Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday, there was another accident on the Calder Freeway, which is the main road connecting Bendigo to Melbourne. Four people in a vehicle heading southbound sustained non-life-threatening injuries and were taken to Bendigo Health. However, the driver of the second vehicle was flown to Melbourne with serious injuries, and the passenger in his vehicle also sustained non-life-threatening injuries.

However, tragically, it is not the same story for a fatal accident that occurred in almost the exact same spot on the Calder less than two weeks ago. Yesterday, an 83-year-old woman died nine days after this accident. She was the passenger, and her sister, who died at the scene, was the driver. This accident was at Fogertys Gap on the Calder Highway intersection. It is one of the notorious spots on this stretch of highway from Bendigo to Melbourne.

The incident came after a horror Labour Day weekend, where deaths in my local area hit seven. That is seven in one weekend. Police, the CFA, ambos and SES personnel attended all these scenes. I thank our emergency services in central Victoria, who are always quick to respond when these accidents occur. They are some of our finest local heroes.

The Calder Freeway—the Calder Highway in some sections—runs through the heart of the Bendigo electorate, and sadly almost every week there is another accident. Sadly, there are lots of accidents on many roads in the electorate—not just on the Calder. Whether it be a country road, street, highway or freeway, I am concerned that in the Bendigo electorate there are too many hot spots and too many road accidents. Road safety is a major issue that is quite often raised with me, when I am out and about in the community. That is why we cannot underestimate the importance of the former Labor government's Nation Building Program and how it has helped increase safety in regional communities like my own.

Ensuring that we have safe roads is not something that you can do overnight. It requires long-term sustained investment from local, state and federal governments. I am relieved that these amendments will continue the funding for the Roads to Recovery and Black Spot programs. In the Bendigo electorate, over $10.5 million has already been spent in recent years to fund the Black Spot and Roads to Recovery programs.

Roads to Recovery has provided funding to local governments for roads that are in much need of an upgrade. In a meeting with the Macedon Ranges council, the CEO said, 'It would take 10 years to fix the roads from our own budget that we have been able to fix with Roads to Recovery funding. Thank you.' Small regional councils like the three that I have in in the Bendigo electorate have a small rate base, but large country areas and roads. Mount Alexander actually has more bridges than any other council area in Australia. Ensuring that they have budgets to maintain roads and bridges is a continual struggle. That is why it is important that our federal government partner with local governments to tackle this issue.

Black Spot Program funding is targeted at identified roads where there have been more accidents than is normal. Recent Black Spot funding in the Bendigo electorate included the Bendigo-Redesdale Road in Strathdale, Hargraves Street in Castlemaine and Bayne Street in North Bendigo. I can remember talking to some of the residents who live near these black spots, when I have been out doorknocking, and some of the comments they have are quite frightening. There is quite often relief, 'Finally! Thank you! It's great to hear they are working on the road.' One resident, in fact, said, 'You know, I'm sick of getting out there and picking up bodies off this road. I'm so relieved that something is finally being done about it.'

However, what concerns me about this bill is that the minister will require ongoing power to determine the Roads to Recovery list. The question has to be asked: how can one person know every road in the country? How can he not only know every road in the country but also work out the order of most need? How can the minister know that the intersection between Edgecombe Street and Epping Street in Kyneton is dangerous? That is why it was listed by the council and the department for a $200,000 construction and upgrade. How can the minister know that Axe Creek Road is dangerous? That is why the council and the department listed it for a $300,000 upgrade to seal the shoulders, install edge lines and widen the left turning lane. The minister's having control over the list only serves one purpose—that is to change the list. The reason we have departments and councils to set the priority list is so that they can have direct say over what is of urgency. The only reason that the minister would need this kind of control is to change the list. That worries me and it will worry my community.

Getting the right advice on priorities for Roads to Recovery funding is essential to ensure that we do not only have road safety, but have value for public investment. That is why I support the amendment that has been put forward by Labor to require consultation with Infrastructure Australia projects before approval. It is important that we have transparency around decision making. Many stakeholders in the infrastructure debate have called for greater transparency and accountability over how the Commonwealth spends its infrastructure funds. Only just recently, the Macedon Ranges Residents' Association, which is one stakeholder in my community, raised the issue and called for greater transparency and accountability. It is worried about black-spot funding and making sure that the roads in its area continue to remain high on the priority list. In responding to these growing calls, the first amendment that has been put forward requires the minister to seek the views of the government infrastructure expert adviser, Infrastructure Australia, before funding for projects is approved. This amendment will also require full evaluation by Infrastructure Australia for any project over $100 million in value, this is where the Calder comes back into play. Finally, in approving of funds for the project the minister must make public the Infrastructure Australia findings on the priority of the project and its cost-benefit evaluation.

The Liberal-National governments have form in this area. We have seen that at a state government level and previously at a federal government level, as they prioritise their pet projects before the community and national interest. I am nervous not just about the minister's having control over what projects are on the list but about election promises that they made when in opposition and now in government, particularly about one in my own area. During the federal election campaign, both sides of politics committed an investment of $45 million to upgrade the Calder Highway-Calder Alternate interchange at Ravenswood. Oddly, however, it was not the then shadow minister responsible for infrastructure, who was there for the announcement. It was not the then shadow minister for regional development; it was not the then shadow minister for finance or even the then opposition leader who was there. It was in fact somebody who had nothing to do with infrastructure, roads, expenditure or regional Australia. It was the then opposition spokesperson for employment and industrial relations who made the announcement. It raises the question: how serious is the coalition, in opposition and now in government, about keeping their election promise to fund the upgrade to the Ravenswood interchange?

During the minister's second reading speech, he listed 11 priority projects for vital funding for upgrades. However, Ravenswood—the Calder interchange—was not on the list. Again, people in my community are asking, 'Is the minister really committed to this project?'

This project—the Calder Ravenswood interchange upgrade—has moved from being a key priority to being an urgent priority. The number of accidents that are occurring on this stretch of highway is unacceptable. Only last month VicRoads announced urgent safety measures to be introduced at this dangerous intersection. The Calder Highway speed limits have been lowered at the interchange. VicRoads have reduced the speed limit from 100 kilometres per hour to 80 kilometres per hour. This is the last remaining option available to them to improve road safety on this very bad stretch of road. Hopefully, applying the new limit will allow the trucks that are coming from the north to get across the Calder safely.

There is growing concern about the pattern of crashes and near misses at this site. The chair of the Calder Highway Improvement Committee, David Pollard, has said that the interchange at Ravenswood is critical, as are a number of other areas on the Calder. We have already seen 11 accidents involving serious injury and 21 involving casualty in the past couple of decades. In July there was another serious collision, which fortunately resulted in only minor injuries, but it did close the stretch of highway again. Every time there is a closure, it hits productivity and slows cars down. So it is not just an issue of road safety; it is also an issue of productivity. CFA Captain Jamie Tatt said:

I have been a member of the CFA for 35 years and I have been to my fair share of fatalities on the crossroads of the Calder. There are a lot of near misses as well …

That is why we need urgent action on the Calder. According to Bendigo police there have been six accidents involving injury on this particular stretch of the road in the last five years, as well as several up and down the Calder, including those I listed earlier. The Ravenswood interchange is a key intersection and carries a high volume of not only cars but also heavy vehicles, which is why we need this vital upgrade. Upgrading this interchange will make it safer for the thousands of motorists and truck drivers who travel from Bendigo to Melbourne or to Mildura every day.

Like many, I have been waiting for the state coalition government to start the planning that is required for the federal government and Infrastructure Australia to complete the project, and that is one of the key problems we have. To ensure that we have road safety, we need local, state and federal government to work together to ensure that the planning is done so that the funding can then be provided for these projects. What we saw in the state of Victoria, in Bendigo in particular, was that the state Liberal-National government dragged their feet on this issue for three years in not getting the planning done so this road could be upgraded. I have been told—and it has been said in the media—that the state government is now doing this planning so that we can see this upgrade happen. But the planning cannot stop at Ravenswood; it needs to continue up and down the Calder. It is so important that for all of the hotspot areas—Kyneton, Fogartys Gap and Harcourt, or Ravenswood—we see the planning done at state government level and then the funding from federal government level.

Fogartys Gap, which I just mentioned, is a major problem area. A paramedic said that there have been a number of incidents since Fogartys Gap opened up 15 months ago. It is one of those areas where you are supposed to slow down to 100 as cars turn on and off a busy freeway. This paramedic said that it is just an accident waiting to happen. And sadly, as we have heard over the past fortnight, those accidents have started to happen. I am calling on both the Victorian state government and the federal government to continue the planning for these dangerous spots on the Calder and to continue the funding investment. Planning and funding is needed now up and down the Calder—and not just on the Calder but also on the on- and off-ramps associated with it. Some parts of the Calder are freeway standard, but others are well below standard. That is why it is so important that our local, state and federal governments work together. It is really simple stuff.

Last night another family sat at a hospital bedside hoping that their loved one would pull through. There was another tragic accident on the Calder yesterday. And governments need to do everything they can to reduce the risk of road incidents on our regional roads. Governments need to do whatever they can to ensure that fewer families spend their nights at the bedside of their loved ones in our hospitals.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today. In Leichhardt we know how vital it is for land transport infrastructure to be in place. It enables people to travel regularly and reliably to every corner of the electorate. Unfortunately, this is rarely an option. The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 lays out a detailed map of the government's infrastructure priorities. At the same time it repeals and amends Labor's legacy of failed policies, replacing the fragmented Nation Building Program with the National Land Transport Act 2014. This bill will enable the coalition government to get on with the job of delivering the biggest infrastructure agenda in Australia's history. This is no mean feat, but I can tell you now we are well and truly up to the task.

Over six years, through our $35.5 billion Infrastructure Investment Program, we will construct the vital road and rail projects that will improve efficiency, boost productivity, and drive Australia's economy forward. Of all the major projects under this program, I am extremely pleased to see that the Bruce Highway upgrade is the biggest financial commitment, at $6.7 billion. That is incredible. But, as the coalition's Policy to Fix the Bruce Highway states, the importance of this highway cannot be overstated. Covering the 1,700 kilometres between Cairns and Brisbane it is the major arterial connection between Queensland seaboard communities and economic centres. I think Regional Development Australia summed it up very well, when it said that the Bruce Highway is:

Critically important for the efficient, reliable and safe movement of people and freight throughout the state, and is the most significant single piece of transport infrastructure used by residents, visitors, business and industry all year around.

The North Queensland Road Alliance estimates the Bruce Highway contributes $11.5 billion per annum to the Queensland economy, and supports some 60,000 jobs in North Queensland. At the same time, however, this stretch of road accounts for more than its fair share of road accidents and fatalities. Despite comprising just seven per cent of the National Highway it accounts for 17 per cent of national road fatalities. Between 2008 and 2011 there were 170 deaths and 1,620 hospitalisations as a direct result of crashes on the Bruce Highway.

The upgrade is one of the Australian Automobile Association's top national priorities, and a recent report from the Australian Road Assessment Program stated:

… the Bruce Highway is medium-high and high risk along much of its length.

In addition, large sections of the Bruce Highway are prone to flooding and lengthy road closures. Queensland figures show that each year, on average, nine locations along the highway are closed for more than 48 hours, and six locations are closed for more than five days per year due to flooding. This causes economic paralysis for Far North Queensland, with critical supplies being stalled and hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders being isolated at a financial cost in the many tens of millions of dollars.

The third major driver for the Bruce Highway upgrade is the increasing congestion and capacity constraints, especially on roads within or approaching our regional cities. Congestion means that more people are stuck in traffic, frustrated. It means more cost to business and less capacity to deal safely with the volume of traffic. This contributes to the accident rate, which is often caused by driver frustration.

In Far North Queensland almost $700 million will be spent on this major transport route between Gordonvale, Edmonton and Cairns. This includes more than $300 million for the three stages in the Cairns Southern Access Corridor project, which will increase sections to a six-lane motorway, along with associated overpasses and service roads, and walking and cycling paths.

Some of this work has already started under Labor, but not unexpectedly they ran over budget. We will make sure that the money is actually available, so that the work is actually completed and paid for in a timely manner. There is a further $385 million for the Edmonton to Gordonvale duplication, doubling its capacity and increasing overtaking facilities. This is slightly outside my electorate, but it will certainly benefit all those travelling into my city of Cairns. The great news is that, unlike what we have seen in the distant past, all of the planning has been done, so as soon as the work is completed the next project can start. And, of course, the money is already committed to make sure that happens.

The $6.7 billion will ensure there are sufficient resources and momentum to get vital safety, flood mitigation, and congestion-busting work on the Bruce Highway well underway over the next few years. As well as delivering the infrastructure investment program, this bill also reinforces the government's commitment to the Roads to Recovery program, extending it for five years, until 2019, with $1.75 billion of funding. This provides local governments with highly necessary funding that can help them maintain the nation's local road infrastructure.

Leichhardt is a vast regional electorate, some 151,000 square kilometres. From the tropical hub of Cairns, in the south, it extends via a network of regional roads, up the coast to Cooktown, and inland through the Mulligan Highway, to the iconic Peninsula Development Road to Cape York. From the township of Laura onwards the Peninsula Development Road is a dusty, red unsealed road, as are all the feeder roads into the coastal communities east or west, such as Aurukun, Bamaga, Weipa, and Lockhart River. In the wet season these roads are not closed for days and they are not closed for weeks; sometimes they are closed for months.

In fact, they have been closed since around Christmas time. I am currently working with the council, who are trying to organise the final arrangements for obtaining Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery funding so that they can actually get out there and reopen those roads after they have been closed for several months. It is vital we do so, because we have all the graziers up there who have not had access for several months now. The cattle are fat after the wet season, and this is the graziers' first opportunity to get them down to the markets and get their first bit of income.

The same is true of people travelling north. You have roadhouses that rely on tourists, and once this road opens it will be the first opportunity for them to start to generate an income for 2014. You can imagine the economic issues that these road closures cause, so it is important we focus on these areas. As I mentioned earlier, it has a huge impact when they are closed. They rely so heavily on these roads for their support. They really do not have any emergency backup. They just have to ensure they are stocked up, unless they live on a coastal community and can be accessed via barge.

I would really like to commend Minister Truss, in particular, for his determination to secure the $210 million the previous government promised before the election—but the previous government forgot one critical thing; they forgot to attach money to that promise. He was able to find that money, and the $210 million is now going to go towards the largest infrastructure spend in Cape York's history. Also, there is an additional $10 million coming from the state government. This is going to see a significant amount of sealing in the Peninsula Development Road, and it certainly will reduce isolation periods significantly.

With the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery program, particularly the Betterment program, an additional 20 per cent will allow sections to be sealed and brought back to pre-disaster standard, which is pre-sealing standard. That 20 per cent will allow them to put sealing on that road so that in the next weather event the road will not be washed away. Again, I am hoping that we will see the 400-odd kilometres left in the Peninsula Development Road actually sealed in my lifetime. I think that is pretty exciting.

We should also remember that the Roads to Recovery program was an initiative of the Howard government, and I remember when we initially announced it. It has had a profoundly positive impact on these small remote and regional shires. It has made a big difference in improving the road systems there, and I am pleased to see that we have got it for five years. I think that this program should continue indefinitely because it is a massive opportunity for the small remote and regional shires to receive infrastructure that they cannot afford. In the case of the Cook shire, half of the shire is tied up either in Aboriginal lands or in national parks. They receive no rates from that, so the rate base is very small. That is why this is very, very critical funding.

Over the last five years the Roads to Recovery program has enabled councils to make pavement, bridge and drainage improvements at a whole range of locations in my electorate, with a total of more than $14.5 million invested. From Aumuller Street in Cairns to Adelaide Street in Cooktown, from Barneys Rd on Masig Island in the Torres Strait to Blady Grass Street at the remote Lockhart River—these are works that have taken place under this program. Floodways have been widened and roads have been sealed, curbed and channelled. Dust problems have been remedied, roads have been widened, gravel roads have been reconstructed, timber bridges have been replaced, causeways have been removed and steel bridges have been built. So the program has been a major benefit for us.

