David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This debate, coming from the coalition, is like living in some sort of fact-free universe. I suppose they are in a post-fact world when it comes to nuclear. They sit down and they watch the Trump feed on whatever fringe app that they've got to share their nuclear dreams. The fact is that Australia is less safe with nuclear power in the country. Australia has so far dodged a radioactive bullet by not going down that path, but now Senator Babet and his mates in the coalition want us to jump in front of that bullet.

What is frightening, though, is that what you would think are the fringe voices from the coalition in this chamber are not alone. The coalition generally has been taken over by the nuclear industry, despite the fact that there's not a single private corporation in the country that'll fund this stuff. You keep telling us you love commercial and you love the market, but the fact that the market is looking at the nuclear power industry like a pool of toxic sludge doesn't seem to influence you at all.

But, when we look at what the Albanese government is doing on nuclear, I think we should also be afraid. It's not just the fringe Babets of the world; it's also the Albanese government that's doing this. The Albanese government is looking to spend $368 billion—last time I checked, although it probably went up by a couple of hundred billion dollars last night!—on nuclear submarines. We know that those submarines are unlikely to appear, but behind all of that is a push to expand the nuclear industry in Australia and, worse still, to do it in a sphere which does not meet basic international standards.

The Albanese government wants the new nuclear defence regulator to be literally run by Defence. That does not meet the international minimum standards from the International Atomic Energy Agency. You need to have functional and legislative separation between the regulator and operator. But, under the Albanese government dream, which has been ticked off by the coalition, they're quite comfortable with having the new defence regulator report to the same minister, the Minister for Defence, as is operating them, and, worse still, have a conflict ridden big four consultant write the new rule book.

Why is it important for nuclear submarines? Because every other country has got it wrong. Right now, the UK, which has been running nuclear submarines since the 1960s, has 21 of their former Royal Navy nuclear submarines awaiting disposal, mostly in Scotland. Seven are in Rosyth and 14 are in Devonport awaiting disposal. What was their initial plan for nuclear waste? To fill the submarines with concrete and sink them to the bottom of the ocean. That's what should happen with this motion. (Time expired)