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

Does any honourable member wish to take note of answers?

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

Thank you very much, Deputy President. I'll take that compliment. I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Birmingham today relating to nuclear energy.

This government, sadly, is proving to be, I put to you, Deputy President, the worst government since Federation. This is a terrible government, and it has demonstrated time and time again that it is not up for governing in relation to the important matters that relate to the running of this country. This government is a terrible government. Bring on the election as soon as we possibly can, I say, because the Australian people are really starting to wise up to how bad this government really is.

Just in the last few days, this government has embarrassed itself yet again on the international stage in going over to this conference on climate and not siding with the usual international partners in relation to energy. We could have gone there and really shared and led the way, but, no, we didn't. This government is like the dog that caught the car: now it doesn't know what to do with it. This government said that it was going to have some real action on climate change, lead with integrity and honesty, and deal with issues such as cost of living.

Yet on all of those matters they are proving to be incapable.

When it comes to nuclear energy, the world has accepted that in order to meet the objectives around climate change, to breach net zero—regardless of what your position is on net zero; I mean, if you set a target, then obviously you have to seek to reach it—the only way to actually meet those objectives around net zero is to include nuclear in your energy mix. This government, due to their ideology—which seems to trip them up every single time, whether it's on immigration, whether it's on industrial relations or whether it's on matters of the economy and certainly here with energy—are tripped up. They're tripped up by their own ideology.

The minister responsible, the member for McMahon—Australia's energy champion—has no idea. He says the only way Australia can meet these objectives around net zero is to use renewable energy. Senator Wong, when she came in here and answered the question on this matter today, said Australia is the sunniest place on the planet, or words to that effect—and she's right; it is. I think there's only one other place, maybe in Africa. But everyone knows the sun doesn't shine all day; the wind doesn't blow all day. So if you're going to produce your energy requirements just off renewables, you need to then have a significant—enormous—scale of storage that is just not feasible. So, nuclear provides a clean, efficient and reliable source of power that is necessary to provide that reliable and affordable power to Australians, to industry.

Imagine the sorts of industries we could see here if we had an abundant source of energy, a reliable source of energy, an affordable source of energy that nuclear can provide. But this government, because of their ideology, is lost at sea. There are countries around the world where there are even green parties supporting nuclear, like in Germany. In the United States, which is divided on so many issues, the left and the right have come together and recognised that nuclear provides a solution for them—on the left because of reducing emissions, and on the right because of the energy security. They've come together. They recognise that nuclear provides a future for that country. Australia, sadly, is one of the few countries in the world now that is not embracing this. This government ought to be leading the way, but it's not on the international stage, like on so many fronts.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't it amazing? Everyone's on board. Well, of the 22 nations that signed the pledge, 18 have a nuclear energy industry already. The four countries without nuclear power that signed were Moldova, Morocco, Poland and Mongolia. There were 14 countries with nuclear industries that did not sign the pledge. Germany did not sign the pledge. They decommissioned their last nuclear power plant this year. We saw that nuclear may have a role in countries such as France, where they have an existing nuclear energy industry. Let's look at the consequences for the rest of us, in this country. One of the things those on the opposite side don't tell you is where those nuclear plants can be situated. Are they going to be situated in Jervis Bay? They won't be situated in the eastern suburbs of Sydney; that won't happen. But will they be situated in every other place? We turn around and try to make sure we have a proper industry, a safe and secure industry, but it is an industry that our communities don't want—and for very good reasons. They trump up the benefits of non-commercial small modular reactor technology without owning the costs of that technology; they won't own that cost. Who's going to pay for development at those costs?

The Leader of the Nationals recently said, 'We don't expect nuclear energy in the next decade or so, but we've got till 2050.' This is the essence. They actually don't want to do anything. This whole argument about nuclear power is so they can sit on their hands and pretend they're doing something, rather than supporting investment in renewables, which is what we need to be doing, in line with the commitments this government has made. They don't actually want the effects of a more viable, more efficient and cheaper electricity system. If they did, they would have voted for electricity bill relief. The average family would be $230 worse off this year without Labor's energy price relief plan, which the coalition voted against.

If you do the maths, the analysis of the cost of nuclear power shows that Australians would be lumped with a $387 billion cost burden if nuclear power were to replace the retiring coal-fired power station fleet. This represents a whopping $25,000 cost impost on each Australian taxpayer. Peter Dutton and the opposition need to explain why Australians will be slugged with a $387 billion cost burden for a nuclear energy plan that flies in the face of economics and reason. After nine years of no energy policy and absolute chaos, and rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure transition to a renewable energy future, all the coalition can promise is a multibillion dollar nuclear flavoured energy policy. It's the one thing that unites them. They're thinking: 'It must be a good idea because it unites us! We can slow up clean energy investment. We can slow up a strategy that actually reduces prices. We can keep fooling ourselves we're a party that has policies.'

