Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

Can I also associate myself with the contribution made by Senator Boyce on this very fine Australian organisation, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Like Senator Ronaldson, I am absolutely flabbergasted, given that this is what Mr Rudd calls ‘the greatest moral challenge of our generation’—the greenhouse gas emissions issue—that he will not even look at an alternative which would substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Ronaldson rightly said that most European countries do indeed use nuclear power. I think that between 70 and 80 per cent of France’s power comes from nuclear energy. Yet in Australia, which has 23 per cent of the uranium reserves of the world, it is not even talked about.

I know the Labor Party is in abject turmoil over the uranium issue. I know that several leading members of the Rudd government sensibly believe that it should be in the equation, that it should be talked about and that we should look at it to see if it might address some of the alleged problems of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the Labor Party government—Mr Rudd in particular and Senator Wong—will not allow it to be spoken about. I know that, in my own home state of Queensland, the local Labor member for Mount Isa, Ms Betty Kiernan, sensibly believes that uranium should be talked about. I think she goes a bit further and says it should be mined and used. Indeed, her predecessor as the Labor member for the Mount Isa seat who became the Queensland Minister for Mines and Energy, Tony McGrady, is now, in his post-parliamentary life, a firm supporter of the use of uranium. He is in fact a lobbyist for the uranium industry. There are many other Labor figures. Fortunately Senator Ludwig is not here, but I think his father, Mr Bill Ludwig, who is a very important man in the Queensland labour movement and the Queensland union movement, is also one of those who think we should at least talk about it.

So we have a wide cross-section of people who are not saying, ‘Let’s build a uranium plant tomorrow,’ but are saying, ‘Let’s at least talk about it. Let’s at least consider whether it might be useful in addressing what Mr Rudd calls “the greatest moral challenge of our time.”’ It just proves the hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this emissions trading scheme. Mr Rudd can wander the world showing his credentials, yet when it comes to a simple solution, which I think Senator Boyce said might have dropped something like half a per cent from Australia’s less than 1.4 per cent of world greenhouse gas emissions, he just will not look at it.

I raised an issue about the Labor Party’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: if the bill we are debating went through as it is, it would mean a reduction from 1.4 per cent of world greenhouse gas emissions to 1.2 per cent—a reduction of 0.2 per cent in world greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, according to Senator Wong, that is going to save the Barrier Reef; it is going to stop firestorms; it is going to stop the cyclones; and it is going to put water back into the Murray-Darling—a 0.2 per cent reduction in world greenhouse gas emissions under the Rudd government’s CPRS and it is going to do all these things.

Yet here is a solution. ANSTO do not get into the policy issue, but they gave the facts at a recent Senate committee hearing I attended. Here is an opportunity to seriously address greenhouse gas emissions from Australia, but Mr Rudd and the Labor government simply will not even talk about it.

Congratulations to ANSTO on the work they do. They are a very professional organisation. They are an organisation of which all Australians should be, and I think most are, very proud. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.