Road Funding

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (15:14): My question is to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Given his answer to the member for Goyder explaining why the government would not put its funding with the federal funding for the Kadina to Kulpara road, can the minister explain to the house why the government has chosen to fund overtaking lanes with the federal government between Port Augusta and Whyalla in the electorate of Giles?

Ms Sanderson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide is warned for the second and final time. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (15:15): The minister in his answer reminded me of the genesis of this whole debacle, and it is because the existing federal Liberal government broke its agreement with our government. It was negotiated with me personally with the former government. It was an agreement entered into in return for our commitments in relation to the River Murray.

When we got the 3,200 gigalitres of water down the river, part of the contribution was that our irrigators had to make a contribution and we had to offset the contribution that they made through getting a substantial commitment to the irrigators; first $240 million that was to go for the Water Industry Alliance, plus an additional $50 million which was to go to industry adjustment for the various communities up and down the river. This was an historic agreement. It was an agreement that was brokered by this state government together with the Riverland communities.

Ms Chapman: He's not answering the question.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Those opposite—I am certainly answering the question. It was a deal that was ratted on by the current federal Liberal government and we insist on it; we insist on the deal being honoured, and that is why we have consistently raised this question. They keep promoting—

Mr Pederick: Every other state has the money, Jay.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We are not every other state.

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is the thing those need to get through their thick heads. This is not—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier will not refer to other members of the parliament as having 'thick heads'. He will withdraw.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Speaker, what they need—

Mr PISONI: Point of order, sir: you asked him to withdraw; I didn't hear him do so.

The SPEAKER: I would like the Premier to withdraw.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I withdraw. What those opposite need to understand, and it has been consistently said in this place and they refuse to accept it, is that we are a different state when it comes to the River Murray. We have different circumstances.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: Relevance. The question was about road funding and the inconsistency applied between a road that was funded in a Labor seat and one that wasn't funded in a Liberal seat.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully to the Premier's reply to ensure that it is germane.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The approach that we have taken for this $25 million is to hold this government to its agreements. That is the approach that we have taken and the reason we have sought to hold them to this agreement is that we are a different state when it comes to the River Murray. The history of the River Murray is that in 1969 we capped what we took from the River Murray, and we have always lived within our means in relation to taking of water from the River Murray. When there was a debate about how the burden of adjustment should be shared—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Davenport is on two warnings.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: When there was a debate about how the burden of adjustment should be shared to get the extra water back in the river, we said, 'We're not going to accept the same approach that's been taken in other states. We're not going to accept that because we have already made the adjustments.' That is why we wanted this resource to be applied, no strings attached, no handing you $25 million and then you have to pay it back through the GST system. We wanted to make sure that that money was delivered to us so that we could deliver it to our Riverland communities.

The real question is: why aren't those opposite standing up for Riverland communities? Why are they selling out their own communities for the very agreement that was reached on their behalf by this Labor government? The truth is we stand up for the Riverland communities, why don't those opposite?

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is on two warnings.