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

I indicate right at the outset that the coalition will be supporting the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. The bill builds upon one of the best infrastructure programs ever instituted in this country—that is, the AusLink proposals set up by the Howard government prior to the change of government a couple of years ago. The AusLink program is a program that for the first time had a targeted direction for infrastructure spending within our country. However, this bill is principally about spin. I indicate that the coalition will be moving a second reading amendment to highlight that this bill is just another part of the Rudd government’s propensity for spin rather than substance.

There was some consideration given by the coalition to amendments of a couple of items, but we thought on balance it is probably better to let the bill pass through. I am told that, in addition to the second reading amendment which I will be moving and which has been circulated, the Greens and Senator Ludlam in the committee stage will be moving a substantive amendment, which we have not yet seen. We will be anxiously awaiting that Greens amendment so that we can determine whether or not we will be supporting it. I understand from Senator Ludlam—and he will no doubt elaborate on this—that it is about some form of accountability, and we would like to scrutinise it.

I am also minded to support this bill for the reason that the Australian Local Government Association, for whom I have a very high regard, have urged us to ensure the legislation is passed. They indicate that any delay could possibly impact upon payment of Roads to Recovery funding to councils. As I say, because I hold that organisation in very high regard their urgings have a certain influence in them. I just wonder, though, if the Australian Local Government Association, and particularly their rural and regional members, are aware that elements of this bill take money from rural and regional Australia and put it into the more favoured, more highly populated and therefore higher-voting-strength capital city areas of our country. It is yet another indication that the Rudd government is more interested in the votes that it achieves from the more populous areas than in looking after Australia fairly and making sure that those parts of the country which produce the majority of the wealth of the country get some return from the government, in this instance in the form of infrastructure spending.

We come to these debates knowing that the Rudd government have a propensity for debt, a love affair with debt. They have turned a budget surplus of some $20 billion left to them by the Howard-Costello government into an astounding $58 billion deficit in 18 short months—just incredible. We know that, after the coalition paying off the debt of the last Labor government, of some $96 billion, we are now—again, within 18 short months—looking down the barrel of a debt of over $300 billion which some future coalition government will have to pay off. It is fine borrowing money and giving away bribes, one might almost say, of $900 to voters around the country, but somewhere along the line someone has to repay that debt, and the cost will be enormous. Two-thirds of that debt is due to reckless spending decisions by the Rudd government over the last 18 months.

The government are not only well known for their economic incompetence; they are also addicted to spin. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation is another example. The key element of this bill is a name change, would you believe it? It is changing the name of that wonderful coalition program AusLink to a new name: the Nation Building Program. It is remarkable that the government consider using the resources of the public purse, the time needed to draft legislation and the priority given in parliament—we have just heard some pious words about how urgent these things are—to pursue what is effectively a spin issue, a change of a name. A popular and very useful coalition program is to be taken over by the Labor Party by their giving it a new name.

The Labor Party obviously think so much of the coalition’s AusLink program that they want to take it over as their own. It is all about removing from the public record an unwelcome association with a great nation-building program established and run by the previous government. Of course, the Labor Party government have been fiddling around with the AusLink term for some time. After managing to say, during the election campaign, that AusLink was a good program, they then decided they had to change it. They first of all called it the Building Australia program, but the spin doctors, the hollowmen, of the Labor Party decided that that was not good enough, and so on 5 February 2009, in a major COAG communique announcement, they decided to change the name of AusLink to the Nation Building Program. The legislation we are dealing with today is all about putting that into effect.

In Australia during the coalition government, infrastructure spending actually boomed. According to Engineering construction activity, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in constant 2007 dollar terms infrastructure spending increased from $21 billion in the term of the last Labor government, in 1996, to over $56 billion by the end of 2007. If you put that another way, infrastructure spending in Australia rose from just under three per cent of GDP in 1996 to nearly 5½ per cent of GDP in 2007. So much for Labor claims that infrastructure spending declined under the coalition government.

