Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I follow those questions to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources by asking: has the government legislated to prohibit nuclear power stations in Australia and, if so, why did it do that? Secondly, I ask the minister: is the government considering a price signal on carbon in this country both to address climate change and to help ensure that the Australian economy is able to compete with economies overseas with a carbon price built in?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding on this matter is that indeed there is no legislative or regulatory regime in existence governing the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. That is a fact of life, and that is one of the reasons why the Switkowski committee has been established—to advise the government of what legislative arrangements would need to be put in place to enable a nuclear power industry to develop in this country. Of course you would have to develop the appropriate regulatory regime through legislation to ensure the safe and responsible operation of nuclear power plants in this country. We have regulatory arrangements regarding the operation of the research reactor at Lucas Heights, regarding the disposal of waste in this country and through the appropriate regulator that currently exists for those matters, but obviously for Australia to contemplate the establishment of nuclear power as a source of electricity the appropriate regulatory regime would need to be put in place and it does not currently exist.

I do not know that it is true to say that nuclear power has been legislatively banned—I will get further advice on that—but I think the proper construction of the situation is that there is simply no legislative or regulatory regime in place for someone contemplating an investment in nuclear power to be able to operate within. If you were going to enable the establishment of nuclear power in this country, you have to put such a regime in place to ensure the safe and effective operation of nuclear power. My clear view is that as and when that may occur—and may I, in responding to the previous question, say that it would certainly be my prima facie position that the Treasurer is right and that it should be based on the economic viability of nuclear power—the government can establish the appropriate regulatory settings, but from that point forward it should be a matter for the commercial power generation sector to determine whether nuclear power is economically viable. That will have to take into account a whole range of other settings and the cost of power generated by conventional means.

We have consistently said on the latter part of your question, Senator Brown—through you, Mr President—that we think it would be economic vandalism, to quote Mr Paul Kelly from Insiders, for Australia to put in place a separate carbon tax or the equivalent of a carbon tax which is the cap and trade system for carbon emissions. If we were to do that unilaterally, all we would be doing is exporting energy intensive industries and the jobs that go with them to countries not so inclined to put such a tax or trading system in place. We think that would be, as Mr Kelly said, economic vandalism and it is not something we would contemplate. However, the Prime Minister has indicated that, if a global arrangement were to be established that involved everyone participating in some sort of emissions-trading system, Australia would be prepared to contemplate such an arrangement because it would by definition mean that Australia would not be cutting off its nose to spite its face. It would mean that we would be competing fairly with other countries around the world in terms of our capacity to attract and retain energy intensive industries and the jobs that go with them.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question and I would ask the minister to look at his own government’s legislation relating to nuclear power. I ask the minister: is his answer effectively that there will be no price signal built into the Australian economy, either through a trading regime or a carbon tax, until the whole globe is involved—in other words, until after 2012, or Kyoto 2, as the Prime Minister calls it? With the fast-moving world involved in climate change, what is the alternative that the minister has for pricing the inherent multibillion dollar damage that is now clearly forecast to occur to the Australian economy and is occurring right now through pollution of our atmosphere?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister made it abundantly clear last week that we do think that a precondition to effectively taxing carbon in this country is that there is a truly international system in place but one that at least captures the major emitters. India, China and the US have to be part of such a system given their contribution to global emissions. Any system that does not include China, India and the US is utterly futile. The background to this debate must be that, whatever you say, Australia contributes 1½ per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and that, if we were to shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, China would replace all of those emissions within about nine or 10 months. So any discussion of this matter which ignores that absolute fact is facile in the extreme. We are not going to cost Australia’s jobs and industry for absolutely no gain to the world environment under any circumstances.