Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say I was very amused by the last contribution. I note that Senator Sheldon found it difficult to utter some of the phrases that were in the talking points, and with good reason.

The coalition is interested in nuclear energy because we want to consider all technologies to achieve a clean energy future for Australia. We're not saying, 'Don't go down the wind energy path.' We're not saying, 'Don't go down the solar energy path.' In fact, Australia, because of the policies of the coalition, has the highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world. Put aside the rhetoric from Labor, particularly that in the last contribution. Because of the policies of the coalition over the last decade, Australia has the highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world. We're already making our contribution.

The reality—and it's been recognised by advocates of clean energy globally and advocates of zero emissions—is that without nuclear energy there will be no net zero.

That was what John Kerry said recently. I have heard a number of serious global energy transformation advocates say that there is no net zero without nuclear.

It was amusing to hear the Leader of the Government in the Senate call us 'ideologues' on this side for proposing nuclear energy when it is their ideology that is actually stopping them from being in the game. It is their ideology, their internal division, that is holding the Labor Party back from actually properly considering this. We're not saying, as Senator Sheldon indicated, that the government should build at taxpayer expense nuclear power stations all around the country. That is an embarrassing gaffe by the minister, one of the many embarrassing gaffes that this minister has made—get the department to cost up the price to replace all of Australia's energy with nuclear power stations and it comes up to $387 billion. What a scam, what a load of garbage, which is why so many people see the minister as a national embarrassment.

We have an all-of-the-above technology approach to the development of our policy. We understand that without nuclear there is no net zero and we support the net zero task; that is why we are considering it. The suggestion that I saw from the minister over the weekend that we have no regulatory infrastructure is another complete furphy from the government because we already do have a nuclear regulator, ARPANSA. It has been in place for a long time and it regulates the nuclear reactor that we currently have in Sydney that provides medical isotopes. So we do have a nuclear energy industry in this country and we do have a nuclear plant at Lucas Heights.

Let's be sensible about this. Let's be a part of global action to sensibly transform our economy with affordable baseload energy and that is the role that nuclear energy can play. It is the only zero-emissions baseload energy source so that is why we are interested. What we are saying is let the market decide how this works. I was talking to a windfarm proponent at the weekend who has just had a significant win for his development in Tasmania. Talking about the economics and about the importance of him providing cheap energy into the grid, he said that, for example, his competitors in the wind and energy industry who are providing energy based on ocean wind energy, the cost would be four times what he can provide, so not all forms of wind energy is priced and costed equally. Some are more efficient than others and some cost more to build because of where they are. Let the market decide how nuclear can play a part in our energy transformation but don't be blinded by the ideology of the Labor Party and just say no.