The third focus—and this is another Howard government initiative—is the Black Spot Program. This bill confirms a commitment of $300 million to that Black Spot Program, addressing some specific sites that are at very high risk of serious crashes. Sadly, in many of these programs, a black spot identifies where somebody has actually died. It is sad that, unfortunately, to have a program in place you have to wait for somebody to die to get some of these problems fixed up. Nevertheless, it does show that, if we can move quickly and address it, we will not see those deaths happening continually in these areas. By funding measures such as traffic lights and roundabouts at dangerous locations, the program reduces the risk of crashes and certainly saves many other lives in the community.

In Leichhardt, Black Spot projects have, as I say, saved many lives on the Captain Cook Highway. It is a busy thoroughfare linking Cairns to Mossman and Port Douglas, used by many thousands of residents in the northern beaches commuting to and from work. And, of course, with tourists heading up there, a lot self-drive. It is a very picturesque drive from Cairns to Port Douglas. A lot of those tourists are not quite familiar with Australian roads, so you need to make doubly sure that when they do that travel up there they come back safely. Then they are ambassadors for people to come back. If there is a tragedy, of course, quite the opposite occurs.

The Black Spot funding enables clear markings to be painted on the roads. At bicycle conflict points, bicycle awareness signage has been installed at sites such as Grove Street and Captain Cook Highway intersections. Of course, there is a growing awareness of and a growing need for bicycles. More and more people are using them, so it is more important for us to make sure that we have designated areas and that we are raising awareness in those areas. There are also plans for extensive Black Spot works between Machans Beach and Holloways Beach, and between Yorkeys Knob and Smithfield, to provide physical separation of cyclists on roundabout approaches and through roundabouts with concrete splitter islands or median strips. We have lost too many people through accidents on this road, when a moment's inattention can result in a cyclist being knocked off their bike and being seriously injured or killed.

Further north, on the Mossman to Daintree road, there is a mixture of guardrails and wire ropes that have been installed at specific sections to reduce the incidence and severity of single vehicle run-off-the-road crashes. A lot of these are in the most picturesque areas, and in our World Heritage area people tend to be looking at the view rather than looking at the road. We need to have barriers there to make sure that that moment of distraction does not mean they are plummeting over the side of the range. Of course, there is always more work to do, but we are certainly committed to working with state and territory governments, as well as the private sector, to deliver significant infrastructure projects in northern Australia.

Government is certainly doing great work in making this happen. One of the ways we can do that is to reduce costs and to make sure we get more value for money. Of course, we should be building infrastructure through efficiency and removing red tape to make sure we do it quicker and more cost-effectively. Yesterday in this place we started the introduction of legislation that will see the reduction of that.

There is a lot of other stuff that we need to do. To send a parcel on rail from Cairns to Darwin it has to go down from Brisbane to Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide and then up to Darwin. It is a 1,200 kilometre gap between Mount Isa and Tennant Creek which takes us directly there. This is something in the northern Australia policy that we will be looking at. Another one, of course, is the Hann Highway, which is an alternative to the Bruce Highway, a relatively short area of unsealed road. Again, it is a vital piece of infrastructure that will really make a big difference in our region. As a member of this government, I certainly look forward to continuing to work with local communities, help them develop the way they need and make sure they get the outcomes that we so richly deserve.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak in support of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. I want to commend the government on this bill, which, among other things, enables the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program, which provides vital funding to local governments for the maintenance of the nation's local road infrastructure beyond 30 June 2014. I would like to add my support to the comments from the member for Leichhardt. Whilst not the topic of my speech today, I also want to commend the government for committing $300 million to finalise plans, engineering designs and environmental assessments for the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail freight project. But more about that at another time.

The Roads to Recovery program is an example of good policy. It is being implemented as it was intended to be and makes a real difference to roads throughout our community. I look forward to seeing funding for this program in the next budget. There are eight councils in Indi, and the following section of my speech will outline how each of them has used and plans to use the Roads to Recovery funding. Every one of them has reported to me with a long list of success stories in my local council areas.

I will begin with Alpine Shire. The council has received $2,806,434 from the Roads to Recovery program since 2009. Alpine Shire takes in the major and beautiful towns of Bright, Mount Beauty and Myrtleford and has 630 kilometres of road, of which 395 kilometres are sealed. Alpine Shire is planning for 2014-15 and has an extensive list of priorities for future Roads to Recovery funding, including conducting renewal works for ageing roads and bridge infrastructure, resealing and resheeting roads, replacing bridges, rehabilitating existing sealed roads, replacing kerbs and sealing unsafe, gravel roads. These works will be done in conjunction with $1.5 billion of funding from the Victorian state government. This list of projects is only a start and, needless to say, the Alpine Shire is waiting in anticipation for future funding. Alpine Shire has the requisite funds to match anticipated Roads to Recovery funding and I believe this shows how important this program is for the shire and how committed they are to begin the program.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Alpine Shire surrounds some of Victoria's major ski resorts—for your information: Mount Hotham, Falls Creek and the snowfields at Dinner Plain and Mount Buffalo. Roads to Recovery funding in this area not only benefits us locals but also the thousands of tourists travelling to the snowfields each year. Safe roads, as we have heard today, are essential for all industries in Indi, particularly tourism.

I now turn to Murrindindi Shire. On the outskirts of Melbourne, Murrindindi Shire boasts impressive national parks and state forests and is home to a number of small towns, including Kinglake, Yarck, Yea and Toolangi, to name a few. Like many rural councils, the Murrindindi Shire Council faces significant financial challenges when planning to address the demands of its existing and growing asset base. Infrastructure funding from grants through the Roads to Recovery program allows Murrindindi Shire to undertake works that it would be totally and utterly unable to fund alone. A Murrindindi staff member told my office: 'The R2R funding is critical to undertaking maintenance and renewal for our road networks.' Murrindindi council has responsibility for a very extensive road network. For the information of this House, that network includes 489 kilometres of sealed road, 749 kilometres of unsealed road and the massive number of 244 bridges.

The scale of Murrindindi council's asset renewal obligations is significant, and ongoing support is critical. Priorities for Roads to Recovery funding for the council in 2014-15 have focused on the unsealed road network, which is 749 kilometres. Over the past four years Roads to Recovery funding has enabled council to undertake road rehabilitation on approximately 120 kilometres of the unsealed road network. Clearly, without this funding council would not have been able to undertake this very important work. Murrindindi Shire Council provides an important example of how councils with relatively small populations in Yea, Alexandra, Kinglake and Marysville, spread over a very large area, struggle to finance the maintenance of infrastructure in their communities. Roads to Recovery enables local councils to keep up with infrastructure maintenance demands.

In the north of my electorate, Towong Shire Council has similar challenges to Murrindindi in that it has a small population base and a very large network of roads. Covering 6,500 square kilometres, Towong has many towns and villages which are connected by a network of 392 kilometres of sealed roads and 556 kilometres of unsealed roads. For 2014-15, Towong intends to seal 1.4 kilometres of unsealed road at a cost of $250,000 and to reseal 23.5 kilometres at a cost of $840,000—so still a long way to go.

My own local government area, Indigo Shire, takes in the beautiful towns of Rutherglen, Chiltern, Yackandandah and Beechworth. The council has 1,400 kilometres of roads, of which 430 kilometres are sealed. Major priorities for Indigo Shire in the coming year are the Up River Road, the Gooramadda Road and the Gundowring Road. These projects will include resealing, repairing the pavement base, improving the shoulders of the roads and work on some intersections of those roads. Indigo Shire expects to spend a total of $2 million next year completing these projects: $1 million will be state funding and the remaining $1 million will be mix of council funding and Roads to Recovery.

In Mansfield Shire, Roads to Recovery funding is used to top up the renewal gap in road maintenance. Without this funding, a source in Mansfield said: 'We would be going backwards. In fact, it would be great if the amount of funding we received could be doubled!' One-sixth of the council's capital works budget comes from Roads to Recovery. As a council with a very small rate base, they are highly reliant on R2R funding. A priority in the immediate future is to fix the heavy haulage route which is the town bypass for trucks, and carries timber, gravel and stock as well as tourists.

As an aside, can I say that the issue of road safety for heavy haulage is particularly important as Indi is home to several essential road links between Victoria and New South Wales, including a long stretch of the Hume Highway. In Australia, about 50 per cent of the freight carried will travel by road at some point. Furthermore, the transportation of food mainly occurs by road in Australia. A safe and modern road network is essential for the economy.

In contrast to Murrindindi, Towong, Benalla and Indigo shires, Wodonga has a large population but a much smaller network of roads, with a total of 557 kilometres, of which 413 kilometres are sealed and 144 kilometres are unsealed. Nevertheless, their funding needs are just as pressing and they also are keenly anticipating future Roads to Recovery funding. In 2014-15 they will spend $1.2 million on new roads and $1.7 million renewing existing roads.

Wodonga's increasing population and development of new suburbs means that their road network is constantly expanding. In a city such as Wodonga, where most residents rely on their cars to get around, the need for roads to be safe and reliable is essential. With an average grant of $430,000 per annum to Wodonga, Roads to Recovery is an essential source of funding for this significant rural centre.

In Benalla, the Roads To Recovery priorities are based on improving the safety of their roads, especially black spots where there have been fatalities but not enough deaths to actually qualify for black spot funding. This has already been mentioned in this House. Roads to Recovery funding is saving lives and has enabled Benalla to respond to deadly roads in the region. Future funding will ensure that the program can continue to do so. I commend the government for amending the bill in order to increase the focus on black spots.

In drawing my speech to a close, I would like to finish with a quote from a staff member at Wangaratta council: 'I don't know what council would do without this funding. We use it widely, and we get excellent value from it.' The staff member put it so well. This program is well targeted, it is responding to a common need across Australia and it is providing funding in a responsible way by mandating that the funds be matched in order to make the most of every single dollar.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support this bill. Roads to Recovery is a program that increases safety, helps the economy to grow and ensures that our rural and regional communities are vibrant for the future. I commend the government for establishing a legislative framework for the future of Roads to Recovery, and I look forward to seeing the improvements that future funding will bring.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014will enable the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program beyond 30 June, 2014.

Like every member in this parliament I am a very big supporter of the Roads to Recovery program as it is direct funding to local councils, distributed according to a formula based on population and road length. As my electorate of Paterson is spread out, and a very rural electorate, roads are a link for my constituents to all services and business. I have always maintained that good roads are a pathway to prosperity for communities. Each council's Roads to Recovery allocation is fixed for the life of the program, so they are guaranteed a source of funding. In other words they can plan, prepare and initiate works with a guaranteed source of funding.

The government will now provide an additional $1.75 billion to extend the program for another five years. That is $1,750 million of additional road funding going into local community roads. This bill was a 2013 election commitment by the coalition, and it is an important one to implement. The bill will simplify the current system and also ensure that the funding promises that were made for my electorate's deteriorated roads will be fulfilled.

Currently, the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 specifies the Roads to Recovery program funding as ending on 30 June, 2014. When considering these bills, I think about the concerns and funding needs of my electorate of Paterson. One of the most critical issues in my area is funding for local roads. Under Labor's reign, local road funding in my electorate eroded. As I stated previously, I will continue to fight for better services in infrastructure and, in particular, funding for my electorate. One common theme that is communicated to me by my constituents is the condition of their local roads, and that is why I am happy to support this bill.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Premier of New South Wales, announced a new road project. It is time that rubber should hit the road on the F3-M2 connect. I note that my colleague on the opposite side of the table is agreeing, because it will reduce traffic flow in and around his area. This $3 billion project, the NorthConnex project, will have a contribution of $405 million from this federal government. We want to see this project commence. I drive the F3 to Canberra regularly. On the trip from my home near Thornton I go through one set of traffic lights until I get to the F3, and once I get to the M2 there are no more traffic lights until I get to Canberra. But what I have is a plethora of traffic lights, 21 of them, all the way through as I go down Pennant Hills Road. In fact at times it can be the longest part of the journey.

I welcome this funding, this commitment and this start to these road works. This connection from the M1 to the M2, a nine-kilometre route, has now been revealed. There will be twin tunnels and it will become one of the state's major freight routes. It also has the added benefit of reducing fatigue, creating jobs and improving productivity and cost efficiency for our transport industry.

I always support new projects. That is why when we talk about the rubber hitting the road and work beginning, it was amazing that on the eve of the election we saw the Labor government—the Minister Albanese—announce funding for two projects. Mind you, they had had six years to initiate them, but we saw the announcement of a two-lane bridge to be built at Tourle Street. This was quite a surprise to the state minister because previously it had been rejected by the federal government on their calls.

But can I tell you about the ineptitude of Labor when it comes to roadworks and planning? The Tourle Street bridge was a two-lane bridge, and the former New South Wales Labor government determined that the bridge was unsafe and needed to be replaced. I agreed. So they replaced a two-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge. Had they have had the foresight they would have made it a four-lane bridge for an additional $15 million. Now the cost is $100 million to build the extra two lanes. Ineptitude reigns supreme. But the rubber is hitting the road: the coalition is tipping $51 million into that project and that will be matched by the state government.

The other project on which there has been a lot of rhetoric and talk, particularly by the member for Hunter, is the Scone level crossing. All he had been able to deliver during his six years on the government bench was more money for studies. No rubber hit the road. It was announced on the eve of the election that the Labor government if re-elected after six years would actually spend the money. I am very proud of Minister Truss for picking up the mantle and putting $45 million, our share, in to get the work at Scone underway. The main traffic route going north will no longer be cut off every time a coal train comes through. We want to see more coal trains because they provide prosperity for our nation. This work will begin. We sat down with the state government, we developed a plan, the funding is there and it is going to commence.

So there are these two projects. The former member for Newcastle, Ms Grierson, talked a lot about the Tourle Street Bridge and delivered nothing. I can remember almost all the time I have been in this place that the member for Hunter has talked about the Scone level crossing but done nothing about it. They are two key projects that will commence.

Tomorrow there will be the official opening of the M15. The M15 is known locally as the Hunter Expressway. It is the link road between Seahampton and Branxton. There has been a lot of comment about it, including in a doorstop on 18 March by the former minister for transport, the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese. He was worried that his invite to the opening had not arrived. He said:

Of course you’ll see Coalition Members queuing up to be a part of this. Joel Fitzgibbon was only invited yesterday. I’m sure my invitation’s in the mail, but Joel Fitzgibbon is the local member had to wait until yesterday before he received an invitation to this project.

That is how courteous the coalition is. We have actually invited members of the opposition to openings. I would like to reflect for a minute on two road projects in my electorate. One driven by the coalition, but built by taxpayers, was the Weakleys Drive Interchange. It cost $50 million. It is in my electorate. All of the money was allocated by the coalition government. I read about the opening in the paper and saw all of the Labor members. Did I get an invite? No, I read about it in the newspaper. Not to be outdone, I read about the Bulahdelah bypass in my electorate, which was commenced by the coalition, in the paper too. You hear the former minister bang on about the courtesy of invitations. He wants to take a reality check. The member for Hunter has been invited, and I will welcome him there.

The member for Hunter has some form in relation to the F3. If we listen to his rhetoric in the parliament, we hear that he singularly drove the project. Let us look at the front page of The Maitland Mercuryof 26 November, just days after the election. I will quote some sections because the member for Hunter was then backing away from any funding commitment to build this infrastructure. He said in that article:

It's an ugly mess. When I was elected in 1996 this project was on track and it was worth $285 million.

Member for Hunter, the reason it did not commence was that the state Labor government refused to prioritise it. Then he said:

Eleven-and-a-half years later, we haven't turned a sod of soil and it's apparently worth $1.2 billion.

So we've got a hell of a mess to sort out. The design and treatment was done in 1994/1995. We're in 2007.

Here is the killing part:

Is the F3 link still the best and right solution for our traffic problems? Maybe yes, but we don't know.

The article further states:

He denied he was backing away from statements made during the campaign where he said Labor would "absolutely match" a $780 million Howard government commitment of construction money for the link if it were properly costed and budgeted from the AusLink program.

I don't mean to back away from it because the money and the arrangements are not there. There was never a final costing, there was never an agreement.

That was in 2007. The works and funding did not commence until 2009. More telling is an article on 18 March in the Newcastle Herald written by Greg Ray, who is perhaps one of the most independent writers I have read. He quite often attacks the coalition for its points. He has put a very good precis together of the whole funding arrangement, except there is one mistake in here, which I will correct as I go through. He said:

MONDAY was a great day for flying over the Hunter Valley.

He actually took a plane trip and saw the infrastructure that is laid out. He goes on to say in the article:

Building it was, by all accounts, a pretty challenging exercise in engineering terms.

