newspaper this morning that he is in the BRW top 200 list. He is one of the top-200 richest people in the country. He has assets worth $178 million. (Quorum formed) I acknowledge the embarrassment I have caused the other side by what I have said. They are employing childish tactics to disrupt the parliament. They are feeling a bit precious about something. I invited William Carey Christian School to visit the parliament today, and I would hate to think that the extremely childish and precious tactics employed by the opposition would leave an indelible mark on these young people’s minds about how this opposition perform. I fear that the students will take away from this debate the view that the opposition do not care about the issues in this bill—that is, that the opposition do not care about the efficient delivery of road and rail infrastructure around the country but do care about playing piddling games in this parliament. I would hate to think that young minds would be corrupted like that. I would have hoped that the opposition could have played a more responsible role in the debate and have had a contest of ideas.

I would welcome the opportunity for debate. I have been sitting here eyeballing someone on the other side who wants to have an argument about the application of this bill and what it means for their electorate. I would like the member for Paterson to come in here, be honest and say that he would support the traffic lights for the New England Highway. The member for Cook should come in here and have the argument on whether he wants that money. I am dead sure when he talks to his local newspaper that he will have his photo on the front page and claim some responsibility for getting that $50,000 for guardrails on the Pacific Highway. None of the people who are net beneficiaries for these programs have even had the audacity to front up in this parliament and be honest about the approach.

People listening to this debate can at least take one thing away. The Labor government are committed to nation building. We are a Labor government who are going to roll these things out. We are generating jobs and stimulating employment and demand now, but we are also providing assets and infrastructure needed for the economic future of this country. As much as the opposition hate it, they know that it is true. They know that in their heart of hearts, and that is why they all go scurrying away. They do not want to participate in this debate because they know that what we have said is absolutely right on the money.

I would like to finish by mentioning some of the benefits that I have attained in the area of Campbelltown in my electorate of Werriwa. We have done reasonably well in black spot funding. We have been able to ensure that road safety in three specific projects—one in Blairmount, one in Glenfield and one in Minto—is being taken care of. We care for the safety of those people and their families and the victims affected by road accidents. We also care about the police and emergency service people who have to attend to those accidents. (Time expired)

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here on behalf of the people of Townsville, I am here on behalf of the people of North Queensland and I am here on behalf of the people of rural and regional Australia. I am glad that the member for Dawson is with me because it is likely that both of us will move an amendment to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009, because this bill should be called ‘southern votes are more important than northern lives’.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish! Absolute rubbish!

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dawson will come to order.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson well knows, and I do not have to tell him, about the terrible state of the Bruce Highway in North Queensland. I do not have to tell him what needs to be done but has remained unfunded in this current program.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bidgood interjecting

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is almost like the potholes shake hands with each other. The port access road is not the Bruce Highway, Sir, as you well know. It is the Bruce Highway that we need to attend to. There is no doubt about that. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am joined by the member for Blaxland and I understand students from a school in his electorate are in the gallery. We have St Mary’s Primary School from Georges Hall in Western Sydney. Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Parliament of Australia. You have a very fine member here in the parliament. Now back to North Queensland. The federal government needs to make the Bruce Highway survivable for Queenslanders and in fact for all Australians.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under your government they were allocated nothing. You didn’t do anything.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Dawson, how do you explain this? You would rather shave 28 minutes off a journey between Newcastle and the Hunter region, which is not even on the national highway, than look after the national highway in North Queensland. How can your government get it so wrong? The Hunter Expressway is not even on Roads Australia’s list of priority projects, yet it gets $1.45 billion, and North Queensland and the Bruce Highway are only allocated one-third of that. Where is the priority?

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn’t do anything for 11 years.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems to me, Member for Dawson, that your party rates Hunter region votes as more important than the lives of North Queenslanders, and you need to stand up for North Queenslanders. You are not standing up for North Queenslanders. That is what our role is here in the parliament, and that is why I am here at the dispatch box standing up for North Queensland.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish!

