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

I withdraw—through the Building Australia Fund that the opposition opposed. The fact is that the member for Cowper called the Coffs Harbour bypass ‘the most urgent infrastructure priority in Australia’, so I expected funding for that to be there—not a zack.

There is the Princes Highway down in Gilmore. The member for Gilmore said on 28 April that a coalition government would provide the $20 million for the Princes Highway to be upgraded, and said that what is needed is ‘extraordinary funding’. She repeated the commitment outside parliament today. But last week, when the coalition had to put down what they are actually providing money for—because it takes money to build roads and railways and ports—there was nothing there from the shadow finance minister. I looked at the media release on Thursday, 20 May from the shadow minister for finance and, in small writing right down the bottom, it said:

“In view of—

and he went on about figures—

… any other past commitments have been discontinued,” said Mr Robb.

So they are out there making these commitments, and, to be fair, they have got funding in there for the Toowoomba bypass—$280 million for a $1.5 billion project; the bypass that has become a footpath—but there is nothing else. There is not a single delivery of a single infrastructure commitment from those opposite.

We have been out there today talking to regional Australia about these breaches of faith, about how the gospel truth is not quite gospel when it comes to those opposite. It gets better. The shadow minister for transport has put out a release in response. He says:

… the Coalition would meet its promises on road and rail funding, and they have all been allowed for within planned funding levels.

Wait for this:

“Most of the Coalition promises—

‘most’, we are not sure which ones; some of them are just completely dismissed—

referred to today by Mr Albanese relate, in whole or in part, to funding to flow outside the current forward estimates and under the funding envelope for future AusLink national transport plans,” Mr Truss said.

So they are not commitments for 2010; they are not commitments for 2013; they are commitments for their second or third term in office. There is confidence for you.

He went on. Here is fiscal responsibility for you, National Party style. Mr Truss said:

Other projects involve relatively small amounts of money—

well, nothing that I mentioned will cost under $20 mil—

and can easily be funded under the banner of the existing $26 billion—

it is $37 billion, by the way—

transport construction budget.

So they are saying they will fund these small amounts some time down the track. They need to say what projects they will cut. They need to say which highways will not go ahead, which road upgrades will not go ahead, which rail projects will not go ahead and which port infrastructure will not go ahead. They have been caught out completely by the duplicitous nature of the way they have put this forward. They are prepared to say one thing in their electorate but another thing when it comes to actually stumping up the funds. The fact is that they are a desperate opposition. They are a divided rabble. We see from here that they are a threat to our economic security. What we need in infrastructure development is certainty on funding. With that release today, the shadow minister for transport has brought into question the funding agreements with states and territories for every transport project in the country. They are a threat to economic security.

We know, because of the actions of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—not rebuked by the Leader of the Opposition—that they are also a threat to our national security. They are a threat to national security and a threat to the economy. They are a huge risk to this country. That is why we have just seen this pathetic attempt at a suspension. There has been no build-up; we have just seen the Julie Bishop defence strategy. That was all it was. I wonder whether she will come to the microphone and give a personal explanation, because that is what decency and integrity demand that she do.

See this speech in context