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

Mr Speaker, in the absence of the scheduled speaker, I would like to speak. I am assuming that is okay.

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

The member for Dawson has the call because he rose and, on the rotation of the call, he gets the call.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is central to the effective delivery of the Rudd Labor government’s $26.4 billion road and rail program, our Nation Building program, and is essential to our national interest. The bill proposes changes to ensure more effective provisions for major road and rail infrastructure projects on the national network, as well as off the network, and more effective provisions for the Roads to Recovery program and the Black Spot Program.

The Rudd Labor government is delivering for Dawson, delivering on real nation-building infrastructure for the 21st century. We are delivering what those on the other side failed to do, year after year, whilst in government. The passing of this bill will enable the full implementation of the nation-building program to properly proceed. We are getting on with the job of nation building—of building up now, not later, desperately needed infrastructure to ensure we have world-class facilities for a world-class economy.

My electorate of Dawson in particular was well served by the government’s focus on delivering infrastructure spending now, not later. With targeted investment now to create more jobs and to protect our economy—an economy affected by the global financial crisis, which, as we remember, started in the USA—we will come out on top and in form as a nation. I am especially pleased that the bill will enable the effective delivery of the additional black spot funding allocated through the Nation Building and Jobs Package. Nationally, this bill will allow $8.5 billion in rail, roads and ports infrastructure for Australia to lift productivity.

We believe it is important to invest in nation building today to support jobs and provide infrastructure for tomorrow. The Rudd Labor government will invest $35 billion over six years on transport infrastructure. The Howard government, by contrast, failed to deliver on Australia’s infrastructure needs and left us with an infrastructure deficit. This is a government that listens and acts.

In Queensland alone we are investing $7.3 billion through the nation building program. This includes work on the Townsville port access road, in my electorate, and the upgrade of the southern approach to Mackay, in my electorate. There is also $1.75 billion in the Roads to Recovery program; $500 billion in the Black Spot Program, and additional investment in this program through our stimulus packages is seeing an additional 607 black spots addressed right across the nation; $70 million in the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program; and $150 million in the Boom Gates for Rail Crossings Program.

In my electorate alone, three Black Spot Program projects worth $152,000 are delivered in the budget. Alligator Creek on the Bruce Highway is receiving $100,000; Ivory Road in the town of Ayr is receiving $40,000; and Cape Hillsborough Road in Seaforth is receiving $12,000. That is three programs in Dawson delivered by the Rudd Labor government this year. But that is not all—there is more. Dawson will receive four boom gates for rail crossings, including those on Maraju-Yakapari Road in Mackay, on Gorman Street in Mackay and on Drysdale Street in Ayr, boosting safety and providing residents with real outcomes. Dawson and surrounding electorates are the recipients of six Nation Building projects, worth $62.7 million, including two new projects: maintenance works on the Bruce Highway between Sarina and Cairns in 2009-10, $30 million; and safety enhancement works in known accident zones between Sarina and Cairns, also in 2009-10, $10 million. These two projects will total $40 million in 2009-10 and $255 million by 2014. With the continuation of the strategic corridor program, the Townsville Port Access Road, the Burdekin Bridge maintenance and rehabilitation and the Bruce Highway southern approach to Mackay making up the remainder, these are projects promised and delivered for the seat of Dawson.

These projects cannot be delayed by those opposite, those without the ideas, without the vision that this country needs. I am proud to be in a government that delivers real infrastructure—not just promises, not just lip service but real dollars to invest and build the nation’s infrastructure for tomorrow, creating jobs now in the process. I am proud to be a part of a Rudd Labor government that is building Australia’s future today. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill will simply rename and rebadge the coalition government’s very successful AusLink road funding program and name it the ‘Nation Building Program’—once again, a demonstration of the spin used by this government to create the erroneous impression that nation-building initiatives and policies are new. Clearly, they are not new, as the Australian people well know. This government inherited the very successful AusLink program established by the coalition government. The name change was announced at the special Council of Australian Governments meeting on 5 February 2009.

The previous coalition government had a long history of funding state road expenditure, whether it was for national highways as identified under AusLink or local, rural and regional roads under the Roads to Recovery program. The coalition government introduced AusLink, which came into effect in the financial year 2004-05 and consisted of corridors of linked national highways and rail links. It was then extended to focus on rail, road and intermodal transport links to major city ports and airports. The program was further extended to include ports that were the final link in the export chain. The subsequent programs, such as Roads to Recovery and the Black Spot Program, were incorporated into AusLink. Then the strategic regional program was added. Finally, AusLink established a long-term mutimodal planning framework called the National Land Transport Plan, which was the basis for the investment in the national network.

The coalition government’s AusLink program was very successful because it recognised that councils in local government areas were best placed to directly identify and prioritise maintenance for local roads, whether it be uneven edges, fixing potholes from recent flooding, bridge repairs or grading, levelling or bituminising roads to ensure community safety. This work was funded under the Roads to Recovery program and Black Spot funding for identified accident sites. Initially these funds were directed to the various state governments—Labor state governments, I might add—to distribute to local shires. However, a proportion of these funds were reprioritised within the Labor state governments and distributed to metropolitan areas for other activities, not necessarily targeted at repairing roads. As a consequence the funds did not necessarily reach the local shires. When this became apparent, the coalition took the decision to direct this road funding straight to the local shires to ensure that their much-needed roadworks could be funded and the work completed in a timely manner, as identified by those in the local and regional communities.

Funding directed to land transport networks by this Labor government emanate from funds set aside from the previous coalition government’s surplus budget. The Australian people are well aware that this expenditure is only possible as a result of the coalition’s 10 years of responsible economic management, paying off Labor’s $96 billion debt as well as investing in productive infrastructure. Many of the Labor government’s infrastructure promises and funding announcements are actually previously announced projects funded from budget allocations under the previous coalition government. The Perth-Bunbury Highway is one example. I am pleased to inform the House that this highway is now called the Forrest Highway, named after Baron John Forrest, the first Premier of Western Australia. My electorate is also named after John Forrest. However, the previous government had announced the Perth-Bunbury Highway project, now the Forrest Highway project, and had allocated funding. Procrastination and obstruction by the then Labor state Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Alannah MacTiernan did not assist in expediting the actual construction. Notwithstanding previous announcements by the coalition government, and a start date of December 2006, the Labor government in their 2008-09 budget announcements claimed the project as their own and re-announced the previously allocated $160 million funding.

The bill also makes a number of changes to funding arrangements that apply to projects funded under the Nation Building Program. The amendments to section 71 of the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 allow sites that are on the National Land Transport Network to become eligible for black spot funding. Currently, that is not the case. Black Spot Program funding was always intended to be allocated for projects on local roads and streets.

This bill will also allow AusLink strategic regional projects—now termed the Nation Building Program—to fund non-regional projects. This government is continuously removing vital resources and critical funding from rural and regional Australia. Amendments in this bill will allow metropolitan areas access to Black Spot funding and the Strategic Regional Program funding that was previously quarantined for use on our vast networks of regional and rural roads. Another example of the government’s discrimination against regional Australia is the changes to the youth allowance affecting gap year students from regional areas, who will now not qualify for youth allowance when they have to move to study at metropolitan universities to continue their tertiary education.

The name change in this bill is a political one in nature. It is simply seeking to rebadge a successful coalition national transport program. It also seeks to mislead by creating the false impression that the Labor government is increasing spending on more new infrastructure programs than is actually happening. The bill moves the Black Spot Program away from local roads and streets to a competitive funding environment with the substantially national highway system. Changing the strategic regional component of AusLink to fund projects in non-regional locations completely alters the intent of AusLink funding and will shift even more federal funding from regional areas into the city areas. I am, therefore, opposed to the change to the Roads to Recovery program, the Black Spot Program and the strategic regional projects, as they alter the regional focus of these highly successful programs.

This decision ignores the fact that Auslink was a strategic regional program designed to assist regional local governments with building better transport networks to support industry, tourism and economic development. It was funding to foster partnerships between the federal government and regional Australia by providing funding to those worthwhile infrastructure related projects in areas not on the national land transport network. Given the productivity of the regions, this was a very important, on-the-ground delivery of funding in the areas which drive Australia’s export performance. It has only been the strong export performance of the agricultural sector that has kept Australia out of technical recession in recent months.

This product emanates from the region. This is the reason the dedicated regional productive infrastructure funding is needed through an Auslink program. Funding for such infrastructure related projects is vital to my regional Forrest electorate, and I strongly believe that regional shire councils should not have to compete with metropolitan areas for such funding. This will not provide a level playing field to compete with funds because high traffic volumes and numbers of votes in urban areas will subtract funds from those high-value freight areas on regional roads.

This also raises road safety issues for regional road users. I refer the House to an article by the RAC in Western Australia, dated 22 January 2008, in which it called for ‘a major cash injection’ on road infrastructure ‘after it was revealed there are nearly 1,000 kilometres of substandard highways in WA’. The RAC report identified ‘the state’s worst 10 sections of highway’. The majority of them were in the south-west of Western Australia.

The worst rated section of road was a 73km stretch of the South West Highway—

which was in my electorate before the boundary changes—

between Yornup, south of Bridgetown, to Shannon, south of Manjimup.

The other most-dangerous section of road was identified as ‘the Bussell Highway between Cowaramup and Margaret River—one of the major tourist routes in the south-west’. The roads were identified as inferior and dangerous, with crumbling or gravel edges, faded markings, poor lighting, short overtaking lanes, and overgrown vegetation and large trees causing roadside hazards. Continued maintenance of our south-west and regional roads is paramount for community safety. I do not support this bill in its removal of critical funding from regional Australia.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009, which is a bill that seeks to amend and rename the Auslink (National Land Transport) Act 2005. But it is more than just a change of name; it represents a change in the direction that the Rudd government has made in the approach to road and rail investment. It represents a far more comprehensive, flexible and fair system of going about funding land transport in this country. In the last 18 months we have seen the Rudd government move away from the narrow-cast Auslink program, because this is a government which is about looking after all Australians. Nation building allows for the investment in road and rail infrastructure whether it is part of the national network or not. This is about building a land transport system across regional and metropolitan Australia. This is about putting into place a land transport system which acknowledges and understands the integrated nature of regional and metropolitan transport.

A perfect example of that is one project which is being funded under this program within my electorate of Corio: the $50 million upgrade of the connection between the national rail gauge and the grain port in the Port of Geelong. Geelong’s northern suburbs really represent one of the best pieces of transport and logistics land in Australia. There we have located near each other the national rail gauge, an airport, a seaport and Highway 1, all in a geographically strategic part of the country and all surrounded by land that can be used for transport and logistics providers. The issue has always been the connection between those different modes of transport. One of the connections which will be put in place as a part of this program is the $50 million loop which will allow an easy access into the grain pier for both southerly-bound and easterly-bound trains. It will avoid the complicated process which is currently involved in turning southerly-bound trains around. It will save something in the order of 20 minutes per train in getting that train into the grain pier. It represents the possibility of more trains being able to get into the grain pier and, potentially, of a different mix of products being able to leave the Port of Geelong.

That is a really good example which shows that this spending is being done in a way which connects regional, metro and country Australia, and it is a very good example of what this program is all about. This program will also provide, for the first time, federal government investment in delivering safer rail crossings, an area which previously had been a state responsibility. The federal government has never previously invested in boom gates. Last year there were 28 collisions in the state of Victoria, nine of which resulted in fatalities. The federal government is now funding safety upgrades for 58 Victorian rail crossings. One of them is in my electorate, on Geelong Ballan Road at Moorabool. Right now there exists just a set of flashing lights there, but there will be boom gates put in place which will make that a much safer crossing. Overall, the government is funding 292 new boom gates and other safety measures at high-risk rail crossings around the country. This, combined with the Regional Rail Express in Victoria—the $3.2 billion project being funded by the Commonwealth to provide for separation between metropolitan and country trains going into Melbourne, which will be an enormous boon for the many thousands of people in Geelong who commute into Melbourne on a daily basis—represents the kind of investment into the transport infrastructure of this country that we have not seen for a very long time indeed.

For the last 11 or 12 years of the Howard government, we saw a government which was sitting on its hands when it came to land transport infrastructure. If indeed the opposition ultimately rejects this bill then that is an effective vote against the Nation Building Program. It is an effective vote against the Black Spot Program, it is an effective vote against the Boom Gates for Rail Crossings Program, it is an effective vote against the Roads to Recovery program, it is an effective vote against the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, it is a vote against the investment of this government into the transport infrastructure of this country and it is a vote against the economic recovery of this nation. It is for these reasons that I am supporting this bill and I very much urge the opposition to do the same.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is all spin and no shovel. I say it is all spin and no shovel because the primary function of this bill is to change a name—to change the name from the AusLink National Project to the Nation Building Program National Project; to change AusLink Transport Development and Innovation Project to the Nation Building Transport Development and Innovation Project; to change the AusLink Strategic Regional Project to the Nation Building Program Off-Network Project; to change the AusLink Black Spot Program to the Nation Building Program Black Spot Project; to change the AusLink Roads to Recovery program name to Nation Building Program Roads to Recovery. This is all spin and no shovel. This will create business and work for printers and bureaucrats and very little for the community. I want to give you a classic example of why I say that. I quote from the Bills Digest, which says:

The Rudd Government subsumed Auslink into its Nation Building Program and expanded it to include boom gates for rail crossings and rest areas for heavy vehicles. Still, it seems that in 2009-10, land transport infrastructure funding will be lower than in 2008-09 by about $2 billion ($6 436 million less $ 4 427 million) as shown in Table 2. This seems to be at odds with providing fiscal stimulus to the economy during the recession.

I suppose that every government deserves to tag and brand what it does, but the statements by the previous speaker that the government did absolutely nothing in its 12 years are untrue. The former government established AusLink and AusLink 2, which was the first time that we had a nationally established program consolidated for funding. The previous Commonwealth government, under Howard, also took over the rail corridors and made sure that spending in investment, particularly in the Hunter, was concentrated because of the years of neglect from the state government, and in that I particularly point to the years of the Carr, then Iemma and now Rees government in New South Wales where investment in infrastructure was terribly neglected because, at the same time, the state Labor government in New South Wales was ripping out all the coal royalties and the biggest problem was actually getting our coal to the port and then exporting it.

As I said, this is the all-spin-and-no-shovel program designed to brand it so that this government can take control. But this bill also reminds me much of the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure program, where programs and money were set aside for people in regional and rural Australia. But it was this Labor government that, prior to the election as part of its nation building, decided to take the $2 billion set aside in a trust fund of which the interest could be spent only on rural and regional telecommunications infrastructure and consumed it into the consolidated revenue, I suppose in part to fund the massive debt that this government has created. This government is all about debt. It is about debt and spend.

What concerns me is the hypocrisy that flies fast with this government. I want to bring to account a project which is now called the ‘Hunter Freeway’. People in the Hunter have not worked it out yet, because they still call it the F3 link. The F3 is a road that started many years ago and, for the life of me, it escapes me how under any government—state or federal—there was never consideration or serious determination of the actual link from down the Wahroonga end to the M2. You spend all your time getting down the F3 only to be stuck in a traffic jam. In the northern area, the F3 link road or now the ‘Hunter Freeway’ is an interesting piece of infrastructure where politics has played supreme. According to the Senate estimates and responses from the minister for infrastructure’s own department, I would like to state to the House and make sure it is on the record that in a written response to question II 40 that Senator Nash asked about the study into the transport needs of the lower Hunter, it stated:

A proposed route for an external bypass of Maitland was announced by then federal minister for transport the Hon P Morris in 1983 as a part of the National Highway between Sydney and Brisbane.

