Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to statements by French President Emmanuel Macron that 'nuclear energy is a source that is necessary to succeed for carbon neutrality in 2050'. I also refer to statements by the United States special envoy for climate, John Kerry. He said:

… we can't get to net zero 2050 unless we have a pot, a mixture, of energy approaches in the new energy economy. And one of those elements which is essential in all the modelling I've seen, is nuclear.

Does the Albanese government agree with President Macron, Secretary Kerry and many other world leaders that more nuclear energy generation is an essential requirement in achieving net zero?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that I am surprised to get a question from the coalition about what President Macron said, but obviously they are very keen to press the nuclear energy point. There are countries around the world which, many decades ago, made a decision to go down the nuclear path. Some of the countries that you have referenced are amongst those. Australia made a choice not to do that. Australia has made a choice to look to the comparative advantage that we have when it comes to the cheapest forms of energy, which is firmed renewables. More sunlight hits our land mass than any other country. We know that we have so many untapped resources when it comes to renewables.

I appreciate that the opposition are very committed to the nuclear path. I understand Mr O'Brien has said that he'd be happy to have one in his electorate. That's a matter for him. But we will focus on the form of energy which is the cheapest form of new energy, which is renewable energy, rather than what is, frankly, an ideological agenda from those opposite when it comes to nuclear power generation.

There are countries in the world—France and others—which many years ago chose to go down the nuclear energy path. That is not the approach Australia has been taking. We have some of the best wind and solar resources in the world. That's why we joined so many countries to support a key push for renewables and energy efficiency at the Conference of the Parties.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given Australia is home to an estimated 35 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves, is it in Australia's national interest to encourage greater global production of nuclear energy?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's in Australia's and every country's national interest to press for and help deliver net zero by mid-century. There are different paths to that approach. Australia has taken the view that I have outlined, which is that we have untapped resources of renewable energy and that we know from what we have been told by regulators and by the market that the cheapest form of new installed energy is renewable.

I would also make the point that the opposition have been on this for many years. When I was climate minister, I think I got the same questions. People might recall that, I think, John Howard tried to get Ziggy Switkowski to tell us that it was financially viable. The reality is that we would rather put that public investment, if required, into those areas where we have a comparative advantage.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The declaration to triple nuclear energy signed at COP28 by countries including the United States, Canada, France, Finland, the Netherlands, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom set the aspiration for more nuclear energy but also recognised 'the different domestic circumstances of each participant'. Why didn't the Albanese government sign the declaration?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think what I have in my brief is the pledge. If I'm wrong, I will come in and give you some further information. But I'm advised that, of the 22 nations that signed the pledge, 18 already have a nuclear energy industry. So only four, obviously—Moldova, Morocco, Poland and Mongolia—signed the pledge as countries without nuclear power. A number of countries with nuclear energy industries did not sign the pledge, and Australia joined 117 other countries to sign a pledge to triple global renewable energy capacity, which reflects the priorities that we have and the priorities of the government.