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

The government's infrastructure investments are firmly within a budget framework that reflects two fundamental and closely linked elements. These are the needs of financial sustainability and for the productive investments in transport infrastructure that is essential to Australia's future prosperity. We need to shift from excessive recurrent expenditure towards productive investments in infrastructure and skills and other drivers of economic growth. The spending patterns we have inherited were skewed away from this productive investment.

So we have made some tough and necessary decisions in the budget. We will reduce the budget deficit from almost $50 billion in 2014 to $29 billion by next year and to just $2.8 billion in 2017-18. We are doing it in a sustainable way by reducing expenditure. While under-reported, the budget will actually reduce taxes by $5.7 billion in 2014-15. The most exciting part of the budget is the government's pro-active commitment to infrastructure that will help re-invigorate our nation.

Our $50 billion investment in transport infrastructure is the largest by an Australian government and it provides billions of dollars for regional road projects across the nation. The investment will drive and leverage more than $125 billion of construction activity. Our road building investments cover every state and territory. We are injecting record investments in road and rail projects to create real productivity improvements.

We have allocated $6.7 billion to fix the Bruce Highway by funding 45 new projects and continuing funding on 16 already underway. We are investing $5.6 billion to complete the duplication of the eastern states' artery, the Pacific Highway. There is $2.5 billion for the local roads under the Roads to Recovery program, including an extra $350 million to provide double funding in 2015-16. The budget includes $565 million for black spots—crucial for fixing dangerous and accident prone sections of local roads—plus $248 million for heavy-vehicle safety projects. There is $229 million for a new national highway upgrade program; $300 million for our new Bridges to Renewal program to help to repair and replace local bridges.

We have also allocated $480 million for the North-western and Great Northern Highways in Western Australia; $400 million for the Midland Highway in Tasmania; $77 million for the Northern Territory roads package; $1.285 billion towards the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing; $508 million for the Warrego Highway. We said we would build the roads of the 21st century, and that is what we are doing. These are projects that are in addition to some major capital city projects, like $1 billion for the Gateway Motorway North in Brisbane; $3.5 billion for the WestConnex in Sydney and another $2.9 billion for Western Sydney roads; $3 billion for the East-West project in Melbourne; $944 million for the North-South corridor, the Southern Expressway to Darlington and South Road from Torrens Road and River Torrens in Adelaide. We have committed to $1.6 billion for the Perth Freight Link, and $600 million for the Swan Valley Bypass. Importantly, we are funding those projects without a mining tax.

We have been criticised for a supposed lack of investment in rail. Firstly, there is $3.5 billion in the budget for rail projects, but since the coalition has been elected the states have committed $25 billion to major public transport projects. That includes the Melbourne Metro. Queensland is planning its cross-river bus and train tunnels. There is the North West Rail Link in New South Wales and the Forrestfield-Airport Link in Perth. In addition, the states can access the Australian government's $5 billion asset recycling initiative.

So the fact that the federal government is allocating such significant funding to roads frees up state money to do what they are able to best—projects such as public transport et cetera. Our freight rail investment includes $300 million to resuscitate the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail route—a project left in limbo for six years under Labor. Another $2 billion has been invested in urban passenger rail over a six-year program, including the Moreton Bay Rail Link in Brisbane, completing the Regional Rail Link in Melbourne and the Gold Coast Rapid Transit Project. This is a major investment in infrastructure, the likes of which our country has never seen, and it will make a real different to our nation.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hang on.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me. Sit down.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would make a point of order, but I have been given the call so I have started my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. Acting Deputy Speaker, the way that it works is that we have someone from one side and then the other side. That is what House of Representatives Practice provides for.

Honourable members interjecting—

I was on my feet. That is the way that it works.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Mitchell, would you mind taking a seat. The member for Grayndler.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to make a contribution and then provide some questions for the Deputy Prime Minister, who appears reluctant to get questions from this side of the House. I am not surprised, given that it is difficult to defend a range of measures which are in this budget. Firstly, I refer to the cutting, in this budget, of all funding of public transport which is not under construction, including the Cross River Rail project, the Melbourne Metro project, the Tonsley Park rail project in Adelaide, and the Perth public transport projects, as well as the planning money for Hobart light rail that has been cut.

I note that the minister has said that that will somehow free-up projects for rail spending. He also said that there is rail spending in the budget. Can the minister point out any single dollar of rail freight funding or public transport funding in the budget, that was not already committed in the budget—including the inland rail line? I note the breach of commitment in that respect, where the coalition said that they would increase and bring forward that $300 million that had been allocated in the 2011 budget for the inland rail project.

I also note Infrastructure Australia's advice in writing to the Senate process that said that the reduction of the Commonwealth funding in rail would distort the market and lead to less state investment in public transport over a period of time. In terms of the budget the minister might like to address why $1.5 billion is being forwarded, this month, to Victoria, for the East West Link project—$500 million for stage 1, which is not under construction; and $1 billion for stage 2, which the budget papers indicate is due to commence not this financial year, not next financial year but the financial year after that. If there is a so-called fiscal issue why is the government putting $1.5 billion forward for a project that is not due to commence for some time? And, given what is going on in Victoria, that is a problematic project. How does that fit with the comments of his assistant, who spoke about making milestone payments and not just making payments without construction having taken place?

When it comes to roads, can the minister point to a new Pacific Highway project that will commence in the next four years? I note that the booklet that was produced on budget night does not include a single new project that was not already scheduled and funded to commence. Why has the minister breached that commitment? The government said on 5 September that the Gateway project in Queensland would be concluded by 2016, but the budget papers and budget estimates indicate that it will not be completed until 2019. Is that the case? Finally, it has been confirmed at Senate estimates that almost half of the funding for the Bruce Highway, or almost $3 billion, will not commence until the 2020s—that is, beyond the financial year 2019-20. Which Bruce Highway projects will commence in the next four years that were not already on the schedule? Is it the case that this represents a massive breach of a commitment by the coalition and indeed less money will be spent in the next four years of the forward estimates than was anticipated under the previous government?

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened very carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister's presentation. Coming from Western Sydney, it is very important for me to acknowledge how grateful we are for the decision-making of this government, so early in its term of office, by the Deputy Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and by the assistant minister, who is also here with us in the chamber today. There has been 40 years of uncertainty in relation to Badgerys Creek airport, a second airport for Sydney, which is our largest city and biggest economy. This 40 years of speculation and uncertainty has been to the detriment of many communities in Western Sydney. I also acknowledge the former minister for infrastructure, the member for Grayndler, who also has strong support for a second airport in Sydney at Badgerys Creek.

I welcome the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister and the government that the location of the second Sydney airport will be Badgerys Creek. Minister, you have ended 40 years of speculation and taken a very constructive approach in terms of infrastructure prior to the construction of the airport—that is, key road and rail infrastructure will be upgraded prior to the construction of the airport. This means important roads in the south-west corridor, the fastest growing suburbs in Sydney, where thousands and thousands of new families are moving. This puts Western Sydney at the forefront of the infrastructure agenda in Australia, and we thank you for that.

Some people say having a Sydney based infrastructure minister would have been good for Sydney. But actually the opposite has proven to be true—neither the minister nor the assistant minister need to be from Sydney to give us the biggest boost to our roads, with billions of dollars of infrastructure funding coming to our city. We thank you for your understanding of the people of Western Sydney and the needs of these growing communities.

So, Minister, in the light of the government's very strong agenda in relation to Badgerys Creek and the road and rail that will follow and of the government's infrastructure investment agenda, even in the very difficult economic times we are in—we really appreciate the commitment—could you outline for us what this infrastructure spend will mean for my electorate and also the western parts of our biggest, growing city, Sydney?

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

I do actually have some questions. I know I am probably really, really naive, but I really thought this process might be one which one can use to actually get some answers—

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have five minutes—

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

so I am genuinely interested not in speaking but in getting an answer. I have some questions to the minister about the Perth Freight Link. My first question is: will Infrastructure Australia complete an assessment of the Roe Highway stage 8 extension before the funding is due to commence in July 2015? Your funding for this project is due to commence in July 2015, and what I am trying to get clear is whether or not we will have a report by then by Infrastructure Australia, which has to date not analysed that. I am more interested here in the Roe Highway stage 8 portion of it, which is the big portion. So, in relation to the Roe Highway stage 8 portion, will we have that Infrastructure Australia assessment completed? I also would like to know: will that assessment, when it is completed, be made public? We are looking at the Roe Highway stage 8, not the Leach Highway bit that has already been done. Also, can you clarify when you anticipate the road opening? I have one further question on that. Could you tell us what discussions you or your department have had with Western Australia about the need for the new container facilities at the Kwinana outer harbour?

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. As the assistant minister will be aware, RAA traffic surveys are showing that peak hour performance on all major arterial roads in Adelaide is below national standards. Residents in Adelaide's south have been promised an upgrade to South Road at Darlington since 2006 and have been fighting long and hard to address growing traffic congestion. On the day of the budget, residents in Adelaide welcomed the largest infrastructure investment by any Commonwealth government ever: the announcement of a $1.5 billion commitment to the north-south road corridor in conjunction with the South Australian government. My question to the minister is: given that residents in the south of Adelaide have been waiting for action on South Road at Darlington since 2006, what is the government doing to make sure that this project will be under construction in the near future?

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very interesting to note that no Victorian government MPs are here to ask questions of the Deputy Prime Minister.

