Mr ANDERSON (Minister for Transport and Regional Services) (10:16 AM) —I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the issues and offer more detail if members want it. I will then provide a broad overview response. I come firstly to the member for Lowe's points. As I understand it, he is interested in what happened to the proceeds from the sale of Sydney airport. As has been the case with asset sales since 1996, with the limited exception of the money that was held back for things like the Natural Heritage Trust, the proceeds from the sale of Sydney airport went to reducing Commonwealth debt. We inherited a debt of $96 billion. We have reduced that to below $30 billion. That saves Australian taxpayers something of the order of $5 billion a year now in interest on debt. We think that is a good outcome, and that is where the money has gone. We think that is good public policy.

Have we put some of that aside for building another airport? No, we have not for the simple reason that, as I think you are well aware—and the government's position is quite simple—there is no need for a further airport at this point in time. The construction of another airport at the moment would be a giant miscalculation because, at this stage, it would be impossible to know when it might be needed and when it might start to be used. It would be impossible to know what sort of airport would be needed, because the current one is fulfilling its functions extremely well and is likely to do so for a very substantial amount of time into the future. In essence, the answer is that, no, we have not put money aside for another airport, because it would be a white elephant.

When it comes to the LTOP, we believe that it has resulted in a much more equitable sharing of the noise burden in the Sydney area and, indeed, that is overwhelmingly the message I get from residents from around Sydney. It is the case that LTOP targets are not always met. They are targets. There are a range of factors that influence the meeting of those targets and they vary seasonally. As the member would be well aware, wind and weather patterns and so forth influence the use of various runways. I do constantly seek to remind Airservices that they need to strive to achieve those targets and sometimes I would like to see a slightly better performance, I have to say, because I do have a lot of sympathy for people in Sydney who are affected by aircraft noise. But I have to make the point that the fact remains that this is a vastly more superior plan for Sydney's airspace management than was in place when we came to government and it is of enormous benefit to a very large number of Sydney residents.

I say to the member for Maribyrnong that the state of Victoria has seen something like a 118 per cent increase in its construction budget under AusLink. That is a very substantial injection of funds. Under the old program, you had the national highway system to which we added RONIs. It is worth noting that, prior to AusLink, Victoria had been a huge beneficiary under the RONI program. Of some $2.2 billion allocated across the nation, around $825 million was earmarked for Victoria. We identified a whole series of roads of national importance and sought to help the people and the taxpayers of that state cope with very real road needs.

I have absolutely no doubt that the member for Maribyrnong has always honestly pointed out to his constituents that Labor had no such program—there was no RONI—and that under their programs there would have been no assistance for the Calder at all. I have no doubt you point that out frequently and remind your constituents of that. We have in fact committed substantial amounts of money to it—some $114 million, with up to $82 million to come. When you talk to your constituents I have no doubt that you also of course—sorry, I am looking at the member for Oxley. My apologies.

Mr Sercombe —I am more good-looking.

Mr ANDERSON —I will take your word for it. I am sure your constituents agree. I am sure when you have face-to-face meetings with them you also point out that when it comes to RONIs, while we usually provide as a rule of thumb half the money for the states, they are state roads. (Extension of time granted) I am sure you also point out that VicRoads are responsible for putting forward priorities, for planning and for process. We seek to cooperate with them and we seek to do it in a way that is sympathetic to the needs of the people who use the roads. Indeed that is the underlying principle of the whole approach that we adopted under RONIs.

Under AusLink we have adopted a completely different approach. There are a couple of points I would not mind making about AusLink. I have been quite interested to note calls from the state ministers which are based around the comment: `We didn't get our fair share. It ought to be done on a population basis or a contribution to GDP basis.' That totally misses the point about the Commonwealth's involvement in transport. As a general principle it is for the states and local government to build the intrastate transport networks that their people need. It is for the Commonwealth, which is not the major provider of infrastructure—it never has been and I do not believe it ever will be—to seek to provide the corridors which give us national interconnectiveness between our capital cities, our ports, our exporting regions and our importing areas.

If you take the state of Victoria, for example, the Commonwealth perspective recognises that one of the major needs of Victoria is to be properly linked with Sydney. It is a long way away. The problem with the dual carriageway that we need between Sydney and Victoria is that it is overwhelmingly in New South Wales. Is it in the interest of Victoria to have that dual carriageway? Of course it is. Is the money expended in that state? No, it is not. But nonetheless, who wins out of it? All of us. And AusLink seeks to establish those corridors which need to be developed in the national interest in terms of the infrastructure projects that will deliver the best national outcomes for jobs—preservation of existing jobs, creation of new jobs—export performance, the creation of prosperity, safety and amenity. That is really what we are seeking to do. It is, of course, strategic. It is strategic in the sense that at last we now have a seamless interstate track.

AusLink will be seen by future historians who look at these issues as the final cracking of one of the major failings of our forefathers. At the Adelaide constitutional convention of around 1890 they had four items on the agenda. One was the powers of the Senate and what they ought to be. Depending on how you see the Senate, they got that roughly right. They gave them the power to deny supply but not initiate it. Another was post and telegraph. I think we can all thank the good Lord that they decided it ought to be national, otherwise we would have had eight or nine Telstras—that would have been just terrific! Two areas where they baulked, though, concerned what were seen as the transport corridors—the rivers and the railways. For protectionist reasons they wanted the transport corridors kept in state hands.

