Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is good to have the member for Fraser back there at the table. He carries a lot of luggage with him these days; he has to carry his books around wherever he goes. But getting back to asset recycling and processes on infrastructure spending from those opposite: I have often said that they have an unembarrassable quality about them. When it came to local infrastructure, as we all saw in our electorates, here is a case of what those opposite consider to be proper process. In the lead-up to the last election the then minister for regional Australia, the member for Ballarat, visited the Yarra Valley, in June of last year, and announced funding for three projects: a tourist railway in the heart of the electorate of Casey to the tune of $3.5 million; an initiative in the electorate of McEwen; and a swimming pool in the electorate of Deakin. They were all announced on the one day. But guess what had happened by the time the writs were issued some months later? It transpired that the minister had signed off with great haste on the funding announcements in the electorates of McEwen and Deakin but went on strike, refused to sign off on the initiative in the electorate of Casey. It fell to us to make that pledge that we would honour what those opposite had promised but failed to deliver—and I am pleased to say that we have.

Now, that story is typical of what went on in the dying days of the Gillard and Rudd government when it came to process on infrastructure funding. Those opposite are in no position to lecture anybody on proper process when it comes to infrastructure funding or, as many speakers on this side of the House have pointed out during the course of this debate, on processes for so many of the programs that they undertook, be they school halls or pink batts. The shadow minister, when he was minister, had a lot of advice, including from the Infrastructure Finance Working Group back in April 2012. At that time they made the very point about the importance of asset recycling. They had this to say:

Infrastructure Australia is already looking at ways to encourage the sale and recycling of government owned infrastructure to fund new projects. The Australian Government should continue to work with State and Territory governments in assessing potential assets for sale and opportunities for better use of existing assets, for example, through pricing of asset use.

And on it went. It put that principle to him time and time again.

But of course the shadow minister cannot say he is in favour of this initiative wholeheartedly, because he cannot think of an asset he would be prepared to sell. As we have seen, he was opposed to the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. I set this challenge for those opposite: I would like the shadow minister to come out in support of one privatisation that has occurred—just one. We know he opposed the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. I am very happy to say that, if the shadow minister believes that the Australian government in 2014 should own a bank, it is very difficult to think of one privatisation in the Hawke-Keating era that he would have supported. It is very difficult to think of a single privatisation that he would support today. He comes in here and talks the talk, but his record speaks for itself. That record shows that, while those opposite like to bask in the Hawke-Keating tradition, very few of them believed in it. The shadow minister and member for Grayndler is exhibit A on that front.

See this speech in context