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

Order! The member for Dawson will come to order.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To add insult to injury: for the projects that are being funded, what is going to happen? I asked the question, ‘Is your super really yours?’ As taxpayers we have been bombarded with rhetoric about the wonders and benefits of the $42 billion nation-building plan and we have even footed the advertising bill. But we are going to pay for much more than just advertising. The government cannot actually afford to pay for all of these projects it has committed to so it is seeking private investors. The trouble is private investors have more sense than to put money into poorly-costed and financially unviable projects. So where is the money going to come from? The government’s advisory group, Infrastructure Australia, has the answer. The plan is to use the $1 trillion of superannuation that Australians have put away for their retirement to plug the $58 billion hole in the disastrous Nation Building Program. I will come back to that in due course.

This is what North Queenslanders are seeing, and they are asking these questions. Why did 15,934 dead people get an estimated $14.3 million in tax bonus payments? How could that be? How is it that Labor is spending $50.8 million to advertise Labor policy? How is it that the broadband waste keeps coming? Taxpayers will pay $703,000 worth of expenses racked up by Labor’s broadband panel of experts and we have this ongoing problem with potholes on the Bruce Highway. The cash splash has put our AAA credit rating at risk, and all Australians will be very concerned about that.

This bill before the parliament is just another example of the Rudd Labor government’s obsession with spin. This bill seeks to rename the AusLink program, which was established by the coalition government in 2005, as members know. It was a landmark program when it was established. It created the first national transport framework in Australia. AusLink 1 commenced in 2004-05 and ran to 2008-09. AusLink 2 was scheduled to run from 2009-10 to 2013-14, until Labor became determined to rename the program. The Labor Party referred to AusLink during the 2007 federal election campaign. From 2008, however, it became clear that the new Rudd government disliked referring to a successful coalition program, so the renaming process began. The first attempt, in December 2008, was to call it the Building Australia program. This must have failed the test of Labor’s spin doctors, as the second name was developed just three months later in February 2009. The AusLink program has begun to be referred to as the Nation Building program; thus we see the new name in the present bill. What we can see from the Rudd government is a desire to claim a successful coalition program as their own—and I mean a successful coalition program. Rather than display true commitment to the Australian transport network, the bill displays the Rudd government’s commitment to spin.

Labor has driven us into debt. It has turned a healthy surplus left by the coalition government into $58 billion of debt this coming year. During this time of economic crisis, rather than show true commitment to Australian transport networks, it is more concerned with political acts of renaming projects. Labor has lost control. Labor has lost control of the nation’s finances. Labor’s reckless spending has built a mountain of debt we may never pay off. Everything Labor touches turns to debt. Two-thirds of Labor’s debt is the product of its own new spending commitments. Labor has spent $10 million an hour for every hour since it was elected on new commitments, which is extraordinary.

Labor are assuming 12 years of economic miracles to pay off their mountain of debt by 2022. We all see, as we sit in question time, Labor’s refusal to answer the opposition’s questions about how that debt is actually going to be paid off, and you can see by their silence they do not know. I hope the Australian people see that. Labor are not known for presiding over economic miracles or paying off debt, especially under Rudd and Swan; and, alas, I think our strong record of paying off Labor’s debt will be required again when we return to government. We will make those tough decisions necessary to do it.

The member for Dawson now has to answer the following point: the coalition, of course, is committed to Australia’s transport infrastructure, and that is why we pledged an investment of $31 billion in 2007-08 for AusLink 2, but that is not what we see now from the Labor government. Labor has not committed the same level of funding to the national transport network. Despite all the rhetoric we hear, Labor has not committed the same level of funding that we committed to the national transport network.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know that’s not true!

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here are the facts. Labor’s claims to care about the transport infrastructure system ring false. The 2009-10 budget provides for nearly $2 billion less than it is spending on land transport infrastructure in 2008-09. On your own budget papers, you are less $2 billion this year than last year. Despite all the spin and branding undertaken by Labor, it is not delivering true and proper support to the national land transport network.

This bill is what we have come to expect from the Rudd government. The amendments in the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 demonstrate how the government does not support regional Australia. This is my next point. The government is not supporting regional Australia, and that is why the member for Dawson should be standing and joining with me as a colleague. The member for Solomon from regional Australia should also be standing with me demanding our fair share of the government largesse that is currently being spent in the metropolitan areas. A large proportion of the funding for new projects will be spent in urban areas. Regional Australia misses out yet again. The Rudd government seems concerned only with urban Australia, and I am disappointed that my fellow regional colleagues are not supporting me in standing up for regional Australia.

