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

I have received letters from the honourable member for Lyne and the honourable member for Goldstein proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the member for Lyne, namely:

The current threat posed by funding disputes for urgently needed projects for regional Australia, such as the Pacific Highway.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate members from both sides of the chamber staying to support this matter of public importance, because it is important and it is urgent. This is a matter in time in public policy where we have a great opportunity for state and federal governments to work together on many projects. We have a great threat at the moment where party politics can get in the way of the opportunity and we have an inability as a consequence to achieve the outcomes for this country that we might otherwise achieve.

I start with the good news. Six months ago Australia voted. A tight result was the consequence. The father of the House is obviously passionate about this topic, but a tight result was the outcome federally of the last election. Some tough negotiations happened. It was wound up with a bit of a longish speech at the time and a power-sharing arrangement was what occurred federally as a consequence. Over 80 commitments were agreed to over this period. A lot of work has gone into these over the last six months in getting the structures right and now we are starting to see from last Tuesday night some of the funding commitments, particularly in regional Australia, that are occurring as a consequence. Some of the long-term structural changes for future parliaments regardless of their political persuasion that will remain embedded as a consequence of this are a regional development department that is now back in place, a subcommittee of cabinet that now reviews all aspects of decision making on behalf of the regions and, importantly for this motion and for relationships between the Commonwealth of Australia and the states, real funding going into the Regional Development Australia network.

Fifty RDA committees are now in place around Australia. They are all doing good work strategically on behalf of their communities and, importantly, this structure is the meeting place between the Commonwealth and the states. The regional development arm of New South Wales is essentially the same regional development arm as of the Commonwealth. That has been important as of the last six months. What was a frustration before that was that real funding was not attached to this meeting place. That is now there and it empowers local communities and regions to get on with the job of community building. That is the good news and hopefully the good example for this debate of the power of cooperation that can achieve real results in building more productive and more resilient communities and getting better results with taxpayers' money. State and federal governments, therefore, regardless of political persuasion, can work together. The consensus structure that is now here to stay will, over time, deliver significant outcomes, mostly around the fact that there has been agreement and cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states, and because party politics has been put in the back pocket.

Now for the warning bells. We have seen in today's news some expression of concern, surprise and shock by the new New South Wales Liberal Premier that the $1 billion of extra money allocated to the Pacific Highway from the Commonwealth in Tuesday night's budget may be under threat. This Commonwealth commitment of an extra $1 billion—$750 million of new money and $250 million-odd that has been moved from a project in Sydney, with the agreement I understand of New South Wales, across to the Pacific Highway project—has significantly boosted the Commonwealth commitment to the Pacific Highway project, from $3.1 billion in its lifetime to $4.1 billion. That is about a 30 per cent increase we have achieved—

Mr Ruddock interjecting—

I think you are agreeing with me. Thank you, Father of the House, for agreeing with my point. We have seen a 30 per cent increase in the commitment from the Commonwealth for the construction of the Pacific Highway project.

Mr Ruddock interjecting—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Berowra and the minister will not have a discussion across the table. The member for Lyne has the call. The member for Berowra knows much better.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This $1 billion of extra and new money into the Pacific Highway project does lay down a challenge. It reaches out to New South Wales to match that commitment in what has been traditionally a fifty-fifty funding agreement for what is a very important nation-building project. The challenge is there for the New South Wales government in its first budget after campaigning heavily on this issue, visiting sites such as the site of the Clybucca bus crash and making plenty of noise that it would commit to a 2016 completion date. It will not get there unless it matches the funding that was in the Commonwealth budget. Unless an extra $2 billion goes into this project, the Pacific Highway dual carriageway will not be completed by 2016.

We can bang on like the member for Berowra is banging on about party politics and about the conflict between the Commonwealth and the state or we can focus on getting the job done. I would hope the member for Berowra, like all members in this parliament, wants to focus on getting the job done. It is that simple. This project can go in one of two directions: it can be a cooperative project that does have a real chance of completion by 2016, making a more efficient road, a safer road and a road that contributes to productivity in this nation, or it can be an ongoing squabble about funding. I would hope this place works closely with other chambers—in particular for this project New South Wales—to focus on the state and national interest in completing the job.

Here is the rub: in my view, cooperation in public policy beats conflict every time. Personally, I have done all that I can at my level to ensure full completion of this project by 2016. We should not sneeze at $1 billion of extra money. I have read comments over the last 48 hours from members of this chamber who are local members on this highway not only sneezing at this money—

Ms Saffin interjecting—

I know the member for Page is not, but there are some who are really trying to bag this project and the money going in. They should be focusing on the importance of this money to getting the job done.

The New South Wales government has a challenge—I hope it takes it up and commits. It campaigned on it and if it is going to fulfil its promise of completion by 2016 it has to match the Commonwealth commitment; otherwise, a significant broken promise will have taken place in New South Wales. I reach out to Barry O'Farrell to do the deal—let us get this project done. Through cooperation, let us do what former governments—state and federal, Labor and Liberal—have failed to achieve. The Regional Development Australia model of cooperation that I began my speech with is the answer. The Pacific Highway can be an example of similar and further cooperation. If not, the message and the big warning bell for this chamber is that this will be the start of a significant threat to public policy and the national interest. In Tuesday night's budget, we saw for the first time a separate regional Australia document. There is a great deal of money coming down the pipe from the Commonwealth largely to state assets, whether it be for infrastructure, hospital projects or education projects. If the Pacific Highway is the first part of an ongoing game that goes on between the Commonwealth and the states, between Labor and Liberal, it will be the greatest threat to nation building in this country. I would hope—

Opposition members interjecting—

I hear nothing but confirmation of my argument. I hope that this is a parliament that, regardless of minority status or otherwise, is focused on the national interest, cooperation and partnerships. This is a test for federal Labor, as it is a test for New South Wales Liberal. Their political positioning must come second to state and national outcomes. It is being done as an example through the Regional Development Australia network. I think that is a good example for us to hang our hat on and to try and exemplify in other areas of public policy. But it is, as of today, under threat in regard to the Pacific Highway, despite the $1 billion of extra money in Tuesday night's budget. As I said before, of greater concern is the significant partnership projects, particularly those in health and education, that are coming quickly down the pipe and that we must work on sensibly and together. So, yes, I think it is there for all to see: federal Labor gain power by a millimetre and the New South Wales Liberals gain power by a mile. But my request to the House today, which I hope gets support, is to get over it and to get on with it. This is too important a moment to lose. Building a better, stronger and more resilient nation and building better, stronger and more resilient regions is the best path for both parties. It is the only path that will maximise the value of taxpayers' money, because the other path is one of squabbling and conflict and of achieving a lesser outcome for taxpayers' money.

