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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. The government has ruled out adding nuclear electricity to our energy mix based on the government's calculations showing a higher cost of nuclear energy as against wind and solar. Minister, can you please inform the Senate of the levelised cost of generation of wind, solar and nuclear that informed the government's position?

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

Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will just remind you that questions need to go to ministers, not assistant ministers, so I'm directing the question to Minister Gallagher.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question. The advice the government has—and I think this is understood by everyone who's been following the energy discussion—is that nuclear energy is very slow to build. It's the most expensive form of new electricity generation. It cannot beat renewables, which are the cheapest, fastest and cleanest form of new electricity generation. The analysis that was done showed that there was a significant cost burden. Our position is about cost. We are looking for the cheapest form of energy generation, which is renewables, which includes wind and solar. Australia obviously has a very significant comparative advantage when it comes to that form of energy, with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. We also don't have a workforce to support that nuclear energy generation. So the time involved means it would be decades before anything became operational and it would do nothing to reduce the energy costs for Australian households and businesses in the meantime.

So our position—and I think there is a lot of support for that position—is that this transition to renewable energy is the quickest and cheapest path as we shift away from fossil fuel generation. That is the path that the government was clear about before the election. That is the path that we are implementing under Minister Bowen's and Minister McAllister's leadership, leading for the government, and we will continue on that path. We will leave the nuclear energy debate for those opposite to convince people of.

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

Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

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

Minister, is the figure for nuclear based on real-world data from the 440 nuclear power stations around the world or even from the last 10 stations completed in the last few years? If not, on what is it based?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it—and I will see if there's anything I can provide—the government analysis that looked at the cost of nuclear energy was looking at how to replace the retiring coal-fired power station fleet. That figure resulted in about a $25,000 cost impost on each Australia taxpayer, based off 15.1 million taxpayers. So, according to many of the experts in the energy field, it's more expensive, going to take decades to build and, in the meantime, will do nothing to reduce the power costs of households, which are clearly going to benefit from the shift to renewable energy generation and technology. That is the path the government will continue on because we are focused on cost of living and a sensible and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to new forms of energy.

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

Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

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

The government is using a figure for the cost of modular nuclear power that's not based on any real-world data. Rather, it is mere speculation about a type of generation that doesn't exist.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order on my right!

Order, Senator McKim! Senator Roberts has the right to ask his question in silence, and I will ask senators to respect that right.

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

The government's data is based on speculation about a type of generation that does not exist and completely misrepresents the cost of nuclear power. The government is spreading misinformation again. Minister, why didn't the government use the real-world data from 57 conventional nuclear power stations currently under construction around the world, and why is the government not being honest about nuclear? (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't accept the question that Senator Roberts has put to me. We are providing information to the community, and that information is that renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build generation technology. That is clearly a fact.

We have also done some analysis, and I think you will find it hard to find any expert that says nuclear isn't expensive or isn't going to take too long to build, including how you generate a workforce around this and the time it will take to do that based on the work that we need to happen now. We can't delay this for decades. The transition was already delayed for a decade under those opposite, with 22 failed energy policies. In 18 months we have been getting on with it. We are in that transition. We will focus on renewables as the lowest-cost form of energy generation that will help households with those cost-of-living pressures. (Time expired)

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

Senator Rennick, I'm calling you and the chamber to order. May I invite you to make your contribution at some other time and not in question time.