In fact, it is interesting that a table produced by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in its 2009 portfolio budget statement clearly shows that land transport funding for 2008-09 was some $6,436 million. That was, of course, the money that came through from the coalition government. But, in the year 2009-10, according to this document of the department, the spend on land transport will be $4.427 billion—some $2 billion less than what was provided for by the coalition government. So it all makes interesting reading. But, whilst Labor tries to claim the credit for this AusLink program, it is clear that this is a program established by the coalition which the Labor government has taken over. The new funding in this program over the years of the coalition government was shared fairly between the more populous parts of the country and through regional Australia. Labor has put some different spending into this bill—and that is from the Building Australia Fund and is money that was set aside by the previous coalition government budget surplus. The additional funding in the budget statement is, therefore, made possible because of the coalition’s responsible economic management and the fact that we had set money aside in funds for the future.

I will not speak at length about individual issues, suffice it to say that a lot of the Labor Party so-called initiatives are just playing catch-up on the coalition. The F3 to Branxton Hunter Expressway is simply meeting the coalition’s commitment but some 18 months after the coalition made it. The pledge by the Labor Party to provide $488 million for duplication as part of the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway on top of last year’s $200 million is only a belated matching of the $700 million which the coalition set aside for the project. I could go through and make similar comments about a number of programs: the Strathfield to Gosford rail freight track or the Western Highway from Bacchus Marsh to the South Australian border. A lot of the projects which Labor are now funding are, of course, state responsibilities, an acknowledgement from federal Labor that its state Labor colleagues are simply not coping and are incapable of managing money in the state area. Of course, it will not be too long before we are clearly seeing that the federal Labor government is simply incapable of managing money either.

This legislation confirms, however, a far more disturbing feature: that this Rudd government is against regional Australia. We already know that most of the new projects funded from the $8.4 billion former government surplus will now be spent on urban projects. This is simply another example of Labor’s urban focus. Senators may recall that the Strategic Regional Program was designed to assist regional local governments to build better transport networks to support industry, tourism and economic development in regional Australia. The purpose of the Strategic Regional Program was to foster partnerships between the federal government and regional Australia by providing funding to worthwhile infrastructure related projects in areas off the national land transport network. The $469 million that went to fund projects under the Strategic Regional Program between 2004 and 2007 went to many useful initiatives, including replacing ageing local bridges, road sealing, intersection upgrades, realignments, widening of roads, terminal improvements, traffic light installation, flood proofing and causeway construction. These are the sorts of projects that occurred under the Strategic Regional Program right across Australia. This could well now be changed, since the Labor Party wants to amend section 55 of the act to remove all references to ‘regional’ and simply rename the Strategic Regional Program a ‘Nation Building Program off-network project’. In other words, the key characteristics of the Strategic Regional Program will cease and funds for this program may now well go to urban Australia, and you can be assured that most of them will.

I wonder whether this amendment is a device to enable the government to raid the strategic regional allocation to fund its election promises that are principally focused on urban Australia. It is amazing that most of the funding that has been set out in announcements so far by the Labor government have curiously gone to seats held by the Australian Labor Party. What an amazing thing, that 81 per cent of all funds allocated go to Labor Party held electorates! We used to hear the screams from the other side in days gone by, when there was a fairer distribution of the money, but I would be interested to see what the Labor Party say about the 81 per cent of funds which go to Labor Party electorates. I am running out of time, unfortunately. I did want to mention the Black Spot Program, which could now again be an area where money does not go to rural and regional roads but is shovelled into the cities, which to all intents and purposes are more favoured in the amenities they enjoy than rural and regional Australia. I have circulated that we will be moving a second reading amendment—not wanting to hold up the bill but wanting to indicate to the Labor Party, and we hope that the crossbenches and the Greens will support this—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, you may formally move that amendment now or just before you finish, if you like.

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

I will do it just before I finish, Madam Acting Deputy President.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there not a further amendment to this motion?

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

Not that I am aware of.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You might check that.

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

From us or the Greens?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is yours.

