Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

RISHWORTH (—) (): On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:

That:

(1) a House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy be appointed to specifically inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors, in Australia, including:

(a) deployment timeframes;

(b) fuel supply, and transport of fuel;

(c) uranium enrichment capability;

(d) waste management, transport and storage;

(e) water use and impacts on other water uses;

(f) relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines;

(g) Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks;

(h) risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns;

(i) potential share of total energy system mix;

(j) necessary land acquisition;

(k) costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations;

(l) the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability; and

(m) any other relevant matter.

(2) the committee presents its final report by no later than 30 April 2025;

(3) the committee may choose to table an interim report at any time;

(4) the committee consist of:

(a) seven voting members, four Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one crossbench member to be nominated by the Opposition Whip; and

(b) two supplementary (non-voting) members (one Government, one non-Government) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the Opposition Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member);

(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(6) the members of the committee hold office as a House select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(7) the committee elect a:

(a) Government member as its chair; and

(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;

(8) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another Government member to act as chair at that meeting;

(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;

(10) three members of the committee including at least one Government member constitute a quorum of the committee;

(11) the committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;

(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee including at least one government member;

(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives; and

(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

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

I move, as an amendment to the motion moved on behalf of the Leader of the House:

That paragraphs (1), (4) and (11) be omitted and replaced with the following:

(1) a House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy be appointed to specifically inquire into and report on the consideration of nuclear power generation, including deployment of small modular reactors and modern larger plants, in Australia, including:

(a) deployment timeframes;

(b) fuel supply, and transport of fuel;

(c) the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle including value-add opportunities such as fuel fabrication and uranium enrichment capability;

(d) waste management, transport and storage;

(e) cooling options including water, its use and impacts on other water uses;

(f) relevant energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission lines;

(g) Federal, state, territory and local government legal and policy frameworks;

(h) risk management for natural disasters or any other safety concerns;

(i) ability to complement renewables and potential share of total energy system mix;

(j) necessary land acquisition;

(k) costs of deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations;

(l) the impact of the deployment, operation and maintenance of nuclear power stations on electricity affordability;

(m) the impact on energy affordability;

(n) the impact on energy reliability;

(o) the impact on emissions reduction;

(p) the impact on energy security;

(q) the impact on the environment including geographic footprint;

(r) the impact on regional communities, especially coal communities;

(s) the potential for employment and broader economic impact;

(t) the potential to leverage and expand the uranium sector;

(u) ability to leverage existing nuclear institutions and capabilities including ANSTO, ASNO, ARPANSA and ARWA;

(v) synergy with AUKUS;

(w) potential to replace coal as a source of 24/7 baseload power;

(x) global trends and lessons to be applied in the Australian context;

(y) market design options to facilitate lowest cost electricity supply;

(z) a cost comparison between alternate pathways to achieving a net-zero electricity grid including nuclear energy and the 2024 Integrated System Plan of the Australian Energy Market Operator; and

(aa) any other relevant matter;

(4) the committee consist of:

(a) seven voting members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one crossbench member to be nominated by the Opposition Whip; and

(b) three supplementary(non-voting) members (one Government, one Opposition and one crossbench) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the Opposition Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member) ;

(11) the committee:

(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members (including at least one Government and one Opposition member) and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only.

It has taken 2½ years for the Australian Labor Party and the Albanese government to make some form of attempt to engage with the debate on the potential of zero emission nuclear energy in Australia. They do that today, at a time when the Prime Minister happens to be out of the country, which might be convenient because we know he's not very good at handling this debate. It is also noteworthy that the motion being put by the Leader of the House only appeared on the papers here this morning, and therefore the opposition was given only an hour or so to have a read and come into the chamber, which makes one think about why they're doing it. In the midst of such a mess from this government, they sought to pivot yesterday and talk about the NBN. That fell flat, so today they're talking about nuclear energy. Let's see how that goes.

But for now I'm happy to stand here in this chamber and take the Leader of the House at his implied word—because I haven't heard him say this yet—and the implied word is that he is seeking to make a genuine attempt to have nuclear energy genuinely considered by this House. Therefore, the amendments that I put forward today represent a test of the Labor Party, the Albanese government and the Leader of the House. This is a test of whether or not the motion they put forward on nuclear energy is genuine or disingenuous. Is it a matter of them being interested in good public policy, or is this another example of trying to be cunning and playing politics? The test is whether or not they support the amendments that the coalition has put forward.

