Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. The bill is intended to make technical amendments to the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005. The changes seek to achieve a number of objectives. The first change, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, extends the successful Roads to Recovery program for another five years until 30 June 2014. Roads to Recovery was one element of the former coalition government’s AusLink land transport funding program. It delivered road funding directly to local communities that were in need of assistance to fund transport infrastructure. The success of the Roads to Recovery program was achieved by bypassing the states and providing Commonwealth funding directly to local councils. Local government authorities were then in a position to nominate projects within their own communities based on local needs. The Australian Local Government Association has acknowledged the Roads to Recovery program as being an outstanding example of a partnership between national and local government to provide direct funding to local communities.

I looked forward to the opportunity to speak on this bill today because in the Roads to Recovery program we saw a genuine operation where tiers of government, particularly local and federal tiers of government, were working together. There is one tier of government that I believe is totally undervalued in this country, and that is the tier of local government. The way forward with local government is not just to provide some form of superficial recognition of its role but, more significantly, to look genuinely at the role of local government within our system of federalism and at the way in which real responsibilities and real revenue accountability can be attached to local government.

What we are seeing at the moment is a debate about federalism that focuses on federal and state government. We hear about the blame game and all these other issues that the government has raised in a bid to disperse accountability rather than actually assign accountability. But all the discussion of federalism tends to focus on these top two tiers of government: state and federal. The discussion about the transfer of responsibilities has not been about getting service delivery closer to where services are actually used and relied upon, at the local level; it has been all about trying to take it further up the chain. We talk about schools being transferred to federal responsibility; we talk about hospitals being transferred to federal responsibility; we talk about all of these critical social and public services being taken further up the chain, further away from the people who actually use them.

I am currently not filled with confidence in the ability of the government in my home state of New South Wales to deliver these services for my constituents in the Sutherland shire, but I do not think the answer in any of these areas is simply to transfer that power to the federal government so that a bureaucracy in Canberra, as opposed to a bureaucracy at the state level, can take it over. The discussion about many of these services needs to look at to what extent these services can be delivered locally. What we have in the Roads to Recovery program is a rolled gold example of what actually works—we have funding provided to local councils to fund roads that are necessary, funding that does not have to go through a whole other tier of bureaucracy, in terms of assessment, planning and processing, at the state level. It is a functional relationship.

What I like about this relationship is that it sees local, state and federal government sitting as three legs to a stool. In my maiden speech in this place I talked about the three legs to the stool of Federation. At the moment, I think, it is more commonly understood as being like a three-legged dog, because it is not working effectively. One of the reasons it is not working effectively is that we are not assigning responsibilities to these tiers of government and we are not resourcing these tiers of government to do the jobs with the appropriate accountability and then holding them to account. It is no good just to look the other way and to have fingers pointing every which way to avoid what should be competitive conflict, accountable conflict in ensuring value for taxpayers’ dollars.

I would very much commend the idea of our understanding the role that local government can play. On the weekend in my state of New South Wales people turned out and voted at local council elections. Those opposite, particularly in New South Wales, would be well aware of how the vast majority of them voted. A very common theme, while standing at polling booths on the weekend, was that people had very little understanding of what was done at a local council level. It seems to me that there needs to be a greater awareness of the accountabilities of local government. In some cases there were many things that they expected of local governments that were beyond their remit or that they were not funded to do. There is a need to clarify these things for local government. I think the Roads to Recovery program enabled us to go down this path and to start looking at alternatives to just simply saying, ‘Well, states can’t do it; we’ll hand it all the way up to Canberra.’ I think that is a very short-sighted view and not one that will serve our local communities well because, at the end of the day, the best accountability that you can have is for the person to sit across the desk or across the bed or in the schoolroom from someone who is consuming those services. Parents deal with principals all the time. Parents deal with their doctors in hospitals. Far too much attention is given to what is said by those who sit behind bureaucratic desks in our public services rather than to those who are actually working on the ground. Of course there is a need for bureaucracies, proper accountability and funding mechanisms, review processes and benchmarking, but none of that is a substitute for enabling local communities to have a greater say over how local money is spent on local services.

I think there are some improvements that can be made with Roads to Recovery. It is not only the federal government or the local government that spends money on roads but also the state government, which contributes the lion’s share. In our communities I would like to see our local councils having a better understanding of what the local road priorities are. Local governments own and maintain the overwhelming majority of local roads. The cost of maintaining and upgrading these roads is an enormous financial burden to them. The funding available to local government to allocate to their road budget has not kept pace with the ever-increasing costs associated with maintaining and upgrading roads. Like most infrastructure, roads have a finite economic life and, in many areas, road infrastructure is nearing this point and is in dire need of replacement. The former coalition established the Roads to Recovery program in recognition of the road-funding dilemma facing local government. It was initially a four-year program involving a funding package of $1.2 billion. It was extended for a further four years from 1 July 2005 until 30 June 2009. This provided a further $1.23 billion investment in local road funding—funding for local roads that was delivered directly to local communities.

