Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence. Is it safe for Australian Defence Force personnel to be on nuclear submarines with nuclear propulsion systems?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for O'Connor, if you're trying to help, you're not helping. I give the call to the Minister for Defence and the Deputy Prime Minister.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. This is a question in a series that have been asked by the honourable member which is trying to draw some equivalence between nuclear-powered submarines and a civil nuclear industry. The short answer to the honourable member's question is that it will be safe to serve on a nuclear-powered submarine. But, whilst those opposite are trying to have some culture war between nuclear and non-nuclear, at the end of the day this is about economics, because what they are seeking to do is economically insane. To draw an equivalence between eight nuclear reactors which will power eight single machines and nuclear reactors, which those opposite are proposing, which are meant to be powering cities—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister will pause. Member for Canning, I'm going to give you some free advice, if I may. The Deputy Prime Minister has answered the question. He's remaining on topic about the issue. It is going to be difficult to raise a point of order on relevance.

An honourable member interjecting—

Well, you don't need to, so resume your seat. Maybe if he hadn't answered the question or was straying into other territory—I'll just remind everyone that we're not going to get into this habit of taking a point of order just because you don't like the answer.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! That's for everyone across the chamber.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To try and draw an equivalence between eight sealed nuclear reactors, which will be powering eight single machines, and civil nuclear reactors which those opposite are proposing, which are intended to power cities, is like drawing a comparison between a car engine and a coal-fired power station because they both burn hydrocarbons. The two instruments could not be more different. Those opposite are talking about using the nuclear waste facility that will be developed for AUKUS when the first of those reactors is not due to go out of service—will not need to be disposed of—until the early 2050s. Those opposite are trying to say that we should be heading towards zero net emissions by 2050. The reality is that their civil nuclear power stations will be generating tonnes of—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question—

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! No, there was no point of order before. The Deputy Leader is entitled—

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was very tight. It was about safety on nuclear submarines, not broader nuclear policy. I ask that you bring the Deputy Prime Minister back to the question.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was asked a question about safety on the nuclear submarines with nuclear propulsion systems. I'm going to make sure his answer is relevant to that question. Obviously, he'll be able to talk about nuclear energy of some sort because that was in the question.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They've made their announcement on a nuclear power industry, and on day 1 of question time they no longer want to talk about it. That is where they have got to with their policy. You want to raise the question about safety? The entirety of the nuclear cycle forms part of the question of safety, so it is directly relevant in terms of the question that was asked by the honourable member. The fact of the matter is that we will not need to be disposing of a nuclear reactor until the early 2050s. They are proposing a nuclear industry which will be generating tonnes of high-level nuclear waste well before that if they want to make any impact for zero net emissions by 2050.

You can talk about a culture war between nuclear or non-nuclear. At the end of the day, the critical issue here is that what they are proposing is economic insanity. At a time when we have high energy bills, they are pursuing the single highest priced source of energy on the planet, and they are unable to tell us how much it will cost, when it will come to pass or even how much power it will produce.