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

You are ahead of me, Senator Carr, if you are right. I did mention earlier that the Greens are talking about an amendment at the committee stage. My second reading amendment calls upon the minister, when approving a Nation Building Program off-network project, to consider the extent to which it benefits regional Australia. We are very concerned that funds will be going from the regions to the cities, which, as I mentioned, are already better supported by all levels of government. Our second reading amendment calls upon the Senate to make sure that, when making decisions, the minister does take into account their benefits to regional Australia. The second item in our second reading amendment calls upon the government to ensure that black spot funding continues to apply to roads that are not included in the National Land Transport Network. This again highlights the issue in this bill, which is that a lot of its focus has gone from rural and regional Australia to the more favoured city areas of our nation.

The amendment we are proposing is fairly simple: to preserve the regional focus of what was known as the Strategic Regional Program and, if not, to at least make the government aware of this focus and that the Senate requires the government to consider it. We simply want the government to be focused on black spot funding for local roads and streets, and the second reading amendment will, if it should be passed by the Senate, indicate to the government that the Senate has a view that these issues should be taken into account in the allocation of moneys.

It is unfortunate that the opposition has to move this amendment. I hope the crossbenches and the Greens will see that, as a second reading amendment, it does have an influence on the government, without holding up the passage of the bill, and it does ensure that issues concerning regional and rural Australia are taken into account in the allocation of moneys under this program—the coalition’s AusLink program, which is, by this bill, being renamed the Nation Building Program.

In conclusion, on behalf of the coalition, I formally move the second reading amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate:

        (a)    calls on the Minister when approving a Nation Building Program Off-Network project to consider the extent to which the project benefits regional Australia; and

        (b)    calls on the Government to ensure that black spot funding continue to apply to roads that are not included in the National Land Transport network.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak fairly briefly on the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. The bill before us today is one that the Australian Greens will be supporting for many of the reasons that Senator Macdonald has outlined. The amendments, by and large, are sensible. They are tying up a number of administrative loose ends and rolling the funding, formerly known as AusLink funding, into the government’s Nation Building Program. The Australian Greens will be supporting these amendments. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government said in his second reading speech:

This bill is central to the effective delivery of the government’s road and rail infrastructure investment through the Nation Building Program—a program currently worth more than $26 billion.

The emphasis is on ‘currently worth’ because obviously this funding commitment will need to be ongoing. As the financial crisis unfolds around us, presumably the government will be looking to future infrastructure spending.

There is an enormous amount of funding on the table and, in the context of the announcements that we received on budget night, last month, this is the first Commonwealth funding for public transport in probably 15 years. It is the first time in quite a while—since the Better Cities Program was closed down in 1996—that we are seeing the Commonwealth getting back into urban public transport, including urban rail. Some of those announcements are quite welcome. I suspect that there is a bit more to them than meets the eye, but at least we have more than in-principle support from the Commonwealth that it is not just in the business of roads. Thank goodness there are now some substantive investments in urban public transport. The most significant of these investments is the Gold Coast light rail project and, from a funding point of view, it is the rail project to the west of Melbourne. These investments are very welcome.

At the same time that we are seeing funding shift in a tentative way—but in a way that I hope signals a greater shift in the future—into public transport, we are also seeing the first robust and substantive scrutiny of large-scale infrastructure spending through Infrastructure Australia. It is not a perfect process, but one thing which is welcome is that at least Infrastructure Australia’s short list and the minister’s funding announcements were made public. We are now in a position to see how different the minister’s and the government’s final spending decisions were from what the expert panel identified. It is obviously a process that has still got quite a way to go, but at least we are seeing the beginning of some public accountability in the way that very large tranches of funding will be spent on critical infrastructure.

At this point, I say to Senator Macdonald that the Australian Greens will be supporting the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. In the event that we come to a vote, I think the amendment is entirely sensible; it is basically a safeguard to the fact that we will have to take it on face value that the government does not propose that its bill will be a way of draining road funding out of regional areas where road transport funding can often be a matter of life and death, particularly where the Black Spot Program is concerned. We think the amendment is sensible and we will be supporting it.

I want to speak briefly to the amendment that I will be moving in the committee stage, which I should foreshadow with an apology for the late circulation. I know members of the opposition are still giving that amendment some consideration. I will also foreshadow for the minister’s benefit a question I will be asking in the committee stage before I move that amendment, which is: exactly who in the Commonwealth government is the lead minister on oil depletion, fossil fuel depletion and oil price shocks? Who is the minister? What is the lead agency? My understanding is that it is in fact Minister Martin Ferguson, but I guess what we are looking for is some statement on exactly how the Commonwealth government is dealing with fossil fuel depletion issues.

