Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is such a fascinating debate. We know full well what those opposite did for 10 long years when they were in government. They watched 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announce their closures. Obviously, that was going to mean that there would need to be some form of alternative energy coming into the system to make up for that. We all know that coal has to decline. We all know that that is the future. That's what's happening. But those opposite knew for years and years and did absolutely nothing about it. They didn't propose a nuclear plan, there was no legislation on nuclear and there was no money for nuclear—nothing. But now, in the all-care-and-no-responsibility of opposition, in an attempt to reignite the climate wars and look for a leverage point as we lead up to an election in the next 12 months, they bring on this risky, risky plan.

Why is it risky? Because, quite simply, there is no understanding of how this is going to roll out. There is no understanding of the reality of the sites. I can speak to you about Port Augusta, one of the sites that's in that plan, and tell you that where they have determined to place their nuclear plant is a power station that closed down in 2016. Has that land sat vacant since 2016? No, it really hasn't. It is overseen by Port Augusta Operations, and they have a plan in place. There is an organisation, Hallett Group, who are working on a green cement plant there. They had no idea. No-one rang them up. Nobody said: 'We're thinking about putting a nuclear reactor on this site. Is that okay? Is this an appropriate place?' No—nothing. That land is not vacant. It is not free. It is not available. What does that do for the investment of those companies that committed to that site and have ploughed into the projects that they are planning? Such is the economic vandalism of this proposal and the shortsighted nature of this proposal.

I don't propose to speak for the people of Port Augusta on the idea of putting nuclear there because I haven't asked them that question. I wouldn't be that arrogant. But, obviously, those opposite are. We need to engage communities about where things are going. And guess what? Two years ago, when the Albanese Labor government came to power, we put in place a plan that we had been talking to the community about for years. It's a plan that has seen businesses invest significantly in renewable energy because they see it as the way forward. We have seen energy companies make those choices about where the pathway is going for them. They're not clamouring at the door, saying, 'Bring us on a nuclear option for the future.' No. That's because they have invested significantly in a renewable energy future. We have an abundance of wind. We have an abundance of solar. We have plans for pumped hydro, offshore wind and onshore wind. These are things that Australia has on offer. These are things that are natural to our country and that we have in abundance. We can harness that to meet the energy needs of the future.

When we came to government there was a huge gap caused by the abject neglect of those opposite when it came to the future of the energy needs of this country. We can rage about memes and feign anxiety about different campaigns that people might run, but how about we think about the people? How about we think about the people who are out there who have invested heavily? It's not just businesses; it's governments and communities. Over 330,000 people put solar on their roofs last year. That is a significant investment. This plan from those opposite for nuclear reactors is risky and shortsighted, and it has undertaken no meaningful consultation with the people who it will actually impact.