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

The Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Lyne, the honourable Leader of the Nationals and the honourable member for Wakefield proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, the Speaker has selected the matter which, in his opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Lyne, namely:

The urgent need for a Commonwealth-State funding agreement on the Pacific Highway with a completion date of 2016.

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

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

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

I thank several members of the House for their support in allowing this matter of public importance to get on the agenda. It is telling that this is the first time a crossbench member has put up an MPI when only one half of this chamber has got to its feet to support it.

It is often said that infrastructure is hard to deliver in Australia today. It is also often said that Commonwealth-state relations have never been worse. Both those statements have a new pin-up and a new poster boy, and that is the Pacific Highway. The Pacific Highway is the new face of the inability of governments, state and federal, to deliver on infrastructure commitments and promises. The Pacific Highway is the new poster boy of the failure of the relationships between the Commonwealth and the states in Australia today. Those that try to argue the case 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' are wrong. This relationship is broken, and the Pacific Highway over the past 20 years is a telling example of the dysfunction that exists in the delivery of major infrastructure projects for Australia.

What makes this worse is that absolutely everyone I talk to or listen to on this project says they get it. Everyone who travels the Pacific Highway and stops at memorials for photo opportunities talks about how they want particular projects done and talks about how they recognise the safety and the efficiency gains by delivering on this project. All politicians seem to agree that this is the priority job—certainly for the North Coast of New South Wales and for New South Wales roads generally. It also used to be for New South Wales transport generally, and essentially for this corridor between Sydney and Brisbane. For the Pacific Highway, until now all the language and all the rhetoric has been that this is the recognised agreed priority corridor for completion by the agreed date of 2016. So when it comes to the crunch and the agreements in writing and in funding are not delivered upon, it is all the more galling and all the more frustrating that we all have seen and heard the words of so many in saying they get it when quite clearly, through the lack of agreements reached and the lack of financial commitment given, they do not. There is some sort of disconnect between the rhetoric of the last decade and the reality of the finances, particularly as demonstrated in the New South Wales budget of last week, which monumentally failed to back up the rhetoric that we have heard from so many members of parliament, saying that they understood what it meant to get to the 2016 deadline. Even though advancing this project has been like pulling teeth for the last 10 to 15 years, this matter of public importance has a sense of urgency about it right now. It is an eleventh-hour bid—a bit of a desperate attempt—to get federal and state action now for the completion of the Pacific Highway by 2016 according to the bipartisan, decade-long agreement. If agreement cannot be reached, it will have significance for many people outside this chamber: this parliament and the New South Wales parliament will have contributed to more deaths on the Pacific Highway—and I do not say that lightly. There have been more than 800 lives lost on that section of road over the past 10 to 15 years. None of us wants to see that number increase and, if we are serious about avoiding or minimising any more loss of life or injury through what is now a very busy corridor between Sydney and Brisbane, we must get this formal agreement in place and complete the project in the next four years.

I also warn the House that, if an agreement cannot be reached, North Coast communities will take matters into their own hands. Two months ago, for example, in a community at Urunga there was a very serious attempt to blockade the highway. That would have significant impacts on a whole range of businesses and affect the function of the North Coast, but that is how frustrated communities have been in the past. That blockade was narrowly avoided for a couple of reasons. I do not fear but I expect and warn this House that, unless an agreement can be put in place, there will be blockades on the highway by communities so frustrated and so cynical about the promises that have been made but not delivered upon. The history of this project is: overpromise and underdeliver, overpromise and underdeliver, overpromise and underdeliver. The communities of the North Coast are sick of it and, quite rightly, are pretty keen to respond to the problem if government will not.

How have we got to this point? In the last 12 months people such as I have been trying to get two things done through this chamber. One was to get a work schedule released. There was a period of time when plenty of people were saying that, in the four-year window coming up, the work could not be done—not for financial reasons but for resourcing and work-scheduling reasons. There either was not the manpower or there were not the resources to do the job. We blew that argument out of the water around January or February by getting a work schedule released that clearly demonstrated that the manpower and resources are there and, over the next four years, section by section, the job could be done.

So it all comes down to the money. In the May federal budget, as all in this place should have seen, the standout item in infrastructure was the commitment of $3.56 billion over the next four years to the Pacific Highway. It was the standout item. If anyone is in any doubt, go to the budget papers and try to argue differently. That was a significant contribution from the Commonwealth, saying, 'On the basis of the agreements in the past we will commit to getting this job done by the agreed date of 2016.'

It all then came down to the owner of the asset. It is fundamentally a state road and it all came down to last week's New South Wales budget. New South Wales had the opportunity to choose this project, double their money and get the job done over and above all other infrastructure demands. Here was a project with a $3.5 billion carrot dangling from the Commonwealth and the opportunity in four years to get the project off the books. What did New South Wales choose to do? They redirected that money to a planning project in Sydney in a rail corridor that is still in dispute and will receive no contribution whatsoever from the Commonwealth. In the clear choice between one or the other—between doubling the money and getting the job done or effectively a halving of the money and not even starting to get the job done with issues still in planning dispute—for some unknown reason the New South Wales government selected this Sydney based project in planning dispute with no contribution from the Commonwealth as the preferred choice, leaving a significant amount of confusion in the planning process around the Pacific Highway and amongst communities, who are white-hot about this decision, particularly the politics of it, where every single electorate along this corridor is either a Liberal Party or a National Party seat. How on earth have they allowed a planning dispute in Sydney to redirect, and effectively pinch, the money from completing the job as promised for the Pacific Highway? In my view, it is an absolute disgrace, and that is why there is a sense of urgency about trying to get some direction from this chamber and from colleagues in the New South Wales parliament on exactly where this road stands on the list of priorities. All this rhetoric that they get it and they want this job done by 2016 seems to now have just gone 'poof' into nowhere. This project is now some sort of lower order priority behind two rail corridors in Sydney that will swallow pretty well the entire transport and infrastructure budget of New South Wales if they remain the priority exercises in that state. If we were in any doubt, there are quotes after quotes after quotes to demonstrate a pretty serious backflip from the New South Wales government who, as I say, overpromised and, in the last week, have clearly underdelivered. Here are three from the New South Wales Leader of the National Party, whose home electorate is right on the Pacific Highway corridor and who now, through his actions, is saying that a Sydney rail corridor is more important than finishing the Pacific Highway. Andrew Stoner, in a media release of 21 February 2011 said: 'Only the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals are committed to completing the upgrade of the Pacific Highway by 2016'—obviously wrong. The Coffs Coast Advocate of 31 March 2011 had this quote from the same gentleman:

The NSW Liberals and Nationals are committed to road safety and plan for the upgrade of the Pacific Highway to be completed by 2016.

