<!--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="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000339">
      <heading>Question Time</heading>
    </text>
    <subject>
      <name>Nuclear Waste</name>
      <text id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000340">
        <heading>Nuclear Waste</heading>
      </text>
      <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>
        <startTime time="2016-11-16T14:38:03" />
        <text id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000341">
          <timeStamp time="2016-11-16T14:38:03" />
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:38):</by>  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:</text>
        <text id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000342">
          <inserted>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.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000343">The Jacobs report was the one that the royal commissioner relied upon. It further states:</text>
        <text id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000344">
          <inserted>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.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000345">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—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000346">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  Point of order: the Premier is entering into debate. By mentioning the Liberal Party, he is entering into debate.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000347">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  I don't think the mention of the Liberal Party in an answer automatically renders the answer debate.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000348">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  He is contrasting us to him. That's a debate.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201611160a097ed9d62a43d3b0000349">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Well, God forbid. The Premier is finished. Leader.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>