I put this request to the House in relation to good examples where the states and the Commonwealth can do it: they can work together when they want to. Labor and Liberal can work together—we all can. Greens and Independents can also work together when they want to.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Even the Nationals and the Greens do at times come together to work together. They do it when they want to. The mining and farming conflict is an area where the Nationals and the Greens quite often take similar positions, and they do so for the right reasons on many of the issues at stake in that very difficult public policy area. So it can be done if we want it to be done.

I hope the Pacific Highway funding commitment made on Tuesday night is not under threat. I hope the focus is on the election commitments of both federal Labor and the state Liberals to try and complete this project by 2016. The $1 billion of extra money in Tuesday night's budget is the start of that commitment at a Commonwealth level, and it is now stump-up time for the new New South Wales government to at least match that if we are going to get to 2016. Today's comments in the paper are of concern if New South Wales will not match that money and 2016 will not be delivered. There is an opportunity for everyone to speak in this debate—

Opposition members interjecting—

If I heard what I think I just heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, the federal coalition would put more money into the Pacific Highway. Is that the commitment?

Opposition members interjecting—

I think I just heard a commitment from the federal coalition to put in more money than $1 billion, and I look forward to the contribution of other speakers to either confirm or reject that—$1 billion is good money; it should be welcome money. And we should be welcoming New South Wales to commit similar money to get the job done. That is a simple request. There are examples in other areas of government. There are opportunities or threats in other areas of public policy, and the Pacific Highway project is the first test. I hope we focus on the opportunities, I hope we push for cooperation and I hope we keep the focus on the national interest.

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

I do indeed thank and congratulate the member for Lyne for moving this MPI and for his unwavering commitment to building duplication of the Pacific Highway. The N1 is Australia's most important road right up the east coast. In 2012, next year, we will complete the duplication of the Hume Highway—a great achievement. What we have done with our commitment in the budget on Tuesday night is take the next step to making sure that we can deliver the full duplication of the Pacific Highway by the year 2016. That is absolutely vital.

I want to begin my contribution by talking about the day of 20 October 1989. Not far from Grafton, the driver of a semi-trailer loaded with fruit juice went to sleep. With a massive concentration of ephedrine in his blood, he had done everything he could to stay awake. His vehicle careered across the road into the path of a passenger bus, splitting it open and throwing passengers onto the road. Twenty-one people died in that crash and a further 22 were injured. It was the worst accident of its kind in Australian history. That record did not last for long. Two months later, at Clybucca near Kempsey, two fully loaded tourist coaches, each travelling at 100 kilometres an hour, collided head-on. Seats were ripped from their anchor bolts, people were trapped within the bus and 35 people died that day and 41 were injured.

The coronial inquiries that followed both disasters produced a long list of improvements to vehicle and road safety. But top of the list was the call for the Pacific Highway to be duplicated. This is something for someone who travels up and down the Pacific Highway and it is also something on a personal note. My name 'Anthony' comes from my young cousin whom I never got to meet. He was killed on the Pacific Highway at Halfway Creek. He was killed before he was of school age. After the war, his parents went up to this area to build the Halfway Creek Motel, and they did it with their own hands. My uncle was an ex-service man. My cousin ran out onto that road and was killed just before I was born. This is where I get my name 'Anthony' from. Later on—and people who are familiar with the area would know this—the name of the motel was changed to Anthony's Motel at Halfway Creek. And the name has changed a number of times since my uncle passed on. So I understand very well why this highway is far more important than petty politics. I have a personal commitment to it, and I am very proud that we have delivered on it prior to Tuesday night with $3.1 billion of funding. That compares with $1.3 billion over the 12 years of the Howard government. Look at the political makeup of the electorates, federal and state, along that highway and you will see that there is no question that this is a commitment that is above politics for the Australian Labor Party. It is a commitment that we are about doing the right thing, like all those who live and work on that coast but also all those who travel, even if it is once a year, up and down that road when they go north to get a bit of warmth for their holidays.

The fact is that over the period 1996-97 through to 2008-09, the federal contribution to that road was $1.3 billion. The state contribution to that road was $2.5 billion. The federal government did not step up and do its fair share during that period. Since then it has been fair to say—and I have been openly critical of them—that the former state Labor government did not do its fair share on the Pacific Highway. Our commitment of $3.1 billion compared with $500 million under Nation Building Program 1.

We found, in a very tight budget on Tuesday night, an extra $1 billion for that road. That is made up of two parts. There is $750 million of new money. In addition to that, after negotiations an agreement was reached between this government and the state government to redirect $270 million from the M4 East to the Pacific Highway. Those negotiations included personal discussions between the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales, discussions between myself as the minister and the Premier of New South Wales and the state transport minister and also discussions between the new head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Eccles, and Mr Terry Moran, the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Duncan Gay made a statement to the parliament on this just this week and the Prime Minister reiterated that statement. Duncan Gay said this yesterday: 'The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals have been advised that the M4 East extension is not currently shovel ready and that further work is required to define the scope of the project to complete the planning process and carry out an environmental assessment including consultation with the community. In other words, if we wanted to spend the $300 million, even if we wanted to extend this congested motorway, we could not do so.' That is what the New South Wales Minister for Roads told the parliament yesterday. Hence there is an agreement that $30 million would be retained in the allocation for the M4 East should the New South Wales government put forward a suitable proposition for expenditure of that and $270 million would be spent—because otherwise it would just be sitting there not used—on the Pacific Highway.

There have been some quite absurd statements made by some people in the coalition, both federal and state, over the past two days. The fact is there was $3.1 billion; there is now $4.1 billion. The maths of that are not hard. That is the federal contribution and commitment to the Pacific Highway over a seven-year period. The fact is that that will not be enough over the longer term to fully duplicate it. We have asked for the $750 million to be matched dollar for dollar by the New South Wales government. It is true that there is not an agreement in terms of that being signed off on by the New South Wales government in relation to the $750 million, but our commitment there should come as no surprise.