In my own electorate of Cook, I am sure through the good stewardship and advocacy of the former member for Cook, the Hon. Bruce Baird, from 1 July 2005 the Sutherland Shire Council was the recipient of a significant amount of Roads to Recovery funding. The program delivered more than $3.4 million to the electorate of Cook specifically for fixing roads in the Sutherland shire. Roads to Recovery enabled the Sutherland Shire Council to carry out road projects including Captain Cook Drive between Gannons Road and Woolooware Road at Caringbah—which I note for members is opposite the Sharks’ Toyota Stadium. Not far from there on the weekend was the scene of a great victory which has given us next weekend off before I suspect we will ultimately once again enter the grand final to do battle with Manly. That project cost $1.6 million. This project provided new kerbs, guttering, pedestrian pathways and signals, a bicycle lane and new drainage works. During 2005, $260,000 was provided for Parraweena Road, Taren Point to repair potholes and cracked road surfaces. A project costing $151,000 at the critical intersection of The Kingsway and Gerrale Street, Cronulla, affected by heavy traffic in summer months, provided improved pedestrian safety at this location.

When thinking particularly of my own electorate, like those who have electorates on the coast which are visited by many thousands of people from within the state and right across the country and, indeed, international visitors as well, local services in beachside suburbs come under heavy utilisation. Like many tourism areas, and even in your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Shultz, I am sure, a heavy burden of tourists draw on infrastructure, and we need to recognise that. Not only is the cost of maintaining this infrastructure in critical tourism areas maintained at a local level but also there is a recognition of the responsibility further up the chain to make sure these wonderful assets for our community are at their best and are providing a wonderful experience for locals and for visitors to the area. In 2005, at Gymea Bay Road in Gymea Bay, at a cost of $95,000, the council carried out a construction project to improve pedestrian safety with raised thresholds and new indented on-road parking bays. In 2000, at Carvers Road in Oyster Bay, at a cost of $392,000, the Sutherland Shire Council carried out improvements to road pavement and a repair to the road base. In 2005, across Port Hacking to Maianbar Road in the national park, at a cost of $711,000, the Sutherland Shire Council carried out major repairs to numerous failures in the road pavement—dangerous edges to the road surface.

I note there is much more work to be done in the national park, too. Not only is this an area which is frequented by many visitors but also, for the communities of Bundeena and Maianbar, this is their point of access to services, hospitals, shopping facilities and government services. This single-road gives them access to a range of different services. This is a dangerous road. I drive it regularly when I am visiting the communities in Maianbar and Bundeena. Many young families live in that area, and they need safe roads. There are many winds and bends, and it can be a very dangerous road, particularly in wet conditions. There are many elderly residents in both of those villages, in those communities, and they often have to travel to get specialist attention or to make visits to family. There are many more bends and stretches on the road through the national park which require great attention.

As the new member for Cook, I am working with the community to find an agreed list of local road priorities to guide the investment of the Commonwealth, state and local governments for local roads in the Sutherland shire. I am aware of the good work that the Sutherland Shire Council does in seeking to examine the risk factors and needs issues relating to various roads right across the Sutherland shire. But that process must include a dialogue with the community to understand what it believes the great needs are. The community is well aware of many risk areas right across our community; whether they be traffic lights, roundabouts, improved surfaces with skid resistant works or whatever they may be. If the only guide is that there has not been a fatal accident, or enough fatal accidents, on a particular stretch of road, I frankly cannot go along with that line of reasoning.

The community’s view about what constitutes a safe area of road must be taken into account in any evaluation process. Members right across this House will be aware of the frustrations of their constituents when they raise local road issues with them. They are very unhappy with the response that sometimes we have to give—that we have raised this matter with the council, and, after consideration by their engineers or whoever it might be, the decision is that there is not a high enough risk profile on that particular road. It is of cold comfort to people as they put their children in the car and take them through that intersection as they make their way to football on a Saturday morning after it has been raining that it is not risky enough yet because there have not been enough accidents. They really do not want to be the pre-requisite for that road actually getting the funding to be fixed.

