In the News
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (7:38 PM) —I want to thank the member for Braddon for raising the trifecta of reasons as to why we ought to have a cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network. The insulation scheme is a fantastic reason why we should think, pause and carefully consider the impact of government decisions before we take them. The Building the Education Revolution scheme and the absolute rush to get projects out and handed to the New South Wales government meant that, in my electorate of Mitchell, we had two libraries built for a school of 90 pupils at the cost of $900,000. That could have been prevented by a cost-benefit analysis, by rationally examining how we were going to deliver those services.
The cost of the National Broadband Network represents the single biggest expenditure of any project in Australian history, so the member for Braddon has really raised the trifecta about why we are here today. If it were the case that, as those on the government side are consistently stating this place, the member for Wentworth’s objective was to delay or even to destroy the National Broadband Network, why would he be urging the government to do a cost-benefit analysis to consider the benefits versus the costs of implementing this program responsibly? If that were the case, the member for Wentworth would not be suggesting a deal which said, ‘Let’s pause and reflect, from a serious perspective such as that of the Productivity Commission, on how this could work, how it could be delivered and how we could best provide this broadband service to Australians.’
The experience of the member for Wentworth in business and investing leads him to understand that we need to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. We need to pause at these junctures when we have such a massive expenditure plan and say, ‘Let’s have a look at what we will get for that investment, because otherwise we will end up with a government program just like the insulation scheme or the BER where money is needlessly wasted and time and effort is spent delivering services that could have been delivered in a much better way.’ We have heard from our rural members here today that rural areas will not get the services they need even with an expenditure of $43 billion—the member for Calare is exactly right.
Why are we doing that? I come from an inner-city electorate, and there is pair gain in my electorate. I heard the member for Wakefield talking about pair gain, and of course that needs improving. Yet many inner-city areas are well serviced—there are people who do not need 100 megabits per second—while there are rural and regional areas that definitely need those services, and I endorse the remarks of those who say, ‘Why would we spend $43 billion and not service those areas of Australia where it is very difficult to provide these services in the free market?’
There is a large role for the market in the provision of broadband and telecommunications. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite of the experience of the member for Braddon that telecommunications in this country have been progressing in a fashion that has allowed people to better afford goods and services from telecommunications companies over time. It is not the case that the market is failing so badly that we need a massive government monopoly through an injection of money of $43 billion, a sum beyond the wildest dreams of any single investor or other provider of services in this country’s history. That is not just my view; we have heard in question time about the views of the OECD, but we have not heard about the fact that the OECD has this week criticised the NBN monopoly and called for a rigorous analysis of this $43 billion. Why wouldn’t they? The sum of $43 billion is a lot of money in anybody’s language, and it is very unusual for the OECD to call for such an analysis of a domestic policy.
The Alliance for Affordable Broadband, the AAB—which represents a cross-section of the telecommunications industry and includes in its membership infrastructure based carriers, fibre, wireless and carriage service providers, all of whom have things to gain and lose through the National Broadband Network—has written an open letter today begging the government to consider the cost-benefit of the NBN. The AAB’s members say that they can provide services in a reasonable and cost-effective way to much of Australia. In addition, the Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, has proposed an innovative scheme that has been tried in other major cities around the world.
So there are plenty of options here; there are plenty of reasons to pause and consider. The member for Wentworth’s objective in suggesting we do so is not to destroy the NBN. If a cost-benefit analysis would destroy the National Broadband Network, perhaps we ought not to be proceeding with the NBN. Perhaps the government ought to pause and think about that. Doing a cost-benefit analysis is a worthy task. The Productivity Commission can do a thorough cost-benefit analysis, and taxpayers can get the peace of mind that they deserve.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (9:30 PM) —I rise tonight to speak about Showground Road, a road of great importance to residents in my electorate. This week we were privileged to hear about the allocation by the New South Wales government of $1 million towards the funding of Showground Road in Castle Hill. It might surprise the House to hear me praise the New South Wales government, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I can see you looking at me with shock—but it is a welcome development that $1 million has been allocated to such an important arterial road in my electorate.
It is that case that my electorate has the highest rate of cars per household of any federal electorate in Australia. It is not something we are proud of. We also have the highest rate of couples with dependent children and we are one of the fastest growing regions in Australia, which mean that infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure, is of vital importance. In noting this development this week, I want to congratulate in particular the member for Castle Hill, Mr Michael Richardson, who has made an enormous contribution over many years in highlighting the problems with Showground Road. Showground Road links the Castle Hill central business district and Windsor Road. Over 45,000 vehicles use this road every day. It is appalling to note that this vital road link in my electorate which is only 1.2 kilometres long has a single lane each way.