There are a range of estimates. These things were canvassed in quite a degree of detail by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in years past before my time here. It is a matter that is under active consideration in the public transport inquiry which I initiated late last year. But what I would like to know who the lead agency is and what that agency is up to, because these matters have probably received quite a degree less scrutiny and discussion in the parliament and in the community than the issue of climate change. We are going to spend probably the balance of our time in here in this session debating climate change and I am not sure that there is going to be a great deal of focus on the other pincer of fossil fuel prices that is enveloping industrial societies—and that is peak oil and fossil fuel depletion.

This is not an issue that will be coming 30 years down the track and that governments in four or five elections time will be needing to come to grips with. This is actually something that may well be upon us now. So what I am seeking is information, as detailed as the minister is able to come up with, when we get to the committee stage as to exactly whether or not the Commonwealth government is asleep at the wheel. That might sound like strong language, but I have been finding it very difficult in estimates committee hearings, in questions on notice and in my other work in here and in the community to establish whether or not this country is essentially sleepwalking into peak oil and, if there is another oil shock on a scale of the taste that we received 18 months or so ago before the economy dragged world oil prices back down, exactly what the contingency plans are.

The amendment effectively goes to this in a way that I hope the government and the opposition parties in here will agree is sensitive to the intent of this bill. A lot of the funding that has been disbursed under the act that this bill is amending is around black spots and death traps on the nation’s road network, small-scale maintenance works and road funding that is administered by local government. You will see from the context of this amendment that we are not seeking to interfere with that important work. That is why there are some thresholds there for the amounts of money at which the Greens amendments would come into effect. At the moment we have a situation in which the minister in deciding whether or not to disburse funding under the program formerly known as AusLink may give regard to part 3, section 11 of the act, entitled ‘AusLink national projects’, where it says:

Is it appropriate to approve a project?

There are a number of criteria there which the minister may, if he or she chooses to on any given day, have regard to. But nowhere is there anything at all relating to sensitivity to future energy prices, which would capture carbon price in the medium term, depending on the outcomes of the CPRS later this week or whatever may happen down the track. But perhaps just as importantly, when, not if, Australia is hit by significant rises in the price of oil and gas, we will not be insulated from these shocks because we are now part of world markets.

I suppose the most substantive amendment which I am going to put to the chamber in the committee stage is that the minister must do no more than have regard to sensitivity to future energy price rises of any given development of a value greater than $50 million, which I hope you will agree—and I am happy to have a debate on the threshold amount of money—will not interfere with the sort of urgent work around the nation’s road network on black spots and so on. That is effectively what that amendment does. It does not tie the hands of the minister or put him in any kind of legislative handcuffs. It asks, ‘Have you considered traffic projections? Have you considered whether this piece of infrastructure is going to be obsolete in 20, 10 or two years time, depending on your choice of projections, when oil goes to $200 or $500 a barrel?’ I do not think at this stage—and I would be delighted to be proven wrong—there is any form of assessment at any level in the Commonwealth government that really pays great regard to this. We still have ABARE saying, ‘If the price of eggs is high enough then roosters will lay.’ I suggest that is just as bizarre a comment geologically as it is biologically. I trust the geologists when they talk about future oil stocks rather than the economists. That is what the first substantive amendment here is for.

The second amendment is almost self-evident—that projects with a significantly higher threshold of spending of $200 million or more be brought forward as a disallowable instrument so that parliament can take a look and make sure, as the final act of scrutiny in a long process, this is a worthwhile investment in nation building. These amendments are not intended to be retrospective. As I say, they are not to interfere with the works which I understand the parent act of this bill largely exists to regulate.