An honourable member: They're busy!

Yes, though I can imagine that they would not have any questions to ask in respect of this infrastructure budget from the infrastructure Prime Minister. What is extraordinary is that this budget, the first budget of our infrastructure Prime Minister, is entirely bereft of any vision for our cities. It walks away from an approach to infrastructure provision based on evidence, replacing it with prejudice and politics. We have already heard from the member for Grayndler—and I look forward to the Deputy Prime Minister's answer—about the decision to walk entirely away from the Commonwealth investment in public transport expenditure.

On top of this, of course, we see in this budget the abandonment, fundamentally, of any urban policy responsibility from this government, a matter that I would have thought should be of concern to the growing communities in Sydney's south-west, represented by the member for Mitchell, as it is to me, representing growing communities in Melbourne's north. So I invite the Deputy Prime Minister's response to two questions. Firstly, what support is continuing for urban policy following the scrapping of the Major Cities Unit, and what resources are available for urban development policy? Secondly, what new infrastructure investment can he refer me to that is of direct relevance to Melbourne's north and, in particular, the Scullin electorate?

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

I might respond to a few of those questions and then we can have some more. The shadow minister made a number of comments and asked a number of questions. He suggested that the previous Infrastructure Australia coordinator had said that by investing in roads we were reducing the assets and opportunities that would be available on rail. Frankly, if he said that, he is wrong, because the states have since the election of the current government either confirmed or reconfirmed $25 billion worth of new major public transport projects. I mentioned some of them earlier.

Victoria is going ahead with the Melbourne Metro. Queensland is going ahead with its cross-river bus and train tunnel. New South Wales has the North West Rail Link, and Western Australia the Forrestfield-Airport Link. It is quite clear that the states have taken the opportunity, because the Commonwealth is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in road funding, to be able to bring forward some of the public transport proposals that they want to have in their cities.

Frankly, the states and local government are best equipped to manage and deliver public transport projects. The Commonwealth is able to assist with the National Highway and national freight tasks—that is where we have a particular responsibility and therefore we are able to ensure that many of these projects come to fruition.

Members opposite, because of their hate campaign against roads, forget that half the public transport in the country is by bus on real roads. In reality, road investment therefore also improves the traffic and the public transport flow in our capital cities.

The shadow minister also commented on the Bruce Highway program. It was very clear that the government's $8.7 billion commitment to the Bruce Highway, of which $6.7 billion comes from the Commonwealth, was a 10-year program. That was very clear in our election announcement. That was very clear in all the public statements. If you choose to go and look at our policy documents, it is quite clear it is a 10-year program. It includes 27 extra projects that Labor had never committed to.

Of course Labor's commitment to the Bruce Highway was always conditional on the state paying 50 per cent of the costs. They knew that the state did not have 50 per cent of the cost, so their promises were empty—a bit like the Pacific Highway promises that they made; they were all conditional on 50 per cent of the cost being met by the New South Wales government. When there was a Labor state government in New South Wales, they weren't asking for 50-50. It is only when there was a change of government that the federal Labor government, the minister himself, had a change of policy and decided that in future it would be fifty-fifty on the Pacific Highway.

Under Labor, the Pacific Highway would not have been finished for decades, because they were expecting from the states funding that could never supply. We have restored the traditional 80-20 funding mix on the National Highway, and that means that the Pacific Highway projects can power ahead and deliver significant results to the people of New South Wales.

In relation to the freight link project in Western Australia where questions were asked: yes, Infrastructure Australia will report on that project, as it will on all projects over $100 million in value, and the report will be public. As long as we can get the legislation through the parliament that delivers those sorts of things then there will be a public report by Infrastructure Australia on all of the projects over $100 million.

I would prefer that Infrastructure Australia did its work and made assessments on projects before governments made announcements, and that is why we are so keen on the 15-year advanced plan. I hope that in the future Infrastructure Australia will be able to get ahead of government announcements rather than having to catch up.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Perth wants the call she should stand up!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Infrastructure Australia, indeed, in an answer to a question on notice provided in May in response to a question from Senator Sterle about the argument re fund public funding—question No. 135—said this:

Australian government funding to infrastructure project identified by a state government would reduce the financial costs to the state of that project. Were the Australian government to fund only certain types of infrastructure projects, those types of projects would become relatively more attractive to the state than other projects. A limited state budget for infrastructure projects could stretch further if it is focused on the types of projects likely to attract Australian government funding.

There it is. Common sense tells you that if you are state treasurer and there is a road project worth $1 billion and a rail project worth $1 billion, and if you fund the road project you will get co-funding but if you fund the rail project you won't, then it will distort over a period of time funding away from rail projects in the states towards road funding. It is a very simple principle.

On the Pacific Highway, these are the facts. When the Howard government was in office and you were a minister for transport in that government, the Howard government contributed $1.3 billion for the Pacific Highway. The state Labor government contributed $2.5 billion during that time—that is, well over half the funding for the project. The minister said New South Wales would not fund it fifty-fifty. The fact is that the Frederickton to Eungai section of the Pacific Highway, along with at least two other sections around Nambucca are funded on the basis of fifty-fifty agreements between the Commonwealth and the state. Because you have moved from fifty-fifty to 80-20 means, whilst you have not put in any additional money, the state government will put in less money for projects on that highway. The state government has already cut in its MYEFO statement in September last year over $70 million from their funding for the Pacific Highway.

On the Bruce Highway, you might be aware of the Cooroy to Curra section of the highway. It is one of the sections that we promised, funded, built and opened in your electorate of Wide Bay. The next section where construction has begun is funded on a fifty-fifty basis in an agreement signed between the Commonwealth and the Newman government. Again, because you are moving away from the funding model, the state government is then in a position to cut funding, which they have, for the Bruce Highway. As a result of your incompetence we are seeing less funding put into the national road network that would have been put in otherwise.

In Western Australia there was a fifty-fifty agreement for the Perth to Darwin highway—it is called a number of things—signed between Minister Buswell and myself. It is now called North Link. One of the things that characterises this government is that they change the name of a project and then pretend it is new. It was a fifty-fifty agreed funding project and yet in the budget now the Commonwealth is paying more money than the state government asked for in writing for that project. That is the incompetence of this government when it comes to infrastructure.

On the Gateway Upgrade North Project the minister did not answer that at all, because he hasn't got anything to say on it, in a clear breach of promise given just two days before the 7 September election. On the East West project, why is $1.5 billion being given this month for a project that is years away from commencing in terms of stage 2? On the Bruce Highway the minister has confirmed that half of the funding for the Bruce Highway is not this year or next year—there are no advance payments there; it is off in the 2020s. It is off absolutely into the never-never. The minister could not name one project on either the Bruce or the Pacific highways that is due to commence in the coming years that was not already in the schedule and that was not already funded by previous budgets.

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

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Minister, as you are aware, there are a number of projects in the Lyne electorate that attracted funding from the Community Development Grants program that the coalition announced, such as the Port Macquarie indoor stadium, the tennis courts at Port Macquarie surf club, the University of the Third Age and many others. I understand 300 of these grants have been rolled out around Australia, with a $340 million commitment to the program. Will the proposed National Stronger Regions Fund play a similar role in supporting community projects in regional Australia?

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night we heard extraordinary revelations that change to the diesel fuel rebate was never on the table for this budget, but of course the fuel excise has been. Interestingly, we heard in estimates last week in response to questioning from Senator Stephen Conroy about whether any analysis has been done on the impact of the increase in fuel excise on regional Australia that the answer was no. So you are not planning to do any regional impact study on any of these cuts? No, not at this stage. Still not going to bother with any regional impact study? No, not at this stage. So no impact study has been done on the fuel excise increases in the budget and their impact on regional Australia.

We have had no regional impact study on anything that is in this budget and how it will affect regional Australia. We heard in health estimates that there has been no impact analysis of the GP tax in regional Australia. We also heard in health estimates that there has been no impact analysis of whether or not it will affect a person's ability to access a GP right across rural and regional Australia. In education estimates last night we heard that the Department of Education has not looked at the potential impact of the $30 billion cuts on schools, so the impact of those cuts on regional schools has not been looked at either. So regional Australia is going to be very badly hit by this budget. We have had no impact analysis done by the department or, it appears, by anybody in government from any agency on the budget cuts to any part of regional Australia.

Nobody in any department or in the regional development department appears to have done any analysis on any of these decisions and their impact on regional Australia. Minister, can you tell us: has anybody, or will anybody, anywhere in the government at all do this analysis? Is anybody interested in the impact of this budget on regional Australia? Are you interested in the impact of the fuel excise increase? Are you interested in whether regional Australians can access a GP when these changes come into effect? Do you care that regional students may have increased fees and may have less access to regional universities because of the changes in your budget? Is anybody anywhere at any time actually going to make some analysis of how hard regional Australia will be impacted by these budget cuts?

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. My electorate is in Western Sydney and very close to the WestConnex project; indeed, the Beverly Hills interchange is within my electorate. The announcements in relation to the WestConnex project have been very widely welcomed within my community, given that the project will save more than 20 minutes on the drive from the Beverly Hills area to the city and that will be a great win for local families. In that context, Minister, can you provide some further detail on the concessional loan arrangement which has helped to accelerate that project and also on the revised and accelerated construction timetable?

