Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Cadell:

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

The need for Australia to urgently respond to the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050 announced at COP28 and adopt a technology neutral approach to transitioning the energy market while maintaining affordability and reliability as part of Australia's commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, consistent with our partners and allies who recognise that, as President Macron says, "nuclear energy is a source that is necessary to succeed for carbon neutrality in 2050".

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the weekend, in the lead-up to COP28 in Dubai, we've seen people coming together about the ways to net zero. We saw a pledge signed by 22 countries—18 nuclear and four non-nuclear—to triple the amount of nuclear output because it is required to get to net zero by 2050. We on this side are not standing here saying, 'Let's run out there and put government money into nuclear reactors tomorrow,' or something like that. What we're saying is that, while the Rewiring the Nation plan, the renewable energy plan, of this government focuses on renewables, we are in the 'all of the above' boat. We are saying, 'If it works, let's do it. Let's not rule it out. Let's rule things in and see what the market wants. Let's take away subsidies that pick winners. Let's do all of those sorts of things and have a look at what happens.'

We heard numbers in an earlier debate here about the massive cost that nuclear would have. That's under the GenCost model from 2017 that can't be looked at. It can't be looked at. It cannot be examined. If you look at the IEA, the International Energy Agency—which is quoted as the bible by many in here for the things we must do and the things we must cut and the time we must cut them by—the IEA lists nuclear as one of the lowest levelised costs of electricity amongst all in their 2020 studies. It has a lower low cost, a much lower high cost and a lower average cost than most things we are talking about—certainly, than rooftop solar and commercial solar, and somewhere around utility-scale solar. So what we're saying is, 'Bring off the handbrake.'

The stupidity is that there is a nuclear reactor in Sydney. It is less than a kilometre away from the houses in Sierra Road that sell for $1½ million and above. It has a generator as part of the entire network, but it cannot be connected because it is illegal. Australia's nuclear reactor runs off coal power at the moment because it is illegal to put that generator on in Australia. That is the stupidity of our policy.

The other part of it is this: what are Rewiring the Nation and this race to renewables really costing us? We hear it's about $100 billion just for the power lines, without generating a single megawatt of power. That's just to carry the power from where we do build them, for other hundreds of billions of dollars, to where we need the power—in the cities.

When we are talking about these numbers, the other thing that comes through is this. We were up at New South Wales's biggest electricity user that long ago. It was this month. They require 950 megawatts of power, 12 per cent of the state's power usage. But when they are going to market with the net zero plans they can't buy 950. Because of the intermittency of solar and renewables, they have to go to the market for three gigawatts, three times the size of the power usage, just to be able run their plant.

The people of Australia deserve to have a debate away from the dishonesty, hype and self-interest on what we can do to get to net zero by 2050. The world has spoken: nuclear has to be part of that mix. The disciples of John Kerry say, 'Follow the science, follow the science, follow the science.' The science says, 'Get those atoms moving.' It says, 'Get them buzzing and get some power.' Three times the amount of nuclear energy to get to net zero is required. What's more, they are calling on the World Bank, which Australia funds, to contribute loans to build nuclear energy. So, under this policy, we could be in the perverse position of funding nuclear energy in other countries but not being able to do it ourselves.

If nuclear is as expensive and unfeasible as we hear, the market will not pick it up. The market will stay away from it. But we see the amount of subsidy, effort and taxpayer money going into Rewiring the Nation. It's $20 billion of $100 billion. We see the subsidies going into every plant you see. We see the destruction of farming land, habitats and environmental lands by all of these wind factories and solar factories. We see it with all of these offshore wind farms in whale areas. That is the real cost. What is the productive value of that land forever that we are losing? That is not factored in. They call them wind farms. Well, let's start calling mines coal farms or carbon farms. Honesty is required, and we need it now. (Time expired)

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

Senator Cadell, it's delightful—through you, Chair—to be here again having this conversation that we have had many, many times before. It's like a little routine. It's a bit like 'transmission Tuesday'; we are now having 'nuclear Monday'. This might actually help us unpick some of the confusion that seems to be around. On the one hand, we hear significant amounts of talk that, 'No, we're not talking about large nuclear reactor power plants; we're talking about these small modular reactors.' So I think the confusion here needs to be unpacked a little. The small modular reactors are the ones that are not yet commercially viable. So that is slightly problematic.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about offshore wind?