Extensive works were undertaken on the proposal, resulting in a recommendation for further investigation into significant changes to the overall concept of the project, due to constraints such as the requirement for long crossings of flood-prone wetland. This resulted in the proposed external bypass route being abandoned in favour of the Kurri Kurri corridor (Seaham to Braxton via Kurri Kurri)—which has been called the F3 link and is now called the Hunter Freeway—which was endorsed by the Federal Minister for Transport in 1993.

The preferred route was announced in May 1994 by the New South Wales government and the EIS was exhibited in August/September 1995. The New South Wales Minister for Planning approved the route and design, subject to 129 Commonwealth conditions and 15 New South Wales conditions, on 7 November 2001.

And this is perhaps the most important part—

The RTA’s modified design for the project to reduce the environmental impact, including minor changes to the route alignment, received planning approval in August 2007.

Despite the fact that the coalition had provided $107 million to the government of New South Wales for planning, property acquisitions—and I understand that all but two of the affected properties in this 40-kilometre corridor have been acquired—the reality is that physical, groundbreaking work could not have commenced until August 2007. With that in mind, on 9 November 2007, Jim Lloyd—who was then Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads—announced that an additional $780 million on top of the $107 million would be provided for the project. Immediately everyone thought that this was wonderful, including the Support the Link or Sink Group. That group is headed by Fred Brown, who is a long-time stalwart of the Labor Party who made his politics very clear but also made it clear that this road was more important to him than party politics.

I would like to report a chronology of events that were reported in the local papers. On 6 November 2007 the Maitland Mercury reported:

Mr Fitzgibbon was a long-time advocate for the F3 to Branxton Link Road but he was longer convinced it was the best option for the area and he wanted a new independent assessment of the project.

A couple of days after the election, the newspaper reported that Mr Fitzgibbon—who had been a long-term, no-holds-barred campaigner for the road—was:

… no longer convinced it was the best option for the area and he wanted a new independent assessment of the project.

In his first interview after the election, the newspaper reports that Mr Fitzgibbon was asked: ‘Is the F3 link still the best and right solution for our traffic problems?’ and he answered, ‘Maybe yes, but we don’t know.’ Such was the confusion of the member for Hunter, who was so strong and so blind in his support for the road, that two days after coming into government—when he finally had to deliver something—he did not know what he should do. The newspaper article went on to quote Mr Fitzgibbon, who said that there could be a cheaper and better option but:

I’ve asked the minister to review the cost … I will continue to take up the fight.

The reality is that the community never lost its passion. We went through the façade of Minister Albanese, the member for Hunter, and the then state Treasurer, Michael Costa—and, indeed, the whole Labor apparatchik—coming up to this big powerhouse meeting and the best that the community got was: ‘We didn’t know whether this would happen.’ On 18 February, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, told this parliament that the project did not add up.

There was all a downplay of expectations, and they announced a package of $800,000 from the Commonwealth government and $200,000 from the New South Wales government. Mr Fitzgibbon thought that it was a great victory that he had secured a million dollars to determine whether the F3 should be built. The Cessnock Advertiser at the time stated:

Mr Fitzgibbon described the meeting as successful and that for the first time we have the State and Federal Governments talking to one another constructively.

So proud was he that he boasted:

We have also secured $1 million ($800,000 from the Commonwealth and $200,000 from the NSW Government) to fund a review of both the cost of the F3 link to Branxton and whether it is the best and most cost-effective solution to our traffic issues.

These are the facts as put to the meeting. First, the F3 link was conceived in the mid 1980s and there have been big changes in traffic movements and residential and commercial settlement patterns since then. Second, the cost of the project is now $1,700 million ($1.7 billion) and it has a very low benefit to cost ratio (meaning it provides tax-payers with a low-value solution). Third, notwithstanding these facts, we should not rule out the F3 link as a solution …

So what we have is: the minister for transport and local government, Mr Albanese, says that it does not add up. The local member, the member for Hunter, says that he is not convinced now; that the project has been going for too long and that he is not sure that it would add up. It was included in the AusLink 2 package by the current government but managed to come in on an ad hoc basis on budget night. For 18 years he was a passionate advocate that the road had to be built—mind you, it did not get the sign-off on the EIS until August 2007—and then, on coming to the treasury bench, the member for Hunter had a dramatic change of heart and all of a sudden it was not the best solution. We all know how he handles the Defence budget and the people in there, so it is no surprise that he has changed his mind and cannot understand where he is going with this.

At least I was honest with the people about the F3 link road. It is not in my electorate. It benefits my electorate but it does not come into my electorate. I have always said to the people that the Pacific Highway is the main road in my electorate. On being elected in 1996 and continuing until now, I always said that once the Pacific Highway upgrade in my electorate had started or was locked in, then I would start to change and support the F3 link road. Prior to the last election, the Pacific Highway upgrade was nearing completion and it was time to divert some support and attention to this project. As you would know in your own position and the work that you have done on the Hume Highway, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, it is very hard to push for roads outside your electorate when your constituents expect you to focus on roads within your electorate. What we have seen is a change from ‘Yes, I support it’ to ‘Now, I’m not sure. It’s a lot of money—the cost-benefit analysis does not shape up.’ I welcome the funding, because we had committed to it as a government.

The Support the Link or Sink Group convenor, Fred Brown, wrote a letter to me. It reads:

Dear Sir,

At the final meeting of the above Group—

that is, the Support the Link or Sink Group—

It was resolved that I write to you to express our appreciation of your help. I am pleased to acceed to that resolution.

While we were an apolitical group our aim was purely political go get funding for the F3-New England highways link. We reasoned your involvment was mainly political but your effort was also driven by the absolute need for the link. Maybe after Weakleys Drive.

It appears that the Coalition always intended to build the Link after completion of the Albury by-pass. The fact that preconstruction was almost complete and the job was ready to go proved crucial.

We thank you for your effort and wish you well in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Fred Brown.

Fred Brown is politically diametrically opposed to me but he is a person that I have a lot of respect for because he put the people of his region well above party politics. He was admonished by many in the Labor Party for stating in the media to all and sundry during the last election that if they wanted the road built they should vote for the coalition.

It is 18 months on and we are in the middle of the economic crisis, as the Prime Minister keeps reminding us. He talks down the economy so much that this has now become not the global financial crisis but Kev’s financial crisis. He cannot talk down an economy and destroy confidence without it having a dire effect. But this project has been ready to go for 18 months and we see this spin-and-no-shovel bill debated in the House today. This work could have been tendered out and started and we would have seen jobs committed. The member for Hunter has been deliberately misleading people in the electorate by saying that this project will be completed in four years. I put it to you that the budget papers state clearly that the funding for this project will be over six years. So the member for Hunter cannot even read the budget papers. You cannot keep spinning people all the time. You are either committed to the project or you are not.

The other thing of question in the budget papers is how there is an amount of money allocated in the first year, next year, and there is an amount of money allocated in the final year, the sixth year, but there is no specific allocation for any of the four years between. So we do not know whether it will be front-end loaded to get jobs on the ground and make sure that more people are employed, to get our area and the country through this economic crisis, or whether it will be back-ended, because with the amount of debt that this government has created it will not be able to financially commit to the road project quickly.

An amount of $1.4 billion is a lot of money, but if this government were serious about having a positive impact on our community and creating jobs, as we see with the photos the Prime Minister splashes around in this parliament, why wasn’t the funding loaded at the very front end? Why isn’t a major amount of money provided right at the very beginning? This 40-kilometre road project could be broken up between two, three or even four contractors, all starting at the same time at different sections of the road to get the road built as quickly as possible. The reality is that what we are seeing is more spin and not a lot of shovel. I would ask the government to seriously consider making sure that the investment is made at the front end and not at the back end.

The second point that concerns me in relation to this bill is the change to black spot funding. What concerns me about the change to the black spot funding it is not only the name change but the fact that, for the first time, projects that would normally come under the national highway system as part of the broader government program will now be included in these projects. I can only speak highly of the black spot funding. My electorate has received a very generous amount of money because the roads were in appalling conditions and there were a lot of tragedies. I remind the House that it was the former Labor government that actually abolished the black spots funding program. It was reintroduced to this parliament by Tim Fischer in his role. It is a program that has received continual funding. I only encourage that to be continued because, as people travel greater distances and as some roads improve and others remain in the same condition, people do not change their driving habits and we will see an increase in the number of accidents.

It is also disappointing that in this program of funding we have not seen an increase in funding for roads like Buckets Way. Buckets Way was funded by the coalition government initially under a Roads of National Importance project but it needs more funding. The coalition has provided around $26 million in Roads of National Importance and black spot funding for this road and the state government has contributed very little. It is very unfortunate that on Saturday a week ago there was another fatality on Buckets Way. I heard the transport minister here talking about funding for a road in Queensland that did not fit the criteria and admonishing people for questioning it because there had been fatalities on that road. I say to the minister: Buckets Way is a dangerous road. The upgrades have been very much welcomed, but it is changing driving habits. People are driving a little more recklessly at times and consideration of funding needs to be provided.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk about the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. I was listening with interest to the member for Paterson’s statements. On every occasion that I hear the member for Paterson talking about infrastructure it is always negative, negative, negative. It is interesting that he is almost labelling his own coalition as the party of spin and no shovel. There is an interesting joke going around the House: how do you confuse the coalition on nation building programs? The joke goes something like this: you line up three shovels and tell them to take their pick. Listening to the member for Paterson it is clear that he is confused about what we are trying to do as a government.

The Rudd government has committed to major projects, and these projects were announced in the budget. My electorate of Forde was one of those electorates which missed out severely in the previous 12 years of the coalition. Under the coalition, when we talked about road infrastructure, the excuse for not providing infrastructure planning and funding to an area like Forde was simply that it was not considered part of the national effort. The electorate of Forde has the standard rail gauge running right through the electorate. This government has made a commitment very recently and further commitments will be made.

This bill is not simply about changing the name; it is also about bringing the country together and looking at the total land transport effort across this country. As I said, the standard rail gauge runs through my electorate of Forde, and I have spoken many times in this House about that particular piece of infrastructure. The government has recently announced a $100 million upgrade to that piece of infrastructure—$55 million in my electorate and, over the border, another $45 million to what is called the Kyogle loop. It is a very important piece of rail infrastructure. Supplemented with some of the road investment, this will hugely benefit the transport effort in South-East Queensland and the stakeholders in the region.

The Rudd government talks about the three tiers or the three spheres of government working together—federal, state and local government working together. I attended a meeting on Friday with our local council, the Scenic Rim Regional Council, headed by Mayor John Brent. John has been to the national capital on a number of occasions and certainly as part of the Australian Council of Local Governments. He is very, very interested in what we can do with the three tiers of government working together. Last week the state transport minister, Rachel Nolan, announced the release of a draft report on the southern transport network investigation. This is essentially about how governments can work together to not only provide the funding and build the infrastructure but also plan future use. I applaud the state minister for putting forward this document. It has been a long time since that source information was updated. The state minister, Rachel Nolan, has asked that stakeholders—whether government stakeholders or private investment stakeholders—to put forward their views on the transport needs of that region. So we have not only a state government doing their part and talking to local government about their local needs but also a federal government that has a system, a process and a series of programs that will deliver vital infrastructure to the regions—and certainly to the region of Forde.

We hear the coalition talk about negativity. We understand and appreciate what governments do when they are in office, but we now have a Rudd government. We have committed to a continuation of what was always Labor government policy in terms of nation building. If we look at the Keating initiatives, we see that the standard rail gauge program way back then was all about linking the nation and ensuring that we get the best and most efficient use out of our land transport. On that basis, I would like to commend this bill to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise on this chilly day in Canberra to speak to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. Changing the name from AusLink to the Nation Building Program is really a name change that is unnecessary. It will add costs in terms of the signage of roads around Australia—rather than building roads around Australia. In many ways, this is just a political stunt from the Labor Party, desperate to make themselves look as though they are doing something out there, when in fact, when you look at the fine print, the devil in the detail, you find that there will be less money spent over a longer period of time than had been committed under the AusLink program by the coalition government.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not true.

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

Rubbish!

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

Order! The member for Maranoa has the call.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know it hurts those on the other side when they start to read the fine print of the bill before the House and realise that they too have not been told the truth by the Treasurer. I would advise them to have a look at the bill and gain an understanding of what it really means and where the money will be spent.

This is a government that in just 18 months has turned a budget surplus upside down. Australia, in the coming financial year, is facing a $58 billion budget deficit. That is an astounding turnaround of some $78 billion in 18 months. It is almost beyond belief. It must be beyond belief for the mums and dads out there trying to comprehend how anyone could turn a household budget or, in this case, the federal budget into such a deficit in 18 months when they had money in the bank. It is just beyond belief. In fact, a child born today will have stamped on their birth certificate a $9,000 debt, compliments of the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Labor Party. It will be stamped on their birth certificate. As they arrive in this world as an Australian citizen—

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

Mr Craig Thomson interjecting

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

Order! If the member for Dobell persists, I will name him.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As they arrive in this world as an Australian citizen, stamped on their birth certificate will be: ‘I owe the federal government $9,000.’ That is the inheritance they will get from Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan. They will ultimately have to pay off that debt, as will every other man, woman and child. They will have to pay off this massive debt that has been built up in 18 short months—and, as we read the budget papers, we find there is more to come.

The Labor Party loves those emotive words—it is all about the spin and the television image at night. We have heard about the education revolution. They love to make these grand announcements that require no follow-through. Before the last election, under their education revolution, they proposed a computer for every school student. That was the commitment from the Prime Minister—out there with a computer in hand, with a little backdrop, all stage-managed. What has happened? Now it is a computer for every second student. And who is going to have to pick up the maintenance and the ongoing costs? The schools themselves. So much for the education revolution—say something before the election and then wind it back after the election.

Labor do not really have to worry about following through with the apparent new language of their fandangled new nation-building program. The Liberal and National coalition government already had laid out the framework through AusLink for the future of road and rail and port access and infrastructure in Australia. It was the Liberal-National coalition that established AusLink in 2005. It was Australia’s first national transport framework to provide long-term planning and funding. AusLink I ran from 2004-05 through to 2008-09. AusLink II was scheduled to begin in the forthcoming financial year, from 2009 through until 2014. Under AusLink we spent more on infrastructure than any other federal government since Federation. They are the facts. That is on the record. Under AusLink some $15 billion was allocated over a five-year period. After we had done the hard work, the hard yards of paying off that $96 billion of Labor debt, we put the budget in surplus and we were then able to put more money into infrastructure across Australia without incurring more debt for future generations. AusLink II, as it was to be called, would have seen some $31 billion allocated to transport infrastructure across Australia.

Despite the Labor Party trying to call a spade something else—they often talk about these ‘shovel-ready’ programs, which sounds good on the media at night—Labor are ignoring the road and rail needs of regional Australia. Despite all their rhetoric about nation building in the 2009-10 financial year, funding for land transport infrastructure will be lower in 2008-09 by about $2 billion. They have taken the dollars and stretched them out further, rebadged the program, called it nation building, but when you go to the detail you find the devil. The Treasurer’s fingers are all over it, stripping the money away and stretching it out over a longer period of time. The Prime Minister and his transport minister keep claiming that they are stimulating the economy through infrastructure funding. Yet, while they are happy to throw fistfuls of cash in the form of $900 cheques to people who may have worked in Australia for six months but now live overseas, they have taken away money from important road projects. For instance, there is no funding for major infrastructure programs in rural Queensland. In Minister Albanese’s second reading speech, he boasts of projects being funded in Queensland. Well, I went and had a look. The furthest west the funding goes is Ipswich—half an hour west of the Brisbane CBD. I should invite the minister out to show him where the real resource centre of Australia is, and that there is more to Queensland than just the south-east corner. There is a lot more to Queensland than that, as I am sure the member for Dawson would agree.

