James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When the Minister for Climate Change and Energy canvassed this bill at the Press Club a few weeks ago, the first thing he said was that this bill was not required for the Labor Party to implement any of the policies that they took to the election with regard to emissions reduction and lowering power prices. That really says it all as to why we are here having this debate right now and what the motivations are around this legislation that the government say is not required for them to put in place any of the policies that they took to the election. I certainly look forward to them putting in place and honouring the policies they took to the election in this area, particularly their promise to lower the average household electricity bill by $275 per year.

I'd like to make a few very clear points when it comes to the importance of climate change and emissions reduction in this country and globally. The first is that every serious political force in this country is committed to achieving net zero emissions by the year 2050. Some are saying perhaps before then, but 2050 is within the global frameworks—Paris, of course. The Liberal Party has a policy, which it took to the last election, to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The National Party has that position. The Labor Party, now the government, has that position. The Greens have a position to get to net zero. I won't speak for individual Independents et cetera. But every major political force is committed to that. That is not up for debate in this debate or, frankly, in any of the debates leading towards policy positions around climate change now and towards the next election. That is very clear. It's not about if, but about how—how do we get to net zero emissions in the time frame outlined in a way that is environmentally and economically responsible?

The second point I make is that my side of politics arrived at that position in the last term of the parliament. That was a commitment made as a coalition—as the Liberal Party and the National Party together—to achieve net zero emissions by the year 2050. I was heavily involved within the processes of my party to convince my colleagues and was a part of that process that led to the commitment that Prime Minister Morrison announced and took to the Glasgow COP26 conference in 2021. I'm very proud of the role that I played within my party to achieve that position, because it's one that's important, it's one that I believe in, it's one that my electorate wants to see achieved and it's one that is important for the planet.

It is an inherently conservative value to be a conservationist and to care about the environment and this planet that we live on. That is an inherently conservative value. It's one that I hold. The first significant world leader to put the challenges of climate change on the record was Margaret Thatcher. I don't think Margaret Thatcher has any crisis of confidence from anyone as far as her credibility and bona fides of being a genuine conservative go.

So the 2050 position is clear. It's my own values. It's the values of my electorate. It's the party position of my party, the coalition, and all the significant political forces in this country. That's not what the debate is now. It's about how we are going to progress to achieve that. We on this side of politics, on the Liberal-National Party side, need make sure that we are taking to the next election a very clear Centre Right policy approach to reducing emissions in our country across the various time lines that are significant in these international agreements. One is 2030, but 2025 under Paris will be upon us very soon. Obviously everyone needs to outline exactly how we're going to achieve that pathway to net zero by 2050.

I look forward to again, like I did in the last parliament, being a part of achieving a policy position in my party of net zero by 2050 and to again being a part of achieving the significant suite of policies we take to the 2025 election around what approach we will take towards emissions reduction for 2030—what our target will be for 2030; we will have a new position on 2030—2035 and beyond. I very much look forward to being a part of that, because I am committed to ensuring that the Liberal-National Party coalition has a strong Centre Right political set of solutions to the challenges of achieving net zero by 2050 and the milestones along the way.

Part of that absolutely must be considering all options, and there is one options which all of the major economies around the world who are committing to 2050, and taking aggressive targets in the medium term as well, are considering. All of those major economies right across the world have nuclear is a part of that approach—the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan et cetera. Nuclear is base-load power that is emissions free, and all of those nations with aggressive emissions reduction targets have nuclear as part of that solution. How can we possibly say with a straight face that we want to get to net zero emissions in this country by 2050 and equally, at the same time, not say we should look at one of the most significant sources of base-load emissions-free electricity generation? It is absolutely ridiculous to say that we are not going to have a discussion and a proper look at that as a potential part of the mix when it comes to us achieving net zero by 2050.

Now, I've followed the nuclear debate in this country and internationally for a long, long time. In South Australia, Jay Weatherill, the Labor Premier of South Australia, called for and established a royal commission into the entirety of the nuclear cycle. He said, 'I want us to look at nuclear. I want us to look at mining more uranium in South Australia. I want to look at moving along the supply chain of uranium. I want to look at further processing of uranium in South Australia. I want to look at generation.' Jay Weatherill, the left-wing Labor Premier of South Australia, wanted to look at generating nuclear energy in South Australia, and he wanted to look at taking the planet's high-level nuclear waste and putting it in a dedicated facility in South Australia. Jay Weatherill, the Labor Left Premier of South Australia, initiated a process and wanted to have a look at that, and that occurred. Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, the former Governor of South Australia, became the Royal Commissioner, and they did that body of work.

Frankly, post that, the process that Weatherill set up, around citizens' juries et cetera, to take the outcome of the royal commission further was a failure because of him and his government, and I don't necessarily support elements of what he was trying to do anyway, but the point is that it is ludicrous for us not to look properly at nuclear. The economics have not stacked up in the past, particularly in this country, and that's because, in the past, we've never had a debate about the abundant use of fossil fuels like coal for electricity generation. The Latrobe Valley and the Hunter Valley, co-located to the two great metropolises in this nation, Sydney and Melbourne, have abundant coal that can be mined for and generated into electricity onsite, sent down the poles and wires into the businesses and households of this country, particularly in those major centres. But if we're going to get to net zero by 2050, that is not a possibility into the future. That's why nuclear has not stacked up in decades past, and even now it is extremely expensive.

That's fine, because we'll determine that in this debate. We will discover in this debate, when we look at this properly and we understand not just what nuclear's capability is now, from an economic point of view, but what it might be into the future as technology continues to develop, whether or not it is an economically viable solution to the mix of generation into the future. But why is it that those who want to decarbonise this country and the planet can't stomach and won't tolerate the concept of part of the energy to replace energy that generates emissions being emissions-free generated energy? Why is it that they say that can't come from nuclear? Furthermore, if that's the case, why aren't they saying that to their friends in other countries of this planet, particularly in Europe and North America, that are using nuclear and absolutely will be using more nuclear as they proceed to get towards their target of net zero by 2050, or whatever their targets may become or change to in the future.

It is just appalling that there are some in this debate who want that but aren't prepared to have that discussion. That needs to be front and centre in this debate.

I am very disappointed that this has become a political point-scoring exercise instead of a genuine opportunity for the government to be focused on implementing the policies that they took to the last election to achieve the targets that they laid out. This bill doesn't have anything to do with that, and they should be focused on implementing their policies, particularly the cost saving in their policy of $275 a year on household electricity bills.

See this speech in context