Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Babet:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

Australia must urgently move towards modern nuclear technology as a means of alleviating our energy crisis.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the num ber of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Australia we are facing an energy crisis that threatens to cripple industry and impoverish families and, if it is not urgently addressed, we will see our standard of living decrease and we will see our people suffer. The fact that we find ourselves in this position beggars belief. As a nation we have a clear competitive advantage: abundant and easily accessible coal and gas. I keep talking about it. We should have the cheapest energy in the world, but we don't. Instead, we have manufacturers and businesses closing and collapsing all across our nation under the weight of energy bills. In fact, the cost of electricity is going to rise by about 30 per cent this year in my home state of Victoria.

The Snack Brands factory in Smithfield reported some time ago that their gas bill had gone from $3 million a year to $9 million a year. Do you know where that factory is located? It's in energy minister Chris Bowen's electorate. Who needs enemies when you have mates like Minister Bowen as your local member? You don't need enemies. Our current energy crisis is not the fault of some far-off distant war like some in this place have tried to allege on more than one occasion. Perhaps if that were the case it would be easier to understand. Instead, our crisis is self-inflicted, and the hurt that we are currently experiencing can easily be avoided.

The Albanese government and the Greens are determined to shut down all coal and gas. The government, of course—well, I hope, anyway—hopes to do this without destroying business, impoverishing families and endangering our national security. This is a pipe dream. This is a pie-in-the-sky plan. It is simply not possible to achieve net zero using solar panels, windfarms and batteries while at the same time maintaining our standard of living. If the government is determined to put an end to safe, effective, cheap, reliable and abundant coal and gas and maintain our nation then the government must embrace nuclear energy. We have no other options. If we do not, we will suffer in exactly the same way that some other nations across the world are suffering right now. If the government is determined that Australians must not use our abundant coal and gas then let's use our abundant uranium instead. But here's the irony: just like we're exporting our coal and gas, we're also exporting our uranium to other countries, where they are using it and benefiting from it—and we're not. We are third-largest exporter of uranium in the world, and it's crazy that we're not taking advantage of it.

For those who say they are worried that catastrophic climate change is about to end the earth because of CO2—which is just plant food—nuclear power is your answer. What about the expense? Yes, it might cost a little bit up-front, but it's an investment which secures our power needs for the long term. Renewables, however, are not renewable at all. The only thing renewable about renewables is the expense. Roughly every 15 or so years you've got to bury your solar panels in the ground, in landfill, and buy new ones. Every 10 years you have to bury the batteries and buy new ones. Every 20 years you have to bury the wind turbines and buy new ones. Where do you buy them from? China, mostly. The CCP controls most of the supply chain when it comes to renewables.

Nuclear, when compared to that possible future, is, in fact, not expensive. It is better for our environment, especially when you compare its cost to that of rebuilding our national infrastructure to accommodate renewables. With nuclear, you can build a plant on the existing footprint of where a coal-fired power plant currently is and keep the infrastructure as it is—no changes. How good is that? Instead of acres of solar panels and hillsides dotted with wind turbines, we could have a facility roughly the size of an IKEA powering millions of homes. We need to stop cowering in fear at the thought of the word 'nuclear' energy. Nuclear energy is the answer for the 21st century. There is no other option. If we do not look at nuclear energy, our only other alternative is poverty.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm honoured to stand and support this matter of public importance, and I congratulate Senator Babet for bringing it forward. The acquisition of up to five nuclear submarines has removed any logical reason for Australia to continue to ban nuclear energy in this country. Sometimes we hear that we can't go down the path of nuclear energy because we have nowhere to store the waste. Well, we're going to now have a high-level waste facility because of the acquisition of nuclear submarines. That hurdle will have already been jumped. That is done. We sometimes hear that it could potentially be too unsafe and there could be some sort of accident or issue. Well, we're going to have up to five nuclear reactors sailing underwater around our coastline, just next to major population centres, and docking in our harbours—no safety concerns about that. It would be completely illogical to legalise the sailing of nuclear submarines right around our coastline while we continue not to allow those same facilities onshore and on land in this country.