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

Absolutely!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I advise the member for Dawson to support me because I know he and the people he represents in this place live well west of Ipswich and well north of Noosa. My electorate of Maranoa, under the coalition’s plan, under AusLink II, would have received some $40 million for the Gore Highway, which is an important link between Goondiwindi and Toowoomba. It is the road that links Toowoomba through to Brisbane, goes out through Goondiwindi and then through the Murray-Darling Basin, the great food bowl of our nation. We had $40 million committed, and that would have started to be rolled out in the 2009-10 year to upgrade that highway. AusLink would have provided some $20 million for the Cunningham Highway. So often the Cunninghams Gap road that links Brisbane through to Warwick and the New England Highway down to Sydney experiences rock falls, and the traffic can be delayed for days because of that. That $20 million would have addressed that problem. I re-emphasise the fact that it is a vital Queensland inland link road between Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.

AusLink would have provided some $128 million for the important Warrego Highway. The Warrego Highway might start at Ipswich but it goes a long way west of Ipswich. It goes all the way out almost to Charleville. We would have provided some $128 million for the highway. It is an important corridor because it links Brisbane not only to Mount Isa but also to Darwin. It is also a very strategic defence link for this nation, and it should not be ignored. We said we would put $128 million into that road. Before the election the federal government committed some $55 billion for that road. It is not enough, and yet I do welcome that $55 million albeit that it is a long way short of what is required for that very important road link between Brisbane and Darwin, feeding out into the whole Surat coal seam and coal basin which is providing so much wealth for our nation, so much tax revenue for the Commonwealth. Of course, all Australians benefit from the development of the resources sector.

Quite apart from the need to upgrade the road between Roma and Mitchell, type 2 road trains—I am sure you would be interested in this, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz—bring cattle from as far away as Kununurra in Western Australia. They come through the Northern Territory, they come through north-west Queensland, all the way down to Roma, the largest store cattle selling centre in the southern hemisphere. Why do they travel more than seven days to bring cattle to a market in type 2 road trains? Because they can get a better margin bringing them to that market. This Warrego Highway between Roma and Mitchell needs, we are told, $50 million to $60 million, maybe more. We, as a coalition, had committed some $128 million to upgrade the length of the highway from west of Toowoomba right through to Mitchell.

Currently the type 2 road trains could have been travelling for more than a week with not just cattle but also general goods, freight and perishables. They have to decouple their loads at Mitchell and leave a trailer behind then the trailers are taken separately by prime mover into the Roma saleyards. They then have to come back and collect the other trailer where they decoupled it. It is in the middle of almost nowhere and there is no security there. It is a pad where the trucks decouple. In fact for the beef industry it adds some $12 per beast just to bring cattle the last 90 kilometres on those trailers. Yet they could have come from Western Australia all the way to the market in Roma. The beef industry in Queensland is our second largest export by value, exported out of the state. It deserves to have the road upgraded between Mitchell and Roma so that we are not adding costs but are reducing costs for the very important beef industry. I say once again to the minister: let us get on with the job and make sure that we do have the money to upgrade the road from Mitchell to Roma.

Of course, then we can deal with safety issues on the road east of Roma right through to Toowoomba including the second range crossing. The second range crossing at Toowoomba is a very important link that the coalition had committed some $700 million towards. It is important because it is, once again, the link of Goondiwindi to Toowoomba and of Darwin through Mount Isa, Roma, Toowoomba and the Port of Brisbane. Right now, because of the failure of the state government to invest in rail infrastructure and rail rolling stock, nearly all the grain that has been harvested there over the last two years has been carried on road transport through Toowoomba to the Port of Brisbane.

Two important coalmines just near Dalby, one at Acland and one at Macalister, are now seeing some of their capacity not moving exclusively on rail but on road. It is an absolute scandal and once again the failure of Labor government planning; in this case the state government of Queensland. It is failure to plan to meet the resource needs and the road infrastructure needs to service these very important resource centres in my electorate. The trucks that go through Toowoomba, had there been a return of the coalition government, could certainly have been travelling on the new alternate route around Toowoomba, which would have removed all the heavy traffic—the grain trucks, the cattle trucks and the coal trucks that now go through the beautiful city of Toowoomba. Once again there has been no commitment from the Labor Party. They are not interested in the resource sector and have put no money in this forward nation-building program to invest in the second range crossing.

A further commitment the coalition had to regional Australia was that we announced $300 million in a development road funding program, which would have recognised the importance of those resources in the rural and remote parts of Australia. I refer to my own electorate in the Diamantina and Barcoo shires. Those long beef roads not only are beef roads today but are going out to the Cooper Basin into the oil and gas fields there. When you see some of the infrastructure being taken in there, oil rigs and pipes, and the development of this very important resource sector quite apart from the beef industry, we recognise the importance of these roads. We recognise the importance of rural and remote building infrastructure and of improving the road infrastructure in remote parts of Australia. We in fact announced some $20 million for the Birdsville development road and the Diamantina development road. That would have been on the back of other funding that we had put in place whilst we were in government. So I say, once again, it is another failure of this government. They are high on rhetoric, short on delivery and fail to recognise the need to build infrastructure in rural and remote parts of Australia where the great wealth of our nation is contained.

Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, you would be aware that that part of Australia has seen some massive floods that are now flowing down into Lake Eyre and providing a great tourism opportunity. People who are not travelling overseas in these tougher economic times can travel into that part of Queensland and see a magnificent sight. They will see the rebirth of this ancient land in some of the most extraordinary parts of Australia. The raw beauty is something to see, and of course the bird life is quite fantastic.

Once again it is about road infrastructure. The roads had been improved whilst the coalition was in government, with the help of the great work of the councils of the Barcoo, Quilpie, Bulloo and Diamantina shires. They have done a magnificent job of trying to do the best they can with their limited resources. I encourage anyone listening to this broadcast that, if they want to see the outback, they will never see it in better shape. Of course the wonderful bird life—the pelicans and the spoonbills—is quite extraordinary. I recommend that you make the pilgrimage out there and see it this winter. It is a sight that you do not see very often. With some of the work that the coalition had been able to do I just wish that this government would recognise that there should be more money going into those development road programs under a category that would recognise the great importance of our remote and rural resource sectors in Australia.

The other point I want to touch on are roadside rest areas for trucks. Trucking operators are paying an increase in fuel excise, which is designed to go to those rest areas across Australia. I recently spoke at the Western Queensland Local Government Association in Longreach where I said that on my drive from my hometown of Roma up through to Longreach I passed probably five or six of these. I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have seen them in your electorate. There are rest areas beside the roads, there are toilets and water facilities and an area where the truck can get off the main highway. I put the point to the local government people, and they accepted the proposition, that I would like the mains roads department, who have the responsibility for the management of road infrastructure in Queensland, to talk with the local councils and get some consultative process going of where they think these rest areas would be best placed.

On my way to Longreach for this Western Queensland local government conference I noticed that these rest areas are so often beside a highway but between towns. There might be 100 kilometres between towns and there are rest areas halfway between those two towns. I say to the main roads department, through the minister, that, if they were to consult with the local councils, the councils would see that those rest areas should be on the edge of town so that the truckies could at least go into town, have a hot shower, have a good meal and probably get into a cabin or a motel for the night and have a good sleep. I can assure you that a night in the back of a truck or even in the cabin of a truck gets very cold, you are not going to get a feed and you will not get a hot shower—but you will in those local towns. Importantly, you will bring some commerce to those local communities. I think it is a better way to deal with this rather than the approach that has been taken. It may be different on the Pacific Highway, the Hume Highway and other major highways but, on those outback roads and the main highways that link us through to Darwin, think about those small communities and the commerce that could flow by putting rest areas on the edge of town rather than halfway between the towns. I know my time has expired but once again I say to the minister—(Time expired)

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

We have had very interesting contributions from those opposite—including the member for Maranoa—and there seems to be a real difficulty in actually talking about infrastructure. It took the member for Maranoa five minutes before he actually mentioned infrastructure at all, and then his contribution in relation to infrastructure was all negative, talking it down, saying where there had been failures and wistfully talking about what they promised at the last election—of course omitting the fact that they had been in government for 12 years and failed to do any of those sorts of issues. He failed to mention that they voted against the biggest infrastructure program that this country has ever seen. Over 70 per cent of the stimulus package is about infrastructure and there is little wonder that those opposite hang their heads in shame and do not talk about infrastructure at all—they are embarrassed that they voted against Australia’s biggest ever infrastructure spending, the biggest nation-building program that has ever been before this parliament.

I rise to support the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill will increase the flexibility for funding for local roads while ensuring local councils’ existing funding allocations cannot be reduced. The bill is central to the effective delivery of the government’s nation-building program worth more than $26 billion. It will ensure the government is able to effectively fund vital road and rail infrastructure projects. This will increase the government’s flexibility in funding road safety projects at sites which have contributed, or are likely to contribute, to serious motor vehicle crashes regardless of where they are located. One of the funding projects for black spots that the Rudd government announced recently is less than 100 metres from my electoral office. My staff and I have heard on many occasions the sickening crash coming from the busy spot on Wyong Road. In most cases the numerous accidents at this particular spot at Tuggerah on the Central Coast are caused by drivers losing control, partly in the wet. The black spot project will allow the road surface to be upgraded to an antiskid surface at the roundabout which intersects Wyong Road and Reliance Drive.

Another of the black spot projects in my electorate of Dobell involves the installation of traffic lights at the off-ramp of the F3 freeway at Warnervale—a very busy place on weekday afternoons when thousands of drivers are returning from work and heading home. The traffic lights, once installed this intersection, will make that spot safer for drivers, minimising the chance of serious crashes. Over one-third of all workers in the seat of Dobell commute on the F3. The F3 is the main road on which they travel. It is absolutely vital that there is funding to make sure that these safety issues, such as the traffic lights on the off-ramp of the F3, are actually put in place. At Ourimbah, which is also in my electorate, another black spot project on the same freeway will see the installation of wire rope barriers on the south-bound and north-bound on-ramps, making merging safer as traffic enters the freeway in both directions. In the suburb of Long Jetty, near The Entrance, a raised concrete section will be built at the intersection of the Central Coast Highway and Archbold Road as a traffic-calming measure, again with the focus on safety and reducing crashes. The Long Jetty intersection improvement will be welcomed by motorists, who will be able to drive more safely through the suburb, and pedestrians who will be able to negotiate that intersection with more confidence.

The Rudd government is spending more than $1 million on these four projects in Dobell. All have been assessed and recommended by a panel of independent road safety experts. The Black Spot Program has a proven track record of saving lives, with evaluations showing that it prevented at least 32 fatalities and more than 1,500 serious injuries in the last three years.

On many occasions in recent weeks we have seen much hypocrisy from the coalition when it comes to nation building. Faced with the greatest global economic challenge anyone has ever had to face since the Great Depression, the Liberals and the Nationals have a political strategy to hamper the government’s efforts to reduce the impact of the global recession. They come to Canberra to oppose, oppose, oppose. They oppose this in the House, they oppose this in the Senate, they oppose this in the restaurants of Kingston and they oppose this in the cafes of Manuka. However, something strange happens whenever these members leave this place—they take the opposite position. They get home and the lure of a positive media story—made possible by this government, with a positive nation-building story to tell—becomes far too great. For that one moment as the camera clicks, they must have collective amnesia because they suddenly forget all the times they have opposed these nation-building initiatives every step of the way in this place and around Canberra.

If the opposition votes against this bill, they vote against the effective delivery of a nation-building program. They are voting against the effective delivery of the Black Spot Program, the Boom Gates for Rail Crossing Program, the Roads to Recovery Program and the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program as well as off-network road and rail projects.

The Rudd Labor government is committed to regional Australia through the nation-building programs. We have invested $21.2 billion in regional road and rail infrastructure. It is clear that the coalition does not believe in nation building or significant investment to improve road and rail safety. That is why they vote against all the nation-building programs initiatives we have put forward in this parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 is not about substance; it is about the change of a name of a program which was in place. It does not provide extra funding. In that context it is appropriate that members of this House direct themselves to the title of the bill. The title of the bill is about nation building. I wish to speak about nation building because it is about providing infrastructure that will help to make Australia more internationally competitive and that will address major choke points in relation to the way in which goods can be moved and the extent to which people can be moved.

I have been very interested to note that speaking on this bill have been members such as the member for Paterson and, more recently, the member for Dobell, because I intend to speak about a major matter that impacts upon both of their electorates—the member for Paterson acknowledged it; the member for Dobell ignored it. The reality is that if you are about nation building you are about connecting our major cities: Melbourne to Sydney, Melbourne to Brisbane and Brisbane to Sydney.

If you look at the infrastructure that moves goods and enables people to move between those great cities of Melbourne and Brisbane, passing through Sydney, there is a variety of choices that you can make. As you come up the Hume Highway, you can use the Western Orbital, you can use the Cumberland Highway, you can use Villawood Road or perhaps you could even go on Silverwater Road through the member for Reid’s electorate. There are four major highways that all converge at one point in Sydney—that is, on Pennant Hills Road, which links the M2 and the F3 highways. It is a choke point that mixes passenger travellers from the Central Coast, those travelling between Sydney and Brisbane and within the electorate of Berowra, with large trucks carrying goods between our great cities. It is extraordinarily dangerous and will occasion a major accident at some point in time, to which people will say, ‘Why wasn’t something done about this?’

It is not as if it is not an issue that has not been thought about. The choke point is recognised. You will not get the commercial traffic off Pennant Hill Road or the F3 through infrastructure spending on an additional freight rail line. I would like to think it would, but the only way you will get trucks carrying containers onto trains is when they can drive their trucks on and off. Nobody likes the double and triple handling when they leave one destination and arrive at another. And I have not counted the number of bridges that would have to be raised on that rail link to be able to get it to operate effectively. There is no way that the freight traffic is going to be taken off those highways by rail infrastructure without an extraordinarily large investment in rail. If people were prepared to make it, I would encourage it. But even within my electorate you are dealing with something like more than a dozen major bridges that would have to be raised in order to be able to move freight effectively.

As I have said, this is not a new issue. When the Labor government in New South Wales wanted support for the building of the Western Sydney Orbital, the M7, Minister Scully, who was the minister for transport in New South Wales, was anxious to have a development that was going to impact on reducing traffic in his electorate. He was keen to see a highway built relatively cheaply on flat lands across the western suburbs of Sydney, but nobody thought about where the traffic was going to be dumped in the end. And of course what it was dumped on was the M2 freeway, a toll road that runs from the north-western suburbs of Sydney to the City of Sydney, and the only point at which that traffic can then progress northwards is on Pennant Hills Road.

A study was undertaken at that time because it was recognised that this was an issue that was going to have to be dealt with. You were not going to be able to build cheaply a western orbital through the hills of Berowra with another Hawkesbury crossing, so they looked at what other solutions might be able to be undertaken. A study was launched at that time because it was believed that you could not progress with a road development like the Western Sydney Orbital without having a plan as to how you were going to deal with the end of that road. In January 2001 a decision was announced in relation to the funding of the Western Sydney Orbital, but it also recognised that high priority had to be given to establishing a new link from the M2 to the F3 to relieve pressure on Pennant Hills Road and to complete the national highway ring-road around Sydney. Here we have a national highway in which there is no effective link. If you were really about building national infrastructure you would seriously want to do something about it.

