Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would just ask the member for Bowman how long he has been in this place. He seems to believe that the Labor government has been in for 18 months and yet we have caused the complete de-infrastructure of Australia! He was a member of the previous government. I do not know what he did—well, I have read some things—as a member in the former government to influence his government to spend money on infrastructure in that beautiful place he calls Bowman. I do not know what his story is. It would have been good if he had been prepared to speak about infrastructure in general and its importance as an economic stimulus, whether in this economy or any other. But I can tell him that infrastructure is, first and foremost, part and parcel of our $42 billion stimulus and was part of the $10 billion stimulus before that, because infrastructure is about jobs. Infrastructure is about sustaining employment—hopefully improving and increasing employment opportunities—and about giving skills development to those involved in it. And, most importantly, it is about providing valuable assets, both social and physical, to our community.

Under any objective observation of the last 12 years, the federal investment in significant national infrastructure has been lacking. We have seen those opposite point the finger at state governments; and maybe we can indeed point the finger at state governments—but we can also say that the federal part of our system did not support willingly and wholeheartedly the development of important economic infrastructure in this country. This stimulus package seeks to do that. I said earlier today that we do not have all the answers and we have produced a package with warts and all. This is about stimulating the economy. It is about developing infrastructure which we need not only now but also into the future, so I was disappointed that the member for Bowman wanted to rant and rave about his goat track into and out of the particular place he was talking about. He had a responsibility as a federal member in the former government to do something about that. I do not know what he did, but ranting and raving like that would not have got him much of a hearing from Mr Howard and his acolytes in terms of the distribution of infrastructure funding.

I looked through this $42 billion stimulus package—the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—seeking infrastructure. I can point to my electorate and say that, after a lot of lobbying, and I would put to you that it was evidence based lobbying, we already have a commitment of at least $8 million for local infrastructure. Each one of those projects is going to involve jobs. Each one of these projects is going to be an asset to my community. I am glad we did it and I wish the previous government had done it. I hope future governments do this as well so we all share these benefits.

Let us look at the education component of the stimulus package, for instance, something that unfortunately those opposite voted against—but I know that deep down they are very happy because we have invested $14.7 billion in infrastructure projects, particularly in primary schools. Each of those schools is going to have a facility for better teaching and learning, which I mentioned earlier today. But most importantly, each of those schools is going to have a project or projects that are going to lead to construction jobs and jobs in the industries that service those construction jobs. There will be new carpets and air-conditioning. You name it; it will be made available. That is going to stimulate our local economy. If you do not support that, you do not support infrastructure investment and you do not know what infrastructure means in our community. What about the $6 billion for the construction of new public housing and $400 million for repairs and maintenance to existing public housing? What about the $252 million for the Defence Housing Authority to build an extra 802 residences? Those are just some of the examples of infrastructure spending that is going to stimulate this economy. That is what we should be talking about; that is what those opposite should be supporting.

See this speech in context