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

I too would like to quote the Chief Scientist, Cathy Foley. She has done a remarkable job as Australia's Chief Scientist, and I want to pay tribute to her extraordinary reign. She says of this announcement of PsiQuantum:

This investment shows that Australia is serious about its quantum industry development by ensuring we are at the front of the pack in the global race to build the first useful quantum computer.

I just wanted to make sure, if we are going to quote the Chief Scientist, like everyone in this chamber seems to want to do, that we also put that quote on the record.

Deputy Speaker, it is very clear that where a government directs its funding is where it directs its priorities. It shows us what governments prioritise in this place. With the announcement earlier this year, when he announced the Future Made in Australia policy as well as this investment in PsiQuantum, the Minister for Industry and Science clearly demonstrated that we prioritise Australian industry and manufacturing, prioritise Australian jobs, prioritise Australian researchers and innovators, and prioritise Australian scientists.

If we are to follow that same logic, what do those opposite prioritise? They have put up so few policies that it is really difficult to be clear about what they do prioritise. We can only go on the one policy that they have given us, and that is nuclear energy. They have decided to prioritise nuclear energy.

According to the Smart Energy Council, the coalition's nuclear energy proposal could cost taxpayers up to $600 billion and deliver only 3.7 per cent of the energy we require. On the side of the House, we are backing Australian jobs, Australia manufacturers and Australian scientists. On that side of the House, they are backing a nuclear energy fantasy that could potentially cost taxpayers $600 million. You've got to wonder: who are they backing? Are they backing Australian consumers? Unlikely. The CSIRO has said that the most expensive form of energy is nuclear energy, so they're not backing Australian consumers. Are the backing Australian taxpayers? Again, unlikely. This nuclear fantasy of theirs will cost—I'm going to repeat the number because it is so ridiculous—up to $600 billion. To steal a quote from Griffith University's Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, the coalition's nuclear energy proposal is 'legally impossible, economically unachievable and environmentally irresponsible'. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Given the mountain of evidence from experts, I'm a bit surprised that those opposite continue to back nuclear energy. What I'm not surprised by, though, is their opposition to our investment in PsiQuantum, because it continues their anti-science attitude. They won't back Australian scientists and innovators and they won't back Australian industry. PsiQuantum wants to build the world's first commercial-scale quantum computer in Brisbane and establish its Asia-Pacific headquarters here. It will advance research and education, create industry opportunities and establish a dedicated climate research centre, so of course they don't want to back that. They don't listen to scientists when it comes to climate change and they don't listen to scientists when it comes to concerns about their nuclear energy proposal, so why would they listen to scientists when it comes to the importance of quantum computing? Quantum computing is going to be essential for the use of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and medical research into the future. Again, this is another example: when we need the opposition to rise to meet the moment, they always fail; when we need them to think big, they can only think small or fantastical.

See this speech in context