Mr SAWFORD (10:15 AM) —One aspect of the budget that I have been very disappointed in is the RONI funding that has gone to South Australia. You would think that there were nine Labor members in South Australia and only three Liberal, instead of the other way around, in terms of the influence that those members have on this government for infrastructure spending in South Australia.

About 12 months ago I mentioned in the House, with great disappointment, the lack of money and encouragement for infrastructure spending in South Australia. In particular, I referred to the Gillman highway and the third river crossing in my electorate of Port Adelaide. When you examine the RONI funding throughout Australia, you cannot help feeling very cynical. I know that there are many safe Liberal seats—and I have heard members say it with great disappointment—where there is no funding whatsoever. There were some safe Labor seats—nothing. When you look at marginal seats and the RONI funding, whether you look at Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria, you see Liberal marginal seats—not National Party seats, but Liberal. That is a great disappointment. The one exception for the National Party was probably Hinkler, with the road funding going around the city of Gladstone.

South Australia, like Tasmania, needs particular attention to encouraging its economy. The Port of Adelaide is the most efficient port in Australia. It is continuing to be the most efficient port but it lacks part of the jigsaw puzzle. When Labor was in, we duplicated the Port Wakefield highway, we built the South Road connector, we built the Salisbury interchange bridge, and, as in a jigsaw puzzle, all the bits started to come together to build what I would think is one of the best transport hubs in the world.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you have been to Antwerp or Amsterdam, which are probably two of the greatest ports in the world. We are talking about a third river crossing: there must be 50 or 60 in Antwerp. We cannot build one in South Australia—not one. It is a great disappointment because it would give South Australia, in terms of niche importing and exporting, a real boost in the sense of increased traffic into an efficient port; it would give a rail link, with direct access to all cities in Australia and to the Northern Territory. Yet, for the second time running, in this budget we have not been able to gain any funding whatsoever.

I have to say that the Liberal Minister for Transport in South Australia, Di Laidlaw, has tried to encourage the building of the third river crossing and to get money for that. I give her credit for that. It just seems a great pity that this is a government that fails to recognise the national interest or a way of dealing with the national interest other than by short-term political opportunism and the pork-barrelling of seats. I heard Mr Anthony speak earlier about a form of thinking—referring to the Newcastle-Wollongong-Sydney-Canberra triangle—which excludes anyone outside of that. How do you think South Australians, Western Australians, Northern Territorians and Tasmanians feel? We have, basically, a feeling that when it comes to any infrastructure matter outside of Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne there is no consideration given whatsoever. I think it is a great disappointment to the people of South Australia, in that they have nine Liberal members out of 12. One of them, the member for Sturt, must be very disappointed because Port Rush Road, a major arterial road in his electorate, is now going to be part of the route for semi-trailers, semi-B-doubles and goodness knows what else. His constituents will be very alarmed that this is going to be the major transport route from the eastern states to the Port of Adelaide, right through the middle of his electorate.

What are the other eight members doing? What influence do they play in the preliminary discussions on budget in terms of infrastructure spending in South Australia? I suspect very little indeed. This is a grave disappointment. I hope Di Laidlaw and the Premier of South Australia—perhaps along with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rann—can get the government to reconsider substantive funding for South Australia.

In my closing moments, I would like to acknowledge a good friend of mine, Mr Ralph Clarke, a member of the state parliament of South Australia, who is here today. I welcome him to the Main Committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —The chair also welcomes Mr Clarke.