Wrong. In the Australian Financial Review of 6 April 2011 we read:

In October last year Prime Minister Julia Gillard told parliament she was committed to completing a dual carriageway on the Pacific Highway by 2016.

Here is the quote from Mr Stoner's spokesman:

We support that, and we want to work with them towards getting there …

What happened? What happened last week? Why the lack of commitment to getting this job done in the next four years and getting this project off the books and working in a bipartisan way with the Commonwealth to actually celebrate an infrastructure project in Australia and the completion of an infrastructure project?

Instead, what we have had since is some sort of attempt to develop a new company line, that this has been some sort 80-20 funding arrangement rather than a fifty-fifty funding arrangement, which is why members in this place would have heard me stand up yesterday and ask the minister about releasing all documents and all correspondence. There is not a single document that has the New South Wales roads minister's signature on it, or the federal roads minister's signature on it, for the life of this Pacific Highway project. So across political boundaries we have seen changes of political colours at both levels over the last 10 to 15 years. There is not one single document that has those two ministers' signatures on it that says 80-20. Unless there is some secret document that New South Wales is withholding from communities, it does not exist. Yet we, in the last week, have had members of parliament in New South Wales stand up and say, 'I have a memorandum of understanding in my hands that is an 80-20 agreement.' That is a complete lie, in a parliament, under privilege. Yet they are getting away with it.

It is time we started to call some people's bluff on this and started to look at documents that are signed agreements between Commonwealth and state ministers, of all political persuasions. And the variations on the language are all 'dollar for dollar', 'matching funding' or 'fifty-fifty agreements'. That is what the three agreed documents I have seen are. One is an AusLink document; one goes back to a Pacific Highway reconstruction document, right back at the start, with Michael Knight and Laurie Brereton; one is John Howard and Mark Vaile in 2007. They are all variations on this same theme: fifty-fifty, matching funding, or dollar for dollar. There is no such thing as a memorandum of understanding that is 80-20. And it is a complete disguise to try and cover the tracks of people who promised big, who overpromised, who got elected on this platform of finishing this job and who have underdelivered. They have failed. And they are going to cost lives unless this issue can be saved somehow, quickly, in the interests of the communities of the North Coast and in the interests of safety and efficiency on probably the major transport corridor in the Australian road network, and particularly between Sydney and Brisbane. I hope we can catch this one and save the 2016 deadline. (Time expired)

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

I thank the member for Lyne for moving this matter of public importance debate today. I, frankly, was shocked that the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party refused to even stand up out of their seats and support this debate being conducted today. This is an absolutely vital national issue. It is an issue for all those communities along the North Coast of New South Wales. But it is also an issue for all those who travel along the Pacific Highway—and it might just be once a year, around the Christmas holidays. But there are people right throughout this nation who have been impacted in a very personal way because of road accidents that have occurred on the Pacific Highway. In 1989 there were the two worst accidents in Australia's history—they still remain a tragic record: the Clybucca incident, and then one further up the road, in just months, in Grafton. It is as a result of that that we had a coronial inquiry. The coronial inquiry recommended the full duplication of the highway.

It is a fact that governments, federal and state, Labor and coalition, have not done enough on this issue. That is a fact. But when I became the minister in 2007 I absolutely committed to doing my best to ensure that we actually had some reality to match the rhetoric about what needed to be done on the Pacific Highway. We have provided, prior to this year, $4.1 billion of funding from the Commonwealth for this highway. That compares with $1.3 billion over the 12 years of the Howard government; during that period state governments put in $2.5 billion. You do not need a calculator to work out that that is almost double, and yet what we have from the state government of New South Wales today is this absolute nonsense that somehow this is the responsibility of the federal government alone. I was extremely critical of the New South Wales Labor government when they did not do their bit on the Pacific Highway. Indeed, I took $50 million from the New South Wales government—the Rees bungle cost $50 million—when they were doing the wrong thing. I was out there at press conferences saying they needed to do more. And do you know who was backing me in: not just the member for Lyne, but every state coalition member from Premier O'Farrell now to Andrew Stoner to Duncan Gay. There was quote after quote. Andrew Stoner, Deputy Premier and member for the seat right in the middle of the highway said:

Nathan Rees can't pass the buck on this issue. The upgrade of the Pacific Highway is a State Government responsibility, so it's up to them to get the job done.

If elected to Government in 2011, we will make the upgrade of the Pacific Highway a top priority.

It is not ancient history; it was in 2009.

Premier O'Farrell on 8 March 2011, two weeks before the election, said:

Only the NSW Liberals and Nationals are committed to completing the upgrade of the Pacific Highway by 2016.

That was two weeks before the election, when they won nearly every seat. When you cross Sydney Harbour Bridge and drive to Queensland, every single seat along the way is held by a coalition member, without exception. The roads minister said in 2007:

I would hope this time he—

the then roads minister Eric Roozendaal—

would ... say, 'Yes I will match that money and save the lives of people in NSW that have to use this highway'.

I repeat: 'match that money'. That is what they were calling for. It is not surprising that they were calling for that. Indeed, when they were the state opposition they were saying this.

Again, the Deputy Premier on 21 October 2009 said:

I pay credit to the Rudd [Labor] Government ... for increasing the funding... The Pacific Highway is a State road that effectively causes the loss of one life a week.

The State Government must increase its commitment... As ... Mr Albanese pointed out ... the Federal Government is actually carrying the State...

