Carbon Emissions Reduction

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (14:35): Thank you. My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier update the house on net zero policy in South Australia, and any alternative views?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:35): Can I thank the member for Waite for her question. The member for Waite—and I think it's fair to say a very significant proportion of her electorate—cares deeply about the environment. I know the member for Waite is not alone in her enthusiasm for this area of policy, but she has a well-established interest in the area and I want to thank her for her advocacy.

In this place, ostensibly there are two parties of government and there are three positions on net zero. On this side of the house we have one, and in actual fact there is a degree of unanimity—a consistency between our position as a state parliamentary party, which aligns with our position within the federal parliamentary Labor Party, and that is that Labor's commitment, state and federal, is to pursue a position of net zero by 2050. We are committed to that, not just being an aspiration but being a goal that we pursue, and we are doing that through thoughtful, pragmatic and responsible policy development. Amongst those opposite, on the other side of politics, the other party in government—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is on his final warning.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —there are two positions in respect of net zero. There is the purported position from the Leader of the Opposition that they are indeed committed to net zero, best evidenced by a shadow minister who I think is for net zero or at least is the shadow minister for net zero supposedly coming up with crafting policy to pursue it, and then there is the position of the South Australian Liberal Party more broadly, which is to actively campaign against net zero including from their federal colleagues. So there are two positions occupied by those opposite: those for net zero and those against net zero.

I thought it was a little interesting earlier today when the member for Bragg and the member for Heysen stood up in this place and eloquently argued that they are rather enthusiastic supporters with respect to the environment in the context of our pursuit of the biodiversity act. We had the member for Bragg espousing his commitment to the environment, we had the member for Heysen espousing their commitment to the environment, so I've got to say I was interested to learn coming into the chamber for question time that both the member for Bragg and the member for Heysen—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: the Premier is reflecting on a debate that has actually been live in the hours prior, which is very much in the midst of the second reading. Much as that's interesting, he has just referred to contributions to the Biodiversity Bill debate that occurred just before lunch.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Can we have quiet on both sides, please? The member for Florey, you have been doing it all day. I will listen carefully to the Premier, but the ruling is that you cannot pre-empt debate on a bill. I don't think we have digressed to that level yet, but I will keep an ear out for what the Premier has to say.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I wonder, on the weekend, what was the contribution from the member for Bragg or the deputy leader of the Liberal Party at the Liberal Party State Council? The deputy leader of the Liberal Party, at the state council on the weekend, I wonder, as a delegate, did he rise to his feet? Did he rise to his feet in support of his own leader's position and actively prosecute an argument around the retention of the position in favour of net zero, or did he go silent?

Did he step back and allow the Antic forces of the Liberal Party to dictate to the deputy leader of the Liberal Party? I suspect that the deputy leader of the Liberal Party said nothing. His conviction for the environment is not too dissimilar to the member for Bragg's conviction for the environment. They stood there and said nothing. They said nothing as the position of their leader was actively redacted by the Liberal Party itself.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Florey can leave the chamber for the rest of question time, as can the member for Morialta and the member for Chaffey.

The honourable members for Florey, Morialta and Chaffey having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg has the call.