We have a massive energy deficit right now. Our energy regulators are warning that will be short 8,000 megawatts of reliable power over the next decade, and that can't be filled by solar and wind; they don't have the dispatchable capacity that we need. With these nuclear subs, maybe we could have an innovative solution: we could dock them in Sydney Harbour and go get a big extension cord from Bunnings! That's 1,000 megawatts of the 8,000 that could come in and provide electricity. But a more logical option would be to actually build an advanced nuclear reactor in this country, as has happened in every settled continent in this world except for Australia. It is only us and the penguins who don't have nuclear energy. Every other settled continent in the world relies on nuclear energy and has done safely for decades. It is about time that we get over this ridiculous paranoia and legalise nuclear energy so Australians can get cheaper power.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the many amazing people who make up our wonderful Queensland community, I know that nuclear is the answer to humanity's energy needs. The only question is whether we embrace nuclear technology now and set Australians up for a prosperous future or we keep promoting unreliable expensive wind and solar that will end as landfill every 12 to 15 years. Australia can never achieve a sustainable energy grid if every new wind and solar power unit we build dies so quickly. The energy required to break down a solar panel dwarfs its profit. Even the ABC admits that solar panel waste will outstrip all other e-waste by 2035.

Nuclear energy is a single-build project with a small ongoing fuel supply whose waste output is tiny, completely contained and capable of being used as fuel for our reactors—in other words, truly renewable and with zero output of carbon dioxide. Not that carbon dioxide is a problem; it is plant food. It is a proudly Australian-centric energy system that does not require dependence on supply lines from communist China. Nuclear will keep the lights on in Australia independent of the weather.

The European Union has embraced nuclear as the gold standard in green technology. They tried solar panels. They tried wind turbines; they don't work. So why are parties in this place insisting on subjecting everyday Australians to electricity cost and reliability nightmares? Why are you ignoring the science? A one-gigawatt nuclear plant is equivalent to 430 wind turbines or three million solar panels demolished and replaced six times in the life of one new-generation nuclear plant with a life of 100 years. This is why the United Nations and the World Economic Forum's crooks and disciples are trying to make nuclear a dirty word, because they know they can't compete on any environmental or economic argument. Nuclear energy is freedom. Nuclear energy is national security. Nuclear energy is the answer to maintaining everyday Australians' living standards. I thank Senator Babet for the motion. (Time expired)

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has laid out the government's energy and emissions reduction plan, and has clearly articulated, very clearly articulated, that nuclear will not be a part of Australia's energy mix. Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, so there is a good reason, right? It is the most expensive form of energy, which has been reaffirmed over and over again by various people. The CSIRO in its 2021-22 GenCost report calls nuclear energy 'commercially immature' and 'high cost'. The report also affirms that the cheapest form of energy is mixed renewables such as wind and solar.

I would be delighted to introduce Senator Babet to some scientists, maybe some economists and that might help inform him in his pathway of pushing for nuclear energy. Senator Babet's friends on the opposition benches were unsuccessful in prosecuting this nuclear argument in nine years under their own government. They can't get their own government to support it. Their own people won't back it, so I am not quite sure where that is going for those in the opposition.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, I remind you that other speakers have been heard in silence. I remind people to give the same courtesy to Senator Grogan.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had nine years of a Liberal-National government during which we had 22 stop-start energy policies and three gigawatts of dispatchable energy exit the grid without being replaced. I hardly think those opposite are in a position to be providing a way forward on our energy issue. Then, of course, when we introduced our Energy Price Relief Package, you would not support a package to reduce the price on people's hip pocket and take down prices. We saw prices skyrocket and they started under the opposition government. In our attempts to bring it down, you all vote against it because you would rather invest in very, very expensive nuclear energy.

