Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance would be hilarious if the issue wasn't so serious. The Liberal and National parties—the parties of 22 failed energy policies, which oversaw the announcement of the closure of 24 coal fired power stations without doing anything about it to prepare for the impending power shortage and that changed regulations to hide rising power prices before the 2022 election rather than being honest and transparent with the electorate—are bringing a matter of public importance on energy policy.

The Albanese government was elected on a platform of climate change action and energy transition—cheap, renewable energy to power our industries, our businesses and our homes. Industry gets it. Investors get it. The recent large-scale energy storage tender was massively oversubscribed, because investors and industrialists know this is a good investment for Australia's future and for the return on their investment. Compare and contrast it with the opposition's new nuclear—to call it a policy would be to overstate it. It's a nuclear thought bubble. In a speech at the National Press Club mere weeks ago, the shadow Treasurer insisted nuclear reactors would be commercially viable and could be built without taxpayer subsidies. The argument was that the free market and private investors would decide to back nuclear because it would provide a return on investment, that the taxpayer would not be on the hook to pay for them. Fast forward to now, and guess what happened? No investors, no banks, no investment funds—no-one will touch them, and we the Australian taxpayers, Australian families, will be paying for their nuclear fantasy. Well, that was a bit of a turnaround.

So how much are we up for? Your guess is as good as mine. We know that they've selected seven sites, but on ABC Insiders on the weekend we discovered that they would set up some sort of external body to decide how many reactors would be at each site. So they don't know how many reactors will be on each site, and maybe that's why they can't cost them. Of course, the plan includes a combination of large-scale reactors, which were previously ruled out by the opposition leader but brought back to the table in a 9.75 point Olympic-grade backflip—a reference to you, Dan—and small modular reactors, which are not in operation anywhere in the world and which, when they have been commissioned to be built, have been prone to massive overruns to the extent that projects and companies have gone broke. This is the investment deal that the Liberal and National parties, who gifted the Australian taxpayer a trillion dollars worth of debt, are offering us, a deal that no bank and no investment fund will touch with an unknown price tag.

But, wait, there's more. Even if these reactors were able to be built, they would provide Australia with an unknown about of energy—because they can't tell us that bit either—from a combination of what is calculated to be the most expensive form of energy, small modular reactors, and the second most expensive form of energy, large-scale nuclear reactors. So you get to pour your taxpayer dollars in to produce an unknown amount of energy which you will then pay top dollar to use. And if you think your solar panels on your rooftop will save you from this terrible cost impost, think again. In order to make the nuclear plants viable, they cannot have cheap renewable power flooding the grid and undercutting expensive nuclear power, which needs to be on all the time, so they will be reaching into your solar panel systems and turning them off, cutting them off the grid to further subsidise their nuclear fantasy.

Now, I'm about to run out of time and I haven't even got to how they will cover the power shortfall between the power stations exiting the grid and a theoretical first nuclear reactor being built, let alone an unknown number of reactors around seven sites, but experts calculate that this gap will put up your power bill about a thousand dollars a year over the next decade. And what will they do with tonnes of radioactive waste? What about the issues with the sites they picked—sight unseen, without community consultation, without approval of the owners—some which are already being used for other purposes. How are they going to tackle the state and federal legislative barriers? We know they aren't very good at water, but where are they going to get water for these reactors? I could go on and on and on.

This government's steady, managed transition to renewable energy, with storage and firming as needed, is supported by private investors and modelled to provide cheap energy. In comparison, those opposite want you to pay while you wait, pay through the nose to build the nuclear fantasy, and then pay top dollar— (Time expired)

See this speech in context