Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to refer to document No. 14, relating to the Roads to Recovery program. Why wouldn’t I speak about this? Why wouldn’t every senator speak about this? If any senator has any relationship whatsoever with their local council, they will be in here applauding this program to the heights of this significant building. The flagpole here goes pretty high, but the applause should be higher than that.

Under the Roads to Recovery program, the total funding paid to councils—this is up to 30 June 2005—was $1,198,080,871. Of this, $248,080,871 was paid in the year 2004-05, to which this report refers. The Howard government has done a lot of marvellous things, but to many people in this country, particularly those associated with local governments and those who have the responsibility for dealing with local roads, this program would be one of the initiatives of the Howard government that will go down in history. I have to give credit to the Prime Minister on this program. I am pleased to say that I was around as the minister for regional services when this program was being implemented. I know that the Prime Minister personally took a very close interest in it, and I well and happily recall the days that he and I talked about this in cabinet. Mr Anderson was then the transport minister; obviously he was very keen on it as well. But the actual program and how it eventuated were a result of the work done by the Prime Minister, assisted by Mr Phil Connole, who was then my adviser in this area.

The reason why local governments like this program so much is that it provides money for local roads, ignoring the state government. In addition to this program, under the financial assistance grants provisions, money does go from the Commonwealth to local councils. In many parts of Queensland, those FAGs, as they are called, used to provide a principal part of the money spent by local councils on local roads. But it went through the state government under the arrangements in place—and, of course, state governments, particularly Labor state governments, are very skilful at creaming and shaving some bounty off the top of grants that go from the Commonwealth supposedly through state governments.

That arrangement has been in place for 20 years or more in relation to the financial assistance grants. But a new program came out and the Commonwealth decided that the moneys would go directly from the Commonwealth to local governments. That is why they love it so much. Local governments keep coming to us and saying, ‘Can you do that in other ways?’ Under our new schools program, local schools are saying the same thing. Investing in Our Schools is another program of the Howard government. Instead of money going through the state governments, as in the past, and the state governments shaving off bits from the top and adding on costs of something like 40 to 60 per cent, the funds in the Investing in Our Schools program go directly to the school involved from the Commonwealth government—although I am told that the Queensland government, with some very great skill, has still managed to shave a bit of money off those grants going to schools by insisting that they go through their project operations. Then they charge enormous amounts for architecture for buildings that in many cases are really something you would buy out of the shop, so to speak.

Anyhow, I digress. This program, Roads to Recovery, has done a magnificent amount of work for local councils. It has helped with roads that in the past have been unable to be attended to from the revenue base of councils. State governments have left local governments in the lurch so far as assisting councils with local roads is concerned. This Roads to Recovery program has been magnificent. (Time expired)

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks on the Roads to Recovery report later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.