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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (21) together:

(1)   Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 11 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

2  Subsection 4(1) (definition of approved funding recipient)

Omit “an AusLink National Project, an AusLink Transport Development and Innovation Project, an AusLink Strategic Regional Project or an AusLink Black Spot Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program National Project, a Nation Building Program Transport Development and Innovation Project, a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project or a Nation Building Program Black Spot Project”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 19 to 26), omit the item, substitute:

3  Subsection 4(1) (definition of approved purposes)

Omit “an AusLink National Project, an AusLink Transport Development and Innovation Project, an AusLink Strategic Regional Project or an AusLink Black Spot Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program National Project, a Nation Building Program Transport Development and Innovation Project, a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project or a Nation Building Program Black Spot Project”.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (lines 19 to 22), omit the item, substitute:

12  Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project has the meaning given by section 52.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 62, page 10 (lines 10 to 13), omit the item, substitute:

62  Part 6 (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

Part 6—Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Projects

(5)    Schedule 1, item 63, page 10 (lines 14 to 17), omit the item, substitute:

63  Division 1 of Part 6 (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

Division 1—Approval of projects as Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Projects

(6)    Schedule 1, item 64, page 10 (lines 18 to 22), omit the item, substitute:

64  Section 52

Omit “An AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “A Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

Note:                The heading to section 52 is altered by omitting “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project?” and substituting “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project?”.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 65, page 10 (lines 23 to 27), omit the item, substitute:

65  Subsection 53(1)

Omit “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

Note:                The heading to section 53 is altered by omitting “AusLink Strategic Regional Projects” and substituting “Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Projects”.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 66, page 10 (line 28) to page 11 (line 2), omit the item, substitute:

66  Sections 54 and 55

Omit “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 67, page 11 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 68, page 11 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 69, page 11 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 70, page 11 (lines 9 to 11), omit the item, substitute:

70  Subsection 56(1)

Omit “AusLink Strategic Regional Projects”, substitute “Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Projects”.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 71, page 11 (lines 12 to 14), omit the item, substitute:

71  Subsections 56(3) and (4)

Omit “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

(14)  Schedule 1, item 72, page 11 (lines 15 to 17), omit the item, substitute:

72  Subsections 57(1), (2) and (3)

Omit “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 73, page 11 (lines 18 to 20), omit the item, substitute:

73  Section 58

Omit “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

(16)  Schedule 1, item 74, page 11 (lines 21 to 23), omit the item, substitute:

74  Subsection 59(1)

Omit “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

(17)  Schedule 1, item 75, page 11 (lines 24 to 28), omit the item, substitute:

75  Subsection 60(1)

Omit “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

Note:                The heading to section 60 is altered by omitting “AusLink Strategic Regional Projects” and substituting “Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Projects”.

(18)  Schedule 1, item 76, page 11 (line 29) to page 12 (line 2), omit the item, substitute:

76  Subsection 61(1)

Omit “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

(19)  Schedule 1, item 77, page 12 (lines 3 to 5), omit the item, substitute:

77  Subsections 62(1) and (2)

Omit “an AusLink Strategic Regional Project”, substitute “a Nation Building Program Strategic Regional Project”.

(20)  Schedule 1, item 85, page 13 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item.

(21)  Schedule 1, item 86, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item.

These amendments are designed to preserve the original intent of the AusLink Strategic Regional Program and the Black Spot Program. They simply change the bill to restore these programs. We will allow the change of name from ‘AusLink’ to ‘Nation Building Program’, but we maintain the intent of the programs. As much as the opposition think that the changing of the program names from ‘AusLink’ to ‘nation building’ is all about spin and a complete waste of time, we will not stand in the way. If the government are so bent on pursuing their silly spin then that is their business. It is obvious to everyone that this is designed to purge from memory the names of highly successful road funding programs, like the Black Spot Program and the AusLink Strategic Regional Program, identified with the coalition.

Our amendments adjust the government’s changes to preserve the term ‘strategic regional project’ and, more importantly, it keeps the original wording in section 55 of the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 to ensure that, when the minister approves a nation-building strategic regional project, the minister must consider the regional benefit of that project. Unfortunately, the government, in its attempt to move transport infrastructure funding from the country to the cities, has removed this requirement in the bill. Similarly, opposition amendments (20) and (21) delete items 85 and 86 on page 13, lines 7 to 10, of the government’s bill that permit black spot projects to occur on the National Land Transport Network. These are simple changes that preserve the regional and local focus of these two vital elements of what was known as the AusLink program.

It is a shame that the opposition has to do this. It is a greater shame that the government is once again demonstrating its strong bias against country Australia by seeking to move road funding away from regional areas and into the cities.

