Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me say from the outset that I strongly support the amendments put forward by the member for Fairfax at the beginning of this debate. It is no secret, of course, that I'm a supporter of nuclear energy. I think it is the right way forward for Australia. Not only do I think it's the right way forward for Australia; it seems that the top economic nations of the world actually agree with that point of view, and they want to go in that direction as well.

I'm a little bit more jaded than the member for Sturt may be. I've been here a bit longer than him, and he seemed to show great faith that the government was doing this in good faith—that they are actually looking for the possibilities for a nuclear future for Australia, to give it real consideration and put the merits on the table. Next month I will have been in this place for 17 years, and I'm afraid that my confidence in his assessment of the government is severely tested. Has the government come to a reality moment? I suspect not.

The minister is in the chamber at the moment, and it's not hard to find quotes from him on his opinion of nuclear energy. I suppose, if the government is going to push ahead, one of the first casualties would be the minister's future as minister, because, obviously, he could not pilot that kind of policy reform through the chamber. He said it's the most expensive form of energy in the world, it won't work and it definitely will not happen in Australia.

Now, presumably, he is behind this piece of legislation that is set to throw light on this issue. He may be in for a great disappointment. He's wrongly called this story at just about every step of the way thus far, and, of course, any committee will have to accept contributions from the public as they come forward. I suspect there will be a lot of very strong scientific contributions to this committee. It will be a far better committee if the amendments put forward by the member for Fairfax are agreed to. I don't think the evidence coming forward to the committee will suit the minister's point of view.

The problem the government has with nuclear energy is that it just doesn't fit its narrative—the 100 per cent renewable future that they are determined to take Australia into. It's worth noting that this committee will, as all select committees are, be controlled by the government, and it will be interesting to see what it's findings are at the end. It doesn't suit the government's narrative, but it shows how out of touch they are with the Australian public, because the conversation has moved on, not just in Australia but around the world, as nations are facing the reality of net zero and how we get there.

When any nation, any country, any economy goes down the pathway of renewables, they find out that the firming up of that technology increases exponentially. Remember, earlier in the debates around the world on climate change, there was a lot of discussion about the J curve. But I'm telling you there's a new J curve in vogue here, and it comes to renewable energy—that when you begin to install renewable energy it's very cheap to back up. It's already there; it's free. But, as we've seen in South Australia, if you have enough cheap energy coming into the market—and renewable energy is cheap to generate; I don't make any bones about that—there is the problem that it puts the baseload generators out of business, and then you've got nothing to back it up when the wind's not blowing and the sun's not shining.

I've said in this chamber before how lucky we are in Australia to have South Australia as a test case, as the canary in the coalmine. We have demonstrated in South Australia that this is exactly not the way to go. We have, in South Australia, the highest level of renewable energy in Australia, barring Tasmania, by double—twice as high as in any other state in Australia. And our retail electricity prices are 50 per cent higher than in the next state. I have a bill sitting on my computer at the moment.

I was speaking to a business owner in Port Augusta the other day. And it's interesting that it was Port Augusta; the member for Hunter mentioned Port Augusta. Two years ago this business owner was paying 32c a kilowatt for electricity, and on the last bill it was 60c. We haven't quite hit a 100 per cent increase. But how on earth is anyone expected to run a business under those circumstances? This business owner has installed a large number of solar rooftop generators—PV. He's getting the princely sum of 5c a kilowatt hour for his contribution to the power network.

It is interesting that it was in Port Augusta, because of course Port Augusta is one of those places the coalition have nominated as a possible site for nuclear power stations. I thought the best I could do would be to put a circular out in Port Augusta. It was a nice four-page contribution, with a letter from Member Rowan Ramsey to the people of Port Augusta about how I think this would be very good for their future. The other day I asked my staff, 'What feedback did we get on that?' It turns out that we haven't had any feedback. So I rang up my mate in Port Augusta and asked, 'Did you get a publication about nuclear energy with a letter from me on the front of it?' He said, 'Yes, I got that alright.' I said, 'I haven't had any negative feedback; I haven't had any feedback at all.' And he said, 'No, that's because everyone I know just reckons it's a good idea and let's get on with it!'

So, if the government thinks they're going to run a scare campaign around these places that have been nominated as possible sites for nuclear reactors, they're wrong. That is why I say that they are out of step with public opinion on this. I think there are two things that have primarily changed here, and I thank the member for Sturt for bringing up the issue of AUKUS. You can't on one hand say it is safe to put nuclear reactors in a tin can, stick a heap of Australian sailors in it and then park it in the middle of one of Australia's bigger cities—because they won't be parked just in Adelaide; these submarines will visit Sydney and Melbourne. They will say, 'That's perfectly safe,' but, if you were to move that reactor onto the dock alongside the submarine, then, of course, it's a horrific idea and it would poison the whole of Australia. These are ridiculous arguments. It is immature of the government to assess the Australian public's perception, understanding and intelligence by belittling nuclear energy. Maybe they have had that dose of reality, as the member for Sturt hopes. I suspect not. This is all about a government in panic leading up to an election.

Why did we spend half of question time yesterday talking about selling off the NBN, which no-one has any intention of doing? These are distractions. Why did the Prime Minister have question time in the morning and then scurry out of Australia? Because a torch is well and truly on the government, and they are seeking to divert the attention away from their failings on just about every level on any issue that you would like to bring up. We're watching a government in meltdown, in the final stages of attacking itself. This morning, there was a contribution to the media from the Minister for Defence's former chief of staff. Things are coming apart at the seams.

The government have been talking about putting in regulations on gambling advertising, and we go month after month because they're stuck. They can't work their way through the muddle. So what do they do now? They say, 'Let's bring out nuclear energy,' and, 'Let's bring out the scare campaigns,' and, 'Let's give the Greens a chance to come onto this committee to try and scare all those poor Australian children out there by telling them that their future is going to be clouded by the green vapour of nuclear energy.' It is so shallow. It is so transparent and pathetic, and the Australian public will see through it; I have absolutely no doubt about that. It will be seen through by the electors of Grey. I'm becoming increasingly confident that by about April or May—when I no longer have a job in this place—I'll be picking up the newspaper in South Australia and reading about Prime Minister Dutton. I'm looking forward to it.

See this speech in context