Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Last week, after more than two years working towards a prosperous, renewable and sustainable future in Australia, the coalition announced they want us to walk away from it and face instead a nuclear powered reality. The details of that reality, however, are nowhere to be found. Indeed, in the few short months we've been asked to consider the policy, the coalition has shifted from spruiking currently non-existent small modular nuclear reactors to now selling us on large-scale nuclear facilities. As questions have been put to them by businesses, industry leaders and people from across the community, their propositions have morphed, with the latest version suggesting that the sites they have identified will in fact house multiple nuclear facilities. As those words left the shadow minister 's mouth on the weekend, I found myself thinking, 'They are selling us a write-your-own-ending adventure book, and I for one am not buying it.'

Nearly a week on, as question time in the House of Representatives has deteriorated into something akin to an argument with a toddler who simply wants something because someone else has it, we still have no clear understanding of the alternative future being proposed by the coalition. We do know five things about their plan. One, it will rely on nuclear energy to achieve our net zero ambition by 2050 even though we do not have, nor have we ever pursued, nuclear energy for our nation—not even during any one of the terms when the coalition held government. Two, their plan will not include a 2030 target, and a coalition government will walk away from our current 2030 commitments. Three, the plan has not been costed, and no-one seems to have any idea whether a generator will cost us $600 million or $60 billion. Four, the size and scope of the program are not known. Five, none of the seven communities currently identified as being potential sites were consulted in any way prior to the opposition's announcement. That, in a nutshell, is the coalition's alternative Australian energy future plan.

To be clear: I do believe there is a role for nuclear energy to play in our global push towards a net zero emissions future. Nuclear energy is already part of the mix for several countries, particularly where other resources such as space, consistent sun and wind, access to critical minerals and hydro resources are limited. Many of the countries with existing nuclear energy industries made pivotal decisions many years ago, when the choice for low-cost renewable energy simply wasn't on the table. In Japan, for example, where there is limited land and the nuclear program has been operating under a heavily subsidised model for many years, it's worked. Similarly, in France and England, where the population spends a significant percentage of their year living through long, dark, cold nights or wading through thigh-deep snow, it has also been important, but none of those conditions apply in Australia. I want to be clear when I say I believe the opposition is selling us a red herring, seeking to drive division and disrupt the current economic transition. I believe that's completely irresponsible.

I expected better of a group of people who for so long have told us they are the party for business and free-market principles. There is not a single piece of authenticated, independent modelling that supports the coalition's claim that pursuing a nuclear energy future would bring down energy prices. Indeed, without exception, the modelling tells us that to pursue nuclear is to condemn Australian households and businesses to ever-increasing energy costs as we continue to rely on ageing fossil fuel assets and drive away potential investors in large-scale, clean, green energy projects.

As ordinary Australians, we are already paying the price for over a decade of inaction on the energy transition at a national level. After that decade, which was under the watch of the coalition, there seems to be no remorse and no sense of responsibility for where they've left us. Our current cost-of-living crisis is of their making. But, just like any other master of the shell game, they're hoping that our memories are short and our patience for reform will be weak.

The truth is it's the coalition's inaction on emissions that has impacted our agricultural industry, our food security, our international reputation, our ability to attract international investment, our lack of local competence and, on a very personal level, the cost of running our households, including our insurance premiums. While I may sincerely wish it was otherwise, at this stage of our nation's development, nuclear energy makes no sense in Australia. The incredibly extended timelines for development, the significant and increasingly ballooning expenses, the skills gap, the legal and regulatory barriers and the fundamental weakness in social licence make it all untenable as an option for us. Ultimately, Australia would be starting from scratch and competing in a market that is already enjoying abundant, cheap and renewable energy.

That is why the head of the International Energy Agency, who is actually a very strong proponent of nuclear energy, has urged Australia to prioritise solar and wind rather than nuclear. They have specifically called for discussions about the Australian energy mix to be, 'More factual, less emotional and political.' Had we already developed a nuclear energy industry at any point in time when the coalition was in government, this would be a very different conversation. But we didn't, they didn't, and they have never suggested it. In fact, it was a coalition Prime Minister who introduced our national ban on nuclear, so it's near impossible to see how these current calls are anything other than a cynical attempt to divide and forestall our nation.

Don't just take my word for it; listen to the independent scientific advice, starting with the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator's GenCost report, which assesses the cost of different electricity sources. Solar and wind backed by energy storage, new transmission lines and other firming sources are the cheapest option. Their report found nuclear generation would be significantly more expensive for consumers, as it is quite simply one of the most expensive technologies available. They found that to engineer nuclear power in Australia would be at least 50 per cent more costly than deploying renewable technologies, and up to six times more expensive according to analysis recently prepared by construction and engineering experts Egis. At the same time, they concluded that the earliest deployment of large-scale nuclear would be in 2040, 16 years from now. That report was prepared independently, at arm's length from the government, by experts, including scientists and economists, and the findings were all based on consultation that occurred right across Australia. There is no equivalent report or evidence being provided by the coalition to support their case.

For me, though, the most telling indicator is that there is not a single investor who is prepared to back this development. Rather, the coalition wants us, the people, to pay for something every other business minded individual and entity on the planet says we would be crazy to pursue. Nobody else wants to take the risk. Nobody else will even finance it or insure it. Add to that the fact that no government in this country has any sort of proven track record in building or managing an energy asset and I can't see where we go with this. Surely it's at this point in time that we need to tell the coalition, 'You've got to be dreaming.' This nuclear thought bubble is just plain bad.

To top it all off, the coalition wants to scrap Australia's 2030 climate target because our current projections will only achieve—wait for it—42 per cent, rather than the 43 per cent we are striving for. To walk away from it would immediately stall current economic gains and would also send a really clear message to young Australians that the coalition is prepared to abdicate their responsibility to fix the mess that a decade of poor climate leadership from them has already created. It also sends a message that, unless you're guaranteed to hit something, you shouldn't shoot for it. When did they become the party that advocates that walking away from a commitment is an okay thing to do?

Reneging on our 2030 target will result in higher energy bills for us all. It will result in the loss of thousands of future ready jobs, it will threaten our economy and it will ultimately lead to higher climate pollution because, quite simply, without it there is no aspiration and there is no need to do anything other than what we are currently doing—and, to be honest, I can't help but think that's exactly the position that the coalition wants us to take. Even the Australian Energy Council—who represent electricity companies and gas wholesalers and retailers—the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group all agree that maintaining the interim target of 43 per cent is an important step in getting to net zero emissions by mid-century.

As a nation, we are already well on our way. We need to stay the course and get the job of transitioning our economy and further cutting our pollution done, for the health and wellbeing of our children. Forty per cent of our energy is already generated through solar and wind. In South Australia, it's 75 per cent of their energy. In WA, it's 36 per cent of their energy, with their regulators saying that, within the next year, it will be 100 per cent of their energy. There will be challenges as we navigate this transition. No ambitious economic reform agenda is ever without its challenges. But we've come so far. Our economy, our communities and our homes are already well on the way to a renewable and sustainable future. Let's just get on with the job.

See this speech in context