Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Given the minister’s refusal to answer the question yesterday, will he now clearly state the government’s position on how it plans to make nuclear power viable in the next 15 to 30 years? Hasn’t the Prime Minister ruled out an emission-trading scheme that would let the market set a price on carbon? Doesn’t that just leave taxpayer funded subsidies as the only way a nuclear power plant will be viable in the next 15 to 30 years? Will the minister now rule out taxpayer funded subsidies or concessions for the nuclear industry?

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

The question asks how we are going to make nuclear power viable. We are not anywhere near that point. Because we are much more open-minded and practical about these matters than the opposition, which ideologically refuses to even countenance the possibility of nuclear power in this country, we have asked an expert committee, headed by Ziggy Switkowski, to report back to the government on whether nuclear power might be viable in this country and under what circumstances. There are certain reports emanating that suggest that this committee is likely to say that nuclear power could be viable in 15 years time. I have not read the reports. I have had a preliminary discussion with Mr Switkowski in the course of his inquiry. But, like Senator Marshall and others, I await the committee of inquiry’s conclusive report to the government on whether or not, in its view, nuclear power could be viable in this country and under what circumstances.

I think I said yesterday that my prima facie inclination is the one that the Treasurer has expressed publicly, which is that if nuclear power is to become a reality in this country it should be on a commercial basis, not on the basis of commercial subsidies. What I have said is that Australia is blessed with some of the cheapest electricity available in the Western world, based on our abundant supplies of coal and gas, and that would on the face of it make it difficult for nuclear power to be viable in the near to medium term—unless this country is stupid enough to unilaterally impose a tax on carbon. And that seems to be the position of the Labor Party, which does seem to want to tax universally, by way of either a direct tax or an emissions trading scheme, the energy produced in this country. That will, of course, cost Australian households substantially extra in their electricity bills, make energy-intensive industries in this country far less competitive and be likely to drive those industries offshore to other countries that are not imposing carbon taxes on their industries—thus making absolutely no contribution whatsoever to any international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but simply causing unemployment and disinvestment in this country.

So that is the position. We await the view of the Switkowski report as to whether or not nuclear power can be viable, in what time frame and under what circumstances. I repeat my view that, on the basis of the extraordinary efficiency of our energy industry and our abundance of coal and gas, it is difficult to foresee in the near to medium term that nuclear power could be commercially viable. But I await like everybody else the report of the Switkowski committee.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given his response, is the minister aware that Mr Warwick McKibbin, a member of the Prime Minister’s hand-picked nuclear task force, has said that, without a price on carbon emissions, nuclear power will not be viable in Australia because of our cheap gas and coal? Minister, how can the Prime Minister continue to talk up the prospects of nuclear power as a viable way of reducing carbon emissions in this country when the government cannot explain how the industry will be commercially viable next to gas and coal?

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

The Prime Minister is quite properly saying that it is ridiculous for this government not to contemplate the possibility of nuclear power as part of this country’s future energy production. Particularly if you accept that the emission of greenhouse gases is contributing to global warming—which seems to be the Labor Party’s position—how on earth can you simply discount entirely, forever and a day, the possibility that nuclear power may have some role in this country’s future?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

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

Senator Evans says we have ideological obsessions with nuclear power. The Labor Party is the one with the ideological obsession against any form of nuclear power in this country. It is utterly ridiculous. You are not even prepared to contemplate the possibility that, one day, nuclear power could be viable in this country.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans will come to order!

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

They are the ones with their heads in the sand, not the government.