Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President Marshall, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair again.

I would like to indicate my support for this bill. And I do share the concerns of the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Milne, in relation to private members' time—it has been hard fought for. I think there are broader issues about question time as well. With a record number of crossbenchers, we need to have a fairer system in place so that crossbenchers can fairly participate in the debates in this chamber and the processes of this chamber, including question time and private members' time. I look forward to discussing that with my colleagues and with the whips of the major parties as well, so that we can head off some of the problems that are emerging.

In relation to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, I indicate my support for this bill. I will also be supporting the amendments proposed by both the Australian Greens and the opposition, in the sense that they are relatively similar and I believe either option will be an improvement to this bill. In particular, I want to express my support for the amendments proposing greater scrutiny of projects over a certain monetary threshold. I believe this is an important amendment and will help to ensure accountability and transparency. I also want to acknowledge the good work that the infrastructure assistant minister, the Hon. Jamie Briggs, has done. I think that what he has said about ensuring value for money on road projects is refreshing; I think that that is actually a good initiative on his part and, if he is successful, as I hope he will be, in improving the processes and the value-for-money criteria, then he will be doing this country a great service. But I also think that having greater accountability and transparency in respect of road funding is a good thing.

I will keep my remarks brief because time is of the essence when it comes to this bill. It has already been delayed, which is of significant concern to local councils, and further delays could jeopardise funding for vital projects, particularly in respect of Roads to Recovery. I acknowledge the many, many phone calls and text messages I have exchanged with Felicity-ann Lewis, the President of the Australian Local Government Association, from South Australia, who is doing a great job. I pay tribute to her persistence, to her interest and to her advocacy in respect of this issue on behalf of local government. I think all of my colleagues in this place are supportive of the Roads to Recovery program and want to see it extended, given that the previous funding ended in June and that some councils have begun new projects based on promises that the funding would continue. We must ensure this legislation passes as a matter of urgency. However, I do want to address a fundamental inequality in the way that funds are allocated.

South Australian local government currently manages 11 per cent, or 75,000 kilometres, of the nation's local road network and receives just 5.5 per cent of identified local roads grant funding, despite the fact that South Australia has about 7.2 per cent of the nation's population. As such, South Australia receives the lowest funding per capita of all states and territories, at just $23.23 per capita. South Australia also has the lowest funding spent per kilometre, with Queensland and Western Australia receiving almost twice as much. Victoria receives 2.25 times as much funding. New South Wales gets nearly three times as much. By contrast, Tasmania, which has about two per cent of Australia's population, receives $72.40 per capita, over five times the funding to South Australia.

To address this inequality, the supplementary local road fund was established; but, despite the continuation of the Roads to Recovery program, this supplementary account, which would have brought South Australia up to 7.9 per cent of the fund—an improvement but still not quite good enough—has not been included in the current budget, and that is fundamentally wrong. I urge the Hon. Jamie Briggs, the assistant minister for infrastructure, and the Hon. Christopher Pyne, the most senior South Australian in the cabinet, to fight for South Australia in the same way that Nick Minchin, Alexander Downer and Amanda Vanstone fought for South Australia when they were in the cabinet. I just hope that they have the same level of resolve when it comes to their home state of South Australia.

What this means is that South Australian councils will miss out on about $18 million for 2014-15, with some individual councils missing out on as much as $1 million each. So, while I support this bill, I call on the government to renew their commitment to infrastructure by reinstating the supplementary fund or at least by reallocating the existing funds on a more equitable basis. Improving Australia's roads needs a national approach, and funding should be fairly distributed across the country.

As I said, I support this bill. I look forward to debating the amendments in the committee stage but I want to make it clear that, whilst I support the opposition's and the Greens' amendments in terms of improving transparency and accountability, I do not want to see this bill ultimately delayed; I want to make sure that the funding for the Roads to Recovery program is flowing by next week. We cannot afford to have gridlock on a program that is obviously urgent, a program that both sides, both major parties, support. If we do not get the funding flowing by next week, then we are showing signs of that malaise, that gridlock, which has been so toxic in American politics. Let us not bring that to our shores.