Algal Bloom

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (14:35): My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier agree with the statements made in the Senate inquiry report that the state government was slow to act and provided minimal support to affected communities when the harmful algal bloom was first detected in March 2025? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mr BASHAM: The report states that a range of local councils in areas impacted by the harmful algal bloom remarked that when the harmful algal bloom was first detected in March 2025, the state government was slow to act and provided minimal support to affected communities. The report also says that similar sentiments were expressed by individual submitters, with one community member saying, 'I feel abandoned by the government in this crisis.'

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier, Minister for Defence and Space Industries) (14:36): I thank the member for Finniss for his question. It is interesting because the member for Finniss, I don't recall, on one occasion throughout the months of March, April, May or June, coming to the parliament—either him or any of his colleagues—and raising with anyone, once, anything to do with the harmful algal bloom. If the member for Finniss is suggesting that somehow he was exercising his function of leadership in his electorate during the course of the harmful algal bloom, that Senate report would of course be a reflection upon him as much as anybody else.

What we know is that on this side of the house we place a value on the science and the advice—whether it be coming from public health sources, now so routinely objected to by those opposite, or our marine scientists, we make sure that we seek their advice, that we scrutinise their advice and, provided that we form the view that it has been appropriately tested and examined, that it is something that should inform a public policy response.

I have to say, following the most recent contribution from the Minister for Health, that that is a stunning revelation. I think that if we are all just quietly honest with ourselves for just a moment, we would acknowledge that those who occupied the Treasury benches in the former government did a good job of following and listening to the health advice that was procured from a senior group of experts during the course of the global pandemic, and made sure they listened to that advice and used it to instruct and inform the policy response to that pandemic.

Many of the people who were on this side of the house then are on that side of the house now. For even those who weren't, some of them were in senior offices, like the Premier's office, at the time listening to health advice and making sure that the public communications were consistent with that health advice. So it is somewhat startling that in only one term of parliament those opposite are now actively undermining and rejecting the views from the same public health officials. It is truly remarkable.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Premier Marshall would be rolling over in his political grave, knowing that you are acting as supplicants to those who reject public health advice.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order?

Mr TEAGUE: It's 98(a), but it has moved into 127(2) territory. The question requires an answer. The Premier is debating the point and, by reflecting improperly on members, he is in contravention of 127(2) as well.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I won't uphold that point of order. The Premier was providing, I think, context and substance to the question itself.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer! Premier, you wish to complete your answer?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Of course, when it came to the global pandemic, what makes it so distinct from the harmful algal bloom is that when we were talking about the global pandemic, lives were on the line—quite literally, lives were on the line. People were dying because of COVID, so a lot was at stake about whether or not you accepted and listened to the advice of public health officials. At least with the harmful algal bloom, there is no evidence or suggestion that anyone is dying.

But, at some point in the future, we may well face the prospect of another pandemic coming around, and when that occurs, whoever is in government I hope listens to the public health advice and listens to the science. Those opposite have now demonstrated that they would be completely incapable of making sure there was a safe and appropriate public health response unless they are willing to stand up and condemn Senator Blyth for her remarks, which we know you won't because you have all been taken over by the lunatics and you won't reject their contributions to this important public debate.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: the Premier has filibustered his time out, but the question was directly in relation to the slowness to act.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my right! Member for Newland, again! Next time.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer!

Mr TEAGUE: Standing order 98(a), which was—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just give me the point of order; I don't need the commentary.

Mr TEAGUE: 98(a).

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't see how he digressed. The language is—

Mr Teague: That's the point of order. You should rule on it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me?

Mr TEAGUE: You need to rule on it. I have made the point of order.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not upholding your point of order. I have ruled on it. The member for Chaffey can leave the chamber for 15 minutes for yelling out 'rubbish' three times in a row.

Mr Whetstone: It was four.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Four? You can go for 20 minutes, in that case.

The honourable member for Chaffey having withdrawn from the chamber: