Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

That's what I said—it's a debate between technology and taxes, and nuclear energy is a big part of this. My point is that we'll have submarines sitting in the port with a nuclear reactor sitting inside that capability, lawfully, but if you wanted to plug that generator into the grid it would be illegal. That is a bizarre situation. That's when you let ideology in the energy space rule over sense. It's like talking—with respect—poetry to the taxman. The reality is: if the technology is safe in a submarine capability, then of course it's safe in this country. 'Why is it relevant?' the member opposite asks. It's relevant because it's a form of energy generation that delivers energy on a net zero basis.

I sometimes have people who might not share my view about how we get to net zero speak to me about this topic, at field days, shows and other places. I always say to them, 'I'm pleased we can agree on one thing,' and they say, 'What's that?' 'Well, we can agree that nuclear energy needs to be part of the mix.' They then seem offended by that suggestion, but the reality is that they'd just been talking to me about how important carbon emissions reduction is. If that is, as former Prime Minister Rudd said, the greatest moral challenge of our time, then the greatest solution of our time is not found in the ledgers of accountants and taxes; it's found in scientific laboratories. It's found in nuclear energy technology, and its advancement is a big part of that puzzle.

I want to spend the last few moments I have on this bill, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill, talking about another element of energy policy, which is part of a suite of measures that this government is seeking to deal with, and that's the one that has my constituency most concerned. We have talked a lot about carbon emission reduction, but the debate has moved to methane and the requirement to reduce methane emissions. Now, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy was asked about this yesterday in question time. I've got to tell you, farmers in my electorate weren't comforted by his answer. What my electorate's farmers—tough men and women who subject themselves to the elements and to international commodity prices and ever-increasing input prices—wanted to hear was a federal minister for climate change and energy categorically ruling out an approach that would see them needing to limit the number of animals they are entitled to stock on their farms. They didn't hear that. What we heard was a minister who is certainly offering an open door to those that would prosecute that case, just as he's enthusiastic about this approach to carbon emission reduction.

I'm sometimes accused of talking the 'giga babble' when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin because everything's measured in gigalitres. It's very confusing. And this debate, with respect to Australians who just want to make ends meet, is a very difficult debate to follow. But no-one has ever been able to answer this question for me: how is it a good thing for the global environment to place a regulatory regime on Australian businesses? Let's say an aluminium smelter, for example, is forced to close, is forced to move its operations to another jurisdiction overseas where the regulatory requirements are far less strict. How is that a good outcome? The ore will still be mined in Australia, but it will now be transported overseas, creating a bigger footprint. We would send those smelter workers into unemployment. We would see greater levels of emissions as a result of the aluminium that continues to be produced, because I don't think anyone would reasonably suggest that there would be a commensurate decrease in demand for aluminium. And of course as that aluminium, in its refined stage, is returned to Australia there would be an even bigger footprint created.

No-one has been able to answer that question for me because the answer is clear: this approach might make domestic Centre Left members of parliament in Australia feel really good about what they've achieved, but it does nothing for the global environment. All you've done is create a greater footprint. You've displaced it overseas. You've taken people from employment to unemployment. But congratulations; those opposite get to feel particularly good about what they've supposedly done. That's what this is about.

The difference, of course, is that if you take a technology based approach you bed those outcomes in forever, irrespective of where you are. If you take a tax based approach then human beings being human beings will effectively do everything they are required to do to avoid that tax regime in this jurisdiction and go to another one.

Now, my friend who entered the chamber and left I think called me an idiot. Well, let's see. I'm pretty clear I'll be here after the next election; I'm not sure he will be. But he'll make a contribution because he's scared about the Greens on his left flank. It shouldn't be about that; it should be about the Australian people. (Time expired)

See this speech in context