Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The words of this urgency motion are emblematic of the coalition's nuclear power policy. It's more a mud map than a policy in the sense that they are misconceived. But it is illustrative that they actually constantly try to avoid the detail. This motion asks for the Senate to recognise and welcome the growing contribution of nuclear energy in other countries around the world to reducing carbon emissions, and that includes America. But the observation that nuclear power programs form part of the energy mix in other countries does nothing to answer the fundamental question about whether investment in nuclear power in Australia is good public policy in Australia either in 2024 or in the future. Motions like this and attacks on the government in relation to its supposed childishness is a convenient way for the coalition to avoid talking about the details of their policy—that is to say the specifics of how they propose to implement it in Australia.

To propose such a significant change to Australian energy policy and to do it in such a nebulous and ill-defined way is irresponsible. All accusations of childishness aside, this kind of thought-bubble policy experiment is irresponsible for a coalition that is the alternative government in this country. Fundamental details of this policy have been omitted. They remain hidden. What type and what size of nuclear reactors are to be used? That's quite fundamental. How many reactors will there be, both around Australia and per site? How much radioactive waste will be produced? That is also fundamental. Where is that waste proposed to be stored? Will local communities have a say about whether a Dutton led federal government can put a nuclear reactor in their neighbourhood? How much will it cost? And how long will it take.

As much as the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, might want the country to do his homework for him, under the guise of a great national debate or a mature conversation, the debate that's been started is a reflection not of Australia's maturity but of the willingness of this opposition to, unfortunately, engage in a form of misdirection and to avoid questions about how precisely they propose to develop nuclear power in Australia. David Crowe, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, summed it up with a felicitous turn of phrase:

Peter Dutton has invited Australians into a nuclear maze that has dozens of dead ends and no clear pathway because his plan is so free of facts.

I'm going to talk about three issues today: time, cost and feasibility. First to cost: the development of nuclear power in Australia is unviable because of the cost and economics of such a proposal.