Question Time

Nuclear Waste

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:38): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why would they be so agitated on the other side? I think it has something to do with Business SA coming out today calling for the nuclear discussion to continue, in complete contradiction to the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, if you go to the report they rely upon to actually contradict the report of that great South Australian, Kevin Scarce, it contains words like:

The Royal Commission process and the Project are innovative. The Jacobs MCM Report has sufficiently defined options and parameters for the Project to allow an initial assessment of Project economics.

The Jacobs report was the one that the royal commissioner relied upon. It further states:

The scenarios developed in the Jacobs…Report show that under certain assumptions the project could be economically viable…[The report] provides a useful indication that the Project, a radioactive waste storage and disposal business in South Australia, could be profitable under certain conditions and assumptions.

That is the reason why it is rational for a discussion to continue about this matter. It is the reason why the very report they rely on says that informed decision-making—informed decision-making, not the sort of kneejerk political reaction to close down discussion, not the political correctness we have seen from those opposite that says that different points of view are not allowed to be expressed in the public debate. Whatever happened to the Liberal Party which was meant to be the pro development party in South Australia? Whatever happened—

Mr PISONI: Point of order: the Premier is entering into debate. By mentioning the Liberal Party, he is entering into debate.

The SPEAKER: I don't think the mention of the Liberal Party in an answer automatically renders the answer debate.

Mr PISONI: He is contrasting us to him. That's a debate.

The SPEAKER: Well, God forbid. The Premier is finished. Leader.