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

I have, again, a series of questions that I hope the minister can look at. Firstly, there is the question I raised previously, which I do not think you have answered yet, about the new container facility that is required in the Kwinana outer harbour—if you could you give us some information about what discussions your department has had on the Kwinana outer harbour. Second, could you provide some information on when you expect the Roe Highway stage 8 to be opened? My third question is: if you have had discussions about the new container facility, what advice have you received about the impact of such a facility on freight traffic in Fremantle?

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

I might start by answering the member for Boothby's question from earlier on in relation to the Darlington and Torrens-to-Torrens projects.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Well, let us talk about you being Bill Shorten's errand boy, if you want to! The member for Boothby was instrumental in fighting for the Darlington upgrade for many years—so much so that, although it was Labor policy, you will remember, to upgrade the Darlington end of the project for some time, when it became our policy, interestingly, they swapped projects. Putting aside the five estimates that were done on the Darlington project, it took this government to give the money to the state government to actually do the work to get a final cost and an outcome. The Prime Minister made the commitment last October that we would do both projects, the Torrens-to-Torrens project and the Darlington project, and continue to work on South Road. On the broader South Road question, we are continuing with that plan, which we will have by November. So the member for Boothby should be very proud of the commitment he made to Darlington. He has driven the fact that there is now federal funding of nearly $1 billion in the next four years to do both of those projects, which will benefit his constituents enormously.

The member for Mitchell asked earlier about the Western Sydney package. There is $2.9 billion from the federal government over the next decade, which is to build the infrastructure to prepare for the Western Sydney airport, decision which has taken 40 years. I do acknowledge the member for Grayndler and his support for the Western Sydney airport. It is concerning, however, that there are others who are opposed and trying to make politics out of it in Western Sydney. But the infrastructure element of it will deliver a plan and the roads before the airport, as the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have committed to ensuring.

The WestConnex project is a terrific project. It has enormous support from the community. Stage 1 will make a huge difference. That is why we committed $1½ billion before the election to do stage 1 and we reconfirmed that in the budget. But, to get stage 2 moving at the same time, we have given New South Wales access to the first ever concessional loan arrangement, which means that the project will get underway mid next year, which is a great outcome—both projects at the same time. We will see the benefit of that project far earlier, at least 18 months earlier than we would have otherwise, and we think it will bring enormous benefits not only to Western Sydney but also in and around Sydney itself and increase the productivity of our biggest capital city.

In relation to the Perth freight link, the answer to the question the member for Perth asked earlier but the Deputy Prime Minister did not get time to answer is that we expect it to be open by 2019. That is our expectation and that is what we are working towards. We want to get this project underway as soon as possible and we hope the member for Perth will help facilitate this important investment, because it is the first PPP in Western Australia's history—

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

as she knows, and it will be terrific to see that project done. Infrastructure Australia will see all the projects we have announced in the budget—

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

Can you answer the question about Kwinana outer harbour?

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

As per parliamentary procedure, we will let you interrupt as we continue to speak! But, in relation to the outer harbour, the new Treasurer in Western Australia raised it with me and I think they have raised it with the department in some early discussions, but there has been no official advice in relation to it and ultimately it will be a state decision on whether they proceed with that terminal or not.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Are we just going to continue to allow interjections from the member for Perth?

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

That is the typical arrangement!

The Perth Freight Link will be an enormously beneficial project. The member for Swan knows very well how beneficial this project will be. We have been working very well with the Western Australian government.

The final point I will make in relation to public transport projects is that the Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely right about the $25 billion of projects that have been announced by state governments since the federal election. Fifty per cent of public transport travel in Australia is by bus, and of course buses use roads to travel on. That is another point the member for Grayndler does not like to acknowledge.

The Asset Recycling Initiative will get public transport projects happening across the country—a terrific innovation encouraging states to use their balance sheets more effectively. In fact, it is interesting that even the ACT government is selling assets to take advantage of this. We think even the South Australian government might do it. Interestingly, there are already South Australian assets listed on the website. So it will be very interesting to see whether the South Australian government takes advantage of this innovation. This budget is delivering $50 billion in infrastructure, $16 billion more than if the member for Grayndler had continued in the infrastructure portfolio after the election in September last year.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to public transport, it has been pointed out, quite correctly, that buses use roads. But to deal with urban congestion you need to deal with rail. If you had not abolished the Major Cities Unit, if you had not refused to allow the Urban Policy Forum to meet, if you had listened to the Infrastructure Australia Council, you might be conscious of that. The structure that we put in place of Infrastructure Australia, which makes assessments regardless of mode, without instruction from the government, ensured that recommendations such as the Regional Rail Link in Victoria went ahead because of the cost-benefit analysis that was done. That is how infrastructure investment should be directed, as a result of that arms-length advice to the government. Over a period of time, it will undermine not just federal investment but also state investment.

With regard to roads funding and the points that were made, the coalition's own policy said that all infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million would be required to undergo a cost-benefit analysis. It says:

Infrastructure Australia will be required to calculate and publish the net present value of recommended infrastructure projects and to justify why a given project has been recommended and prioritised.

Stage 2 of the east west project in Victoria will forward $1 billion this month to the Victorian government—into their bank account. They will be collecting money for a project in which it is not clear where the tunnel will come out, let alone a cost-benefit analysis. It does not even have a finalised case, let alone a business case.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is ignorant about the M2. There was a study done under the Howard government that set the route for that project. The minister might like to tell his assistant, the junior minister, exactly what happened with the M2.

I refer also to page 175 of Battlelines by Tony Abbott, who spoke about the need for the M4, essentially to connect people from Western Sydney with the city, and also for a connection from the western suburbs to Port Botany. I refer to the media release from WestConnex which says that the M4 is being extended, titled 'Stage 1—M4: widening and extension from Parramatta to Haberfield'. Haberfield is in my electorate. It is not in the city. It is no longer a road to the city. It is a road to a traffic jam at Haberfield, if that is the final outcome. Stage 3 is the M4 south from Haberfield to St Peters. Stage 2 is the M5 east duplication from Beverly Hills to St Peters.

People should just drive down King Street, Newtown, or any of the roads around St Peters that are already massively congested. It is to the west of Sydney airport, where even this morning it took me 40 minutes to get from Marrickville to the airport—a distance of just a few kilometres—and you are proposing with this new design to no longer take it to the port. The key elements are getting people to the city and freight to the port. You need to make sure that you get infrastructure right, not take people to Haberfield and trucks to St Peters, which is what is being proposed in the joint press release from the Prime Minister and the Premier. I support good infrastructure projects, I support good infrastructure projects that are got right. This is not getting it right. Previous governments have got it wrong in not making the M5 wide enough in the first place, so we need to make sure that it is got right and it is not a road to a traffic jam.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, to inform the House about where we are up to with the Toowoomba Range crossing. I recall that back in 2007 we had committed, as a coalition, to fund the construction of the Toowoomba Range crossing to the tune of $700 million. To put it into context for those who have probably never had the opportunity to travel on the current Toowoomba Range, as you descend off the top of that range there is a big clear sign, put there by the state government, that, unfortunately, reads 'To date'—and there is a little tablet of numbers that are interchangeable—'lives have been lost on this range'. The last time I had the opportunity to drive down that range, something like 159 lives had been lost on that road. There is an enormous amount of work currently being undertaken on it, through NDRAA funding, as a result of the damage that was done to it by the floods.

The Toowoomba Range bypass that this coalition has committed to, I believe to the extent of $1.285 billion, will have an enormous benefit for my region at the bottom of the range. We get so much traffic coming out of Sydney through that Toowoomba area because it is quicker for a truck to go from Sydney through Toowoomba to Brisbane than it is to go up the coastline. At the moment we have trucks going through Toowoomba, through 27 different sets of traffic lights and some incredible amount of traffic a day—I think 25,000 units a day, and in that is obviously a large number of trucks. Can the minister inform the House what the relationship is with the state government funding arrangements, with the 80-20 split, and also what the benefits to productivity are for the state? This is a project that was never going to be funded by those on that side. It was in the budget papers in 2007 but was taken out.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no money coming for the Toowoomba Range crossing when the previous government was in charge—not a cent. So I welcome the—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

It was in our budget. You are right—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also take this opportunity to acknowledge Ian Macfarlane and the industry minister's contribution and ongoing advocacy for this project. He has been untiring and has led the cause. He will deliver it, with the assistance of the minister. This is a well overdue project, a project that will have significant and ongoing benefits for the region, for the state and for our nation. And if the minister could inform the House of the benefits, I would be truly grateful.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget also had some significant cuts for financial assistance grants to local government. In fact, there is an indexation freeze that will, over the forward estimates, cut more than $900 million from councils right across Australia. Interestingly, as the shadow minister for local government I have had many councils write to me about the impact, particularly the disproportionate impact on rural and regional councils right across Australia.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Table them if you like.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have got them if you want to see them. I will read some quotes from them. The Greater Hume Shire Council says: 'The freezing of FAGs has a disproportionate negative effect on local government authorities in rural areas in that it forms a significant larger share of a rural council's revenue stream.' Too right it does. And here is another one: 'The financial assistance funding forms the base of revenue for all councils, and regional and rural areas will be hardest hit by this decision.' Too right. Another council, from my electorate, wrote to me—and, in fact, to all Tasmanians, including the Premier—about the impact that this cut in Financial Assistance Grants will have on local government.