But getting the money out of the federal and state governments—now that was a once-in-a-generation achievement.

When the thing gets officially opened, everybody and their dog will be scrambling for a bit of credit, and good luck to those who deserve it. Many do.

The article then goes on to say, and quite rightly so, that it was only proceeded with because it was shovel ready and designed to inject stimulus funding into the frightened economy. We all agree with that. Then he said:

The earliest I can remember people promoting this roadway was in the 1990s, when they reckoned it was going to cost about $180 million.

Everybody agreed it was a great project with a lot of benefits, but because it wasn’t in Sydney or in a state with a government that cares about its non-capital cities, it languished.

The state allocated some planning funds pretty early in the piece, but it never looked like chipping in any serious money, arguing instead that it was a federal job.

By 2006, Hunter Labor MP Joel Fitzgibbon, in whose electorate the road lies, was telling the Coalition federal government that he didn’t care if the road had to be a private tollway, just so long as it got built before it got too expensive for anybody to ever contemplate.

The Coalition feds found about $250 million to get it started.

I have to correct the record. It was closer to $50 million that we put up for land acquisitions and planning. The article continues:

But it didn’t start, because the state—

and it was then a state Labor government—

didn’t want to contribute.

It took the Rudd-slide election to put the project on the map. That’s when Paterson MP Bob Baldwin promised that the Coalition would stump up another $780 million if his mob got back in. Fitzy, for his part, said Labor would match that promise.

Until Labor got in, when all bets were suddenly off because, Fitzy said, the money hadn’t really been allocated. Oh, and the NSW government didn’t have its $240 million share to spare anyway.

Enter the financial crisis …

The project has been completed and I congratulate all who have been involved. I acknowledge the financial contribution and commitment by the previous Labor government. I acknowledge the contribution by the former coalition government. I acknowledge the delaying factors by the former state Labor government that would not prioritise it. Even when the former federal Labor government went to build the project there was no prioritisation for the project. It took a $1 billion federal allocation to get more studies and planning done to actually get the project up.

This project has actually been funded by the taxpayers. It has not been funded by the coalition, it has not been funded by the Labor government; it has been funded by the taxpayers of Australia and they deserve the credit. I pay recognition for the contribution to all those who worked on the project, particularly as it became an award-winning project. It has been a great engineering feat. Tomorrow I will be there. I know that the member for Hunter, who is in the chamber, will be there because we have extended an invitation, contrary to the—

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

That is very generous!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say to the member for Hunter, your side was so arrogant you refused to let me go to the opening of Weakleys Driveand did not even invite me to the opening of the Bulahdelah bypass. So do not bang on too much. We have extended a courtesy to you so you can be there. We acknowledge your efforts and contributions but it is not all yours. I commend this bill to the House.

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

I will always rise in this place to support a bill such as the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 that extends road funding. There is no more important issue in my electorate than roads. It is a geographically large electorate and therefore has many roads. I suspect no matter how hard any government tries, road funding will always be underdone. It is an economic issue we need to address. I was listening intently to the member for Paterson. I have to say that not the last part of this speech but the part of his speech nearing the end was more sensible and more accurate than the pieces that preceded it. He was talking about the Hunter Expressway. With him, I acknowledge the contributions of all those who have been involved. This was an initiative that started under a Labor government. As a candidate in 1995, I remember very vividly visiting the site with the then Minister for Roads, Laurie Brereton, to confirm Labor's commitment to what is the most important land infrastructure project in the Hunter's history. Alas, Labor lost the 1996 election and then we had 11½ years of nothing except—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is wrong.

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

It would be helpful if the member for Paterson was a little more patient and would allow me to finish what I am saying. There was nothing except for around $50 million which was dribbled into the program by the Howard government, which I accept and am happy to say kept the project somewhat alive. That money mainly went to land acquisitions. As we all know, land acquisitions tend to make bodies like the then RTA money along the way if indeed a project does not proceed. The land is bought now. In 10 years time if the project does not proceed, of course the land is sold again, usually at a healthy profit. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with that. But it does not mean there was ever commitment to construction.

The key point here is that in 11½ years not a sod of dirt was turned. I do acknowledge again that the project was kept alive by the then Howard government. I also acknowledge that we did not have an enthusiastic state Labor government. I am happy to acknowledge that. I am always happy to criticise state Labor governments when they get it wrong, as they occasionally do. This is a project worth $1.7 billion. You can understand why a state government would be reluctant to participate. Any contribution by them, even if it is only 10 per cent of the project, is obviously a very large one. It is true that the New South Wales government was reluctant. Indeed, I do not think the member for Grayndler would mind me saying this. As the former Labor government, when we announced that we would undertake this project, the New South Wales government remained very reluctant. The member for Grayndler had to be very persuasive in his approaches to the New South Wales government to get them on board. Eventually they did come on board and they have contributed $200 million to the project. So it was a Labor government that conceived the project, it was a Labor government that planned the project, it was a Labor government that eventually funded and built the project. That is uncontestable.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not wrong.

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

The member for Paterson can create all sorts of excuses as to why they did not undertake the project in 11½ years. He can try as hard and as much as he likes, but the fact is this: in 11½ years they did nothing. That is an uncontestable fact. But I do not want this to be a blue about who takes the credit. I just want the thing opened, as do Hunter residents. I do need to make this point. The first thing we did in Senate estimates after the 2007 election was to make a few inquiries about that $780 million the member for Paterson was just talking about. I remember this very vividly too. John Howard, the then Prime Minister, flew into Williamtown on his VIP—possibly weeks, but I think it was days, before the election. The member for Paterson will remember it well—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was Jim Lloyd, the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads.

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

Oh, it was Jim Lloyd, the roads minister. I thank the member for Paterson for clarifying that point and for the confirming the story I am about to tell. So it was Jim Lloyd, I am sorry. He flew in to the Hunter region to announce, just days before—well, he did not criticise 'days before the election' so I presume that was right.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not contested.

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

Correct. I thank the member for Paterson for confirming. So after 11½ half years, and concern about the future by the member for Paterson, who of course was not a lay down misere to return to this place at that time—and I think by his smile he is acknowledging that too—then days before the election, the minister flies in and says, 'There is $780 million for the Hunter Expressway'. Well, who believed that—no-one. So we went to Senate estimates after the election just to find out what was the process and where was the money. Guess what? The cookie jar was bare. There was no $780 million at all.

So after 11½ half years but days before an election, they come into my region, our region, and mislead the local people. They mislead them into believing that finally after 11½ half years there they were with $780 million. By the way, I ask the member for Paterson, where is the balance? Where was the rest of the $1.7 billion going to come from?

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Hunter has just asked me a question and I would like to answer it on intervention.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is, Deputy Speaker, if you read the standing orders. He has asked a question and I can answer it.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Read the standing order. Actually the person speaking is the one who asks the question. The book is here, the House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders. I am sure that you are well acquainted with it. You might want to read it. Member for Hunter, please continue.

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

There is another point I need to touch upon. I did not hear everything that the member for Paterson said. I think he was reflecting on a review that was done on this project post the 2007 election. Let me tell you another story. I started on the Hunter Expressway path in Easter of 1988, when I was a young, handsome counsellor on Cessnock City Council. On the eve of Easter 1988, the next section of the F3 Freeway, now called the M1 Pacific Motorway, opened to a place called Freemans Waterhole, just short of Newcastle. What was the result? Suddenly we had traffic from both the Pacific Highway and the New England Highway spilling onto the roads through to the Cessnock local government area. This was a disaster and the council needed to respond. That was when I started advocating for what we then called the Kurri Kurri Corridor, which has become the Hunter Expressway. So it has been a long time for me.

Finally, we started to get the Kurri Kurri Corridor route option in place and the design of the road progressing, but then, as I said, nothing happened for 11½ years. When we were elected in 2007, we had an ageing response to a very serious problem. We also had, as I acknowledged, on the back of what the member for Paterson had to say, a reluctant New South Wales government. We had to persuade the New South Wales government that this was a project worth contributing to. So we had to review the project. As I said, 11½ years had elapsed. The question was: was it still the right corridor? Was it still the best response? Was it still economically viable—in other words, did it give people the required return? So we did the very responsible thing: we had an independent consultant review the project. At the time I said yes, it was the right thing to be doing. If we were going to spend $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money, we needed to make sure we spent it in a way which gave us the best result. And guess what? No-one was more pleased than I.

I was a very nervous local member at the time because I was concerned that so much time had elapsed that the independent consultants might have said that this was not the right response. But thankfully, they confirmed the advocacy, the efficiency and the economic return. They confirmed that this was the right project to address the Hunter's problems, and the rest is history.

Some time after that, the then Prime Minister and I, and I think Mr Albanese, flew to the Hunter and announced that we would fund the construction of the Hunter Expressway. Again, I thank the coalition government for their $50 million in those 11½years. I thank them for acknowledging Labor's primary role in all this work. I, too, am disappointed that the New South Wales government was so reluctant to come to the table, but it was a Labor federal government that dragged them to the table in the end. I am also happy to acknowledge that the global financial crisis perversely helped us in this process because the government of the day was looking for money to create jobs in the economy and this project created a lot of jobs—hundreds of jobs—with many flow-on benefits to local contractors et cetera. I remind the House that the member for Paterson opposed the stimulus package.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It could have been funded out of consolidated revenue.

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

The member for Paterson has just acknowledged that he opposed the stimulus package. Does that mean that he also opposed the funding of the Hunter Expressway? I will let him answer for himself. But I also note that the Liberals continued to criticise the stimulus package. Day in, day out they were in here saying, 'Labor wasted all this money, they racked up all this debt.'

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did. That is a statement of fact.

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

And he is acknowledging it again now. So I ask the member for Paterson: which project should we not have done? Should we not have built the Hunter Expressway? Should we not have built the new school facilities, which so disparagingly are called the 'school halls program'? I often visit schools which are still so grateful for the opportunity that the Labor government gave them, creating school infrastructure they could only have dreamt of previously. I will leave it to him to nominate at a later date which infrastructure projects he would not have rubber stamped had he been part of the government of the day.

I want to close by going back to where I began—roads infrastructure in my electorate. The Hunter Expressway is not the end of it. We need to address the traffic problems through Singleton. We need to address the traffic problems through Muswellbrook. The Muswellbrook bypass is pretty much shovel-ready. The Labor government continued to progress it and allocated $10 million last year to get it shovel-ready. It is an important economic project. The ball is in your court now, Member for Paterson. I have spoken to Deputy Prime Minister Truss about it. I want to take a bipartisan approach to it. I want the government to acknowledge the economic importance of this project and the adverse effect on the amenity of the township by not having a bypass.

We in the Hunter Valley are the engine room of New South Wales. We produce all the coal and generate most of the power and we deserve to have more of that money coming back to our community. That was what the mining tax was about: taking the economic rent from mines to return to local infrastructure.

Mr Baldwin interjecting—

I am glad the member for Paterson mentions the Scone overpass, because that is where I am going next. Labor committed money to the Scone overpass; it was in the budget. We are still waiting for the community to decide whether they want an overpass or a bypass of the town. Eventually, we will need both. There is a ridiculous situation at the moment where a substantial township, sitting on one of the country's primary highways, is cut in half for up to eight minutes at a time by coal trains at the railway level crossing. It is unheard of and there are all sorts of safety implications. We need to go over that railway line but the township will still need a bypass in the not too distant future. I appeal to the government to take the issue very seriously. It is a project that must be done.

I proudly boast that the Hunter wine country forms part of my electorate. It is a wonderful thing. We make the world's best wines and we hold the world's best concerts, but an area like that has to be supported by economic infrastructure. The roads around the vineyards have been a disgrace for too long. I acknowledge the New South Wales conservative government is now doing something about it and I welcome that. But, to get the job done properly, we will also need federal assistance. Maybe this bill will provide that opportunity, through the Roads to Recovery program. On that basis I support the bill, I support the ongoing Roads to Recovery program and I make an appeal to the government and the minister to very seriously consider directing some of that money into Hunter wine country. It is an investment from which they will gain very significant economic returns and an investment which will be widely welcomed by the local community and businesses.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. This bill allows for the ongoing and future investment into critical local road projects through the highly successful Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery program is on top of the recent coalition commitments to upgrading the Pacific Highway to a dual carriageway road from where it ceases at the moment—at the connection with the Oxley Highway—all the way to the Queensland border. There is also the recently announced commitment to road infrastructure in the form of NorthConnex, in the city, which will also deliver benefits.

The Roads to Recovery program, which is so vital for regional and rural communities, is a signature policy achievement of the Liberals and Nationals in government. In understanding the significant challenges faced by local governments of building and maintaining local roads and bridges, particularly in regional and outer metropolitan Australia, the coalition established the Roads to Recovery program in 2000. The program was an important initiative, in that it helped build a long-term local roads funding stream into the federal budget framework. Since that time, the four councils in my electorate—Greater Taree City Council, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, Gloucester Shire Council and Kempsey Shire Council, have shared in over $42 million in additional roads funding thanks to the Roads to Recovery program. This funding is in addition to the federal Financial Assistance Grants program, which delivers general purpose and local roads funding to our local councils as well. The Deputy Prime Minister must be congratulated on reforming and adopting sensible changes to this program. The bill delivers further scope for greater investment in infrastructure projects across the nation and ensures that federal government investment in important local road projects continues.

My electorate of Lyne is almost 12,000 square kilometres in area, with thousands of kilometres of roads and hundreds of old timber bridges to maintain. Unlike smaller metropolitan councils, which have a very strong rate base from which they can deliver local infrastructure and services, councils in my electorate have the responsibility and burden of delivering much greater infrastructure with a much smaller rating base. It is for this reason that the Roads to Recovery program is so important. It must continue so that the strategic and local priorities of roads within our regions can be maintained and roads can continue to be built. This bill will ensure that these funds will continue to flow. But, over time, I would like to see a better and fairer formula to determine the distribution of funds allocated from the Roads to Recovery program and the Financial Assistance Grants program, recognising the significant difference between a regional council and its demands—including the road distances and, most importantly, the amount of bridge infrastructure that has to be maintained—and the demands of inner metropolitan councils, which do not have to face the issue of maintaining bridge infrastructure at all. Recently, Sydney City Council had the luxury of spending $110,000 in funds on a rainbow-coloured pedestrian crossing. Then, they had luxury of spending $30,000 to remove it, after much outcry. Our regional councils simply do not have the luxury of thought bubble symbolic projects. They have to deal with hard infrastructure problems like decaying roads and bridges.

In my electorate some critical transport linkages are crumbling. The Dyers Crossing Bridge on the Wallanbah Road in the Manning Valley is in a critical condition; it is a connection that caters for milk tankers, timber trucks and fresh produce transport. Unfortunately, because of its very poor state, it has had a load limit applied to it. That means tankers, cattle trucks, cars with people travelling to work and school buses have to divert many kilometres, increasing the cost of transport to the businesses and the individuals who use this link.

Unfortunately for all of us, these roads, which are the arteries of commerce, result in bigger transport costs, which are then passed on to the processor, the retailer and, ultimately, the consumer. The consumer is all of us, not just people in our electorate but people in the city as well. It is the consumer who relies on the milk in their cappuccino or the steak, sausages and chops on their barbecue. It all comes from primary producers in regional areas, who create wealth for the nation through their production. The transport cost is part of the end cost that the consumer pays.

These local and regional roads are critical to our national economy. The production chain from paddock to plate relies on them. Meat, fruit and vegetables—all eaten at the kitchen table—get there via a country road. Whether we live in the city or the country, these roads are critical. As the roads are failing, the only solution for councils under stress is this program: the Roads to Recovery funding. That is why our investment in infrastructure is so important.

Federal financial assistance grants are important. These funds are precious. Because of a shortage of funds faced by regional councils, their investment in road infrastructure and bridges has to be done in the most cost-effective manner possible. Councils do not have the luxury of simply saying, 'Our council has got the ability to do it.' Sometimes it is a case of swallowing your pride and putting the work out to open and competitive tender processes so that you get road builders with the full suite of expertise, who have civil engineers that can design the best-value build for the precious Roads to Recovery dollar. The same principle applies to bridges. There are standard costs involved. Infrastructure is expensive, but if a local council is doing works at 2½ times the quoted rate for either a sheeted rural road or an unsealed rural road then that is saying something. That is saying that that particular council should open up more of their provision of infrastructure to external contractors. External contractors are out there and putting in tenders which are more cost-effective, and that should be encouraged. We need to get the maximum benefit for every dollar. Whether it is the Hunter Expressway or a local regional road, there is a finite amount of infrastructure money available. It should not be wasted at any opportunity; it should be used wisely.