The roads organisations follow this issue day after day. The NRMA president said:

It was the Howard Government that set the 50/50 funding split for the Pacific Highway from 2006 and the NRMA has supported this approach since day one.

While in Opposition, the current NSW Government frequently called on the NSW Labor Government to match federal funding for the Pacific Highway dollar-for-dollar and we supported this call too.

To now suggest that funding should suddenly be reverted to an 80-20 model would ensure further long delays in finally upgrading this dangerous highway.

That was on 27 February this year.

We have agreement after agreement. The AusLink 2004 paper said:

The Government will partner with the New South Wales Government to commence new duplication and upgrading projects by investing an additional $480 million in the Pacific Highway in the five-year period. The New South Wales Government will be expected to at least match this level of funding.

The Pacific Highway reconstruction program New South Wales said:

Under the Pacific Highway Reconstruction Program the Commonwealth will match on a dollar-for-dollar basis additional expenditure on the Pacific Highway in NSW, up to a maximum of $75 million a year ...

That was in 1996. The memorandum of understanding in June 2006 was signed by the Leader of the National Party. It would be fifty-fifty and match the funding. That was the position that was put forward. It was in the AusLink agreement as well.

In 2007 the federal coalition, in a statement by the Prime Minister—this was during the election campaign for the existing program—said:

The Coalition Government is willing to provide our share of the additional funding needed to fully duplicate by 2016, if the NSW Government will match our funding commitment to a faster completion.

So this is not something that has been plucked from nowhere. This is something that has been in place since 1996. It was called for by those opposite. It was called for by the state coalition not year after year, not month after month but day in and day out. The communities on the North Coast of New South Wales had every right to expect that it would happen under the O'Farrell government when it was elected—as it inevitably was. This was not a tough election campaign where they thought: 'Oh, we'd better promise more money. We're not sure how we'll deliver it, but we'd better make a promise otherwise we mightn't get across the line.' This was a landslide. There are 93 seats, with 20 on one side and 73 on the other. Every seat from the Sydney Harbour Bridge to the Queensland border is held by the coalition. They knew what they were doing. The people on the North Coast were entitled to think that they would keep their word.

Yet this is what we have. Last year, when we put in the federal budget $750 million of new money as part of our $1.02 billion of additional funding for the Pacific Highway, 'dollar-for-dollar matching' was what we said. The state government in the Treasurer's speech on budget night and in questions in the parliament that week said they would match the $750 million. Yet there was a sleight of hand. In a letter from the minister for roads on 28 May to me it said:

As noted, New South Wales has committed $468 million under the current agreement. Funding beyond 2013-14 would normally be negotiated in the context of formulating the Nation Building Program. This will now take place as part of finalising the Pacific Highway intergovernmental agreement. As you are aware, more than $7 billion in additional funding is required to complete the highway duplication by 2016.

People who pay close attention to this—and a number of people do, particularly the people on the North Coast—will know that on budget night we allocated additional money to the Nation Building Program and said that it would be available on a dollar-for-dollar basis up to $3.56 billion, which was half the assessment from New South Wales of the remaining costs—$7.1 billion. But last week in the New South Wales budget that $7.1 billion became $7.7 billion because they ripped off $300 million from what they said they were committing in last year's budget to this year. They took $300 million further—the matching amount—from our funding commitment as well, because they knew that it was a matching amount.

So $7.1 billion became $7.7 billion. A tough task became even tougher. They say, 'There are pressures on our budget. We've lost $5 billion of revenue.' This government had to take a $140 billion hit to revenue as a result of the global financial crisis but I went into our budget processes and argued the case. I argued the case; this lot just rolled over. In New South Wales they rolled over for the Liberals. So they have $3.3 billion for a project that will cost at least $14 billion. And they have abandoned the commitment to the Pacific Highway.

I have a meeting scheduled with the roads minister next Thursday. The New South Wales government has, between now and next Thursday, to get on board and actually do. The National Party of old would not have rolled over. McEwen would not have rolled over like this. They would have demanded support for this national project that has been recognised by Infrastructure Australia. Yet the current Leader of the National Party signed documents about the fifty-fifty funding when he was the transport minister. But to give him some credit, at least he was not the local member, the transport minister, Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, as the former member for Lyne was, at that time. They had the other leaders—the former member for Richmond was another National Party leader—and local members all up and down the coast, but they still did not do anything to fix this problem. But they have an opportunity, and we ask nothing more and nothing less than that they keep to their word and do what they said they would do, which is to do their bit.

What will we do? We have on the table dollar-for-dollar funding. The money will go to the Pacific Highway. We will provide 50 per cent funding. It is a matter of what the timeframe is. We know that 2016 is achievable. Those opposite have gone away and said that it is not achievable. We have produced the timeframe with the projects.

I make this point: last week we had the extraordinary position where people on the other side of the chamber were talking about pork-barrelling. The member for Dawson said:

You can only write it down to pork-barrelling and vote buying.

Of the current action on the Pacific Highway, 92 per cent is in coalition seats. If you want an example of a national government rising above politics it is this government and this project. All we ask is that those opposite do what they said they would do. They have that opportunity in the next couple of weeks. They need to deliver on their commitments, because this project is too important to play politics with.

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

The Pacific Highway is a major national priority. It is vital that this road be upgraded, and be upgraded as quickly as possible. It carries a large volume of traffic. There are many accidents on the road. There have been many tragedies and much heartbreak. That is why I grieve at the fact that the government is now seeking to turn the construction of this road into some kind of political barney. Instead of putting their shoulders to the wheel they are turning this into a political stunt. They are changing the rules midstream about funding levels and then trying to, somehow or other, blame the New South Wales state government.

The Prime Minister promised the member for Lyne that this road would be duplicated by 2016. I guess that should have been an early marker that the deadline would never be met, because this Prime Minister never honours her word—we are only 12 days away from the carbon tax that we were never going to have. I might add that this is a carbon tax which is going to make the construction of the Pacific Highway more expensive. It will be more difficult to achieve the objective because the cost of building the road will be significantly higher than it would have been without a carbon tax.