There was a study undertaken to identify various scenarios for dealing with that issue. SKM was contracted by the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales to undertake that work. After very extensive consultation, it was announced by the former government that there would need to be a solution. The preferred solution was a tunnel to link the M2 and the F3. Minister Anderson, in 2002, made an announcement that there would be no breaks in it, that it would have effective filtration and would recognise that the Pennant Hills Road ought not be degraded, if such a development were to proceed. There was considerable discussion about that. In my electorate, many people, concerned about the possibility of a tunnel, having seen what happened with the Lane Cove Tunnel and the Cross City Tunnel, looked at other alternatives. The former government set up a review under a very distinguished former chief judge of the Land and Environment Court to enable further consultation. Very extensive meetings took place in relation to that process. Importantly, the review confirmed that the tunnel option was the most appropriate to address the immediate needs but also it recognised that at some future point there needed to be a reservation of land for a genuine western orbital which could be constructed at a later time. These very important announcements were made at that time.

A further and most significant announcement was a decision of the former government, under the AusLink program, to recognise that this issue needed to be addressed and to provide funding for that link. I believe the amount committed in the forward estimates was of the order of $2 billion. And here we are discussing a program of nation building. We know there is a significant choke point, we know the issue needs to be addressed, we know that the Labor Party think, in ordering its priorities, that it is not projects of national interest that should be involved but, rather, projects in electorates which they hold or hope to hold. The north-western suburbs of Sydney have been ignored by the state Labor government over a long period and it appears those areas are being singularly ignored now. As the member for Dobell leaves, let me say to him that the major impediment to his electorate and the access of his constituents to Sydney is in fact the choke point I have identified.

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

Order! The member for Berowra should know that the member leaving the chamber is the member for Dawson.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dobell has already gone! Let me make the point that the substance of these arguments impacts vary significantly on Labor electorates. I am surprised that in Dobell and Robertson, where people are faced with the dilemma of how to travel to the western suburbs of Sydney, to Sydney city or to Melbourne, people are not rioting on the steps of their members’ electorate offices to ensure that this issue is addressed.

I have continued, over a period of time, to raise this issue with my colleagues in the councils of ‘The Hills’ and Hornsby and with my local colleagues in the electorates of Kuringai, Hornsby and Epping in particular, as well as Castle Hill and Hawkesbury. All of us recognise that this matter has to be dealt with. There are various views about the way forward, but the decisions have been made by the professionals that the next step to be taken should be to look at the underlying geology of the area between the M2 and the F3 to see whether or not the proposals being advanced are feasible.

I understand that the government have, under AusLink arrangements, abandoned the commitment to forward funding of this proposal but have agreed to $150 million to be spent on undertaking the geological and other environmental studies associated with this development. That might be an effective holding operation as far as they are concerned, but I suspect, in the context of the way in which Labor governments operate, it is not even a realistic holding operation. This funding was committed on condition that it was matched by $30 million from the New South Wales Labor government. I have not seen any announcements from the New South Wales Labor government; what I have seen is that, under any proposals that are likely to address transport needs of the north-western suburbs of Sydney, the state Labor government has been missing in action. I suspect we will find that money will be going back to Treasury because there will be no matching commitment from the New South Wales Labor government. This brings me to the point I have wanted to make in relation to this bill.

Residents of the north-western suburbs of Sydney have been deliberately disadvantaged over a long period. Labor has had no commitment to addressing this issue. Labor thinks that its own constituents in electorates like Bennelong, Robertson, Dobell and even the electorates of Newcastle and its surrounds will not worry about the fact that when they reach Sydney they will be in a choke point of this dimension. I suspect that in time the constituents of those electorates will recognise that their members have been missing in action in relation to addressing this question, which does significantly disadvantage them. I will continue to campaign actively on this matter. I will draw it to the attention of not only the constituents of the electorate of Berowra but also the constituents of surrounding electorates, which are significantly disadvantaged as a result of this failure of policy.

This is the most significant nation-building project that could be pursued by any government in Australia. I know that, when you get on this road and you are held up, as you inevitably are, with huge transport lorries on either side of you, a potential national tragedy is waiting to occur. I suspect that, if such an eventuality occurs, those who have been missing in action on this issue will be very severely judged.

Not many issues that impact upon my electorate are of such extraordinary national significance. I would encourage the minister’s colleague at the table, the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services, who is familiar with these issues, to draw them to the attention of his ministerial colleague. I encourage the minister’s advisers to be aware that this issue is not going to disappear, that we will not be put off by a sop of some research without a major commitment to addressing this issue. The former government made that commitment. This government believes that it can save money by putting it to one side. Let me assure the parliamentary secretary at the table: I will not allow the government to forget what it is doing here.

This has been, in my 16 years as the member for Berowra, the one issue which has united all of my constituents. They recognise that it is a matter that has to be addressed. We recognise that there are higher costs in doing so, but we also recognise that not addressing the issue would be a significant impediment to effective nation building.

I have listened in this debate to many of my colleagues advance those issues that impact upon their constituents, and I understand why they address the issues in that way. But this is a matter that does not just affect the constituents of Berowra; this is a matter that affects all Australians. It affects their standard of living and their safe travel, not only in the north-western suburbs of Sydney but beyond. It impacts upon electorates Liberal and Labor. It is a matter that needs to be addressed effectively, and I would like to see the advice that comes forward on these matters.

I suspect the reason that New South Wales was disadvantaged in the level of funding committed to nation-building projects was the failure of the New South Wales government to do the work necessary to identify not only the projects that have to be pursued but also the steps that have to be taken to demonstrate that those projects are shovel ready—I think that is the terminology that is used. Labor federally, in my view, cannot absolve themselves from responsibility simply because of the failure of their colleagues at the state level in New South Wales.

As I said, this is an urgent matter. It requires addressing. It requires politics to be put to one side and it requires a genuine attempt at identifying the nation-building projects that ought to be pursued. I commend that matter for the urgent consideration of the minister.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 demonstrates the decisive response of the Rudd Labor government to the global financial crisis. Because of that global financial crisis, the global economy is in recession. It will contract by 1.5 per cent in 2009. And Australia is in recession. Our economy will contract by one-half of one per cent in 2009-10. These are the most serious global economic circumstances which Australia has been confronted with for more than 75 years. The Rudd government is acting now to boost demand, to support jobs through this recession and to build the foundations for our future prosperity through investment in critical national infrastructure, which is what this legislation is directed to.

This government understands the need to lift Australia’s prosperity and productive capacity through building the economy and building infrastructure for the economy. It is worth noting what the OECD economic outlook: interim report released in March 2009 had to say about the Australian government’s response. It noted that the composition of Australia’s fiscal response to the economic crisis has been heavily tilted in favour of investment spending—spending on infrastructure—to a much greater degree than in any other OECD economy.

Under this budget, the government is going to deliver further infrastructure spending, some of which is dealt with in this legislation. The purpose of this infrastructure spending is to protect jobs now and to build the economy for the future. Specifically, there is to be a large investment in metropolitan rail networks—some $4.6 billion for more efficient metropolitan rail networks that will deliver significant economic and social benefits through less road congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions and faster travel times for commuters. There is $3.4 billion for the network 1 road freight corridor linking Melbourne and Cairns and $389 million for port infrastructure, which will improve access to global markets for our export industries.

All of the projects that this legislation is directed to will, at a national level, reduce economic inefficiencies caused by the failure of the former government to invest adequately in the infrastructure platforms that our country needs to build future prosperity. It was ironic to listen to the contributions made to this debate by the member for Berowra and some of those opposite. We learned from reports at the weekend that the Liberals and Nationals are voting against this legislation. From those reports they are demonstrating their hypocrisy and indeed more of the dishonest scare campaign that the coalition is intent on waging. Those opposite want to go on talking about debt. They want to go on talking about deficit. And they want to go on opposing the legislation that is being introduced in this House by the government to deal with the economic circumstances that Australia is facing. But, when they go back to their electorates, they want to speak in favour of particular projects and pretend that they are supportive of particular infrastructure projects.

To refer specifically to my electorate, this legislation enables the funding for black spot eradication to deal with dangerous intersections. The specific black spot funding that has been recently announced for my electorate is the upgrading of the existing roundabout at the intersection of Heatherton Road and Lightwood Road in Noble Park, to prevent queuing across the railway tracks, and a further project of upgrading street lights and creating a fully controlled right turn, with a right-turn lane, at the intersection of Athol Road and Corrigan Road in Noble Park. But it seems that those opposite are not interested in the doubling of black spot funding that has occurred under this government. Nor are they interested in legislation of this kind, which is directed at improving national infrastructure. Specifically in my electorate again, this legislation provides the funds for the development of the Dandenong intermodal terminal, which is a far-sighted project that is designed to improve the transport of freight across Melbourne and to create a particular hub in South Dandenong, in my electorate.

The coalition is opposed to this legislation, to other nation-building legislation, to infrastructure funding in general and to the schools program which has been rolled out by this government over the last few months. Again, in my electorate, that is going to see some 47 schools being directly improved and brought into the 21st century. We are doing so not only to improve the facilities at schools but to boost local jobs. The opposition, by opposing legislation, is showing that its real commitment is simply to what is appropriately described as economic vandalism. I repeat: we are seeing a dishonest scare campaign in which those opposite do not wish to engage with the real economic difficulties that are being faced by this country, and indeed by the world. I commend this bill to the House.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Considering there are issues of importance in the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 I intend to speak for some longer period than five minutes, which is apparently all the importance that the government gives to this legislation. There is a good reason for that. I do not always require it, but I thought in looking in this legislation that I might check the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest. And what did that tell me? Under ‘Purpose’ it says:

The main purposes of the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 are to rename the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 as the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009, and to replace references to AusLink with Nation Building Program in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005

That is earth-shattering stuff, typical of a government that deals in spin. Let me say, of my own side of politics, when we started choosing fancy names for things that once were labelled as what they were, like the National Land Transport Act, we eventually got ourselves into trouble. We chose the name ‘Work Choices’, an excellent piece of legislation that left itself open to a simple TV campaign. It struck me later on, when considering the advertisement showing a woman with two children being threatened with the loss of her job, that in fact that ad should have shown the woman telling her boss to stick his job because, under the Howard provisions of Work Choices, she was getting three job offers a week. Those were the circumstances—long gone, because as we read now there is a massive increase in youth unemployment in particular, as people will no longer commit themselves to full-time employment contracts for fear of what that might mean to the future of their business.

This bill is about changing a name. And we are advised that there will be no financial impact. I assume, as one talks about pulping a whole document associated with the budget, there will be a lot of stationery somewhere being pulped on the passing of this legislation. There will be signs all over the place that one can only assume will have to be either repainted or otherwise taken out. Yes, of course there will be cost—and it is not a cost that helps the nation. That is just the first point, but what a wonderful opportunity it has created for the minister to make a second reading speech and read out pages of the jobs to be done.

There is another issue, of course—that is, that the five minutes that have been granted to each government spokesman have been used almost entirely to make a false statement. The false statement is that the opposition opposes this legislation; we treat it with contempt. Hidden away, as so typically occurs in inconsequential legislation, is a little trick. It changes the places where you can expend money on black spots. The member for Isaacs mentioned a couple which occurred in his electorate under the present arrangements. The Black Spot Program was funded to make sure that local government entities, suburbs and regions had some money to address issues where public safety was of major concern. I well remember in one part of my electorate that street lighting was erected on an out-of-town road where Indigenous people used to cross the road, because people were getting run over. Not wearing orange jackets and hard hats, they were not easily identifiable without some lights. That was the purpose of black spot funding. The Hawke government found that it was rather useless and cancelled it altogether, but the suggestion to a group of what I would have thought were reasonably hardened politicians that you can open up the transfer of that expenditure to national highways without a significant loss of funding from where it was originally targeted is farcical. Clearly, if this segment of the bill is passed and the opposition proposes an amendment that money will just be filtered away.

You might say, ‘Well, the Treasurer had a visit from an ambulance operator who spoke of the difficulties on a national highway.’ Of course difficulties exist, and I want to come back to a specific, but the situation is that there is a mass of funding. Historically, the Commonwealth took responsibility for national highways. The mistake that was made was to allow state road-building agencies (a) to identify the priority and (b) to spend the money. I can take you to the national highway system in my electorate, which, as you would understand, is very significant in length and substance, and show where sections of road have been built at the expense of the Australian taxpayer—not at the expense of this parliament or that government but at the expense of the Australian taxpayer—and ripped up later on because they got it wrong. The point I am making, nevertheless, is that huge amounts of money are allocated in the budget and always have been.

One would have thought that the decision makers might have looked at these road systems. The previous Speaker has talked in this place about building a length of four-lane highway on the Hume Highway and then stopping it. People think they are still on a four-lane highway and all of a sudden there is a truck on the same side of the road as they are. In other words, one would think that the decision makers, in considering the necessary upgrades of these major highway networks for efficiency and other reasons, would as a matter of form take account of public safety. They do not have to steal the money identified for $100,000 projects which would save people’s lives when they plan a superhighway and make links between capital cities. There is no point at all in that. The member for Isaacs might wait for the next black spot project to boast about in his own electorate, if it happens. If he has an interest in the people in his own electorate, I invite him to vote with us on an amendment to leave the status quo in that regard. It is not a lot of money, but it is at least directed to smaller community projects. That is what I said a moment ago about public safety, and I know the member for Forrest has somewhat agreed.

In terms of public safety, there is a major project that is now virtually accepted as being a proposal of the Gallop and Carpenter governments in Western Australia. More particularly, I think it got a mention in the second reading speech—although that is a little bit vague. The Howard government, and in particular the members for Forrest and Canning, where the problem was located, became deeply conscious of one fatality a week on the road that connects what was the Kwinana Freeway through to Mandurah and Bunbury. Bunbury-Busselton is a big growth area, and the member for Forrest is representing it very well. In fact, the freeway had to be extended all the way down as a four-lane highway. It was a state road. One of the great tragedies of the good political by-line ‘we will no longer have the blame game’ is that it was not smart in representing the interests of the public as taxpayers. There is a responsibility on the government that raises 90 per cent of Australia’s taxes and pays 50 per cent of the operating costs of state governments to see that the Australian taxpayer gets a fair go. The reality was that this road had to be extended, and at the time, according to the estimate of the state government, it was going to cost $300 million or $400 million. The Howard government said, ‘We’ll pay half.’ It is not within the normal compass of federal government expenditure, which of course deals 100 per cent with national highways and 50 per cent with roads of national importance, but we said: ‘We can’t go on killing people like this. We’ve got to do something about it.’

There is some suggestion now that this lady—Alana MacTiernan—might even oppose the member for Canning at the next election. Let us talk about her. When the proposition was made, she refused the money. She continued to refuse the money: ‘Don’t let’s worry about a few people knocking themselves off on the road; that happens every year.’ This was preventable by government expenditure. At a meeting with WA state Liberal members it was proposed to the minister for transport that all roads moneys to Western Australia be discontinued until the state government accepted the money and committed to building this road. Do you know what MacTiernan’s response to that was? She put an ad in the paper brutalising the Howard government for stealing money from the Western Australian road system when in fact the truth was that we were offering $170 million. During the negotiations she upped the ante and said, ‘We got the estimate for this road wrong.’ As time has gone by, it has gone up. It would now probably cost $600 million. I think this government has continued to make contributions, and I applaud that. But the fact is that she would not take the money.