So when we consider how we allocate Roads to Recovery and financial assistance grants to councils from the federal government, it is not up to us to micromanage councils. We are relying on our councils. They have a very important role in using that money wisely. In the financial assistance grants process, these funds are untied for the most part. There is a formula that works out how much funding councils get. The biggest variable in the formula is population count, but the situation in our electorate is that the distances covered are much vaster. For instance, within the city of Sydney, there are some council electorates that I could travel around in a car in under an hour, even allowing for traffic jams. However, one council has 1,200 kilometres of unsealed road and 72 bridges. If someone can show me a metropolitan council in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or Adelaide that has that kind of infrastructure burden then I will change my opinion, but I cannot find one. So, there is a different situation. There is a complex formula and it needs adjustment. The state government needs to be involved, because in our system of government, they eventually deliver this. My colleagues in state government are aware of my opinions on this issue and I am sure that they are coming to the same conclusion. At the federal level, where we can have some input, it is so important that this is analysed closely and changed.

There are some things in the bill that we need to quickly go through. Is there an impact on industry? The short answer is no. Is there an impact on human rights? No. Are there impacts on the state governments? Hopefully, it will simplify things for state governments. It will allow new funding streams for research and new funding streams for these infrastructure projects. It will simplify a couple of the parts into one—parts 3 and 6 will be streamlined. This bill does more than just change the names of acts; it makes them much more efficient. If we do not pass this bill, the Roads to Recovery funding program, which will change in July this year, will come to an end. So it is very important that this bill goes through. It allows the minister to determine a Roads to Recovery list, which is essential for the program to function well. This power was removed from the act when it was amended back in 2009. The current bill will give the minister this ability again.

The name of the act is being changed, as you have no doubt noted. This is to remove the link between the name of the act and the name of the land transport infrastructure funding program. It simplifies an act that was first introduced as the Auslink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 and renamed in 2009 as the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act. It will remove the technical requirement to change the act if the name of land transport infrastructure funding program changes in the future so that we will not have to go through this rigmarole all over again. So there are some long-term benefits of a technical legislative nature, and the bill provides the material ability to continue the program.

Infrastructure in the regions is critical for business, tourism, access to education and commerce and for our regional primary producers to get their goods to market cheaply and effectively. Some of the decaying infrastructure will only be fixed if this program continues, so I commend the bill to the House; it must pass. It is a vital bit of legislation that will simplify things and deliver good outcomes, particularly if the local governments that receive these funds apply common sense, have an open and transparent tender process to get the most competitive price and make sure the people tendering have all the skills. They need to have a civil engineer who specialises in roads, resheeting and building bridges so that the government body—whatever it might be—does not have to revisit these projects three years later and do them all over again.

Technical proficiency is the most important thing when it comes to service delivery, and there are so many people out there in the industry who would love to tender for these processes and get these projects going so that we have stronger regions. I commend the bill to the House.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to look at some of the reasons why this legislation is before us. One that I find really interesting is that we are going to rename the primary legislation, because, apparently, it is important to rename it from the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 to the National Land Transport Act. Given the current policy settings of the government, I think that this is a misnomer and that the government is in fact engaging in deceptive and misleading conduct by renaming the act as the National Land Road Transport Act.

Very clear statements have been made by the government that they have no intention of contemplating urban rail projects and that urban rail, for some reason or another, is not considered to fall within the ambit of the concept of land transport. That, of course, is an incredibly curious decision to have made. There is an enormous amount of commentary building around the nation about the decision to decide arbitrarily that one part of the land transport agenda is to be removed and isolated from consideration by the federal government. It really is quite an extraordinary decision to have made.

Things had evolved, and there has long been a campaign to get serious federal government engagement in rail, particularly in public transport delivery. In this day and age, one cannot sensibly talk about the land transport task, particularly in a metropolitan setting, without considering the role of public transport and the role of rail as part of the public transport product. It is a decision that has been taken by the federal government that defies all rationality. You cannot possibly be in a situation where you are engaging in strategic planning for a metropolitan area without considering public transport and rail.

There is an idea that we can continue to just expand our roads to provide a solution for congestion problems. As someone at a recent light rail convention said, 'Building more roads to deal with congestion is like loosening your belt to deal with obesity.' It is not actually going to work and it is not an intelligent way to address the problem. There was an interesting article this morning by Ross Gittens, a respected economist, which said:

For reasons that I don't understand, the present crop of Coalition governments—federal and state—seem biased against public transport as the answer to traffic congestion and have reverted to the 1960s notion that more tollways will fix everything.

They are certainly not going to fix everything. I think the figures are that about 80 per cent of Australians live in cities. That is not to in any way undervalue the people who do not live in cities or recognise their needs, but, if we do not accept that this is an issue that affects the vast majority of Australians, it is a great shortfall in the thinking of the government. As I said, it defies logic. You cannot possibly be planning to deal with congestion or developing a coherent model for dealing with the traffic problems within a metropolitan area without a deep engagement in public transport issues and the need to provide an expansion of the rail network as a very important part of that public transport response.

Clearly, that is where the state governments are needing an enhanced federal government contribution. The Prime Minister has said, 'We're sticking to our knitting; we don't know anything about that.' Over the last six years, the federal government has, through its Major Cities Unit, acquired a very considerable capacity to understand these things. The Major Cities Unit was set up to come to terms with these issues of planning land transport within a metropolitan setting. I acknowledge Dorte Ekelund, who was the principal of the Major Cities Unit and who, just this week, was part of a group that received a very prestigious award from Planning Institute Australia for the work that had been done by the Major Cities Unit.

The idea that there was not the capacity within the federal government to do this and that it is not within their palate or their suite of expertise is quite profoundly wrong. It takes us to the Prime Minister, who seems to have a fascination with the world of the past and sees anything like rail as something that is a bit left-wing. Public transport is obviously far too left-wing for him to want to engage in. Why we need federal government involvement here is the recognition that the whole basis of funding within the Commonwealth has changed over the last 100 years, in case the Prime Minister has not noticed.

During the great rail-building era that took place between the 1890s and the 1930s, which was when a lot of the backbone of urban rail around Australia was built, the states had income tax collection powers and they had very extensive excise powers. As a consequence of the Second World War the states surrendered to the Commonwealth some of their powers, such as collecting income tax, and as a result of some of the landmark High Court cases over the years, particularly during the 1990s, the states lost a great deal of their power to levy excise. The trajectory and the relativity of funding has very much moved from the states to the Commonwealth. Hence, it is not acceptable now, given that move of financial capacity from the states to the federal government, for the federal government to say, 'This is a critical area of infrastructure development that we are not going to take part in and we are going to say to the states, "You do that yourself."' The size and cost of these projects are really getting to a point where it is outside the capacity of the states to deliver these upgrades by themselves. We do need to get the federal government engaged in it.

We need to have a discussion. There needs to be some intellectual engagement by the Prime Minister rather than a reliance on 'we're sticking to our knitting' to describe why it is that they will not countenance an engagement with the funding of urban rail projects. We have the Prime Minister jumping up and down and rabbiting on about the carbon tax and the cost to householders, although we know that the vast majority of householders are fully compensated for any impact of the carbon tax. A much greater impost on people is the cost of transport. The cost of transport is very much related to the availability of public transport. Indeed, the average Western Australian is spending more than 15 per cent of their total household expenditure on transport. That is an enormous percentage of the overall income that is spent by a household on transport. That is $192 per week or 15 per cent of total household income.

The impact that traffic congestion and commute times are having on family life is becoming a very real issue in Western Australia. A recent survey of businesses by the Royal Automobile Club of WA showed that 84 per cent of respondents believe that traffic congestion is having a negative impact on their business. The majority of businesses related this as being 'negative to extremely negative'. The overwhelming majority of businesses said that their exposure to traffic congestion has increased.

About 100,000 new vehicles are added onto Perth roads each year. Examining some of the data that is coming out about traffic congestion and the impact of those vehicles, we see average commuter travel speeds have decreased by about 15 kilometres per hour over the last 10 years. The TomTom Traffic Index recently showed that in peak period a one-hour trip will now take an extra 31 minutes. The congestion level between the period of free flow to non-free flow right across the city is around 30 per cent. More people are having to travel longer periods of time in their cars or on public transport because of this congestion. We are not going to deal with this sensibly just by attempting to expand the road network. In places like the Kwinana Freeway and the Mitchell Freeway, we really have to appoint where the capacity for expansion, particularly in the five kilometres either side of the city, is not there. The roads are now up against a point where continued expansion is just not possible.

So we do need to have a land transport act. We should have a piece of legislation that genuinely is a land transport act. But what we have in reality is a road transport program that shows that the Prime Minister, his cabinet and his transport minister are very much fixed in the 1960s and 1970s and that they have simply been unable to adjust and adapt to the 21st century realities of our cities.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. In doing so I would firstly like to pick up on some of the comments made by the member for Grayndler and previous infrastructure minister under the previous government, Mr Albanese, in his contribution to this debate. In his speech he said that the government needs to invest wisely in infrastructure—and I could not agree more with that. He went on to say that:

… by its very nature, infrastructure planning and delivery is a long-term business requiring long lead times, careful planning …

That is exactly right. In his speech he also went on to talk about the Moorebank intermodal project:

Sydney's transport system is, of course, the Moorebank Intermodal project. It was initially opposed by the coalition, including the member for Hughes. The member for Hughes campaigned very strongly against it …

and I thank him for that compliment. He goes on to say that that was:

… a position which is now rejected by his party, who understand how important the Moorebank Intermodal project is for Sydney in taking trucks off the road and providing a productivity benefit.

This debate has become very partisan. I could easily attack the former minister for infrastructure for his promotion of the Moorebank intermodal project as a party-political issue, but I do not want to do that, because I believe he made the decision to promote the Moorebank intermodal facility in the right spirit. But he did so on flawed assumptions and a hugely mistaken plan. I say that not just as a member standing up for a project in his local area that is going to adversely affect his local area, which it will. I argue against the Moorebank intermodal project from a truly national perspective. To build such an intermodal transport facility at Moorebank, on the site of the old School of Military Engineering, would be a multi-billion-dollar mistake—not multi-million or multi-hundred-million-dollar—that this nation simply cannot afford.

I come to this debate with what I believe are good qualifications and background to argue the case against this. Before I came to this place I had for 30 years been involved in coordinating the transportation of goods around Sydney. I have driven trucks around Sydney to deliver goods. For many decades I have arranged the import and export of goods from and through Port Botany, and I have coordinated the movement of containers of Australian export goods across the USA and Canada. So I come to this issue not from looking down over Sydney Harbour from an ivory tower somewhere in Sydney and saying, 'That's in Sydney's west'. I come to it from a local perspective, a national perspective and an international perspective. Firstly, what is the problem that the Moorebank intermodal project is attempting to solve? Well, theoretically the problem is the congestion at Port Botany. But the congestion is not actually at the port itself. We have a third container terminal nearing completion at the moment, and we have no problems bringing ships into the port and unloading them, nor any problems with loading them from Port Botany. The problem is the congestion on the local road networks and how the increased projections in freight may not be able to cope with those local road networks.

However, when this has been looked at, it has been looked at under projections of what the growth in those container movements from Port Botany would be. And as with many projections, we see a bit of an up-pick in something over a period of time, and it is very easy to forecast that that growth will continue up and ever onwards. But we have seen that that is not happening. We have seen that the growth in the number of containers at Port Botany has come off the boil. So the panic that there was a couple of years ago—that we would have this eight per cent or 10 per cent year-on-year growth of container movement through Port Botany, and therefore there was some rush to deal with the issue—is simply not there. We have time to plan this. We have time to plan it and to make sure that we get it right. We cannot rush and then make multi-billion-dollar mistakes. And that is where I fear we are heading at the moment.

If the problem is congestion on the roads, and we are unable to move all of those containers from Port Botany throughout Sydney, what are the solutions? The first solution is that we could move a lot of that freight at night, out of peak hours. That does not happen at the moment because of penalty rates. I agree that if someone is working later hours and working at night they deserve to be paid at a higher rate. But at the moment our roads network is often empty at night, when we could be moving a lot of freight from our port. That is one possible solution.

Another solution is to upgrade the existing roads, and that is exactly what we are doing with the WestConnex project. In fact, it is quite possible that what we are doing on that WestConnex project will make the Moorebank intermodal completely redundant. Another option is to put in additional container terminals at Port Kembla or Newcastle. And of course the other option, which is behind the assumption of the Moorebank intermodal, is that we actually move freight from the port by rail.

Just quickly touching on the intermodal concept: when a ship arrives at Port Botany, the containers are unloaded and put on the deck, then they are taken from the deck and put on a stack, and from the stack they are either put on a truck to be transported to where they need to go or put on a train. This is where the first faulty assumption about the Moorebank intermodal comes. We often hear, and we heard it in the minister's speech, that the idea is to take freight off the road and put it on rail. This is a seductively simple statement, and a flawed assumption, because it does not look at the entire distribution chain—from the port to the warehouse to distribution, to the unpacking of those containers, and to those goods getting to the end user. You may be putting it on rail, but ultimately that container has to go on road to get to its destination. Then once those goods are unpacked from that container, unless they are consumed at that location, they need to be distributed further by rail. So, the whole concept is simply flawed from the start.

What intermodal actually does is add another link to the distribution chain. It adds time, and time is money, and it adds cost. To quote Michael Bell, Professor of Ports and Maritime Logistics at Sydney University: 'If you are just introducing another leg into the supply chain, so that you still have the truck leg at the end with the container, then you have the tricky business of trying to argue that you are actually going to make some savings.' And he is exactly right, because there is no other city anywhere in the world that anyone has been able to identify that actually has an intracity intermodal to distribute goods from their port.

Where the intermodal concept works is in places such as Los Angeles, where they have the port at Long Beach. There the containers arrive at Long Beach, then go on a train across to the central parts of the USA—to Denver and Dallas and beyond—and that makes sense because of the long freight journey. The same is true in Canada, where the containers are unloaded at the port of Vancouver, put on the train, and then railed all the way across the country to Calgary, Montreal and Toronto. That makes sense because of the distance.

So, there is a real question mark about whether intermodals can actually work on an intracity basis. This should set alarm bells ringing. There is a very important quote the House should be aware of, from a report on the New South Wales state infrastructure plan called First things first, state infrastructure strategy 2012-2032. It warns, and I would like to quote this exactly, that the short-haul freight market, which is the intermodal concept:

…is essentially unproven in Sydney. At present, most intermodal demand in Sydney is for longer-haul export freight, and there is significant capacity available at a number of existing intermodal sites.

It goes on:

Sydney Ports and Hutchison are currently developing a 300,000 TEU per annum intermodal facility at Enfield.

I understand that is due to open at any time. Enfield provides the test case for larger scale short-haul intermodal freight in Sydney, and the report warns, with a recommendation highlighted in a box:

Infrastructure NSW recommends that state public funding for additional intermodal terminal capacity in Sydney (including in relation to supporting infrastructure) be minimised until there is greater clarity on whether the short-haul rail freight market is viable.

The alarm bells should be ringing. This is not an economically proven concept, and we should not be putting billions of dollars of taxpayers funds into a concept that is not even proven, and may not even be commercially viable.

But, let us just assume that we should have intermodals in Sydney. Where should they go? Ideally, where should they be located? This is where we have a completely failed analysis so far. If you look at where the containers are currently going, there is a big block of containers around the Enfield area. There are currently 474,000 TEU movements out at Enfield, therefore an Enfield intermodal could possibly work, due to its proximity to the current market. There is also a big location up at Eastern Creek, where an intermodal has been proposed in the future. There is also a small block down at Minto, Campbelltown, and in the Ingleburn area, which is serviced by an intermodal at the moment. But if we look around Moorebank, or if we look around Liverpool and the Chipping Norton area, there is simply no current demand whatsoever there for intermodal freight. The market has rejected the Moorebank area as a location to distribute containers from, and yet here we are wanting to put billions of dollars into building an intermodal in a location that the market has rejected. The alarm bells should be ringing very loudly.