We viewed the $270 million differently because it had already been allocated to New South Wales and we asked New South Wales to make a small contribution to top that up. They did not do so, so that stands: no matching contribution to that part of the component. We accepted that when that was put from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. That is the level at which this discussion has occurred over the last fortnight. So let us have none of this nonsense about surprise with regard to that. It was negotiated on and agreed to between the two levels of government as a good outcome for New South Wales.

It is true that we had not announced the additional $750 million before the budget. It is also true that we want that to be matched. We will sit down with the New South Wales government and we fully expect that to be matched. But I want to say this to the New South Wales government, as I have said to the New South Wales transport minister and the roads minister: this is not an ambit claim. We can only achieve the full duplication if it occurs.

I say to people such as the member for Cowper, get on to your National Party colleagues and tell them to do the right thing. Your mob did not when they were in government federally. That is the truth. You know that is the case. But you have an opportunity in the state. Let there be no doubt as to our resolve. We ask nothing more and nothing less than that the coalition in New South Wales be consistent with their statements. The new Premier said on 9 April 2010:

The Pacific Highway should be above party politics. It is an on-going partnership between the Federal and State government.

The Deputy Premier, Mr Stoner, said on ABC Mid-North Coast radio on 18 February 2011:

We have committed an additional $5 billion on top of the infrastructure money already in the forward estimates in the state budget fast track vital projects and I cannot think of any more important than the Pacific Highway.

Those are pretty clear statements from them. Now that we have stumped up the money we expect that to occur as well.

The roads minister, Duncan Gay, talking about the then New South Wales government on ABC News when money was coming in from the federal government as a result of our commitments, said:

And I would hope this time he would have been a statesman and say, 'Yes I will match that money and save the lives of people in New South Wales that have to use this highway.'

It cannot be clearer. This money, when added to by the $750 million minimum contribution from New South Wales, will allow all the planning to be completed and will allow the Kempsey bypass construction activity to continue in a seamless fashion for the Frederickton to Eungai section. That is the section where the Clybucca bus crash happened. How can we as a parliament sit back and play petty politics with the worst accident in Australia's history, with the coronial inquiry held more than 20 years ago, when we have not fixed it? I am committed to fixing it. I am not going to sit back and watch anyone, be they the Premier of New South Wales or anyone else, evade their responsibilities, wash their hands of it, say it is too hard, get up in parliament and talk about who said what to whom and when and, frankly, try to talk their way out of any responsibility for this vital road.

Construction is taking place right now on the Kempsey bypass, Ballina bypass, Bulahdelah bypass, Sapphire to Woolgoolga duplication, Glenugie upgrade, Banora Point upgrade—more than 1,000 workers on site right now. In 2009 we announced, not as part of any budget and with no big page 1 spiel for it, $58 million extra so the planning work could take place on the Frederickton to Eungai sections so that it is ready for construction, because we know that, if we are going to meet that time line, every opportunity has to be met to put money in. We had already announced $35 million on the section between Port Macquarie and Kempsey. Once again, why? It was to get it shovel ready, and now in addition to that we have the extra billion dollars.

The fact is that, in infrastructure projects that have been identified by Infrastructure Australia, New South Wales got $2.06 billion from the Building Australia Fund out of a total of $7.4 billion. It has now got another billion dollars on top of that for this priority project, taking its contribution to well over a third, well over its share. We have seen, I believe, that this is absolutely necessary. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has said that transport infrastructure is a state responsibility. That is his view. He said the provision of federal funding for projects of transport infrastructure is as silly as the state government having to 'buy new tanks for the army.' We do not take that view. He has an opportunity tonight to back in our commitment, to call upon his coalition colleagues to actually join the task, because this is one that should be above politics.

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

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the member for Lyne's MPI before the House today. It raises the issues of a federation—the role of the states and the role of the Commonwealth and the way in which our system has evolved over the years in terms of conflict between the various political persuasions which arises from time to time. Thankfully, that does not occur all the time. The instance that has been mentioned today is in relation to the specific funding of the Pacific Highway. I am very hopeful—particularly with the announcement the other night of $2 billion for mental health, which I thought was a very good announcement at the federal level—that the states and the Commonwealth will actually try and cross some of the philosophical boundaries and create a better circumstance for all Australians, irrespective of their political persuasions, and I ask members of this chamber for their support.

I am disappointed that the member for Berowra is having his afternoon sleep now. He was in here a moment ago making some suggestions about the Pennant Hills Road, demanding that another city road be fixed, another city road be upgraded—another city road on this continual spin in our major cities where we just create more roads and more congestion so we can create more roads so we can have more congestion, and the lifestyle impacts of that occur. I do not apologise for participating with the member for Lyne and other independent members in attempting to negotiate—and successfully, I think—a better deal for people who live in country areas, because we have seen a continual contradiction in this country. We have a lot of people living in major city areas and a lot of problems in those areas, and the politics of the day tends to feed the problem rather than address the solution. In some of the road upgrades that are being talked about and in other infrastructure upgrades—the National Broadband Network and other things like that—we may well see a change in thinking from this centralised feedlot arrangement that both sides of the political persuasion have concentrated on over many years.

I congratulate the minister for transport, Anthony Albanese, and I also congratulate Simon Crean, the regional development minister, for the way in which they have been thinking through some of the issues to some lasting results. I have seen a number of areas in which historically the states and the Commonwealth have worked well together. The multipurpose services, or MPSs, as they are known—inappropriately, in my view—have been an extraordinary success. They recognised a problem of escalating health costs in the smaller communities. They recognised a problem of aged care services and acute care services in the smaller communities. Rather than have the convoluted dogfight that develops from time to time, what they actually did then—and this was across Labor and Liberal, which I applaud—was recognise that the aged care services are appropriately funded at the federal level and the acute care services at the state level. They co-located and co-funded, and it has been a brilliant piece of public policy that I think everybody agrees with. People of different persuasions at both levels have been able to work together for the betterment of their people. A lot of country people are very appreciative of that MPS structure. So it can be done.

But we have seen this buck-passing of money—large sums announced at one level of government and then the other level will not match it—played out with the F3. I am sure the member for Hunter would recognise that. The F3 Branxton bypass is an issue where that has been carried out for some years.

Recently in the budget we saw another positive development, with the New South Wales government, under Barry O'Farrell, and the federal government, under Julia Gillard, working together. There was an announcement in the budget of $120 million for the Tamworth Base Hospital, not just for acute care services but, very importantly, to allow the medical school that is based in Armidale and works in conjunction with the University of Newcastle to develop a teaching hospital of some magnitude. Some of that money is to go specifically towards creating doctors and allied services for other regional communities. That $120 million from the Commonwealth was joined with $100 million from the New South Wales government.

