Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (15:52): It is a great privilege to rise in this place, as always, and speak on the MPI raised by the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, albeit an MPI that is a little misguided, as usual. He should be welcoming the great outcome from the G20 that the Treasurer was able to secure on the weekend. We on this side of the House have been utterly impressed by the way that the Treasurer was able to get the G20 target agreed to by the G20 countries. I do congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury on his role on the weekend also in ensuring that great outcome. So we are surprised that the member for McMahon is not welcoming the outcomes of the G20, but maybe we will get that when he has finally had his meeting with the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley. The House will remember that when they hand over the Treasury they do not actually have a meeting as part of the handover because that is the disdain they have for each other. It was interesting to hear the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, talk about Labor's current approach to economic policy, which is to decide what is the best economic way forward for business, not to let business innovate themselves but for Labor to tell them what they should do. That is now the thinking on that side of the House. It is not the thinking of Paul Keating and it is not the thinking— Mr Bowen: Who said that? Mr BRIGGS: The member for McMahon says, 'Who said that?' Just recently the member for McMahon has been out there backing a $25 million claim by Coca-Cola Amatil for a factory in Shepparton. He was on the record supporting— Mr Bowen: Have you been salmon fishing lately? Mr BRIGGS: He raises Huon in Tasmania, a promise made by the Labor Party. The member for McMahon has been supporting the $25 million bid by Coca-Cola Amatil, but it is interesting that in his book which he wrote when he was sacked as immigration minister and he had a few months while he was doing Kevin Rudd's numbers last year— Mr Bowen: Thanks for the royalties. Mr BRIGGS: Don't worry; it is borrowed, and it will be returned on time. He says on page 50: Supporting manufacturing does not mean supporting protection, picking winners and introducing old-fashioned subsidies. Protection is a recipe for an uncompetitive and unsustainable manufacturing sector. There you go. That is something we agree with. He also raised during the debate the latest fad campaign that we see from the opposition. It is a bit reminiscent—for those of us who were here in 2008—of what it is like to go through the early stages of opposition today. Seeing what has happened today on the other side does bring back some memories, I am sure, for the Parliamentary Secretary for the Treasury as well from mid-2008, watching what is going on on the other side. There will be plenty of these MPI faux leadership speeches today. We will see plenty of those. As part of his contribution the member for McMahon raised the issue of the suggestion to the Commission of Audit of a co-payment for Medicare services. He raised that as one of the latest scare campaigns. Dr Leigh: It is a fact campaign he raised. Mr BRIGGS: He did raise it, member for Fraser, and I pay attention. In the last few days that we have gone back and had a look at a few of the things the member for Fraser has written over the years. It turns out that the member for Fraser wrote an op-ed in recent years, in recent times, arguing for—you guessed it—a co-payment for Medicare. Dr Leigh: That was 2003. Mr BRIGGS: So after 10 years he now does not support it. Is that right? So the member for Fraser, who is part of the economic brains trust on the other side, supports a co-payment for Medicare. He claims it as a Labor idea, in fact, in the article. He says it is a Labor idea. Yet the member for McMahon, as part of the latest scare campaign that the opposition now wants to come up with, is running around trying to create this. He should talk to the member for Fraser. He says it is his idea. This is an opposition that refuses to accept that they left the country in a mess. The budget situation that we found when we came to government on 7 September last year was a complete and utter mess. The MYEFO update that was released in December told the truth about the situation in which we found the budget. It said that if we do not address the fiscal challenge we will have a deficit for a decade, unless we change the structure of the budget. Unless we address the budget structure we will end up with over $500 billion of Labor debt. In 2007 when the Labor Party came to government and the member for Lilley inherited the Treasury from Peter Costello there was no debt. In 2008 when there was a global financial crisis the Labor Party went, 'You beauty, it is time to spend.' They opened up the chequebook. They built school halls when schools did not need it. They handed out cash when people did not want it— Mr Bowen: Did you go to the opening of any school improvements in your electorate? Mr BRIGGS: No, I didn't, not one. They were still handing out cheques last year when he was Treasurer to deal with an economic crisis in 2009 supposedly. That is how incompetent the Labor Party are. So I disagree with the Treasurer. The mining tax was not the worst policy implementation of the member for Lilley; it was the insanity of handing out $900 cheques. The member for McMahon deep down inside knows it. Mr Husic interjecting— Mr BRIGGS: Don't worry, Ed; you have had a good 24 hours, mate. You have had a great 24 hours. You are going to get quoted more often in the next 24 hours than you will for a long time. We do have a challenge with the budget. We have a challenge with the economy. We need to address the structural challenges in the economy, and we will do that. We are going to do that in the coming months. The budget will be a forward-looking document which starts to address the substantial challenges that the Labor Party has left this country and our people. It is not just the debt that is a problem; it is not just the deficits that are a problem; it is the structure of the economy, which means that young people cannot get a chance at work. It is shameful that in my home state, in my home town of Adelaide, there is 19.7 per cent youth unemployment in the northern suburbs. That is the record of six years of Labor at the federal level, and that is the record of 12 years of Labor at the state level. Jay Weatherill, the state Labor Premier for another 14 days, said on Monday that it does not matter—that it is all over the top; it does not matter at all—and that there is no jobs crisis. There is 20 per cent youth unemployment in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, and the Labor Premier says it does not matter. Hang your heads in shame. Jay Weatherill says 20 per cent youth unemployment does not matter. It does matter. We will address the structural problems in the budget. We will address the structural problems in the economy. One of the ways that we are going to address the structural problems in the budget and in the economy is that we will invest in the productive capacity of the economy through infrastructure. We will invest in the roads of the 21st century. We will, for instance, build a north-south corridor in South Australia. We will invest in WestConnex, which will help people in Western Sydney reduce their travel time. It will ensure that we get the productive capacity of that city up. We will also invest in the East West Link in Melbourne. One of the things about which we absolutely agree with the secretary of the AWU in Melbourne is where he says that it is a project that must go ahead. It is a project that must go ahead, and under 'the infrastructure Prime Minister' it will go ahead. And we will have more to say about infrastructure through the budget process. There is a budget crisis left by the Labor Party. There are structural problems within the economy which mean that our young people do not get the opportunity at a job that they should. There is an utter difference in the approach to the economy between our side of parliament and their side of parliament. They believe in the power of government. They believe in the power of government programs in creating jobs. We believe in our people. We believe in our people and the entrepreneurial spirit. We will take the tax pressure off them. We will get rid of the carbon tax. We will get rid of the mining tax. We will get rid of the regulatory burden, and we will build the infrastructure of the 21st century to create a stronger and more prosperous Australia.