The member for Lyne acknowledged quite some time ago that this target was not going to be met—that there was insufficient funding available. He asked questions of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister seemed to walk away from the issue and said that the target was still going to be met. But in reality, all along the government knew that it did not have sufficient funding on the table to be able to make this achievable.

We have just heard the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport say, as he has often said, that he was upset when the New South Wales Labor government started withdrawing funding from the Pacific Highway. Let's make this absolutely clear: the goal of reaching this target by 2016 died when the previous Labor state government in New South Wales started to withdraw funding from the project. It actually cut the funding. Indeed it is true that Mr Albanese, in a letter that he tabled yesterday, criticised the New South Wales Labor government for taking $300 million off the Pacific Highway so that the state government would only be providing $500 million over the period of the memorandum of understanding. He said that he took $48 million from them as a penalty for that. But that is not true. I pointed this out to the minister in this House once before. Reading from his own letter, it is quite clear that the $48 million was withdrawn from the New South Wales government because they had not signed the MOU on time. It had nothing to do with the amount of money in it; they had not signed the MOU on time. So he was taking the $48 million bonus that was available for early signature away from New South Wales.

But do you know how long this penalty lasted? For two paragraphs in the same letter. In paragraph 2 of the letter, he said he was taking the $48 million away. In the same letter, in paragraph 4, he said:

… I have taken a decision to direct an additional $48 million to provide for further duplication works on the Pacific Highway …

So he took it away, and two paragraphs later he gave it back to New South Wales. That is how angry he was with Labor in New South Wales for reducing their funding for the Pacific Highway.

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

Table it—table it with the signature.

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

The honourable member for Lyne said that there is no agreement around which involves an 80-20 split. That is actually technically correct, because the agreement under the memorandum of understanding has an 83-17 split—$2,541 million—

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

Table it, please.

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

coming from the federal government and $500 million coming from the state government. That is 83 per cent to 17 per cent.

As the time wore on, there were some more agreements. In March 2009, the Commonwealth added another $48 million, which you have just heard about.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In desperation, I ask the Leader of the National Party to table the document he is referring to.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a matter for the Leader of the National Party.

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

I am going to read the numbers, so you will not need them to be tabled. There was $48 million provided, 100 per cent from the Commonwealth and nought from the New South Wales Labor government. In May 2009, the Commonwealth provided another $618 million for the Kempsey bypass—nought coming from the New South Wales Labor government. By that stage the split had got to 86 per cent from the federal government and only 14 per cent from New South Wales—an 86-14 split. Then there was a new national partnership agreement which incorporated these new figures, and it was signed by Minister Albanese, Minister Campbell and Minister Daley—all Labor ministers. They signed up to an 86-14 split.

So every single project on the Pacific Highway when Labor was in government federally and when Labor was in government in New South Wales was on a split of at least 83-17, and in some cases 100-0. And yet the member for Lyne is in here defending this and trying to blame others. The numbers, 86 per cent, 87 per cent, clearly demonstrate that Labor had in fact changed the formula and was intending that there be an 80-20 split on this road.

If you want any further evidence of this, just look at the nation building document released in May 2009, where the government proudly announced the new N1, which for the first time included the Pacific Highway. Prior to then, the Pacific Highway was not a part of highway 1 network. So the funding had been fifty-fifty. Minister Albanese says that the previous government did not spend as much money on the Pacific Highway as the current Labor government. That is true, because the funding share was different at that time. But I could just as easily say that the Howard coalition government spent infinitely more on the Pacific Highway than did the Keating and Hawke governments. The reality is that time has moved on. We were the first to contribute significantly to the Pacific Highway. The current government, to its credit, has continued that, and the next coalition government will do even better. We will make sure that this project is completed.

So the reality is that Labor changed the rules. Every single piece of funding while there was a Labor government in New South Wales was based on at least an 83 per cent to 17 per cent split. It was not until the election of the O'Farrell government that that changed. In May and September 2001 the O'Farrell government committed $468 million extra to the Pacific Highway, and that brought it to an 80-20 split. So was it any wonder that the New South Wales coalition government, when it was seeking election, was making promises on commitments for funding on the basis of an 80-20 split? That had applied to other sections of highway 1 and it applies to other projects in New South Wales. And so this was the arrangement that was in place.

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

Table it!

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

New South Wales was making funding available on the basis of the agreements that were in place at that stage—a signed MOU, Member for Lyne. There was therefore every reason to believe that that was indeed the funding arrangement.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In further desperation, I ask the Leader of the National Party to table this mythical memorandum of understanding.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. These things are a matter for the Leader of the National Party.

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

The reality is that we listened to the member for Lyne in silence but he chooses to interrupt everyone else. I think that is a recognition of the fact that he knows that his argument is threadbare. He has become too politically connected to the government to actually see the facts, and that is a real concern to me—that a man who purports to be independent will not actually look at the issues as they really are and make sure that the facts are told as they should be.

Another letter, which the minister tabled yesterday, is from David Campbell, the then Minister for Transport, to him in December 2009. Towards the end of the letter the Labor government says:

Subject to your agreement to the above course of action, I will undertake to seek confirmation of a 20% NSW government commitment to the additional funding required—

for the road. So there is not the slightest doubt that when there was a Labor state government in New South Wales the federal Labor government intended to provide 80 per cent of the funding and the state was only going to be asked for 20 per cent. They have changed the rules now that there has been a change of government and because the federal government itself has reduced its funding commitments.

In the document that they presented in May 2009 they said there would be over $4 billion of funding in 2012-13. We know that that is now only just over $2.6 billion. For the following year there was to be $5 billion, and they have slashed that amount of funding as well. Labor has cut its funding for roads and the Pacific Highway is suffering, and they are now trying to blame the New South Wales state Liberal government. (Time expired)

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How incredibly disappointing yet not surprising that speech by the Leader of the National Party was. It was the same old story, the same old misleading statements. He could not table that fanciful document that he was quoting from; he refused to do that. He was just trying to change the goalposts and the rules. He signed a memorandum of understanding; he knows what the facts are in relation to this. He and the National Party really do represent so much of how they have let down the people of regional New South Wales, particularly those people on the mid- to North Coast of New South Wales. They have done it across so many areas and in so many particular programs that they have not fulfilled, and people are realising now that the National Party just cannot deliver.

