<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2012-06-12" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="1969" />
  <endPage num="2052" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Carbon Tax</name>
      <text id="2012061295291cc72aef482eb0000510">
        <heading>CARBON TAX</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="question">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Bragg</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2012-06-12">
            <name>CARBON TAX</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2012-06-12T14:38:00" />
        <text id="2012061295291cc72aef482eb0000511">
          <timeStamp time="2012-06-12T14:38:00" />
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (14:38): </by> My question, again, is to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Will the minister confirm whether we will pay more carbon tax as a result of the government's decision to suspend the rail electrification project?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="526" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. P.F. CONLON</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Elder</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Transport and Infrastructure</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Housing and Urban Development</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2012-06-12">
            <name>CARBON TAX</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2012-06-12T14:38:00" />
        <text id="2012061295291cc72aef482eb0000512">
          <timeStamp time="2012-06-12T14:38:00" />
          <by role="member" id="526">The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:38): </by> Firstly, whenever someone suggests 'will you confirm', they are putting an argument. I just point that out. Can I say this, too, 'will we'—can I be clear who you mean by 'we'?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="interjection">
        <name>Ms Chapman</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2012061295291cc72aef482eb0000513">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms Chapman:</by>  It's you.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="526" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. P.F. CONLON</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2012061295291cc72aef482eb0000514">
          <by role="member" id="526">The Hon. P.F. CONLON: </by> 'You', not 'we'.</text>
        <text id="2012061295291cc72aef482eb0000515">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="5">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="619">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2012061295291cc72aef482eb0000516">
          <by role="member" id="619">The SPEAKER:  </by>Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="526">
        <name>The Hon. P.F. CONLON</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="2012061295291cc72aef482eb0000517">
          <by role="member" id="526">The Hon. P.F. CONLON: </by> 'Will the government'—the truth is that the government is likely to pay more carbon tax on those things that produce more carbon. So, given that our electrical generation has a very low carbon footprint, and that given diesel would be higher, we probably would pay more on diesel trains, and that, can I say, is the whole point.</text>
        <text id="2012061295291cc72aef482eb0000518">We actually believe in the environment, we believe in the future of our children, and we believe in the state. We believe you should pay more for carbon. We believe it is a very important thing to change the behaviour of governments and of people. If we are going to be hanged for believing that we need to get to a carbon constrained future, then so be it, but that is what we believe. We have put it out there before. We have put it out there again. We believe in a lower carbon future because we think it is the only thing that responds intelligently to all of the science we have.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>