Let me be very clear about what those amendments do not do before I cover off what they do do. We have today not put forward any amendments which change the words or the substance of what the government wishes to cover within the inquiry undertaken by this new standing committee—that is, we have not deleted any terms of reference. For every term of reference of substance that the government wishes to cover, the opposition stands and says, 'Yes, we come to the party; let us talk about that.' But we have added other things that need to be covered.

Anyone in the energy sector talks about three big priorities: (1) affordability to consumers, (2) reliability of energy and (3) emissions reduction. It's what they refer to as the energy trilemma. Interestingly these terms of reference omit three key aspects: (1) electricity affordability for households and businesses, (2) reliability and (3) emissions reduction. So we offer our gratuitous advice and recommendation by way of amendments today to say let's include those three considerations in a new terms of reference. It's also interesting that Australia already is a nuclear nation, yet the terms of reference put forward by the government do not include the institutional capabilities of nuclear already within Australia today, including ARPANSA, ANSTO and ASNO. They've been ignored. Let us include that in any consideration. Let us also include the AUKUS deal and the synergy of AUKUS because we know nuclear technology in Australia saves lives today by way of ANSTO and we know that nuclear technology has the capacity to protect lives in the future because of AUKUS. So let's have a look at that.

Let's also compare the cost, from a total system cost perspective, of a balanced energy mix to take Australia to a net zero electricity grid, including zero emissions nuclear energy, with that which the government supports, which is the Australian Energy Market Operator's Integrated System Plan. Let's compare those two pathways to net zero. That's vitally important. Let's also look at the importance and the opportunity of ensuring we maintain a source of always-on, 24/7 baseload power in our system—the transition from coal to nuclear. Let's have a look at the impact on the environment beyond emissions and the geographical footprint of those options: the option of having a rollout of an all-eggs-in-one-basket renewables-only grid or a balanced energy mix including zero emissions nuclear energy. Lastly we need to ensure the committee is equally represented by government and opposition members, which is not what they put forward.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder?

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I welcome the opportunity that the member for Fairfax brings to this chamber to improve and create a genuine mechanism for us to have a proper parliamentary inquiry into the great opportunity that civilian energy generation provides to the Australian economy. I start by commiserating with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy because he spent months, if not years, bellowing at the opposition about his presumed confidence in the facts around nuclear, and his own government is now saying we need to have an inquiry to reconsider everything he said to us in every single question time any time that he's been asked about nuclear. That is extremely humiliating to him, and I feel for him. It's interesting that he's not even in the chamber for a debate on this issue, but I suppose he is still being consoled and resuscitated from the humiliation of his own government saying, 'Despite what you've been saying in the parliament and despite the confidence that you've portrayed about your views on nuclear and your supposed confidence in the facts on nuclear, we are going to ask the House of Representatives to undertake an inquiry reconsidering everything that you, as our minister with these portfolio responsibilities in this area, have said to the House.' So I deeply commiserate with the minister there.

I thank the Minister for Social Services for being the one to move this, because she's a Labor member from South Australia. The Labor Party in South Australia, particularly her faction, have been the great leaders of changing the Labor Party's position on nuclear for a long, long, long, long time. There was a time when the Labor Party would be in here demonising nuclear from safety angles, but they can't do that anymore, because they signed up to AUKUS. Their greatest argument against nuclear for decades and decades—which the Labor right, and particularly the South Australia Labor right, sought to fight within their own caucus and amongst their own rank-and-file branch membership—was this fiction that nuclear was dangerous and could be demonised from a safety point of view. When we announced our position on nuclear, some members of the government caucus sought to make those safety arguments, and, of course, they were immediately pulled into line by those in the government who said: 'You know that we're bringing nuclear to Australia anyway? You know that there'll be eight nuclear reactors in the bellies of submarines lashed to the walls out at Port Adelaide. You can't actually demonise nuclear because we're part of a government that is purchasing eight nuclear reactors, putting them in submarines and saying that it is safe to have Australian submariners work adjacent to these nuclear reactors while they're out serving our nation and defending our nation's interests.'

The Labor Party has come a long way on safety, but now they need a new argument against nuclear because they can't use the safety one, and they have been trying this bogus one to demonise the economics of nuclear when nuclear is an embraced technology across the planet. At least now we have an opportunity to have a sensible process to reconsider the rubbish lines and the faux criticism that's been put forward so far. So establishing a committee makes a lot of sense, but I will say that the member for Fairfax, in seeking to amend the terms of reference to this committee, is ensuring that we actually achieve a very genuine, proper, comprehensive outcome when it comes to assessing the great opportunity that nuclear provides to our economy.

