Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to questions to the government, and I am thinking about the different answers across the uranium industry, energy prices and nuclear energy. There really weren't a lot of clear answers. There was a lot of rhetoric and a lot of reference to the coalition's nuclear policy, part of which was announced last week. That is really interesting because there is this ongoing deflection around key elements of the government's own work and the government's own policy, which we don't seem to hear a lot about. We hear a lot about what the former government did and what the opposition is doing now but very little on what the government is doing.

It really saddened me to hear about this fantastic $300 energy rebate. A lot of the social media from members and senators on the other side talks about how people are going to have access to that from 1 July. Well, they are not. It's $75 a quarter. The problem is that everybody gets it. People who don't need it at all will get it and people who really, really need it are going to have to wait to get $75 a quarter. I don't really think that that's the right message to be sending when we are actually meant to be caring about people, as Senator Grogan indicated.

The thing I want to talk about most is the technology of nuclear submarines and nuclear safety. These were some questions to Senator Wong. It made me pause to think, because she commented on the Lucas Heights reactor. I will be quite open: I don't know as much about that as I should. So it led me to do a little bit of research. I discovered that that site is called ANSTO. That's the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. That is the site. It is Australia's centre of excellence for nuclear and it has a mandated role to advise the Australian government on all nuclear and science technology matters. I thought that was really interesting. What is nuclear stewardship? It says on their website that nuclear stewardship is 'the responsible planning, operation, application, management, and leadership of nuclear facilities and technologies to ensure the highest levels of safety, security, safeguards and sustainability.' I think it's pretty important and pretty impressive that we have a facility that is already achieving those things. Further on, I discovered:

ANSTO is responsible for the planning, operation, application, management and leadership of nuclear facilities and technologies to ensure that the highest level of safety, security safeguards and sustainability are met to maximise utilisation, benefit and assurance for the people of Australia.

Apparently, this Open Pool Australian Light-water (OPAL) multipurpose reactor is one of the most advanced reactors in the world. So the answer to the question that was put to Senator Wong would have been, yes, this is very, very safe; it's as safe as the AUKUS submarines.

I came across another interesting thing, and this thought came to my mind when Senator McDonald asked Senator Gallagher a question and she responded: 'What a joke! This is all a joke, what you guys are doing.' It's actually not a joke. It's really important, because this is an Australian asset, effectively. It's a capability and a skill that we have, particularly in the science and technology realm. When I was having a look on the website, I found a really interesting letter from the Hon. Ed Husic, right after his appointment as Minister for Industry and Science. I'm going to read a few excerpts from that letter if I have time, but the key one is:

ANSTO is well-positioned to support Government and industry in catalysing Australia's energy transition towards net zero emissions … I expect ANSTO to be impartial with respect to the role of nuclear energy in Australia's pathway to net zero, and to use its expertise in climate science, materials science and environmental science to contribute to this objective.

I think that leads us to understand that, when we want to solve the energy problem, we need to look at a balanced approach.

Question agreed to.