Just briefly in closing I would like to acknowledge the constructive way in which the minister and his staff have approached negotiations—albeit very hasty ones, as we were anticipating that this would come on tomorrow. But, nonetheless, I just want to put on the record that I appreciate the way in which the government has approached this discussion so far. I look forward to other contributions and I will speak again briefly to this amendment when we get to the committee stage.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in favour of the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. This legislation forms a key part of the Australian government’s nation-building agenda. It will help ensure that the massive infrastructure investment that the Australian government has undertaken is within the framework of nation building, something which Labor governments do best. The Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 improves upon the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 by integrating the legislation with the government’s bold nation-building agenda.

The National Land Transport Network is one of the foundations of Australia’s future wealth and prosperity. It consists of the major road and rail corridors that link Australia’s cities, ports and airports and is one of the foundations of Australia’s successful economy. The Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 removes references to AusLink and forms an essential part of the government’s effort to stimulate the economy and to keep Australia’s economy going until the worst of the global financial crisis is over. This bill changes the name of the act to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009, a move that has been criticised by those opposite as being merely symbolic; but this could not be further from the truth. This bill is essential for the effective delivery of Labor’s $26.4 billion road and rail infrastructure program. The bill also modifies the act to allow funding for black spot projects which are on the National Land Transport Network. It seems nonsensical to stop the Black Spot Program from fixing dangerous roads just because they happen to be on the National Land Transport Network. Thankfully this bill will give greater freedom for the government to repair hazardous sections of road.

This amendment also provides for 292 boom-gate crossings at dangerous rail intersections throughout Australia. I note that the South Australian government has recently begun advertising through its road safety campaign about the need for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists to take more caution when they are near rail intersections. The additional boom-gate crossings will improve the safety of these intersections and will no doubt save lives. A major part of the Nation Building Program is the Roads to Recovery program, which has been extended from 2009 to 2014. Local councils have been allocated $1.75 billion to identify and repair sections of road that require maintenance. The local government authorities are allowed to spend the funds on road projects that they have identified as being the most important in their community. Each state receives a fixed share of the grant and the funding is then distributed between councils according to a formula based on population and road length to ensure that the allocation of funds is fair and equitable.

Another important component of the Nation Building Program is funding for heavy vehicle rest areas and upgrades to truck parking bays. Driver fatigue can sometimes have fatal consequences, and I am pleased that the Australian federal government is providing funding of $4.5 million over the 2008-09 and 2009-10 financial years to help improve facilities for truck drivers in South Australia—who are ably represented, I might add, by that great trade union official Mr Alex Gallacher. I am also proud that the $1.7 billion is being invested in road and rail projects in my home state of South Australia. Several major projects are being funded by the Australian federal government, which will significantly improve the long-term efficiency of the South Australian economy. These projects include: the Northern Expressway and the Port Wakefield Road upgrades; the South Road upgrade, which is long overdue; the Dukes Highway upgrade; work on the Victor Harbour, Main South Road and Seaford Road junction; work on the Main North Road between Gawler and Tarlee, which leads into the beautiful Clare Valley; the Mount Gambier northern bypass; work on the Crystal Brook and Redhill roads; and work on Montague Road.

The Northern Expressway is a critical road project for South Australia’s mid-north and Riverland communities, and for people who commute between Gawler and Port Adelaide. I know that the federal member for Wakefield, Mr Nick Champion, has been a tireless advocate of this project, and he deserves credit for his hard work in promoting the Northern Expressway. Once the Northern Expressway is linked with the Port River Expressway there will be savings in travel time, it is predicted, of 20 minutes between the Sturt Highway at Gawler and Port Adelaide, which is South Australia’s main shipping port. The Northern Expressway will therefore reduce driving time and improve the efficiency of the South Australian economy, the best-performing economy in the country at the moment. It is well worth the $451 million investment by the federal government. It will also remove many trucks from Main North Road, which will not only reduce the wear and tear on one of South Australia’s most heavily used roads but also make it faster and safer for motorists to use.

Then of course there is the Sturt Highway duplication works between Gawler and Argent Road. The Australian federal government has funded the entirety of this $21.7 million project. It will service one of South Australia’s biggest horticultural regions. The Barossa is a world-famous winemaking region and this investment will no doubt make it even better. The federal government is also funding a massive investment in South Road—$500 million has been allocated to upgrades of South Road. South Australia’s strategic plan calls for the transformation of South Road into a continuous non-stop route extending all the way from the Southern Expressway to the Port River Expressway that I talked about earlier. Anyone who has travelled along South Road during peak hour, as I did last week, understands how congested this road can become. I know that reducing some of the bottlenecks along this stretch of road will help alleviate some of the congestion that delays motorists in getting to work and going home to spend time with their families.