If the government don't accept this very sensible proposition from the member for Fairfax, then they will be revealing the fact that what they are seeking to do here is to concoct a process that is not hoping to be genuine—that is not hoping to achieve an outcome of a proper body of work that shows the pros and cons of the opportunities of civilian nuclear generation in this country—but instead is a base political tactic where they are seeking to establish a committee that they can control, to stack it and control the outcome of it because it would be majority controlled by government members, and setting terms of reference that don't allow us to look at all the comprehensive important issues to be considered. What we would therefore have, rather than an opportunity to genuinely move this debate forward, would be something that is a low-rent political tactic from the government.

That is only if they vote down the sensible amendments that the member for Fairfax is putting forward here. I'm sure that won't happen, because I'm sure the government are genuine. I'm sure they want a genuine process, and I'm sure, therefore, that they don't require to have the numbers on the committee to control its outcome, because if the facts are on their side they should have nothing to fear. They should have nothing to fear from the broadest terms of reference for this committee whatsoever, because apparently this is a process that will get the answers. Why would they fear having a proper, open, genuine process that they don't control? We're about to find out. I look forward to the next speaker from the government indicating that, having reviewed the member Fairfax's sensible proposition, they very happily support it, because the most important thing here is to achieve a process and a mechanism to get proper genuine answers. Regrettably, if they don't support it, it will mean that from the very beginning the whole thing was a complete sham. It will have absolutely no credibility, will be a complete stunt and will be a worthless waste of the resources of the parliament. Let's have proper conversation and debate about nuclear. Let's amend the terms of reference that are being proposed so that we can have a proper genuine process.

I'm a South Australian, and in South Australia we've had a long history of leading the nation when it comes to nuclear technology not just in this country but beyond. I'm very proud of Sir William and Sir Lawrence Bragg, the pioneers of the X-ray. Sir Lawrence went to school in my electorate, and the great nuclear physicist Sir Mark Oliphant was born in my electorate. I recommend Australians having a better understanding of the great heritage and contribution of Australian scientists in the nuclear physics field and also the contribution that South Australia has made to the nuclear industry. We had the great debate in the seventies about opening up the Olympic Dam mine. A former Labor member for Sturt, Norm Foster, was expelled from the Labor Party for crossing the floor in the upper house to support the Olympic Dam indenture bill, which allowed that mine to go ahead.

The Labor Party have come a long way from the days in the seventies when we weren't even allowed to dig uranium out of the ground. It was Jay Weatherill, the Labor Premier, who undertook a royal commission into building the planet's biggest high-level nuclear waste repository in South Australia. It was his ambition, as a Labor Premier of South Australia, to store half of the world's high-level nuclear waste in South Australia. He undertook a royal commission and built a business case. His own party abandoned him on it, of course, but he took the Labor Party forward quite significantly on the issue of dropping the blinkers and the ideological dogma against nuclear. Even recently, the current Labor Premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas—probably getting into a reasonable amount of trouble from his colleagues here in Canberra—has been very ambitious for the nuclear future of his home state.

The AUKUS agreement provides a great opportunity for South Australia to be at the centre of taking the next step forward in participating in nuclear industries, with the construction of nuclear submarines in Adelaide. How logical is it, therefore, to take the next step? We dig uranium out of the ground in South Australia. Labor wants half the world's high-level nuclear waste to be stored in the ground in South Australia. We are building nuclear submarines in South Australia, which will of course have nuclear reactors installed in them. Why would we not have a proper, comprehensive, engaged analysis of how we can embrace the next opportunity of the nuclear industry, which is zero-emissions civilian nuclear generation, to complement our electricity grid to provide baseload power security as we transition to net zero by 2050? That's the obvious opportunity that we have. That's the sensible policy leadership that the coalition has been providing on this issue in our term in opposition. There's an opportunity, through the creation of a genuine process, thanks to the amended terms of reference from the member for Fairfax that we have before us, to continue the process of properly revealing the facts and the great opportunity of a civilian nuclear industry in this country.

It's now over to the government to show that they're genuine about having a process that is dedicated to uncovering the facts and the opportunities of nuclear by supporting the sensible amendments from the member for Fairfax. And it's for us all, as a parliament, to take the next step forward in embracing the opportunity that the nuclear industry provides to our nation. I commend the amendment to the House.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by the Minister for Social Services on behalf of the Leader of the House. I have been out and about in the Hunter electorate listening to my constituents, and I've heard from people all across the nation about the opposition's proposed nuclear scheme. One thing that has been absolutely clear is that people have many questions. Whether they support or oppose the scheme, the questions raised by Australians show that they want more detail. Right now, the information Australians need to fully understand the proposal is simply not there.