Interestingly, the Roads to Recovery money which is used by councils, as well as the Financial Assistance Grants, will be wiped out in six years because of these cuts; you might as well not have Roads to Recovery or the Financial Assistance Grants because they cancel each other out. Interestingly, the department, when asked about the financial assistance grants at estimates, said each individual council will have to reshape their budget. That, of course, is code for cuts to councils and loss of services—and, as we have just heard, regional and rural councils will be hardest hit. We have had no analysis of the impact of the budget on rural and regional areas in Australia; the department has admitted that that has not been done, and, in fact, we have had other departments admit that it has not been done. And now we have got the Financial Assistance Grants cut. Of course, the freeze in indexation will actually be a permanent funding cut that they will never get back. And now we hear that local councils are going to have to cut services and cut their budgets because of this indexation freeze to Financial Assistance Grants. So they are being hit right across the board in regional Australia as a result of this budget, and it appears that nobody from the government actually cares that regional Australia is being impacted more adversely by this budget than anywhere else in the country.

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

Let me respond to a couple of the questions that have been raised. I thank the honourable member for Lyne for his reference to the Community Grants Program that this government is funding. There are around 300 projects to be funded through this program, with a total expenditure of $340 million. This will mean projects in almost every community. I know that there are a number of projects in the electorate of the honourable member for Lyne. It also includes funding for 53 projects which the previous government had announced but never contracted or funded from rounds 2, 3 and 4 of the Regional Development Program. Those projects were announced but never proceeded, and we are picking up the bill for the Labor Party's commitments in that regard.

I can also respond positively to the member's question about the new National Stronger Regions Program. This program will provide $1 billion over five years for projects in regional communities and disadvantaged areas—places of low socioeconomic status or high unemployment—to help provide economic benefit and stimulus to those communities. I have no doubt that that program will provide real benefits to local communities—in particular, the projects in areas such as the one represented by the member for Lyne. I was pleased to be with him for the opening of the U3A, and there are a number of those projects that are proceeding very strongly in his electorate.

The honourable member for Wright asked about the Toowoomba range project, which he rightly identified as one that had no support from the previous government but which we have now brought to fruition. On 12 June there will be a meeting in Toowoomba which potential contractors will be invited to attend for a briefing on the construction project. This project will be built as a PPP. We are looking for the private sector to be engaged in the design and construction of the project and eventually the management and collection of the tolls. It will be a very substantial engineering project—probably the biggest road-building construction in regional Australia's history—and it will make such a difference to the lifestyle of the people who live in Toowoomba. It is indeed a worthwhile project.

The Commonwealth has agreed to provide 80 per cent of the cost not met by the private sector. We are anxious to ensure this is a quality project. The innovation of the private sector will be brought to bear so that we end up with the kind of project that the people of Toowoomba want and which delivers real transport benefits to the whole national freight network. I think this is an exciting project, and it will certainly transform Toowoomba and improve the quality of life for the people of that city.

Moving onto a couple of other issues that have been raised, can I again go back to the comments in relation to Infrastructure Australia: yes, we have committed that every project valued over $100 million will be subjected to IA scrutiny, and those reports will be made public.

What I find quite amazing is this idea that some members opposite seek to peddle that somehow Infrastructure Australia was influential in the decisions they made about infrastructure. The reality is: every single project announced by the previous government was announced before it went anywhere near Infrastructure Australia. They were playing catch-up. They were giving blanket approvals to what the government had already decided to do. Their whole global financial crisis response package was all announced before it went anywhere near Infrastructure Australia; indeed some of those projects have never proceeded—they were of such little merit. How about the O-Bahn project in South Australia dreamed up—

A government member: Parramatta to Epping.

That wasn't on that particular package, but Parramatta-Epping was of course a favourite project of the minister and the former Infrastructure coordinator; in fact, he worked on it as an engineer in his previous iteration before those days. It has never gone anywhere. It would never pass any kind of a test of that nature, yet the previous government had announced it.

So Infrastructure Australia spent its life under the previous government playing catch-up. We want to change that and get them out in front identifying the key projects before they are announced. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister just had the gall to say, 'We want to get out there and have Infrastructure Australia assess projects before they're announced.' There is not a single project announced in the budget in May which had been assessed and put on Infrastructure Australia's priority list—not one of the new projects. Granted, there weren't many new projects—it is mainly just reannouncements of old projects and funding in the year 2020-something when, I am sure, the minister may think that he will still be here.

In terms of the questions failed to be answered, one is Infrastructure Australia had 15 projects on the priority list while I was the minister and all 15 were funded. Projects such as—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is just wrong. It is either a lie deliberately or it is misleading. The Majura Parkway, for example, he can have a look at on the way to Canberra Airport. It was approved by Infrastructure Australia with a BCR above 3, funded—no politics in it at all—$144 million from each level of government, benefiting ACT seats that are not partisan. The Goodwood to Torrens project in Adelaide, the Hunter Expressway in the Hunter—all three projects are ones which boost national productivity approved by Infrastructure Australia and then funded by the government; all 15 out of 15 projects, including projects like the managed motorway system that has been cut—a managed motorway system using smart infrastructure that has a higher benefit cost ratio than all projects that have been considered by Infrastructure Australia.

There has been no answer about new projects on the Pacific Highway in the budget; no answer about the Bruce Highway; no answer about the cuts to the Gateway; and no answer about the fact that WestConnex does not go to the city in terms of stage 1—it goes from Parramatta to Haberfield—and stage 2 goes from Beverly Hills to St Peters rather than to the port.

There has been no answer, whatsoever, to those questions.

I want to ask the minister another question, given that silence is golden with regard to the non-answers that have been given. My question to the minister is about aviation. I am talking about aviation safety, so he might want to listen! I seek an assurance from the minister that, in terms of the departmental cuts that have been indicated in the government's budget, no cuts will be made to CASA or the aviation safety agencies, including the ATSB. The issue of aviation safety has been, and should continue to be, above politics. I seek the minister's assurance that in terms of those cuts, there will be a quarantining of aviation safety regulators and agencies from those cuts.

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

I rise on a point of order. During the contribution of the member for Grayndler, he made an unparliamentary comment. He should withdraw it.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Grayndler to withdraw.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He should not make things up. He knows it is not true.

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

I let the member go, during his whole contribution, so as not to interrupt, but he should withdraw. He knows the procedures better than anyone in this place, other than the—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, but the minister should not continue to repeat untruths—things that he knows are not true.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. I give a direction—

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

He should withdraw without reservation.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have withdrawn.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that the member for Perth is in here. You might have had this question; I was not here when she raised her questions. Can the minister give, for the benefit of my constituents—the economic freight hub in Western Australia is in my electorate and it is an important piece of economic industry in Western Australia—an update on the Gateway and the expected time of finishing. There was an air of expectancy or a fear that the Gateway project would be under threat because it was linked to the mining tax. Could the minister also advise how that issue has been fixed and about the security of funding for that particular project. I also refer to the funding of the Black Spot Program, and ask how that will help areas in Western Australia, particularly in the electorate of Swan.

The minister might have access to some information which I was not able to get before. In 2007, during the election process, the then Leader of the Opposition promised $100 million per annum for an infrastructure fund in Western Australia. I ask whether that money ever came to Western Australia; if it did, were any projects built out of it? As far as I know and as far as I can see, no funding of $100 million per annum was ever allocated to Western Australia.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The two questions asked by the member for Franklin touched on the impact of this budget on regional communities. I note that they have not received an answer. What I find absolutely extraordinary is that the daily double has been achieved—an extraordinarily negative impact on regional communities and the abandonment of Australia's major cities, where 80 per cent of Australians live and where more than 80 per cent of economic activity takes place.

So, having regard to the abandonment of major cities through the abolition of the Major Cities Unit and the fact that the portfolio budget statement for the department makes no mention of cities, nor of any national urban policy framework, can the Deputy Prime Minister advise whether there is any interest within this government in making our cities more productive? I would like to ask whether there was any interest in making them more sustainable and liveable, but I will stick to the question about making them more productive and more economically viable for the purpose of this answer. Specifically, is any activity contemplated in this regard beyond continuing the publication of something like the State of Australian Citiesreport? Can the minister also advise the House of the status of the National Urban Policy Forum?

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, the Roads to Recovery program, which is a fantastic program that was introduced by the Howard government, has been very successful in the electorate of Mallee. Over the past five years, councils in my electorate have received funding under this program—for example, the Mildura City Council received $8.8 million, the Horsham Rural City Council received $5 million and Swan Hill Rural City Council received $4.8 million. They have been substantial programs. Can you please outline how the continuation of this program over the next five years will work. How is it going to work, and will the additional funding outlined in the 2014-15 budget be delivered to regional communities? Furthermore, what other programs will councils be able to leverage off for their much-needed infrastructure?

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

I have a couple of actual questions for the minister. Minister, I note in the budget you have $339 million in the forward estimates for the Oakajee Port project. Could you give us some idea of what the funding profile for that is? For which years has that money been designated? I would also be very interested to know what discussions or briefings you or your agency have had about the likelihood of this project proceeding in the next couple of years?

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

I will respond to a number of those questions but perhaps the last one first. The funding for the Oakajee Port was actually provided initially by the previous government as part of its response to the global financial crisis; we have just retained that money in the budget.

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

Can you tell us where in the forward estimates the funding is sitting?

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

I would need to check that. We did consider whether or not it was appropriate to keep the money in the budget, because obviously there has been little or no progress on the project for some time. However, there is renewed interest. Essentially, the money is available. It is in the capital section, so the money is available whenever it is required. When the project proceeds, the funding will be available.

