Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the worst things about modern politics is the gesture politics of the Left. It's the victory of style over substance. Look like you're doing something, but actually do nothing. Worse still, say you're going to do something, and have no clear way of getting there. The latest instance of gesture politics is the Labor Party's zero net emissions target by 2050 without any plan to get us there. Worse, Labor are blocking progress on steps we could actually take to make a serious impact on emissions of the future. If Labor were serious about their 2050 target, they wouldn't have dissented from the sensible recommendations of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy when they issued their report into nuclear energy last year. I want to commend my colleague the member for Fairfax for the level-headed, careful work he did in chairing the inquiry.

The committee made three recommendations, first that the Australian government consider the prospect of nuclear energy technology as part of our future energy mix. This means developing our capability, looking into what the technology would offer and putting the community at the centre of these efforts by working with local and state jurisdictions to explore options. Second, it recommended that the government undertake a body of work to progress the understanding of nuclear energy technology. This would involve: ANSTO itself assessing nuclear reactors; the Productivity Commission examining the economic viability of nuclear energy generation in Australia; the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency assessing the major requirements, like waste management, security and safety, that would need to be in place for Australia to adopt nuclear energy; and commissioning an export body to educate and inform Australians and hear their views on nuclear. Third, the committee recommended that the government allow a partial and conditional consideration of nuclear energy technology by lifting its moratorium on nuclear energy only for the newest and safest technology that's been developed in recent years. The committee also recommended that a condition for the approval of any waste disposal should be the informed consent of local impacted communities, following extensive consultation. All of this was rejected by Labor for thoroughly absurd reasons.

Instead of being willing to see the government investigate the possibility of nuclear, Labor insisted the government should settle a national energy policy 'so as to ensure that Australia can make a rapid, efficient, effective transition to a decarbonised electricity system that delivers reliable and affordable power to households and businesses alike while making a substantial contribution guided by the science in the global effort to address climate change.' This is meaningless waffle. They refused to support the exploration of one of the mechanisms that would work to see Australia reduce emissions while providing reliable energy, and they offer nothing of substance in return. Labor is doing nothing more than quoting slogans that are contradictory. They are saying yes to a target, but no to any mechanism that would get us there.

I want to make it clear tonight that I support nuclear energy as part of Australia's future energy mix. Nuclear energy is both clean and reliable. In a submission to last year's nuclear energy inquiry, Bright New World, a South Australian environmental organisation, showed that, based on life cycle emissions, nuclear is comparable to renewable energy sources like wind and solar. But nuclear provides what solar and wind cannot, and that is reliability.

I am pleased Australia's per capita rate of investment in clean energy is world leading, but solar and wind alone do not provide a sufficient pathway to emissions reductions when they can't reduce base-load power. I'm in favour of exploring nuclear because Australia is uniquely positioned to harness this technology. We have one of the world's largest reserves of uranium, we are the world's thirst-largest uranium exporter and we sell to countries that use uranium for energy.

Australia was once a powerhouse of nuclear technology, but all of this changed in 1972 when the Whitlam government came to power and dispensed with the Australian nuclear reactor program. It was further impacted by the 1998 moratorium. As a representative of the Grattan Institute said to the inquiry, 'The moratorium is significant as a barrier to having the conversations we need to have about nuclear energy.' Despite this handicap, Australian research in nuclear technology is globally recognised. We are participants in the Generation IV International Forum, which is using cutting-edge technology to collaborate on the next generation of nuclear reactor technology. We have the potential to be world leaders again. The major arguments against nuclear are slipping away as the technology develops.

Despite the embrace of targets, Labor continue to oppose the opportunity for substantial carbon reduction with nuclear power. Labor can say no to coal, they can say no the nuclear, they can say no to industry, they can say no to the communities that keep our country operating, but their noes won't keep the lights on at home, they won't keep the hospital theatres powered and they won't keep our businesses working. If Labor was serious about addressing emissions, they would talk seriously about the options to make that possible. Nuclear should be part of Australia's future energy mix. I commend the report to the House, and I urge the government to adopt the recommendations of the joint standing committee.

House adjourned at 20:00