We need a national approach. We have it with rail, with the successful conclusion of the lease negotiations in New South Wales, with Michael Costa. I do not mind saying, on a bipartisan basis, that he was very pragmatic and very easy to deal with. He made a very sensible and, I thought, interesting observation when we signed the lease. He said, `Sometimes they talk about two political parties—main groupings—in this country, but I do not think they are coalition and Labor; they are sensible and non-sensible politicians.' His attitude, I would have to say, was quite enlightened. We negotiated a deal with him and with the unions satisfactorily, and who wins? Australians. Why do I mention this again in the context of AusLink? Because, as we get more dual carriageways connecting our major cities, we will be able to ensure that they are not immediately choked by freight. A decent chunk of the freight volumes that are so rapidly growing in this country will now be diverted to rail. I think that is very advantageous in terms of economic outcomes, environmental outcomes, amenity and congestion. It is a very welcome breakthrough.

The member for Oxley raises some questions, and I do understand them, in relation to the vexatious issue of traffic volumes in south-east Queensland in general and on the Ipswich Motorway in particular. (Extension of time granted) What I can best indicate to you is that Senator Ian Campbell and I are quite sincere in wanting to find—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Does the member for Batman wish to ask a question?

Mr Martin Ferguson —I was seeking the call.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Because the minister's time had expired?

Mr Martin Ferguson —Yes. We normally sit down and then you call the first person.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am in the hands of the minister.

Mr ANDERSON —I am happy to cooperate.

Mr Martin Ferguson —I am prepared to allow the minister to continue. We sought to keep our questions brief because this is about answers, not filibustering.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the member for Batman has been around this House for long enough to know there is a five-minute clock here. It is normal that the chair stops at the five-minute point and gives the member speaking the chance to speak again. I call the minister.

Mr ANDERSON —That was a fairly pointless interjection. I am trying to give answers and a bit of background.

Mr ANDERSON —You do not want me to praise Michael Costa?

Mr ANDERSON —You don't? Well, there you go.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The minister will address the chair.

Mr ANDERSON —Let me just record that I think that was a pathetic interjection. The member for Batman parades himself as a nice guy but rarely gets above personal denigration. Let me just put that on the record. You want to parade yourself as a nice guy, so I say to the member for Batman—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The minister will address his comments through the chair.

Mr Martin Ferguson —Why don't you just answer the questions?

Mr ANDERSON —Why don't you just get onto policy and off personal denigration?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Can we have the discussion through the chair, please?

Mr ANDERSON —I throw that challenge to him. Let me come back to the northern alternative. There are real issues—there is no doubt about that. I have visited that stretch of road. And, yes, of course we will take seriously any report that comes to us. But one of the main reasons we put up the alternative is because, in tackling the problem, it seems to me—and we will need better advice on this; I am the first to say that—that the disruption to people who use the road while you try to convert it from four lanes to six lanes will be absolutely massive and it will go on for a very long period.

Mr ANDERSON —That is right. We will take the reports on board, we will take all the information, and we will seek to do this sensibly and cooperatively. That is one reason. I think you will get massive traffic dislocation while you try to widen it. The other reason is that it may very well be that there is a reasonable cost alternative that will give us eight lanes instead of six.

Mr Ripoll —No, four lanes plus four lanes; not eight lanes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —We do not need a debate. The minister has the call. Would the member for Oxley contain himself, please.

Mr ANDERSON —I think there may very well be some good lateral thinking solutions which will give us extra lanes and a lot less interruption while we actually obtain them. I cannot guarantee that we will necessarily respond to any report that comes to us, but we are looking for quality advice and a sensibly negotiated outcome to an undoubted problem, and we have real money on the table to start to deal with it. In terms of where the money is, it is clearly allocated and identified in the AusLink documentation.

Mr Ripoll —I've got it here.

Mr ANDERSON —I have it here, too. In relation to the new AusLink program—Brisbane urban corridors and connectors—it is all there. I know it is heavily loaded in 2007-08 and 2008-09. You will not find it in the budget papers because AusLink was not spelt out in the budget papers. They are only headline figures, but the detail, plus some extra money, I would have to say, was released in the AusLink announcement and in the accompanying papers.

Coming to the matters raised by the member for Lingiari, I will just make a couple of general observations. I trust that the member for Lingiari, when he talks about Roads to Recovery, again points to the fact that this is a coalition initiative, one that the Labor Party described as a `boondoggle' and does not support. It is something that I am sure his constituents enjoy and for which they owe their appreciation to the Liberal and National parties in government. There are some issues in your unincorporated areas in the Northern Territory. I am not going to canvass those now. I have had several meetings with affected stakeholders, and we will try and find a fair and reasonable way through those issues. AusLink does see around a 40 per cent increase in funding for construction on the highway system and so forth up there, and I am sure that that is welcome as well.

I now come to the member for Batman. Yes, we are retaining the land at Badgerys Creek but, as I have stated, we see no justification for any further development work on a second airport at this point in time. Will CASA have the say in relation to any safety matters in terms of the introduction of NAS? Yes, of course they will; that is their job. That is their task. In relation to the issue of depreciation for trucks and buses, you ask us to overturn the determination. There is not one yet. I do have some concerns about the amount of time that the tax office is taking in regard to this matter, and I will be seeking the Treasurer's advice on it.