Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this very important motion moved by Senator Wong because it provides an opportunity to speak about Australia’s future energy needs, particularly in the context of climate change, and an opportunity to point out once again the ineptitude and inaction of this tired government, which has failed to plan for Australia’s future environmental wellbeing.

This tired government is the responsibility of a Prime Minister who used to be on the top of his game but now, as we have seen over the last few days, has shown he has lost it by foolishly attempting to use the nuclear debate to wedge the opposition, and in so doing has, yet again, shown us his lack of conviction to really address climate change in Australia and has also managed to reveal spectacularly the divisions within his own party about nuclear power in Australia.

Having been found out as failures when it comes to addressing climate change and the potentially devastating effect on our nation, the government and its Prime Minister are flailing around trying to cover up a hopeless performance. The $10 billion, hastily cobbled together water package was a prime example of a government in panic, a government out of control. Without even cabinet consideration, let alone an economic impact statement, and with just the most cursory financial oversight, as we found out at Senate estimates last week, the Prime Minister chucked some money at a problem and hoped it would buy him back the voters he knows are deserting the government. And, yesterday, when the Labor Party queried this questionable and irresponsible behaviour, the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Minchin, accused us of ‘nitpicking’. I do not think the people of Australia consider it nitpicking to ask questions about expenditure of $l0 billion of taxpayers’ money.

We had another example of the government’s quick-fix environment strategy with the light bulb replacement scheme launched with much fanfare by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. I am not knocking energy efficient light bulbs. Labor supports any measures, big or small, that are good for our environment and our future. However, some questions clearly need to be asked about the practical implementation of the light bulb scheme. My office and other senators’ offices have had lots of enquiries about the practicalities of that proposal. It is further verification of the government making its environment policy on the run in response to bad press and bad polls.

If we had any doubt about the mess the government is in, we had verification of the mess this morning when the government completely stuffed up its response to a motion which simply asked the Senate to endorse existing legislation relating to the prohibition of nuclear power—legislation that, apparently from this morning’s debate, some government senators were not sure about, even though nuclear power has been on the agenda all week, even though they have been in government for 11 years and even though Senator Abetz made mention of it in question time yesterday. I guess that shows how much attention other senators pay to the utterances of Senator Abetz! You have to ask: are they really unaware of what is in the current legislation or was it wishful thinking this morning? Perhaps they were hoping that the legislation really did not exist because it is a barrier to the establishment of nuclear power facilities in this country. It is a barrier to the ambitions of the consortium, Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd, that has been encouraged and supported by the Prime Minister, who is gung-ho for nuclear energy.

Yesterday Senator Abetz reminded us about the legislative prohibition on nuclear power and said that we should not get too excited about nuclear power because:

... under Australian legislation as it stands at the moment we will not be having nuclear power stations.

You have to worry about whether there is any genuine commitment to that legislation given the ‘at the moment’ comment by Senator Abetz. Of course, we know that the Prime Minister has been encouraging his mates who want to make money out of nuclear power, despite the fact that legislation exists that prevents it.

You would not want to rely on that legislation because, as we already know, this government abuses its majority in the Senate, time and again, by steamrolling legislation through that the majority of the people of Australia neither want nor have asked for. Work Choices was all about rewarding the big end of town for supporting the government, and do not for a moment think that the government would not use its majority again to reward Ron Walker and his mates. It will be interesting indeed to see what the government’s response to the Switkowski report will be, particularly in regard to the amendment of the existing legislation.

The government are at sixes and sevens over nuclear power as evidenced by the debacle in the chamber this morning, and you can see it whenever you ask one of those government senators if they want a nuclear reactor in their state. Senator Wong’s motion asks the government to publish details of any plans, including any possible locations for nuclear reactors and high-level nuclear waste dumps in Australia. I await that response from the government with great interest. While I am waiting, I am going to use the opportunity to once again ask those opposite exactly where in Australia they are going to put a nuclear power station. Yesterday, I raised the matter in the context of Port Augusta—a very nice, seaside city at the top of the environmentally sensitive Spencer Gulf in my state. Today, I ask: will it be in the seat of Mayo, maybe at Victor Harbor? Nuclear power stations need a lot of water, I understand, and there is plenty of water there in Mr Downer’s seat. Maybe it could be in the seat of Kingston. There is some land there by the sea, at the old oil refinery at Port Stanvac. Maybe it could in the seat of Makin or in the seat of Wakefield—though there could be a few issues finding enough water in that area of my state. I doubt whether the Little Para reservoir would be up to it, but I suppose you could always put the waste dump there to take the nuclear waste from the nuclear power station.

As we know, government members and senators are happy to talk up nuclear power, but they are not happy to have nuclear power stations or nuclear dumps in their own electorates. Ask them that question and watch them weave and duck. You have to ask why the Prime Minister is encouraging nuclear power when all the research, even the government’s own Switkowski report, says that nuclear energy is not economically viable in Australia. We also know nuclear power is not a climate change solution for Australia. It will not deliver what the nation needs to ameliorate climate change. Even if all the problems associated with nuclear power in Australia somehow disappear, it would still be another decade before any nuclear generated electricity could be delivered to the grid, and it would be 2050 before the 25 to 30 plants that the Switkowski report says would be required to supply one-third of Australia’s energy needs would be in operation.

Let’s be absolutely clear about the problems associated with nuclear power in Australia, because they are enormous problems—and the government senators like to try and sweep this under the carpet. The problems include: the initial cost of $2 billion to $3 billion per plant; disposal of waste; decommissioning of plants; planning and construction of linkages with existing energy infrastructure to carry the power; lack of skilled workers to operate the plants; the fact that it will divert massive investment away from renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and hydro; security risks; the fact that the states currently control electricity generation and distribution; the fact that the majority of Australians do not want nuclear power plants; and the fact—and we even hear this from government senators—that the cost of electricity would rise by up to 50 per cent for domestic and commercial users. Even if you could sort out all those problems, it would still be too late for Australia’s environment because the lead time to bring the plants into commission is too long. It would take another decade, during which time attention and resources would be diverted from reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging efficient energy use and renewable sources of energy. We have already had a decade of neglect and denial of climate change from this government and we cannot afford another decade. We cannot in fact afford another year.

Sometime this year, probably, the people of Australia will have a chance to consider which party will lead this nation into an environmentally sound and sustainable future. Whether the Prime Minister is still on his crusade for nuclear power when the election comes around will be determined by the polls and what he perceives his chances of hanging onto office are, because he has been there so long he does not want to let go. He did not want to hand over to Mr Costello and now the Liberal Party is paying the price with a worn-out, tired and directionless leader. Unfortunately, the Australian people are stuck with the same leader and are paying the price too. I commend Senator Wong’s motion to the Senate.

Debate interrupted.