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

Have you had discussions with the Western Australian government on—

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

Yes, I have spoken to the Western Australian Premier and others about the project so that they were informed about the process we were going through and whether that money would remain in the budget.

The shadow minister asked an important question about funding for CASA and ATSB. The shadow minister may not be aware of this because I gather he was overseas at the beginning of the week but the review report into the CASA was made public. There are substantial recommendations that will obviously affect the operation of CASA into the future. I have undertaken, from a government perspective, to respond to that report as quickly as possible. We are inviting public comments over the next month. Some of those proposals are quite radical and would certainly change the budget requirements for CASA. So I think it would be brave to suggest that there will not be changes in the budget, but we recognise the absolutely critical importance of ensuring that our aviation industries are safe. Funding will be provided as required to ensure that CASA is able to operate effectively.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And it won't be reduced?

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

If functions are taken away from CASA and given to others—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure, but aviation safety funding won't be.

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

The shadow minister would also be aware that a lot of that funding is collected direct from the industry through the fuel levy.

The second issue is the ATSB. It will be funded on a needs basis. It depends on how many inquiries they have to do. They are likely to get increased funding this year because of their role in the MH370 incident that is requiring substantial resources from them. Funding will be provided to meet those needs.

In relation to the projects in Western Australia—I think there has been some reference to those—they are important projects. Yes, the previous government had started the Gateway project. They announced it as their flagship project for regional Australia. I can recall us all having some degree of amazement that the Labor Party decided that a project around Perth Airport was a regional Australia project. Nonetheless, that is how it was announced. Of course, the funding was coming out of the mining tax, along with funding for the Swan Valley bypass and a whole lot of other projects in Western Australia. We all know now that the mining tax has only delivered three per cent of what Labor had budgeted. So, in practice, the work was underway but the source of the funding did not exist.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

We picked it up. The project is underway. We will fund the Swan Valley bypass. All of those projects will now be properly funded in an orthodox way, not by relying on a tax that is not collecting any money.

A number of speakers have referred to the Roads to Recovery program. It is a program that is highly valued by local government. Indeed, we are not only extending the Roads to Recovery program; in 2015-16, local government will get a double issue. That will help them to fund their road projects. In addition, they will no doubt be participating in our new bridges renewal program, so there will be real benefits for local government in having those programs delivered. Of course, we are still waiting for that legislation to be passed by the Senate. We note that Labor and the Greens voted against the extension of the R to R program in the House of Representatives, and I hope they will be more responsible in the Senate when the legislation comes up. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to raise two issues, given that there has been a failure to answer any of the questions that have been put with regard to the Pacific Highway, the Bruce Highway, the Gateway project and WestConnex. Firstly, I go to the Gateway WA project, which is one of the projects that the new government is attempting to say was somehow its initiative. I was with the member for Swan at the opening of construction. The project is fully funded, the contract has been signed, and it has been going for two years now. There are 2,000 people working on the project. They are working on the project with funds provided by the federal Labor government, under the same funding system that is being undertaken now by the government in which the Deputy Prime Minister is now transport minister—exactly the same funding. We ensured that Western Australia received record funding; indeed, we more than doubled the per capita funding for infrastructure in Western Australia after 2007.

Another thing we did in Western Australia was the Perth City Link project, a fantastic project that is boosting productivity and changing the nature of Perth by uniting the CBD with Northbridge. In terms of urban projects, there would not be a better one anywhere in the country. In terms of the Labor government's record, whether it be funding roads or funding rail there are significant benefits.

I wonder whether the minister can state whether he agrees with his Prime Minister's comments outlining the ideological underpinning for not funding public transport. He said this in Battlelines, on page 173 and 174:

In Australia's big cities, public transport generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still a hideous drain on the public purse.

He went on to say:

Mostly there just aren't enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads.

He went on to say:

The humblest person is king in his own car.

So providing an ideological underpinning for this view which accords with what the late Margaret Thatcher said: that if you find yourself at the age of 27 on a public bus you can consider your life a failure. This is the sort of elitist attitude of those opposed to public transport funding.

There is a global debate about cities, about driving productivity, about sustainability. I have just attended the World Cities Summit in Singapore and the debate there was very much about public transport, about how we reduce urban congestion and boost productivity by doing that, and about how we reduce greenhouse emissions and improve sustainability. It is a debate which ministers, including from the Conservative Party in the UK, and other representatives from around the world are having while Australia appears to be going in the opposite direction to the rest of the world. Why is it that the new government does not believe that there is a role for the Commonwealth in providing leadership on cities, including in urban policy and in providing support, where it stacks up, for public transport as well as roads?

The minister opposite said before that somehow they were the only party that supported roads. That, of course, is not true. While I was the transport minister the former government doubled the roads budget, compared with in the previous period. The difference is we support roads and rail. They support roads only, the Greens support rail only, and both are exclusive positions to the detriment of dealing with urban congestion in our cities.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. I firstly put on record the appreciation of my community for the Australian government's commitment to fix the Bruce Highway over the next 10 years. The project has been very well received. I ask: how is the rollout of the plan progressing for communities along this key transport link in Queensland? I am particularly interested in the area surrounding Capricornia which supplies the wealth of the nation.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that I have not had any answers from the ministers opposite in relation to the impact of this budget on regional and rural Australia, I would like to remind them that this budget will hurt regional Australia through things such as the GP tax, the fuel excise increase, the $80 billion cuts to health and education, the cuts and changes to pensioner concessions, the cuts to the financial assistance grants and, of course, the cuts to public sector jobs. We have already seen ATO closures in regional cities across Australia and that will impact pretty badly on regional areas. There are also the changes to tertiary education. And we have heard from the Rural Doctors Association and the Regional Universities Network about how this budget will impact negatively on regional Australia. I would like to ask some very specific questions now that we are getting to the end of the hour and a half that has been allocated this debate.

Minister, do you agree that they should be a regional impact study done of this budget by your department? If not, why not? Have you asked for study to be done on the impact of this budget on regional Australia? Why wasn't any consultation undertaken with local government prior to the indexation of the freeze on the financial assistance grants? Will the minister explain to small regional and rural councils how they are expected to cope with this change in financial assistance grants and how they are expected to deal with these cuts to their budgets? Lastly, will the minister guarantee that council rates will not increase, given the financial assistance grants cuts that were made in this budget?

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

I rise to answer a couple of questions. In relation to the WestConnex project which the member for Grayndler seems to be opposed to, constantly—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The WestConnex project is an obsession. As the minister for transport in New South Wales makes the point, for those living in inner city Sydney everything is about getting to Sydney, to the CBD. In fact, what WestConnex actually does is connect Sydney far better for people who are moving around, particularly people like tradespeople who work all across the expanse of Sydney every day. It helps people move right across Sydney, absolutely, every day. It fixes a problem that Labor created with the M5 tunnel, as the member for Grayndler acknowledged earlier—I accept that. It also upgrades roads all around Sydney and the port area as part of WestConnex stage 2. Then, of course, there is the Moorebank project, which the member for Grayndler is also familiar with, which has helped to deal with the freight connections in Sydney. If you look at what we are doing with the WestConnex we are creating a much better connected city with the WestConnex stage 1 and bringing stage 4 together will lead to a better project. This project is evolving and it will become a better project as the process goes on. We are very confident of that. It will create 10,000 jobs in its construction. It is an enormously beneficial project.

Talking about urban policy, we are spending $50 billion in this budget, the vast bulk of it on new projects that will help our cities deal with congestion issues. Fifty per cent of public transport kilometres travelled are by bus. That will continue to be the case. Bus is an important part of our public transport network. Improving the road network will assist. The asset recycling initiative and the state government's commitments mean we have seen $25 billion since the federal election to rail, which will also complements that.

Regarding the Urban Policy Forum, the secretary of our department, who the member for Grayndler is very familiar with, will continue to chair the Urban Policy Forum. There have been no recent meetings, but meetings can be called to deal with emerging issues. The forum still exists.

The other point that was raised on this side, and I think it was from the member for Mallee, was in relation to the Black Spots Program. We announced this year's allocation yesterday. In fact, we announced a project in the member for Grayndler's electorate.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was in our budget.

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

'It was in our budget'! They just can't get over the fact that they lost the election. What we are doing next year and the year after—and this is part of the issue raised in the member for Franklin's line of questioning—is increasing the Black Spots Program by $100 million in each of the next two years. So there will be $320 million in the Black Spots Program in the next two years which will target unsafe roads.

I am reasonably familiar with part of the member for Mallee's electorate—I grew up in Mildura. What we are going to do is look at the criteria to make it easier for small rural councils to get access to the program to upgrade roads. We acknowledged to achieve—

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Perth!

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

We understand the issue with some small roads in country areas. For instance, in my own electorate, some of the most dangerous roads in South Australia are on Kangaroo Island. The member for Grayndler has been there and I acknowledge that he would know this. Such roads do not have the traffic to necessarily meet the fatality or the incident criteria, so we are looking at the criteria to see if we can spend Black Spot money to ensure that we get safety outcomes to prevent some of these accidents in the first place.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Perth!

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

I don't think the member for Grayndler is in a rural seat!