Because of the publicity campaign, our minister was concerned. He was concerned that the other money was a matter of agreement, and he called us together again and said, ‘I think I should just give them the standard grant’—of which $100 million was going to be spent in my electorate—’and we’ll fight about the other bit.’ I and others who had a substantial interest in where that money was going said no. We had this funny idea that saving people’s lives was some responsibility of federal members of parliament. We said, ‘You just stick with it.’ To his credit, the minister did stick with it. Then the state government caved in. They suddenly discovered that the people of Bunbury thought the road project was a pretty good idea and they were getting close to sacking the then sitting Labor member. That was a pretty lousy reason for caving in.

I think the road will be opened within weeks. Another interesting factor is that half the world does not know a major project of this nature is going on because there has not been one day lost to strike. Why? It is because a condition of our funding was that it had to be run under Commonwealth industrial law as it existed then. Compare that with another infrastructure project which the WA state government can take full responsibility for—the Mandurah passenger railway line. There is nearly a 50 per cent increase in costs for that project, mostly attributable to the bastardry of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. That is still being debated in court and hundreds of millions of dollars in extras are being claimed by the contractors.

Let us have a look at how this is going to work. It has been established that this is a bill about a name change, with a little thing stuck in there—a bit like in the American congress, where you get a bill on immigration and there is something on the end of it about defence, social security or something else. That in itself is rather a waste of time. I looked at what the minister chose to tell us about it. There are all these particular references and rhetoric within this debate, like that it is ‘shovel ready’. I was a minister for five years. Most of those members making speeches would not have been further inside a department than the reception desk. I will tell you what ‘shovel ready’ means. It means identifying, as the AusLink program did over four or five years, an actual list of roadworks, in particular, and railway works that were going to be funded in due course. The list was published and people could argue about it if they thought it was wrong. But, of course, as a consequence, works commenced in the department. Even some of the state departments got their acts into gear. A common criticism in our party room during government from backbenchers was the fact they fought bitterly to get Commonwealth funding for a road project and it would not happen, as the member for Berowra frequently pointed out, simply because the state authorities either did not like the idea or just had not got their act together and done it. ‘Shovel ready’ is a significant part of the process.

Throughout its tenure the Gallop-Carpenter government refused to do an upgrade of the Great Eastern Highway from Kooyong Road to the Tonkin Highway in Perth. It is only three or four blocks, but it is the road to Perth Airport and it is a monster. It is really not the responsibility of Australian taxpayers. Furthermore, the response of the minister, Alana MacTiernan, to this was, ‘The airport out there is a federal facility; therefore, it is the federal government’s job to maintain a major highway.’ I might add that it is the road to the eastern states as it leaves the metropolitan area. The Great Eastern Highway goes up through Kalgoorlie et cetera.

I just want to close on this point when it comes to funding and the blame game: taxation reform required a VAT/GST. It required it. The sales tax system was dead on its feet. There was every reason why it could not continue as a mechanism of tax management. And so the Howard government bit the bullet on that. But in so doing it said, ‘When the money is collected, every cent’—with no administrative fees or bleeding off to state treasuries practiced on every federal grant—’will go to the states, and their share will be determined by the federal Grants Commission under the available state-Commonwealth funding formula.’

We took a belting. For a start, it was voted against by the Beazley opposition. They saw the political opportunity of saying ‘just another tax’. I might add to a few marginal seat holders on the other side: wait until that issue is debated in the context of the emissions trading scheme—just another tax. The fact of life is that they opposed it and we lost 15 seats, I think, in delivery. I well remember the then Prime Minister John Howard saying, ‘We have to do this; we have to provide a revenue stream for the states, a growth tax that provided them the capacity to provide for roads, for state rail, for health, for education and for law and order.’ They got the money. Is anybody sitting in this place at the moment prepared to say that all of those areas of their responsibility are now bright and shining, notwithstanding a very significant increase in the amount of money that was delivered? So when do you make the difference?

Finally, I noted with great interest in the Bills Digest just how much of this money—nearly $4.5 billion—is going to passenger rail, and I think the member for Isaacs thought that was a good idea. I can tell you something about passenger rail: it will be an ongoing cost to the Australian community forever, outside of the borrowing costs and, more particularly, so will social housing. I thought we had worked that out. You paid rent subsidies and you let people go to the private sector to look after those things without ongoing costs. Now we are going to get 20,000 houses. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill gives effect to the Rudd government’s $26 billion nation-building infrastructure projects—infrastructure projects that will lift Australia’s productivity in the years ahead; infrastructure projects that will create and support jobs for Australians right now; infrastructure projects that will make our transport systems safer; infrastructure projects that will make the lives of Australians travelling around Australia or within their local communities much easier; and infrastructure projects that will be welcomed by transport operators, by industry sectors and by suburban, regional and rural communities around the nation.

I have listened with interest as a number of opposition speakers have wanted to take credit for many of the projects that have been outlined under this proposal. In some cases they even added projects to what should be funded. Yet, while they want to take credit for some of the projects and want to add to the list, I understand that they now want to oppose the funding measures required. You simply cannot have it both ways: either these are good projects, which they would want to take credit for and would vote for, or they state their case clearly and tell the Australian people that they are against all of the projects that this project will be funding.

Coalition members were in government when the country benefited from a resources boom. It was a time when funds were flowing into government revenue, yet the very sources of that government income, particularly the mining sector, were being constrained because of inadequate road, rail and port facilities—projects which the previous coalition government did not fund but which the Rudd government is getting on with the job of doing. A classic example of that are the Hunter Valley rail corridors. The upgrade of those corridors will double the coal exporting capacity of the Hunter Valley. Australia would today be in a much better position to withstand the global economic downturn if these projects had been built by the previous coalition government.

Within the nation-building proposal, $1.7 billion is being invested in projects in South Australia. Those projects include seven major projects, and I would like to list what they are: the Northern Expressway and Port Wakefield Road upgrades; the Dukes Highway upgrade; work on Victor Harbor, Main South Road and Seaford Road junction; work on the Main North Road between Gawler and Tarlee; the Mount Gambier northern bypass; work on Crystal Brook to Redhill roads; and work on Montague Road. All of those seven projects are important to South Australians and important to the people I represent. People from my own electorate, from time to time, use all of those transport modes, whether it is for employment purposes or for personal reasons. Since being elected I have frequently been lobbied by people I represent about the need to upgrade many of the roads that are the subject of this budgetary measure.

With respect to the Montague Road project, I personally welcome the federal government’s $1 million funding towards a $2.5 million project. The balance of the funds will be coming from the Tea Tree Gully council and the state Labor government. The Montague Road project is in fact a difficult project to design an upgrade for because of the complex arrangement of the entrance ways to the adjoining commercial properties, the land ownership of properties affected and the proximity of the works required being close to a substantial roundabout. I know that the state member for Florey, Frances Bedford, has been negotiating a solution for the Montague Road widening for some time and since being elected to this place I have discussed the proposal with Frances Bedford on several occasions. This is a long overdue project that is now being funded under the Rudd government’s nation-building projects.

I want to describe the project for the benefit of the people who will have a very personal interest in it. The project will result in the upgrading of approximately 450 metres of Montague Road near the Clovercrest shopping centre, which will comprise of one 3.5 metre lane in each direction, a centre median for right turn storage, intended bus bays, 1.5 metre bicycle lanes, improved access-egress for the local commercial precinct, improvement to facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, improved traffic control parking for the Clovercrest shopping centre and stormwater disposal. The question of undergrounding the powerlines in the area is also being considered and will be dependent on the Power Line Environment Committee application that has been lodged.

I am very familiar with this road—and have been for most of my life, for that matter—because it is a road that I frequently use. The traffic congestion in and around the intersection of Montague and Kelly roads, particularly at peak times, is horrendous. It impacts not only on people using it but on all of those businesses that are in that locality, and I welcome that an engineering solution appears at last to have been agreed to and that the funding has been put on the table to ensure that this project goes ahead.

In recent weeks in South Australia, we have had, regrettably, a number of fatalities on our roads. You may argue that some of those road fatalities were because of negligent driving, but I have no doubt whatsoever that investing funds in road infrastructure, wherever that might be in Australia, will improve the condition of those roads and, in turn, improve the safety of them. For that reason, if for no other, investment of these kinds of funds into national infrastructure projects that include roads are a welcome measure for all Australians, and I commend the bill to the House.

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

Let us be under no illusion. The real purpose behind the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 and this waste of money, time and resources is the government’s attempt to mislead the public into believing that AusLink expenditure committed by the coalition two years ago is new infrastructure spending. However, the government’s proposal to scrap the name AusLink and replace it, at great expense, with the Nation Building Program term, has some fine details which are of grave concern to regional Australia and which should be of grave concern to those regional members of the Labor Party government.

Once again, this Labor government is abandoning our regional Australia. This bill will allow the AusLink strategic regional projects, now termed the Nation Building Program Off-Network Project, to be funded in places that are not in regional areas. When it was in government, the coalition understood the importance of allocating specific funds to meet the needs of regional Australia. Now this government has introduced a bill that abolishes the AusLink strategic regional project category and replaces it with the Nation Building Program Off-Network Project. This is just a smokescreen to again attack the heart of regional Australia.

It was, in fact, the coalition that established this AusLink program. It is not a Labor program. In order to establish that smokescreen, it is probably the government’s intention to change the name so that it can try to rebadge it as its own. You often see that happening with cars that have come from a particular car maker—a second car maker tries to rebadge a car as if it were its own. You have now seen the Labor Party rebadge a program to try to make out that the program was its own. But the one thing that it did not want to rebadge as its own was any support for regional Australia; should we be surprised?

The coalition developed Australia’s first national land transport plan since Federation and the means by which the federal, state and territory governments work together to develop a single, integrated national land transport network. Under AusLink, the coalition government spent more on nation building than any other Commonwealth government since Federation. The coalition allocated over $15 billion over the five-year period from 2004-05 to 2008-09. In terms of AusLink, too, the former government, in 2007-08, pledged to invest $31 billion in transport infrastructure.

The major duplication of the Hume Highway was funded during the 2004-05 to 2008-09 years. The former government’s funding plan was money in the bank, especially for the New South Wales RTA, to go ahead and do these works—for example the Coolac bypass and the duplication of the Sheehan Bridge in Gundagai. Last week, we were fortunate enough to open the duplicated Sheehan Bridge in Gundagai. I welcomed Minister Anthony Albanese into the electorate of Riverina in order to open this real term infrastructure project, not a sod-turning to depict infrastructure that might come in the future but an actual delivery of infrastructure that happened under the coalition.

As I have said in this House before, there is argy-bargy on both sides of politics. The duplication of the Sheehan Bridge was commissioned and paid for by the former coalition government and opened by the minister under this government, who declared it part of Labor’s Nation Building Program. But the one good thing that will happen as a result of this project is that it will benefit the people. I am not going to be out there screaming and shouting that minister Anthony Albanese came in and opened up a project, labelling it a Labor Nation Building Infrastructure Project when, in fact, it was not; I am going to be welcoming the minister here, saying, ‘This is a piece of infrastructure that has been built in regional Australia and that was needed, and it has helped not just the people of Gundagai but all users of the highway.’ However, I do make reference to the fact that this infrastructure was funded under the previous government’s AusLink program.

Regional Australians should be aware that the government has gone out of its way to try to remove a support system that was specifically set up for them. Item 64 changes the title of section 52 and, accordingly, section 52 itself. Section 55 of the act deals with when it is appropriate to approve a strategic regional project. In essence, section 55 contains criteria that the minister must consider when deciding whether to fund a project. In particular, the minister must consider the regional consequences of the projects. Item 67 removes the word ‘regional’ from paragraph 55(a) so that it reads ‘industries’ and not ‘regional industries’. Similarly, item 69 removes the word ‘regional’ from paragraph 55(e) so that it reads ‘communities’ and not ‘ regional communities’. Item 68 deletes paragraph 55(b), which requires the minister to consider ‘the extent to which the project is likely to improve a road, railway or intermodal transfer facility that is regionally significant’. What an amazing number of changes. Have we heard one word in opposition to this from any regional member? The member for Ballarat is in the chamber, but we will not hear one word from any speaker from the government. Not one regional Labor speaker will come in here and oppose these changes, because you are simply not allowed to do so. When you are in the Labor Party and you are a member of the Labor government, you are not allowed to speak out in the interests of the people you represent for fear that something may happen.

What about the member for Dawson, the member for Flynn, the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Hunter, the member for Page and the member for Ballarat? The removal of the word ‘regional’ affects your people—the people you represent and purport to represent fairly. There has not been not one word of opposition to this bill and the removal of the word ‘regional’. We know what will happen when you remove the word ‘regional’ from of all of this. Funds will not be spent in any of those regional areas; it will go to a city-centric government that are only concerned with city people. That is proven by the removal of the word ‘regional’ and the ability for regional people to access these programs. We know what will happen. We all know exactly what this Labor government think about regional people. If they can impact upon regional people then they most certainly will. There are obviously fewer votes for a Labor government in the country than there are in the city. I am disturbed by the fact that none of the regional Labor members are speaking out in opposition to what will obviously be a drain from any funding opportunities for rural and regional Australian infrastructure, particularly under this program.

As well as manoeuvring funds from regional Australia to urban areas, the government’s naming game is also at the expense of Australian people. There are road signs all over Australia that currently read ‘AusLink’ and they will have to be replaced because there is a new name. I just do not understand the value of money in removing these signs just in order for this government to convince Australia that investing in infrastructure is their idea. It is like treating the Australian people like idiots. I do not think that the Australian people are going to wear this for very much longer. The commitment to infrastructure lies with the coalition in the last AusLink proposal. I think that the publicity stunt that is now being undertaken by the government is, as I said, pretty much taking the Australian people as fools. It is an insult to them, in my view.

We would have hoped that there would be a focus on money that would deliver resources to rural and regional communities, but the fact is that is not the way it has panned out. As we saw with the last round of Infrastructure Australia funding, none of the projects that I believed were extremely well costed and would see the blueprint of the future of Australian freight movement realised were funded. Funds went to infrastructure in city and urban areas—platform resurfacing, rebuilding of urban platforms et cetera—when, in fact, there is an absolutely dire need for continued infrastructure building in many regional communities. That has been going on for many years.

When in government we heard the opposition carping along the side: ‘You don’t take responsibility for yourself.’ Now I am in opposition and I hear the government carping the same story they carped when they were on this side. You cannot go back. We had to first pay off a debt when the coalition came into government in 1996. There had been such a run-down over 13 years in rural and regional Australia. Nothing had been spent on infrastructure building in rural and regional Australia over the 13 years of Labor Hawke-Keating rule. When the coalition came into government, there was an enormous debt of $96 billion to pay off—$9 billion per annum in interest—before they could start delivering, in 2004-05, the infrastructure programs that were required to try and rebuild regional Australia from the deficit and lack of interest of 13 years of Labor rule. And, yes, infrastructure could have been built earlier if we had put the nation into further debt. Infrastructure in regional Australia could have been rolled out, but it was determined to take advantage of the minerals and mining resource boom, pay off the extraordinary debt, save $9 billion a year and put in a full national transport integration plan, which we did. We are now seeing the delivery of that real-term infrastructure rolled out and being opened by Labor ministers and members. They are delivering it and opening it as theirs when they know it is nothing to do with them. Real infrastructure was built. It did not turn into just sod-turning and looking to see how much infrastructure could be built in the future. It is real-term infrastructure; it is happening; and it is being opened right now.