In fact, they have had policies. They had the first one, the second one, the third one, the fourth one, the fifth one, the sixth one—I'm going to run out of fingers and toes trying to count them all up. In 10 years they kept on adopting and rejecting their own policies because they couldn't get them right. But they decided, because nuclear is not viable in this country, 'We can all agree, because we're not actually going to do it.' That's because who in their right mind would say they were going to spend $387 billion and put a $25,000 cost impost on each Australian taxpayer unless either they had no intention of really doing it or someone else was going to have to bear the price and responsibility down the track?

I did see with a great deal of enjoyment that Barnaby Joyce said he'd be happy to have one in his backyard. He said, 'I would absolutely welcome a nuclear facility, whether it be in my electorate or any electorate around the country.' Well, Deputy President, start asking people in your electorate and every electorate around the country, because they have a very different view about nuclear power. That's not just because of the intrinsic concerns about nuclear power that people have but because it's a waste of money. It's a burden on taxpayers. It's a dead-end policy. Rather than going with clean energy and transitioning to that proposal, those opposite want to do something that is farcical, inappropriate and unable to be achieved.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say I was very amused by the last contribution. I note that Senator Sheldon found it difficult to utter some of the phrases that were in the talking points, and with good reason.

The coalition is interested in nuclear energy because we want to consider all technologies to achieve a clean energy future for Australia. We're not saying, 'Don't go down the wind energy path.' We're not saying, 'Don't go down the solar energy path.' In fact, Australia, because of the policies of the coalition, has the highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world. Put aside the rhetoric from Labor, particularly that in the last contribution. Because of the policies of the coalition over the last decade, Australia has the highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world. We're already making our contribution.

The reality—and it's been recognised by advocates of clean energy globally and advocates of zero emissions—is that without nuclear energy there will be no net zero.

That was what John Kerry said recently. I have heard a number of serious global energy transformation advocates say that there is no net zero without nuclear.

It was amusing to hear the Leader of the Government in the Senate call us 'ideologues' on this side for proposing nuclear energy when it is their ideology that is actually stopping them from being in the game. It is their ideology, their internal division, that is holding the Labor Party back from actually properly considering this. We're not saying, as Senator Sheldon indicated, that the government should build at taxpayer expense nuclear power stations all around the country. That is an embarrassing gaffe by the minister, one of the many embarrassing gaffes that this minister has made—get the department to cost up the price to replace all of Australia's energy with nuclear power stations and it comes up to $387 billion. What a scam, what a load of garbage, which is why so many people see the minister as a national embarrassment.

We have an all-of-the-above technology approach to the development of our policy. We understand that without nuclear there is no net zero and we support the net zero task; that is why we are considering it. The suggestion that I saw from the minister over the weekend that we have no regulatory infrastructure is another complete furphy from the government because we already do have a nuclear regulator, ARPANSA. It has been in place for a long time and it regulates the nuclear reactor that we currently have in Sydney that provides medical isotopes. So we do have a nuclear energy industry in this country and we do have a nuclear plant at Lucas Heights.

Let's be sensible about this. Let's be a part of global action to sensibly transform our economy with affordable baseload energy and that is the role that nuclear energy can play. It is the only zero-emissions baseload energy source so that is why we are interested. What we are saying is let the market decide how this works. I was talking to a windfarm proponent at the weekend who has just had a significant win for his development in Tasmania. Talking about the economics and about the importance of him providing cheap energy into the grid, he said that, for example, his competitors in the wind and energy industry who are providing energy based on ocean wind energy, the cost would be four times what he can provide, so not all forms of wind energy is priced and costed equally. Some are more efficient than others and some cost more to build because of where they are. Let the market decide how nuclear can play a part in our energy transformation but don't be blinded by the ideology of the Labor Party and just say no.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to achieving net zero emissions on a global scale, nuclear energy is no doubt going to be part of the mix. It is certainly the right solution for some countries but it is not the right solution for Australia. As the minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Bowen, pointed out, many of his international counterparts have told him they would not be doing nuclear if they had Australia's access to renewable energy. At COP28 Australia has joined over 100 countries alongside other major energy exporters—the United States, Canada, Norway and more—to support the UAE's signature call which is a massive push on renewables and energy efficiency. Why? Because we know that renewables are the cleanest and cheapest form of energy, and that energy efficiency can also help drive down bills and emissions. That is why the Albanese government is supporting the UAE's signature initiative to triple global renewable energy generation capacity and double average annual energy efficiency improvements by 2030.

