Extinction Rebellion

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): My question is again to the Deputy Premier. Will the Deputy Premier join the opposition and join the Minister for Energy and Mining in condemning the actions of Extinction Rebellion this morning?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: standing order 97. That question offers debate, asking anyone to join a point of view that the opposition may or may not have.

The SPEAKER: It may be. It also may be, of course, seeking an opinion. In relation to matters that we ventilated yesterday, I am going to permit the minister to answer. Questions that seek an opinion are strongly discouraged.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (14:03): It is hard to answer without giving my opinion. Nevertheless, I have been invited to answer the question, and so I will. I do condemn what happened this morning. I became aware, listening to the media on the way in, of the incredible disruption that was caused to a number of people.

I am sure there are many stories that we are yet to hear but, hearing those of the emergency workers—the people working in the hospital system, who were exhausted after a long shift and trying to get home, and probably there were several who were trying to get in to work on time who were unable to—just reminds one of the implications of decisions that are made to disrupt other people's lives, and they were very serious implications.

I will always have sympathy for people who have a democratic right to express their views. People who wish to express their views about climate change ought to be listened to because climate change is a serious matter. It would be surprising if there were not people who held very strong and at times emotional views about it, but what they then choose to do as a consequence needs to be weighed up and considered.

Today's activity was not only highly disruptive for a number of people going about their lives but was aimed at a state that has a remarkable history, record and ambition for the future in decarbonising and has already succeeded in detaching economic growth from the growth in carbon emissions, and therefore it was ill placed and, as a combination of both of those, I think probably served to do more harm to the cause of taking climate change seriously than good.