Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister advise the House on the role of infrastructure as part of the government’s Economic Security Strategy? Is the minister aware of any threats to the government’s strategy?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wills for his question and for his ongoing interest in infrastructure. Indeed, infrastructure is a key part of the Economic Security Strategy of the government’s response to the global financial crisis, which was outlined by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer just on Tuesday. This is a strategy to have Commonwealth involvement in the delivery of our roads, our railways, our ports, our urban transport systems and our communications networks. Importantly, we established Infrastructure Australia to ensure that proper cost-benefit analysis was brought to the assessment of the nation’s infrastructure needs and the merits of individual projects. Indeed, we have announced that the priority list from Infrastructure Australia will be brought forward by more than three months to December this year.

But, of course, we have not sat around waiting for this report. In the budget we brought forward some half a billion dollars worth of projects that were not scheduled to start until the following financial year—projects such as the Townsville port access road and projects right around the country including in Bunbury and Perth. And shortly we will be introducing legislation to set up the Building Australia Fund. So the government has a very clear plan when it comes to infrastructure development and nation building as an important component of ensuring that we build in a plan for securing long-term prosperity and dealing with the capacity constraints that were, of course, identified by the Reserve Bank on more than 20 separate occasions.

The opposition’s approach has been characterised by inconsistencies and partisan political games. Indeed, when the merchant of Venice was hunting down the member for Bradfield to become the Leader of the Opposition—hunting him down, day in, day out—he was saying that the then Leader of the Opposition was doing damage to the Liberal Party brand because he was damaging their economic credentials. Remember the criticism about budget measures and the opposition leader’s—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, how could this possibly be relevant to the question that was asked?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is responding to the question. It was a broad question that went to threats, and I will listen carefully to the minister’s response.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are indeed threats to the government’s nation-building agenda, and they are personified by those opposite in this chamber and by their colleagues in the Senate. We know that just three weeks ago the shadow minister was threatening to block the Building Australia Fund legislation. But that did not come as a surprise from the shadow minister, given that the now Leader of the Opposition stated, as part of his response to the Rudd government’s budget, that the Building Australia Fund and nation building was ‘the greatest con of all’. That was what he stated at the time about infrastructure development and nation building.

On Tuesday of this week, the shadow minister changed the positioning—if you watch them for long enough, you always get both sides of the street, usually at the same time. But at this stage, on Tuesday this week—it will probably change by next week—the shadow minister said:

… the Coalition has never said, at any time, that we will block any infrastructure legislation.

Well, they actually voted against it when the Infrastructure Australia legislation came before the parliament. They said that it was just all a con and that it was not real economic reform. And, of course, we know from their inaction in government that they did nothing about this for 12 long years.

When it comes to tackling issues such as urban congestion, which the government has identified as one of the priorities, we know that the opposition also cannot agree with itself on the way forward. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bradfield, had the following to say in September:

Well we always look favourably on investment in public transport.

I thought that was a pretty positive sign from the then opposition leader. Probably one of the reasons why they knocked him over was that he was being positive about nation building. That was a mistake, clearly, by the member for Bradfield. So I went back and had a look at whether there was any form from the merchant of Venice before he became the Leader of the Opposition.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will refer to members by their titles.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, there is some form there, because he said in 2006, ‘Urban public transport is unequivocally within the state governments’ bailiwick. The public know who is responsible.’ We on this side of the House actually think there is a role for national leadership when it comes to infrastructure, including on issues of urban infrastructure. Those opposite are a threat to the Australian economy. They constantly change their positions. They have been totally inconsistent since the government’s announcement on Tuesday about the Economic Security Strategy, on each and every element of that strategy. Whether it be the payments to pensioners and carers, whether it be the issue of increases in skills or whether it be the nation-building agenda of the government, they try to take both sides of the street.

We know that the Leader of the Opposition stands for nothing except for himself. That is the only thing on which he is consistent. We on this side of the House stand for nation building. We will continue to pursue the agenda as part of securing our economic future.