While we have these measures to determine safety, we need to look at them further as we construct this program. When we provide funding to local councils to spend on local roads, we need to ensure that councils actually consult with their communities about what they believe the priorities are. That is a process that I am working through with the good officers of the NRMA in New South Wales and, in particular, the local director representative of the NRMA in the Sutherland shire—shire legend and businessmen, Michael Tynan, who has a deep commitment to these issues. If it is not this, it is the F6, or any number of other great road issues that Michael works on. We will work together with the NRMA to come up with an even better defined list of community priorities on local roads.

So far, this consultation has already highlighted the need to look at a number of projects, and I will mention them briefly. The first is the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Bates Drive and Alpita Street in Kareela. Second is the installation of right-turn bays on The Boulevarde to Kareena Rd—not far from Port Hacking High School—which is a notorious local black spot. Third is a skid-resistant surface to improve traction on the Dents Creek bends on North West Arm Road at Grays Point.

To use The Boulevarde project as an example of these road projects, a large gymnastic club is in Kareena Rd, and there are many families who take their children there after school—during peak times—and they have been looking for a right-turn bay there for some time. Similarly, there are the Dents Creek bends, on the roadway out to the Swallow Rock Reserve. Many families, kayakers, boaters or others go down that winding road on a weekend. They are always at risk of skidding off the road and causing damage either to their vehicle or to themselves.

Fourthly is the erection of a noise abatement barrier on Captain Cook Drive near Murrami Avenue at Caringbah—also not far from Shark Park—to provide local residents with relief from worsening traffic noise. These residents have been enduring high levels of road noise caused by trucks speeding down Captain Cook Drive not more than 20 metres from the back of their houses. There are construction trucks travelling to and from the Labor government’s desalination plant at Kurnell. Residents have noticed that, as the construction has gone on, the ill-considered project has caused suffering to them and there has been increased traffic going up and down these roads, with heavy trucks and vehicles increasing the propensity of smog and various vehicle emissions. Frankly, these residents have had enough. We have petitioned for residents, and I think we had to write to the then Minister for Roads, Minister Roozendahl, on eight occasions or thereabouts before he agreed to undertake some new noise monitoring on the site to see whether it would qualify for abatement.

What we are finding on all of these issues is that, as residents raise their voices, particularly at a state level, they are falling on deaf ears. That is why I am encouraged by things like the Roads to Recovery program, because if the state government will not listen in these areas then there is an opportunity for local councils to react to local needs, supported by the measures first introduced by the Howard government.

Fifthly is the widening of the Gannons Road rail bridge at Caringbah. This is a very worthy local project ignored by the New South Wales Labor government when it began duplication of the Sutherland to Cronulla railway line. Despite a new bridge being built for the new railway line, the existing bridge was left in place with a single lane in each direction—a very nearsighted decision. The state member for Cronulla, Mr Malcolm Kerr, has been a keen advocate of this project for many years. There have been improvements to pedestrian safety around local school zones, and there is a litany of those in terms of signage, speed barriers and various other things to protect our children near schools.

The final one that I would like to note, which goes beyond Roads to Recovery, is the F6 extension, with a tunnel to be built underneath the Sutherland shire to create the missing link in Sydney’s road system. This is an item that I have spoken on many times in this place. The F6 is the missing link. We hear a lot from those opposite about their commitment to infrastructure and, for me, the F6 extension is the litmus test of whether they are serious or not. This is a project that has had its corridor reserved since 1951. The government in New South Wales—and this is something I would commend them for—has been very encouraging with the development of Port Kembla and the promotion of local economic opportunities in the Port Kembla area. They have been successful in securing the transfer of a lot of port activities to that area. But that means the roads that service Port Kembla going back into the major metropolitan market of Sydney have to be up to scratch and so, for that matter, do the rail links to that area in order to carry the goods.

The F6 extension now becomes not just a matter of creating safer roads in the Sutherland shire and shorter commuter times for the residents of the Sutherland shire but all about connecting Sydney to the booming Illawarra. The F6 extension is something that simply must be on the Infrastructure Australia audit, and I trust that it is well in hand and that it is being looked at as part of the Infrastructure Australia audit process. I know that the former Premier of New South Wales has made representations to see that the building fund established by the government would be looking to provide some support to the F6. I would be calling on those members from the Illawarra and St George to join the members in the Sutherland shire—the member for Hughes and me—in banding together in a serious effort to ensure that we get the F6 built.

These are the road priorities in the Sutherland shire. The process of having a Roads to Recovery program is one that gives power to local councils to act on local needs with the support of the federal government. I am pleased that the new government has recognised what is, essentially, a very sound and very successful policy. (Time expired)

See this speech in context