Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the statement by the member for Longman in this House that ‘legitimate retribution’ could be taken against members of parliament that vote against the government and:

If … revenue measures are blocked, … infrastructure projects in the opposition electorates ought to be blocked …

Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the member for Longman that this ‘would be a great way to handle the distribution of taxpayers’ money’?

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his question. This is a government that believes there should be proper processes when it comes to disbursing government funds. That was not a belief shared by the Howard government when it had its Regional Partnerships program—and do I need to remind members of the Liberal Party about the things that were uncovered about the Regional Partnerships program and its straight-out, unmitigated political manipulation by the Howard government for the advantage of the members in marginal and National Party seats?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was: ‘Did you support the member for Longman’s comments or not?’ That is what we want to know.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Acting Prime Minister is addressing the question.

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

I can understand why members of the opposition and Liberal Party do not like to be reminded of their shameful track record when it comes to regional rorts—a shameful track record of waste and manipulation for political purposes.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It is about the member for Longman’s views.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. To be consistent with earlier events of a few months ago, if that is the stress that is placed on the question it is a borderline question. As I take it, the Acting Prime Minister is responding on behalf of the government. I would have thought that members who have actually had executive office in government would know the distinction between members of the government and members of the governing party.

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

Can I remind members opposite that the approach of this government is one where we have established Infrastructure Australia to advise on infrastructure decisions, the first time that we have had a body to comprehensively look at the need for a nation-building agenda. Looking across this country, we know there are communities that are crying out for nation-building projects. We have urban congestion—we have bottlenecks when it comes to rail, when it comes to ports, when it comes to the transfer of goods from rail to ports. These are economic capacity constraints. They are things that confront working Australians every day as they try and do something as simple as travel to work.

Infrastructure Australia is there to provide objective advice. When it comes to the other funds that the government is establishing—for example, the Education Investment Fund in my own portfolio—there will be an objective advisory structure. All of this stands in stark contrast to the days when the former member for Dawson would manipulate documents immediately before caretaker periods in order to splash money out in marginal seats to assist Howard government members—a shameful track record, one that Liberal Party members should recall, and one of these days they should apologise to the Australian people for it.

Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. How do efforts to block the budget restrict the government’s ability to respond to uncertain international economic circumstances?

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Robertson for her question. The government is committed to delivering long-term sustainable growth for Australia. In order to do that, the government has set out a very clear plan to pursue that objective, which is focused on the development of long-term investment in infrastructure through the three big infrastructure funds and on establishing major projects, such as the national broadband network; the education revolution; taking action on climate change and water, which is long overdue; improving productivity in our workplaces and businesses through deregulation and regulatory reform; and, the most important element of all, maintaining a strong budget surplus.

The opposition’s response to the government’s plan has been totally incoherent. The opposition tell us that they support lower taxes and, apart from lower taxes for Ferrari buyers and Porsche buyers, their track record suggests the opposite because they have just defeated in the Senate a reform measure with respect to the Medicare levy surcharge that would have delivered substantial tax relief to thousands upon thousands of middle-income families in Australia. They say they want to spend up big on pensioners, and yet they have defeated the government’s initiatives in the Senate with respect to dental services for low-income earners and pensioners. So they did not seem to really care very much about pensioners there. While they are suggesting the government should spend up big helping pensioners, at the same time they are endeavouring to make it much harder for the government to do that by blowing giant holes in the surplus. And they claim to be the party of responsible economic management! They are deliberately spreading fear, deliberately seeking to talk up the risks to the Australian economy by suggesting that Medibank Private and private health insurers are in financial difficulties, thereby undermining confidence amongst investors and consumers, with significant potential negative impacts for the economy into the medium term.

A couple of days ago I confessed that I was feeling a bit nostalgic about the absence of the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bradfield. I am sad to say the feeling is getting worse. There has to be some treatment I can get for this condition. It is getting worse.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have got billboards around Sydney advertising treatment for that sort of condition!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney sought the call for a—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is responding to the question.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no idea what is on billboards in Sydney. The former Leader of the Opposition, on major economic issues, had a habit of sitting on the fence. At least he knew where the fence was. That was helpful. The current Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer have been all over the place with respect to the opposition’s economic policy in their first week and a half in place—plagiarising the Wall Street Journal, not knowing the Reserve Bank interest rate and, most importantly, in the Senate knocking over tax relief for middle-income earners. In truth, the opposition do, in reality, have a plan, even though they do not know they have a plan. Their plan is simple. The Liberals have a three-point plan for economic policy: spreading fear, spending money and wrecking the surplus. That is the three-point plan for economic management that the Liberal Party are putting forward.

The government has a very different plan. The government has a plan that is built around investing for the future, that is built around investing in infrastructure and skills, that will deliver the economic capacity that will deliver prosperity into the future, that will deliver sustainable long-term growth for Australia’s economy and ensure that the working people and pensioners of this country have decent living standards in the future. The government will stick to that plan. The government remains committed to delivering that plan, notwithstanding the obstruction and resistance in the Senate. We will continue to pursue all of the elements of our budget in order to deliver the surplus that will be the foundation stone for long-term sustainable growth.