The amendments in this bill alter part 6 in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005. Under the coalition government’s strategic regional program—and ‘regional’ is important: it is our area, guys—funding was provided to projects not on the national land transport network, most notably in regional areas. The coalition understands the needs of regional Australia and supported valuable projects in such areas. Surprise, surprise! The Rudd government intends to revoke the support for regional Australia. Member for Dawson, I hope you are listening. This bill revokes support for regional Australia. It seeks to do this by amending section 55 to rename the Strategic Regional Project the Nation Building Program Off-Network Project. Under this change, the funds previously earmarked for regional projects could now go to an urban area and, under the track record of the Labor government, will likely go to an urban area.

Labor’s target is the language of the act. Attempts to remove the word ‘regional’ are at the heart of this. But these amendments do more than alter language. They are telling of the Rudd government’s priorities. I fear for North Queensland. I fear we are going to get less and less money allocated to our dangerous road system. Their telling of regional industries become only industries. Regional communities become only communities. The bill is trying to delete regional Australia from the program, and I am strongly opposed to these changes. I want ‘regional’ remaining in the language of the government and the language of the act. It is very important that the parliament sends a message to the bureaucracy and to the people of Australia that ‘regional’ is important.

The bill also seeks to allow areas on the national land transport network to be entitled to funding under the Black Spot Program. This is a large change. Councils will be very unhappy with this. The Black Spot Program, originally established by the coalition government, is designed for local roads. It is unfortunate that parts of our national highway are dangerous. Provision and funding for areas on the national network already exist. These areas should not be funded at the expense of funding dangerous local roads. Surely that is common sense. I do not understand why the Rudd government is taking away a very sensible coalition program. It is, of course, something that affects our local councils so much.

Under the amendments contained in this bill, the Black Spot Program itself is subject to a name change. The ‘AusLink Black Spot Program’ becomes the ‘Nation Building Black Spot Program’. The Rudd government is determined to rebrand AusLink as its own. It is undertaking renaming policies on a project as important as this one.

The Rudd government has driven Australia into debt and lost its focus on regional Australia. It is a government that is unable to manage the Australian economy and, in fact, it has lost control of our nation’s finances. It is clearly unwilling to demonstrate the same commitment as the coalition to the national land transport network. In a failed attempt to distract from all of these things, it engages in needless spin.

I want to return to where I started—back to regional Australia and particularly North Queensland. Yes, there is some money announced in the budget for the Douglas arterial duplication—that was announced a year ago. There is money in the budget for the Cardwell Range realignment—that was announced a year ago. There is work on the Townsville port access road, which was announced a year ago. But the spin is to try to get North Queenslanders to think, ‘These are new projects.’ But they are not new projects. They were announced a year ago. You cannot keep claiming credit for the same project as if it were a new project, because people will see it for what it is—government spin.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bidgood interjecting

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want the member for Dawson to tell me what he thinks about the importance of the Townsville-Mount Isa rail corridor and why the government has not funded that very important ‘nation-building’ corridor. Why is that? The north-west minerals province relies so much on that rail corridor. The rail is old and out of date. It is not heavy enough in gauge to carry the weights. There are not enough passing loops. Why the member for Dawson does not support investment in the rail corridor—the 900- to 1,000-kilometre rail corridor from Townsville to Mount Isa—I do not know. It is very odd.

I would like to conclude by making this challenge to the member for Dawson: what about the much needed passing lanes on the Bruce Highway? What about them? We need passing lanes every five kilometres. You are the government and you have just dropped North Queensland as a priority. We are second-class citizens. You are more interested in the people of Newcastle than the people of Darwin or Townsville or Mackay. And that is sad. It really is sad. The wealth of this country comes out of regional Australia. Yes; we do not have the population and ergo we do not have the votes. That is the spin from the Rudd government: go where the votes are. But, at the end of the day, if this nation is going to be prosperous it has to have proper regional infrastructure, as it has proper urban infrastructure. We have not got that. When this speech is reported in the Mackay Daily Mercury and the Townsville Bulletin, the residents of North Queensland will see that I was standing up for North Queensland and the member for Dawson was opposing me. I thank the House.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.

Leave not granted.

