Here’s a look at how state, territory, and federal governments are performing on their commitments to road and infrastructure investment.
Anthony Boyle, Executive Director, Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association. Image: ALRTA
What was committed?
In the past 12 months, both federal and state governments have made major announcements, promising billions of dollars in road funding – often targeting safety, regional freight efficiency, bridge renewal, and heavy vehicle productivity.
At the federal level, the government pledged:
• $45 million for 19 high-priority road and bridge upgrades across regional Australia, split between the Bridges Renewal Program (BRP) and the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program (HVSPP). From July 2024, these transitioned to the new Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program (SLRIP).
• $4.4 billion through the Roads to Recovery program (2024-29), managed by local governments.
• Ongoing investment in Black Spot Programs and Land Transport Infrastructure Agreements with states to deliver major freight corridor upgrades.
• A record $7.2 billion commitment to Queensland’s Bruce Highway, with several segments now in early works.
At the state level:
• South Australia committed to the Truro Bypass and upgrades along the High Productivity Vehicle Network.
• Victoria began bridge upgrades along the Green Triangle and Western Freeway freight corridors.
• New South Wales allocated over $500 million for road safety projects under the Federal Road Safety Program.
• Western Australia announced record spending through the Safer Roads and Black Spot programs, targeting over 100 regional sites.
• The Northern Territory awarded contracts to upgrade the Carpentaria Highway, including a new flood-resilient bridge at October Creek.
What’s actually happened?
Here’s where things get murky. Some projects have clearly progressed:
• The Deep Creek and Spring Gully bridge replacements in northern NSW are under construction.
• Wedgefield Road upgrades in WA and the Malbon-Selwyn Road causeway works in Qld were confirmed under the $45M regional package.
• Green Triangle bridge upgrades are listed as under construction.
But beyond these examples, most projects lack clear public reporting on:
• Scope and timeframes.
• Whether they’ve even started construction.
• Whether bridge upgrades will genuinely support HPVs or just replace failing timber.
• Whether freight corridors are being improved or simply patched.
• Whether new announcements are actually fresh investment – or rehashed old promises.
For instance, of the 14 bridges funded under BRP before its merger with SLRIP, there’s no consolidated public update. Roads to Recovery projects are equally hard to track unless you trawl through council documents.
Why can’t we track this?
That’s the issue: we can’t. At least not easily. Road infrastructure delivery is fragmented across programs, governments, and jurisdictions. While the money is real and the announcements bold, the public has no consolidated view of:
• Which projects have progressed beyond the media release.
• Which regions are benefiting.
• Where taxpayer dollars are actually being spent.
This lack of transparency makes it difficult for rural operators and communities to plan with confidence, and it erodes trust in government accountability.
We know it’s possible, so why not do it?
There are signs of progress:
• The National Road Safety Data Hub now hosts an interactive map of federally funded safety initiatives by location and delivery status. It’s a good start, but limited in scope, missing state projects and detailed milestones.
• AusRAP, launched by Austroads this month, is a significant step forward. It benchmarks national road conditions on a 1-5 star scale. A scan of the platform shows many key rural freight routes rated Level 2 or 3 – with the only Level 5 roads in Sydney.
Importantly, state and territory ministers have endorsed AusRAP, recognising you can’t invest strategically without knowing where investment is needed most.
Imagine one public platform combining project announcements and timelines (from funded to completed), AusRAP condition ratings, freight relevance (e.g. B-double or PBS access), funding sources and budget spend, and links to local delivery partners. It’s absolutely possible, we just need the will to do it.
Accountability: We do what we say – Governments should too
Transport operators don’t operate on goodwill and headlines. We back our commitments with accreditation, documented policies and procedures, internal audits, fatigue and risk management systems, and, increasingly, Safety Management Systems (SMS).
These aren’t box-ticking exercises. They protect our people, meet legal obligations, and uphold trust with our customers. And we’re expected to have them available for inspection at any time.
So why is there no equivalent accountability for governments?
The heavy vehicle sector contributes close to $6.5 billion annually in road user charges and registration fees. The National Transport Commission itself describes these as cost-recovery mechanisms for road wear and access. And yet, we have no clear public reporting of how or where this money is spent.
We’ve seen repeated reviews (like Heavy Vehicle Road Reform) calling for greater transparency, user-led investment decisions, and data-driven planning. But the system still hasn’t caught up.
Can we ask for accountability?
Billions in road funding have been committed – and the freight industry welcomes every cent. But we don’t just need investment, we need visibility.
Because without transparency, we don’t know whether the work is happening, whether it’s being done right, or whether rural freight corridors – the lifeblood of our industry – are being left behind.
If operators are expected to walk the talk, governments should too. Because roads that are promised must also be delivered.
The post Promised roads – How do we determine the progress? appeared first on Big Rigs.