Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to continue the discussion which I had begun to outline before we had two very moving speeches from the Prime Minister and the opposition leader to mark the tragedy which occurred a year ago today. I also acknowledge that and the people who have been here in the gallery and add my respects as well.

I was in the process of discussing the context in which we now have a situation where the Victorian government is seriously considering legislating to remove compensation that would be payable if they tore up the East West Link contracts. I was pointing out that this East West Link idea has been on the table now for almost nine years, since the commissioning of the Eddington report, the tabling of that report and the warm endorsement that the key recommendations got, of which the East West Link was one. Following that, the Baillieu and Napthine governments put money towards the planning, development and, subsequently, contracting of it.

There was then a change in government and we are now in the position today where the Daniel Andrews Labor government is threatening to take the action I have outlined. The Andrews government, given the context, has three options available to it. The first option is that Mr Andrews could honour the contract that was signed by the Victorian government. This is the most sensible course of action and it perfectly aligns with the firm commitments that he gave pre-election. The pre-election commitment he gave was, 'Sovereign risk is sovereign risk. A contract is a contract.' This was said by Daniel Andrews on 13 August 2014.

Ms Burke interjecting—

The member for Chisholm may want to listen to what he said pre-election. He said:

"A responsible government—a government that actually values our state's reputation and good name—doesn't rip up contracts."

That is what Daniel Andrews said pre-election. He made a firm commitment to the Australian people that he would not rip up contracts. Tim Pallas, the then shadow Treasurer, said similar things.

It is the standard way that governments operate. Regardless of what a government might think of a contract made by the previous government, it is the strong convention that contracts are honoured. That is the strong convention. People know that. Daniel Andrews knew that. Bill Shorten knows that. He has said so himself. Chris Bowen knows that. He has said so himself. No doubt even the member for Chisholm, who has been interjecting—and I would have thought her constituents would support this project—acknowledges that the standard convention in a country like Australia is that if a contract is signed by the government of the day it is a contract which is honoured even if there is a change of government subsequently.

Ms Burke interjecting—

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

See this speech in context