Secondly, if we look into the future at the decades to come, if we had a crystal ball, where would we say an intermodal should be located? Well, if we look at Sydney's planning, we have very large growth areas. We have a south-west growth sector, and we have a north-west growth sector. In that area we expect to have 500,000 people living. In fact, the area from Parramatta to Penrith, and Campbelltown to Richmond—that Western Sydney area—by 2030 will have a population of nearly 2,000,000 people. Bang smack in the middle of that area, in the planning, we have an area called the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area. That is the area where the future container growth will be. That is the ideal location. To set it up at Moorebank and then to have to transport it 20 kilometres further west is simply poor planning, but that is exactly what we are doing.

When I have raised these real concerns with certain people, saying that Moorebank is not an ideal location, the comments I have gotten back are that it is okay because Moorebank could be one of several intermodals that we need, so if it is not exactly right that is okay, because we will build other intermodals later. This is deeply flawed. To get the containers out to Sydney's west by rail, we have only one rail line, which is the Southern Sydney Freight Line. That rail line has a maximum capacity of about 1.9 million containers. So, if we build Moorebank intermodal, and we add on the Enfield intermodal with another 300,000 containers, plus the Minto intermodal, then there is simply no more capacity left on that freight line.

We in government who are planning infrastructure have one shot in the locker to get this right, and Moorebank is completely the wrong location for this. The other concern is that there has been no alternative economic analysis or cost-benefit analysis of alternative locations. Look at the planning and the thought that have gone into Sydney's second airport. How many locations have been looked at? Economic analysis has been done for Badgerys Creek as a site. This has not been done at Moorebank; Moorebank is the worst possible location. We would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, upgrading the local roads.

I could go on all day, but one of the real concerns we have at Moorebank is what it could potentially do to Liverpool Hospital. This is our largest hospital in Australia and the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere; it is in the Liverpool CBD. Building that intermodal at Moorebank, with the 20,000 extra trucks a day that it will bring, will create all these rat runs through the Liverpool CBD. That would jeopardise effectiveness of ambulances and emergency services getting to Liverpool Hospital.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to participate in this debate around the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. I come to this dispatch box as someone who has observed and experienced the vicissitudes of various governments over a long time in this place. One of the most significant experiences I can recall was, from my perspective, not a happy one—when the Keating government was defeated in 1996. Sadly, for me, I lost my job. I did return, as you have yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent. An important measure of the Keating government prior to that time was the introduction of a strategic roads program for the Northern Territory. This strategic roads program was about looking at road infrastructure across remote parts of the Northern Territory and coming to an agreement with the then Northern Territory government, road transport users and local Aboriginal organisations and communities about the strategic priorities for roads. A sum of money was made available—I forget the sum, but it was $15 million or $20 million—for this program. It was not a lot of money, but it did make a difference.

So you can imagine how sad I was, in addition to the fact that I lost my seat, to see that one of the first acts of the then Howard government was to axe that program. I say that because what it demonstrated to me was a clear lack of understanding of the importance of road infrastructure for remote Australia. Anyone who comes to regional and remote Australia, but particularly remote Australia, would understand the need to have good road infrastructure.

In my electorate of Lingiari, we are talking about an electorate of 1.3 million square kilometres, or one-sixth of the Australian landmass. It covers all of the Northern Territory, except for Darwin and Palmerston. It also includes, incidentally, for interest's sake, the Christmas and Cocos islands, which are, of course, not served by road—or they cannot be accessed by road. I was consumed by why the then Howard government should take this course of action. I understand the need and importance of safety on Highway 1 et cetera, but the people who most needed road infrastructure improvements in this country—people whose lives depended upon access by road to remote communities—were being forgotten. As a direct result of decisions taken by the Howard government, they were put to the bottom of the pile.

Subsequently, of course, we know the Howard government lasted for a number of years. Then, in 2007, we saw the election of the Rudd Labor government. What was significant about the period between 2007 and 2013 was the difference that the Labor governments made over that period to expenditure on infrastructure, and road infrastructure in particular, across this great country of ours. If you compare the 2011-12 budget with the 2006-07 budget, there was an increase of over 250 per cent in that infrastructure expenditure—from $1.6 billion to $4.12 billion. Almost two-thirds of that expenditure went to non-urban projects. That is very significant because it highlighted an understanding by the Labor government of the need to invest in this infrastructure of such great importance to communities across Australia. When we talk about the sort of expenditure this represented, in the case of the Northern Territory infrastructure expenditure increased from $275 per head to $458 per head across five Labor budgets. That is a significant increase. Twenty eight million dollars went to the Territory local governments over that period just for the Roads to Recovery program alone.

If I mentioned these rivers, the Goyder and the Donydji, I would imagine that, apart from me, very few members in this chamber would even know whether they existed, let alone where they are, what communities might lie beyond them and why it is important to have road infrastructure—in this case, bridges—built over these rivers to allow access to communities. In many parts of northern Australia, communities are inaccessible by road for up to six months per year. That creates tremendous pressure and cost on those communities, so this sort of road infrastructure expenditure is vitally important, as is, of course, the normal obligation of the Commonwealth government to invest in highways, such as the Stuart Highway or the Arnhem Highway to Jabiru.

The investments made by government are vitally important in determining how communities can operate, and in the context of the Northern Territory that means not only for the liveability in communities but for the provision of fundamental goods and services that everyone in this chamber, including those in the gallery, would take for granted but which do not exist for many communities because of their location. They cannot get fresh fruit and vegetables on a regular basis because of their location and the lack of infrastructure or the poor nature of infrastructure that leads to these communities. So roads are vitally important. It is therefore important that we appreciate our obligation here in this parliament, representing the interests of all Australians, to make sure these investments are made and that they go to those people most in need. Sadly, though, it appears that most investments being made currently are being made on the basis of political priorities, not necessarily on the basis of need.

The more recent of the commitments that were made by Labor in government, before being defeated last year, understood the importance and centrality of roads to social and economic wellbeing and effective service delivery across communities. Our successive budgets demonstrated that very clearly. The infrastructure investments made by Labor in government included those announced on 3 August 2012, when the then minister, Mr Albanese, put out a press release announcing $90 million towards a new regional roads program in the Northern Territory, with a $16 million contribution from the Northern Territory government. Remember, this announcement was made on 3 August 2012. Its purpose, as the heading of the press release said, was 'Encouraging productivity by investing in Territory bush roads'. The road projects for which the money was made available were: the Roper Highway, for causeways and associated works; the Port Keats Road—to Wadeye, for those who might not be familiar with it—for targeted sealing and flood immunity improvements, which are fundamentally important; the Santa Teresa Way, for upgrading the gravel condition of priority sections—this is an absolutely murderous road that requires significant improvement, and this money must be spent; the Central Arnhem Road, for constructing a new bridge over Rocky Bottom Creek; the Buntine Highway, for targeted strengthening, widening and sealing works; and the Arnhem Link Road, for upgrading the gravel condition of priority sections.

These priorities were agreed, these investments were announced and the money made available. You can imagine my consternation, then, when on 5 March this year I saw a joint media release from the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Truss, and the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Adam Giles, making this announcement: 'NT's economy to be boosted through upgrades to six remote roads'. That piqued my interest. What did I find? What I found was a re-announcement of the announcement made by Labor and the commitment made by Labor in 2012. They identified $90 million from the Commonwealth, $16 million from the Northern Territory government—just as had been done in 2012—and, oddly, picked exactly the same roads: the Roper Highway, the Port Keats Road, the Arnhem Link Road, the Buntine Highway, the Central Arnhem Road and the Santa Teresa Road.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. It seems to me that that is precisely what the government was trying to do. They must think we are mad, that we do not have any memory of investments previously made and announced by a former government. Here we have, writ large, another example of this government making announcements for investments which were already committed by the previous Labor government. What it tells us, of course, is that they don't have any ideas of their own. What it tells us is that they haven't got a damn clue. What it also tells us is they are not prepared to sit down with communities and try to find out what their priorities are. There is no doubt this $90 million with the $16 million from the Northern Territory government are absolutely required, but we do not need a re-announcement by this government in 2014 of an investment made by the Labor government in 2012. We are not fools and I do not think the community will be fooled by these re-announcements.

Yet it is not the only example. What we are seeing from this government—and I am talking about my own electorate of Lingiari here—is a real lack of interest in making sure that communities have their services properly dealt with and their needs recognised and addressed. I will mention just one. In Gove an announcement was made at the end of November last year by Rio Tinto that they would put their refinery at Gove in curtailment—in other words, effectively close it down over a six-month period so that, by July this year, it will be just in care and maintenance; there will be no refining of bauxite. It will mean the loss of 1,200 jobs.

Yet neither this government nor the Northern Territory government has had the wit or wisdom to do a socioeconomic impact assessment of what this closure will mean to those communities and what further investments might need to be made to provide opportunities for jobs and small business in those communities into the future. Not one red cent has been spent by the Abbott government on mediating and mitigating the impacts of this closure on this community.

Understand what this means. For those of you here in the gallery and those who might be listening, we will see a town of 4,000 people drop to 1,200. You can imagine the impact this will have, and is having, on small businesses across the community. We demand that this government take an interest. One thing they could do is stump up $350 million for the Central Arnhem Highway to give these people all-year-round road access, which would provide an incentive for further investment, business and employment opportunities for the region.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this bill, the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, because it gives me an opportunity to say a number of things about the bill generally; then, secondly, to speak about some of the impacts it will have on Western Australia; and, thirdly, to speak about some of the impacts and the future program for the electorate of Canning that I have been elected to represent five times now.

We are committed to delivering critical infrastructure to all of Australia to meet the future needs as this nation does grow. The bill will rename the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 as the National Land Transport Act 2014. This amendment of the act is a coalition election promise, evidence that the coalition is committed to developing a stronger Australia by building the roads of the 21st century. It was an election promise and we are going to deliver on our promises.

Further, the amendment is part of the government's broader commitment of $35.5 billion to national infrastructure. This money will be used over six years to build roads and rail projects that are vital to Australia to improve efficiency, boost productivity and drive Australia's economy forward. Again, this is further evidence that the coalition is set to develop a stronger Australia by delivering the biggest infrastructure agenda in Australia's history.

For Western Australia, the $35.5 billion committed under the Infrastructure Investment Program will provide $686 million to complete the Gateway WA Project and $615 million to build the Swan Valley Bypass on the Perth to Darwin Highway. I must say, we are confirming this money in the bill. The previous Rudd-Gillard government promised to do this as long as the money came from the mining tax. The mining tax did not happen. There has been a trickle of money from this ill-constructed mining tax done with a few mates, the three major companies—Rio, BHP and Xstrata—done in the eye of the mid caps and the juniors, and it did not deliver any money of any significance. This government is ensuring that this money is going to flow. The previous government had to borrow the money because they did not get it from the mining tax. We were borrowing $100 million a day from China, largely, to fund these projects and, quite disingenuously, the Labor Party said that this would come from the mining tax, and it has not.

In terms of the bill—and I am sure that most other people have spoken on this—it, firstly, repeals Labor's Nation Building Program so we have a more efficient infrastructure policy. Secondly, the government's motivation to repeal these acts is simply to repeal that legislation which is no longer in use. The bill aims to streamline and enhance the operation of the act in a number of ways, which I am sure has been mentioned.

Another positive aspect of the enhanced operation of this bill is to expand the definition of the phrase 'eligible funding recipient'. It is proposed that 'eligible funding recipients' will now include partnerships and non-corporate Commonwealth entities. Again, this is to streamline the operations of the delivery and the outcomes for this investment. There is very little in this change and it is going to be negative for states and territories. In fact, it will ensure and enshrine the ongoing nature of the delivery from the Commonwealth.

Let us not forget, however, the most important aspect of this bill. This bill will enable the continuation of the Roads to Recovery Program beyond 30 June 2014. Before I go on to the Roads to Recovery program, I reiterate that Western Australia, like the rest of Australia, is in need of not only upgraded and enhanced road projects, but also new road programs. People have trouble getting their minds around some of this. For example, Roy Hill is starting up shortly. That road to the coast may only take a handful of vehicles a day, probably fewer than 100, and to expend millions of dollars on a road that will only take a handful of vehicles is hard to justify when a similar road in Sydney would potentially take 50,000 to 100,000 vehicles a day. But you have got to look at what that one road may do: it will provide access from the mine site to the port for their support vehicles and the contractors to deliver billions of dollars of export income to this country. That is the context you have to put it in—not how many people use the road but what benefit the road will actually deliver in terms of its investment.

The Roads to Recovery program—what a marvellous program—was initiated by the Howard government and, to give credit to the Labor Party, they continued this but made some changes which I will respond to in a moment. The beauty of the Roads to Recovery program is what is called a 'bottoms-up' funding program—not top down where everyone gets a little bit on the way through and the state governments help themselves to a proportion of the funding for handling the moneys as they go through and then skimming some off for themselves, with all the inefficiencies that causes. Local government is on the ground. They know the roads that need repair and enhancement. They are the ones best placed to spend the taxpayers' money most efficiently in their local areas. Without the Commonwealth Roads to Recovery program, many shires and cities in this country would have to struggle to raise the moneys to have these roads in these conditions and to grow the road network.

It is much sought after, but what may or may not have been mentioned in this debate is the fact that the Labor Party, going to the last election, made much of having a constitutional referendum on local government so that they could deliver this money, because there is a constitutional question as to the delivery of Roads to Recovery directly to local government. This has been pointed out in one case that I am aware of, and maybe more, but there is an understanding that, until there is a recognition of local government in the Constitution, we are going to have to deal with this in the way it has been dealt with for a number of years. But what happened to that much vaunted referendum about the recognition of local government that was being led by the then member for Hotham, Simon Crean? It died on the vine, like many of the other initiatives that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government were taking to all their elections.

So we are left with a certain amount of uncertainty, but not enough to mean that this program will not work effectively as it has done in the past. The constitutional question is one issue, but it is not one that concentrates the mind too much, because you cannot get in between a local government authority and this money, because they need it so desperately. In the electorate of Canning, which I represent, this has been a highly successful program throughout the six local government authorities: the City of Armadale, the City of Mandurah, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, the Shire of Murray, the Shire of Waroona and the Shire of Boddington. They all benefit from this marvellous program, which they then add value to by adding much of their ratepayers' money to expand the road network in their area. So I will spend a little bit of the time that I have left outlining where some of these moneys have gone.

Until recently there was a little bit of flexibility in the program. For example, in the City of Armadale, where they wanted to do some major roadworks but the quantum of money from Roads to Recovery in that year was not sufficient to do it in that financial year, they were given the flexibility of cobbling it together—providing a bridge and doing the roadworks—by allowing it to happen over a two- to three-year period. That is a sensible outcome. It is common sense in terms of the way the Commonwealth should be able to negotiate with local government authorities to see this money best used in the local areas.

Knowing that I was going to be making this speech, we contacted the local government authorities in my area that I have just mentioned. All got back to me except, unfortunately, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, which probably needs this money more than anyone else because it is the second largest shire by area in Western Australia and has some roads that are desperately in need of help. They are dangerous gravel roads, heading off to Alcoa's mine sites and through areas that are receiving more traffic, like Gobby Road. I have been pushing for Gobby Road with the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale for years. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, as federal members we cannot tell the councils how to spend their money, but as elected representatives we can certainly indicate where the people think the money should be spent. Gobby Road in the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale in my electorate is certainly one such road, and so is Lightbody Road. But no; the S-J shire has seen fit to spend the money elsewhere, which is a little bit of a disappointment to me. But, as I said, that is an independent process and those elected at a federal level can only make suggestions and try to negotiate with the local government authorities.

The City of Mandurah is a hypergrowth region and is at the end of its borrowing, so this money is like manna from heaven to it. The Roads to Recovery program meant that Mandurah was able to do things like build a two-kilometre road connecting the Mandurah Transit Station to the City of Mandurah. Mandurah was strangled by old roads that stopped the traffic flow, so creatively, when rail arrived in Mandurah from Perth, it needed to find a quick transit to the city. This Roads to Recovery program allowed it to realign some old roads, remove the bowling club that was in the way at the time, do some land acquisitions and acquire some houses that were on the route. The project included the upgrading of the intersection of Scott Street and Anstruther Road. Part of Allnutt Street had to be expanded into four lanes, with the inclusion of traffic lights and street lights at the Allnutt Street-Dower Street intersection. As I said, there was completion of the link through the sections right into Mandurah Terrace. That was a fantastic outcome, because it allowed better access to the train station for those catching the train from Mandurah to Perth, and it has really made getting to work a much better and more seamless journey for the people of Mandurah.

