Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a statement on this inquiry report.

Leave granted.

Australia already is a nuclear nation. Australians know that nuclear technology saves lives. They know that nuclear technology protects lives. They know that nuclear technology underpins livelihoods. On saving lives, Australians know the importance of our nuclear reactor, which sits just outside of Sydney's CBD, creating medical isotopes that help solve, identify and cure cancers. Australians know nuclear technology saves lives. Australians also know that nuclear technology protects lives, because both sides of this parliament have agreed to adopt nuclear propelled submarines, knowing full well that the best way to protect our nation is to invest in nuclear technology. Australians also know that nuclear technology underpins livelihoods by virtue of our world-class uranium and having the largest reserves of uranium in the world, already supplying jobs and incomes for many Australians, with enormous unlocked opportunity. So, as an already nuclear nation, what this inquiry proved was that adopting nuclear energy is the next step in Australia's journey.

What we also saw in this inquiry is that Australia is, in fact, isolated internationally by not adopting nuclear energy. Australia is the only nation of all advanced economies—the only nation in the G20—which is neither using nuclear energy today nor moving towards doing so. We are isolated internationally. In our own region of the world, we know the big players when it comes to nuclear energy. We know China. We know India. We know South Korea. But there are a string of other nations in our own region which are now moving towards adopting nuclear energy. These include Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. All of these nations in our own region are joining other nations across the world in adopting nuclear energy. We also heard evidence, including from the International Atomic Energy Agency, about the importance of nuclear energy internationally. They say that nuclear energy is already one of the largest sources of zero emissions electricity globally and that it supplies about 10 per cent of global electricity and over 25 per cent of all clean electricity.

As you look internationally, there's also a difference when it comes to nuclear energy. In Australia, thanks to the Labor Party and the Greens, this issue has become politicised because the left of politics in Australia want to make this an ideological battle. Yet, as you look around the world, what you see in other like democracies is an enormous amount of bipartisanship when it comes to nuclear energy. Much has been seen and heard of US politics of late, on the back of last year's presidential election and indeed the new Trump administration's decisions. Yet, in the United States, of all the partisanship, indeed some might say hyperpartisanship, both sides of Congress unite on one key thing: the importance of nuclear energy. It is why you see other like nations all around the world, unlike Australia, having bipartisanship on this technology. Why do the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States come together on nuclear energy? They know that, when used as part of a balanced energy mix, nuclear energy gets prices down. It solves energy security and it is the best means, the fastest means, of decarbonising electricity grids. Indeed, we've seen this again in the evidence before the committee. If you look at the world's top 5 fastest decarbonisations of electricity grids, four of the five are due to nuclear energy.

Let me go to some of the detail. In particular, the chair of this committee raised the issue of cost. I was just speaking about the United States. The United States Department of Energy released a report last year which compared the total system cost of a renewables-only plan for the US with that of a plan for a balanced energy mix of renewable storage and nuclear energy, and what the Department of Energy in the United States found is that, once you have nuclear in the mix, the total system cost reduces by 37 per cent. That data, that evidence, was not challenged by anybody through the course of this inquiry. Then you look at Australia. Independent modelling done by Frontier Economics showed something similar, and that is that, when you compare the Labor government's all-eggs-in-one-basket, renewables-only approach all the way through to 2050—the total system cost of Labor's plan—to the coalition's balanced energy mix of renewables and gas, with coal retiring from the system and zero-emissions nuclear energy, the coalition's plan is 44 per cent cheaper than Labor's plan.

Government members interjecting—

I'll take some of the interjections from those opposite. One of the big differences between Labor's plan—

See this speech in context