I would love a medal, thank you, Senator Canavan. If you could make me one that would be great.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Grogan, I remind you and Senator Canavan that it is disorderly to interject, and your comments should go through the chair. Pay the same courtesy as was displayed to you, Senator Canavan.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies. But I do fear that the facts on nuclear energy generation are somewhat lost on my colleagues across the room. I know a number of you have cast aspersions on the CSIRO in the past. So, rather than just keep quoting them, I will add a bit more detail from other sources that you may prefer, particularly the nuclear energy industry. Yes, that's right: the nuclear energy industry admits that cost is a prohibitive factor compared to renewable energy. The World nuclearindustry status report 2020not the CSIRO, if you're paying attention, but the World nuclear industry status report, stated:

The costs of renewables continue to fall due to incremental manufacturing and installation improvements while nuclear, despite over half a century of industrial experience, continues to see costs rising.

That same report goes on to say that the levelised cost of energy analysis by the US bank Lazard shows that between 2009 and 2021 utility-scale solar costs came down by 90 per cent, wind costs came down by 72 per cent and new nuclear costs increased by 36 per cent. So, sure: I get it that maybe you don't like some scientists, you don't like some organisations, because you think they believe in climate change or various other things that you can't get behind. But this is the industry itself. This is the report on the industry itself, telling you exactly what the costs look like. So, you enjoy that at your peril and ignore it at the country's, I believe.

We have now seen a decade of denial and delay as far as our energy sector is concerned. And now the transition to renewable energy is going to have to boost. We know this. The level of investment has been low, but it is growing. Since we legislated the 43 per cent target, investment has increased, and it will continue to increase, for renewable energy— (Time expired)

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposal for nuclear power for Australia is wrong on many counts. Small modular nuclear power generation is too expensive, it's not operating commercially and it's a distraction from what we have to really get on with, which is a very fast move to renewables. We senators in this place have a responsibility to consider realistic proposals to advance citizens' interests, not run impractical, risky, uncommercial proposals up the flagpole on behalf of, in this case, nuclear industry spruikers. Last time I looked, only two small modular reactors were in operation on the planet, one in China and one Russia. In both cases the cost blowouts have been huge. Many other such next-generation nuclear reactors have been cancelled as people have worked out that renewables are the cheaper, more-reliable way forward.

But I want to especially focus on what Senator Canavan has raised, and that's the question of nuclear waste disposal. The truth is that finding a permanent solution for the safe storage of nuclear waste arising from power generation remains a big, dangerous problem everywhere—a very expensive problem. The UK has 70 years of waste, 260,000 tonnes of it, from its nuclear power plants, in unsafe temporary storage. It's a major problem for that country and its citizens. The US nuclear industry has similarly been plagued by dangerous leaks and failures. No long-term solution exists in the US for waste from power generation or from nuclear powered submarines.

South Australians have had some experience with these issues. In 2016 our citizens had a very close look at a proposal that we take the world's nuclear power waste and store it. We were promised an income stream of $51 billion. That's a lot of money, but South Australians said no. The world's largest citizens jury of 350 South Australian citizens read the fine print. They saw that the proposal was for temporary storage for above-ground for more than a century. They said no to the false promise of huge incomes but especially to the safety risks and the fact that those who spruik nuclear power never offer a long-term waste solution that is safe and that will last the 100,000 years that is needed. First Nations people across South Australia in particular said no. They remember Maralinga. This is a national challenge of long standing.

Since Australia first started producing nuclear waste, 70 years ago, five successive governments have tried and failed to find a suitable place for the permanent storage of our relatively small quantities of low-level and intermediate-level waste. Low-level waste, arising from medical use, must be stored safely for 300 years, and it's nowhere near as dangerous as intermediate waste, but no community in this country has agreed to take and store that waste. Intermediate-level waste, arising from research at Lucas Heights, must be safely stored for 10,000 years. The previous government began a process towards that storage at Kimba, and it's been bitterly disputed at every step of the way since, opposed by farmers, by community members and by First Nations people. The Barngarla people are currently in the Federal Court fighting the current government, which is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose the voice of the Barngarla people.