The fact is that a significant number of regional programs have been cut or abolished by this government. It failed to deliver specific regional development programs in the 2009 budget. That budget has confirmed that this Rudd Labor government has broken almost all of its regional development election promises. Labor promised to offer the Better Regions Program to support community, economic and environmental projects. However, the program was never opened to receive applications. What a disgrace. After promising to increase transparency and accountability, Labor has used the program to fund only those commitments made by Labor candidates in electorates it targeted at the 2007 election.

Election promises are always made by governments and by hopeful oppositions wanting to go into government. But do not then be fibbers. Do not cheat and lie about it. Just say exactly what it is. I have had members coming to open Regional Partnership programs—and I am sure others have had members come into what are now opposition electorates—saying, ‘This is tremendous for the community.’ Yet the Regional Partnerships program was dumped by this government. It continually gets labelled in here as having been the National Party slush fund, but it delivered regional infrastructure. We have exactly the same thing happening here, with the government going out with its election promises and delivering them only in Labor electorates. And Labor is saying accountability for this government!

Labor promised to retain and enhance the Regional Partnerships program and the Sustainable Regions Program. However, the government has abolished them, and has even cancelled grants for projects that had been approved for funding by the former government—except of course when they were in Labor electorates. Labor promised to ensure that all funding applications for projects would be developed in consultation with Regional Development Australia. However, Regional Development Australia does not have access to a regional development funding program that could support local initiatives. So I cannot quite work out how liaising on all these applications will actually bring about any benefit when there simply is not any access to a funding program.

It is incredible that in a budget predicting that over one million Australians would lose their jobs—and which saddles every man, woman and child with a $9,000 debt as a result of the last stimulus rollout payments—the government failed to establish a regional development program that would support economic and social opportunities and create jobs in local communities. It is these jobs that are so important to regional communities. On Thursday I sat in question time and listened to the Prime Minister wax lyrical about the $303 million worth of water that he and the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, had just purchased from Twynam. Ninety-seven per cent of that water was purchased out of New South Wales, much of it from the electorate of Riverina, with not a skerrick of thought for the jobs of the people of the Riverina and many other areas across New South Wales. Ninety-seven per cent of that water came out of New South Wales alone, but have we heard one comment from the other side to say, ‘What social impact study was done prior to the purchase of this water to see how these communities will socially adjust?’ What modelling was done on that water purchase to see how many jobs would be lost? What modelling was done to see whether there would be any capacity or opportunity for all those regional people who are losing their jobs as a result of this water purchase to find jobs? What real study was undertaken by the Prime Minister and his minister to find out how much of their $303 million worth of water would actually achieve that being waxed lyrical about in question time last Thursday?

I tell you that this is seriously flawed. And here we go again: no consideration for regional people; just rip the heart out of regional communities. Nobody from this Labor government is ever going to stand up for regions. It does not matter whether you get up and represent. They have this thing: lions in the electorate and lambs in the House. Let me tell you: the major lions in the electorate are the Labor country members, but they are not even lambs in the House because their voices are invisible. No talk about the impact on people who live in regional Australia, as a result of this government’s legislation, ever comes from the mouth of any Labor regional member. We will not stand here holding our breath waiting for a Labor regional member to raise issues of discontent, issues of jobs losses in Dawson and many other communities due to an ETS or issues regarding the removal of funding from transport links and regional transport programs—funding to ensure that freight can make it and that regions can stay strong. You will never hear one word from them in this House—(Time expired)

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

As a regional MP and someone who will benefit significantly from it, I am very proud to be supporting theNation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. I think we have again had from the member for Riverina a lack of reality about what happened to regional areas under the Howard government. Under the Howard government there were regions, and there were National Party regions. That is the reality of what happened under the Howard government. So if you were not a National Party region the reality is that you rarely benefited from any of that government’s largesse. What this government has done is ensure that all regions will benefit. The $800 million local and community infrastructure funds, the funds that come in under this bill, the funds that will go directly to local government, the funds that will go to our school programs mean that all regions will benefit, not just if you are a regional National Party member.

This bill is absolutely vital in delivering the government’s Nation Building Program for road and rail and is worth some $26 billion. In my home state of Victoria, the government is investing $4.3 billion through the Nation Building Program. I would like to touch on two projects in my electorate: the realignment of Anthony’s Cutting on the Western Highway and the duplication from Ballarat to Stawell of the Western Highway, both in country Victoria. Both of these projects are coming on the back of the completion of the Deer Park Bypass opened in April. The bypass has already delivered real benefits to the Ballarat community by cutting down on commute times and making Ballarat even more accessible by freight.

As part of the federal government’s budget, we also announced that the realignment of the Western Highway at Anthony’s Cutting is scheduled to be delivered in 2012. It delivers on my election commitment to the people across the Ballarat district. This $200 million project is jointly funded by the federal government and the Victorian government. The realignment of the Western Highway will see drivers diverted around the steep hills and dangerous curves at Anthony’s Cutting. Motorists who have travelled along this five-kilometre strip of road know firsthand the dangers that exist in this area. There were 21 casualty crashes recorded over Anthony’s Cutting between 2003 and 2008 and, of these, 15 were run-off-the-road crashes—more than double the state average. A report in the Moorabool Leader on 15 May highlights just how bad this road is, with Ambulance Victoria having to attend the third car rollover at the cutting in just a five-day period. This funding will support some 500 jobs. The project was always slated to begin mid-2010 under the former AusLink and AusLink 2 programs and now, with the project having been brought forward and with all the planning work now being done, it is anticipated that the tender will be let by the end of the year and work started shortly after. In 2012 this project, combined with the Deer Park Bypass, will considerably improve the connection between Melbourne, Ballarat and western Victoria and will certainly make Ballarat a regional hub for western Victoria.

In the north-west of the Ballarat electorate, we are also duplicating the road from Ballarat to Stawell. As part of the federal budget, we announced that the duplication of the Western Highway between Ballarat and Stawell is scheduled to be delivered to Victoria by 2015. The project costs some $520 million and is also jointly funded by the federal government and the Victorian government. In mid-April, the federal government brought forward $500 million to ensure swift commencement of the planning study and, once again, we are keen to deliver this project early. By starting the necessary planning work sooner, we are in a position to start construction on this vital project earlier than previously anticipated and planning of the project has already commenced. As with Anthony’s Cutting, construction is to begin early next year.

This bill also makes improvements in the eligibility under the black spot funding to sites that are on the national land transport network. These changes will ensure effective delivery of the Black Spots program and will also assist the release of funds from the $150 million boost to the Black Spots program announced previously by the government. In only late April I announced that our government was investing some $5.3 million to fix 18 dangerous black spots in my electorate. Time does not permit me to talk about all of these, but I particularly want to mention some $1 million going to Moorabool shire for road works east of Ballan, for street lighting in Hopetoun Park in the city of Ballarat, installation of traffic lights at the Sturt and Armstrong streets intersection, installation of roundabouts at the intersection of Bell and Ripon streets and more roundabouts at Armstrong and Market streets. These are all extremely dangerous areas for people traversing my electorate. Hepburn shire is also to benefit with funding going to Clunes and also to Back Hepburn Road.

The government is absolutely committed to delivering on road safety and the projects that have been announced by this government in the electorate of Ballarat will save lives and provide real benefits, both economically and socially, to people across my electorate. On top of investing in major nation-building infrastructure like the Western Highway, realignment of Anthony’s Cutting, the duplication from Ballarat to Stawell and the Black Spots program, the government has also increased investments in Roads to Recovery, a large proportion of which goes to regional local councils, and to boom gates for rail crossings programs, again many of which are in regional towns. As I have noted today, these projects are all crucial in building infrastructure across my electorate. Since being elected, the Rudd government has shown that it is the party of nation building. The coalition has voted against every nation-building bill that we have put to this parliament. In direct contrast, the Rudd government is committed to delivering road and rail infrastructure projects, and I commend this bill to the House.

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on what I believe to be an offensive piece of legislation, a preposterous piece of petty politicking, titular pilfering and spin. I refer of course to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. On the topic of land transport, some people like to go for a spin in the country; Mr Rudd, our Prime Minister, does it all the time. In fact, he has personally injected so much hot air into rural Australia I am not surprised he is concerned about global warming. He is a walking and, unfortunately, talking mobile greenhouse effect; but more about that later.

The apparent fundamental purpose of this bill is to rename the coalition’s highly successful AusLink program as the Nation Building Program. The bill changes the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 into the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 and changes relevant AusLink references to the Nation Building Program. I am not one of those technophiles who carries a laptop everywhere but I do know what copy and paste is. I reckon that is what has happened here with a little bit of search and replace to swap every occurrence of ‘AusLink’ for ‘Nation Building Program’. But you have to be careful with copy and paste, though, because if you are not careful you might be accused of plagiarism. Of course, plagiarism is where someone is not clever or motivated enough to have their own ideas or do their own work, so they take somebody else’s ideas and somebody else’s work and they then claim them as their own. I am told that plagiarism is the No. 1 sin at university today, and I am not surprised. Taking credit for something that you did not do rates pretty low in my book also.

I have also heard the saying ‘Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery’. Obviously, the ALP love our work. How could they not, considering the coalition left them with a very tidy $20-plus billion surplus which they have somehow managed to multiply by a factor of about minus 15? Perhaps this little matter of inflicting record generational debt on the Australian people has convinced those opposite to stop trying to write their own legislation, which brings me back to their corruption of the coalition’s AusLink bill. I use the term advisedly because in trying to pass this legislation off as their own work Labor also wrote in a few tweaks of their own. Yes, there are a few little modifications here that put their distinctive stamp on it and that really evidence Labor’s disregard—no, utter contempt—for rural and remote Australia. This bill also amends funding arrangements for road and rail projects both on and off the national road transport network.

The Howard government established AusLink several years ago as Australia’s first national transport framework to provide long-term planning and funding for the national transport network. AusLink 1 ran from 2004-05 to 2008-09 and AusLink 2 was scheduled to run from 2009-10 to 2013-14. Mr Rudd and his colleagues talked about AusLink all through the 2007 election campaign. Once in power, however, it became evident that although they still liked AusLink they did not like the term ‘AusLink’. It had fallen from favour with the Prime Minister and his colleagues primarily because, of course, whenever the term was used those recipients of this fine funding program were reminded that it was the Hon. John Howard who introduced this program, and the thing that our current Prime Minister hates most of all is to be reminded that the good things, the great foundations laid in Australia, were the responsibility of the Howard-led government.

Personally, I think AusLink was a little too practical for them, a little too simple, a little too self-explanatory. AusLink—linking Australia. AusLink, with only two syllables was far too short a term for our obfuscatory, polysyllabic and frequently sesquipedalian Prime Minister—check them later. So we now debate the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009.

One of Mr Albanese’s modifications to this bill allows locations on the national land transport network to be eligible for black spot funding. This is a new development because the black spot funding was intended for projects on local roads and streets. It was a funding program to be accessed when it could be proven that a particular intersection or section of local road or street was causing accidents resulting in injury or fatality. Black spot funding could then be called on. That has gone; it has simply been shovelled into the whole bucket of funding and is no longer specific, no longer put to that fine scrutiny that proved the system to be so effective in the past.

Another little tweak provides more flexibility with Roads to Recovery so that the minister can increase the amount of funding to local government authorities if he so chooses, and this of course makes the program more able to be accessed for the government to place funds where they, for various reasons, want—maybe to fulfil a pre-election promise to a local area. So once again that money is able to be accessed with less scrutiny and is able to go to projects that are possibly, on a national scrutiny basis, less deserving. Currently, once the initial list for a funding period has been determined, no increases can be made to the specified amounts on the Roads to Recovery list.

To my mind and certainly to the minds of those in my electorate, the most offensive change to this legislation is the renaming of the AusLink strategic regional projects funding to the Nation Building Program Off-Network Project funding and, of course, enabling it to be dispensed in areas that are not regional—which is to say, Mr Rudd and Mr Albanese have taken regional specific funding and taken the regional specific criteria out of it, making it just funding. So if country areas are competing with metropolitan areas for funding, which one will be successful? This government will put the funding where they think the votes are; the votes that they hope will get them re-elected. So needy projects in my electorate or in the electorates of my colleagues—the previous speaker, the member for O’Connor; the member for Pearce; or the member for Forest—will be effectively competing for funding against projects in the electorate of Perth, possibly Fremantle, perhaps the inner metropolitan patch of Grayndler or even Griffiths. It does not really matter which way you look at it, it is less funding for the regional transport network.

As for nation building, let me reiterate my initial point: it is a political stunt. AusLink has been such an effective program that I dare say Labor is seeking success by association. I have heard that nation building is nothing more than a photo opportunity for Prime Minister Kevin—also known as Bob the Builder with his yellow hard hat and his hi-vis vest. I do not see how photo opportunities are going to upgrade the land transport network in my electorate.

These changes to the strategic regional projects funding and the Roads to Recovery program are simply offensive. They are a corruption—a bastardisation, if I may say—of these very successful programs. On announcing the legislation for its second reading, the member for Grayndler said:

I am pleased to introduce the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. It renames the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 (the principal act) as the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009. This is central to the effective delivery of the government’s road and rail infrastructure investment through the Nation Building Program.

Of course it is. The member for Grayndler is there acknowledging the very success of AusLink.

AusLink has funded numerous projects across my vast 2.3 million square kilometre electorate of Kalgoorlie. It has done it on a selective analysis basis, looking at where the most important projects and therefore where the funding would make the most difference. I will give a couple of examples. There was the upgrade to the Great Eastern Highway. The road was so narrow that it was causing concerns, especially with the movement of road trains et cetera. There were problems and potential for accidents. They funded the upgrade, which included the widening and the smoothing out of the road and the installation of better safety facilities along that section of road.

On the Great Northern Highway, a section between Muchea and Wubin was upgraded and continues to be upgraded with that initial AusLink funding. This means greater convenience and safety for the multiplicity of vehicles, which include road trains with over-wide loads, caravan towers, sedans and trucks. There is a whole mix of users on that highway and they need to be accommodated. And they are not accommodated unless roads are made wide enough, have overtaking lanes, have bays for parking up so that those in the transport industry can get their designated rests et cetera. The Durham River Bridge was constructed with money from the regional funds.

Those programs would not have got funding simply on the basis of asking where the votes are. The new regulations for this legislation will see the regional nature of that funding program removed and projects will have to compete regardless of where they are in this nation. That is going to mean that when a mischievous government looks to shore up its position at the next poll they will putting money into those populous metropolitan areas and the bush will miss out again. That will be to the detriment of Australians who want to take to the nation’s highways and live in regional Australia.

The reason that that has been done and the reason that section 5 has been totally removed is that they do not want any mention of the word ‘regional’ when it comes to the criteria for selecting programs that will receive funding. An additional $763 million that would not have been available under this fund previously will now be available to spend on metropolitan programs where the votes are not regional programs. It will fund commitments that were made prior to the 2007 election.

I have given you some great examples of regional projects that have been funded. Projects like those are not going to be funded in the future. It is a change that this House ought to oppose. It is a change proposed by the government for which they ought to be ashamed. The backbenchers of the government who have some interest in regional Australia will rightly be slammed over this. This is simply another poke in the eye to anyone who lives outside metropolitan areas. It is a vote-grabbing exercise. It is a cheap political move to rebadge this at the expense of the Australian taxpayer and at the expense of those who are living in regional Australia. It is something that I deplore. It is something that my constituency will be made more and more aware of from today. As this news filters down to rural constituencies, they will become more and more disposed of this government. That is my wish.