As the only continuous stretch of road that links the south of Adelaide to the north, South Road is incredibly strategically important to South Australia. It runs past the CBD and the Adelaide airport and is a major connector between Adelaide’s industrial and agricultural base and the rest of Adelaide. The first stage of realising the dream of making commuting along South Road as continuous as possible is nearly complete. The Anzac Highway and South Road intersection upgrade is expected to be completed by the end of the year. This will relieve congestion on what was one of South Road’s worst bottlenecks. It is a massive undertaking by the federal and the South Australian governments to make South Road a continuous non-stop arterial corridor running through the heart of Adelaide. The 22 kilometres of road between the South Expressway and the Port River Expressway cuts through many Adelaide suburbs whose population density can only be expected to increase over the coming years. That is why $70 million has been allocated over the life of the project to undertake a comprehensive study and develop a plan to ensure that these upgrades are done as efficiently and effectively as possible over the longer term.

Then of course there is $80 million for one of South Australia’s longest roads, the Dukes Highway, which is already under construction. The Dukes Highway connects South Australia to Victoria. It stretches from Tailem Bend and extends all the way to Bordertown. The Australian government fast-tracked the extension of four overtaking lanes along the Dukes Highway just before the budget and the extensions are expected to be completed by the end of the year. The South Australian government are also doing their part and have committed to spend an additional $20 million to develop roads along the Adelaide to Melbourne corridor. Both the state and federal governments are working with the Barossa Council, the District Council of Loxton Waikerie, the Mid Murray Council, the City of Murray Bridge and the Coorong District Council to bring this project to fruition.

In addition to these infrastructure projects from the Nation Building Program, South Australia also received significant funding for rail and O-Bahn track improvements in the recent federal budget. The Australian government is providing $294 million in funding to upgrade the Adelaide-Gawler rail line. Again down south we see the Australian government providing $291 million to extend the Noarlunga rail line to Seaford, a fast-growing part of South Australia. I know that the member for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth, has been talking to her constituents about the issue for some time and it has been an incredibly important issue for the residents in the south of Adelaide.

Then of course there is the $61 million to extend the O-Bahn track to the heart of Adelaide. The O-Bahn is iconic in South Australia and is one of the few places in the world other than Germany where buses can both run on specially designed tracks and drive normally on the road. Buses currently exit the O-Bahn in Kent Town and have to cut through the worst of Adelaide’s peak-hour traffic to get into the city. By having a special laneway for buses to get into the city, the commuters who use the O-Bahn will be able to get into the city and back home again much faster than they do now.

I wanted to mention the rail and the O-Bahn upgrades that South Australia is getting from the Australian government because it underscores an important philosophical difference between the Labor Party’s and the Liberal Party’s approach to government. Labor believes in nation building and making the investments necessary for ensuring Australia’s wealth and prosperity into the future. Labor inherited an infrastructure black hole when it came to government at the last election. Despite having enjoyed record windfall revenues from the mining and commodities boom, the Howard government chose not to invest in Australia’s infrastructure.

I believe that the problem that the Liberal Party has is that they have been addicted to a free market, laissez faire ideology that leads them to believe that if you simply sit back the market will deliver what Australians want—that Adam Smith’s invisible hand will build the roads, the rail networks, the universities and the hospitals for them. However, it became apparent to the Australian public after a decade of the Howard government that the laissez faire ideology was just an excuse for inaction—not just an excuse but an ideological imperative for the Liberal Party to do nothing.

Australians expect their elected representatives to lead, and to show leadership you need to have a vision for where you want to take this country. At the end of the day the Howard government failed to develop a strategy to prepare Australia for the future. If we take broadband, for example, you did not have to be an IT expert to know that the internet is the future of business and commerce in Australia. But what did the Liberal Party do to prepare Australia for this new digital age? They did absolutely nothing. Senator Conroy, who is here in the chamber, is the man who is delivering broadband on behalf of the Australian people. He is doing it. Labor made broadband a key election issue at the last election and has now developed a $43 billion plan over eight years to develop our national broadband network.