There was another interesting partnership last year, prior to the hung parliament, where $42 million went towards a cancer care clinic, which will also be co-located in Tamworth Base Hospital. I think $31 million of that was Commonwealth money and $11 million was state money. On top of that, there was $10 million from the state government for new maternity facilities and another $20 million for accommodation and training aids for the medical school component of that hospital. So there will be something like $292 million invested, not just in that particular community but in the teaching of medical students and other professionals, with both levels of government working quite effectively together. Some politics is played from time to time, but thankfully that has been overlooked on this occasion and we see the benefits of both sides working together.

Another issue that I think the state parliaments, this parliament and people of various political persuasions in this parliament need to take on board, in terms of the various states that they represent, is to try and find a lasting solution to the Murray-Darling issue. I chair a committee on which there are Liberal, National and Labor members as well as myself as an Independent. I congratulate those people for what they have done in working through what was quite an inflammatory environment. Some would remember that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released a guide document which inflamed the community. But I congratulate the members of the committee, from different political persuasions, for actually concentrating on the issue and trying to arrive at a lasting solution to what has been a lasting problem. Within months, we should have some recommendations that will go before the parliament.

I would also raise the issue that the states of different political persuasions among the five jurisdictions that originally signed the John Howard document to address this issue have an obligation to work with the Commonwealth to achieve a positive outcome. I know Barry O'Farrell well. In my last hung parliament, which was in the early nineties, Barry O'Farrell was one of the messenger boys who used to deliver messages from ministers to ask whether I would support this or that in a tight parliament. The other person with whom I have maintained a close relationship is Joe Hockey—

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

The member for North Sydney.

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

Well, he was not the member for North Sydney then, but he is the member for North Sydney now. He worked in that particular parliament as well. I congratulate Barry O'Farrell on his ascension to the office of Premier. In my view, he will be a safe pair of hands for New South Wales. But I urge him not to get involved in the political machinations of the Commonwealth parliament but to take advantage of the particular parliament that we have—as I think he will—and try and work together with it where possible. Obviously there will be some differences, but where possible we should work together for the betterment of all the people that we represent, in his case people in the state of New South Wales.

I also would like to thank the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, who will be visiting the New England area tomorrow—and I think he might be on some parts of the North Coast as well—for announcing in the budget that there will be a sum of money for the New England Highway, to do the planning and construction work for Bolivia Hill, which is the last of the dangerous hills on the New England Highway in my part of the world, and to put in place some planning and structural work for a bypass of Tenterfield, the birthplace of our Federation, which probably takes my little contribution in a full circle. Tenterfield is the birthplace of our Federation—although that might be disputed by some southern communities—and the highway there is quite dangerous, with a very narrow street and a hill on both sides. That part of the New England Highway is an accident waiting to happen.

I conclude by saying that, if members of all political persuasions and the various states work together, I think we can achieve a lot more for our communities. (Time expired)

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker—

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

I call the honourable member for Hunter. The reason I do so is that there is a tradition in this place that the debate alternates between the non-government side and the government side. While this matter of public importance debate has been put forward by an Independent who might be supporting the government, he is not an Independent in coalition with the government, so technically he is part of the non-government side of the parliament. On that basis, I call the honourable member for Hunter, the Chief Government Whip.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A very sage ruling, if I might say so, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for the call. I want to assure the member for Paterson that if it is necessary I will be happy to extend the time to allow him to speak, because I have no doubt that he will be rising to congratulate the government on the additional expenditure of funds on the Pacific Highway, which of course runs through his electorate, and equally, no doubt, he will be rising to express his concern that the Premier of New South Wales is now baulking at the Commonwealth's offer.

This is very much a discussion about the budget, and I would like to start by congratulating the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the broader cabinet, including, of course, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, on what is a very, very good document. For me as the member for Hunter there are three key focuses. The first is the commitment to very quickly returning the Commonwealth's finances to the black. That is so important for inflation and therefore interest rates and, of course, keeping pressure off families at a time when there are very real cost-of-living pressures. The second is making sure that all Australians share in the bounty which will flow from the mining boom mark 2, and that certainly will be the case in my electorate as a result of the redistribution of funds which will flow from the minerals resource rent tax.

The third—and one and the same—is ensuring that, with unemployment below five per cent now, we take this opportunity to get people who have been on welfare for too long back into the labour market and therefore back into the workforce. We will do that in two ways, with a carrot and a stick. The carrot is investing in those who need a leg up to do so in basic skills and beyond in education and training. The stick is making sure that those who are capable of working do so. That is important for the economy because we are going up against capacity constraints, and it is very, very good for our social cohesion. There are those who just need some encouragement; there are those who need a good push. I am determined that we implement those policies and that they are given both aspects of that equation.

More specifically, this discussion is about two things. It is about COAG and the cooperation we need between the Commonwealth and the states and—not surprisingly, given that it was sponsored by the member for Lyne—it is about the Pacific Highway. I do not want to say too much about the Pacific Highway—those who have spoken before me have done so thoroughly; in particular, there was a very good presentation from the member for Lyne and from the transport minister—except to say that I know it very, very well. It is of course part of the Hunter region. I was born in Bellingen, where my maternal grandparents lived, so I spent half a lifetime driving or being driven on the old Pacific Highway, as dangerous and as slow as it was. I know the renewed Pacific Highway, thus far at least. It is a huge improvement, and I know we all collectively welcome it.

I want to go back to cooperation because it is just so important, as others have said, in taking the country forward. What is of real concern to me and should be of real concern to everyone in this place is the increasing propensity, I think, of the states to look to the Commonwealth to fund just about everything. It started under the Howard government. I have to acknowledge that the Commonwealth started to take greater responsibility for big projects, strategic projects, important projects, which the states—largely due to the reality of vertical fiscal imbalance—were losing the capacity to fund. It was a good move by the Howard government, and it is an initiative which has been very much built upon by the now Labor government. In fact, of course, we have been investing much more in these areas of infrastructure than did the Howard government.