Another project completed in Mandurah under the Roads to Recovery program was the upgrade of both pedestrian and vehicle pathways along Mandurah Terrace, the city's primary thoroughfare along the Mandurah Foreshore. They just had the Mandurah Crab Fest last weekend, and something like 15,000 people turned up on the foreshore that day. Mandurah is the home of the blue manna crab in Western Australia. The crabs are beautiful to eat but do attract a crowd on that weekend. People have just marvelled, because people go to Monkey Mia and places like that to see dolphins but you can sit on the foreshore in Mandurah and see a whole range of dolphins performing in front of you. It is a beautiful part of the Mandurah estuary, and we provided Roads to Recovery moneys so that people can get better access and upgrade the whole experience in the city centre of Mandurah. It is a great tourist destination and, if it did not have this infrastructure development from the Commonwealth in areas such as the foreshore reserve, it would not benefit from tourism in the way it is doing.

There are projects throughout the electorate. The Shire of Murray has used the moneys to link the Coolup region to the Perth-Bunbury highway, and this is to provide safe and reliable access to what could have been considered one of the highest traffic highways in the region. Without this funding provided by Roads to Recovery, it is arguable that the Shire of Murray would have found it difficult to construct this link, so that is another shire that has benefited. This type of strategic road planning which the Roads to Recovery program affords to the likes of the City of Mandurah and the Shire of Murray provides examples of why I support the continued funding of the program under the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill, which we are talking about today.

Briefly, I want to mention a couple of other shires. Out in Boddington, the Chalkbrook Road is a very small project. For those not aware, Boddington is another Western Australian success story. Potentially the largest goldmine in Australia, the Newmont mine at Boddington is producing something like 800,000 ounces of gold a year. This road is helping build the infrastructure in that area so that the local residents can make great use of it. In the Shire of Waroona, Coronation Road has been upgraded through this program. There are so many things that I could continue to talk about with this program. I am out of time, but this ensures the flow of the funds, through these changes to the legislation, and guarantees security for local governments, the state of Western Australia and, dare I say, the rest of Australia into the future.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate regarding the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 because this bill seeks to build on Labor's strong record of investment, particularly in road infrastructure but also in rail infrastructure, through a number of nation-building projects that were conceived and begun under the previous Labor government. Their construction continues as we speak, adding to the productivity of our nation's land transport.

This particular bill seeks to amend the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act to: continue funding indefinitely for the Roads to Recovery program, something that is supported by the opposition; allow the minister an ongoing power to determine a Roads to Recovery list; eliminate the distinction between national network and off-network projects, and retitle the same as 'investment projects'; widen transport research funding criteria; allow partnerships and non-corporate Commonwealth entities to apply for research funding; repeal some of the acts that are no longer relevant, including the railway standardisation agreement act of 1958; and rename the act and remove any reference to 'nation building'.

In the minister's speech on 27 February this year, when he introduced this bill and made a speech to the parliament, he said:

Through the Infrastructure Investment Program, the government has committed $35.5 billion over six years to road and rail projects, including:

and—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that the assistant minister agrees that these are good projects, because of course these were all projects conceived and delivered by the Labor government. They were re-announced by the new government once they occupied the Treasury benches; they are seeking to claim credit for projects that were put in place by the former Labor government. It is typical of this government, seeking to claim accomplishments that the previous government put in place and to try to pass them off as their own.

Just last weekend we saw the Prime Minister with the assistant minister for re-announcements here, the member for Mayo, and Barry O'Farrell, the New South Wales Premier, re-announce the $3 billion NorthConnex link—the F3 to M2 link. This was originally announced sometime last year by Barry O'Farrell and by the then roads and infrastructure minister, Anthony Albanese. So it is probably more appropriate to say that this is a recycling or a re-announcement of a project that was put in place by the Labor government.

I am a former senator; I was proud to represent New South Wales. One of the great joys of being a senator is that I had the opportunity to travel around New South Wales. I saw firsthand the investment that the then Labor government was making in the New South Wales roads infrastructure. During its period in government, the former Labor government doubled the investment in roads infrastructure throughout Australia to $46½ billion and it upgraded 7½ thousand kilometres of roads throughout the country. It lifted the local government road grants program by 20 per cent.

If you drive up the Pacific Highway now, from Sydney to Brisbane, you will go past a number of projects. You will go past the Bulahdelah bypass being built. You will travel onto one of the best road projects in Australia's history, the Kempsey bypass, with the longest pylon bridge in the world—built under a Labor government. You will pass the Woolgoolga bypass, and you will go past the excellent new piece of road that bypasses Ballina. These are four major road projects worth billions of dollars that will cut about 1½ to two hours off the trip between Sydney and Brisbane—invested in and built by a Labor government, contributing to our nation's productivity. Over the six years of our nation-building program, from 2008 to 2014, we increased federal spending on the nation's road, rail and public transport infrastructure from $132 per Australian to $225 per head of population.

Labor also made sure that rural and regional communities got their fair share, with almost two-thirds of our infrastructure funding earmarked for projects in regional Australia. We doubled the roads budget and initiated the biggest road construction program since the creation of the National Highway network 40 years ago. Australia-wide, that $46.5 billion program went about building and upgrading 7½ kilometres of road, as I have said, with a key aim of complete duplication of the Hume and Pacific highways connecting the nation's three biggest cities—Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.

In August last year Labor had already completed 137 major projects, with work underway on a further 67. Some of those I have already mentioned are being claimed by the government as their own. We fixed 1,944 notorious black spots on local suburban streets and country roads, and it is pleasing to see that in this bill the Black Spot Programme is being continued. We installed 95 new and refurbished rest stops as well as 46 new and upgraded parking and decoupling bays, providing truck drivers with more places to pull over, take a break, catch up on sleep or check and reconfigure their vehicles. We assisted councils around the country with maintaining and upgrading their local roads, with 17,200 projects being funded by the federal government at the time.

Labor also worked to roll out the largest investment in interstate rail since the Fisher government built the transcontinental railway almost a century ago, with $3.4 billion over the life of our six-year nation-building program. Compared to the former Howard government, we invested more than twice as much in about half the time.

Labor's record on infrastructure in government, particularly in my state of New South Wales, is something that I am quite proud of. We committed $5.5 billion over six years to road and rail transport projects servicing Sydney. These included $840 million for the northern Sydney freight line upgrade and $800 million for the Moorebank intermodal terminal. This is a particularly important project for my community because the expanding port at Port Botany is seeing more and more container trucks on our local roads. The philosophy and aim of the Moorebank intermodal project was to upgrade the rail freight line that comes out of Port Botany terminal to put most of that freight onto trains. That train line goes to Moorebank with that freight, which is there transferred to trucks for the trip west. The majority of that freight would go north or west, and the approach was to ensure that that freight was not being transported around local roads in the Sydney metropolitan area on trucks. It was to be done on rail, reducing the disturbance for local communities, particularly in my area, and also improving the productivity of logistics and transport around the Sydney Basin.

We invested $980 million for the southern Sydney freight line; $405 million for the F3-to-M2 missing link, which was again re-announced on the weekend; $300 million to upgrade the Great Western Highway; $172 million for the Port Botany rail improvements; $98 million to widen the F5 at Campbelltown; $75 million for the upgrade of the Port Botany rail line; and $40 million for the Port Botany upgrade program. They are important projects for my community which tie into the Moorebank intermodal project and ensure we are not only upgrading important rail infrastructure but that it is an integrated transport system that works and complements other aspects of the flow, particularly for logistical traffic throughout the Sydney Basin. There was also an investment of $1.8 billion to deliver the M4 and M5 extensions in partnership with the New South Wales government.

Labor came to government as a party that wanted to build the nation, wanted to invest in infrastructure and ensure that we were improving the productivity of our nation by ensuring that our transport network was one that was integrated, that worked well, was efficient and also met the needs of an ever-expanding population, particularly around metropolitan Sydney communities. The doubling of the road budget and the increased investment in rail transport, particularly for freight, were all part of a nation-building project.

It is a shame to see the words 'nation building' removed from that important legislation by this bill, because that is what conceiving, planning, developing and building road and rail transport networks is all about. It is about building a nation. Economies grow and productivity improves when interconnectedness between communities and cities is set up and delivered. Under Labor our approach was one of nation building. It is a shame to see those provisions go from this aspect of the bill, but Labor will always be a party that supports nation building, a party that supports an integrated transport system. I am pleased to say that some of those aspects are met by this bill and commend it to the House.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 following on from the previous speaker, the member for Kingsford-Smith, and I have to ask: where do I start? There is plenty of disinformation to rebut. My goodness—to stand up here and, of all things, complain about the fact that the words 'nation building' are being taken out of the exercise just goes to show what the last government was all about. It was all about spin. It was all about the names. It was all about the titles. It was all about the razzamatazz but not about the delivery. 'Nation building'—for goodness sake, it is like we have just walked into Communist China and have the banners up there: 'We are building the nation'; 'Please be proud of your government, people!' This is ridiculous stuff. We are getting rid of the semantics and getting on with the job. That is what the new government is all about.

The previous member talked about stuff being delivered to the regions and how the regions got their fair share. If you come to a region like mine, which is based up in north and central Queensland, people will tell you that there was underdelivery from the last government. But there is a reason they can put their hand on their heart and say, 'We delivered for the regions.' Do you now why? I will tell you why. Because the last government considered everywhere a region. Sydney was a region! All those cockies walking about in Sydney with their akubras talking about the price of beef and all the rest of it! This was the ridiculous nature of the last government. Everywhere in Australia was a region. So the member for Kingsford Smith can actually get up here, hand on his heart, along with the member for Grayndler and all the rest of them, and say, 'We delivered for the regions.' Of course you are delivering for the regions when Sydney is a region, Perth is a region, Brisbane is a region, Melbourne is a region. But get real—rural and regional Australia is not capital city Australia.

The member for Kingsford Smith also talked about how all of these projects that are outlined in this bill and that the new government is going to deliver were projects of the last government. He actually mentioned at the start of his speech our $6.7 billion commitment to the Bruce Highway, a highway that has been underfunded and underinvested in for so, so long. What the previous member said is very much incorrect. I cannot bring myself to say the 'L' word, because I know the Speaker will pull me up, but it was. The last government had committed some funds to the Bruce Highway but it was about $2.6 billion short of what the Liberal-National coalition is actually investing in the Bruce Highway. The previous member got up and said that all of these commitments were stuff that the last government had. That is incorrect; it was not. The last government's approach was very much, like the member for Kingsford Smith, Mr Thistlethwaite, a case of 'this'll wait'. We are sick of waiting; we are going to deliver on these projects.

It is necessary to make amendments to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 to facilitate the ambitious agenda that the Abbott Liberal-National government actually has set for land transport infrastructure. This government has committed $35½ billion to road and rail projects, as I said before, including $6.7 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway—an increase in funding beyond what the previous government had allocated of $2.6 billion.

Many members know, and certainly the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development knows, my passion for the Bruce Highway, as I have spoken about it on many occasions in this place. It is a critical arterial link for the Queensland economy, especially North Queensland communities. It is the logistical lifeblood of our economy. It is the worst highway in Australia but it has been listed through data obtained from the World Health Organization as one of the worst 22 roads in the world—would you believe it, in the world? Of all the Third World and developing countries, the Bruce Highway makes the list of 22 of the world's worst roads because of the deaths and the accidents that have occurred on that road. That is certainly not a record to be proud of. It is something that should spark a government into action and I am proud to say that this Liberal-National coalition government has made a strong commitment to that Bruce Highway. Again, I will repeat—$6.7 billion, $2.6 billion more than the previous government intended to invest. That is going to be matched by about $1.8 billion from the Newman Liberal-National government, bringing a total investment from the Liberal-National coalition of $8.5 billion in the Bruce Highway, the largest investment that we have seen, and hopefully we are going to see more of it. We are getting on with doing what we said we would do in terms of delivering infrastructure. The amendment bill we are talking about today is a crucial part of that so we can continue to fund vital road infrastructure projects.

Since the election the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister have reaffirmed their commitments to our infrastructure agenda, including the Bruce Highway, and the vital road infrastructure projects that need to happen on it. That means that important projects are going to be done, like replacing the dangerous Haughton River bridge in the Burdekin in my electorate. That project—a project supported not only by me but by the member for Herbert, whose constituents also traverse that bridge fairly regularly—is going to go ahead. It is a dangerous bridge and we will fix it. That was not on Labor's agenda.

It also means important flood-proofing works will go ahead at places like Yellow Gin Creek near Townsville and at Sandy Gully near Bowen. There is also some preliminary planning work to be done on the Goorganga Plains, which is a huge issue. It is very sad that not even planning work has actually been done on that yet, because it is an area which cuts off the Whitsunday Coast Airport from the Whitsundays itself. Can you imagine? It is a world-class tourist destination, you get to the airport, there is a bit of rain and the road is flooded. Actually this has happened. They have had to take people back down to Brisbane. They have had to land the plane there, cannot actually get the people to the Whitsundays, so they have flown back to Brisbane. That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that the last government had not addressed that issue when it was put on the agenda by the state government. We are now getting on with the job of sorting out what is going to happen to fix that problem.

This bill also means getting on with the Mackay ring road, which is desperately needed to get rid of the traffic congestion in my home city, to get the heavy trucks off the local roads, to actually get rid of the logjam and the bottlenecks that are impacting on freight and movements to and from the port to our industrial area. This project will actually deliver all of that. I am very proud to say that we made a commitment at the last election, that commitment has been restated by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and that will happen under the Abbott Liberal-National government.

The Gillard-Rudd government spent $10 million—I have to give them that—for a feasibility study of the Mackay ring road and then they did nothing. They did absolutely nothing after that. They had an opportunity in the last budget to continue funds for that project; in fact, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard came to Mackay and told people it would be in the budget. Well, the budget came and the budget went and we did not see any further money earmarked in that financial year, the current financial year, for the Mackay ring road. We needed that money to ensure that this project would happen in a timely fashion, because by 2018, the local engineers tell me, traffic volumes will be exceeded in Mackay. The fact that we have had a year with no further funding going to that project means that none of the money has been forthcoming to do all of the resumptions and the compensation that need to flow from there, the very detailed design work that needs to happen before construction and the relocation of services—even though former Prime Minister Julia Gillard flew into Mackay and told us that it was going to be in the budget.

It was not in the budget but we are going to put it back in the budget. Not only are we going to deliver all of that pre-construction work that needs to happen but we are going to get on with the job, do the construction work and, as soon as it is done, we have got a clear commitment on the table for the people of Mackay and it will be the Abbott Liberal-National government—the infrastructure Prime Minister standing alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development—who see this project through. And if there is one thing that I will definitely be able to point to in my time as a local MP and as a strong advocate for infrastructure projects in my area, it will be that. I will be able to say, 'This is it, delivered, only because we pushed it. Labor did not deliver this.' You cannot say, member for Kingsford-Smith, that you had anything to do with pushing that Mackay ring road, because the only thing that Labor has had to do with it has been to delay it.

This bill also makes significant changes to the Roads to Recovery program, which was originally established by the Liberal-National coalition under then Prime Minister John Howard in 2005. That program has paid huge dividends for local communities. We had local roads that had been in a shoddy state for a long time because councils' budgets are stretched to the limit already; they cannot find the extra coin to do the necessary local infrastructure projects that are needed, and this money helps those councils tackle road problems that they would not otherwise have the coin to cover. I have got to say that, being a former local government councillor, I share the pain of those local councils who deal with the fact that there are always competing priorities and a lack of money to do the jobs. The continuation of this program is good news for local government and hopefully into the future, as the finances of the nation improve, we can look to increasing the investment that we provide to local councils for Roads to Recovery.

