Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I feel like the member for Fairfax is living in a parallel universe. His eight-point motion reads like an assignment handed in late by an eight-year-old who could do better. The premises he uses—being references to cost, cleanliness, consistency, supply and a variety of sources—do not actually support his conclusion. The motion is a distraction in search of a justification, and the only credit I can give the member for Fairfax is that he is at least consistent. He's been barracking for nuclear in this place since at least 2017.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:13 to 12:19

There is, however, more than a little dissonance in his position in that he appears to admit the need to reduce emissions, then complains that renewables are too expensive compared to fossil fuels and then clings to nuclear when all the experts say it is costlier than firmed renewables. The member for Fairfax says nuclear power needs to be part of the mix. Liberal spokespeople have been saying that in opposition for the last 30 years—not so much in government though. In government they did nothing, betraying their real motives in this space.

In any event, the evidence and the experts don't agree. The CSIRO and AEMO have found that the cost of nuclear would be at least four times the cost of firmed renewables. The coalition policy would see Australians paying much higher energy prices. Even the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, has counselled the opposition to ditch their nuclear plans and prioritise, as our government has, Australia's untapped potential in solar and wind. The Economist magazine recently predicted that solar will in fact be the biggest source of electricity on the planet by the mid-2030s. So there really is no basis for the claims of the member for Fairfax. Sometime in the future, he and the member for Dickson will either have to untether themselves from the nuclear disaster of a policy that they cling to or go down with it.

I now want to turn to this basket of eggs that the member for Fairfax refers to in his motion. It's alright to use an analogy, of course, but only if the analogy actually stacks up—and it doesn't stack up. The eggs of the member from Fairfax are speckled eggs indeed! Renewables aren't all eggs in a basket. They are all different things and in different baskets. Wind power is not solar. Solar is not hydro. Hydro isn't geothermal. Geothermal isn't wave power. And then we have storage methods. We can call them batteries, but there are different kinds. Lithium isn't sodium, isn't vanadium, isn't gravity. There are different ways of using gravity. And we know we will need gas for some time yet in the transition in order to firm up renewables. Over time, we'll be able to replace much of that gas with hydrogen. Hydrogen can and will be produced with renewables. In Western Australia, the forecast is that by 2042 gas will be just four per cent as a consequence of the investments that we're making today to create a renewable future for our state.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:22 to 12:33

See this speech in context