Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government rejecting nuclear energy for Australia? Could the Prime Minister compare and contrast the government's reasons for this position?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Higgins for her question. She is my favourite ever member for Higgins, I must say. The member for Higgins understands that climate change is not just a challenge; it's an opportunity to create jobs and grow the economy. Indeed, a survey of institutional investors with $37 trillion in assets under management asked what their top five responses were to deliver the best long-term returns for their beneficiaries. Number one was renewable energy, 47 per cent. Second, biodiversity; third, energy storage; fourth, low-carbon transport; and fifth, industry materials including critical minerals.

Nuclear energy was last. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has identified why. Because he said, in soothing the nerves of his members behind him there, that everything will be fine: there are only four outstanding issues—safety, disposal, cost and location. Apart from that, it's full steam ahead. It's no wonder why no-one wants to campaign with him on these issues, because no-one believes that absence makes the heart grow fonder quite like the Leader of the Opposition. There were no public appearances in Tasmania for 55 days before last week's election. There were no public appearances in Victoria for 37 days before the last state election. But that's nothing like New South Wales, where there were no public appearances in New South Wales for 142 days before the election—almost half a year. It seems to suit everyone.

I will give you a big tip though: it's a lot harder to hide a nuclear reactor. You've said they're going to be right around the country. Ask your coalition MP, 'What would you rather have in your backyard—the Leader of the Opposition or a nuclear reactor?' And they'll reply, 'We'll get back to you.' One is risky, expensive, divisive and toxic; the other is a nuclear reactor. The bad news for the Liberal Party is that you can put both on a corflute, and we certainly intend to do so.