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

That's right. The Black Spots Program is spread right across the country. It is in city areas, it is in country areas. It is a very important part of the program.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

The member for Perth chirps away, but the member for Perth was at the barricades with the Greens in Perth trying to stop a vitally important project which will help transform Perth and get 60,000 trucks off local roads. It is an utter disgrace. The member for Perth, having left the Western Australian parliament as a failed minister, comes to this place now and tries to inflict the damage she did in Perth in Canberra.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the Pacific Highway. I refer to the budget document 2014-15 in the graph on page 17 that goes through Pacific Highway projects. Can the minister for infrastructure confirm that this graph shows that the Banora Point upgrade, $344 million, was completed in late 2012, Ballina bypass was completed in 2012, Devils Pulpit was completed earlier this year, Glenugie was completed in early 2012, Kempsey bypass was completed and opened in 2013, Herons Creek to Stills Road was completed in 2013 and the Bulahdelah bypass was completed in 2013?

Can the minister further confirm that the upgrade projects that are listed as being part of the forward estimates from this financial year are the following: Tintenbar to Ewingsdale, to be completed next year, already well under construction; Woolgoolga to Ballina, planning and preconstruction work of $282 million, with an agreement that was signed in 2013, following the budget, between the Commonwealth and New South Wales; the Sapphire to Woolgoolga upgrade, which will be completed pretty soon if it has not been already; Nambucca Heads to Urunga, funded in the 2013 budget; Warrell Creek to Nambucca Heads, with construction commencing this year, funded in the 2013 budget; Frederickton to Eungai, where construction began in 2013, funded in the budget; Kundabung to Kempsey, which was funded in the 2013 budget, with construction commencing this year; along with the Oxley Highway to Kundabung upgrade, which was also funded in the 2013 budget, with construction commencing in 2014?

I refer the minister to the nation-building infrastructure budget papers of May 2013. Apart from the projects that have already been completed and opened, is there a single project that the minister can identify that is in this year's budget that was not already in last year's budget for the Pacific Highway? How does that fit the rhetoric of those opposite on their concerns over the Pacific Highway, particularly from members such as the member for Cowper, who talked a lot about the Pacific Highway but did not deliver on it during the 12 years in which those opposite previously held office, contributing just $1.3 billion to the Pacific Highway while the state Labor government $2.5 billion in the same period; or the new member for Page, who is pretending that the Tintenbar to Ewingsdale section somehow began only in September last year, whereas of course construction is well underway, having commenced more than two years ago?

Can the minister for infrastructure point to how their rhetoric about the Pacific Highway fits at all when he has not been able to identify a single new project that is funded in this budget, in his own budget papers, in this glossy document of 2014-15? It cost less, I am sure, than the $85,000 in total that was allocated to the video presentation that was very helpfully released by the minister's assistant a few hours prior to the budget speech being delivered! Can the minister point to any new projects at all on the Pacific Highway that are to commence construction as a result of this budget?

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

I preface my remarks by thanking the Deputy Prime Minister. I think this is the very first time we have had an acting Prime Minister in the Federation Chamber since its establishment, so in many ways you are making history today as well, Acting Prime Minister. In relation to the inland rail, I have spoken to you about this on a number of occasions, and I am aware that there is a proposed route alignment that includes communities in my electorate of Maranoa, such as the town of Millmerran and perhaps Goondiwindi and Inglewood. I am not quite sure where the final alignment may rest, but I would be interested to receive any information that you may have and an update on that, the potential investment and what it could mean to the regional communities in Queensland.

There is another question I want to ask the minister—and I acknowledge the $508 million in this year's federal budget for the Warrego Highway, the largest single investment in the Warrego Highway in many, many years, if not ever. Acting Prime Minister, I notice also that in the forward estimates starting 1 July this year there is some $49 million to be appropriated as the first spending on the Warrego Highway. I have written to you and to the minister in Queensland as well as to the Department of Transport and Mains Roads, which I understand has the responsibility for the planning of the expenditure that we make available to the Queensland government. There are some priorities that I have seen after consulting with my community—and you would be aware of this because you have been in Dalby yourself—such as a set of traffic lights on the eastern side of town near the Dalby South State School. Has there been any planning done by the main roads department for that? I also know that in Chinchilla itself there is a very dangerous railway crossing that the community would like to see addressed as part of that $508 million, particularly in relation to the $49 million in the forthcoming financial year. The Warrego Highway has not been upgraded east of Chinchilla to Warra—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:31 to 11:46

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Maranoa did have the call but his time has run out, so if he could just conclude it would help the chamber.

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

I will indeed. I was asking the Acting Prime Minister about the Warrego Highway and the $49 million that is appropriated for the 2014-15 financial year, particularly in relation to priorities I have written to the Queensland minister about. I am wanting to know whether they are shovel ready for projects such as the Dalby South State School, the Chinchilla safety issues, the upgrades to Warrego between Warra and Chinchilla and more passing lanes. Given that we have had deaths on the Warrego Highway in the Dalby region in the past five years, it is an absolute priority that we continue to spend this money, which is in our forward estimates, as quickly as possible. I would appreciate any updates the Acting Prime Minister can give me in relation to that.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Communications Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,780,674,000

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The funding announced in the budget for the communications portfolio will support the promotion of an innovative and competitive communications sector in Australia. Through the 2014-15 appropriation bills, the government will provide the portfolio with more than $7 billion to deliver its priorities. This includes $6.8 billion to the Department of Communications to provide for an equity injection to the NBN Co of up to $5.2 billion, including $2 billion from prior years; $238.6 million for the department to deliver its outcomes; $1.1 billion, through the department, to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; $287.1 million, through the department, to the SBS; $96.9 million to the ACMA; and $100 million to TUSMA.

The government is providing $110 million in new funding to the department over the next four years for the following measures to implement our election commitments: $100 million to the Mobile Black Spot Program to improve mobile coverage in outer metropolitan, regional and remote areas of Australia, and $10 million to the enhance online safety for children initiative. Enhanced online safety will be achieved through assisting schools to access accredited online safety programs; establishing the office of the children's e-safety commissioner, who will take a leadership role in online safety; and supporting Australian based research and information campaigns on online safety.

Additionally, the Office of Spatial Policy and TUSMA functions will be transferred into the department. These funding increases are offset, in part, by an efficiency dividend of $2 million applied to the department over the next four years. The government will provide $5.5 billion over the next four years to the national broadcasters—$4.4 billion to the ABC and $1.1 billion to the SBS. The 2014-15 budget includes a one per cent efficiency saving on the national broadcaster's operational budgets, excluding transmission and distribution services, raising $43.5 million over the next four years, of which $35.5 million is for the ABC and $8 million is for the SBS. The savings realised through this measure will be considered a down payment on efficiencies identified in the context of the ABC and SBS efficiency study, widely known as the Lewis review.

The exact implementation of the savings arising from this measure will be determined by the boards and executives of the national broadcasters. The government expects that these efficiencies can be achieved without cutting the diverse range of programs and services being offered by the national broadcasters or affecting their editorial independence.

The government will provide $360.7 million over the next four years to the ACMA, the regulator of the communications sector. In 2014-15 the ACMA's funding has been reduced by a one-off one per cent efficiency saving, saving $3.3 million over the next four years. This efficiency saving recognises that, as regulation is removed and simplified in the coming year, costs should also decrease for the regulator. The ACMA's funding has also been reduced by an efficiency dividend of $2.1 million over the next four years.

Turning to TUSMA, the government announced in the budget that we will abolish TUSMA and transfer its functions to the department. This decision will increase industry certainty by having a single agency responsible for policy implementation of telecommunications universal service matters. TUSMA is a very small agency, and bringing the role into the department will help streamline the delivery of government services.

Efficiencies from the merger will result in savings to the telecommunications industry of $1 million per annum through a reduction to the telecommunications industry levy. The government will bring forward legislation to repeal the TUSMA Act and transfer responsibility for TUSMA's contracts, finances and levy collection obligations to the department.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My first question to the minister is in two parts. Can the minister guarantee that there will be no sporting events taken off the anti-siphoning list in this term of parliament? And can the minister guarantee that any reform to the anti-siphoning laws will be presented at the same time as any changes to media ownership laws?

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My questions are also to the minister, and relate to the administration of the NBN—and indeed, the contrast between the administration, or lack thereof, under the previous government and under this government. Minister, in the broad context of the NBN, I understand that this was a project conceived in mid air in the absence of a cost-benefit analysis or, indeed, much analysis of any kind at all.

I want to focus in particular on the financial contribution of the government to the NBN. My understanding, Minister, is that the previous government originally announced that there would be a $4.7 billion contribution prior to the 2007 election in the context of a total project spend of $10 billion. But I understand, further, that some years later, in 2009,the government said that the project cost had increased to $43 billion, and that private investors and mums and dads were encouraged to invest up to 49 per cent of that $43 billion.

Indeed, I understand that the member for Lilley at that time said:

There couldn't be a better investment.

That is my understanding of what the member for Lilley said. As I understand it, Minister, the Prime Minister at the time stepped forward, with faux FDR gravitas, to announce a 'new deal' for broadband. But of course that new deal turned out to be a very bad deal for everyone except perhaps a few telecommunications companies that might have outwitted the previous government in negotiations. I also understand that the rollout of this project was dramatically over budget and behind schedule. My understanding is that $6.5 billion was spent prior to the 2010 election to reach just three per cent of Australians, which seems an extraordinary figure and almost a rollout by press release as opposed to a rollout by substance—with some premature announcements, donning of high-visibility gear perhaps before it was necessary, and frankly a very poor scenario.