But it really concerns me that this is causing a sort of shift in the psychology of state governments. Because we have been spending so much money, they seem to now believe that we have a responsibility to do all. I had an experience of this earlier in the week when the new member for Maitland, Robyn Parker—a good woman; I look forward to working with her—responded to the Mayor of Maitland, who was complaining about a section of the New England Highway between Maitland and Lochinvar, in my electorate, which is single carriageway only. The mayor was calling for something to be done. Robyn Parker was quick to the mark to say, 'Yes, the Commonwealth needs to do something about this.' As I pointed out in the Maitland Mercury, the government has spent $1.7 billion on a thing called the Hunter Expressway to effectively bypass that section of road. I think it is reasonable to expect that, given that we have invested some $1.7 billion, the state government might start thinking about taking some responsibility for some of these projects.

Indeed, the member for Paterson got involved in this debate himself. I noticed that after budget night he was so happy, obviously, with what had been invested in his own electorate—no doubt in particular the Pacific Highway—that he thought he would go shopping in my electorate to make the only comment he was prepared to make on infrastructure spending. In doing so, he expressed disappointment that we had not funded the Maitland bypass. I suppose I have to be a bit careful because the member for Paterson is speaking next and he will have right of reply, but there is no Maitland bypass, and that takes me to my next point. The Commonwealth, willing as it might be, cannot fund projects that do not exist, Member for Paterson. There is no planning or design for a Maitland bypass. I get lobbied—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ask Peter Blackmore.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did call the Mayor of Maitland, actually, to clarify that point, and he confirmed what I am saying, Member for Paterson, so thank you for your ill-informed intervention, as usual.

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

The Chief Government Whip will direct his remarks through the chair.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So this is a growing trend, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have not just been funding large infrastructure projects like the Hunter Expressway and the Pacific Highway. In my electorate—I just made a quick note—there are new local road pavements, boom gates, traffic lights, roundabouts, median strips and central barriers, road shoulders and road realignments in Cessnock, Maitland, Singleton, Muswellbrook and Scone in my electorate. In fact, in every town in my electorate there has been an investment in what would be described as more small-scale road and rail infrastructure. These are things the Commonwealth never dreamed of funding in the past, or at least there was no expectation on the Commonwealth to fund these things in the past, and I think it is time that some of our state governments took a bit of a reality check, looked at their own finances and took some responsibility for some of these projects.

I should acknowledge that the then Labor New South Wales government put some $200 million into the Hunter Expressway—$200 million of $1.7 billion. We would have liked to have seen much more, but we welcomed that contribution. But the states, including new Premier Barry O'Farrell—I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt; we will give him a chance to demonstrate that he can be a good Premier; I am sure he has the ability if he turns his mind to it and shuns the politics—should expect to be making these contributions. I was just amazed that he did anything other than come out and welcome overwhelmingly such an acceleration on a road project that has so long been calling for additional funding. If the Howard government had been funding it at the pace we have been funding it, we would have a dual carriageway all the way up the Pacific Highway now. I spoke about cooperation at the beginning and I want to go back to that point. I am a great advocate of the abolition of the states and I am very happy to restate that here. I see I get an almost unanimous view around the chamber. Is it unanimous? Can I have a show of hands?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member for New England ought to observe the standing orders.

Did I miss the score? What was it?

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

It was six.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I think we are stuck with the current arrangements at least for my lifetime and I suspect for some time to come. Given that we are stuck with the partnership, we all need to work very hard at making it stick. It is not just in infrastructure, it is not just in health, it is not just in education, it is also in vocational education and training.

That takes me back to a point I was making earlier. I have been pushing very hard within the government in recent months to help deliver what we delivered on Tuesday night with respect to the long-term unemployed, sole parents who could be working and the too many people on disability pensions who I am sure could be working. But it is not just a role for the Commonwealth; the states will be crucial on this issue. They have departments and agencies at the state level which will need to work in partnership and cooperation with the Commonwealth. This is a big challenge for the country but one we must tackle. If we get it wrong we will all collectively be condemned for passing up an opportunity that only really comes not in a generation but maybe once in every three generations, and that is to ensure that we break the cycle of poverty, we give people meaning in life and we get them out of the psychology of accepting welfare payments and back into work. (Time expired)

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will accept an extension of time if it is offered again by the member for Hunter. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has made grand claims on budget night that the government is to provide an extra $1 billion for the duplication of the Pacific Highway in New South Wales. That would be absolutely great news if indeed it were only true. It seems that he has got the member for New England and the member for Lyne absolutely conned on this. If you look at the budget papers, we see that the minister's $1 billion commitment is nothing short of a fraud. I say that because, instead of the Gillard government putting up new money, all it has done is re-announce $700 million in funds previously committed to the highway and $270 million siphoned from other projects in New South Wales. On page 267 of the budget papers under Infrastructure and Transport, Nation building, Additional Funding to the Pacific Highway, it says:

Of the contribution $700 million had been previously provisioned for in the budget with $400 million brought forward from 2014-15 to 2012.

It goes on with other figures and then it says:

... to accelerate planning, route assessment and other works.

So this is not new money. I note that the member for Robertson is in the chamber. She has got to be absolutely ecstatic about this because the budget papers, on page 268, also say:

The Government will defer its contribution to a feasibility study into the F3 to Sydney orbital project in 2015-16. This will reduce expenses by $150 million in 2013-14. Savings from this measure will be redirected to support other government priorities.

I note that during the election campaign the member for Robertson made much of the need for the F3 to M2 missing link. In fact, in her inaugural speech in this House she raised it as an infrastructure issue that needed to be rectified for her constituents. I am looking forward to seeing the press release praising this government for taking $150 million that was needed for infrastructure planning away from the benefit of her community. And it benefits not just her community but all people that travel the Pacific Highway, indeed up to the New England Highway through to Sydney. It is an absolute disgrace that that $150 million has been pulled.

The government is not providing new money for the Pacific Highway, it is just pushing congestion further down the road. It is reallocating money that was there. An article in the Australian on 12 May, page 8, says:

The largest tranche of new infrastructure funding in the budget for New South Wales is $750 million towards upgrades to the Pacific Highway in the north of the state. But Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner said the promise was partly offset by the scrapping of the previous commitments of $270 million towards an extension of the M4 motorway in Sydney's west and $150 million for the study about connecting the F3 to the M2 motorway.

So the government should at least be honest when it talks about new money. This is not new money; this is just taking from one area and reprioritising it into another. I look forward to the member for Robertson's budget reply speech when she stands up and praises the government for taking away funding for studies that would benefit her community, ones she heralded so much during the election campaign. I am really looking forward to that speech. And I am looking forward to the press release that I have not seen yet praising that.

