Mr NAIRN (5:58 PM) — I do not think I need to remind anybody in this House about the problem that often exists in the community with regard to people's understanding of the various levels of government—who is responsible for what. Every day of the week I am sure that all members of parliament have people come to their offices about matters which in fact are not the responsibility of the federal government but invariably are the responsibility of either the state government or local government. I find myself often having to give a bit of a history lesson to many people as to why it is that the federal government legally cannot involve itself in particular matters which people want you to fix because they have had no luck at the local or state level but which are, constitutionally, matters for the states and/or local government and not the federal government. The education about civics that was introduced into schools a few years ago is a great step forward so that more people in our community will grow up with an understanding of our three levels of government. I do not want to talk tonight about whether we should change that but it is something that I feel like debating at times. I am sure that every member in the House would agree with me on that matter.

Meeting responsibilities is what I really want to talk about. When the federal government recently highlighted in the budget the fact that we needed to put more resources into defence because of various things happening internationally which require a greater defence commitment, we did not go around to the states and say, `We want you to throw in some money to keep our troops in Afghanistan or to protect our borders.' We took that responsibility. It is a federal responsibility, and we know what sorts of resources we have to place. The same should apply to those matters which are the responsibility of the states, but I find in my electorate that we are constantly having this debate, particularly when it relates to roads and education but also in relation to a whole heap of other services as well.

Because there are some grey areas, it seems that the states are able to exploit those grey areas and always when they get into some strife they want to pass the buck to the Commonwealth and say, `If the Commonwealth helped us out, we could solve this problem.' Really, it gets a bit rich when every time a state government finds itself in a bit of trouble it says that the easy way out is that you just say, `Come on, the Commonwealth can kick the can and help solve the problem.' What if we did that every time there was a responsibility which was quite rightly that of the federal government and we wanted to put more resources in? If we said to the states, `Come on, you come and help us,' they would quite rightly scream. So I think there needs to be an understanding of these responsibilities.

I want to mention a couple of things that are fairly typical of what is happening in my electorate in that respect. As for roads, down on the south coast of my electorate we have a problem at Pambula bridge on the Princes Highway. It is an old wooden bridge, it is low lying and every few years it floods, and that causes a great drama, particularly for the people around Eden if they want to get to the hospital, which is on the north side of the river that the bridge goes across in Pambula. The Princes Highway is quite clearly a state government road; it is not a part of the national highway system, therefore it is the responsibility of the state government.

The state government decided that they were going to spend some money and replace this bridge. But when it was discovered by the community that all they were going to do was build a new bridge in exactly the same location and at exactly the same level, the community said, `That's not going to solve too much. It's still going to flood just as often, so we are going to have the same problem.' But the state government were adamant that that was all they were going to do, and it was only after a lot of community jumping up and down that finally they said, `Oh, well, all right, we've listened to the community and you don't want that so we'll do something better, but it's going to cost a lot more money.' Instead of the $3 million-odd that they were going to spend, they said that a better solution—a solution that they should have been working towards in the first place—was going to cost $10 million. So they said, `We'll put in five and we'll just ask the Commonwealth to put in five. It's not the Commonwealth's responsibility but we'll ask them anyway.' So this is the sort of example coming from the state government. If they were really taking their responsibilities properly, in their budget tomorrow they would have that bridge fully funded, because it is needed, it is on a major road down the coast and it is on a major state highway. If we are going to increase tourism and industry in that region, we need to know that the highways are going to be open all the time and they are going to be safe. So instead of just passing the buck and saying the Commonwealth can pay for it, they should live up to their responsibilities and do the right thing and spend the money that is required to fix that particular problem.

I am the first to say that I have said a number of times that the Princes Highway is gradually becoming more of a major highway and that if there is a way in which the Commonwealth can help at some particular time along the way then we will try to do so. But we have to remember that in 1991 there was an agreement between the Labor federal government of the day and the state governments that the federal government would only fund the national highway system— major highways between capital cities and between Sydney and Melbourne—that is, the Hume Highway—and that the state highways would be funded by the states. We have also introduced Roads of National Importance, and that is an opportunity to get a bit of extra funding into certain areas—and the Kiama bypass is an example of that—and I hope that we can find some additional federal funds in the future for difficult locations. I will certainly be out there working to get that additional money, like I did to get some black spot funding—about $2 million has been spent on the Princes Highway in black spot funding—and I will continue to work to find out about any other bits of the highway where we can help out, but the state government have to acknowledge their responsibilities for that particular piece of road.

Another example is the state government seeming in fact to be almost knocking back assistance over the Queanbeyan heavy vehicle bypass, also a state government responsibility. The federal government, acknowledging the importance of that bypass for the town of Queanbeyan, said that they would contribute $2 million towards it. We will put up $2 million towards the cost of about $5½ million, so you would think that the state government would jump at that and say, `You beauty! Here's a couple of million dollars we don't have to find.' But the state member for Monaro actually put questions on notice to the state transport minister about the Queanbeyan heavy vehicle bypass in which he said:

All those legitimate questions on notice to the state minister for transport and what was his response? It was:

Talk about the arrogance of the man! He gives that sort of answer to those six questions—legitimate questions to be asked. It is not good enough. The federal government is putting up $2 million for something that is really a state responsibility. The state government gave a commitment to it back in 1995. They should get on with it. Hopefully, they will do the right thing in tomorrow's budget and the money will be there—the rest of the money—so that this badly needed project can be done.

I am just about out of time, but the other example I was giving was with respect to education. Every time parents or P and Cs complain to the state government about extra funding, they say, `Go and talk to the federal government; they should give us some more.' Every time they get into strife, they use that particular excuse. In Eden-Monaro, the federal government has in fact been funding the greater proportion of all of the capital works for schools. As Brendan Nelson said, the federal budget last year increased funding to New South Wales by 5.2 per cent. Had the Carr government increased their budget by the same amount—that is, 5.2 per cent—rather than the 2.5 per cent, they would have had an extra $145 million to spend. I call on them to increase their budget tomorrow. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question:

Question agreed to.