Regarding the nuclear pledge, the fact is that Australia has a massive comparative advantage when it comes to the cheapest form of energy—firmed renewables—with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. It would take decades for Australia to start from scratch if we were to follow the LNP's gamble on nuclear energy in Australia. That's time we don't have, after the LNP oversaw the closure of coal plants that resulted in the loss of 26.7 gigawatts of energy, with no plan to replace it.

As Senator Sheldon mentioned—maybe not in quite the same words—we know there's a bit of a con going on from the opposition with regard to nuclear. We also know that their ideology is ultimately fuelled by their climate change denial and their ideological opposition to sunlight and wind—the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant forms of energy Australia has. Their claim that nuclear energy is the lowest cost form of low-carbon electricity for Australia is proven to be untrue, with nuclear around three times more expensive than firmed renewables. These are the things they don't tell you, which makes it pretty obvious that the coalition's nuclear energy plan is nothing but a con. The fact is that, in Australia, power that is generated from solar and wind is cheaper and cleaner and puts downward pressure on electricity bills.

We've had some rather strange antics from those on the other side. We saw the shadow minister for climate change and energy engaging in some rather bizarre and, to be honest, completely insensitive stunts like spruiking nuclear energy at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. Talk about bad manners! Where would you get off to do something like that there? Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Hiroshima and he goes there and starts spruiking nuclear energy. You know that it's nothing more than an ideological push rather than a serious proposal. If the opposition were serious, let me ask you: why did they do nothing for the almost a decade that they were in government? The reason the opposition's nuclear policy remains detail free is that—and we all know it—it's nothing more than a thought bubble. No matter how they spin it, the idea of a viable nuclear energy industry in Australia is nothing more than a fantasy and, as we've heard from Senator Sheldon, a complete waste of money.

Those on the other side talk about small modular reactors. There are only two such reactors up and running anywhere in the world, and neither is operating commercially. This is the kind of back-of-the-napkin policy that we've come to expect from the coalition. When they were in government they spent decades arguing among themselves over whether climate change was even real. And how many energy policies did you have in the 10 years? Does anyone care to hazard a guess or even make an informed comment? They had 22 energy policies in 10 years, and you come in here and start spruiking nuclear, because what else have you got to talk about? It's the talk that we get from the opposition that says it's committed to net zero by 2050, but it's never, ever put forward a serious plan about how to get there. This talk about nuclear energy is a distraction and nothing else.

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

Senator McGrath, the clocks will be set for three minutes, and then I'll put the question and two minutes will go to Senator Roberts.

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

Deputy President, you're killing me. I thought I had five minutes to expand on the benefits of nuclear energy. In fact, I could do it for hours and hours. What Australians want and need is for their electricity to be reliable and affordable. Quite frankly, most Australians don't care where their electricity comes from. When they stick the cord in the power point or they turn the lights on, they don't care whether it comes from coal, sun, wind, hamsters in a wheel or whatever it is. They want their electricity to be affordable and reliable.

On this side of the chamber, we're really pragmatic about it, because we're with you, middle Australia. That's why we support having a conversation about nuclear energy. Australia has a third of the world's uranium. We are geologically stable.

Notwithstanding the current mouth-breathers who sit around the cabinet table, we are politically stable. This is a country that should have affordable and reliable electricity, and we should be able to have a conversation about nuclear power. But what is disappointing is that the Labor Party don't want to have that conversation because they want to run a scare campaign about nuclear energy. That is shameful and it is wrong, because it is selling out middle Australia. It is selling out those people who are in a cost-of-living crisis at the moment because of the aforementioned people who sit around the cabinet table, who do not understand the battles that people are taking on to pay their bills.

We on this side of the chamber want to have a long-term view of where our energy should come from, whether that should be windmills or wind turbines—and where I live on the Darling Downs, there is a massive wind farm being built out at Karara—or whether it is solar, coal or nuclear. Let's have that conversation about what is in Australia's best interest rather than what is in the best interests of the Greens-Labor Party duopoly that is running Australia into the ground, running our businesses into the ground and running our families into the ground. If you want to get to net zero, the only way you're going to get there is by using nuclear energy as part of your mix. Nuclear energy is the only net zero emissions generation that helps deliver base-load energy. That is so important for Australia to achieve our international targets. If the Greens, Labor and all those other wonderful leftie people want to have net zero by the years they've chosen, then nuclear energy certainly must be part of that conversation, and let the market decide. We should lift the moratorium. If businesses want to invest in nuclear energy, they will do so. I guarantee that business will do so because they understand the benefits it will have for Australians who are struggling to pay their energy bills at the moment.

Question agreed to.