Mr HARDGRAVE(3.45 p.m.) —I am very pleased to join this matter of public importance discussion today. I think the matter of public importance proposed by the shadow minister for `not' transport is quite an interesting and worthwhile contribution to the debate that should be taking place in this place. It seems to me that the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) has joined the tactics committee of those opposite. I thought she may have had the exclusive franchise on fantasy, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the very best that the opposition party in this place can come up with is a cross between Frederick Forsyth, Robert Ludlum, Mills and Boon and perhaps DC Comics.

Mr Andrew —Not Mills and Boon.

Mr HARDGRAVE —I am sorry to pick on Mills and Boon. They have a far more reputable and believable story line than some of the nonsense we have had peddled here today. Every time I hear the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) talk about ordinary Australians, I am left wondering if he has actually ever met one. It seems to me that, if he was concerned about the lot of the ordinary people of Australia, as he put it, the people who aspire to work, the people who in small business in my electorate and in so many others around this country want to grow their businesses and generate some real jobs, he would in fact be talking to the Maritime Union of Australia about getting real about being part of waterfront reform. He would not be simply making some sort of vain attempt to justify his next preselection. As those on this side appreciate, those opposite are very beholden to the MUA. It is, after all, the jewel in the crown of the union movement in this country.

I see that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) is here. We both participated in a similar debate about the MUA a few months ago. We dealt with the issue of how important the MUA is to the whole business of the union movement in this country. I remember saying at the time that I do not believe the MUA represent workers. They in fact represent the glitterati; they represent the absolute upper crust of the employed people in this country. If they truly represented workers, they would also get behind the idea of proper waterfront reform. There is no way ordinary Australians can get access to jobs on the waterfront in this country because of the MUA and their like. Grandfathers have locked up the jobs for their grandsons. In fact, those who are currently on the wharves are living off the hard work of their grandfathers more often than not.

I find the matter of public importance before us today a very important one. I think it is vital that we get reform back on track. I would certainly like to debate transport and transport reform and the way that the various modes of transport should link together in this country. I think the matter of public importance before us is very clear, and it is important that we recognise that this government has in its mind an absolute dedication to the notion of reforming all the various modes of transport in this country. It has total dedication to the concept of making all those linkages that are necessary. After all, it is a basic role of government in this country, and has been since 1788, that government should be the vehicle for infrastructure. We have a very large country and a sparse population. If one of the basic tenets of government in this country is not providing proper infrastructure, the means by which we can support those who aspire to run their own business and grow jobs, if we do not support those sorts of people by providing proper and reliable infrastructure and means of transport, we are letting down the whole country.

In the final analysis, that sums up the lot of the opposition in today's debate. After all, they have turned their back on the reality of the matter of public importance that they themselves proposed. Instead of talking about means of reforming transport, instead of talking about a dedication to the creation of real jobs and the growing of business in this country to generate those real jobs, they have talked about anything else but. It is all about trying to prop up the MUA and make members of the MUA executive feel well disposed towards them in time for the preselections, which we all know are taking place in the ranks of those opposite.

Oh boy, that 14th year would have been a beauty if the Keating regime had been able to hold on on 2 March last year. I cannot fully account for the number of times we have heard in this place all of the things they were going to do if only they had had a 14th year. There is no doubt in my mind that it would have been an absolute beauty, if they had only had that 14th year. Given the record of the 13 years preceding it, we would probably have had a $15 billion black hole, a $15 billion debt to tidy up. The work we have had to do to repair some of the basic institutions in this country would have been a bigger job.

Talking about repairs, this government has taken upon itself as its first job to repair some of the basic transport infrastructure problems in this country. Our next job is to rebuild and to reinvigorate—to send the right signal to the people of Australia to get on with the job of growing their business and creating more jobs.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, be it roads, rail, wharves or airports, the story is in a lot of ways much the same. When we came to government, there was without a doubt a lack of certainty for people who were interested in road construction. We have managed to bring about a number of reforms which provide greater certainty. I think the reconstruction of the Pacific Highway over 10 years is a fine step forward. I think it is a good example of just how committed this government is to getting on with the practical things that government should do.

Let us talk about rail infrastructure. The infrastructure of rail in this country is run down to an abysmal mess. There is urgent need for reform to try to ensure that people have access to the publicly funded infrastructure, the tracks, to try to bring about some competition between competing providers of means of getting along that infrastructure. These are reforms this government is bringing in, and this is a good thing.

We also have the question of airports. We have already heard about the success of the sale of the Brisbane airport. That will bring in private capital and private determination to what was a publicly owned piece of infrastructure to ensure that we are going to see good results as far as transport in and out of Brisbane airport is concerned. In my own electorate of Moreton, Archerfield Airport is part of the second string of sales which is being overseen so effectively by the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), who I see is in the chamber right now. I am very confident, talking to people at Archerfield Airport, that they are looking forward to the regime which will come, which will bring them the opportunity to expand their businesses through this particular piece of infrastructure.

While the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) has very effectively chaired matters in relation to aircraft movements around Sydney airport, Brisbane airport, as I and the member for Griffith (Mr McDougall), the member for Lilley (Mrs Elizabeth Grace) and the member for Bowman (Mrs West) certainly realise, suffered because of the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton). He had one of those cosy deals which flicked all the loud aircraft out of Sydney when it got a little too hot for him a couple of years ago and based them out of Brisbane. So each day we were getting six or eight very noisy old 727s taking off on a Brisbane to Melbourne or a Brisbane to Cairns leg over the top of our electorates. Already, in the space of 20 months, our reforms as far as transport is concerned—

Mr Bevis —What?

Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Brisbane does not even realise there were loud aircraft over his electorate. Perhaps he should spend a bit more time in his electorate. One of the things I and those other three members have managed to do is get those noisy aircraft moved, and the member for Brisbane is an absolute beneficiary out of this, as are the people of the electorate of Brisbane. We have managed to bring about some changes to the approaches and departure routes. We have managed to bring about some good, straightforward, sensible reforms as far as transport is concerned.

Let us turn to the waterfront. After all the waterfront seems to have figured strongly in the contribution of those opposite.

Mr Andrew —That's a bit generous.

Mr HARDGRAVE —I agree, it is a bit generous. Perhaps, being generous, the question of the waterfront was implied in the contribution from those opposite today.

Mr Andrew —It's a bit tenuous.

Mr HARDGRAVE —It might be a bit tenuous, but nevertheless I will give them the benefit of so many doubts. While we saw those opposite spend $400 million, basically to pay out their mates, the wharfies in the MUA, we really saw no benefit as a result, which is something those opposite fail to realise. It was an absolute failure for the taxpayer. It really was a frank acknowledgment from those opposite of the gross overmanning of the waterfront and of the gross inefficiencies there. As we saw the shadow minister for transport, the proposer of this matter of public importance, acknowledge a little while ago, the process of reform itself was stalled for some time.

It is certainly obvious to me that those opposite, by the tone of the debate they have carried on with today, want to see the status quo remain. They want to see waterfront reform fall down a big hole. They want to make sure none of the reforms which should be brought about in the general transport sector occur. They want to avoid results. How typical of the 13 years they were in power. The nonsense of their argument today absolutely proves the point: they do not know what they are doing in transport reform. They are embarrassed by it. They have concocted a wonderful yarn today, and do not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Order! This discussion has concluded.