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

I will just mention that I did listen to Senator Cadell in silence, and I'm now being heckled from across the chamber. Over and over again, Senator Cadell and his colleagues have talked about how the small modular reactors are cheap, reliable and popular. I'm not sure that any of that's true. I frequently am respectfully disagreeing with Senator Cadell because the projects have not been proven to be commercially viable and yet, in Senator Cadell's contribution just now, he said we should get rid of all the subsidies. We know that new technology frequently will require some form of government assistance to get it off the ground, whether that be some form of financial treatment, loans et cetera, to enable companies to bring off the technology. But I think ripping off the bandaid and letting the market rip may end up with us in a situation which would lead directly off what the coalition government did for almost a decade, which was precisely nothing. They left us with announcements of coal powered stations being closed down and nothing to replace them.

I would like to say that we intend to keep the lights on. We intend to make sure that the power needs of this country are satisfied. We will not just stand around and ignore the fact that we need to ensure that we have enough supply, unlike those opposite, who did nothing for an extraordinarily long time and have only become very irate about this issue and started calling for new structures since they've been in opposition.

One classic example that a number of my colleagues from across the chamber have talked about is the NuScale development, a small modular reactor in America—cutting-edge, the brand-new normal. That project was cancelled just last month because of cost blowouts and technical issues. That was after two decades of trying to get this technology to work, and it hasn't come off yet—proving that this is not commercially viable; it's just not, at this point in time. So, not only did the project cost the American taxpayer $930 million for a project that's now just scrapped, but also as a company they didn't fare terribly well, with the value of shares in their company falling by 30 per cent in after-market trade. And that was on top of a 70 per cent decline in the year to date, to the point at which they closed down the project. If your only hope is the small modular reactors then you probably need to expand out a little bit, because that is not going to work at this point in time.

So, nine long years and no meaningful energy policy, and now just a frantic attempt to convince everyone that nuclear is the way forward, when what you are proposing is small modular reactors, and they are the ones that are not yet viable. If you're actually talking about a large nuclear reactor, a large energy plant, then you need to consider the water needs of those kinds of plants and where you're going to put it. We know that the social licence is still not there in this country for nuclear. What is the pathway to address that? And why would we do that when we have an abundance of wind and an abundance of sunshine and renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy that we have available to us? (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak in support of nuclear energy in Australia. Chris Bowen is saying it would take many years to establish nuclear energy in Australia, as if this is an excuse for not doing it. My answer to that is, if it's going to take a long time, you'd better get started on it right now. Australia cannot afford to be left behind on developments in the critical technology being utilised safely at about 450 locations around the world.

Nuclear energy makes perfect sense in Australia, where almost 25 per cent of all the world's uranium reserves are located. Going down Labor's renewables-only path will require the mining and refinement of billions of tons of increasingly scarce and expensive raw materials. This is not required by nuclear energy, which has a tiny fraction of the geographic footprint required by renewables. Electricity bills for Australian households without subsidised solar are around 25 per cent higher than those paid by households in nuclear powered countries like the US, France and Canada.

At COP28 a number of countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Finland, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands and Sweden, signed a declaration calling for the tripling of the world's nuclear energy capacity. Also at COP28 were Minister Bowen, Senator McAllister and a delegation of 48 bureaucrats representing an isolated government—the only G20 nation in the world not pursuing nuclear energy. Instead, they've signed a pledge to triple renewable energy capacity. We know what that really means: more pain for Australian families and businesses as they struggle with ever-increasing electricity bills. It means more pain for the country as the unreliability of renewables hits us with blackouts and brownouts.

