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

I hope Senator Brown stays in the chamber because I need to refer to some of the things she said. Senator Brown is correct that the government plans to freeze the financial assistance grants, FAGs, for three years. That is correct. I hope Senator Brown realises that we have a budget problem, a mess we inherited from that lot over there that Senator Brown is part of.

In 2015-16 the Roads to Recovery program will be doubled for local governments. Here is the point: FAGs can be spent on anything. When a council receives a grant, they can put pavers down on a footpath. They can put parks in. But we want to fix our roads. I do not know if Senator Brown has ever driven on a dirt road, but I do every week of my life. Here is the point we are making: we want to fix our roads because the exports we produce need to get to the waterfront. For that, we need some decent roads. I hope Senator Brown stays to hear more of what I have to say, but I do not think she is going to. There is more money for local government because of the doubling of the Roads to Recovery program. That was a National Party initiative under former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson.

While I am referring to senators opposite, I will say that I was surprised that Senator Conroy stayed this morning. I thought he would be too embarrassed to show his face after the release of the coalition's cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network. That is the cost-benefit analysis that Senator Conroy and then Prime Minister Rudd refused to undertake because they knew they would be laughed out of the country if they did. The National Broadband Network is the biggest spending program in our nation's history and no cost-benefit analysis was done. We tried in opposition to get one, but people such as the former member for New England, Tony Windsor, did not want to have the cost-benefit analysis done either. It was a multibillion-dollar program that was devised on the back of a coaster—a coaster, mind you.

Senator Conroy must be close to releasing his own book. We have the Wayne Maxwell Swan book from the former Treasurer. Most of the rest of the Labor hierarchy have pointed the finger at each other about the six-year debacle when they were in government. There is no mateship in the trenches there! I look forward to Senator Conroy's book. What is it going to be called—'A roller-coaster in government' or 'Coming on a coaster near you'? Why didn't they do a cost-benefit analysis when they brought in the NBN? It is because they were afraid of the truth.

The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill amends the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009. Among other changes, this legislation will allow the Roads to Recovery program to be funded. In the other place, Labor and the Greens opposed the legislation. They opposed the very legislation that has brought so much finance and road improvement to local governments right around our nation. They opposed it. I hope it is not the same with this bill in front of the new Senate where Labor and the Greens, thankfully, do not control the numbers.

In November 2000, the Howard government announced a four-year road funding package worth $1.6 billion, of which $1.2 billion was spent on the Roads to Recovery program. The legislation was introduced by the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. John Anderson. It was a Nationals initiative.

The new coalition government faced a $47 billion budget deficit for the 2013-14 financial year just past, $123 billion of projected deficits to 2016-17 and a $1 billion interest bill every month on Labor's debt. For those listening on radio, $1 billion rolls off the tongue pretty quickly. But let me give you an example. Senator Abetz gave an example recently in response to a question in question time on the difference between one million and one billion. One million seconds equates to 11½ days—that is not long—but one billion seconds equates to 31.7 years. So when we talk about billions we are talking about huge amounts of money.

Infrastructure spending does not stop under this legislation. There is a $50 billion investment from this government to deliver vital transport infrastructure across Australia for the 21st century. There is $2.5 billion for the Roads to Recovery program to support the maintenance and upgrade of local roads. I live out on one of those local roads—it is a dirt road—and I know the cost to council of maintaining let alone improving those roads, with their corrugations and potholes. That is especially the case after a dry spell, when the dust has been blowing, when the rain falls and there is erosion washing away the sides of the road. There are additional payments of $350 million to councils during the 2015-16 financial year. I put that on top of the FAGs freeze in the principal for three years, but a doubling of the Roads to Recovery money so we can fix our roads. We said we would be a government of infrastructure building, and that is exactly what is happening here.

There will be $565 million provided through the ongoing Black Spot Program. That includes an extra $100 million in both the 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years. The $300 million Bridges Renewal Program will commence in 2014-15. This program will repair bridges. Mr Acting Deputy President Seselja, go out to regional New South Wales and have a look at the old wooden bridges that have been there for decades. You will see they are narrow and dangerous and need replacing. There will be $200 million over next five years for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program for road enhancements, rest areas and technology trials—especially the rest areas. I have discussed with Senator Sterle, who is a former truckie, how we need more rest areas, so that when the truckies have to take their break, according to their work diary, there is somewhere they can park their rig so they can get off the road safely—hopefully where it is quiet—and have a rest. There is a $314 million investment in 300 projects in local communities through our Community Development Grants Program, which is designed to deliver the coalition's election commitments and some residue projects from the previous government.

The $1 billion National Stronger Regions Fund aims to promote economic development through investment in infrastructure projects at a local level. This is important. The program will help communities with lower than average socioeconomic circumstances and higher than average unemployment by improving local facilities, creating jobs and building needed infrastructure. There is $100 million to fill in black spots in the mobile phone network. It is all right in the cities and the large country towns, where there is a mobile phone network, but there are many areas across regional Australia that need towers to get the signal out there. There are plenty of examples around where I live—for example, Copeton Dam, which is visited by 100,000 people a year for water skiing, camping or whatever, has virtually no mobile signal.

