Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

When it comes to achieving net zero emissions on a global scale, nuclear energy is no doubt going to be part of the mix. It is certainly the right solution for some countries but it is not the right solution for Australia. As the minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Bowen, pointed out, many of his international counterparts have told him they would not be doing nuclear if they had Australia's access to renewable energy. At COP28 Australia has joined over 100 countries alongside other major energy exporters—the United States, Canada, Norway and more—to support the UAE's signature call which is a massive push on renewables and energy efficiency. Why? Because we know that renewables are the cleanest and cheapest form of energy, and that energy efficiency can also help drive down bills and emissions. That is why the Albanese government is supporting the UAE's signature initiative to triple global renewable energy generation capacity and double average annual energy efficiency improvements by 2030.

Regarding the nuclear pledge, the fact is that Australia has a massive comparative advantage when it comes to the cheapest form of energy—firmed renewables—with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. It would take decades for Australia to start from scratch if we were to follow the LNP's gamble on nuclear energy in Australia. That's time we don't have, after the LNP oversaw the closure of coal plants that resulted in the loss of 26.7 gigawatts of energy, with no plan to replace it.

As Senator Sheldon mentioned—maybe not in quite the same words—we know there's a bit of a con going on from the opposition with regard to nuclear. We also know that their ideology is ultimately fuelled by their climate change denial and their ideological opposition to sunlight and wind—the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant forms of energy Australia has. Their claim that nuclear energy is the lowest cost form of low-carbon electricity for Australia is proven to be untrue, with nuclear around three times more expensive than firmed renewables. These are the things they don't tell you, which makes it pretty obvious that the coalition's nuclear energy plan is nothing but a con. The fact is that, in Australia, power that is generated from solar and wind is cheaper and cleaner and puts downward pressure on electricity bills.

We've had some rather strange antics from those on the other side. We saw the shadow minister for climate change and energy engaging in some rather bizarre and, to be honest, completely insensitive stunts like spruiking nuclear energy at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. Talk about bad manners! Where would you get off to do something like that there? Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Hiroshima and he goes there and starts spruiking nuclear energy. You know that it's nothing more than an ideological push rather than a serious proposal. If the opposition were serious, let me ask you: why did they do nothing for the almost a decade that they were in government? The reason the opposition's nuclear policy remains detail free is that—and we all know it—it's nothing more than a thought bubble. No matter how they spin it, the idea of a viable nuclear energy industry in Australia is nothing more than a fantasy and, as we've heard from Senator Sheldon, a complete waste of money.

Those on the other side talk about small modular reactors. There are only two such reactors up and running anywhere in the world, and neither is operating commercially. This is the kind of back-of-the-napkin policy that we've come to expect from the coalition. When they were in government they spent decades arguing among themselves over whether climate change was even real. And how many energy policies did you have in the 10 years? Does anyone care to hazard a guess or even make an informed comment? They had 22 energy policies in 10 years, and you come in here and start spruiking nuclear, because what else have you got to talk about? It's the talk that we get from the opposition that says it's committed to net zero by 2050, but it's never, ever put forward a serious plan about how to get there. This talk about nuclear energy is a distraction and nothing else.