It is a great shame that in modern Australia we cannot build better infrastructure. In a major city like Sydney, infrastructure is well behind schedule and billion-dollar costs are associated with the fixing it. It is the case that when a federal government is proposing to spend infrastructure money and when we have a Minister for Infrastructure and Transport whose electorate is in New South Wales, we ought to have a better understanding and appreciation of how vital infrastructure is to a major city like Sydney. One of my great laments about this federal Labor government—the past one and this current one—is that the infrastructure minister has not allocated money to Sydney, the biggest city in Australia, for infrastructure spending. Infrastructure is such a problem in our state.
The New South Wales government has a roads budget of about $4.7 billion that includes roads like the Pacific Highway and serious arterial and country roads all across the state. We are spending so much on a national broadband network, yet there are projects that affect the daily lives of my constituents, tens of thousands of them going begging, when really the money could be better spent on vitally needed transport infrastructure.
We have received this $1 million for survey and design planning. It is a welcome development. I want to note the contribution of Michael Richardson. He has worked hard with all levels of government in my electorate—whether it be local government or state government, or indeed the Queensland Investment Corporation that is proposing a major redevelopment of the centre of Castle Hill—to have a rethink about how to fund infrastructure, how to ensure that everybody makes a contribution to upgrading the infrastructure at the time it is done.
One of the great things I like about suburbs in Perth is that they are rolling out infrastructure—train lines and roads—with the suburbs as they go. We all know that Sydney has not been planned in the way it ought to have been, and growth has been allowed. Special infrastructure levies have been charged on properties in my electorate for many years and infrastructure has not been returned to my electorate in kind for those extra charges. My electorate pay a high rates of tolls to and from the city on private motorways. We have no problem with private motorways as long as they work. When they do not work and tolls are so high, and you do not get value from them, infrastructure and Sydney planning have failed.
In an electorate with the highest rate of car dependency in Australia, in one of the fastest growing communities in Australia and with the highest rate of couples with dependent children, every adult and every family in Mitchell has a car. We do need money for infrastructure funding and I welcome the New South Wales government initiating this planning process. It is long overdue. However, they have missed this opportunity: just 1.2 kilometres of road, a small thing in the scheme of things that governments do—a thing that is done by other governments in places all around the world. It is time for reform of how we do infrastructure in New South Wales and Australia because we should be able to build 1.2 kilometres of road much cheaper than what they have planned and in a much shorter time frame.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (7:39 PM) —I commend the member for Fowler on his very fine remarks and I associate myself with those remarks. He is a fine person.
I turn tonight to what is still the most important issue in my electorate of Mitchell. In my first words in the 43rd Parliament I want to reflect the ongoing concern of my electorate about rail infrastructure in Sydney. When I think about the rail infrastructure promises which have come over many decades now from Labor state and federal governments, I also turn to the words of the Prime Minister in the last week of the election campaign which gave rise to yet another series of concerns about whether promises on rail will be met in Sydney. That is because we have had a decade of announcements about the Parramatta to Epping rail link and about the north-west rail line. Indeed, during the federal election campaign we were stunned in Sydney one day to hear that there would be a Parramatta to Epping rail link. I remind the House that this was first announced in 1998 with a completion date of 2006—so it was going to be finished four years ago.
In 2003, the Epping to Parramatta rail section was deemed too expensive and was cancelled. Then, of course, in the federal election campaign we heard that the federal government would contribute $2.1 billion for the rail link from Parramatta to Epping. The opposition rightly pointed out that this had been an announcement cobbled up on the back of a ballot paper and we learned subsequently that there was no modelling or planning or any other information provided to departments—in fact, the state departments were completely in the dark. When we looked for the detail of what would be regarded as a very important infrastructure project, there was none to be found.
My electorate has the most families in Australia with couples who have dependent children. We are one of the of the fastest-growing corridors in Australia and we have been waiting for a rail line. We also have the dubious distinction of being No. 1 in cars per household of any electorate in the country because there are no transport alternatives. In the north-west of Sydney we have been promised a rail line for just short of 15 years. It is a vital infrastructure project. Yesterday in her address outlining the government’s commitment, the Governor-General said:
… to this end, the government is investing $37 billion in transport infrastructure through the Nation Building Program over the six-year period to 2013-14. The government’s commitments include major urban rail projects in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, the most significant investment in public transport yet made by the Commonwealth.
I could not let this opportunity pass tonight without reflecting that my electorate has the worst transport alternatives of any area in this country today. It is one of the fastest growing areas of our country. It has the highest rate of families and car ownership and no public transport alternatives. Transport is the No. 1 concern and people in my electorate are rightly sick of being committed to about public transport alternatives. They are tired of promise after broken promise. We hear talk about carbon reduction and about doing practical things to stop climate change; yet successive Labor governments break promise after promise over real practical measures such as a rail line which would fix this issue. I note that the member for Parramatta is here tonight. I say to her that it would be great to hear her speak out in relation to getting rail infrastructure projects for Sydney because the No. 1 concern of people in north-west Sydney and in her electorate of Parramatta is improving transport alternatives in the Sydney hub.