We need to understand that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport actually conceded in his media release that not one inch of bitumen will be laid with this road funding. The $1 billion they talk about is earmarked for detailed planning, and that has got to be some kind of planning record. We know this government has a history of putting anything it does not want to deal with off into further planning stages. In fact, Labor promised during the election campaign that it would do everything it could to get the duplication of the Pacific Highway finished by 2016. Yet during the October 2009 Senate estimates hearings, the secretary of the federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Mike Mrdak, confirmed this promise, stating to the senators that 'the government retains its objective to achieve a duplication by 2016'. In fact, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, confirmed this promise during question time on Thursday, 21 October 2010 when she stated in response to a question from the member for Lyne that:

I can very much commit to him that the government is committed to duplicating the Pacific Highway by 2016.

Labor had committed only $3.1 billion towards the upgrade of the Pacific Highway from 2008-09 to 2013-14, and the New South Wales Labor government had committed only $500 million towards the upgrade during the same period. It was a total of $3.6 billion committed to duplication. I heard the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in this House today say how appalling it was that the New South Wales government had only committed $500 million. For the past 16 years it has been a Labor government in New South Wales—a Labor government that refused to adequately fund the Pacific Highway.

How many times in the past 3½ years have we heard the minister for transport come in this House and raise that as an issue? How many times has he come in here and said, 'The New South Wales Labor government needs to match the funding that the federal government has put up? Not once. So to come here today with feigned indignation that the new government, the O'Farrell government, has not rushed to match his pledges is nothing short of showmanship. I understand that the reason he did not want to demand that the former Labor government match his funding was that his wife was the Deputy Premier. He was not about to attack his wife and the government that she was the deputy leader of.

I take what the minister says with a grain of salt, because he had the opportunity. No-one would have had a closer relationship with the New South Wales government than that minister, and yet nothing was delivered. The majority of this $1 billion that the government talks about had been previously provisioned in the budget. The $1 billion brought forward in the budget is for planning, route assessment and other works rather than actual construction. Even if you were to assume that the $4.6 billion was available over the forward estimates the government is still short $2.1 billion if it is to complete the duplication by 2016 as promised.

The National Roads and Motorists Association, in its January 2009 budget submission to the Australian government, stated that it would cost a total of $6.7 billion to duplicate the Pacific Highway. On the basis of current road-building costs, the real cost of building the remaining kilometres is likely to be double the $6.7 billion 2009 estimate. This figure was confirmed by departmental secretary Mike Mrdak during the October 2009 Senate estimates. Approximately 411 kilometres of the highway needs to be duplicated by 2016. Of this 411 kilometres, it is estimated that about 260 kilometres will need to be duplicated—that is work that has not started—from 2014 to 2016.

There is a practical inability to achieve that amount of roadwork between now and 2014-16: (1) because there is a shortfall of $2.1 billion in funding; (2) because there is a very tight time frame to duplicate 260 kilometres of road; and (3) because of capacity constraints on labour and materials. Even if that $2.1 billion in funding were provided beyond the forward estimates, it would not be possible to finish that duplication by 2016 because you cannot duplicate 260 kilometres of major road in a single year.

I leave people with just one question: if this minister thought that this roadwork was so important then why did he blow, and be part of a team that blew, a $22 billion surplus? Think what they spent on pink batts and gave away in cash splashes. It could have duplicated this highway three times over. So the feigned indignation from this Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is nothing more than that. There is not a genuine or sincere bone in his body. He had the opportunity and he failed the people in delivering this highway infrastructure. (Time expired)

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

For the benefit of the honourable member for Paterson: you cannot build a road without the detailed planning. Money has to be made available for the construction but also for the detailed planning. That is a simple fact. You cannot just go out and build it.

The road that we are talking about, the Pacific Highway, requires extensive planning. The honourable member for Paterson said it could not possibly be finished by 2016. I have heard and noted every promise, every commitment given by every player about the Pacific Highway over a few decades. The most recent was from the now Deputy Premier of New South Wales, Mr Andrew Stoner, then the Deputy Opposition Leader. He gave a commitment to the 2016 time frame. Everybody has given that commitment. I heard Mr Stoner. I have records of it. I have a file on the Pacific Highway that is knee deep. I have been involved in advocacy, meetings, planning, discussions, debate and in the inevitable funding disputes that the honourable member for Lyne said we should try to avoid. I agree with him, but these have been part and parcel of it since it started. It has only been in the last few years that we have started to get to a situation of agreement and cooperation. I just hope that that continues, because it is absolutely essential.

I found what the honourable member for Paterson said about the figures perplexing. I know the honourable member for Cowper has been bleating in the local media and on the airwaves about there not being new funding et cetera. I do not know why they cannot ever just accept it when funding is made available and say: 'Great. Good on you! Let's get on with the work.' That would be a preferable response but no, they have to go out and sully the waters, disturb people, make them think that nothing is happening. It is just so not true. The maths are simple: $3.1 billion was the previous allocation by this federal government, by the Gillard government. It was started under the Rudd government, continued under the Gillard government and continues again in this budget, with an extra billion dollars in new funding for the Pacific Highway.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

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

Hear, hear, indeed, honourable member for Robertson! I have been in the media talking about it and welcoming it. I thought it would be all systems go, because in the lead-up to the state election in New South Wales everybody was on board: the then state Labor government and the then opposition coalition—now the government—were saying, 'Great, we are going to fund this; 2016 is the operative date.' And I would expect that to continue and, in the spirit of cooperation, I would hope that the Premier does come on board and says, 'The money is available.' I have only read what he is purported to have said in the media. I do not want to verbal anybody. The NewcastleHeraldsays that the highway pledge—that is, the highway pledge from our government—took the state government by surprise. I do not know why, because we have all been talking about it for so long in the media and saying it would happen. A headline in the Daily Telegraph reads 'O'Farrell's fury at Pacific Highway funding split'. I am not sure if that is correct; I hope it is not. The Sydney Morning Herald was a bit more responsible in its reporting, carrying the headline, 'Horror stretch to go once O'Farrell gives funding green light'. That is what we are asking for—the green funding light. Instead of being in the local media telling people that it is not really new funding and blah, blah, blah, I would hope that the member for Cowper would be working with his colleagues at state level to say, 'Great, we have got this extra money; let's go.' I just find it incomprehensible that when money is allocated, particularly money that will benefit his constituents, the people in his seat of Cowper, he goes out and starts to denigrate it. It just seems a bit bizarre to me.

