Page 2248 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 August 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The guidelines provided through the Australian government’s Road Safety Program, which is a co-funded program administered under the national partnership agreement, categorise projects into either urban or regional. Projects within the defined urban area receive 50 per cent of co-funding based on being located within a Greater Capital City Statistical Area.
Projects located outside of a Greater Capital City Statistical Area are defined as regional and attract 80 per cent co-funding from the Australian government. The methodology used to classify the ACT as urban has been applied to road investment component projects within the ACT beyond the Road Safety Program. What this means is that every road, unsealed or not, outside of Canberra, is considered urban and attracts less funding. When the same road crosses into New South Wales, they are all then considered by the Australian government to be regional and attract more funding. It is not fair, and if it continues it means that the ACT’s regional roads, and the regional communities that rely on them, will receive less funding than they deserve.
In contrast, the Australian government’s investment in New South Wales, which is approximately $30.48 billion based on the MYEFO 2021-2022, outlines that there are numerous projects within New South Wales that are mostly funded by the commonwealth government—so not fifty-fifty but mostly funded by the commonwealth government. The relative ratio for co-funded projects in New South Wales that are outside of the Sydney Greater Capital City Statistical Area generally includes much greater funding than 50 per cent. Some examples include: the Barton Highway Upgrade Package—relatively close to us—that has a 67 per cent contribution from the commonwealth; the New England Highway Singleton bypass, 80 per cent; the Newell Highway upgrade, 80 per cent; the Milton Ulladulla bypass, 80 per cent; and the Duns Road upgrade, 70 per cent.
Let me make this point: co-funded projects within New South Wales that are within the Sydney Greater Capital City Statistical Area are also co-funded between the Australian government and the New South Wales government, often at a higher amount. In fact, there are a variety of road projects funded in Sydney at the council level that are 100 per cent funded by the Australian government, or at 80 per cent. For example, the Mulgoa Road upgrade with Penrith City Council is funded at 80 per cent.
We are not getting that level of funding from the commonwealth for our regional roads, and I think it is time for things to change. The ACT government has been making this case for the ACT to get our fair share of infrastructure funding for some time—and how the urban and regional categorisation disadvantages not only the ACT but also the surrounding region in New South Wales who also use this infrastructure.
During consideration of the Australian government’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, under the previous government, the ACT government proposed that the ACT’s regional roads should be considered for 80:20 funding. I wrote to the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Barnaby Joyce, specifically putting forward upgrades to Boboyan Road on the basis of 80:20 funding, asking for the same treatment for the same road that goes into New South Wales and gets higher funding.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video