Labor is hopelessly compromised on nuclear energy. They're happy for it to be used to power submarines but not the Australian households and businesses who need it. Labor's ignorance and obstinacy cannot be denied. They have no plan whatsoever for the massive environmental cost of disposing of used solar panels and wind turbines, none of which have been recycled anywhere in the world and virtually all of which is ending up as landfill.

They have no plan to manage the increasing withdrawal of private financing and investment in renewables, because the numbers don't stack up for private financing without taxpayers intervening.

One Nation has led the policy charge with nuclear energy, with a bill in New South Wales three years ago seeking to overturn state bans. We support nuclear energy and support lifting the suicidal national ban on this technology in Australia. Senator Grogan says it's not viable. Green hydrogen, which you're heading down the path towards, is not viable either and it doesn't work either, so don't talk about it not being viable— (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, as someone who is heading to Dubai at the end of the week to attend COP28, to speak in favour of this motion. I think it is incredible that a country with 35 per cent of the world's uranium—we're exporting it to the world—isn't looking at nuclear energy. Everyone in the G20 and all of our trading partners have signed up to net zero by 2050. What are we trying to do? Get to net zero by 2050 with one hand tied behind our back, instead of using a cheap, reliable source of zero-emission energy. The Labor government, in the fantasy world that they seem to exist in, are saying, 'No, we're not going to look at that.' The rest of the world is tickered up and the International Energy Agency has said, 'The world will not get to net zero by 2050 unless there's an adoption of nuclear energy production.' The IPCC has said it as well. It's not just those on this side of the chamber.

What's the Labor government saying? 'No; we're going to electrify Australia. You're all going to be driving an electric car. Your mum is ripping out her gas stove to put electric hotplates back in.' We got rid of those in the seventies. Fine. We're building 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines across our country. Why? Because the Labor Party refuses to remove the moratorium our country has on building nuclear power or even about thinking about nuclear power as a potential option for our nation to deal with reality of the laws of physics and the laws of economics that you are going to have to come to terms with.

It's all been very ambitious up until now. It's all been very ethereal and very 'unicorn pie in the sky', but at some point you are going to have to ensure that the lights stay on and that people are in well-paid jobs in regional capitals and in our suburbs across the country. That means production lines in all of our manufacturing facilities don't shut down because the wind isn't blowing, the sun isn't shining or you haven't quite got the tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines up and running in time. This is the reality you're facing. That is why at COP28 this week the world came together to recognise the fundamental fact that, in the race and the ambition to reach net zero by 2050, you cannot leave nuclear power generation out of your mix. Of course you're going to have to have wind, you're going to have to have solar and you're going to have to have carbon sequestration. You are also going to have to have nuclear. For a country like ours, where so many of our well-paying jobs and your union members' jobs are reliant on cheap and available energy production, why would you take this particular piece—this tool—out of what we're considering?

Of course it's going to take time, but so is building 28,000 kilometres of infrastructure. The fact is that your infrastructure construction is going to cost $328 billion. That is the reality. Don't shake your head, please, senators on the opposite side of the chamber—through you, Chair—because that is your own costing. That will come at the cost of building road and rail projects, and we know the Inland Rail in and of itself will produce 750 thousand tonnes of CO2 every single year it's going to be in operation. Hundreds of thousands of B-double trucks are going off the road because of that singular piece of infrastructure.

We are very much looking forward to heading over to Dubai. I call on Minister Bowen and say, 'It's not too late to join with the 22 other countries.' Not all of them already have nuclear power generation in their borders, but they're committed to the science that says we can't, as a globe, get to net zero there without a zero-emissions energy source like nuclear.

We are not a country that is subjected to earthquakes. We are a country that has very high environmental laws and sustainability frameworks, so adopting that technology here just makes sense, rather than turning your back and trying to do something no one else in the world is seeking to do. I heard comments earlier that Australians are against it—no they're not, only 24 per cent of Australians oppose it. (Time expired)

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

I'm very pleased to rise, and I thank the senators for raising this really important issue. I have taken a very keen interest in our energy market as a regional Australian, as a regional Queenslander and as the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, because I know that taking action on climate change is so important. But I also know that delivering cheaper and cleaner energy is really important for regional Australia. That is why our government have taken a policy to the election and are progressing it to make sure that we can deliver cleaner and cheaper energy.