Hearing the Governor-General outline the government’s plans was interesting. Couple it with, ‘All bets are off,’ as the Prime Minister said, or key government promises made before the election ‘no longer necessarily apply’ because of the new environment created by the hung parliament. The Prime Minister of the country outlined that key promises no longer apply. I put on the table tonight that my electorate and the people of Western Sydney and north-west Sydney expect this government to keep to the promise it committed to prior to the election to build the Parramatta to Epping rail link. People expect this government to deliver better rail infrastructure because it makes these announcements and it lauds them. If you announced you were going to build a main line, if you announced you were going to fund it and if you announced before the election that this was your top priority, then people in this country would expect you to go ahead and do it.
New South Wales Labor is facing a wipe-out at the next state election in March 2011 precisely because of this—it does not meet the commitments it gives repeatedly to electorates. That is one ingredient which is leading to that circumstance. I say to this government that the people of Mitchell expect better transport infrastructure. The federal government is planning it and I ask that it delivers it.
Bidjigal Reserve will become home to one of the first Green Army projects to be supported in Australia under the Coalition’s Green Army Plan.
Federal Shadow Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, and Federal Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke, said that if a Coalition Government were elected, the Bidjigal Reserve project would be one of the first to benefit from funding under the Green Army Plan.
Mr Hunt said the Green Army would provide teams of ten young Australians who will work on local community-based environmental projects for six month periods as part of a new Coalition program.
“This is a really positive program that will deliver significant training and practical experience in the vital area of environmental management,” Mr Hunt said.
“The Bidjigal Reserve Green Army Project will provide enormous environmental benefits as well as vocational training for our emerging workforce.”
The project’s aims are to remove weeds and undergrowth from surrounding walking tracks and bushland bordering onto nearby housing.
“This is an opportunity for local young people to gain valuable employment experience, while improving our precious local environment,” Mr Hawke said.
“The Coalition’s Green Army will help sites like Bidjigal Reserve and our local communities to gain the combined benefits of training, experience and environmental gain. Environmental workers would help local youngsters overcome employment barriers and deliver a positive contribution to the community.
“I am delighted that we have secured one of the first Green Army projects for Mitchell. This is about jobs and training for ten young people. It is also about creating an environmental benefit that everyone can enjoy.”
Mr Hunt said the Green Army plan had first been unveiled by Liberal Leader Tony Abbott earlier this year. Under a Coalition Government, the scheme would start in July 2011. Teams of ten young workers will be deployed on specific projects for six month periods.
The visit by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, was an important opportunity to highlight the waste of the Gillard Government’s Building the Education Revolution program, and to announce the Coalition’s Real Action Plan to Stop Labor’s School Halls Waste, said the Federal Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke.
Under the Coalition’s plan principals will decide on the priorities for each school, not the state bureaucracy. In addition, once the planned construction is complete, schools will retain any remaining money for other education or infrastructure initiatives.
“The Building the Education Revolution has seen a significant waste of taxpayer funds here at Annangrove, and right around Australia,” Mr Hawke said.
“At Annangrove, the school community was seeking a new hall, but was offered a library, despite already having a library. Nothing was done to ensure the many hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money was spent wisely and produced good quality outcomes for the school.”
“If this is how local P & Cs are treated by Ms Gillard as Education Minister, what can we expect from Julia Gillard as Prime Minister?”
Mr Hawke said the scale of the mismanagement of public funds right around Australia was potentially enormous. The Building the Education Revolution was initially a $14.7 billion program, which within six months had blown out by a further $1.5 billion.
“Finding out the true extent of the waste still does not appear to be a Gillard Government priority,” Mr Hawke said.
“The waste in these programs must stop now. What more could we have been able to build in the Hills with these taxpayers’ funds?”
Mr Hawke said it was frustrating and galling that many of the problems with these programs were brought to the attention of the Rudd Government throughout last year and in the early months of 2010, yet the Government still will not conduct a full judicial inquiry.
“I asked questions of the then Minister, Julia Gillard, in the Parliament last September about Annangrove Public School,” Mr Hawke said. “Yet instead of sincerely addressing these concerns, and those of schools right around the nation, Minister Gillard seemed more intent on attacking the messenger.
“No-one is begrudging or arguing the merit of new school facilities. But our local schools have been locked into the inflexible Building the Education Revolution program and have not had their priorities addressed.”
“They see staggering examples of waste and mismanagement. It is an awful irony that the children going to local schools today will be paying off the massive debt incurred by the Rudd/Gillard Government to fund this program,” Mr Hawke said.