Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question today is to Senator Minchin, Minister for Finance and Administration, representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware that the nuclear inquiry report states that if nuclear energy is to become viable in Australia we will need to introduce a carbon emission price signal of $15 to $40 a tonne? Given those findings, does the minister now support introducing such a price signal in order to make nuclear energy viable in this country or does the minister maintain the view that he expressed last week that a price should not be imposed on carbon emissions as our access to cheaper power makes Australia internationally competitive in a number of sectors? Does the minister believe that a $15 to $40 a tonne price signal on carbon emissions would cost jobs and reduce our competitiveness?

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

I support the Treasurer’s clear position on this and I am sure that it is the position of everybody in the government that the question of whether or not there should be a price signal on carbon is quite a separate issue from the question of whether or not nuclear power is an economically feasible option for Australia in its energy mix. The two things are quite separate and in no circumstances should it be said or asserted that in order to make nuclear viable this government will therefore move in the direction of some sort of carbon tax or carbon pricing. The two issues are separate to the extent that Australia needs to address the first question of whether or not some sort of carbon pricing should be part of our response to global climate change. There is a separate question as to whether nuclear power should be part of the energy mix of Australia.

On the first question what is remarkable is that the Labor Party is proposing that Australia go it alone on an emissions-trading system. It is Labor that is proposing that Australia price itself out of world markets, price its energy intensive industries out of world markets and put people out of work in those energy intensive industries by going it alone on a carbon-pricing scheme. It is no wonder the Labor Party is divided on this question, with people like Mr Ferguson and Mr Fitzgibbon extremely alarmed at the sorts of statements which Mr Albanese and others are making on this very question. They know and they have the intelligence to understand that if Australia goes it alone on such an issue you will have a disinvestment in this country, and the export of energy intensive industries and the jobs that go with them for absolutely no gain to the globe in terms of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Our policy is quite clear. We are prepared to contemplate some sort of pricing signal for carbon if it is part of a global approach—one that will not unfairly disadvantage this country, one based on everybody understanding this issue and being part of a global solution. Otherwise, you simply get the industries that are greenhouse gas intensive moving into those countries that are not part of a carbon-pricing system. That will simply disadvantage this country and put people out of work, with no benefit for the globe.

As to nuclear power, I have not yet had the privilege of reading all of the draft report from Mr Switkowski. It is out for discussion until 12 December, and then he will issue a final report. I look forward to reading it in that interim period and I encourage all those opposite to read the report.

What is extraordinary is that the Labor Party is jumping on the catastrophists’ bandwagon and running around adding to the hysteria about this issue, saying that Australia must go it alone on pricing carbon. But, oh no, we cannot even think about or contemplate the possibility that at some stage down the track nuclear power should be part of Australia’s energy mix. That is the extraordinary phenomenon we have today: a quite hypocritical, ludicrous position on the part of the Labor Party. We are prepared to contemplate the possibility that nuclear power may have a role to play in Australia’s energy mix down the track. Switkowski makes clear it is not currently economically viable. Circumstances will have to change before it could be economically viable. One of the changes that might make it viable would be if there was a global carbon emissions trading scheme put in place. That is not currently the case but it is something Australia is prepared to engage in.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for confirming that the government is prepared to consider the issue of a price signal. I ask the minister: does he recall his claim, as one of the foremost authorities on nuclear power, that the industry would not be viable in Australia for 100 years? Although he has indicated that he has not quite read all of the report but has delved into it, has he had the opportunity to examine the report and does he stand by that claim? Doesn’t that view rule out nuclear power as having a role in reducing our carbon emissions?

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

I think I am regarded for my appropriate modesty, and I have much to be modest about. I have certainly never claimed to be any sort of world authority; I have merely reported on my experience in the ministry in relation to uranium and nuclear matters and therefore take a great interest in this matter. While I have not read all of the Switkowski report, it is clear in his report that on current arrangements and current pricing, and with the significant advantage we have in fossil fuel energy, nuclear power is not currently viable. That is the fact, and it could only be viable if a price was placed on carbon. The only way you can do that is with a tax, which we are not in favour of, or an emissions-trading scheme, which Labor apparently want. They want to place an emissions-trading scheme on Australia without any reference to the rest of the world, therefore increasing energy prices, making electricity much more expensive for the people they claim to represent and pricing energy intensive industries in this country out of business.