Unfortunately, after 10 years, those opposite had 22 draft policies but they couldn't land a single one, so they are here today to lecture us about energy policy. After 22 failed goes, they didn't land a single policy but they are here today to lecture us about energy policy. It's really important that Australians know that there are no secrets to Labor's policy. I don't know why those opposite are so opposed to renewable energy. That is a secret to me. I don't understand why they're so against enhancing the natural resources of our country. But we made sure that we took to the election a clear and decisive plan to reduce emissions and get our country to net zero. One of the first acts of our government was to limit our emissions reduction targets. We have also doubled approvals for renewable energy projects, with the sector already supporting thousands of jobs around the country. Speaking of jobs, we are providing clean energy apprenticeships to ensure that we have the skilled workforce that's needed for the thousands of jobs that this sector will create.

When it comes to policies, we know from this motion today that the Liberals and Nationals have a policy of bringing in nuclear power. What we don't know are the details of the policy. We don't know where, we don't know when and we don't know how much. Today on RN breakfast, the shadow minister for energy belled the cat on some of these details. He said that he would be absolutely happy to welcome a nuclear facility to his electorate of Fairfax in Queensland. He couldn't tell presenter how much the policy would cost. We know that there are estimates that it would cost Australian $25,000 each for the $387 billion cost burden that the Liberals' nuclear plan would put on Australians. What they were able to tell us is that when it comes to nuclear facilities, they are happy to have them on Coolum Beach, just down the road from Noosa, and all the way through our Queensland coast. They need to tell us how much it's going to cost, they need to tell us where they're going to put them and they need to tell us when. It's a simple question. If they have a policy, tell us the details. There are no secrets with us but there are secrets on the other side.

Finally, I'll turn to the other issue raised in this motion—and I thank Senator Cadell. COP28 is taking place at the moment. Many senators have a keen interest in COP28, including senators from the Liberal and National parties. Some of them are heading over there. At least 10 members of the opposition have registered to attend—Senator Davey, Senator Kovacic, Senator McKenzie, Senator Smith and Senator Bragg. This is in addition to the member for Fairfax, the member for Page, the member for Bradfield, the member for Lyne and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They're all heading over there, but the question I have—and we'll find out in the ordinary course of declarations that are required by members of parliament, but it remains a question—is: who is funding these trips?

One option may be the Coalition for Conservation, and I say this only because we know that this same group sent delegations of coalition MPs and senators to COP26 in Glasgow and COP27 in Egypt.

They've also announced that they'll be sending a delegation to COP28. Is this the group funding these MPs and senators to go to COP28? The Coalition for Conservation is an internal lobby group within the coalition. I tripped over those words as little because they make it clear in their annual report that, unlike other environmental organisations, they have a 'pro-growth' philosophy.

It was actually Senator Van, a member of the COP27 delegation, who said that the role of the group has been to highlight conservative voices. So it's not so much about conservation but about conservative voices in this discussion. It's an interesting group. We know who's going to COP28, we know that previous delegations have been supported by the Coalition for Conservation, but we don't know who is funding the Coalition for Conservation, because their donors are secret. When it comes to the LNP and nuclear power policy, that's all we seem to get. (Time expired)

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

I rise here today in support of Senator Cadell's MPI. I agree that we must adopt a technology-neutral approach to energy generation. That's obvious. But my motivation is certainly not driven by COP28 or our nation's commitment to net zero ideology. I'm motivated by ensuring the Australian people have access to the cheapest and most reliable forms of energy generation in the world. We are, after all, an energy resource superpower. It is shameful that we are deliberately blowing out our stable baseload power generators. Minister Bowen knows that he has about as much chance of reaching net zero as I have of realising my $275 power bill saving—and that's Buckleys and none!

