<!--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="2016-11-16" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="7823" />
  <endPage num="8015" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding>
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000260">
      <heading>Question Time</heading>
    </text>
    <subject>
      <name>Nuclear Waste</name>
      <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000261">
        <heading>Nuclear Waste</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="question">
        <name>Mr MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Dunstan</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-11-16">
            <name>Nuclear Waste</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-11-16T14:26:49" />
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000262">
          <timeStamp time="2016-11-16T14:26:49" />
          <by role="member" id="4338">Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:26):</by>  My question is to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Would the minister like a second chance to voice his support for the Premier's plan to create a nuclear waste dump in South Australia?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Cheltenham</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-11-16">
            <name>Nuclear Waste</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-11-16T14:27:03" />
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000263">
          <timeStamp time="2016-11-16T14:27:03" />
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:27):</by>  I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition would like a second chance to get into sync with his shadow treasurer in the upper house, who said today in his media release, 'The numbers that are contained in the royal commission report are a grotesque distortion,' whereas on radio this morning the Leader of the Opposition, when he was asked whether he repudiated the report, said, 'No, we welcome the Scarce report. We thought it was an excellent report.' The reason there is such confusion on the part of those opposite is that they are—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4840">
        <name>Mr TARZIA</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000264">
          <by role="member" id="4840">Mr TARZIA:</by>  Point of order: relevance, sir. This is completely irrelevant to the question.</text>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000265">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000266">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  I thank the member for Hartley for his point of order. It gives me a pause in which I may call to order the members for Morialta, Hammond, Finniss, Adelaide, Mitchell and the deputy leader, and warn the member for Morialta for the first time and for the second time. I will listen carefully to what the Premier has to say. Premier.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000267">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  We heard today in an extraordinary set of remarks from former senator, Sean Edwards:</text>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000268">
          <inserted>No higher authority than a royal commission has found it's demonstrably of economic benefit to South Australia, and you get these fringe-dwellers saying it's not.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000269">Who are these fringe-dwellers? I know many of us have regarded the upper house as a fringe act, but could it be the Hon. Rob Lucas or, indeed, is it the Leader of the Opposition who the good former senator is speaking about? What we had yesterday was an embarrassing spectacle where they were exposed—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000270">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  Point of order: the Premier is debating the issue, and straying from the topic.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000271">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The question was about the nuclear—</text>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000272">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000273">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Well, support or otherwise for the nuclear royal commission findings and the idea of a referendum. Premier.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000274">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  This is very important because what was at the heart of the opposition's switch in position, the stated case, was the advent of the citizens' jury. Then, of course, that all blew up yesterday, and so then they moved to economics. Of course, what they said today on the economics, they rushed out today and they cited a report. They cited a report which apparently questioned the economics of the royal commission's report after the Leader of the Opposition said it was an excellent report—but let's just set that aside for one moment.</text>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000275">That same report that they are relying on to question the royal commission report contains this line: 'Informed decision-making will require a more extensive assessment.' So, what we have is this: their principal position is that it was the citizens' jury that caused them to do this. It's the same citizens' jury they said was a flawed process. They now rely upon a report—</text>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000276">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000277">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  That's right.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <page num="7845" />
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000278">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  Point of order, sir: the substance of the question was about the transport minister. The Premier hasn't mentioned the transport minister once, so I suggest that he is moving away from the substance of the question.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000279">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The member for Unley must surely know that a question without notice may be answered by any member of the ministry—and it is being answered.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000280">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  Sir, I think you misunderstood my point of order. The point of order was about the Minister for Transport, yet we haven't heard, with just 30 seconds to go, a single mention of the Minister for Transport from the Premier in his answer.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000281">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The Premier may be answering the question in a way that is frustrating to the member for Unley, but it was a question about the nuclear royal commission and the referendum. Premier.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000282">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  Mr Speaker—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000283">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  Point of order.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000284">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  If it is the same point of order, you will be leaving.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000285">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  Well, can I say on the question of relevance that in fact the question was about the government's position on creating a nuclear waste dump and doesn't mention the nuclear royal commission at all. So, I would ask you to—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000286">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  I will see that the Premier confines himself to that question.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000287">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  Thank you, sir.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000288">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Consider the point of order upheld.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000289">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  Thank you, and I will join up the remarks. This is one of those rare issues where it necessarily requires bipartisanship, and so it is relevant. The chain of reasoning of the opposition is relevant to the future fate of this public policy issue. It has always been thus—indeed, those opposite have acknowledged it as the case. What we have—</text>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000290">
          <event kind="interjection">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000291">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Will the Premier be seated. The member for Morialta will leave for the next hour under the sessional order.</text>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000292">
          <event>The honourable member for Morialta having withdrawn from the chamber:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000293">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  I had a bit of time chewed up, Mr Speaker, so I would crave your indulgence to have a few more moments from those opposite. What we have are two bases—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000294">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Time on granted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000295">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  Thank you. What we have is, essentially, two reasons for why those opposite have sought to shut down discussion in relation to this issue: one is the citizens' jury, a process they described as flawed; the second, a report that actually says that you cannot rely upon it to reach that conclusion—the very report they rely upon to critique the economic case. And why is this happening? Why is this happening? Because there is great concern amongst the business community—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000296">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  Point of order.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000297">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  —and they are seeking to rebut those concerns by undermining the business case.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000298">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  Point of order.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000299">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  That is what they are seeking to do.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000300">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Will the Premier be seated. I love points of order; what I hate is points of clarification, so which is it?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <page num="7846" />
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000301">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  Well, it was certainly in the last four times I expressed it as a point of order, so I thank you for taking the point of order, and that is that not only has the time expired, and whilst I think I heard from your lips the words 'time on to continue' or something to that effect—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000302">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  'Time on,' yes.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000303">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN:</by>  'Time on,' I inquire, given that time has expired and parliament hasn't given leave to extend, as to what time you, sir, are extending it to?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000304">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  I am glad the deputy leader has asked because under sessional order 8 the Speaker has discretion to extend the time for a minister's answer if the answer is interrupted. I have exercised my discretion.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000305">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  Can I conclude in this way—</text>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000306">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="1804">Ms Chapman interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000307">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  I don't have a linesman who can hold up the number of minutes of extra time.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000308">
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL:</by>  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I conclude in this way. There is growing concern in the business community in South Australia that a party that actually asserts itself as a business party and a party of free speech is closing down discussion on a business opportunity.  I think those opposite are beginning to realise they have been led into error by the Leader of the Opposition.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000309">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  Point of order: this question was about the Minister for Transport and the—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20161116e011671240be4cdf90000310">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  I have already ruled that it was about something a little broader than the Minister for Transport. Leader.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>