Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

I'll also associate myself with your remark there, Acting Deputy President Sterle. Can I tell you where our power is coming from as we are having this debate today in 2024? This is where our power is coming from—this is from AEMO: 50 per cent is coming from black coal, 16 per cent is coming from brown coal, and eight per cent is coming from gas. That gets you up to 74 per cent. Five per cent is from hydro, four per cent is from solar, and 17 per cent is from wind. As we've been having this debate, the percentage coming from wind has dropped from 18 per cent to 17 per cent. What that should tell all of us is that baseload power is incredibly important, and the proposition which the opposition is putting forward, and which the Australian public needs to carefully consider, is that we are not convinced that renewables are going to be able to provide the energy future and secure the energy future for Australia without baseload power. What we're proposing is gas and nuclear to supplement renewables.

I'd like to turn on its head Senator Ghosh's comment with respect to responsibility of government decision-making. I actually think it would be irresponsible for me to stand here today in the Senate and not to carefully consider and prepare Australia for a nuclear energy future. Why? Because, of the top-20 industrialised economies in the world—we're talking about the UK, China, South Korea, Japan, France and Canada—Australia is the only country that either (a) doesn't have nuclear power or (b) is not on the path to nuclear power. That deeply concerns me. The fact that the Australian government had to make a recent decision to move away—the previous government, with the support of the government now—to move away from diesel-fired submarines to nuclear-powered submarines because that's what we needed to do to keep up with the rest of the world, is really a warning signal that we can't be left behind. That's my deep concern. It won't impact me personally, but it will be the future generations that it will impact. That's why I think we have a moral responsibility to consider all options, including nuclear power. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his leadership on this debate.

Let me just quote to you something put out by the Biden government in the United States—not Trump, the Biden government in the United States—on 17 June 2024. As part of President Biden's investing in America's agenda, the US Department of Energy issued a notice of intent to fund up to $900 million to support the initial US deployments of generation III+ small modular reactor technology. This is what President Biden says:

President Biden is determined—

and this isn't Trump, this is Biden—

to ensure nuclear power—the nation's single largest source of carbon free electricity—continues to serve as a key pillar of our nation's transition to a safe and secure clean energy future.

That's where the United States is heading. Can we actually afford not to go down this path? That's the question I'm putting to people. I'm not convinced that we can. I'm not convinced that it's responsible to do so, because I'm looking at the power that's being used in our grid today, and about 20 per cent is renewable.

I think we need to carefully and soberly consider this debate because, as Senator Brockman said, Canada has 19 nuclear reactors at the moment. Can we afford to be left behind in relation to our industrial capacity? If 19 out of the top 20 industrialised economies are moving down this path or are already there, can we afford not to go down this path? I turn it on its head: I actually think we would be irresponsible not to carefully consider nuclear power as part of the energy mix.