Minister Bowen's stubborn opposition to nuclear power puts him at odds with all our key allies. USA, Canada, France, Japan and the UK are all pursuing nuclear power as the answer to reaching net zero whilst also keeping the lights on, but not Minister Bowen. He knows better than the rest of the world, you see. Never mind that he's proving technology, never mind that he can power our nation and plug straight into our existing electricity grid and never mind that South Australia is literally sitting on top of one of the largest uranium deposits in the world. Despite all of these things, Minister Bowen refuses to have a conversation around nuclear power for Australia. That is how we know the minister's opposition is ideological and not based on any rational argument.

Australia cannot afford an ideologically driven energy policy. We just don't have the luxury. Australia looked silly at COP28 this week. Imagine how we'll look when all the lights go out—even worse.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Confucius said, 'The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago or today.' Would 20 years ago have been a great time for us to start our transition to nuclear energy? Absolutely, it would have been. Twenty years ago or 10 years ago, any period would have been beneficial. But, as Confucius said, if it didn't happen 20 years ago, the next best time is today. I am, as I'm sure are many Australians who are currently facing cost-of-living pressures and only seeing their family's financial situation continue to deteriorate, looking forward to the next election. I'm looking forward to the next election to say goodbye to the Albanese government for many, many reasons.

One of those reasons is that—and I'm pretty sure I'm not letting too much of the cat out of the bag—we will have a policy that looks to end the moratorium in the EPBC Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Commonwealth. All we want, and what everyone's very frightened about on the other side, is to remove four little words: 'a nuclear power plant'. In section 140A(1)(b), by removing those four little words, we would allow the market to look at this. No-one here is saying that we want to build a small modular reactor here. No-one's saying that we want a large-scale reactor over there.

What we are saying is that, when it comes to the energy challenge and looking at how we will secure a low-emissions future, we will secure that with reliable and affordable baseload energy. This is what those opposite don't understand. Baseload energy is firming energy. It's reliable. It's there at any given moment, unlike wind or solar, which are intermittent. No-one is saying they won't form part of it, but they will certainly not be the only things that will keep industry and the lights on in Australia.

By removing those four little words, the market will come in. We have an approach to all of the above types of energy. We are not ideological here. We are technologically agnostic when it comes to power, because, when Australians want to put their air conditioners on over summer, when it's a bit hot and they're escaping the heat by watching the cricket indoors, they won't care where that energy is coming from. They will just want to know that they can pay the bill and that it's reliable. But Casanova—Minister Bowen in the other place, the former minister for pink batts—is absolutely embarrassing the country. He is embarrassing Australia. He is out there saying, 'Renewable energy will be Australia's future, wholly and solely; no, thank you, nuclear.' He's saying, 'No, thank you,' to any form of energy other than their ideologically based renewables.

For renewables to work, they need batteries. I noticed that one of the electric vehicle companies in Australia has just announced the recall of 1,500 cars due to issues with their batteries. There are life-threatening issues around their chargers. Today, we also have three men in Sydney who have been sent to hospital. One, who has serious burns, is in Royal North Shore Hospital after an electric bike's battery blew up in his apartment. There are issues with these batteries, but you won't hear it from those opposite, because it's 'wind and solar', and they say, 'Let's all put batteries everywhere.' It is absolutely ridiculous.

We know that President Macron has come out calling for Australia to lift the moratorium on nuclear energy and join the rest of the world. It's extraordinary when we look at how often Mr Albanese likes to get on a plane, yet we know that there was a whole meeting over in Paris. I'm pretty sure he would have enjoyed a trip to gay Paris. He could have joined Canada, Finland, France, Ghana, Japan, Korea, Poland, Romania, the Netherlands, the UK, the US and a whole lot of other countries in gay Paris to discuss nuclear energy and how it will pay a role. I'm sure Jodes would have liked to visit and pop up to the Eiffel Tower, but no. Through the absolute obstinance of not removing four little words from the EPBC Act, nuclear is off the table for any discussion—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for discussion has expired.