We heard before from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport about those state coalition seats right up and down the coast. None of those National Party members could get their Liberal masters in Sydney to commit to this funding. It shows how ineffective they are. They are ineffective at a state level; they are ineffective at a federal level. We see it; I know I see it in my area on the North Coast. It is not just when it comes to roads; it is in other areas as well. They are just incapable of delivering anything when it comes to state funding—totally incapable. It is particularly highlighted when we look at what is happening now with the Pacific Highway and the funding for it. The fact is that they have just not been able to bring forward any of the commitment we need from the state government in relation to this. This is an issue of such extreme importance when we look at upgrading the highway, the safety provisions and those improved road conditions.

I and, I know, many other local members have a very strong commitment to ensuring we have that upgrade. I have a personal perspective. As a former police officer I was involved in attending many fatal traffic accidents, and I have a very strong commitment to road upgrades wherever we can have them and am very proud of the commitments that this government has made. It sickens me when we see the state governments not just weaselling out of their commitments on one hand, but also what I have seen in my area, which is them then trying to make a fanciful claim that somehow there has been a cut in funding and they cannot fund all the commitments they made prior to the last election. They are misleading on so many fronts. That is very typical of the National Party. That is how they respond to things because they just cannot deliver.

In May we saw in our federal budget that we would inject an extra $3.56 billion into Pacific Highway funding if it were matched by the New South Wales government. That would mean full duplication by the end of 2016. We have made that very clear to them. We are asking them to fulfil the commitment that they made prior to the last state election. They came out and said that they wanted to have those funding arrangements in place. In fact, they were calling on the previous state Labor government to match that. We continue to call upon the current state government to do that. If they matched our commitment it would take the spending on this road to more than $7.7 billion over nine years, compared to the Howard government's record of just $1.3 billion over 12 years. We will continue to call upon them to make sure that they honour that.

Of course, the betrayal of our North Coast communities began last Tuesday with the state budget. Despite the fact that the state government kept saying that they supported matching the fifty-fifty federal-state funding, they failed to deliver. We were all there waiting for it, waiting to see it in their budget. There was nothing; they failed to do it. Not only did they not match the funding, not only did they not commit to the fifty-fifty funding; on top of that they cut $300 million from their roads funding. Doing that made it even worse. They were just playing politics and cutting the funding. Now we have the Leader of the National Party walking away from previous commitments. He did not really say what they were going to do now. He was just waving pieces of paper around and talking about false memorandums of understanding. He cannot really give us a definitive date when they are going to do it or, if they were in government, what they would commit. They have no credibility on many issues, and they certainly have none on the Pacific Highway.

In comparison, we have a very strong commitment. We have heard a number of quotes but there is one I would like to give from the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, on 8 March 2011. He said:

Only the NSW Liberals and Nationals are committed to completing the upgrade of the Pacific Highway by 2016.

It is very convenient that he said that prior to the last state election. We certainly heard a lot of National Party members up and down the North Coast saying the same sorts of things and calling on the state Labor government to match that funding. They have all gone quiet now. They are all in hiding, as they always are—every single one of them—because they have been unable to deliver that.

I would like to speak briefly about some of the funding in my seat, particularly the Sexton Hill upgrade, which is just about to be completed. This upgrade was funded by $349 million from the federal government and $10 million from the previous state government. The completion of it means that you can hop in a car in the Brisbane CBD and you will have no traffic lights until you hit Coffs Harbour. This is pretty amazing and it shows what can happen when you do get a major commitment to the Pacific Highway. The state member up there, Geoff Provest, really highlights how ineffective the National Party have been when we look at this issue of Sexton Hill. First of all, he was against the construction of the road and the design of the road. He bagged out the RTA at every given opportunity. He came along recently when we had the minister for transport up there talking about opening the northbound lane to the Pacific Highway at Sexton Hill. He had a bit of a tantrum and left. He has not really contributed anything. He has not contributed 1c. Mind you, he puts out a lot of brochures, trying to claim a lot of the funding for it, but they are pretty desperate attempts.

But what I think really upset people was that when we had the announcement of the state budget, of course the state National Party MP for Tweed, Geoff Provest, was not able to deliver on any of his particular funding initiatives. In particular, he promised prior to the last election that there would be funding to upgrade the western side of Kirkwood Road. There was no money to do that. He also promised money for a homeless shelter. We have not seen that delivered. He also promised funding for a high school at Pottsville. We did not see any of that. But do you know what he is now claiming as the reason why he cannot that funding? He is misleading people by saying, 'I cannot deliver funding because the federal government has reduced funding for the Pacific Highway.'

This is a double lie. First of all, they did not match our funding. Then they cut $300 million from their Pacific Highway funding. Now they are trying to use that as the excuse because they are incapable of getting any money, because the fact is they cannot deliver on so many levels. What makes it worse for people of the North Coast is that we are seeing billions of dollars going into infrastructure in Sydney. We saw over $3 billion go into the north-west rail link. We keep seeing all this money that the state government is committing to for Sydney. We are not seeing any for the North Coast; it has been completely forgotten. The National Party are completely incapable of getting funding out of their Liberal masters, and people are realising that. I highlight further what this state member is doing—it gets better. First he says, 'I can't deliver anything because the federal government cut the funding for the Pacific Highway.' Then he says, 'That's why—that's what makes it all very difficult.' Then he goes on to say that, for the road he could not fund because he never had the money to do it, they are now looking at a proposal from a private company to build an interchange on the Pacific Highway in Tweed Heads South. People are starting to say: 'So you can't get any funding out of Sydney and you make up a lot of lies. Are you now going to be putting toll roads in Tweed Heads? Is that going to be your approach?' This has upset quite a lot of people, and they are certainly aware that he has not been able to deliver. I can tell you that people are not going to be impressed that not only are they not getting their funding requirements out of the state government but they are also having to pay tolls on roads because he promised and cannot deliver on his promises at all.

