Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, the inconvenient truth of this debate is Labor’s hypocrisy with regard to climate change. Their policies have got the half-life of a Peter Garrett lyric. Nothing illustrates this better than in Senator Wong’s and my state of South Australia. Premier Rann says that he will pass a law that no nuclear power station can be built in the state of South Australia, but of course he hates uranium so much that he cannot wait to dig every last ounce of it out of the ground and sell it to the rest of the world as soon as possible. This is where we see the utter hypocrisy in Labor’s approach, and the utter inconsistency and of course division within the Labor Party. They do not want nuclear energy. Mr Garrett says that he wants to see the coal industry stopped in its tracks. In contrast to that, only today a state Labor member—again in my state of South Australia—Mr Tom Kenyon, had this to say in the Australian:

It’s time we in the ALP gave up pretending that nuclear energy is Satan’s power supply of choice, because it’s not working. It’s time we stopped ... saying that nuclear power is bad for the environment. It’s just not true. Name one species that has been made extinct by nuclear power. You can’t, can you?

This is from the Labor Party itself. Not only are they divided with regard to uranium mining, they are also divided with regard to the issue of nuclear power. There is no end to their inconsistencies as far as nuclear power is concerned.

Senator Wong’s motion is completely contradictory and I have already pointed out the falsity of her point with regard to the economics of nuclear energy. It is completely contradictory in saying that the delay in establishing nuclear power would only exacerbate 11 years of government inaction. If it is not economic and it is not the climate change solution, as the first two clauses in her motion claim, then any delay in nuclear power’s establishment is quite irrelevant. So again we see the inconsistencies inherent in this particular motion that Senator Wong is putting forward today.

In contrast to that, the Howard government is keen to see an open and informed debate on this issue. We believe that it is in the nation’s interest to consider the nation’s long-term energy security especially as we move into a low-emission future. In contrast to the Labor Party, the Howard government does not shy away from difficult debates, and to be precautionary with regard to climate change we are prepared to examine all possible solutions and invest in a wide range of options and technologies for our future energy needs. This includes energy efficiency, clean fossil fuels, renewable energy and nuclear energy. In the past we have not contemplated the use of nuclear energy as a power source, but its potential to provide low-emissions baseload electricity on a large scale is becoming more widely recognised. It is par for the course in overseas countries. I guess we might ask Senator Wong whether she has ever been to France, because if she has been to France then she has used nuclear energy, despite what she puts forward here in her motion today.

As an example, work undertaken at Princeton University cites nuclear energy as one of seven key energy technologies that can help to stabilise global greenhouse gas emissions over the next 50 years. That is why the government established the task force to review uranium mining and processing and the contribution of nuclear energy in Australia in the long term. The Switkowski inquiry in June of last year was asked to undertake an objective, scientific and comprehensive review of uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy to consider whether a nuclear industry was viable in Australia and whether nuclear power could be a clean alternative to coal-fired power generation.

Indeed, there have been three recent reports with regard to uranium and the use of nuclear energy in Australia’s future energy mix. The uranium industry framework report was released on 13 November last year and includes a number of recommendations to capitalise on opportunities to develop Australia’s uranium industry. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources inquiry centred on a case study into the strategic importance of Australia’s uranium resources and concluded that increased production from Australia’s uranium industry could make a substantial contribution to meeting global demand for energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Then the Switkowski report, Uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy—opportunities for Australia? was released on 29 December last year and included in its key findings support for the expansion of Australian mining and export of uranium and considered that nuclear power could become economic even against conventional coal based electricity. That review’s final report provides a comprehensive analysis of the facts surrounding nuclear energy, finding it to be clean, safe and potentially able to make a significant contribution to lowering Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The Howard government recognises the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally and understands that renewables and nuclear will play their part. That is why we are rolling out some $500 million in low-emissions technologies which will leverage more than $1 billion of investment from the private sector to prove up the technologies which will give us the breakthroughs that we need. Until the Labor Party recognise that solving climate change will not be fixed by simply shutting down the economies of powerhouse regions such as the Hunter Valley, Gippsland in Victoria, the Bowen Basin in Queensland and the Collie region in Western Australia, they cannot be taken seriously on this vital issue.