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

The member for Kalgoorlie is right on one thing. As the news filters down through the community, they will have a very clear picture: a picture of a government that is committed to delivering infrastructure right across Australia, regardless of electorate. They will also have a very clear picture of an opposition—a Liberal Party and a National Party—hell bent and determined on doing anything that it can to stop infrastructure spending in those very same electorates. This is a preposterous position from an opposition that, while they were in government for 12 years, did not spend the money to fix up the roads, railways and boom gates. They did not spend the funding that was available in boom times in their own electorates.

The programs and infrastructure spending that they are talking about blocking and denying their own constituents are not new programs in terms of the work that is needed. These projects have been around for a decade or more. They sat on their hands and did nothing. They did not deliver infrastructure. And now that they are in opposition they take every opportunity to continue to block funding and prevent these projects taking place in their own electorates. What sort of thinking does it take from an opposition, hell bent on their own future and outcomes, to disregard its constituency? It is not a credible position. After 12 years of not funding good and worthy projects—after 10 to 12 years of not doing the things that they should have done; after not taking that responsibility on—they find themselves in opposition in this place and, when a good Labor government has the opportunity to spend that money and to provide that infrastructure, the road and the rail projects, what do the opposition do? The opposition attempt to block them in the Senate and oppose the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009, which we are discussing today.

When I listen to the debate either on the monitor or in here in the House directly, what are the main concerns that I hear? What is this opposition’s number one thing that they are more upset about than anything else? It is not the fact that they are going to get a very serious and dangerous rail crossing fixed; they do not come in here and talk about that. It is not the fact that finally someone is going to take responsibility for and fix a project that has been sitting on their books for a decade or more; it is not that. No, it is the name change. They are more upset about the legacy of former Prime Minister Howard. They spend so much time in this place in the limited time we have available to us talking about legacies and great contributions, but it us who have to deliver the infrastructure. It is us who in the tough times, in a global financial crisis, are left holding the can, who are having to do the work that they should have done. But they did not have the fortitude. They come in here and talk about getting re-elected and all the rest of it, but, before you even think about elections, think about doing something in your own electorate. Think about delivering the infrastructure projects; think about doing something for your own community.

The opposition may laugh but, if they will not do things in their own community, we will. We will take on that responsibility. We will do it in the good times and we will do it in the tough times. We will do it whether we have to borrow to do it or whether there is spare cash floating around. I am not afraid to talk about debt or about borrowing, because people do understand the difference between a good government and a bad government. They know a good government is one that is prepared to invest in them, that is prepared to borrow money to make sure that you drive the economy, that you prevent jobs disappearing, that you save industry, that you save lives, that you build the legacy projects and the infrastructure projects needed in this country so that we as an economy, as a people, as a community can actually get through this. We will get through this, soon enough, and when we do it will have been all those great legacy projects that this government has provided that will have made the difference.

Opposition members talk about all these things, but just remember that they are talking about their opposition to school funding in their own electorates. They are actually going to vote against their own schools. Think about that for a moment—they are going to vote against funding for their own schools, they are going to vote against funding for road and rail projects in their electorates. They are going to vote against the need to upgrade serious high-risk, high-fatality areas such as railway crossings and boom gates. They are going to vote against Roads to Recovery programs. They are going to vote against black spot funding. Why? Why would they vote against all that? I do not know—why would anyone vote against funding in their own electorates? Maybe we ought to pay very close attention to the speeches that we are going to hear from opposition members as to why they actually oppose this. So far all I have heard is because it is a name change. So, for the sake of a name on a piece of paper in legislation they are prepared to forgo funding for their schools. What bighearted Liberal and National parties we have in this country!

This is the first opportunity they have had in more than a decade to actually do something for their own electorate because they did not have the gall to do it while the government. They had the opportunity; they just did not take it. They come in here and talk about projects that are not funded—we could do this in our electorates and we could do that in our electorates. Why did they not do it when they were in government? Why did the members of the now opposition, the Liberal and National parties, not actually take it upon themselves to argue for it in their own caucus room, within cabinet, with the then Prime Minister to actually deliver on road and rail funding; on funding for ports and all the other great programs. No, that is not of concern to them. What is of concern to them is the legacy in their own minds of the former Prime Minister. It is all about name changes, about who gets recognised for delivering these programs.

As I said earlier, before you think about getting recognised for what you have done, do it in the first place. Do not wait for another government to come along, as we have done, to actually do the job that the Liberal and National parties would not do. They come into this House and say one thing but in their electorates they do another. They do one thing here, but say something different somewhere else. It is exceptionally dishonest to turn up to a school in your electorate that is getting funding and say to them that you are absolutely in favour of the funding they are getting, but then come into this House and vote against it. The Liberal and National parties should be ashamed. Their behaviour is disgraceful and all of the House should support these measures and other measures delivering vital infrastructure for the Australian economy.

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

It is interesting to see that all the Labor members have been told they can speak for only five minutes on what is supposed to be one of the great programs of this government. The garrulous member for Oxley must have been hugely disappointed that he was allowed to speak for only five minutes. I note he is leaving the chamber now.

Last week in this place I heard the member for Longman quoting Shakespeare—Julius Caesar, I believe. I did not think it was particularly relevant, except perhaps the words ‘in shallows and in miseries’, which brought to mind the current government’s administration. However, in considering this Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 and the name changes and the rebadging that it brings, I am also tempted to quote Shakespeare, this time from Romeo and Juliet: ‘a rose by any other name would smell as sweet’. The meaning of that is that what matters is what something is, not what it is called. There is no doubt that the AusLink program was a very successful Howard government initiative. It has been associated with the Howard government and it is no strangeness to me at all that this government is trying to get rid of a badge that was very closely linked to the Howard government. They are bringing in this legislation and are hoping to get it passed on the basis that they want to get rid of any reference to the name AusLink because of its success and its connection with the Howard government.

That is the case with this bill—it does not matter what you call it and what spin you put on it; this is fundamentally Labor seeking to rebadge a successful Howard government national transport program and, in so doing, attempting to fool the Australian people that they are actually spending more when in fact they are spending less. I will come to that later. In the early days of my term as the member for Barker I was very vocal about the inequity in the local roads funding formula for South Australia. In fact, my first speech after my maiden speech was about the need for improved road infrastructure in rural areas. I certainly have continued to speak on that matter wherever I am because it is a very important issue in my electorate of Barker.

This bill changes the name of the AusLink program. AusLink offered a single funding regime and a defined national network of important road and rail infrastructure links and their intermodal connections. It had a range of funding categories, the three of particular importance to my electorate being Roads to Recovery, black spots and the Strategic Regional Program. I can certainly vouch for the fact that the electorate of Barker received more funding from those areas than any other electorate in South Australia.

The Howard government’s Roads to Recovery program became an essential element in local government’s ability to maintain and upgrade the local roads network. The Howard government established the Roads to Recovery program in 2000, and in July 2005 the program became part of AusLink. AusLink was a successful program under the Howard government and the funding initially was $2.24 billion including $304 million for Roads to Recovery. It was an outstanding example of a partnership between the national and local governments to provide direct funding to local communities. It bypassed the state governments so we did not have the cost shiftings. It was particularly important in my electorate of Barker, where we have thousands of kilometres in rural roads.

In rural areas it is the local roads which link our homes and farm properties to our schools, shops and sporting facilities that take us to the arterial roads and national highways. In regional areas in my electorate they also link entire communities. Roads to Recovery had a strong rural and regional focus and the funding helped local councils begin to address the backlog of regional and rural road maintenance, thereby improving safety, transport efficiency and stimulating economic development across the country. I was particularly pleased that the budget in 2005, when we gave over $1 billion to the Roads to Recovery program, included an additional $26.3 million specifically for councils in the Barker electorate.

AusLink Roads to Recovery has been a great program for all the roads in local government areas in this country and it has certainly helped their funding for roads. In fact in South Australia we got the best deal of the lot, probably because we were not getting such a good deal in other areas, but we argued that we should certainly get a greater share than other states. Our funding increased by 118 per cent for every council in South Australia whereas the Australian average was about 70 per cent, which in any terms was still a very substantial increase in funding for roads.

I was in local government for 11 years before coming to this place and when I talked to my local council people they were very thankful for the Roads to Recovery program. In fact they often expressed it in terms such as, ‘It was a godsend for our council. It actually meant we could fix up our roads and build new ones.’ Local councils in my electorate regularly told me that the program made an enormous difference in reducing the backlog of necessary maintenance whilst creating more jobs, provided safer travelling and reduced costs to local businesses.

The $205 million we gained for the Sturt Highway, which leads up to the Riverland in my electorate and is also the main highway to Sydney from Adelaide, certainly made it significantly safer as well as reducing travelling time for the thousands of vehicles that use it daily. The Dukes Highway was another major improvement where we funded over 30 overtaking lanes built onto the road to address a horrific crash rate, thereby increasing traffic volumes, particularly the number of commercial and heavy freight vehicles using the road as it is the main road link from Melbourne to Adelaide. Other improvements have included shoulder sealing over the full length of the Dukes Highway and major reconstruction of the section between Bordertown and the border. I was able to get a grant of $15 million to spend on 17 kilometres of road from Bordertown to the Victorian border because that road infrastructure had deteriorated quite badly.

Regional roads funding was a priority under the Howard government which recognised that transport and regional service are integral to the economic wellbeing of Australia. I might make the comment that when the road was in bad condition, the state government, rightly, reduced the speed limit from 110 to 100 kilometres an hour. I agreed with that. But when the road was fixed and it became the best part of the Dukes Highway in South Australia they kept the speed limit at 100, whereas the rest of the highway was 110. And guess where the state government put their police patrols to try and pick up people speeding? On the only section of road on the Dukes Highway with a 100 kilometre an hour limit!

Examples of direct benefits to local government and local businesses and communities are many, including the upgrade of the Kadlie Bore Road at Tailem Bend so it could accept B-double vehicles, which are very important to the transport and agriculture industries, and its widening to accommodate trailers behind prime movers. In Robe we resurfaced Boatswains Road to service local and tourist traffic needs. The reconstruction of the Canunda Frontage Road in Wattle Range facilitated tourism in our south-east. The extension of Stirling Road in the Tatiara provided a better strategic freight route linking the Dukes and Riddoch highways. Indeed, I use that road myself quite a bit.

The Black Spot Program in regions was always a priority under the Howard government’s Roads to Recovery. Federal Labor flip-flopped on the importance of the black spot funding over the years. Despite clear evidence of the lives saved and the crashes avoided, the Hawke and Keating Labor governments actually abolished this program. It took the coalition’s return to government in 1996 to reinstate the highly valuable program and fund it at an appropriate level. That allowed a large number of black spots in my electorate of Barker to be fixed, despite the failure of the state Labor government to meet its own infrastructure responsibility. In fact the Black Spot Program has been so well recognised that our state governments and I suspect other state governments have copied it—even using the same name. It shows the necessity of the funding.

It was a Black Spot Program that installed 4.5 kilometres of guardrails for hazardous embankment drop-offs along the Angaston to Loxton road. Shoulder sealing and edge lining along the Mount Pleasant to Walker Flat road made the road considerably safer. The installation of a staggered cross intersection at the Carpenter Rocks Road, Dickson Road and Burrungule Road intersection in the lower south-east are many other examples. Importantly they are local roads and they are very important to the safety of local residents and rural and regional communities, which have already suffered under Labor slashing years of numerous rural and regional programs.

This bill moves the Black Spot Program away from local roads and streets and allows the Rudd Labor government to direct it instead to the national highway system, which already has substantial funding. Importantly, AusLink separately earmarked funding for local and regional transport improvements and, sadly, that is lost in the bill before us. This bill removes the requirement for the minister to consider the regional consequences of projects and, in doing so, it takes away protection for rural industries and the rural infrastructure needed to support them. In reality, this will mean less funds being spent in regional areas—a Labor trait that is becoming all too evident. This will come back to haunt Labor members in rural areas who have been as quiet as a church mouse on this reduction in spending on rural areas. Where are the Labor members for Leichhardt, Capricornia, Dawson, Flynn and Forde in Queensland, for example? Where are the Labor members for Page, Richmond, Dobell and Macquarie in New South Wales? Where are the Labor members for Corangamite and Corio in Victoria? Why do all these Labor members in rural areas let road funding be reduced by a citycentric Labor government?

When you take road funds away from regional Australia, you take away safety. You take away the ability for people to go safely about their business and to transport their families to school and sporting facilities many kilometres away. A child sitting next to mum or dad in a car being driven from the family farm to Saturday morning school, 40 or 50 kilometres away, has as much right to road transport safety as does any city child. The Black Spot Program saves lives, as it prevents serious accidents by upgrading serious accident sites, and rural and regional families should not be denied that protection because Labor decide to change the nature of the program so that moneys will go to just a few projects on the national highway system. The strategic regional program supported the growth of regional industry and enabled major infrastructure such as the $3.1 million project for the Millicent heavy-vehicle bypass—and I was down there recently seeing the work being done on that very important bypass.

This bill permits the strategic regional component funding of AusLink to go to fund projects in non-regional locations. It will shift funds from regional areas to the cities, and that is to the direct disadvantage of rural and regional Australians. The Rudd Labor government have now decided to subsume all of the components of AusLink into the Nation Building Program. I said earlier that this was an attempt by Labor to fool the Australian people that they are spending more. A quick look at the figures shows that in fact they are spending less. Land transport infrastructure funding in 2009-10 will actually be about $2 billion less than in 2008-09. Many of the new infrastructure projects are simply re-announcements of projects proposed by the Howard government. Unfortunately, none of these are in the electorate of Barker.

The O-Bahn extension, which was not recommended for funding by Infrastructure Australia and was not a priority of the state Labor government, might be good news for city dwellers in Adelaide even if they want it—and there is still considerable argument about where it would go—and the modernisation of the Gawler railway line will be good news for the residents of the Labor seat of Wakefield, and likewise the Noarlunga-to-Seaford rail line extension will give the member for Kingston something to crow about. Unfortunately, the funds would have been better spent on the Southern Expressway, which must be the only one-way expressway in Australia. It runs one way for part of the day and then runs the other way for the rest of the day. Just to confuse things even more, on weekends it changes around again so you never know whether you are coming or going on the Southern Expressway, although some barriers are put in place to ensure that you do not go down the wrong way at the wrong time. So the funds would certainly have been better spent on that road infrastructure. None of these projects will reach the electorate of Barker or anywhere near it. They will do nothing for the heavy-vehicle drivers transporting fresh produce from the Riverland to city markets. They will do nothing for the heavy-transport industry in the south-east of South Australia. Wineries in the Barossa will not get more passing lanes to facilitate bringing their goods to Adelaide, just as I am pretty sure their hundreds of thousands of cartons of the good drop will not get a seat on the modernised Gawler-to-Adelaide railway. Regional infrastructure is as essential to Australia’s economy as its metropolitan infrastructure—not so under a Labor government which has again turned its back on rural and regional Australia.

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

In his remarks on the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009, the member for Barker asked where was the member for Capricornia. I can assure him that I am here speaking on this bill about nation building. That is not something that I was ever able to do in my years in opposition because there were not any bills about nation building coming before this parliament during the Howard years. In contrast, we are a government committed to nation building and this bill is a central part of that aim. It will ensure the effective delivery of a program worth more than $26.4 billion for our roads and railways. In essence, this bill is about delivering greater efficiency for the provision of funds to these important projects. Of course, that has been the mantra of the government since we took office, especially since the global financial crisis and its effects began unfolding last year. It is clear from everything that we have seen before the House this year that the government is not only taking action but is taking swift and effective action to counter the effects of that global financial crisis and also to undo the neglect of infrastructure that we saw under the previous government.