Mr Bidgood interjecting

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

The member for Dawson can seek to table the document when he has the call to make his speech.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009, which is central to the effective delivery of the government’s $26.4 billion road and rail program—the Nation Building Program. The previous speaker, for some reason, spoke about why he does not believe that we should build this nation. The program before the House today delivers to projects that will support jobs today and will support jobs tomorrow. This program funds essential road and rail upgrades that will improve the capacity of the Australian economy long into the future. This investment in infrastructure is essential if Australia is going to get out of the infrastructure deficit left to us by the previous government. While the previous government, as we know, enjoyed the fruits of the mining boom, they squandered it. They did not use that opportunity wisely. They squandered the opportunity to invest in critical economic infrastructure for the country’s long-term future. And it has now been left to this government to rebuild Australia. We have taken this challenge up with gusto.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for delivering the Nation Building Program. He is doing so with the full support of the states. This support comes because, unlike the previous government, who, when they talk about infrastructure, really like to just blame the other side—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt might like to listen to some of this. There are some very important things in this.

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

I remind the member for Sturt that it is actually the prerogative of the chair who the call is given to.

(Quorum formed)

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that the opposition and members of the previous government do not like to talk about their failings, but I am going to talk about them. They continue to blame the states for infrastructure issues; they play this blame game. The minister for infrastructure has looked at being cooperative with the states and I commend him because he is committed to meeting the needs of local communities and committed to working with the states to deliver important pieces of critical infrastructure for this nation.

I would like to talk about a couple of these examples of investment in my electorate of Kingston. Firstly, among the projects funded by the government’s Nation Building Program is the Victor Harbor Road and Main South Road intersection upgrade. This project received $3.5 million from the federal government in this budget to ensure construction is completed by 2010. The upgrade will provide three northbound lanes on Victor Harbor Road instead of one, three northbound lanes on Main South Road extending through to the Flemington Bridge, two southbound lanes to the Victor Harbor Road, two southbound roads between Seaford Road and Victor Harbor, two right turn lanes into Seaford Road and a left turn acceleration lane out of Seaford Road. This is a big boost for safety for the people in the southern suburbs of Adelaide who use this road. This will ease congestion at an incredibly busy intersection. It is another example of this government delivering on its election promises.

Fixing this intersection will improve access to the Fleurieu Peninsula. The Fleurieu Peninsula is a lovely destination for holiday makers, but often on long weekends there is a huge amount of frustration at this intersection. This intersection will improve access and stop frustrated motorists from taking a parallel route through the Old Noarlunga township. This means less through- traffic on our local roads, which will improve safety and quality of life for those in Old Noarlunga. This improvement of the Victor Harbor Road has been demanded by locals for some time. However, it was ignored by the previous government. I just want to illustrate this by quoting David, who lives in the southern suburbs. He sent me an email, which said:

Hi Amanda,

I have lived down south for six years and the bottleneck at Victor Harbor turn-off is getting beyond a joke in the mornings.

I was pleased to tell David that this government is listening to local residents and is doing something about it.

In addition to dealing with one of Adelaide’s worst bottlenecks, the Nation Building Program provides funding for the Black Spot Program, which will provide funding in my electorate for upgrades at Wickham Hill Road at McLaren Flat and Meadows Road at Willunga Hill. This means an extra $235,000 will be invested in an extension of guardrails, shoulder sealing, delineation and signage on a three-kilometre section of the Wickham Road and $185,000 in shoulder sealing on a three-kilometre section of Meadows Road at Willunga. These projects are critical for the safety of residents who use this area. The safety of some of these roads has been raised with me a number of times and I am very pleased to let the residents know that we are concerned about safety, despite what the previous speaker said. We do want to make our roads safer and we are doing just that.

This funding is in addition to the Roads to Recovery funding for southern Adelaide provided in this budget. The Roads to Recovery program is another important part of our Nation Building Program. Through the program, the City of Onkaparinga and the Marion council will receive over $2.3 million. These funds will assist in the maintenance and upgrade of roads across the southern suburbs, and the jobs generated by this activity in tandem will increase the capacity for people in the south. This shows real value infrastructure. We hear a lot from the opposition, who talk about poor spending on infrastructure. My message to the opposition is clear: money provided to my electorate in this budget for local roads is high-quality spending. The investment builds on the investment from the first Rudd government budget for roads in Kingston. The previous budget provided for $2.8 million to both of the councils in my local area, and it was certainly welcomed by my constituents.

