Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the government spend nearly $17 million on taxpayer funded congestion-busting advertising in the lead-up to this year's election but not spend a single cent from the Urban Congestion Fund for the whole of the last financial year?

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members will cease interjecting or I'll start ejecting. It might be only Monday but my patience is wearing thin.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. Part of our $100 billion infrastructure pipeline is a $4 billion Urban Congestion Fund. This Urban Congestion Fund provides key money to support and bust the congestion at local pinch points in the suburbs in our large capital cities. We know it is not just the pace of the freeways which matters; it's also getting through those congested intersections to get on to the major arterials. We have targeted funding, 166 projects across our big capital cities, which we will be investing in. As the member for Ballarat knows, we announced these 166 projects in the lead-up to the federal election. The vast majority of the funding kicked off on 1 July of this particular year. We have begun work with the states and territories on every single one of those projects. In fact, as the member for Ballarat may not be aware, we've already announced with the South Australian government the time schedule associated with each of the projects in South Australia. We've already announced with the Brisbane City Council the time schedule and the delivery schedule for all of those projects—

Ms Catherine King interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ballarat is now warned. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

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

It goes to relevance. It was a very clear question about spending money on ads, not on roads—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member who is raising a point of order, as he well knows, should simply raise the point of order; it is not a time to repeat the question or to summarise it. The minister is in order.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We already have agreements with the South Australian government. We have agreements for some of the Queensland projects. My expectation is that we'll soon have agreements, in every single other jurisdiction where we have Urban Congestion Fund projects underway, which will outline when these projects will start and when they'll be completed. I must say that all of those discussions are going well. They're constructive, and the state governments share our desire to get these projects underway as quickly as possible. In fact, even last night, Jacinta Allan, the Victorian transport minister, was quoted on Channel Nine as saying, 'From our perspective, we're working as quickly as possible on these projects.' So, we share our desire to get these done, as does the transport minister of Victoria, as does the transport minister in Queensland, and as do other ministers right across the country. The first ones will begin early next year and then they'll be rolling out, busting congestion across the country. But, of course, these things do take time. You do a public consultation. There's a design process. There's a feasibility study. You have to go out and have competitive tenders. The member for Ballarat may not understand this, but we do. We want to get them done. We will follow due process. The member for Ballarat doesn't understand due process, either, when it comes to administering departments, as we know from last time.