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

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

The Member for Fairfax making a statement of no more than 15 minutes in relation to the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy's interim report into the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.

What is it about the Labor Party, when they want to gag debate on nuclear energy—

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

Order! The member for Fairfax will resume his seat.

The member for Kingsford Smith is interjecting outside of his seat, so he'll cease interjecting. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Mr Speaker. When we were on this item earlier, I made it clear, when you asked me, that we would in fact return to it. So we'll be able to return, and there will be a motion to which he'll be able to make whatever speech he wants.

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

Does the member wish to proceed under that information provided to the House?

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

I would like to proceed, if that is alright.

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

You may.

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

I want to proceed with this debate, as Labor MPs leave the chamber—yet again afraid to have a debate about Australia's energy future. If I were Labor, I, too, would be leaving in shame, because every MP in this chamber on the Labor side of the House promised their constituents a $275 reduction in household power bills, including the minister, whose own constituents are now set to pay $1,300 more than he promised them.

This inquiry has been an important one, and there's a reason why this Labor government set up an inquiry that has been a political stitch-up from the very get-go—a political stitch-up by way of the members constituting that committee. In fact, as a very rare occasion in this parliament, we have the crossbench, including the Greens and the teals, supporting the coalition on a motion to bring balance to that committee because it was so poorly skewed in favour of the Labor Party because they wanted to manipulate the process in order to have a go. Also, the terms of reference were narrow so the Labor Party could try to get across its political points.

But, of course, as it transpired during the inquiry, we heard evidence after evidence coming from Australian and international experts which said, 'If you add nuclear to a balanced energy mix, the prices come down.' That has been the evidence right across the world. It is why Australia is now isolated—the only nation in the G20 that is either not using nuclear energy or not moving towards using it in the near future.

The Department of Energy in the United States made it very clear in their own report: there's a 37 per cent reduction in costs compared to a renewables-only scheme if you have nuclear in the mix. The independent report from Frontier Economics here in the Australian context did a similar study, a total system cost analysis, that proved the coalition's plan to get to a 2050 zero emissions grid is actually 44 per cent cheaper than Labor's. But Labor ignores all this. Labor don't want to have a debate, which is why they seek to gag this debate today.

On timing, again we heard evidence after evidence in the committee that the timing put forward by the coalition for introducing zero emissions nuclear energy in Australia was accurate and it was doable. In fact, we had the Albanese government's own advisers on nuclear technology. Their view with respect to small modular reactors is that they have an expected deployment timeframe of around five years from construction start to electricity or heat generation—that's the Albanese government's own advisers. The committee report itself, written by the chair, the member for Hunter, actually ignores that advice. It also ignores the advice of Professor Andrew Whittaker, who has advised the White House in the United States on nuclear energy. He says that, when it comes to timing, it should take five to 10 years to build a plant with two-gigawatt-scale reactors in Australia, taking advantage of the lessons learned. Again, whether it be costs, whether it be timing, the inquiry bore this out. The experts, globally and domestically, basically said the coalition's plan is based on international best practice. But they want to ignore this.

The chair of the inquiry, the member for Hunter, stood up earlier in this parliament, before they gagged the coalition, to claim that the real problem with nuclear is the speed at which coal plants are coming out of the grid. As somebody who has seen him in the coal communities and in this parliament can I remind that member that his constituents have two very different members. When we sat in coal communities across regional Australia, the chair of this inquiry, the member for Hunter, on multiple occasions denied Labor's plan to close coal plants prematurely. It's all in Hansard. Loy Yang, the latest, goes all the way through into the mid- to late 2040s. He said: 'No, no, no. It will be allowed to proceed, of course, all the way through until the end of its life.' Yet the inquiry report drafted by the chair himself, the member for Hunter, makes clear that all coal plants are closed by 2038.

Under Labor's plan 10.8 gigawatts of coal generation will be exiting the grid over the next 10 years without replacement. That's before the scheduled closure, according to the coal plant owners. The member comes into this place and tries to argue that the coal plants are going to be closed early, but back at home he tells a very different story. Again, you have to look at what Labor's policies really are and what their impacts are, rather than listen to what comes out of the mouths of those opposite depending on different situations. We heard from regional communities—from Muswellbrook, for example. That is a community the member for Hunter should know very well. The former mayor of Muswellbrook, Steven Reynolds, told the inquiry:

… a replacement of a power station here—

referring to nuclear energy—

would see jobs being transferred into a familiar role whilst retaining the permanent well-paying jobs.

The Latrobe City Council Mayor, Dale Harriman, said:

I know I talk regularly to a number of coal power station workers. They're excited by this idea that they're actually going to have a future … The discussion now that nuclear is there and it gives an option to our coal-fired power station workers—that there is a future that pays like-for-like jobs—they're very, very supportive of it. I think, as a community, that's something we've been asking for: those jobs that are like for like.

Keep in mind, of course, that studies by the Department of Energy in the United States have explained that around 77 per cent of coal plant workers can transition to work in a nuclear power plant without any change to their occupation, seamlessly so, which is why these communities which are being shut down—regional economies being hollowed out by the premature closure of coal-fired power stations with no replacement on the way from the Labor Party—are screaming out for a future.

