Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

():  That was an extraordinary display that we saw from previous speaker, the member for New England. Let's be frank: he builds this persona of the Aussie larrikin from the bush who understands the regional folk. He puts the Akubra hat on and the cowboy boots on, but does he actually understand those from the bush?

The impact of climate change is having a direct impact on farmers. When we look at the droughts, when we look at the floods, when we look at the extreme weather events that we are having, they're directly having an impact on those he purports to have this strong affinity with. If he had a strong affinity to those rural and regional folk who live off the land and who have to rely so much on weather events, then he would be at the forefront of acting to address climate change. But instead he comes in here and blusters around wind farms and solar panels. He has an ideological opposition to renewable energy.

It makes you wonder: Do the coalition actually believe in climate change: Do they want to address climate change? Do they want to act to ensure that we are moving off fossil fuels? If you are to go by their energy plan, you would have to wonder whether or not they even believe climate change is real. If they thought it was real, then they would address it—not in decades to come, not in some never-never fairyland; they would address it now, with technology that we have now, with technology that has been proven and already exists. Instead they come up with a nuclear plan.

I'm no expert on nuclear, so I will quote an expert. Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, from Griffith University, has said that nuclear energy in Australia is 'legally impossible, economically irrational and environmentally irresponsible'. If we are to go off what the experts say—I'm not going to purport to be an expert here—then how about we also take the word of the former Treasurer and former Minister for Energy for New South Wales Matt Kean, who is also a Liberal Party member. When he was asked about nuclear energy in his state, he said he had an open mind to it. He said, 'I didn't want to bankrupt the state … And I didn't want to put those huge costs on to families.'

Nuclear energy is not going to be possible until decades down the track. Let's look at the example of what is happening in the UK. Costs have blown out significantly. The budget has moved from a cost of 25 billion pounds to an estimated 35 billion pounds. And the Hinkley Point C reactor will now be ready several years later than estimated. It's extraordinary that the party of the free market is now in favour of total government takeover of the energy market, in favour of building nuclear reactors at significant costs to taxpayers when we have renewable energy options and there is significant private investment taking place. Their plan now puts all of that investment in jeopardy. The reality is you cannot have both nuclear energy and renewable energy. Nuclear energy runs consistently; it can't be turned on and off, so it cannot coexist like you think. Australia boasts abundant natural resources such as solar and wind which can be harnessed to create a sustainable energy future, so why do those opposite insist on going down this path of lunacy? It has to be asked who are they being led by, because it certainly isn't the experts.

See this speech in context