This bill enables that good work to continue. It removes the specification of a funding period and includes in it the Roads to Recovery list, which will effectively remove the need to amend the act every time that funding period changes. So it is an ongoing program, we can say now. The continuation of funding will avoid the situation we are now in, where vital funding for local government to support the maintenance of local road infrastructure is not guaranteed beyond 30 June this year. We are guaranteeing it and we are guaranteeing it forever and a day. This amendment bill will give local governments the certainty they need to schedule effective programs of local road maintenance. To ensure them of this certainty, the bill will also insert a power for the minister to determine a Roads to Recovery list, which will be exempt from disallowance under the Legislative Instruments Act.

The Liberal-National government is committed to getting this country back on track, and to do that we need to be more efficient with taxpayer dollars. It has been pointed out to me that the draft Productivity Commission report into infrastructure spend that came out in the last week actually showed that $1 billion had been wasted around the country on either bad priorities or bad delivery. That is a legacy of the last government. They talk about what they spent but they never talk about how they spent it. The Productivity Commission has belled the cat and said that $1 billion was wasted. That is the track record of the last government. The track record of this government will be delivering infrastructure, such as the projects that are needed on the Bruce Highway, in a timely, efficient and productive way. We will get on with the job of delivering that infrastructure. The former infrastructure minister, the member for Grayndler, likes to come in and say, 'That's ours, that's ours'—but it is not theirs because they did not deliver it. We will deliver it. We will deliver it efficiently and we will see it through. They can be all about slogans like 'nation building'; we will be all about the bitumen on the ground, not the paperwork.

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

The Liberal government's biggest piece of land transport infrastructure is the proposed freeway through Royal Park in Melbourne, which it calls the East West Link. In fact, it does not link the east and west at all. Nor does it have the support of most Victorians, who know perfectly well that if it proceeds it will come with a massive opportunity cost and put paid to their hopes for a rail line to Doncaster, a rail line to Melbourne Airport, rail to Mernda or public transport to Monash University. In particular, it does not have the support of local residents, who are appalled by its impact on Royal Park, the Moonee Ponds Creek and the Melbourne Zoo. I commend Julianne Bell, the tireless secretary of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria and committee member of Royal Park Protection Group, and all the community groups who are working incredibly hard to stop this project happening: David Muir and the Kensington Association, Kaye Oddie and the Friends of Moonee Ponds Creek, the Carlton Association and many others.

For a Liberal government that grandstands about fiscal rectitude, this $8 billion project is being put forward without passing any serious cost-benefit analysis. The government claims that the benefits of the $6 billion to $8 billion freeway outweigh the cost but refuses to provide details, claiming that this would compromise commercial negotiations.

The government's business case relies totally on the assumption of what economists call an 'agglomeration effect', in which population and economic clusters in cities lead to efficiencies and add to business productivity. The Linking Melbourne Authority, which provides information on road infrastructure projects conducted on behalf of the Victorian government, has referred to a book by the American writer, Edward L Glaeser, called Triumph of the City. Its main thesis is the agglomeration benefits that create cities. But the Linking Melbourne Authority does not appear to have read the book, because the book does not argue that freeways are the path to these benefits, in fact it argues quite the opposite. Mr Glaeser argues that 'driving creates negative externalities that hamper urban economies'. He warns against highway building, calling it 'antiurban'. I quote:

For decades we have tried to solve the problem of too many cars on too few lanes by building more roads, but each new highway or bridge then attracts more traffic.

The Age commentator, Kenneth Davidson, has accurately pointed out in relation to the Royal Park freeway:

It will cripple the state's fiscal position for many years through massive payments to the public-private partnership consortium that will finance it.

The financial burden on the Victorian taxpayer will be so big that it will ''crowd out'' the state's core responsibilities for funding schools, hospitals, rail transport and even other roads for at least a generation.

An email recently obtained through FOI illustrates that the Victorian government's own economic consultant, Chris Tehan of Evans & Peck, told the government that the business case had dramatically overestimated the wider economic benefits to get an artificial figure of a $1.40 return. According to The Age:

… the methodology ''has not been used in any of [the Transport Department's] other public transport projects or program modelling to date''.

…   …   …

The financial case for the east-west link hinges on a prediction that toll road use will jump over the next 30 years because of rising wealth and shrinking petrol and CBD parking price rises.

The business case for the link makes the controversial assumption that: firstly, a driver's willingness to use toll roads will increase by 1.4 per cent per annum due to rising incomes; secondly, the rate of increase in the cost of running a car will fall from the current two per cent per annum in real terms to half a per cent per annum by 2041; and, thirdly, that the rate of increase in the cost of inner-city parking, which is currently increasing at four per cent per annum in real terms, will fall to 0.5 per cent by 2041.

The Victorian government has been caught out manipulating modelling to produce a favourable result.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

I listened to you in silence, you ease up.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a bill about changing the name and making some amendments to, the land transport act. It is not an opportunity to slag off at the Victorian government.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the member's contribution is directly relevant to the bill that is being discussed. It is about road safety.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is making false claims about modelling in Victoria related to anything to do with the change of the name of the fund? The member opposite should get back to subject of the bill. I know the member is embarrassed about Labor's infrastructure record, but he should get back to the bill—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wills will be directly relevant.

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

And I have been, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the minister at the table well knows, this is the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. The East West Link is this government's prime piece of proposed land transport infrastructure, and I am detailing to the House why I am opposed to this piece of land transport infrastructure.

The former Infrastructure Australia head, Michael Deegan, told a Senate committee that the government's unpublished business case provided an alternative estimate showing a benefit-cost ratio of just 0.8. Under this scenario, the project would return just 80 cents for every one dollar spent, suggesting an economic loss if the stock-standard analysis preferred by Infrastructure Australia is used.

According to The Age, in a submission to a federal infrastructure inquiry, Infrastructure Australia outed Victoria for failing to submit a robust business case for the East West Link, singling out:

… the controversial $6 billion to $8 billion road as a key example of why the public are cynical about ''big-ticket'' infrastructure announcements.

Infrastructure Australia's 11-member council, which includes the transport experts, Sir Rod Eddington, and the federal Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, is understood to broadly recommend only those projects with benefit-cost ratios of more than 1.5. And Michael Deegan warns that big-spending promises are being made without proper scrutiny. The Age quotes him as saying:

This is a particular problem during election periods where commitments are often made although robust business cases have not been prepared, let alone independently reviewed.

The Age continues, saying that Infrastructure Australia:

… is particularly concerned about changes proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, which will give the federal government discretion to ring-fence some projects from independent scrutiny.

Mr Deegan warned that any such change would ''exacerbate'' the problem of projects being presented to Infrastructure Australia ''with limited or questionable business cases''.

The freeway through Royal Park is a classic example of economic 'mutton dressed up as lamb'.

The article continues:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is opposed to Commonwealth funding for public transport projects, has pledged $1.5 billion for the east-west project, with the rest coming from the state government, which will collect toll revenue, and the private sector.

According to the traffic expert, Stephen Pelosi, the traffic on the East-West Link in the morning peak is expected to have slowed to 20 to 30 kilometres per hour by 2031 as worsening congestion pushes the road close to capacity just 12 years after it is due to open. The East West Link is forecast to carry 80,000 vehicles a day on opening in 2019, increasing to between 100,000 and 120,000 a day by 2031 according to his modelling. He is quoted in The Age:

''If it's reaching 120,000 we're at a position where we're reaching capacity,'' Mr Pelosi said. ''Unless you intervene in some manner and manage the toll rate to influence demand, you get a situation where you're near capacity."

It is not much use to commuters.

When the Prime Minister is challenged about all the manufacturing jobs that are being lost in Melbourne with the impending closure of Ford, Holden and Toyota, and the job cuts at Qantas, he says, 'It will be alright, we are going to build the East West Link'. But will those construction jobs actually go to Australian workers—to Victorian workers, to Melbourne workers? In fact there are no guarantees—there are no guarantees!—that Australian workers will get the jobs created on the project from design through to actual construction work. This is because government policies at the federal and state level favour foreign companies and foreign workers over Australian workers and companies.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order. The assistant minister's interjection then was uncalled for and he should withdraw it.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is to be withdrawn? What was uncalled for about it? He did; he wrote a reference for Tony Mokbel. That is on the record.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would assist the chair if you would withdraw.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw and while I am on my feet I would ask that the member return to the subject of the bill.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will be directly relevant.

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

I am pleased to support your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am being directly relevant to the bill, which concerns land transport infrastructure in this country. The federal government's $1.5 billion of proposed expenditure on the East West Link is a prime example and is one of the key issues this country needs to debate.

At the end of September 2013 there were 13,440 temporary foreign workers on 457 visas in the Australian construction industry, an increase of five per cent in just 12 months. At the end of January 2014 a total of 110,000 457 visa workers were in Australia, four per cent more than at the end of January 2013. The nature of the construction industry is such that any number of these 457 visa workers could be deployed to work on the Royal Park freeway, from engineering to trades like carpentry and other blue-collar jobs. The slowdown in resource sector construction means that many firms employing 457 construction workers are desperately looking for infrastructure projects to fill the gap in their orders.

On top of that, the Liberal government has shown that its agenda is to reduce protections for Australian workers and young people in the 457 visa program in the name of deregulation and removing what it calls 'unnecessary red tape'. Let us consider exactly what the Liberal government considers unnecessary red tape. First, it has removed or watered down the key protections for Australian workers that Labor introduced in its June 2013 legislation, the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Act 2013—

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Relevance! How about you be relevant?

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wills has the call.

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

specifically, the labour market testing provisions. In November last year the coalition issued regulations under that legislation which make it much easier for employers to hire temporary foreign workers on 457 visas even when qualified Australian workers are readily available and willing to do the work. The figures from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection say that, for 65 per cent of all of the 457 visa nominations—

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not relevant to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. This bill is about land transport; it is about infrastructure. I ask you to draw the member back to being relevant to the bill.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will be directly relevant.

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

I am not the one who made the claim that the East West Link is a solution for the unemployed manufacturing workers in Melbourne; it was the Prime Minister who made that claim. I am pointing out why that claim is flawed.

Figures from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection indicate that, for 65 per cent of all 457 visa nominations, they have exempted workers from any legal obligation to labour market test—that is, to even look for Australian workers, let alone show that none were available, before 457 visas could be approved for temporary foreign workers. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the CFMEU, pointed out in a recent submission to the Productivity Commission that, even in the minority of cases where 457 labour market testing is required, the protections for Australian workers looking for jobs on projects like the East West Tunnel are 'virtually nonexistent'. They state:

The CFMEU propose there be a 28-day advertising period, and I agree with them. They also state:

The government regards requirements like this as red tape holding back employers. I say that, without such requirements, a project like the East West Link, if it proceeds, will not employ many Victorian workers at all.

The East West Link is a white elephant that risks undermining Melbourne's productive capacity and living standards. The tunnel is not a solution. It does not provide value for money. Generations of Victorians will be burdened by an $8 billion debt for a tunnel that will have long passed its use-by date. It is regrettable that this government is seeking to amend the Infrastructure Australia legislation to give the minister heightened discretion rather than going through the proper independent, transparent processes that Australians expect when it comes to large spending on infrastructure projects.

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. This legislation is critical in furthering the agenda and commitment of the Abbott government to build the roads of the 21st century. Land transport infrastructure provides the arteries that link our regions, our suburbs, our workforce, our friends and families, our goods to market and our service providers to their customers. In my region of Western Sydney two-thirds of the Lindsay workforce must commute every day to work. This is a worrying trend and it is unsustainable. It creates strain on our already inadequate road and rail infrastructure.

It gives me great pleasure to see the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development here today. He has been a very big champion of Western Sydney. He has been very generous with his time when I knock on his door to talk about the challenges of the people of Western Sydney and finding opportunities for them. The time my people of Western Sydney waste in overcrowded trains every day affects the productivity of the region and is a handbrake on our economy. The people of Western Sydney deserve the opportunity to compete economically that only land infrastructure can provide. The timely delivery of key infrastructure in Western Sydney will lead to housing, employment, continued investment in education and training, health, social, recreational and cultural services for the entire region.Commitment is essential. As identified by the Deputy Prime Minister when introducing this bill to the House, collaboration between the Australian government, states and territory governments and the private sector will enable the successful delivery of the infrastructure Australia so desperately needs. Our infrastructure Prime Minister and this coalition government is getting on with the job with delivering just that. Through the Infrastructure Investment Program, we have committed $35.5 billion over six years to road and rail projects across Australia.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw the House's attention to two significant infrastructure projects that will benefit the people in Western Sydney. These are projects that have been committed to by the Abbott government and are clear examples of how we are delivering for the people of Western Sydney. I have spoken about WestConnex many times before in this parliament. The federal coalition government has committed $1.5 billion dollars to the WestConnex project, which will be the largest road transport project in Australia. It will provide a new way of travelling across Sydney, ensuring quick trips for commuters to the airport and Port Botany from Western Sydney. WestConnex will allow our local residents to bypass 52 sets of traffic lights and save 40 minutes on their trip to the city. It will finally connect the M5and M4 corridors. WestConnex will enable the people of Lindsay to spend more time with their families and less time on the road. It will save businesses time and money, allowing deliveries to be received and sent more efficiently.

Just last week, the infrastructure Prime Minister with the New South Wales Premier announced yet another piece of critical-linking infrastructure, NorthConnex. The Australian government will invest $405 million in the $3 billion NorthConnex project to build the missing link between the M1 and M2 motorways, creating around 2,000 jobs. This nine-kilometre link will significantly reduce congestion and decrease travel times, particularly along Pennant Hills Road, and enable commuters and freight trucks to bypass up to 21 sets of traffic lights and reduce travel time by up to 15 minutes. These two pieces of infrastructure are long overdue and NorthConnex will commence construction next year. The tunnel is expected to open in 2019. Yes, I know the opposition will tell you this money was invested under the former Labor government, but they could not and did not deliver it. As the Prime Minister said in question time last week, if this government needs to choose between being a 'gonna' and 'doer', we would rather be a doer.

Locally, we have committed $35 million to Jane Street. The Jane Street bypass will link Penrith and will decongest some of the critical infrastructure that we need to put together. Once again, the state government has also stepped up to the plate with another $35 billion. This will also release the river precinct in Penrith. I look forward to working with the infrastructure Prime Minister not only in the master planning process that is essential to providing roads and rail demanded by the people of Western Sydney but also in providing an infrastructure pipeline crucial to meeting the future needs in connecting the surrounding key regions.

These projects are just a few examples of how this government is delivering critical land transport infrastructure to all of Australia. The Abbott government has clearly demonstrated that tiers of government can work together and deliver better infrastructure to the people of Sydney. I think we can all agree WestConnex and NorthConnex are proof of this. This is why I am extremely pleased this government has secured the future of Roads to Recovery by investing a further $1.75 billion for an additional five years. Roads to Recovery provides vital funding to local governments for the maintenance of the nation's local road infrastructure. Since the introduction of this program, Penrith City Council has received more than $13 million to upgrade more than 74.4 kilometres of local roads. Over the last 12 months alone this has included works on Andromeda Drive in Cranebrook; Francis Street in Cambridge Park; lkin Street in Jamisontown; York Road and Tukara Avenue in South Penrith; Derby Street in Penrith; and    Sixth and Seventh avenues in Llandilo. Since the introduction of the Roads to Recovery program in 2001, some 128 local road projects have been undertaken across Penrith LGA.

I seek leave to table the documents from Penrith City Council.

Leave is granted.

Thank you. This is a remarkable contribution to my local community, and I look forward to seeing the evolution of this and others for many years to come. I also note this bill supports the continuation of the Black Spot Program, which is a noble initiative to reduce crashes on Penrith roads. Even today, I received a note from a constituent on Twitter, highlighting concerns in a local intersection in one of our key industrial and commercial precincts in South Penrith. That just goes to show how much our communities demand more black spots projects. By funding measures such as traffic signals and roundabouts at dangerous locations, the program reduces the risk of crashes. It makes an important contribution in reducing the national road toll under the National Road Safety Strategy action plan. The Abbott government has committed $300 million to the Black Spot Program, addressing roadsides and high-risk areas for serious crashes.