Through the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, the Howard government has announced its commitment to five key projects. Three of these are low-emissions coal technologies and represent a total investment of about $992 million. The other two projects are for solar and gas. The Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund does not pick winners but focuses on supporting all technologies which can significantly reduce our emissions. Instead of standing in the way with their outdated, ideological, anti-uranium and anti-nuclear power rhetoric, as we have heard from Senator Wong today, which really are poorly masked diversionary tactics and scaremongering as the only way they can see as the route into government—and that is reflected very much in this motion today—Kevin Rudd and his colleagues on the other side really need to start doing some hard policy work and thinking and acting in not only the national interest but also the global interest.

‘Nuclear’ is a highly emotive word and it attracts a variety of views across the community. Public discussion is often based on perceptions rather than facts, and those perceptions sometimes relate to views that were shaped by events many decades ago. Again, this is where the Labor Party relies on scaremongering rather than dealing with the facts and science of today. We on the government side believe it is far more important to consider the nation’s long-term energy security, particularly as we move into a low-emissions future.

There are some real challenges posed by the potential of climate change. We need to take a precautionary approach to that but, that said, there is no silver bullet to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We need to look at a portfolio of measures and technologies across all sectors of the economy. We must also look at global solutions. If we can eliminate our emissions tomorrow, for example, it would take just nine months of growth in China’s emissions to replace our current greenhouse output. That really emphasises the need for a global approach to this issue. Rather than put aside our own enormous natural advantage in fossil fuel resources, therefore, we must work on ways to reduce the greenhouse consequences of using them. We will continue to support the development of renewable energy technologies as part of this approach.

We have well-targeted initiatives aimed at technology development and innovation, rather than punitive taxes or charges which destroy jobs and industry—which again seems to be the approach of the Labor Party. We have practical solutions as our approach to renewable energy, rather than Labor’s rhetoric. We have already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in renewable energy and that includes $100 million for the Renewable Energy Development Initiative, $75 million for Solar Cities, $51.8 million for the Photovoltaic Rebate Program, $20 million for the advanced electricity storage initiative, $14 million for an advanced wind forecasting capability and a further $123 million for the expansion and extension of the $205 million Renewable Remote Power Generation Program. They are just a few of the initiatives that this government has taken with regard to this issue.

I believe that the Australian people will judge our response to greenhouse not by our words, not by Labor’s words, but by the actions of this government, and those actions have been very positive. We are taking a serious approach to address carbon emissions. Importantly, we will be coming very close to meeting what would be our Kyoto target for emissions, and that contrasts markedly with half of the European countries who signed Kyoto but indeed have absolutely no chance of getting close to their targets. I ask: what is better? To actually meet those targets or get close to them, as Australia will do irrespective of our attitude to the Kyoto treaty, or to sign the treaty and then have no actual commitment to meeting the goals that you have signed up to? We have committed $2 billion to support emission reducing technology, such as the world’s biggest solar power plant, the solar tower, recently funded in Victoria. Clearly, there is a world of difference between our approach to greenhouse and the approach of the Labor Party.

We are implementing a range of practical policies which will provide effective solutions to this problem. Of course, we will do that without damaging the Australian economy. That again contrasts markedly with the Labor Party, who have been captured by the green movement and are prepared to do and say anything to keep the Greens on side. They are blind to the fact that the policies the Greens are dictating to them will hurt our economy and cost many Australians their jobs. Labor’s policy of signing Kyoto and going it alone on emissions trading would shift emissions and jobs from here to China and India, which are not parties to those agreements and have no commitment to the Kyoto protocol. Economic modelling by ABARE and industry shows that, under the opposition’s policies, the wholesale price of electricity would double and petrol prices would increase by some 50 per cent. As I said, Labor have to resort to scare tactics to mask their slavery and cuddling up to the Greens and their willingness to sacrifice Australian jobs on their ideological altar. Careful handling of greenhouse policy is essential to avoid damaging impacts. It needs an experienced and sensible government which has shown that it can make policy in the national interest.

I conclude by saying that Senator Wong, who moved this motion, is not so much Penny as Henny Penny. You might recall the nursery rhyme—