In the case of AUKUS, the fuel from decommissioned submarines is nuclear weapons grade, and it requires military-scale security. It must be stored safely not for 300 years, not for 10,000 years, but for 100,000 years, and neither the UK nor the US have been able to find permanent storage solutions for their own submarine waste. So, given that successive governments have continuously failed to manage much-less-dangerous radioactive waste in Australia, our government would find it very difficult in this country to find a solution to dispose of nuclear waste or AUKUS submarine waste. Traditional owners of the future in particular should have a say and a veto about any such proposal.

There is a long list of reasons why the $368 billion spend proposed for AUKUS is a terrible idea, but it's not least that the government has no viable solution to care for the weapons-grade nuclear waste and keep us safe. The Australian public is right to be sceptical and concerned about waste disposal in relation to AUKUS. There is no plan, and the same argument applies to any ill considered, expensive adventurism around nuclear power. Our children need practical, affordable action on renewable energy that cuts carbon pollution, not pies in the sky that generate toxic waste for which there are no safe solutions.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

1,430 terawatt hours per year is the amount of electricity needed to be able to power Australia to be a green energy superpower, something that we all aspire for this country to be. That is an awful lot of energy. If we are going to power that through green energy, we have to consider all options to do so, with nuclear power being one of those. There is no way that we can get to net zero emissions or, even better, zero emissions without nuclear base load power. All clean energy options need to be on the table. That includes nuclear, pumped hydro, geothermal—all sorts of other ways.

This fixation on renewables only is a fallacy that's being sold to the Australian public, and they're being lied to because there is no way that we can get to where we need to be and be a hydrogen superpower simply on renewables. The variable and intermittent nature of those generation techniques is not doable. My learned friend over here talked about unproven technologies. The other fallacy that the Australian people are sold is that batteries can solve this. There is no battery that can provide the deep storage of energy that will be needed to firm up intermittent power from wind and solar sufficiently to power industries as they are now, let alone as we electrify industries to reduce emissions down to the lowest possible part we can. Stop telling lies. Nuclear power is a proven technology, and it will play a part in our energy mix in the future.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to stand and speak on this matter of public importance today because it gives me an opportunity to talk about a number of matters, particularly our government's record on delivering our renewable energy plan to make this country a renewable energy superpower. It particularly gives me an opportunity to talk about the debate we are having about nuclear energy in this place, why we're having the debate and who is pushing that debate in this chamber. We know there's a reason that the Liberal and National parties are pushing nuclear as a form of energy. It's because they're distracting from their bitter disunity and denialism on climate change and it's because they don't want to see this country become a renewable energy superpower.

I am proud that one of the first actions of our government was legislating our emissions reductions targets. Our government has a clear commitment to renewable energy. We know that firmed renewables are the cheapest form of energy and that they are getting cheaper every single day. If we hadn't lost 10 years of investment, we would be far beyond where we are now, but we are making good headway in catching up. We are working with the states and territories to deliver renewable energy projects across the country. It's why we're delivering our Powering Australia Plan, but we're also choosing to invest in renewables through the National Reconstruction Fund, an incredibly important piece of legislation that those opposite have dealt themselves out of. We want to see our regions become renewable energy powerhouses. I speak of the region that I come from in Far North Queensland when I talk about the wind, solar and pumped hydro opportunities that will create jobs in regional Queensland.

It's important to understand where we've come from over the past 10 years and why we are now having this debate—why we're at a point where we are having a genuine discussion about renewable energy not being the way forward. It's because the LNP's record on energy is abysmal. In government, the Liberal-National coalition vetoed projects that would have created hundreds of jobs in regional Queensland. In Queensland, the Liberal National Party tried to sell off the state's power assets so that we couldn't have public energy in public hands. When it came to promising what power they would generate, the federal coalition did promise years and years ago to build a coal-fired power station in North Queensland. That never happened because there is nothing from this former government when it comes to delivering on the promises they made.