The Australian Local government Association says:

… Roads to Recovery (R2R) program has become an essential element in local government's ability to maintain and upgrade the local roads network. It is an outstanding example of a partnership between the national and local governments and of providing direct funding to local communities.

So why did the Labor Party oppose this bill in the other place? Why is it demanding changes now? It is because Labor wants an additional eight pages of amendments to provide for the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. But this program is already provided for under legislation. It is already there. This government is committed to a number of other programs that are not provided separate status in legislation. If the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program with its eight pages of bureaucratic red tape is included, so must be the others, such as the Bridges Renewal Program and the Regional Roads Program. If the Labor Party's amendments were agreed to, funding to this program would be held up because the guidelines under which applicants were applying would be inconsistent with the legislation. We do not want things held up.

This government will require all Commonwealth funded projects worth more than $100 million to undergo a cost-benefit analysis by Infrastructure Australia to ensure the best use of available taxpayers' money. The cut-off point is $100 million. It was not there for the NBN. We will also require Infrastructure Australia to publish justification for all its project recommendations. Infrastructure Australia is getting on with the job without it having to be in legislation. There was a provision in the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 to enable the $100 million threshold to be determined by a disallowable instrument, but the amendments moved by the opposition and ultimately accepted by the Senate on that legislation removed that provision. We will now seek to put the $100 million threshold in the Infrastructure Australia legislation, where it belongs.

A couple of weeks ago I was in the seat of Richmond, in the northern corner of New South Wales, adjoining Queensland, having a look at some of the coalition funded projects, such as the CCTV at Byron Bay. I was quite amazed to be informed of the amount of antisocial behaviour and crime on the streets of Byron Bay. It is a real concern. I also looked at the planned upgrade of Kennedy Drive at Tweed Heads. It is a pretty ordinary bit of bitumen, I can assure you, and it is good to see that $3.3 million will be spent to rebuild that stretch of bitumen. In Richmond, Tweed Shire Council received $6.11 million and Byron Shire $2.65 million under this program, between 2009-10 and 2013-14. I spoke with representatives of both councils. They are concerned that the Roads to Recovery program funding is being held up by the local federal member Justine Elliott and her Labor colleagues for no good reason other than to play politics. They should step back and let it go through.

In the Hunter region of New South Wales, Upper Hunter Shire has received $4.3 million, Singleton Council $2.73 million, Muswellbrook Shire $2.04 million, Cessnock city council $3.82 million and Maitland city council $2.84 million. I received a letter from the Hunter council which expressed fears about the future of the program. Mayor of Upper Hunter Shire, Councillor Michael Johnsen, says it is critical that the program continue, a view he feels would be held by every council in the Hunter region of New South Wales. Councils in the Hunter know the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, voted to stop it, but Labor cannot come up with a plausible reason for having done so. Why did they vote against this in the House?

Over the past five years councils in New England were allocated over $30 million in Roads to Recovery funding. I appeal to the cross benches to stop listening to Labor lies. Mr Albanese has apparently told you that unless the heavy vehicle programme is actually named in the legislation it will not continue. That is absolute rubbish and is wrong. Ask yourself why Mr Albanese did not find it necessary to make significant amendments when he created the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme while in government. All he did was change the definition of a 'road' in legislation, because that is all that was needed to establish the program. So ask yourself, cross benchers, why is he now proposing three pages of amendments just on the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme?

This is a very simple bill. Its primary purpose is to extend the Roads to Recovery program, change the name of the bill, and tidy up aspects of the act, which is consistent with the government's red tape reduction agenda. I have long ago given up trying to understand the Greens. It seems they are a leaderless lot on this very issue. The New South Wales Greens want the federal Greens to support the fuel excise increase, but the federal Greens have had several positions. Senator Milne was obviously rolled in the party room on that one. What I cannot understand is that the fuel excise increase is actually a tax on carbon, yet the Greens oppose it after fighting to retain the carbon tax in this place a couple of weeks ago. How do you work that one out? The fuel excise increase should be supported because all of the money will go to road funding, yet here they are again opposing a good program.

So I say again to the cross benches that there are no hidden surprises, no gotcha moments and no hidden clauses with this bill. Don't worry about Mr Albanese's propaganda. Let this go through. I am sure that if you do not let it go through your local government will tell you what they think, if you block this. Ask them to show you some of the projects Roads to Recovery has funded. Talk to the local governments in your states and hear the success stories of the Roads to Recovery program. Ask them if they looking forward to the doubling of the funding in 2015-16. Of course they are. Every council in Australia is. Then tell them that Labor does not want them to have that funding. That is the real issue blocking this. The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill should be supported so that money can start rolling out now.