Mr LINDSAY (11:52 AM) —Before I begin, I note that Ms Meg Crooks is with us today. She was the committee secretary when the Planning not patching report was prepared. I was privileged to be a member of that committee—the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform. It is a report that I would like to speak to specifically today. Certainly, I recognise the good work that Meg did on the many issues that were dealt with during her time as the secretary of the committee .

I want to address my comments this morning to the government response to the Planning not patching report. I want to refer to specific local issues and draw the analogy as to how the government's recommendations fit in with what actually is happening on the ground. The first recommendation was that the Commonwealth's role in road funding should focus on achieving national objectives. When I read the response from the government, I am not happy. I probably know the reason for it, and I put this on the record today. I am very concerned that, when it comes to road funding, the cabinet does not understand that funding of our national road system should be given sufficient priority and that it be given the feeling in the community that it deserves.

Mr Martin Ferguson —Get on the dog and bone!

Mr LINDSAY —Martin, I can't think. Just be quiet for a second.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I remind the honourable member for Batman that he has had his opportunity. The member for Herbert has the floor. I give the floor to the member for Herbert.

Mr LINDSAY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What is happening is that our cabinet is comprised basically of citycentric people. They do not see issues that are related to rural—

Mr Sawford —Did you say Sydney-centric?

Mr LINDSAY —Citycentric.

Mr Martin Ferguson —Kirribilli-centric.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have already reminded the honourable member for Batman, who has had the floor, uninterrupted, that the member for Herbert has the floor.

Mr LINDSAY —What we are seeing is that the priority that needs to be put on road funding is not being given because the cabinet is basically citycentric. Road funding is an enormous issue out in the regions. It is an enormous issue in regional and rural Australia because of the vast distances that we have. Currently, the amount that is being allocated to road funding is plainly insufficient. It is insufficient because the priority is not being given. The response in relation to achieving national objectives is unsatisfactory. I say that as a regional member on the end of a 1,400-kilometre piece of national highway connecting Townsville to our capital city.

In relation to recommendation 5 which relates to greater certainty, that certainly is a very significant issue when you talk to our road builders, our planners, and so on. The government's response is:

Yes, it is, but the certainty is not there that is needed to allow the industry, and governments at other levels, to plan where we might be going on the planning horizon that would normally be adopted.

In relation to recommendation 6, `Adequacy and extent of the national highway system,' the committee's report talks about objectives for the national highway system, and the government response is that a review is under way. I am not happy with that either because what I see, time after time after time, is that not enough money is being provided for even the maintenance of the national highway. We all know that. What is happening is that as the highway continues to crumble we are not maintaining it properly. We certainly need significant extra funding, just for maintenance alone, to be able to continue having a proper lifeline for the community.

In relation to recommendation 12, `Adequacy and extent of the national highway system,' the committee recommends that projects funded under the roads of national importance category should be prioritised on the basis of substantial net economic benefits using benefit cost ratios. I would like to relate this particular recommendation to a project in Townsville in my electorate of Herbert. We desperately need a new national highway bypass for the city because the Nathan Street-Ross River Road intersection is currently approaching overload. We have a proposal as part of the national highway bypass to build a new cross-river bridge from the university across to the suburb of Condon.

This particular $40 million deal is very interesting in that, while it is a national highway, I believe we can secure a fifty-fifty deal with the state. Normally the national highway would not be funded on that basis by the state government, but I believe that, because of certain local circumstances, we can achieve agreement with the state government to do a fifty-fifty deal, which is a terrific deal for the Commonwealth of Australia.

This particular section of the highway will serve the university and the new level 6 hospital in that particular suburb, but I would like to acquaint the Main Committee of the cost-benefit ratio of this particular project. Normally, projects with cost-benefit ratios of 1 or above are almost certain to get funded. This particular project has a cost-benefit ratio of 13. Here we have a project where we can secure fifty-fifty funding with the state government and it has a cost-benefit ratio of 13 yet it is still extraordinarily difficult to achieve the money. I might say that it is far more important than the Geelong Road. In relation to the particular project, I think the recommendations and the government responses are weak, and certainly I will be taking that matter up with the minister directly.

In relation to recommendation 30, private sector involvement, the committee recommended that the Commonwealth should have an interest in the additional net benefits to the community and the distribution of benefits and costs across the community. The government's response was to agree. Too right, the government should agree. This is in relation to another local project in my electorate, the proposed port access road. Currently, all access to the port of Townsville, which is the third largest port in Queensland, is through the residential suburbs of Railway Estate and South Townsville. It is just horrendous to take all of that port traffic through those suburbs. The new port access road will open up access to the port from the developing industrial land in Stuart. The cost of that project is about $25 million.

Again, the government has an opportunity here to have private sector involvement. Private sector involvement would see that road constructed as a road of national importance, so it would also attract a contribution from the state government. There is an opportunity for the Commonwealth to construct a road of national importance which attracts a funding split-up of $10 million from the Commonwealth, $10 million from the state government and $5 million from a private developer. That is an amazingly good deal for the Commonwealth of Australia, but currently it is still a very difficult project to get up.

In terms of the amount of funding that is available, I think the recommendations need to be stronger. We need more money for the road system. We need more money for roads of national importance. We need more money for the national highway. We need more money for maintenance.

Mr Martin Ferguson —So you are not voting for Costello then. You're in the Reith camp.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—The member for Batman will please observe that the call to the member for Herbert has been given.

Mr LINDSAY —I neither confirm nor deny that. I am certainly strongly supporting that the government recognise the priorities that we need for road funding in this country, particularly the priorities that we need for road funding in the seat of Herbert, in the cities of Townsville and Thuringowa.