I believe these amendments are reasonable and they should be supported by the government. Let us make it absolutely clear to the minister who put out the ridiculous media release this morning suggesting that the opposition was about blocking road projects: these amendments do not reduce spending on roads by a single dollar. These amendments do not reduce expenditure on roads by a single dollar, but they allow funds to be spent in areas where they have traditionally been spent under these programs. They enable projects to be undertaken on local roads and streets in country and city areas under the Black Spot Program, as they always have been. They allow the regional strategic program funding to be spent in the regions or on projects which have a regional benefit, as they always have been and as was always intended.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

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

Order! the member will be heard in silence.

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

In reality, the minister, by tabling in parliament the list of projects today that the government intends to fund—and it is the first time we have seen the list; it was not available just a day or two ago—proves that the government’s intent for this legislation is to shift money away from regional areas and into the cities. That is its intent: to take money from local projects and local accident spots and put it on the national highway, which the government should be adequately funding in the first place. The government is in effect stealing money from local streets, local roads and local projects to put on major projects on the national highway which will scoop up huge volumes of this money. Make no mistake, there will be many, many fewer projects funded under the Black Spot Program in the future than there were in the past because of the big-ticket items that the government is proposing to include in this item.

In relation to the regional projects, it is the same. We know that the Labor government are in trouble because their candidates at the last election were promising road projects all over the place and there is no funding available for those projects. So the Strategic Regional Program is to be changed to act as a slush fund for the Labor Party’s policy promises at the last election. Indeed, we have been told that $762.5 million of what is to be in this new off-network program has already been committed. Eighty-six per cent has already been committed to fund Labor’s election promises. But there was no avenue to fund them, because these projects were not eligible for funding under Black Spot or under the Strategic Regional Program. So they have got to change the program fundamentally; otherwise they have got a further funding shortfall. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary contribution from the Leader of the Nationals! The electorates in which black spots on the national program network are intended to be funded are on the list I tabled. Just to name one state, Victoria, there is: Mallee, Ballarat, Mallee, Gippsland, Ballarat, Murray, Wannon, Mallee, Mallee, Mallee, Murray, Wannon, Gippsland, Wills, Indi and Indi. They are the projects, the same projects that the member for Gippsland was up there saying should be funded and was having his photo in the local paper as a result of. Now the Leader of the National Party, his party, says they are a rort. It is absolutely extraordinary.

The Leader of the National Party knows that a number of dangerous black spots are indeed on the national network, particularly in areas where the national network goes through regional centres. That is what this change will recognise. His amendment seeks to stop this funding of the Black Spot Program that he has acknowledged is in record terms. We have more than doubled funding for black spots.

The second amendment goes to the Strategic Regional Program. The Leader of the National Party says that under the former government’s program, under the Strategic Regional Program, funding could not take place for urban roads. There was $2 million for the Campbell Parade upgrade at Bondi Beach, in the electorate of Wentworth, funded under the Strategic Regional Program. In the electorate of Bennelong there were at least three projects. In the electorate of Hasluck there was another project. In marginal electorates right around the country, funded by the National Party through the Strategic Regional Program, it was not about where the road was; it was about the margin of the electorate. It was about not the road map but the electoral map. That was the way that the previous government determined its road funding.

The record is there. The opportunism is exposed completely. I am not sure whether he is trying to mislead the House or whether it is simply that he has forgotten what the previous government did when it was in office. I say this to the member for Gippsland, who was in his local paper and who is in the chamber here: this amendment moved by the leader of his party would stop the funding of the black spot where he got the photo taken that was in his local paper, published last week. That is what it would do. So he needs to be very clear. He is on the spot here and he needs to be clear. If he votes for this amendment, he is voting against funding that black spot in his electorate, and he should tell the Leader of the National Party that he is simply wrong in this. He has simply got it wrong, because they have not come to terms with the fact that one of the reasons why they are on the opposition benches is their failure to invest in infrastructure over 12 long years of government.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak on the amendments moved by the Leader of the Nationals. This change of name from AusLink to the Nation Building Program should be changed to the ‘nation choking program’.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Shorten interjecting

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is looking at focusing more and more money on the cities. I know that the member for Maribyrnong is a bit off colour today—he is worried about who is going to play him in the upcoming movie—but we need to get back to what is vitally important and what is at the nub of this issue, and it is strategic road funding.

The minister just said that the previous government was not committed to infrastructure. That is blatantly untrue. I could name several of the strategic Roads to Recovery funded projects that have been greatly beneficial to people where there were not a large number of votes at all. An example is the Coonamble to Bingara Road funding. Not a lot of people live on that road. It was built to grow that part of the state. The people of Pilliga can now get their children to school because they have a bitumen road due to this funding. The people of Bingara now have access to more tourism dollars because of the road—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

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

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question put.

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

Order! It being 2.06 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.