We believe that, for a policy of this magnitude, which could have a significant impact on the future of our energy production and the direction of our country as a whole, it is critical that the details are provided to answer the questions that many Australians have. Whether Australia's future energy needs will be met by incorporating nuclear or whether our energy needs will be better served without nuclear power is an important decision that must be made with accurate information and proper consideration. In the interests of providing clarity about the true potential for nuclear energy to play a role in our future energy mix, I support the establishment of this House select committee. This committee will allow experts to be consulted and heard. Its role will be to inquire into and report on the feasibility of nuclear power generation, including the deployment of small modular reactors, in Australia.

The focus of this committee, as outlined by the minister, will include the deployment timeframes; fuel supply and transport logistics; uranium enrichment capacity; waste management, transportation and storage; water usage and impacts on other water-dependent sectors; our existing energy infrastructure capability, including brownfield sites and transmission networks; federal, state/territory and local government legal and policy frameworks; risk management concerning natural disasters or other safety concerns; the potential contribution to the overall energy mix; the necessary land acquisitions; and the costs associated with deploying, operating and maintaining nuclear power stations. These are questions that have all been asked since the opposition's nuclear announcement, but these are all specifics that we simply do not have concrete details about yet. These questions are crucial but have, so far, gone unanswered by those opposite. The future Australia that includes nuclear energy cannot be either embraced or rejected outright without these important specifics being thoroughly evaluated.

By establishing this committee, we will gain a clear understanding of whether exploring nuclear power is in our national interest. I look forward to the establishment of this committee and welcome the informed decision and discussions that it will bring regarding nuclear energy. The people of the Hunter deserve it, as do those that live in Lithgow, Collie, the Latrobe Valley, Port Augusta, Tarong and Callide. I also look forward to contributing information to the committee on behalf of my community in the Hunter.

I would also like to address a couple of things that the shadow minister for climate change and energy had to say as well. He has said that there was only a one-hour notice on this motion; that is not correct. They got this information yesterday evening. Whether his team passed that on to him or not is a different story, but they've had plenty of time to talk and think about this. For him to say that it's only been one hour is really misleading to the Australian public. I am looking forward to this committee and hopefully being a part of it and making sure Australians are well informed about what the possibility of nuclear energy is or is not.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment, to the member for Fairfax's amendment, as circulated in my name:

That paragraph (4) be omitted and replaced with the following:

(4) the committee consist of:

(a) seven voting members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one crossbench member to be nominated by the crossbench; and

(b) three supplementary (non-voting) members (one Government, one Opposition and one crossbench) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the crossbench (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member);

I thank the government for bringing up this important issue. The reliability and affordability of our energy system is a grave concern for all Australians. Every day, in our communities, every one of us hears about constituents' concerns about the cost of power. It is contingent on all of us to ensure that Australians have the cheapest and most reliable form of electricity possible. If that happens to be nuclear, and much of the evidence to date has suggested that that is not the case, then we should move towards making nuclear power part of Australia's energy mix. All of the evidence that we've seen so far suggests that that is not the best option, but I commend the government for taking on board the importance of this issue and recognise, as well, the commitment of the opposition to exploring all options as part of our potential energy mix.

I, and other members of the crossbench, are very much supportive of the establishment of a committee to look into this really important issue. I also commend the member for Fairfax for acknowledging the great importance of the crossbench in this process, and for effectively offering the crossbench the balance of power on this committee. It's a very kind and generous move by the opposition—one which is very much appreciated by me and by my peers. However, there's a bit of a procedural problem here. It is not appropriate for the Opposition Whip to be the person who nominates the crossbench member on a committee such as this. So the amendment that I have circulated today merely cedes the responsibility for the nomination of the crossbench member of this committee to the crossbench. It's the appropriate thing to do. It affords the respect of the crossbench that we deserve and it's a simple measure of good faith on the behalf of both the government and the opposition that I hope all sides will accept.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

An honourable member: I second the amendment.

I thank the crossbenchers. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unsurprisingly, though I respect the different views that have been given, the government's view on the make-up of any committee in this place is that it should reflect the numbers that are in this place, and that's how committees ought to operate. So we won't be supporting the amendment, but we've had a very good airing of the issues, which is proof of the need for the committee. I move:

That the question be put.

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

The question before the House is that the question be put.

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

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fairfax be agreed to.