This government is providing $4.1 billion in funding. If we had had that money sooner, if the Howard government had not taken $2 billion out of the national road network—which it did—and if some of that money had stayed in that pie, we would actually be in a situation where we could almost have the duplication of the Pacific Highway today.

I also want to comment on something that the honourable member for Hunter talked about. It was an expectation that the federal government will fund anything, and he referred to the psychology of state governments. I think that that psychology has shifted somewhat into the community as well because there is an expectation that the federal government, whoever it is, can fund anything. If we want to work in that spirit of cooperation and not under the conflict model then we have to ensure that all of us are on board, using the same language, talking about cooperation and talking about the way we can get it funded.

One of the things that I have been able to do as the federal member for Page is to ensure that there are some additional funds for the Pacific Highway and to work in that cooperative model and criticise or critique when it is necessary. Yes, I have critiqued the Howard government and some of the members opposite still here who were part of that government for taking money out of the national road network. Yes, I criticised the state Labor government for taking some money out of the planning pie. And today I am also criticising the coalition government for not stumping up straightaway and saying, 'Here we are, here are the dollars; let's just get on it with it and let's get this road built.'

The Pacific Highway is my backyard; it is my local road. I drive on it frequently. I have been witness to the dreadful accidents that happen on the Pacific Highway. What disturbs me is that a lot of people hit the airwaves when those accidents occur and start the blame game; they start accusing each other. They get in the media and start talking about it. I have never done it. I will not do it. At times like that, just out of respect for the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones, I think it would be better if we kept our mouths shut, and I have adhered to that principle and I will continue to do that. I do not want to be in a position where I wake up early in the morning and hear the first report in the media that there has been another accident on the Pacific Highway. I know none of us do. It is dreadful when we hear that. We do want to ensure that the road is finished.

There has been debate about 2016. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has said that this road can be built by 2016. The Prime Minister has said that in this place. Many people have said that it can be done if the money is there. I heard the honourable member for Paterson talk about a $2.1 billion shortfall. Well, in the budget there was just over an extra billion dollars. We do not need a lot more money. That can come from the state government. Remember: the Pacific Highway was primarily the responsibility of the state government, and the federal government is stumping up because of the need, because of the urgency. The federal government has said, 'Yes, we will fund it because it is an urgent priority; we need to do it.' I hope to wake up in the morning and hear the honourable member for Cowper in the media saying: 'This is welcome. We have got a billion dollars for the Pacific Highway—money in our area. Isn't this great! I am talking to Premier O'Farrell to ensure that he matches this funding,' and that we get this road built by 2016 so that we can stop this debate and have the duplication done all the way to the border.

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

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance because I believe, and certainly my constituents believe, that the Pacific Highway is indeed the most important infrastructure project in this country. In his contribution, the minister mentioned the very tragic accidents that have occurred on the Pacific Highway that are indeed quite famous: the bus crash at Grafton and then not long afterwards, as the minister chronicled, the tragic Clybucca bus crash. But regrettably there have been many more crashes and, as someone who lives in close proximity to the highway, I often hear the sirens of emergency service vehicles racing up the road and all too often they are racing out to an accident on the Pacific Highway. I think most people in our electorate know someone who has been injured or someone who has lost a family member on that road. It is a road that has been overwhelmed by the massive growth in the transport task along the east coast. To the government's credit they have continued the Howard government's initiative to speed up the duplication of the Pacific Highway, a much-needed project. But regrettably, one thing that did occur when the Howard government made that additional investment in the highway is that the New South Wales Labor government at the time dropped the ball, reducing their commitment and largely walking away from their commitment to the highway, which was a bitter disappointment. So I am hopeful there will be fruitful discussions between the federal government and the New South Wales government to achieve the goal of all people in New South Wales to see the upgrade of the Pacific Highway completed as quickly as possible.

There is another concern and that it is the target date of 2016. We are getting close to the point where the date of 2016 is rapidly becoming an impossibility. I believe that there are insufficient funds in the federal road budget to allow it to occur. If we think of the critical path that would need to be followed to achieve 2016, it would mean that within just a couple of years virtually every project on the highway would need to be started. And whilst we have made some welcome improvements in recent years, I think that that degree of activity is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve based on the budget that we had presented last Tuesday.

But we have seen some welcome improvements. We have seen a substantial increase in the amount of dual carriageway but there is still so much more work to do. I welcome the commitment to the Frederickton to Urunga stretch that continues on from the Kempsey bypass. We will be watching progress very carefully. But the shortfall as identified by the NRMA is of concern and it does cast a great doubt on the ability of both governments to be able to complete that project by 2016.

There are some good projects underway in my electorate. We recently saw the completion of the Bonville deviation, with Pine Creek a notorious black spot. That was a project that I fought very hard for, to get that upgrade conducted, and through our federal transport minister and our federal roads minister we were able to work with the states to make that happen. The Kempsey bypass is underway, not only bypassing the town of Kempsey but bypassing the bridge at Kempsey, a bridge that really is not up to the extent of traffic that travels along it. We see the current construction of the Sapphire to Woolgoolga upgrade, another upgrade that I had lobbied for very heavily. And there is the upgrade occurring at Glenugie. So there are some good projects underway, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

There are a number of objectives in the work program that is underway. We have the objective, quite clearly, of making the roads safer and getting that much-needed division of the traffic so that we do not have traffic travelling on single carriageways. We also need to get the trucks out of the main street. It is vitally important. In towns such as in Kempsey, Macksville, Urunga, Coffs Harbour, Ulmarra and Woolgoolga there is a very dangerous mix of heavy transport, long-distance traffic and local traffic. It is vital that we address as quickly as possible, through the upgrade that is occurring on the Pacific Highway, that separation of through-traffic and local traffic.