Heading up into the election, they hid key information about electricity prices from Australians. Now, in opposition, they choose to vote against energy bill relief. They talk about reducing power prices, but they're not prepared to vote for cheaper power bills.

We know what the experts say about nuclear energy. It's expensive, it's slow and it's the hardest to deliver when it comes to forms of power. It isn't members on this side of the chamber saying that; it's the CSIRO. They've done these reports time and time again and found that nuclear energy would be far and away the most expensive form of energy in Australia. That is the experts telling us about nuclear energy when it comes to the way forward. We're facing an energy crisis right now in this country and in this world, and it is a matter of deep concern that a party of government is pushing a form of energy that would not have a plan and would take decades to establish.

Why are the Liberal and National parties talking about nuclear energy? It's purely because they are completely disunified when it comes to their beliefs about climate change and about renewable energy itself. They don't believe in renewable energy, they don't believe in climate change and they don't believe in doing anything about it. The Liberal and National parties can choose to generate a debate about nuclear energy, but they are using it as a distraction from the fact that they continue to drift further and further to the extreme far right on issues like this and others that we have seen play out in the national debate this week.

The Australian public know that the former government did nothing on energy. The proposal that they are putting forward around nuclear is uncosted, won't be delivered and won't deliver the jobs that regional Queenslanders deserve. I urge this chamber to push back on this debate. (Time expired)

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot believe that we are actually here talking about nuclear power. Nuclear power makes no sense on so many fronts. It is a dangerous undertaking and can never be fully accident-free. As we have seen with Fukushima and Chernobyl, this is simply not a risk we can take for anybody living now or in the future. My people have known for many thousands of years that this poison, uranium, needs to stay in the ground and never be touched. It causes sickness and death. There is a lot of talk about next-generation nuclear reactors, but for their concept—even if they were somehow magically safe—the technology does not currently exist to scale, so it is not even an option until sometime in the future anyway. Even economists agree that nuclear is financially not viable. Investment in nuclear energy would also slow the decarbonisation of our economy and would actually increase electricity costs, which you all are always so concerned about.

Last but not least, we have absolutely no idea how to safely manage high-level nuclear waste for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Nobody knows this, probably because it's not possible to make it safe for such a long time and communicate with generations in thousands of years. The proposition of nuclear energy is dangerous: dangerous economically, dangerous for our clean energy journey, dangerous for humanity.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the last 30 years, nuclear energy has come a long way. The Greens like to remind us of the Chernobyl disaster, but the fact is that nuclear technology has advanced tremendously since 1986. Nuclear energy in Australia has great potential to contribute to the global movement towards low-emission technologies, and this is widely recognised by experts. Put aside your personal views on the net-zero debate; we're certainly not going to achieve it with only wind turbines and solar panels.

The entire world looks to us confused. They don't understand why we have a moratorium in place on nuclear energy. All we know is that we're now working towards gaining nuclear submarine capabilities, so why not nuclear energy?

In the United States, nuclear constitutes 20 people cent of the energy mix and there is bipartisan agreement in congress about the importance of nuclear energy to helping the US achieve its climate ambitions, its energy security and its sovereignty. President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act has a heavy emphasis on the important role that it will play in the US. I will quote directly from the Office of Nuclear Energy's website:

Momentum is building for U.S. nuclear energy and the investments and tax incentives included in IRA guarantee a commitment to nuclear energy that will continue well throughout the nation's journey to net-zero.

We must get our heads out of the sand and seriously look at lifting the moratorium. Now, I'm not even saying that we should necessarily build a nuclear power plant; we should just lift the moratorium. This way we'll allow industry to explore the opportunities and universities to commence the important work of skilling up out workforce that will be critical for any future nuclear industry here in Australia. We're still having the same discussion here today that we were having when I was born, and the rest of the world is, frankly, leaving us behind.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for discussion has expired.