At the end of the day, people such as my state member Geoff Provest and all the National Party members up and down the coast have to stop making excuses and stop misleading people. Instead, they have to get in there and make their voices heard by the National Party and the Liberal Party to get the funding. If you cannot do it—if you cannot do your job—then step aside and get somebody who can deliver for the North Coast and secure the funding not just for the Pacific Highway but also for everything else. Is this the start of the next few years when they will not be able to deliver anything at all? People are already sick of all the excuses and all the misleading statements. These members have to start standing up and getting results, particularly on issues that are really important and almost above politics, such as this funding of the Pacific Highway.

We have put the offer out there. It is more than $3.5 billion for them to match at fifty-fifty. That is as per their memorandums of understanding—it is what they called for prior to getting into government in New South Wales. We are asking them to honour it, to match it and to join with us and finish this stretch of the Pacific Highway. It is such an important issue for safety and for road upgrades for the people of New South Wales and others travelling in the area. It is now up to the state National Party members up and down the coast. As we know, there are many of them up and down the coast as you go north of Sydney. It is time for them to stand up and deliver, because this issue is so important. The federal Labor government has continued to deliver. (Time expired)

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the very important issue of the Pacific Highway. It seems incredible that, effectively, we are debating in this House the bickering between the state and federal governments, because the people of the North Coast are sick of bickering. They just want the state government and the federal government to shut up and get on and start building the road. There was a commitment in the federal budget of some $3.5 billion for the road and a commitment from the state government of $1.5 billion over the forward estimates for the road, so there is $5 billion in the pot. Stop talking about it, stop arguing and just get on and build it. That is what the people of New South Wales and the people of Australia who travel from Sydney to Brisbane want. We need an effective Pacific Highway to handle the huge transport task safely.

Regrettably, the Pacific Highway is one of the most notorious roads in the country. A number of areas in my electorate are particularly notorious—most notably the accident black spot from Warrell Creek to Urunga. Sadly, today there has been yet another accident south of Macksville. The Macksville bridge is decades past its use-by date and simply not up to the huge transport task of supporting the massive B-doubles which are crossing it in their thousands each week. The upgrade to the Pacific Highway is a huge task and is going to take a huge amount of work to complete.

It seems incredible that members of this House and other politicians are out there are still talking about a completion date of 2016. That is nothing but an elaborate deception. The opportunity to complete the highway by 2016 slipped by long ago. It has taken 16 years to so far complete 52 per cent of the highway, but the government and the member for Lyne would have us believe that, while it took 16 years to do the first half of the project, the second half can be miraculously done in four years. That is a fairy story. As members of this House we have an obligation to deal truthfully with our electorates; we have an obligation to deal with the facts. The simple fact is that if you going to complete the highway in four years you are going to have to complete it at a rate of 80 kilometres a year. They have not come close to that rate in any year so far, and they are not going to do it now.

If we have a look at the stats, we see that they are quite informative. The total length of the section of highway in question is 664 kilometres; 346 kilometres are completed; 318 kilometres are still to go; 60 kilometres are under construction; 121 kilometres are planned; and 137 kilometres are not even in receipt of planning approval. If we look at the time it takes to build some of these very extensive civil works projects—I see the member for Page up there, and there was a massive task completed on the Ballina bypass—we realise that it takes years to do these things. There are huge engineering challenges. There is subsidence in the soil because of the very unstable nature of many of the alluvial flats that have to be crossed on some of the remaining sections. It is a huge task, and 137 kilometres have not even had planning approval yet. With a three-year-plus construction timetable, a lot of planning has to happen between now and the end of the year for there to be any hope of the project being completed by the end of 2016.

The reality is that there is no hope—the program for the completion of the road by 2016 which is talked about by the minister and by the member for Lyne is nothing more than an elaborate deception. It is pretty easy to write a schedule on a piece of paper; it is a lot harder to build and fund the road. I think that the people of the North Coast are entitled to expect honesty from their elected representatives. This road will not be finished by 2016, but we are still duty-bound to use our best endeavours to complete the road just as quickly as possible, to stop arguing the toss, arguing about the split of percentages. Both levels of government should commit the maximum amount of funds possible to the road and get it done just as quickly as they can.

I have two priorities as the member for Cowper, as one who represents a large stretch of the highway. We need to bypass black spots as quickly as possible. Eliminate the worst accident spots first. That clearly has to be a priority. We have to as a matter of urgency extend the proposal to do the work from Nambucca to Urunga. We need to extend that to Warrell Creek so that we take out that entire accident black spot—not just half of it, which is the current proposal. We have a proposal, and I welcome it, to start work on the section of road from Nambucca to Urunga. We had that tragic accident at Urunga earlier in the year. We need to go further. We need to increase the scope of that project right up to Warrell Creek. That would include the area where we had the accident today, a most worthy area of our construction attention.

The other important thing we must do is get the heavy vehicles out of the main streets of our towns. That is vitally important. It is vitally important that we bypass Macksville, as I said. The bridge cannot cope with the loads on it at the moment. We need to bypass Coffs Harbour. We have some 13 sets of traffic lights going through Coffs Harbour. Bypassing Coffs Harbour would result in a huge improvement in traffic efficiency on the Pacific Highway. It is vital that the Coffs Harbour bypass be an integral part of the Pacific Highway project and not left until the end. It certainly must be completed just as quickly as possible. Ulmarra still needs to be bypassed. That is a vitally important project. These are very important projects. We saw in Urunga, tragically, what happens when heavy vehicles crash in a built-up area. It is a disastrous situation.

I have been fighting since I have been the member for Cowper to ensure that the highway is upgraded as quickly as possible. I welcome all financial commitments, both state and federal, towards the construction of the road, but I am concerned that there is an attempt at deception to make people believe there is any prospect of a 2016 completion date, which there is not.