Another important issue—and there has been some debate over the amount of money that has been the invested in planning—not only for the Pacific Highway but for projects right around the country, is the urgent need for state and federal governments to get together and streamline the planning process. Regrettably, it takes far too long to get from a concept to an actual completed road. That is something we need to work on for the benefit of all other road upgrades in the future. Yes, it is important that we consult the community and it is important that we maintain environmental qualities in and around the places where these major road upgrades occur, but it is also vitally important that we get the planning and approval process to occur in a reasonable time frame, and that is something that is taking far, far too long. We can point the finger all we like but there needs to be a dramatic overhaul of the processes that occur and of the time for consultation that occurs. We need to encourage engagement in the community to take place in a much more timely fashion. We need to encourage environmental assessment to take place in a much more timely fashion. I am not allocating blame on this. I just think that it is a process that has added massively to the cost of the Pacific Highway and is adding massively to other projects right around the country. That is something that we need to address.

The other issue that I will talk about briefly in regard to the highway is the issue of wire rope barriers. Tragically, near Taree we had an accident recently where a motorcyclist had his leg amputated as a result of an accident in which he fell on a wire rope barrier. I think an important element that needs to be incorporated into our planning processes is consideration of safety aspects for motorcyclists. They are a high-risk road user, but there are almost a million registered motorcycles in Australia. There are a large number of motorcyclists who I believe are being put at greater risk by the expansion of the network of wire rope barriers. There are good reasons for having wire rope barriers—to separate oncoming traffic. They are vitally important. But I think it is important that we have a look at the design of wire rope barriers, the location of wire rope barriers, whether they are actually enhancing safety outcomes and the implications of wire rope barriers for motorcyclists. As cars and trucks share the road with motorcycles, it is important that we place a far greater focus on safety outcomes for motorcyclists as a result of the placement of those wire rope barriers. Can we make those barriers safer, perhaps by covering certain key areas of wire rope barriers with an impact-absorbing plastic so that if a motorcyclist falls on it he will not suffer the same fate as the motorcyclist recently injured in Taree? This is a very important issue.

I would also like to comment on the budget papers. I note the minister's insistence that the investment is in fact new money, but I would like to quote from the budget papers. In regard to the $1 billion that has been suggested is new money, they say:

Of the contribution, $700 million had been previously provisioned for in the Budget, with $400 million brought forward from 2014-15 to 2011-12 ($81.0 million), 2012-13 ($99.0 million) and 2013-14 ($220.0 million) to accelerate planning, route assessment and other works.

The budget papers go on to say:

An additional $50 million has been provided in 2011-12 Budget, and a further $270 million has been redirected, with the agreement of the NSW Government, from the NSW allocation of the Nation Building Program.

I certainly welcome any investment in the Pacific Highway. I welcome all measures that are going to speed up the planning and construction of the highway. I certainly welcome any improvements that can be made in relation to the safety of motorists and I commend to the minister my suggestion to have a look at the issue of wire rope barriers for motorcyclists and ways in which we can perhaps make them safer.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The minister rightly points out it is the responsibility of the RTA, but I would just put that safety issue on the radar screen as something that you might be mindful of. As a motorcyclist myself, I certainly appreciate anything that can be done to make motorcycle transport much safer.

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

I had absolutely no intention of speaking on this MPI until I heard the member for Cowper. When I heard the member for Cowper and the hypocritical statements that were coming out of his mouth, I felt obliged to come into this House and take up some of the issues he raised. I have spent my entire life travelling the Pacific Highway and I know the enormous commitment that this government has put into upgrading the highway. Under the current minister, we have not only promised we would give money; we have actually delivered. The member for Cowper is very big on rhetoric and very small on action. He talks about problems with the Pacific Highway. He complains about inaction, but when there is action, when there is a government and a minister that give tangible funds to upgrade the Pacific Highway, he then complains, makes a lot of noise and tries to mislead the people that he represents in this parliament.

A number of members of my family live on the North Coast and they have been really impressed with the contribution that the Rudd and Gillard government have made to upgrading the Pacific Highway. I have a nephew who travels on a daily basis from Nambucca Heads to Coffs Harbour and he tells me on every occasion just how important the upgrading of that road is, how a minor accident can completely stop the flow of traffic on the highway. So what does the member for Cowper do? He comes into this House and complains. What does the government do? It commits real money to upgrade the Pacific Highway.

I would like to congratulate the member for Lyne for bringing this issue to the parliament. I know that he is totally committed to ensuring that the Pacific Highway is upgraded and that regional funding is given to projects throughout Australia, particularly road projects. I know that he is not a person who comes into this House, raises issues, is negative and complains about nothing. For the record, the 2011-12 budget will invest a record $3.7 billion over the next 12 months to renew and extend road, rail and aviation infrastructure across regional Australia—a sum far greater than has ever been provided before. The upgrade of the rail infrastructure in the Hunter has really helped the coal industry and has been of vital importance to the area that I am part of.

The coalition in the past, and even recently, have shown that they are more interested in playing politics than in fixing not only the Pacific Highway but all our major infrastructure. We have seen, for example, the member for Cowper, as I have already pointed out, come into this House and make salacious claims. The claims are shameful and dishonest—$750 million of extra funding is new funding, with the remaining $207 million being redirected from a project elsewhere in the state with the support of the New South Wales government.

I will just concentrate on the New South Wales government for a moment. I read in the NewcastleHerald today that the Premier of New South Wales is making noises like he is not going to deliver on what he promised. He is saying that he has to look at the budget. Any member of parliament in tune with the way the Premier of New South Wales thinks will know that is code for, 'Maybe I am going to back away from a deal I don't want to deliver.' So I will be watching very carefully to see what happens there. If the Premier of New South Wales does not deliver then he will be letting down the people of New South Wales. He will be letting down the people in the member for Cowper's electorate.

The one thing that this government prides itself on is the fact that we have taken the issue of infrastructure and roads very seriously. The current minister has been out there arguing strongly and delivering to the people of Australia. The investment in the Pacific Highway under the Gillard Labor government is at a record level of $4.1 billion over seven years. This compares to the former Howard government's record of $1.3 billion over 12 years. I can remember being on holidays and going to visit my mother at Nambucca Heads and there being petitions in the local fish and chip shop asking for more funding for the Pacific Highway. That was when the Howard government were in power. So they did not deliver and it has been left to Labor to deliver, and we are delivering in a big way.

So I say to the member for Cowper: 'Work with the government. Work with us so that we can deliver to the people that you represent in this House.' We take their concerns seriously. We take very seriously the concerns of the people of the North Coast. We know how vitally important the Pacific Highway is as a corridor that connects Sydney and Brisbane. We would like to work with you, but all we hear in this place are negative comments from the member for Cowper. Member for Cowper: work with the member for Page, work with the minister and deliver to the people of New South Wales and Australia.