House debates

Tuesday, 30 May 2006

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007; Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2006-2007; Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007; Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2005-2006; Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2005-2006

Second Reading

8:42 pm

Photo of Dennis JensenDennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The issue that I wish to address in this speech is energy, or, more specifically, what steps we need to take to secure our energy future. As I stated when I opened the debate on nuclear energy in a speech in March 2005, the issue of our energy future is critical. Unfortunately, the opposition has chosen to take a path of simply opposing nuclear energy without evaluating the option to see whether its view actually has merit. To illustrate just how stupid the Labor position on this is, consider the following scenario: let us, for argument’s sake, consider that nuclear power is 100 per cent safe, that it costs absolutely nothing and that there is no waste whatsoever. Would Labor, in that instance, continue to reject nuclear energy? If it did then it would be clear to all that the Labor position was sheer Ludditism, that it was simple ideology gone mad.

If Labor did accept nuclear energy in the scenario outlined then the case for nuclear energy would have to be determined with regard to thresholds—in other words: what level of risk is acceptable? After all, everything in life has risk. What economic costs would be deemed acceptable?

Comments

No comments