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

Stephen, you won’t even be alive!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we will all be alive—even you will be alive, Senator Macdonald! You will be alive to see it. You will be alive to see the great achievements of the Labor government. This will be one of them. They talked about the railways a century and a half ago and now they are going to talk about Stephen Conroy’s broadband plan. That is what we are talking about here. And he is the one man who can do it. He will even get it down to Yankalilla.

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

He wouldn’t know where Yankalilla is!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He knows exactly where Yankalilla is because I have spoken to him about Yankalilla. He is a very big fan of Yankalilla. He knows exactly where Yankalilla is and he is going to be the man to deliver broadband right down there, just like he is for the rest of the country.

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

What—did you give him a GPS?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He doesn’t need a GPS; he has got his iPhone—he is using it as we speak.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, you have the call.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President; I appreciate your protection. The differences between Labor and Liberal on broadband illustrate the differences between Labor and Liberal on the need to invest in the infrastructure to guarantee Australia’s future. The Liberal Party wanted to sit back and let the market sort it out, but major infrastructure projects do not come about without government investment and, most importantly, without leadership. It is this do-nothing approach that has seen the Liberal Party oppose the Australian government’s economic stimulus package and the nation-building agenda at nearly every turn.

In conclusion, the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009 should be supported in the Senate. It is key legislation for the effective implementation of the Australian government’s $26.4 billion investment in rail and road infrastructure. As a South Australian senator, I am particularly pleased about the range of projects that are being funded in my home state. I have mentioned them; they are both in the north and in the south, and I am very pleased that those developments have all been made in my state.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to thank all senators but particularly Senator Farrell for that inspired contribution to the debate on the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Carr, when he was in the chair, was mumbling something about an amendment. We have not seen it. Furthermore, because the minister is closing the debate, we are not even going to be able to have a comment on whether it is sensible or non-sensible. I suspect it will be the latter, nonsensical as well as non-sensible. It would seem appropriate that, if the minister is to move an amendment to a second reading speech, we should have notice of it; and, secondly, we should also have an opportunity to comment on whether or not we intend to support it.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I am sure you will deal with that matter forthwith.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not closing the debate, Senator Macdonald, I am just going to advise you of that suggested amendment to your amendment.

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

I thought that when you spoke you actually did close the debate.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not if I indicate that I am not closing the debate.

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

Is that the rule?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so advised, Senator Macdonald. We all live and learn as we move around this chamber. This bill is central to the effective delivery of the government’s Nation Building Program, a road and rail infrastructure program worth more than $26 billion. This program will deliver jobs and critical infrastructure across the nation. The amendments to the act proposed in this bill put in place the appropriate provisions to ensure the effective delivery of a suite of initiatives now funded under the program. The bill proposes changes to ensure the effective provisions for major road and rail infrastructure projects on the national transport land network as well as for projects off the network and the effective provisions for the Roads to Recovery Program and the black spots program.

Over the last 18 months we have seen the transition from the old AusLink program to the implementation of the government’s Nation Building Program. As AusLink no longer exists, this bill updates the land transport program references in the act so that they now refer to the Nation Building Program. It is crucial for the government to make these changes now to ensure that we can deliver our road and rail infrastructure program in the most efficient way. This is a program that will deliver jobs and critical infrastructure around the nation. We want to get on with the job of delivering the road and rail projects this nation needs after 12 long years of inaction by the coalition government.

I indicate to the chamber that we intend to move a government amendment to Senator Macdonald’s second reading amendment. I move:

In paragraph (a), omit ‘regional Australia’ and substitute the words ‘the national interest’.

There is another item I would like to address where there has been serial misquoting. I am prepared to be generous to Senator Macdonald and Senator Williams in that there was an error that they have perhaps drawn from, but I just wanted to correct the record. I want to turn to the Bills Digest for a moment. I wish to draw to the chamber’s attention a couple of errors that were contained in the Bills Digest and this might be instructive to the debate we have today.

Firstly, the land transport funding table 2 in the Bills Digest omitted the funding initiatives for both the 2008-09 and 2009-10 financial years. Therefore, it inaccurately represented the funding totals for both of those financial years. For 2008-09 the digest stated that the total was about $6.4 billion when it should have read about $6.8 billion and for 2009-10 the digest stated that the total was $4.4 billion when it should have read $6.4 billion. This correction would clearly negate the comment in the digest that land transport infrastructure funding in 2009-10 was about $2 billion lower than 2008-09, because it is clearly not the case, given the errors in the table.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some brief comments in relation to Senator Farrell’s reference to the National Broadband Network. We were told clearly before the election that this super-duper broadband network would cover 98 per cent of Australia—98 per cent of Australians would be covered by fast broadband. Now it has been reduced to 90 per cent. What happened to the other eight per cent is a question I would like to know the answer to. The other eight per cent from the promise prior to the election are now missing out. Of course, we know what areas they will be. They will not be in the urban areas or city areas, they will be small communities such as Ashford and Nundle, and those towns of 1,000 people or less will be missing out.

This is another broken promise: 98 per cent prior to the election was the figure that everybody is in no doubt of remembering and it is now 90 per cent—the eight per cent discount has been brought in because of Minister Conroy. This is a situation where he is simply saying to those in rural and regional areas and small communities: ‘You are irrelevant, you can miss out. We’ll bring the super-duper 100 megabytes download broadband to the urban and city areas, but to hell with the small areas.’

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are being very cheeky!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cheeky is something that I have never been in my life! I want to make the point to the Senate that those eight per cent—towns of 1,000 people or less—will miss this. It is a big investment; it is a big borrowing of $43 billion. You would think those people who are vital to our nation, who grow the food bringing the export dollars that earn so much for our nation, should not be forgotten. That is the point I wish to make.

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

I have spoken, but I seek leave to speak again in view of the fact—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not need leave, Senator Macdonald. You have a right to speak. You are speaking to Senator Conroy’s amendment to your amendment, so you can proceed.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. We will not be supporting the amendment to our amendment. Quite clearly, as I suspected without having seen it, the amendment is nonsensical, talking about ‘the national interest’. I might say I still have not seen a bit of paper with this amendment on it.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here it is—a bit of scribble there.

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

Oh, we have got it. If you need any example of how this government are simply incapable of running the country, their amendment comes in handwritten form on the back of an envelope. And this lot are supposed to be running the country! No wonder they have run us into over $300 billion worth of debt.

Senator Conroy’s amendment removes ‘regional Australia’ and substitutes ‘the national interest’. The whole purpose of our amendment was to highlight the fact that this government is stealing from rural and regional Australia funds the previous government had allocated there and diverting them to the cities. They are part of Australia, sure, but I think any fair observer would say that those living in the more populous areas of Australia do have better infrastructure, better facilities and better roads. They have a suburban train network, they have taxis down the end of the street and they have bus systems. Those sorts of facilities are not available in rural and regional Australia. I am sure Senator Conroy, with his wide journeys into rural and regional Australia, would understand that the reason you need better roads—or at least decent, usable roads—in rural and regional Australia is that you do not have a commuter train down the end of the street. You do not have a hospital one suburb away.

The AusLink program, which this is a steal of, put money into rural and regional Australia, because roads in many instances are the only means of transport. There are no trams, no buses, no suburban railway stations, very few taxis and no ferries. We in the previous government were keen to make sure rural and regional people got a fair go. This government is not interested in a fair go for rural and regional Australia. They have gone to where there are more votes, which is obviously in the capital cities. So we will certainly not be agreeing to the amendment to our amendment. The bill, as I say, we are allowing through with amendments to highlight these issues, and we are hoping for support from the crossbenches for the amendment that we have moved.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Conroy’s amendment to Senator Macdonald’s second reading amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Conroy, you need two senators to make a call for a division. I only heard one call, from Senator Conroy. That being the case, I called it for the noes. The question now is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Macdonald be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Acting Deputy President:

The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.