Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) and the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Minchin) to questions without notice asked by Senators Carr and Stephens today relating to nuclear energy and climate change.

Today the Minister for the Environment and Heritage had the opportunity to rule out the use of the corporations powers to override state and territory governments on the question of the location of nuclear reactors in Australia. He failed to meet that challenge. This is the second occasion on which the minister has failed to meet that challenge. On 22 November, repeated questions were put to the minister by members of the press with regard to his attitude concerning the government’s use of the Constitution’s corporation powers to override the states in the building of nuclear power plants within their boundaries. What he said was that the government would do all it needed to do to secure the energy future.

The government has received the report from its hand-picked committee, and the Switkowski report has reignited the issue of nuclear power in Australia. That report, amongst other things, has suggested that there could be 25 nuclear power plants in Australia by 2050. That is just on the east coast of Australia. It is claimed that these 25 nuclear power plants could provide a third of Australia’s electricity and reduce environmentally damaging emissions by some 18 per cent.

Immediately a debate has arisen within Australia about the way in which the government would select the sites for these 25 nuclear power plants. We have seen that the government is deeply confused as to the direction it should take on nuclear power. On the one hand we have Minister Campbell suggesting that the government will use whatever power is available to it to impose these sites, these new power stations, on the states and territories—25 nuclear power plants on the east coast of Australia. On the other hand, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, Mr Ian Macfarlane, speaking from India on 24 November, said he could not see a situation where the government would consider using the corporations power to force power stations on a state. In another example, the Minister for Finance and Administration maintains his position that nuclear power will not be economically viable in Australia for 100 years. We have the minister for industry saying that planning could begin in 10 years. We have the minister for finance, who has claimed his own pre-eminent expertise, saying that nuclear power will not be viable in Australia for 100 years.

A report has been produced for the government on the costings of such a proposal, based on some very rubbery figures which have been the subject of considerable criticism. The report, by Mr Switkowski, relies on a study by the Electric Power Research Institute, which has sought to assert that nuclear power’s pricing in the future can be compared with the pricing of solar and wind energy today. It suggests that the future price for nuclear power of between $40 and $65 per megawatt hour could be compared with the 2006 price for wind, thermal biomass and solar photovoltaics of between $50 and $120 per megawatt hour.

The whole approach that the government has been maintaining has been based on a pea-and-thimble trick. There is quite clearly established now within this government a deep policy confusion—and paralysis as a result—on the whole issue of climate change. The Howard government has been both for and against, simultaneously, the link between greenhouse gas and climate change. It has been the ultimate purveyor of climate change scepticism. The Howard government has been both for and against the Kyoto protocol. It has been at best ambivalent. It has sought on the one hand to say that the concerns are academic but on the other hand to maintain that it is going to provide leadership for some new hypothetical proposal in the future. (Time expired)