Minister, my understanding is that the previous government had never actually undertaken an exercise to determine where broadband was most needed. It was quite startling when I first came to that knowledge. I also understand that at one point the previous government claimed that access to the NBN under them would be free. Given that the total cost of the project was going to be about $72 billion, which is about $8,000 per Australian household, plus the requirement for people to pay $100-plus to access it, it would seem to me that that description of the project as being free was misleading. In that context, Minister, I have some specific questions. Firstly, what did the strategic review which was recently conducted reveal to be the true state of NBN Co? What is the true financial position of NBN Co as opposed to the, perhaps, less accurate descriptions that we were used to under the previous government? What is the broadband quality project and how was it conducted? Has it been helpful in identifying, for the first time, where broadband is in most need? And why is it important to serve both underserved areas and areas that are promising for revenue?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with both of those questions. First, briefly, to the member for Blaxland: I understand his interest in the anti-siphoning list. It is something that everyone is very keenly interested in. It tends to be amended every few years as circumstances change. We do not have any plans to make any changes to it, but we are certainly in the process of engaging with the broadcasting sector and talking about regulatory reform generally. He also asked whether I would guarantee that all changes to broadcasting law would be part of one package. That is certainly what at least one network has argued should be the case. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition to make and that is all under consideration. We are being very, very transparent in our discussions with the media sector. Given the engaging and convivial nature of the participants, I am sure that our discussions will rapidly come to the knowledge of most members of the public.

Turning to the member for Banks's question about the NBN, he has described very well the very sorry state of this project and its development. The truth is that the Labor government started off with a conventional approach to broadband—conventional by global standards—in the sense of proposing to get the private sector to upgrade the national network and to provide a subsidy to ensure that uneconomic areas got a service. In one form or another that is the norm pretty well everywhere.

Then, when that tender did not work out, there was this enormous leap into a unique, hitherto untried approach for any major country—to have the government build an entirely new broadband network in a start-up company. That was the fundamental mistake. The next big mistake they made was specifying one access technology instead of specifying or promising a service level and being flexible about technology. And, as the honourable member asks about, the consequence of this has been a colossal failure. Very little progress has been made and a huge amount of money has been committed.

When we took over government in September we arranged for the NBN Co to undertake a strategic review. It was designed to find out the current state of the project and what our options are. The current state of the project is: if the Labor government's policy was continued business as usual, the peak funding requirement would be $72.6 billion—$28.5 billion more than forecast. The consequence of that, naturally, would be that broadband prices would have to go up—up to 80 per cent more, on average. You cannot have a massively overcapitalised government monopoly, or a monopoly of any kind, and expect it to do anything other than put prices up. So it would be have been a shocking lose-lose for both the taxpayer and the consumer.

The review examined why these problems and delays occurred. It identified a number of cultural issues, which was very interesting. It noted that, within the NBN Co, there was a sort of group-think—a blind faith in the achievability of the corporate plan, notwithstanding clear factual evidence to the contrary. As the honourable member and NBN Co's current management have pointed out, the previous approach was not so much fibre-to-the-premises as fibre-to-the-press-release. They were seeking to pass as many premises with fibre as they could so they could say, 'We have passed X thousand premises'—and they missed all of those targets—without actually taking care to ensure that those premises could be connected. This led to the extraordinary consequence that, in some areas which were declared ready for service, only a very small percentage—in some cases, less than 10 per cent—were able to get a connection if they rung up because the rest did not have a lead-in and were either service class 0 or service class 1. It has been a catastrophic mess, and I will have the opportunity later to explain what we are doing to clean it up. (Time expired)

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is disappointing. Of all of the ministers in this government, the last I would have expected to have to hide behind backbenchers in an environment like this is Malcolm Turnbull. I am honestly so disappointed.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Blaxland, I would ask you to refer to the minister's correct title.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's see if the minister can answer this question without having to wait and think about the answer while we are receiving another diatribe from one of his backbenchers. Minister, you have previously said that you do not propose to pay Telstra anything for access to or ownership of their copper network. You have said:

I'm very confident that we can acquire access, ownership if you like, of the last mile copper for no additional payment.

Are you still confident that you will get the copper for no additional payment? Can you please give me an answer to that question.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I will do, to gratify the wishes of the courageous gentleman opposite, is answer all of his questions, which will mean that more time will be taken up with me on my feet and he will have less opportunity to ask questions—the usual self-defeating approach.

The answer to the question is as follows: the previous government, in entering into its arrangements with Telstra, and a similar deal with Optus, basically agreed to pay a gigantic sum—tens and tens of billions of dollars—over a long period to Telstra in return for switching off, decommissioning its copper network and its hybrid fibre coax network insofar as it was used for broadband data or voice, and similar arrangements with Optus. In entering into those arrangements, the previous government, in what can only be described as one of the most self-wounding, stupid political betrayals of the public interest, chose to take no option over the legacy infrastructure they were paying Telstra to switch over. If you were going to pay billions and billions of dollars to Telstra to switch off its copper, you would think that you would say, 'And by the way, I want to have the option to use some or all of it myself if I choose to do so'. That is what any rational businessperson would do. But they did not do that. Instead they ran this project politically; they turned fibre to the premises, which is just one access technology, into an ideological cult and they were determined to make it as hard as possible for any subsequent government to take a more rational approach.

Opposition members interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members to my left: you have asked a question; the minister is answering it.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am confident we can achieve the objectives described in the quote the honourable member for Blaxland gave, but we are in negotiations with Telstra about it. The negotiations are progressing well, but these things are only—you can only say they will be completed when they are over. That is the reality, but they are progressing well. All I can say is this: the culpable recklessness of the previous government in not taking an option over those legacy assets was extraordinary. It was a political decision, it was designed to hamper any future government in its flexibility, and it was a classic case, yet again, of politics—Labor Party politics in this case—putting the financial future of this country at risk. Yet another reckless, wasteful decision that was a completely unbusinesslike decision.

The simple truth is this: in every other jurisdiction of comparable countries, what telcos are doing, what carriers are doing, is upgrading their broadband networks—that is happening everywhere—and they are using a mix of technologies and they are using whatever is cost-effective. And new hybrid technologies are becoming more effective: vectored VDSL can now deliver 100 megs—who would have thought that five or six years ago? G.Fast is delivering a gig—who would have imagined that was possible over a hybrid network? All of these technologies are becoming available and they are all being deployed in a rational way. The crazy Labor government, which was thrown out of office last year, did its utmost to ensure that the NBN could not be completed in a rational way and we are hard at work to ensure that it is completed rationally, prudently and in the best interests both of the taxpayers and the consumers.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To appease the political chest beating of those members opposite, I will be very succinct in my questioning because I am very interested in the answer. Minister, as you know—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They might not be interested in this because this is a genuine policy question that affects my electorate. I know they want to beat their chests politically, but let's just listen to a genuine policy question.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Address your question through the chair.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, as you know I do have a semirural electorate, and mobile coverage has been a very significant issue in that electorate for a very long time; many people struggle with black spots around parts of my electorate. The government took to the last election a very significant policy to rectify mobile black spots across the country. Could you update us on where that is at. What community feedback have you been seeking? What engagement have you had with mobile network operators such as Telstra and Optus? In particular, could you give us some time lines on the rollout of potential funding and when we might know a bit more about what I think is a great policy.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the parliamentary secretary, the member for Bradfield, to respond to that as he has had the carriage of the Mobile Black Spot Program in our portfolio.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Longman for raising a very important topic. When the Abbott government came to power, we looked at the question of mobile coverage and we went back and looked at the previous government's budgets. We looked at the 2008-09 budget and found that not one dollar had been spent by the previous government on upgrading mobile coverage—nor in 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 or 2012-13. It was for those reasons that we took to the last election a policy to spend $100 million on upgrading mobile coverage in outer metropolitan, regional and remote areas.

The three mobile carriers—Telstra, Optus and Vodafone—obviously spend very substantial amounts of money each year on expanding their networks. That is as it should be; they are all private sector corporations and they are all in the business of providing mobile telecommunications services to make a profit. But, of course, Australia is a very large country and, while those carriers continue to put large amounts of money into expanding their networks every year, there are always going to be some areas where there is a case for providing mobile coverage but it is not likely that the particular location is going to meet the business case requirements of the carriers. So the intention of this policy is that, in what we estimate to be around 250 to 300 sites around the country, we are in a position to provide a public subsidy so as to reduce the breakeven point so that it does become economic for the mobile carriers to put in base stations and provide coverage.

The important thing is to make sure that, through our allocation process, we identify and direct the funding to the areas of greatest need so that we can get the maximum possible benefit for this $100 million of public money. The first thing to say is that we intend to allocate the money through a competitive selection process. The objective there is twofold. Firstly, quite explicitly, we have said we intend to put pressure on the mobile carriers. We expect to leverage, at least, an equivalent amount of money out of the mobile carriers. So we expect, at least, an additional $100 million to be secured through the competitive selection process. The second point is that we need to make sure that we are identifying the areas of greatest need around the country, and the best way to do that is through a competitive selection process. At the moment, we are seeking community feedback. To date, we have had a large number of locations nominated through the process—locations where there is not mobile coverage but Australians are saying their ought to be. Next, we will go to a competitive selection process, and that is intended to be carried out in the second half of this year. In the first half of next year, we expect to be in a position to announce the locations which will be successful in securing funding. We anticipate that the rollout of the first base stations to be funded under this program will commence in the second half of next year. Funding was provided in this budget for this $100 million program over the next four years. We expect that, by the second half of next year, we will be in a position to commence the rollout of the initial base stations to be funded.