If you look at the funding as detailed in the federal budget you will see that there is no additional funding scheduled for the financial year 2012-13. Of the $3.5 billion that has been committed to the road by the government, there is no additional funding for 2012-13, which is somewhat disappointing. There is only $231 million for the year 2013-14. It is not until we get to 2014-15 that the new expenditure essentially ramps right up. We have just over $1 billion in 2014 and $1.4 billion in 2015. But if you were to look for a clue as to what the real completion date for the Pacific Highway is you would need to look no further than the budget, because there is a remaining $1 billion still to be spent in 2016-17, which is outside the forward estimates period. So the budget papers themselves tell the story that not even the government believes this fairy story that this project will be completed within the period up to 2016. You cannot complete almost half of the Pacific Highway link in just four years. It is an engineering impossibility. It is a fairy story perpetuated by the member for Lyne and the minister that you are able to do that. We need honesty with our constituents.

We need both the state and the federal governments to commit the maximum amount of funding to the road. We need to get the big trucks out of the main streets. We need to bypass the worst accident black spots first. Saving lives has to be a priority. Improving amenity in small communities has to be our priority. Improving travel efficiency around Coffs Harbour has to be our priority. We have massive numbers of trucks and cars which use the main street of Coffs Harbour every day. It is a deadly and toxic mix to have heavy vehicles mixing with local transport. It may have been acceptable in an era when the levels of traffic on the highway were only a small fraction of what they are today. Traffic volumes have grown to such a huge extent that that is not tenable in the 21st century.

I call on all members of this House to work constructively towards the completion of the Pacific Highway just as quickly as possible, to be honest with the Australian people and to work towards realistic time frames to complete this very important project so that lives are saved, the road is made more safe and transport can move more efficiently up and down the east coast.

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

I rise to speak to this motion. I am pleased that we are talking about the Pacific Highway but not pleased that we are still talking about trying to get the New South Wales government to honour the commitment that they gave to a fifty-fifty funding split. They should just really get on with it.

I listened very carefully to the honourable member for Cowper's contribution. The member for Cowper said in this place in a motion on notice:

The Pacific Highway is a state road designed, built, owned and maintained by the New South Wales state government. The Pacific Highway is a state road.

The member for Cowper said that people on the North Coast are sick of the bickering. And they are, I know, I am a local—I represent the local people. They are sick of the bickering but they are also sick of the litany of lies that have been told about the funding commitments for the Pacific Highway. I want to put some facts on the public record now. Barry O'Farrell on 8 March:

Only the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals are committed to completing the upgrade of the Pacific Highway by 2016.

John Howard, 16 October 2007:

My government's preference remains for the duplication to be completed by 2016 in line with our 2004 commitment.

A further quote:

The coalition government is willing to provide our share of the additional funding needed to fully duplicate by 2016 if the New South Wales government will match our funding commitment to a faster completion.

That covers two things. That shows that there was that discussion early on, that there was a willingness to talk about the duplication by 2016, and also that there was a fifty-fifty shared funding split with the New South Wales government. On 10 October 2007, Duncan Gay, the New South Wales Minister for Roads, who was then a member of the Legislative Council, said in Hansard:

I would have hoped this time that he—

meaning the then roads minister Eric Roozendaal—

would have been a statesman and said, 'Yes, I'll match that money and save the lives of people in New South Wales that use the highway.'

That goes to the commitment to matching funding. I have heard it said by Nationals members in the House today that the Leader of the New South Wales Nationals Andrew Stoner said it would be impossible to have 2016 as the date the Pacific Highway could be duplicated and that, ages ago, he was saying something different. I will quote Andrew Stoner from the New South Wales Hansard of 16 February 2012. He said it was 'something completely impossible given the size of our state's road transport network and our unfair and inadequate revenue base'. That was not ages ago; it was 16 February 2012.

Further, Andrew Stoner said in the Northern Star on 20 July 2011 that 'the date remains plausible as long as both governments commit to it'. And I have got a whole lot of quotes that clearly show they were saying 2016 would be the operative date. When I say 'they' I mean the New South Wales government and, in particular members of the New South Wales National Party. There are three state members of the National Party in my seat, and one of them is a minister. They have had a lot to say about the Pacific Highway over time, and I will come to that.

But I come back to the fifty-fifty issue. A lot of locals say: 'We don't care who funds it, we just want it funded, we just want it done.' And I agree with them: we do not care at that level. But I do care when people are elected into public positions on an issue like the Pacific Highway—particularly the National Party members. They have given these commitments all the way through. They have inveigled, they have called on other people to make sure they honour that fifty-fifty funding split, and then when it comes to the 2016 deadline, at the first opportunity they get they run away from it at 100 miles per hour. Why aren't they honourable enough to fess up and say, 'We aren't going to do this, but this is what we are going to do'? First of all they construct this 80-20 funding split. Extra money is allocated to the Pacific Highway from the federal government. It is stimulus money. If you have a look at the tabulation of the money that has been available, you can see it. It is there. And then they turn around and use it like a weapon and say it is 80-20. It was not 80-20 and they know it. And it shows in some of their budget papers. It was fifty-fifty.

And then we come to the next astounding allegations. They are actually just lies. I have got one here. I got one last night that came through in a newsletter by the Nationals MP for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis. He talks about getting on with the job of the funding of works on the Pacific Highway, saying 'despite a shock $2.3 billion funding cut in the Gillard government's May budget'—another lie. They just put spin on anything. I cannot believe it. They are putting it out with taxpayers paying for it, and it is another pack of lies.

The minister for roads, when he was in the upper house—it was earlier this year, I think, in May—started that too. So there are two things. They try to squirm out of the commitment they clearly gave to fifty-fifty funding, and, worse than that, they claimed that only they could deliver it, only they could fix it. And then they constructed this 80-20 split that never existed. It started under John Howard, and John Howard spoke about it in this place many times. It was fifty-fifty. And now they are going on about it being a funding cut. The $3.56 billion available in the federal budget is not what I would call a funding cut, and the $4.1 billion that has been allocated from the federal government thus far for the Pacific Highway clearly is not a funding cut. For the 12 years that the Howard government was in, around $1.3 billion was allocated.