The bill before the House today makes administrative changes to ensure that there are more effective provisions for major road and rail infrastructure projects, particularly those that are on and off the national network. It also makes more effective provision for the two programs I have just discussed—that is, the Roads to Recovery and Black Spot programs. For the Black Spot Program, the bill extends coverage of the Nation Building Program Black Spots Project to allow the minister to approve funding under part 7 of the act for projects on the national land transport network. Importantly, the bill also allows the minister to increase funding to Roads to Recovery projects if the minister sees fit. This flexibility is incredibly important, as currently no increases can be made during the funding period once the funding has been determined. This is impractical in the real world, where costs are not stagnant, and certainly not as stagnant as bureaucrats’ lists. We need to make these changes now in order to make sure that the government can deliver on its road and rail infrastructure program in the most efficient way.

The bill before us today is just one part of this government’s nation-building agenda. In addition, we have seen this government create Infrastructure Australia and the Building Australia Fund, which will also invest in major infrastructure projects. I am pleased that one of the projects announced in this budget is the rail extension from Noarlunga to Seaford. I have already mentioned this project a number of times in the House and I will do so again, because this project is critical to the outer metropolitan suburbs of Adelaide. It will create a significant benefit by reducing urban congestion and providing vital public transport infrastructure to those in the outer southern metropolitan suburbs of Adelaide. The outer metropolitan suburbs of Adelaide are growing, and they need this infrastructure. The corridor from Noarlunga to Seaford has existed for 30 years with no previous government doing anything about it.

There are a number of other nation-building projects that have also been mentioned in the budget. Another project in South Australia is the extension of the O-Bahn. The member for Makin has made it clear that he has been calling for this project. The member for Makin, who is here in the chamber—

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was here.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was here a moment ago; he is no longer here. The member for Makin informed me that previous speakers have said that this project was just dreamt up—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a D’Ath moment.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interjection from the shadow minister for environment and water suggested that that was an embarrassing moment. I am not sure what is more embarrassing: not investing in infrastructure or realising that someone is not in the chamber. I would say that it is pretty embarrassing not to have invested in infrastructure for so many years—not to have invested in infrastructure in southern Adelaide and not to have made a commitment to the extension of the O-Bahn, which the member for Makin has been calling for for many years. I would say that is pretty embarrassing.

This government’s Nation Building Program will address the previous government’s infrastructure deficit. We hear a lot of criticism from the opposition about deficit. They need to stand up and be counted about the deficit they left for this nation when it comes to infrastructure. They squandered the proceeds of the mining boom and did not invest in the critical infrastructure that we need today. The Seaford rail is just one example of a project that has been desperately cried out for. This is a project that the local residents association, the council and the state government have all wanted. I am very pleased that this is one of the many nation-building projects around the country that will be delivered. This program, along with the many other programs that have been announced in the budget, will support jobs today by investing in infrastructure that we need for tomorrow. The population is growing in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, and those people want and require this investment in infrastructure.

The bill will help support jobs in Kingston, it will help support local jobs in the southern Adelaide region and it will help employ people right across South Australia. The improvement of Main South Road and the Victor Harbor Road intersection is just one small part in the Rudd government’s investment in infrastructure across the country. The Rudd government is working with councils, working with state governments and cooperatively investing in our future. Along with other projects in southern Adelaide, this is of tremendous importance to the local area and to the economy of South Australia generally. This bill allows for a very effective way to provide these funds. This bill is very much about investing for the future and making sure that we have a nation that is prepared to the future. I have been overwhelmed by support from local residents, who have been clear that this is the type of investment that they want for the future because it shows that this government is planning for the future. It is planning not for five years, not for 10 years but for decades into the future. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

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

Given the short period between now and question time, I would like to make some introductory remarks on the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. I have a lot of comments that I will be making a bit later on, but one of the issues in nation building that I think the government has addressed and on which it does need to be congratulated is the recognition and financing of the tunnel through the Murrurundi Range. The Minister for Defence is one of many members who would be well aware that there are connectivity issues between the Liverpool Plains and New England as well as issues of transportation through to the port of Newcastle. Currently, a third coal loader is being constructed in Newcastle. That has always been a bit of a bottleneck for the coal industry, but one of the major and significant bottlenecks which has existed for many years is that mountain range between Murrurundi and Willow Tree. So I am absolutely delighted and would like to congratulate the government. The Minister for Defence is in the chamber now, and I acknowledge his role in relation to the Murrurundi Range. It is a much needed piece of infrastructure, which is finally being delivered.

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

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