It is very important to understand one of the key distinctions between the coalition's approach in this area and Labor's approach. Let us remember that Labor announced they were going to spend $43 billion on a massive program that was going to solve every communications problem. Did they bother to check with regional and rural Australians what their priorities were? Evidently, they did not. I can tell you that in the locations all around Australia that I have been to, consulting on this program, people consistently say to me, 'What we heard from the previous government was that there would be a marvellous NBN that would fix everything, but they had nothing to say about mobile coverage.' The previous government had nothing to say about mobile coverage, yet that is what regional and rural Australians are saying is their priority.

This government—this side of politics—has a proud record in regional and rural communications. People who reside outside the capital cities know who they can depend on to solve their communication needs.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in December 2013 the government broke the promise they made before the election that all Australians would have access to speeds of 26 megabits per second by 2016. Minister, how many homes and businesses will have access to 25 megabits per second by 2016? What is the minimum speed that the rest of Australia will be able to access?

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard earlier in the week about some NBN issues in my electorate when, in question time, I put a question to the minister. I remind the minister that back in 2010, in the lead-up to the election, there were promises made to the people of Swan that the roll-out of NBN in Victoria Park that would commence in June 2011. That actually took a fair time to come to fruition. They started the roll-out in October 2012. That was just another poor performance by the NBN in their process of rolling things out.

The minister can probably enlighten me on the processes for the selection of the NBN projects. Many people in the electorate at that time thought that it was a purely political allocation to Victoria Park, because there were plenty of areas that had more need. The candidate for the Labor Party at that time was obviously focusing on Victoria Park as that was the area where he thought he could get the most bang for his buck from the NBN. At that particular time, in the lead-up to the election, the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council had made a fantastic submission on behalf of the area of Belmont to the minister. The minister had come out and said that it was a fantastic submission and he thought it definitely merited looking at. But it never got a mention. All of a sudden the allocation of the NBN project roll-out went to Victoria Park. Victoria Park had not even put a submission in.

How does the process work? Belmont Park is an area where there is enormous need for improvement in broadband facilities—it has a fantastic industrial area, near the airport and near the road and rail freight hub—but the minister overlooked a fantastic submission by the EMRC and allocated the roll-out to an area from which no submission had been made. The minister at some stage might enlighten me on the process of the allocation of the NBN in Western Australia.

You have been to my electorate, Minister, and we went looking for the NBN in Victoria Park, and we struggled to find it. We saw plenty of signs that they had been there but it was a bit like the hunt for the elusive Scarlet Pimpernel. But there was plenty of action. Syntheo were saying they were doing things. I know there were plenty of subcontractors who were saying that they were not getting paid by Syntheo.

We also had the issue in Teague Street. Teague Street was dug up six times by the NBN contractor and enormous damage was done to property and areas within the town of Victoria Park. The Syntheo contractors left that. Can the minister advise us what steps you have taken in the process to ensure that these things do not happen again during the NBN process and that good people, like those in Teague Street in my electorate, do not have to suffer enormous damage by the contractors when the process was overseen by the previous government.

There was also an asbestos issue in the electorate, where a pit was dug up. There was some left on the ground. The people who came to clean up did not have the right protective gear. There was no oversight by the NBN, nor any concern for the safety of the workers who had to do that. There were no regulations in place. Syntheo took about 10 months to reply on that. So could the minister also advise what steps you have taken to make sure that the workers doing the NBN contract and other people are not subjected to those sorts of dangers again, such as dealing with asbestos? If the minister could enlighten me on those issues, that would be fantastic.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their questions. Dealing with the member for Greenway's question, the best forecast we have for premises with access to 25 megs by 2016 remains the strategic review, although that will of course be superseded in due course by the new corporate plan, which is in preparation. I refer the honourable member and anyone listening to this discussion to its forecast that, by 2016, 43 per cent of the fixed-line footprint—that is, 43 per cent of 93 per cent—will have access to 25 megabits per second.

There will obviously be other premises outside the NBN footprint which will have more than 25 megabits per second, although it is hard to identify what that percentage is, and it is expected that, if the fixed wireless build is substantially completed by that stage and of course if the satellites are deployed by that stage, people covered by that will have 25 megs. By 2019, the strategic review forecasts under scenario 6, the optimised multitechnology mix, that 91 per cent of premises in the fixed-line footprint would have 50 megs and, of that fixed-line footprint, by that time, 65 to 75 per cent of the fixed-line footprint would have 100 megabits per second.

Now, I should say that, in terms of access to speeds, the technologies are improving all the time. The ability to get higher and higher speeds out of a connection which consists, for the last few hundred metres, of copper, is getting better all the time. That is why Deutsche Telekom, for example, which had started off with a very ambitious substantial fibre-to-the-premises rollout, has stopped it and is now overwhelmingly concentrating on a VDSL deployment—because of the cost—

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will get your turn. You are not helping yourself and you are not helping any of these proceedings by being so disorderly.

Turning to my friend the member for Swan's question, the rollout of the NBN in Western Australia has been a disaster. At the time of the election, there were only a handful of premises connected. The work had basically stopped. The contracting consortium that had been engaged, Syntheo, had downed tools. It had been a failure. Getting that back on track has been very difficult. but it is underway. It is often said that you can have the best business plan in the world—and the NBN did not have the best business plan in the world—but, if you do not have the right people, it is never going to work. We do now have a much, much better executive team at NBN Co. The chief operating officer, Greg Adcock, is one of the most experienced telecom network engineers in the country—obviously, from Telstra—and Greg is getting all of this back in hand. So things are moving again in terms of the NBN in Western Australia, but it is challenging. I say to honourable members, and I think we all know this from experience, that it is much harder to get a project that has failed or that has been mismanaged back on track than it is to get a new project, from a greenfields start, on track.

So there is massive cultural change required at NBN Co, but I am very confident about the new management. The new CEO, Bill Morrow, is a man who has not only run telecom companies in many countries; he has been responsible for building a large telecom network. That is the type of experience you need in a project like this. It was always going to be very difficult to accomplish, but we now have a much better team than we did before and I am confident that we will get the project back on track.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a series of questions for the minister about ABC and SBS and I would ask if he might be able to answer them in the time that we have allotted. As the minister would be aware, the Prime Minister the night before the election said that there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS. My first question is: do you accept that this promise has been broken? My second question is: will the minister commit to publishing the entire ABC-SBS efficiency review? My next question is: did the minster recommend the reappointment of Joseph Skrzynski as chairman of SBS? On how many occasions did he recommend this? Did the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office have any input into the decision not to reappoint Mr Skrzynski? Finally, can the minister rule out the appointment of Sophie Mirabella as chair of the SBS board?

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to follow up on the member for Blaxland's questions and I would be interested in what the cuts mean to the total budget for the ABC and SBS. More importantly, I think, for many people out there, can we do anything to protect Peppa Pig?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can say Peppa Pig is quite safe. I know she has been criticised by some people but I am a great supporter of Peppa Pigand, as the very, very proud grandfather of an eight-month-old baby boy—my daughter's son—Lucy and I and all our family are looking forward to young Jack becoming a similar devotee of Peppa Pig.

In terms of the Lewis review, the answer to the honourable member's question is that I do not anticipate the review being published in full and I don't think the management or the boards of either company would want that to happen.

At the moment the review is being completed. It was a very constructive collaborative work with ABC and SBS management and, obviously, presided over by Peter Lewis. He had been the longstanding CFO of the Seven Network and had very current domain expertise in that area. It has been a very thorough work. It is the first of its kind that has been done for a very long time, and I think our department—and of course the Department of Finance—now understand more about the financial status and operations of ABC and SBS than they ever have. The review is now with the board and the management of the two public broadcasters, and we are looking forward to discussing how these recommendations can be implemented.

It is very important to note that there are substantial savings that can be achieved—that much is clear from the review—but entirely in what we would call back-of-house areas. This does not affect the resources available for programming. This is savings in terms of facilities, administration and so forth.

It is important to remember that running a public broadcaster is a very difficult business. Your top line, your revenue line, is not a function of your performance; it is simply a function of your ability to persuade the government of the day to give you some money. If you are running a commercial broadcaster and you cut your programming resources, you run the risk that that will drive your ratings down further and your revenues will go down further and it becomes a spiral. It is not unfamiliar or unprecedented.

The problem with a public broadcaster is that the easiest way to cut spending is to cut programming. It is by far the easiest way to do it. The consequence is that it is very important to ensure that we understand how savings can be made without impacting on programming or resources. I am not suggesting that the approach that we asked them to undertake is an easy one; it is a difficult one—

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

Order! Minister, resume your seat.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am conscious of time. I am conscious the minister only has 1½ minutes left. There are four questions still unanswered. I ask the minister: if he is unable to answer those questions now, will he take them on notice and provide me with an answer in writing?

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

I call the minister. Minister, I am also mindful that the time has expired for this appropriation.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asked about communications between myself and the Prime Minister. Naturally, I am not going to assist him with that. What was the other question you asked?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The other question I asked was: do you accept that cutting the ABC budget is a broken promise?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to accept any of your electoral claims. Thank you.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The last question, in the interests of completeness, is: can you rule out Sophie Mirabella being appointed to the SBS—

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

Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The question is that proposed expenditure for the communications portfolio be agreed to.

Question agreed to.