HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-11-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

Nuclear Waste

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): 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?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:27): 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—

Mr TARZIA: Point of order: relevance, sir. This is completely irrelevant to the question.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: 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.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We heard today in an extraordinary set of remarks from former senator, Sean Edwards:

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.

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—

Mr PISONI: Point of order: the Premier is debating the issue, and straying from the topic.

The SPEAKER: The question was about the nuclear—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Well, support or otherwise for the nuclear royal commission findings and the idea of a referendum. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: 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.

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—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That's right.

Mr PISONI: 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.

The SPEAKER: 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.

Mr PISONI: 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.

The SPEAKER: 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.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Speaker—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: If it is the same point of order, you will be leaving.

Ms CHAPMAN: 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—

The SPEAKER: I will see that the Premier confines himself to that question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir.

The SPEAKER: Consider the point of order upheld.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: 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—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Will the Premier be seated. The member for Morialta will leave for the next hour under the sessional order.

The honourable member for Morialta having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: 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—

The SPEAKER: Time on granted.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: 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—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and they are seeking to rebut those concerns by undermining the business case.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is what they are seeking to do.

The SPEAKER: Will the Premier be seated. I love points of order; what I hate is points of clarification, so which is it?

Ms CHAPMAN: 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—

The SPEAKER: 'Time on,' yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: '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?

The SPEAKER: 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.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Can I conclude in this way—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I don't have a linesman who can hold up the number of minutes of extra time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: 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.

Mr PISONI: Point of order: this question was about the Minister for Transport and the—

The SPEAKER: I have already ruled that it was about something a little broader than the Minister for Transport. Leader.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT