House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Port Bonython PORT BONYTHON Mr KENYON House of Assembly Newland PORT BONYTHON Mr KENYON (Newland) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Transport. Is he aware of any support for the proposed feasibility study for the government's deep sea port at Port Bonython? The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly Elder Minister for Transport Minister for Infrastructure Minister for Energy PORT BONYTHON The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:31): I thank the member for Newland for his question about this very important project and proposal. Of course, there are those who have concerns about the development of a deep sea port there, and we take those seriously and they will be fully addressed in the process. We have had a good deal of support. If the house does not understand what has happened there, we, the government, went to the private sector because we— Mr Williams House of Assembly Mr Williams: No; they came to you. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Actually, the interjection is not true. The private sector itself will tell you that this proposal was developed out of my office, out of the Office of Infrastructure. This is the Libs all over: they cannot acknowledge a good thing done by government. They will not do it. Let us be clear: it came out of our office, and we went to the private sector and said, 'Is anyone interested, if we coordinate it?' They are certainly not interested, because it is good news for the state. We said, 'Is anyone interested in putting a private sector bid together to see if revenues can be put together to build a deep sea port to underpin the future of mining in South Australia?' We had 10 different serious consortia respond. I am very pleased that the winning consortium is led by Flinders Ports—a good South Australian firm. It will spend a few months on the feasibility to see whether the private sector can put this deal together. The private sector has been very supportive of it every step of the way. As recently as last week or so, we had an iron ore mining venture in to see us to urge us to continue. We have had support, and I am pleased to say that, on one occasion, we had some bipartisan support—at least for a little while. I have a document, the opposition's infrastructure bid to the Infrastructure Australia fund, the $20 billion fund. It was signed very recently, on 13 October, by the Leader of the Opposition. You would expect, of course, that would be a high quality document, because they are after $20 billion in funds. Perhaps I can show you the quality of the document by reading a sentence from it. I urge members to listen carefully, because it might be a little hard follow. It states: As a part of a major reinvention of the City West site we should the interstate train service will be brought into the city and could service the sports stadium, cultural precinct, major events as well as City West. Obviously, when they got this in Canberra, they said, 'Can't argue with that! Better send those blokes some money. Can't argue with that—can't understand it, let alone argue with it!' But I do note that it refers to that famous disappearing sports stadium—the one that, until Monday, was part of the policy platform of the opposition. I have heard of retractable lights, but now we have a disappearing City West sports stadium. It no longer exists, and it is not a promise. We will find out what they are going to promise in March 2010. The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Read that sentence again. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I don't think I could. It was very hard. They did manage this on our proposal. This is what he said on 13 October: As a matter of urgency there must be the development of a major bulk commodities export wharf at Port Bonython. They went further and said that it was so urgent they wanted the government to pay for it, not the private sector—the great friends of the marketplace, 'I know they want to pay for it, but don't let them. Get the government to pay for it.' That is a matter of urgency. So, you can understand why I was a little surprised when, on 28 October (some 15 days later), the opposition spokesperson urged me not to go ahead with it. They held their nerve for 15 days. That was probably a record for them. The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Ridgway! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It was Ridgway saying, 'What we need to do is have a longer look at this.' Let's make this clear: on 15 October it was a matter of urgency that had to have commonwealth funds. On 28 October the opposition said that we should not go ahead with it. Maybe now we see the general motif of this mob, because on Monday we found out that everything the Leader of the Opposition has said to this date has just been blowing wind at us. Apparently, none of it means anything, and nothing he says until March will mean anything. All will be revealed in March. So, what we will have is basically a good wind bagging session until March 2010 from the Leader of the Opposition. This demonstrates the stark difference between this government and the opposition— Members interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It does. It's a stark difference. We have gone to the private sector, put together a deal that the private sector will pay for. If it does not pay for itself— Members interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, the Sturt Highway proposal budgeted at $100 million, paid for by the commonwealth, we got it in at $80 million, and got them to give us the $20 million for a bit more. The Hon. K.O. Foley House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. Foley: It's still not on budget. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Not on budget; that's right. We did spend it all. We spent the other $20 million in the member for Schubert's electorate. At least he is appreciative, because he is a slightly serious person, unlike their front bench. It is no wonder that Kerin wants out of this place. I know that he has caused a by-election, but I do not blame him. Who would want to sit behind this mob? Only 15 days after asking the commonwealth if we could have $20 billion, they asked us not to go ahead. How on earth can anyone take these people seriously? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.