Our proposal, which is a balanced energy mix—a future which will have renewables, gas and, as coal eventually does retire from the system, zero emissions nuclear energy—gives these regional communities the future they deserve. The two I just quoted, the Hunter and La Trobe, are regional powerhouses that have underpinned energy security for generations in this country.

The Labor Party's plan is to hollow them out. They want to turn boilermakers into baristas. That's their plan; that is how shallow their plan is. We don't agree with that. We believe in regional Australia. We believe these communities have a bright future. And that is why we are interested in introducing zero emissions power plants, plants that will be designed to last for 60 to 80 years—maybe, with extensions, up to a hundred years.

We're talking about a plan that allows for regional deals to ensure that transport infrastructure and community infrastructure can be built in these communities. We're talking about integrated economic development zones so we can ensure these communities are rich when it comes to manufacturing, when it comes to mineral processing and when it comes to high technology, because they will have the cheapest, cleanest and most consistent power in the country. But the Labor Party refuse to have a conversation. They gag debate. They're into memes and untruths about this plan because they know there's a reason why our friends and allies around the world are adopting nuclear energy as part of a balanced energy mix. It's because it gets prices down, it is the fastest way to decarbonise an electricity grid, and it guarantees security—all the things that this Labor Party has promised the Australian people and failed on. Today it's no surprise that they have, yet again, sought to gag debate.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. Labor's energy plan is off the rails. It's gone woke and it's sending companies broke. I firmly believe Labor's plan to reach net zero is unrealistic. It's a plan for higher prices, rolling blackouts and environmental damage. Labor's plan is just for higher household energy bills, and we see it. We see it in the bills that have gone up to $1,000 since they've entered office, and, with the new plan passed, we will see bills rise a further $300 more next financial year. And why? We now know Labor's plan, which it previously touted at $122 billion, will actually cost $642 billion.

This is a number that the government does not dispute, and there's still north in that figure of $642 billion. It excludes Snowy Hydro, Orana and a whole host of other projects. It excludes consumer energy costs such as batteries and solar. This is why Australians are paying a thousand dollars more and will pay, as I said, up to $300 more next financial year. Yet we watch them high-fiving over that $150 subsidy and talking about the relief they're wreaking for everyday Australians. We watched them high-fiving over these subsidies when we watched Whyalla Steelworks close, because businesses are going broke. And it's not just big businesses like Whyalla Steelworks; it's small and medium manufacturers, small boilermakers, machine workers and shop workers. This plan is not realistic and it's not fit-for-purpose; it's intermittent energy and higher prices.

Let's take onshore wind as an example. Onshore wind will need to increase to five gigawatts a year to meet their 2030 target. Is that realistic? Guess what—we have not produced more than one gigawatt a year to date. Do we think we can increase by 500 per cent the amount of offshore wind to meet their targets? Actually, offshore wind has been decreasing. Yet we're meant to believe this magic pudding plan that, somehow, it will increase by 500 per cent. Labor also assumes hydrogen power will become available in the 2040s. This is despite Origin and Twiggy Forrest walking away from it and no leading country in the world planning on hydrogen to be a significant part of their energy mix. Yet there it is in the AEMO step change and Labor's plan. We're banking on hydrogen. It also says gas should increase by 50 per cent. That's Labor's own plan. Yet they're not approving further gas. We are not approving it. This is why this will send this country broke. It's because we've gone woke.

Labor's plan also predates artificial intelligence. It predates blockchain and all these energy-intensive industries. That is why we've seen Google, Microsoft and Meta all investing in this sector. This is why we've heard evidence from the Minerals Council of Australia that it's negligent. This is why we heard from Dr Chris Greig from Princeton, who worked on Australia's and America's net zero plans and gave evidence. The Daily Telegraph called it 'not even close' in the article 'Leading scientist's scathing review of Australia's net zero progress'. This is someone who actually promotes net zero in both Australia and America.

Further, our continued prohibition stands in stark contrast to the rest of the world. Twenty-five countries in COP28, including the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear capacity, but not Australia. Embarrassingly, they actually announced that Australia would be part of this and would be sharing research with the US and UK. But, embarrassingly, our government trotted someone out there to say that we'd be withdrawing from an agreement where they would voluntarily share intel and research with us to help us decarbonise our grid and lower prices. We backed out of it—pathetic. Even the former chief scientist of South Australia gave evidence saying that we should be looking at nuclear, and she had no hope that we could get to a decarbonised grid or lower prices without nuclear. We heard expert after expert over these weeks. I'm new to parliament. I actually thought this would be an inquiry where we got together, we looked at it and we talked about it but, instead, what we had was an inquiry with a majority of Labor members who actually wrote a report. We proposed amendments, none of which were considered, none of which were debated, all of which were rejected in about 10 minutes. Therefore, we had no option left but to put together a dissenting report to try and help Australian businesses, to try and help Australian households, make ends meet. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the member takes his seat, you need to formally second the motion.

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I formally second the motion.

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

The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the House take note of the following document:

Interim report for the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia—Report, incorporating dissenting reports, February 2025.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.