Therefore, I am extremely pleased to bring to the attention of the House some projects under the Black Spot Program that have benefited the people of Lindsay and ensured a safer driving network. Projects include the installation of two raised thresholds at pedestrian crossings in Queen Street, St Marys, ensuring cars slow down and that local families can cross the road safely, therefore ensuring they enjoy the shopping experience. Also, the installation of a roundabout in Doonmore Street, Penrith, will ensure smoother traffic flows and fewer accidents. There are many examples of where this funding has benefited my electorate and I am extremely pleased we will continue to support these projects across Australia. As you can see by these amendments attached, it is an important step in delivering the infrastructure for the 21st century. But it also ensures the continuation of a range of important programs that have a direct impact on our local road networks, ensuring our roads are safer and of the high standard that our local communities deserve. It is worth noting that projects such as Black Spot and Roads for Recovery have been around for many years. A key aspect of this amendment, introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister, is that it streamlines the initiatives into one bill and removes a series of others, therefore removing duplication and improving the efficiency of the government—government departments, in effect, reducing red tape.

Projects that directly impact our local communities, such as upgrading roads, should be streamlined, so that governments can get on with the job of delivering. This will be a hallmark of the Abbott government as we dedicate our time to reducing red tape and efficiency while allocating resources to improve local communities and our infrastructure. I would like to reiterate the words of the Deputy Prime Minister upon introducing this legislation to the House:

Australia's future growth will be significantly influenced by our capacity to deliver more appropriate, efficient and effective infrastructure. The amendments in this bill will help to better deliver the infrastructure Australia critically needs.

This is great news for Australia.

As I have mentioned at length, the great news for the people I represent in Lindsay and for the people of Greater Western Sydney is that the time has come to get our city moving. Western Sydney is a key region for the Australian economy. It is important that, with this growth and opportunity, we provide the right infrastructure to support the growing needs of this expanding and vocal community. I am confident this government will continue to deliver an infrastructure plan that will support this region. That is why I am today extremely pleased to commend the bill to the House.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy if coalition members do not want to use all their time. I will gladly take up their time as well as mine. The bill before the House, the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, is really important. Infrastructure is one of the most important things that we could be discussing—about how we move an economy, move people, move freight, and how we build this country. The government claims they have an infrastructure Prime Minister, but they barely have anything to say—they finished early. I find that extraordinary.

The Nation Building Program is very important. I am glad to see that the Liberals and Nationals actually have a skerrick of decency and will keep it. I am surprised we are not in here discussing why they are not getting rid of it—perhaps to save money. It seems the only purpose of governments these days is to save money—their own money, not necessarily someone else's money.

The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 will maintain basically the things that were in place under Labor, which is a good thing. I certainly welcome the belated interest of the Liberals and Nationals in nation-building programs and even in infrastructure. So much is it belated that they have tried to make a really big point by calling the Prime Minister 'the infrastructure Prime Minister'. He is so far removed from it that they somehow need to associate him and infrastructure. So they thought, 'Why don't we just combine the two'! That is not going to fool anyone because, when they were last in government, they just could not be bothered.

I remember their very famous words—whether they were from Tony Abbott or John Howard—that they would stick to their knitting, that it was not the responsibility of the federal government, that it is always someone else's responsibility. But actions speak louder than words. What they did in response to get back to their knitting was to slash $2 billion from infrastructure, from the federal roads budget. How can you put any faith in the Liberal Party, and particularly in the National Party, which should be about roads and infrastructure, when last time they had the opportunity to deal with these matters they slashed $2 billion from the budget?

The ministers and a number of coalition members in this place have mentioned a dozen major projects that were either announced or funded by the federal Labor government. We are happy for the government to talk about our projects, no matter what they do to try to claim them or rename them. Labor put $6.7 billion towards the upgrade of the Bruce Highway. We did more on that in our short six years than the Howard government ever did in their 12 years, including when Warren Truss was the transport minister.

In terms of spending, we did more in our short six years than the previous coalition government did in their very long 12 years. We put in $5.6 billion to finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway, a billion dollars to continue the Gateway Motorway North upgrade in Brisbane—deliverables which have been completed. I am driving on some of the new roads which we built. We spent $686 million to finish the Gateway WA project in Perth. This mob here claim that they love the west, but no, they are not going to fund the west. When we visited the west, we turned up with some hard, cold cash. We got on the with the job to finish the Gateway WA. We spent $615 million to build the Swan Valley bypass on the Perth to Darwin Highway, $500 million for the upgrade of the South Road in Adelaide, $405 million for F3 to M2 link project in Sydney, and $400 million to continue the Midland Highway upgrade in Tasmania—in total, Labor committed $500 million to that project. Labor also spent $300 million to finalise the plans and engineering design.

Mr Chester interjecting—

It was taxpayers' money but it was Labor that committed it to the project to serve the taxpayer; you are cutting it out. You are taking it from the taxpayer but not spending it on infrastructure. That is the big point of difference. I thank you for the interjection.

Labor also allocated $1.8 billion to the WestConnex project in Sydney, subject to conditions of course, including a proper business case. Federal Labor's record on infrastructure is admirable, it is enviable. It is a track record proven by the projects we actually did. We worked alongside state governments and local governments. We worked in partnership with Liberal governments and with Labor governments—it did not matter because the job of nation-building is not about the colour of your party logo; it is about what you can do to build the nation. We had an objective for far-reaching reforms that we implemented—unprecedented capital works programs. Under Labor, Australia went to second in the international league table which ranks OECD countries by the scale of their investment in fixed capital. When we left office, our nation was investing more than any other major advanced economy, with the exception of South Korea. We were leading the world. Total annual investment in our nation's roads, ports, railways, energy generators, water supply facilities and telecommunication networks hit a record $58.5 billion. We did that in the tough years. We did that during the global financial crisis. When other economies were shrinking we were growing. We invested in capital infrastructure and in the capacity for our economy to grow so as to create jobs. We made sure that we invested in all the things that could help business and could help ordinary Australians.

When the Howard government was in office, in the heady days when rivers of gold used to flow into Canberra, they did the total opposite. There was no investment in our national economy and no investment in infrastructure. Labor's annual average infrastructure spending, in real terms, was up 59 per cent when compared to the last full year of the former Howard government, 2006-07. Total public and private sector infrastructure spending over federal Labor's last five years in office was almost $250 billion, which was almost 70 per cent more, in real terms, than the $150 billion spent during the last five years of the Howard government. Annual infrastructure spending by the public sector alone was greater than two per cent of GDP for the first time in a quarter of a century. This is good stuff. This is good news. This is what we actually did. This is history, not something you are going to do in the never-never.

Federal Labor restored national leadership in infrastructure through the appointment of Australia's first ever federal infrastructure minister and the creation of a federal infrastructure department. We did that because we understood it was important. In order to deliver on infrastructure, you have to have a minister responsible for it and a department that works on it. We established Infrastructure Australia to overhaul things and drive lasting improvements. It was a body removed from the political process benefiting Liberal Party and National Party held seats; it was without discrimination. This was done because it was important. Over two-thirds of all infrastructure spending, went to country—rural and regional areas—but that did not matter; it went to where the need was greatest. That is why we established Infrastructure Australia and the Building Australia Fund. We worked on these things for many years in opposition to make sure that we could do them well when we did get into government—the wheel turns; we all know that. Those who have been here long enough will know that you ain't here forever. We developed the National Public Private Partnership Policy and Guidelines to make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to get involved in large infrastructure projects. We also published long-term blueprints for a truly national integrated multimodal transport system because, again, it was important to move the national economy.

I am always happy to welcome and support anything done by the Liberals and Nationals, regardless of how much money they rip out of the system. If they do only one good thing, however small, I will say 'Well done, boys, welcome to the club'. I will say 'Welcome to the infrastructure spending club'. It is a club in which you understand that in order to move, particularly in the regions, you need to spend some money. Federal Labor committed $60 billion, as part of our national building programs, to build a modern, well-planned transport infrastructure to help make the lives of working people and business people easier, to make our economy more competitive and productive. We made sure rural and regional communities got their fair share, with almost two-thirds of our infrastructure funding going to projects located outside major cities. We called them Nation Building projects, not National Party building projects. We were about building a nation. Federal Labor doubled the roads budget to $46.5 billion and upgraded 7,500 kilometres of road. We lifted local government road grants by 20 per cent.

In contrast, the present Liberal and National government committed to Melbourne's East West Link and Sydney's WestConnex project without completing a cost-benefit analysis, in defiance of their own election promises. They have shamelessly re-announced Labor projects such as the Gateway Upgrade North project in Brisbane. They have also claimed the planned upgrade of the Bruce and the Pacific Highway as coalition projects; in the last six months, they have only just woken up to the fact that the Bruce Highway existed, even though it ran through the electorate of one of their own National Party ministers responsible for it at the time—he never said too much about it then.

It has been a long time between drinks for investment in rail infrastructure. When the Liberals were previously in government it never got much of a look in, I can tell you that. On the other hand, federal Labor invested $3.4 billion in rail freight networks over their six years in office. This means that by 2016, the average trip from Brisbane to Melbourne will be seven hours shorter than it was before the previous Labor government took office. The average trip from the east to the west coast of Australia will be reduced by nine hours. That is what you call productivity; that is what you call efficiency. That is what you call investing in our national economy. We committed more investment into urban rail infrastructure than all of our predecessors combined, since Federation. I throw the challenge out there, beat that! That is it, just beat that! Show your colours, go out and do more than we did.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our colours are on the signs.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your colours are on the signs, true! By contrast, the Liberals and the Nationals scrapped billions in Labor funding for Perth's public transport and Brisbane's Cross River Rail project—what a shame. The Brisbane project was good project, proposed by Campbell Newman. I am not a big fan of Campbell Newman, but if a project that he puts forward does something good for the city we will back it. That is the newsflash for the day. The federal government have also scrapped billions of dollars, part of that being for the Melbourne Metro and Adelaide's Tonsley Park public transport project. Shame; shame on them for that. They were great projects. We do not care who is in government; we will support good infrastructure. The Liberals and Nationals are not proceeding with a whole range of really good Labor projects, including inland rail, and when they do continue with something that has already been delivered, done, paid for—people are already driving on the roads—they are just putting up a new sign, a new badge, saying they did it. I will look to my colleagues for guidance because I am not sure if all governments do that, but this new government take it up to a new level. Everything is re-badged—it is a little bit George Orwellian. It is all a bit rich.

As we move forward, they do have a second chance. This is a bunch of Liberals and a bunch of Nats who get a second go at it—a second go at the public purse, a second chance to invest in our national economy and invest in infrastructure, a second chance to get the job done right, a second chance to continue the good work that Labor did. Apart from the six years of good Labor government, and we did a lot in infrastructure, when was the other time that major spending approached something even close to the equivalent of what we did? You have to go back to Whitlam. There was not too much in between, and there was not too much before. In between, we had John Howard and his view that it was not just the responsibility of the federal government; it was for the states to do. We did not agree, we thought that a little bit of the lifting could be done by the Commonwealth. It appears now that the Liberals would agree with us. The Nationals may have always agreed with us, but maybe not publicly. Now they have got a second chance.

We need to have a very close look under this cloak of cover, this cloak of darkness that has been put over all of this getting rid of red tape and regulations. We all support getting rid of red tape and we all support getting rid of regulations. In fact, Labor did lots and lots of that, and the more research I did into this the more I realised that we did more than what these guys are proposing to do. The reality is we just did not do the big stunts; we did not have these regulations repeal days, as if they are something special.

The reality is that this is the normal course of business of any government. You should be repealing red tape; you should be getting rid of redundant acts. These guys are so smart they repealing the Flags Act 1953! They are so smart they probably have not picked it up yet! They are going to repeal an amendment act from 1953 which stipulated the minimum size of the star on the flag. They feel that when they are burning those 50,000 redundant pages of regulation they are burning an amendment which has been around for 60 years on our flag. It is just unbelievable. They expect people to believe that somehow this is going to save money for consumers or small business. I have not had too many consumers or small businesses ring me up and say, 'My No. 1 priority is to get rid of that 1953 flags act amendment.'

My favourite piece of infrastructure is, of course, the Ipswich Motorway, because it goes through my electorate and it goes through Blair. It goes from Brisbane and Ipswich to Toowoomba. I would dare to say that there is no greater piece of infrastructure, except perhaps the Snowy Hydro. However, if you compare it to the Snowy Hydro, it was actually a bigger project. It was a bigger project in all senses of the word, by any measure that you take. We delivered it under budget and under time. It was a successful partnership between federal government, state government, local government and the private sector. It was a true example of what could be done when you are committed to infrastructure, to depoliticising, to working with your state partners and to working with everybody. We delivered something for the Western corridor that has meant that since the upgrade we have not had a death on the road. I think people should ponder that for a little while.

There is a lot to say on this, but I emphasise: Labor has a proven track record. We deliver on roads and infrastructure, whereas the LNP just talk about it.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to join the debate on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 and to follow my good friend the member for Oxley. I fear he may need some counselling; he seems to be in denial. He seems to be despairing over the fact that the Australian people felt so strongly about the Labor government—the six years of allegedly good Labor government—that they kicked them out of office. If the Labor Party was quite as good as the member for Oxley likes to pretend they were, then the Australian people would not have needed to boot them out of office at the last election. One reason why the Australian people removed the Labor Party was that they failed to manage the Australian economy. There are a vast number of other reasons, but they failed to manage the Australian economy and the Australian budget. Over Labor's years in government we saw accumulated deficits in the order of $123 billion, with deficit budget after deficit budget. We were on track for $660 billion worth of debt. It might come as a newsflash to the member for Oxley, but the Australian people care about issues relating to value for money and making sure that the Australian taxpayer's money is spent in an appropriate way.

If you listened to the member for Oxley, you would believe the fairytale that the only governments that are any good for Australia in terms of building infrastructure are Labor Party governments. It is simply not the case. The coalition has a strong and proud record of supporting infrastructure development in our nation. As a regional member of parliament, like many others in this place, I have a strong interest in land transport infrastructure. I am sure that most regional MPs, as they travel through their electorates, receive feedback from their constituents on a daily basis that the state of the road and rail networks is one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue, in our communities. In our cities, the roads are obviously in better condition but they are heavily congested. So it is important that the federal government works in partnership with both state and local governments on improving the road network for very good reasons, such as economic productivity and social connectedness.

I welcome today's debate, because the coalition are committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st century which our nation needs to help meet the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. We are certainly committed to making sure that regional Australia gets a fair share of the road and rail infrastructure budget, which is being made available under the current government. Australia's future growth will be significantly influenced by our capacity to deliver more appropriate, efficient and effective infrastructure. Regional Australia in particular needs good transport links. It is critical to the social life of our communities, but also for the economic prosperity of our region. In particular, the roads in many communities are the arteries of community life. Without good road networks, our communities simply struggle to connect with markets and to connect with their neighbours. It is critical that the federal government plays a role in supporting both local and state government in that regard.

I am pleased to see that the new government is working hard with both the state and territory governments to deliver nationally significant infrastructure projects that will help to grow Australia's productivity and improve our living standards. The new government is also working in partnership with the private sector to maximise some private capital investment in infrastructure, to leverage off the public funding that is available for important infrastructure projects throughout our nation.

Importantly, this bill continues the successful Roads to Recovery program, which was established under the Howard government in 2005. The member for Oxley talked about the habit of incoming governments to rebrand or change programs. It is interesting to note that the Roads to Recovery program, which started in 2005, has survived through changes of government, firstly to the Labor Party and now back to the coalition. It is a good program. It is a program that local governments throughout Australia greatly appreciate, because it gives local government the flexibility to decide and to set the priorities that they want to set within their own communities. It trusts local communities, using the money provided by the federal government, to make the decisions to address local concerns. As the former shadow parliamentary secretary for roads and regional transport, I had the opportunity last year to travel extensively throughout regional Australia. I visited many councils, including the council in the member for Bendigo's electorate, where councillors, the mayor and the executives are very keen for Roads to Recovery to continue into the future.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the member for Bendigo's agreement in that regard. I think members on all sides realise the value of the Roads to Recovery program and, I trust, will continue to work towards increasing the opportunities for local government to improve the road network throughout Australia.

One of the key things about the Roads to Recovery program is that it helps take some of the pressure off the rate base for some of our smaller regional councils. Many regional councils have a very limited capacity to raise funds. The resources provided through the federal government help those small councils to deliver services in their communities, the funds for which would otherwise be absorbed by their road budget.

In saying that, it is important to note that in some of these small rural and regional councils the road budget, as a proportion of the total expenses for those local government areas, is far bigger as a percentage than it is for some of the metropolitan areas. So it is disproportionate to how important the road infrastructure funding is for these communities.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable parliamentary secretary will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is continued.