Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. As the member well knows, we operate a mandatory detention system and, yes, there are costs associated with it. Those costs were met by the former Howard government—in the region of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars—in order to fund the so-called Pacific solution. We have taken a different approach but we have maintained mandatory detention. Yes, it does cost money, but it is the right policy for this country and, as a result, we will continue to fund it. I am not sure whether the member, in asking his question, is suddenly of the view that mandatory detention should be abandoned as a policy. I know that he has flipped and flopped in many directions on immigration policy since the last election, but mandatory detention remains the policy of this government and consequently we will fund it.

What arises as a result of the member’s question is that, yes, budgets require choices—and they are not easy choices. We need to keep working to make those choices. We have made those choices in our $5.6 billion funding package. The choices have not been easy. Finding two dollars of cuts for every dollar we are asking Australians to put in for the levy and deferring a billion dollars of infrastructure programs have been difficult decisions, but they are the right decisions in the national interest. The member who asked me the question sits on the frontbench of an opposition that has been unable to make these decisions. The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘All of this is going to be easy. I’ll be able to find this money in the budget.’ And then we waited day after day after day for a funding package to be produced. And when it was produced, so hollow was it, so shallow was it, that it did not even enjoy the support of his deputy leader; so hollow was it, so shallow was it, that the backbench are out on the doors basically saying they do not support it either.

The member who asked the question also asked me about the Bruce Highway, and I thank him for that. We have allocated $2.3 billion to the Bruce Highway over six years. The Howard government allocated $1.2 billion over 12 years. Let’s do that maths again: $2.3 billion over six years versus $1.2 billion over 12 years. We have effectively doubled the effort in half the time. So, if the member wants to come to the dispatch box and say, ‘Yes, the Howard government was remiss. Yes, it was a government of poor choices,’ and then say, ‘This government has made better choices,’ that would be an accurate reflection of the facts.

But, of course, the facts will not ever cross the lips of those opposite, because this is about their political interest, not about the national interest. It is time they lifted their sights. It is time they recognised this nation has come through a summer of natural disaster. The nation needs rebuilding. We have a plan to rebuild it. It is time to stop the cheap politicking and endorse our plan.

See this speech in context