But there is more. The New South Wales Treasurer in his budget speech on 6 September 2011 said:

In its last Budget, the Commonwealth allocated $750 million for the Pacific Highway but only on the condition that the NSW Government matched this amount.

Yes, the fifty-fifty. The state Treasurer went on:

We are determined to provide the funds needed to match this Commonwealth offer.

That gives credibility to the fifty-fifty but, more than that, when you look at the New South Wales budget papers, it shows that they did not even match that. It was $468 million that was actually allocated at that time, even though they said they were 'determined to provide the funds needed to match the Commonwealth offer'. That was done at the time and I can remember it clearly. It says it was $750 million from the federal budget. I remember that there was around $1 billion and there was a sum of around $250 million negotiated that could go somewhere else, because the state government wanted to do it.

I now come to the Leader of the Nationals in this place. I heard him talk today. He said the coalition had made enormous strides towards duplicating the Pacific Highway beginning in 1996 when they began to share funding responsibility with the two state governments. (Time expired)

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

There is no doubt that the Pacific Highway is an important piece of infrastructure. This will in fact be my 22nd contribution to this House on the Pacific Highway. I am very fortunate that in my electorate now the roadwork from Raymond Terrace all the way through to Failford is now duplicated—all but the Bulahdelah bypass, which was commenced under the Howard government. Works there have been delayed because of the inordinate amount of wet weather that we have had. I have continued to push for the upgrading of the Pacific Highway.

The one thing that concerns me is the rant and rave by the minister—today and on previous occasions—who only now has found it in his breath to actually cast aspersions upon the former state Labor government. The former state Labor government entered into some correspondence, which the minister tabled, and in that correspondence there are some very interesting revelations. In particular is the agreement for an 80-20 funding split. The first is a letter from Minister Albanese to the former Minister for Roads and now NSW shadow treasurer, Michael Darby. I will quote from that letter. It says:

I am writing in relation to the Nation Building Program Memorandum of Understanding. I am pleased New South Wales has taken the decision to sign up to that agreement.

The minister was so pleased to sign with the New South Wales government that the federal government was delivering $2.451 billion and the New South Wales government was delivering $500 million. When you calculate that, it is actually 83 per cent federal funding and 17 per cent state funding for the Pacific Highway under that agreement—not fifty-fifty; it was 83-17.

The next letter that the minister tabled was from the former minister Campbell to Minister Albanese. There are a couple of points in that letter which show that the state Labor government wanted to lock in that 80-20, and I will quote from that letter: 'I will undertake to seek confirmation of the 20 per cent New South Wales government commitment to the additional funding required.' In another letter, in which there was an agreement to continue support, the minister said: 'I look forward to working with you on the delivery of the nation-building program over the coming years.' That letter to Michael Daley was dated 18 June. Sorry, that was the date it was tabled.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Competitiveness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do your homework.

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

Well, your minister obviously does not date letters.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Competitiveness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you should have had a look at it before you brought it into the chamber.

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

It was your minister who tabled it, my friend.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Competitiveness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You brought it into the chamber.

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

As I go through the list of works and all of the funding, it ranges from 83-17, 83-17, 86-14, 86-14 and 80-20. What we are seeing here are weasel words from a minister who, when his own political persuasion was in power in the state government, was quite happy to sit back and accept the funding arrangement. The only thing that has changed is that there has been a change of political persuasion to the coalition in New South Wales. And all of a sudden this minister decides it is a game-changer. All of a sudden he can change the funding arrangement to fifty-fifty from what was, under the nation-building program of 2009-14, a funding arrangement that averaged 80-20.

As I said, I am very fortunate to be the member of an electorate where very shortly the work will be duplicated all the way through my electorate. Last week I took my vehicle on a drive up to Brisbane and I travelled up and down the Pacific Highway. I drove up and I drove back. There are parts of that roadwork that still are very notorious and bad. I am happy that work has commenced. I am happy that work has been committed and is under construction. The people who travel those roads and are affected by those roads care very little about what the funding arrangement is. But I put this to the chamber: if this minister had an ounce of honour in his body in relation to this, he would accept the fact that historically he has been funding these roadworks 80-20 and would continue. This change of pace has only occurred because there has been a change in the New South Wales government.

In this year's budget papers under his 'Nation Building—additional funding for the Pacific Highway', that additional funding is in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, with the bulk of it pushed out well and truly into the forward estimates. There is no additional immediate money in 2012-13. Such is the commitment of this minister of this Labor government that in fact it is not until 2013-14 that there is an additional $231 million and in 2014-15 there is $1.025 billion and in 2015-16 there is $1.4 billion. The rhetoric from the minister makes it appear that the money is sitting on the table right now to start the works today. Well, that is not the truth; that is just not the truth—and the budget papers themselves show that to be a fact.

As I said, people want to know when this work will be finished. They do not want the political argy-bargy that is going on; they want outcomes. They want outcomes that will see changes on the Pacific Highway. The minister talks about how choked up he got about the fatal accidents—and I agree with him that they were terrible. I remember the Kempsey bus smash many, many years ago and the fatalities that occurred there. But for this minister to have sat quiet for three years in this House about funding only to raise now his concerns in relation to the levels of funding being contributed by the new coalition government in New South Wales is hypocrisy in itself. The reality is that this minister is not in control of his own budget, does not understand what is required for the outcomes and has done nothing more than play politics with this. Not only is he a member of the same political party as the former state government, but he is also from the same state, New South Wales. That is what makes his assertions even more hypocritical.

What we want to see are real outcomes. What we want to see is the work completed. Members up and down the coast—it does not matter what their political persuasion is—get very heated and animated when it comes to the roadworks on the Pacific Highway. As I understand it, more and more the Pacific Highway is becoming the road of choice over the New England Highway as the preferred access route to Queensland, and it does need to be upgraded. But the reality is that this minister, rather than playing political games, needs to sit down in serious discussions and apply the same level of integrity as he did to the former state Labor government, for whom he allowed the 80-20 funding split. We all want to see the road finished. We want to see the work completed, and that is key and critical.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I understand that the discussion has concluded.