This bill introduces changes that expedite the process of getting construction works started sooner. It will mean jobs are created sooner and important infrastructure will be available for our economy and for our community sooner. Making these changes now will ensure that we can deliver our road and rail infrastructure program in the most efficient way. I see that throughout this debate the opposition have continued their obstructionist games. They are looking to oppose some of these measures and to seek some amendments, something that we have seen all too often from the opposition as we try to get on with the job of protecting Australian jobs and the Australian economy from what is unfolding globally.

From the outset the opposition have stood in the road of our plans for nation building in this country. They have voted against new infrastructure for primary schools; they have voted against community infrastructure projects—and in so doing they have voted against protecting the economy and Australian jobs. I guess we should not be surprised by that attitude, because it is consistent with the Liberal and National parties’ record in government, where we saw a total neglect of infrastructure throughout the country, particularly in regional areas. An example of their neglect and poor attitude towards infrastructure is the cut to road funding in 2006-07. For them, infrastructure, like everything else, was all about politics. We have seen that played out again here in the House in the last few months, when opposition members voted against nation-building projects and nation-building initiatives and then went back and spruiked another message to the local papers in their electorates, claiming credit for projects that they had opposed when they had the opportunity in this House.

The opposition want to amend this legislation so that it cannot include funding for black spots on the national network. I do not how they explain that position. It beggars belief that they would want to exclude dangerous parts of our roads from receiving funding and upgrades. These Black Spot projects, after all, are upgrades that reduce accidents and protect lives.

In fact, there are two projects on the national network in Capricornia that the government has committed to that fit into this category. These are both on notorious parts of the Bruce Highway—one north of St Lawrence and another north of Sarina. The government is installing rumble strips and fatigue markers at these black spots. I drove this road at night just a couple of weeks ago, and I can testify to the importance of these rumble strips. Too many accidents have occurred because of fatigue on the long and sleepy stretch of highway between Mackay and Rockhampton, but it seems that if the opposition had its way these black spots would be robbed of important funds.

I am pleased to see that this legislation will allow the minister to approve funding for black spots projects on the National Land Transport Network. The success of the Black Spot Program has been well documented, and recognised, I must say, by speakers on both sides of the House. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has some key numbers which really demonstrate why it is such a good investment. The numbers indicate that this program has prevented at least 32 fatalities and more than 1,500 serious injuries in just three years. The program also returns $14 for every $1 invested, by reducing the number and cost of crashes.

In March this year I had the pleasure of announcing to the people of Capricornia $2.2 million in black spot funding. That included seven extra projects worth $1.7 million funded under the government’s nation-building packages. These included the two projects on the Bruce Highway I have already mentioned. It also included widening, sealing and line marking at Nine Mile Road, Fairy Bower, not far from Rockhampton; widening a causeway and realigning the intersection of Rifle Range Road at Sarina; realigning and sealing a section of Courtneys Gap Road, west of Sarina; line marking and new traffic signals at High Street and Ford Street, Berserker in Rockhampton; and upgrading signage, line marking and pavement at Pacific Drive and Barfield Street in Salonika Beach not far from Sarina. These projects were assessed and recommended by a panel of independent road safety experts including the RACQ, Queensland Police, Bicycle Queensland and the Queensland Trucking Association.

I also want to mention the Roads to Recovery program, which is a great boost to local councils in my electorate. Roads in Capricornia are getting increased funding through the Roads to Recovery program thanks to money going to local councils. The Rockhampton Regional Council is receiving $8.25 million, while the Isaacs Regional Council is receiving $5.585 million over five years. Along with the Mackay Regional Council, these local government authorities will spend the money as they best see fit. We are making sure that local communities are getting the maximum benefit from this funding, so we are leaving it to councils to identify their priority projects.

One of the key messages in this bill and in the budget delivered earlier this month is that the government is committed to infrastructure. The list of projects is too long for me to list here, but one of the most important things to come out of the budget for people right across my electorate—and indeed for people throughout Queensland—is the funds going into the Bruce Highway. There is a whole list of projects that will make major improvements—both efficiency improvements and safety improvements—to that key strategic piece of infrastructure. Many people in my community drive the Bruce Highway for business and leisure and they will all welcome these upgrades. Similar road upgrades are happening all over the country.

In conclusion, I remind the House that the Rudd government will invest $35 billion over six years on transport infrastructure. It is a welcome change from the previous government, which failed to deliver on our infrastructure needs and left our roads and railways severely lagging. Now, however, Australia is getting the funding it needs for black spots, Roads to Recovery and boom gates at level crossings, as well as major upgrades to roads in general and railways and ports. Our commitment to investing in infrastructure is driven by strategic outcomes, not political outcomes. This government is making nation building a priority to overcome the neglect of infrastructure that we suffered throughout the Howard years.

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

in reply—I thank members for their comments and contribution to the debate on the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is central to the delivery of the government’s Nation Building Program. A road and rail infrastructure program worth more than $26 billion—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The order of speakers on this debate shows that the next speaker is not the minister. What is happening?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister sought the call and he has been granted the call. What is your point of order?

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is that the speakers list is not being followed as it should be. If the minister is guillotining this debate please tell us.

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

There is no-one on the list.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Parkes is on the list if you want to see it, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

I do not need to see it. You have made your point of order. The minister has sought the call and I have given him the call. Does the member for Canning have a point of order?

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have, because the House is not following the speakers list that has been printed. If the minister is summing up, that is a different issue, but the speakers list is not being followed. If you are summing up and you are going to guillotine the bill, you should at least have the courtesy to tell us, because the speakers list has not been completed.

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

The member for Canning will resume his seat. I had understood that the opposition had been advised. That was my advice and I understand that the speakers list has not been completed, but I was advised that the opposition had been advised. Minister, please clarify this for me, because I was advised by your good self that the opposition had been advised that you were going to close the debate.

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

On the point of order—

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

No.

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

Or did you want me to sum up the bill?

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

No, I want you to clarify the position as you gave it to me.

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

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was agreed that this bill would go through before 2 pm today. The opposition was advised that we would guillotine if need be at 1.30. When, however, there were no more opposition speakers in the chamber who were on the list, I concluded that the debate had ended and rose to sum up. The reason why we need to have the debate finished before two o’clock is to give the shadow minister an opportunity to then go through and move the opposition amendments.

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

We’re happy to spend all day on it.

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

Well, we have a range of business before the House. This will be put through before two o’clock.

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

Minister, you advised me that the opposition had been advised. The speakers list that I have before me is certainly not complete—the one that I have on my table. I do not know what you have on your table; I have one that was given to me by the Speaker’s office.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have one which—

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

Yes, and that is the one I am working from, but you advised me that the opposition had been advised—

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

To satisfy the Deputy Speaker, if the opposition would like me to move that the question be put, I would be pleased to do so, but that just gets everyone in here for an unnecessary division. It is up to them. It makes no difference, except—

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

Mr Truss interjecting

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

The minister has the call. I will just repeat for the benefit of the House: I was advised by the minister and I specifically asked him, ‘Have you advised the opposition?’ and he said yes, the opposition had been advised.

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

I advised the Manager of Opposition Business and he was going to discuss it with the opposition whip.

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

I call the minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. By blocking this bill, they are standing in the way of the effective rollout of the Nation Building Program. That includes over 120 road and rail projects. It includes the elimination of thousands of black spots around the country, the installation of 292 boom gates at high-risk level crossings and the construction of additional rest stops for truck drivers.

The bill proposes changes to ensure there are effective provisions for major road and rail infrastructure projects on the National Land Transport Network, as well as for projects off the network, and effective provisions for the Roads to Recovery program and the Black Spot Program. We have secured memorandums of understanding with each and every state and territory government, including Western Australia’s. All those governments have entered into these cooperative arrangements with the Commonwealth to build the nation, and they have done that to address the 11 years of inaction that the coalition left the government with.

Blocking vital road and rail infrastructure projects at any time is unacceptable, but to do so in the midst of a global economic recession is a deliberate act of economic vandalism. Just as bizarre as their decision to vote against our legislation are the reasons the coalition give for doing so. They do not want federal dollars used to fix black spots on sections of our national highways. They also do not want to upgrade urban roads. The opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party is emerging as the greatest threat to the nation’s economic recovery and the modernisation of the nation’s infrastructure. Not satisfied with having left a major infrastructure deficit, now the coalition are attempting to thwart our efforts to act.

I want to address the two coalition amendments that have been put forward and explain why they are unacceptable. The opposition will be moving amendments to part 6 of the bill, which relates to off-network projects. The bill proposes to amend the principal act to make it clear that part 6 can be used to approve funding for projects which are off the National Land Transport Network in both regional and metropolitan areas of Australia. This is unacceptable to the National Party. They have therefore put forward an amendment stating that off-network projects should only be allowed in regional Australia.

We have heard much rhetoric from those opposite on those issues. It is time, though, that the National Party came clean. Here are some examples of what they used the strategic regional program for. Two million dollars was used for the Campbell Parade upgrade at Bondi Beach in the electorate of Wentworth. They said that was a strategic regional road and say they are opposed to the use of these funds in urban areas. You cannot get more urban than Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach. Any further east and you are on your way to New Zealand—and yet, for the marginal electorate of Wentworth, there was funding out of regional Australia put into Campbell Parade.

There was funding from the program in another marginal seat at the last election too, and that was the electorate of Bennelong. Regional road funding of $509,000 was spent on the upgrade of Balaclava Road, $239,000 on the upgrade of Cox’s Road and $280,000 on the upgrade of Wicks Road. What hypocrisy and opportunism from those opposite! And $10 million was used for the Lloyd Street extension in the marginal seat of Hasluck, allocated from the strategic regional roads program.

I will table a list of off-network projects to which the coalition is opposed. The list contains 41 projects worth $655 million that they are opposing if their amendment to this legislation is carried. In New South Wales: no funding for the Bega bypass, no funding for the Alstonville bypass and no funding for the North Orange bypass. In Victoria: no funding for Springvale Road, for Warrnambool intermodal terminal, for Shepparton intermodal terminal or for Clyde Road in the electorate of La Trobe. I will wait and see what the member for La Trobe does on this amendment, whether he wants $30 million to be spent on Clyde Road in the electorate of La Trobe. In Queensland: the Peninsula Development Road in Far North Queensland, sealing community road upgrades in Cape York. In Western Australia: the new interchange at the Reid Highway and Alexander Drive intersection in Perth. During this parliament, just last week, the member for Stirling came in here and said there should be more funding for his electorate for roads. Well, he has an opportunity in a little while to vote for that, or else his opportunism and his betrayal of his electorate will be known to everyone in that electorate. In South Australia: the Victor Harbor intersection with Main South Road.

In Tasmania—and I notice in the chamber the member for Lyons, someone who supports regional development in Tasmania—the amendment would stop funding for the Kingston bypass. It would stop funding for the north-east freight roads. It would stop funding to upgrade the Derwent Valley rail line from Boyer to Karanja, in south-west Tasmania. In the Northern Territory, it would stop the funding of Port Keats Road at Wadeye. Who could possibly be cynical enough to move an amendment to delete these fundings? Only the National Party. In the ACT, it would stop the upgrade of the Canberra airport corridor—$30 million. I ask you to think about that when you are struggling to get to the airport on Thursday night. Those opposite are opposed to that. I table the 41 projects worth $655 million.

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

The minister must seek leave.

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

No, I do not.

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

Yes, in the middle of a debate you must seek leave.

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

I seek leave to table them.

Leave granted.

The second amendment is extraordinary. It opposes black spots funding on the national network. The Leader of the National Party nods in agreement. This is in spite of the fact that in his speech one of the things he did get right was acknowledging the increased funding for black spots which we have included as part of our stimulus packages.

In question time last week I raised the article in the Latrobe Valley Express on 25 May where the member for Gippsland welcomed the funding, boasting about the great benefit that black spots would achieve for his electorate. If the member for Gippsland votes for the amendment which will be moved by the Leader of the National Party, that very black spot that he had his photo in the local paper applauding that it was going to be fixed by the Rudd Labor government will not be eligible for the funding: $450,000 to fix the black spot at the intersection of Post Office Place and the Princes Highway East in Traralgon. The intersection of Heyfield Road and Princes Highway in Sale will also miss out on $5,000 of black spot funding.

If the member for Mallee votes for the amendment moved by his leader, the Leader of the National Party, then five projects on the national network in his electorate of Mallee will not get the funding: $70,000 to fix a black spot on the Western Highway and Urquhart Street intersection in Horsham, $92,000 to fix a black spot on the Sturt Highway intersection with High King Drive and Madden Ave in Mildura, $20,000 to fix a black spot on the Western Highway at the Horsham and Kalkee roads intersection, $30,000 to fix a black spot on the Calder Highway at the Hattah and Robinvale Road intersection and $20,000 to fix a black spot on the Calder Highway at the Walsh and Arnolds roads in intersection.

The member for Maranoa has released three media releases since February saying he supports black spot funding in his electorate. If he votes for the amendment which will be moved by the Leader of the National Party, then $70,000 to fix a black spot on the Warrego Highway and Condamine Street intersection in Dalby and $500,000 to fix a black spot on the New England Highway between Coochie Road and Brown Road in Braeside will not be funded. This is, once again, an extraordinary example of the coalition saying one thing in their electorates but another thing here in parliament. I seek leave to table a list of the black spots on the national network.

Leave granted.

When it comes to infrastructure investment, the National Party is very confused indeed. The fact is that our second budget delivers more funding for infrastructure projects than that provided last year in our first budget. All up, we will invest a record $6 billion in 2009-10 to build new and upgrade existing transport infrastructure—more than we provided in 2008-09, with a total over that period of $11.9 billion. The allocations that make up this unprecedented investment program can be found on pages 24, 34, 89 and 107 of my department’s portfolio budget statements.

I want to put to bed this argument about how much the coalition was intending to spend, and the best way that I can do this is to publish a budget media release issued on 8 May 2007 by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, and the then Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Jim Lloyd. I seek leave to table that media release.

Leave granted.

It states:

The Australian Government will invest $22.3 billion in Australia’s land transport system from 2009-10 to 2013-14.

That is what it says, that was their position, and yet the Leader of the Nationals pretends somehow that they had $31 billion allocated. All you have to do is look at the previous government’s budget papers and their own press releases. That is what they budgeted for. This government has budgeted $35.8 billion, including the Nation Building Program, the equity injection into the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the new transport infrastructure investments announced in the 2009-10 budget.

To conclude, the amendments that the opposition have foreshadowed not only would damage the integrity of this legislation and the delivery of our Nation Building Program; they are also totally inconsistent with what the opposition say not just in their electorates but in this House when it comes to funding in their specific electorates. Instead of that, what they have foreshadowed is that they will actually vote against this legislation. Like they voted against the Infrastructure Australia legislation, like they voted against the creation of the nation-building funds, they are going to vote against the Nation Building Program—absolutely extraordinary. They will be voting against the effective delivery of 120 road and 26 rail projects, voting against eliminating the thousands of dangerous black spots across the country, voting against the boom gates at high-risk level crossings and voting against the construction of additional rest stops for truck drivers.

The fact is that this legislation is a part of this government’s absolutely central commitment to nation building and to infrastructure development that will create jobs and stimulate the economy now but also leave Australia in a much stronger position as we emerge into economic recovery. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.