Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

At 2.09 pm on 27 November 2000, I rose in this chamber to advise the Senate that the Howard government was putting an additional $1.6 billion into nation building towards our nation’s roads. That was the start of what has proved to be one of the most significant, one of the most useful and one of the most popular road funding programs in Australia, the Roads to Recovery program.

You might recall that the Labor Party at the time famously labelled the Roads to Recovery program as a ‘boondoggle’. They said it was a pork-barrelling exercise. For the next five, six or seven days Mr Beazley, the then leader of the Labor Party, and other members of the Labor Party—and I see from my research, noting that Senator Hutchins is in the chamber—like Senator Hutchins criticised the program, said it was a ‘boondoggle’ and really criticised the government for introducing this very popular program. Well, what a difference eight years makes because, today, the Labor Party are introducing a bill to continue what they called a ‘boondoggle’.

The coalition is delighted that the Labor Party have copied this policy of the coalition and have agreed to extend the Roads to Recovery program by another six years. This government will now continue funding under this program to 2014. This program has been one that has been most significant in improving local roads and road construction right round Australia.

You will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this program sends money from the federal government direct to local government, cutting out the middleman—the state governments—who always take a cut for ‘administration’ and always hold up the payments and include their own rules and bureaucracy, which to a great degree limit the benefit of money going to local government. Indeed, local government would dearly love the financial assistance grants to go direct from the federal government to local government rather than being diverted and skimmed off by the various state governments. This program, no matter where you go in Australia, receives universal commendation from local governments and from those who appreciate what is happening with local roads.

Many years ago state governments used to assist local authorities with money for local roads. But over the years, particularly when Labor governments have been in charge of the states, that funding from the state to local governments has whittled away to practically nothing, as it is today. This program has come along and given local governments, particularly those in country areas, a really significant boost in funding that allows them to do things.

I have to say, with some humility, this program was designed in the office of the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and in my office as at the time I was Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. It was a program that spread this $1.6 billion fairly across Australia to go to road funding. So big councils like the Brisbane City Council received money up to something like $26 million. But, importantly, for smaller councils out in the inland areas of Australia, councils that I know well like Boulia, Carpentaria and Diamantina shires, this road funding was an absolute lifeline to them in getting road funding done.

I have been concerned over the years, though, that the funding that was given by the Commonwealth to local authorities for local roads has in instances been diverted—with permission, I might say—from local roads to what are in fact, in my own state of Queensland, labelled as state roads. These are roads that, under arrangements made years ago, the states were supposed to be funding. You would recall in the original stage—and I appreciate this has changed in recent times—there was an arrangement where the federal government would look after the national highways, state governments would look after state roads and local governments would look after local roads. This program commenced putting the money into local roads.

But there are instances, and I mention the Diamantina shire based in Birdsville and Bedourie in south-western Queensland, where they have used their money to build the road from Birdsville to Bedourie and from Bedourie to Boulia. Why have they spent that on a state road that is the responsibility of the Queensland government? They have done that because the Queensland government simply will not put funds into those roads for which the Queensland government has responsibility. I am generally concerned about it but this program was all about doing with the money what local communities want to do—local communities represented by their local authority. In Diamantina, what the people wanted more than an anything was a decent connecting road between Birdsville and Bedourie. So they spent this money on that and they did it with the then government’s approval.

It does show how the states have abrogated their responsibilities when it comes to state roads. This happens in a lot of the areas across western and north-western Queensland and it is a pity. I would urge the state governments to accept some of their responsibility and help these small local communities with road funding not only for local roads but also, more importantly perhaps, for roads that are for what used to be termed under the old language, state roads.

I congratulate the current government for changing its mind. I remember Senator O’Brien, on 6 December 2000, talking about this program and saying:

It could be the RTR Program, or some people might ungenerously call it the ‘rorter’ program just to spin that out, or it could be the road wreck program.

This was the Labor Party’s approach to this bill back in 2000. They used to complain that it was a pork-barrelling exercise by the then coalition government. Much as I tried to point out very seriously that the funding went across the board, I could never quite get that through to the Labor Party in those days. I did point out to them at the time that the electorate of Capricornia, which was then and still is held by the Labor Party, got $22 million out of this program but that Hinkler, held by the National Party, only got $10 million—though that is still a pretty good figure—and Herbert, based around Townsville a bit further north, got $5 million, which was a great boost to funding there. But the Labor Party still used to say, ‘This is a program that will help coalition electorates.’ Of course, it went to councils in accordance with the Local Government Grants Commission formula of funding, which had been in place for some time. But you could not get that through to the Labor Party.

I pointed out to them at the time that large amounts of this money did not go to coalition-friendly councils, although they all got their fair share, but that it went to councils like the Brisbane City Council, the Townsville City Council and the Rockhampton City Council, which were all then Labor councils. I am pleased to say that all three councils are now no longer held by Labor, and Brisbane, for example, is well administered by the Liberal Party in that state. But you could not get it through to the Labor Party at that time. We had speech after speech about boondoggles—in fact, I would say Mr Beazley brought a new word into the lexicon. He did not really; it was always there in the dictionary if you delved down. But the rest of us mere mortals had never heard of it, and Mr Beazley, with his penchant for that sort of thing, brought a new word into common usage—’boondoggle’—and this was the ‘boondoggle bill’. Nowadays, of course, it is no longer a boondoggle and the Labor Party have discovered that it is a pretty good program. They are not quick learners, the Labor Party, but they do eventually get the message and have approved of and continued the program. I am grateful to them for doing that. I can say to the Labor Party government, without fear of overstating my understanding, that every council in Australia will today applaud the passage of this bill insofar as it relates to Roads to Recovery. Long may it continue.

I am pleased the Labor government have also resisted the call from their mates in the state governments for this funding to pass through the states and have continued it federally, which is one of the greatest strengths of the program. This program was introduced, as I say, by the coalition in 2000. In 2003, after a review, the government announced a further $1.2 billion would be provided up to 2009 and it became a component of the AusLink program. It was supplemented in the 2005-06 budget with a further $307.5 million to provide an extra boost for council road programs. It is very simple to administer and it goes directly to local government.

Insofar as this bill is concerned, that is the good news. We on this side will be supporting it and we certainly applaud the continuation of that program. But I just sound a word of warning. The heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, the government’s policy, is outlined in the minister’s second reading speech. It seems to me—and I want to alert the Senate to this—that the policy announced by the Labor minister is apparently one of blackmail. The minister states that funding for the safety package:

… is contingent on the passage of the enabling legislation for the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination …

This legislation will authorise an increase in the heavy vehicle registration fees announced by the minister at the same time he trumpeted this safety package.

You will recall that we rejected these increased charges in this place earlier this year. We did that because we understand that the heavy freight sector is doing it tough, with very high interest rates under the Labor government and fuel prices rising in spite of the fact that they promised before the election they would bring fuel prices down.