Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. At COP29 an additional six nations endorsed the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050. They joined 25 others, including the United States, the UK, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine and the UAE, some with existing civil nuclear programs and others committing to a program so that they can reduce emissions and deliver energy at a reasonable cost. Why isn't the Albanese government signing up to the same agreement?

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

Order! The member for Spence was interjecting all through that question. He will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

The member for Spence then left the chamber.

I don't know how much clearer I need to make it about members being heard in silence when questions are being asked. The same thing will happen if this continues. The leader has asked his question in silence. He deserves that courtesy. Now the Acting Prime Minister deserves the same courtesy.

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

There's a very simple answer to that question. It's because we don't have a civil nuclear energy industry in this country, nor do we seek to establish one. The reason we don't seek to establish one is that to do so would be to pursue the single most expensive form of electricity in the world today. That would be an additional $1,200 on the energy bill of every household in this country. That's what it would represent. That's what it would represent to go down the path of a civil nuclear industry. We don't have one, we don't seek to go down that path, so we are not a part of that agreement.

And, if we did go down that path, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, there would be no prospect of any piece of electricity entering into the grid for two decades. Even then what we are talking about is, at max, four per cent of the electricity grid being contributed in 20 years time—the most expensive form of electricity, $1,200 per household, in 20 years time, and even then it's only four per cent of the grid. That's what the ridiculous proposal that is being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition represents.

I tell what you we did sign up to, Mr Speaker, at COP28 last year in the UAE, with 132 other countries—including the United Kingdom, including the United States, including France and others—and that was a commitment to triple the world's renewable energy capacity because we understand that the cheapest form of electricity in the world today is firmed renewable energy. That is what's being pursued by countries around the world, and that is what we're pursuing here, not in 20 years time but right now, such that we have seen a 25 per cent increase of firmed renewables into our grid since we came to office. Now, that is actually making a difference in putting downward pressure on energy prices, along with the energy price relief that we have put in place, which those opposite have blocked not once but twice.

So, on this side of the House, we represent pursuing efficient energy which seeks to transition us to a place of net zero emissions by 2050, such that we take our country to the cutting edge of technological modernity. Those opposite are about going backwards, about increasing energy prices and about pursuing a fool's errand.

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

There was far too much noise during that answer. The member for O'Connor and the member for Barker were injecting. I'm just going to ask them to dial it down.