Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Minister Scullion, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. With regard to an announcement yesterday by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport of budget funding for various infrastructure projects around the nation, how does the government explain that South Australia only gets $1.8 billion in new infrastructure spend in this budget, on top of the $1.6 billion underway, out of $75 billion in the rolling infrastructure plan?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Patrick for the question. Infrastructure in this country is determined, at least by this government, in a methodical assessment. It is not divided up on the basis of population. I'm often reminded of this in my home jurisdiction of the Northern Territory. We have a population slightly bigger than Bondi—it's about 228,000—and people argue that we might have a greater amount of GST or that, for the number of people we have, we have more infrastructure funding. But that's just not how it works in a federation. So I believe that the government is investing in the right projects both in South Australia and right across Australia. But, if there are some particular issues, Senator Patrick, where you think the priorities need to be readjusted, I will be more than happy to make an appointment with the minister so you can bring those matters up with him.

But I don't believe in simply carving up the infrastructure funding bucket, as I have indicated, based on the number of people. As you would expect, some jurisdictions have greater needs than others, and I hope you would also agree that infrastructure needs of jurisdictions change from year to year. We accept that, and that's why we approach infrastructure in the way we do.

But South Australia will absolutely benefit from the investments we're making as part of this investment pipeline. There are projects such as the $220 million for the Gawler rail line electrification. I know that that is a high priority. There is $160 million for the duplication of the Joy Baluch AM Bridge and $177 million for the north-south corridor Regency Road to Pym Street.

Again, thanks for the question. I can assure you and all South Australians that we do fund infrastructure across the nation in line with the most rigorous and comprehensive assessment process.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, a supplementary question.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the heckling about Defence projects: they're very different to infrastructure projects and have a very different purpose. Obviously infrastructure has a public purpose and there is a link between infrastructure and population. We have seven per cent of the population base. We did only receive three per cent of the funding. How is that a fair go for my constituents, Minister?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senator again for his supplementary question. One of the issues when we talk about money—and I do take on board that some of the heckling around the enormous investment in South Australia in Defence obviously has nothing to do with your question, and I accept that, Senator. When we talk about the $220 million, the $160 million, $1.77 million or in fact the $3.6 billion, I think what is lost in that regard is the actual number of jobs that this equates to. This is funding for a population of, as I have indicated, not a huge amount, but this equates to generating at least 550 jobs, and I think that, with that amount of jobs, they're the sorts of things that South Australians are talking about. 'Where does our future go? How can you guarantee our jobs in South Australia?' (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting the differential between the states—and I won't go as far as to accuse you of any pork-barrelling anywhere—I wonder what it is that the South Australian state government could have done to perhaps improve the position and improve the spend for infrastructure that may have occurred for South Australians in this budget.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly in regard to my being a representative, I can assure you that, in the context of the Northern Territory, every time there's a budget I get a pretty serious belting about why we receive such a low amount in comparison to some of the bigger states. As I reiterated, Senator, this is a methodical assessment and this is the same process that is applied—yes, when we live in less populated centres like South Australia and the Northern Territory, none of our constituents enjoy the fact that we're spending $5 billion on infrastructure in Victoria and they're all saying, 'Why can't they do it in that state?' I do sympathise with you. But, again, I would reiterate that this is a methodical assessment of infrastructure priorities. They are taken through Infrastructure Australia. We believe in government that this is the best way to invest. This isn't just a pork-barrelling exercise; this is about making sure that our priorities are actually matched with the needs of infrastructure in Australia.