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

I move:

That the Senate take note of all answers given to all coalition questions today.

Unfortunately, we got a typical example in this place of a non-question time, non- answer time in this place where we didn't get answers to serious questions that were put here in this place. We want to have a serious debate when it comes to the future of our energy system. Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, is putting forward a serious plan that requires a serious debate on whether or not Australia should have nuclear energy as part of its mix. But, unfortunately, this government is—as we saw in question time—not able to answer questions or not prepared to answer the questions when asked about the costs of their own policies, or when asked about the safety of nuclear energy when it comes to the submarines that we are going to have some mariners work alongside of and, indeed, for those that are going to be on these vessels—actually travelling in and working in them. We're not getting answers, and it is unacceptable.

We know that Australia's energy system is at a crisis. We have seen reports, even today, that if things don't go well over this winter, we're going to have a shortage of gas, which would mean that we would see a significant reduction in the generation of power to keep our lights on. This is all happening under this government's watch because they are pursuing a folly. They are pursuing a folly when it comes to an all-renewable energy program. We know that that's not practical. We are an 'all of the above' policy people. We are looking to have a mixture of renewables and gas, and a future that will have zero-emissions nuclear that will replace the coal plants that will come offline into the future. But this government is not taking this issue seriously. We saw the very good announcement by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for energy, Ted O'Brien. When that announcement was made, what did we see from this lot over here, opposite us here today? What did we see? We saw them put up memes on their social media of three-eyed fish and three-eyed koalas. I mean, this is ridiculous. What Australia needs is a proper debate. Not only are their plans unaffordable; they're unworkable. You could have all the energy storage in the world. You could have all the batteries that you could possibly have. You could have all the hydro that you could possibly build. But if you don't have the reliable power generation to even be able to charge those things, then over time—let's say you get a run of cloudy days or a run of windless days—you won't be able to recharge. So, you need to have that reliable energy generation.

Nuclear provides emissions-free, reliable, safe and cost-effective generation of power that will be part of the mix. That's what we're providing. We've got confidence in this, because the rest of the world is pursuing it. We're the only one of 20 developed countries in the world that either don't have nuclear energy or aren't pursuing a nuclear energy future. Australia is being left behind and, frankly, the rest of the world are scratching their heads and wondering, why is Australia not doing this? So, instead of putting up ridiculous, juvenile memes, why don't you come in here with facts and have a serious debate so we can decide to pursue a future that provides reliability and cost-effective energy?

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

Isn't it amusing? Those opposite are espousing a policy that will give us a budget black hole, will actually turn it around, but the only thing the nuclear plan will achieve is exactly that: a budget black hole. The coalition's pledge to build seven different sites with multiple nuclear reactors is part of a controversial energy plan that will cost taxpayers $600 billion plus whilst supplying just 3.7 per cent of Australia's energy mix by 2050, according to the Smart Energy Council. That's what they're suggesting: an absolutely ludicrous proposition that will not only cost hundreds of billions of dollars, be more expensive, cost every taxpayer—every energy user, every small business, every large business, those that employ people across this country—more for electricity but will also cost billions upon billions of dollars.

Let's look at some of the facts as put by the opposition just a moment ago. Mr Dutton, the opposition leader, claims that his nuclear reactor would produce waste equivalent to a can of Coke each year. Now, either he's guzzling soda by the gallon or he's ignoring the experts who warn that these reactors could churn out as much as six tonnes of radioactive waste annually, or Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe of Griffith University's School of Environment and Science, who said that it is 'safe to say that a small modular reactor would generate many tonnes of waste per year' and it is likely that 'that waste would be more radioactive than the waste from a large-scale reactor'.

Here they are, costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Here they are putting forward a proposition that will cost more for electricity for every business person and every consumer in this country. But also they're coming in with flippant comments about what the actual facts are. It's not a can of Coke; it's a guzzling opportunity for them to turn around and make an absolute mess of what's happening in nuclear energy policy in this country.

Nuclear reactors by Dutton are the only thing more mysterious than Area 51. They're proposing a whole series of policies of which they won't actually tell us the details—it's for a later date; it's for another opportunity. Meanwhile they're suppressing the opportunity for renewables. That's their intent: to cause chaos in the market. They don't care, because this is all about them winning government. This is not a policy based on facts. This is not a policy based on what's better for the community. It's not a policy about bringing energy prices down. It's a fact that they had 22 energy policies in the 10 years they were in government, and they failed to deliver and land one of them. This is purely a factional deal and a coalition deal, which they still can't get right, because they're still arguing about it. This policy is the halfway mark of trying to work out yet another energy policy. I think it's No. 23, but, heaven forbid, it could even be No. 24. This policy is a lot like swiss cheese, only it's twice as smelly and with many more holes. This policy is a leaking bucket. It's full of holes, dripping money and leaving us all high and dry.

While on this side we've been committed to delivering clean, affordable electricity, the Leader of the Opposition's fixation on his nuclear fantasy and slowing down renewables would slap Australians with an extra $1,000 a year in their energy bills. Energy analysts have told GuardianAustralia that slowing the rollout of renewables and relying more heavily on gas in the 10 to 15 years before nuclear power could be introduced could increase Australian energy bills by $1,000 a year. So they want a price hike on energy bills. The Liberals and Nationals are confused over their own lines. The Liberals and Nationals can't even nail down their own position, let alone provide crucial details for Australians. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Simon Birmingham, spoke in favour of renewables, saying they'd become more cost competitive in their own right and are an important part of the mix. That's while we're hearing something directly opposite from those in the National Party. The coalition can't sort their act out. This is a political stunt.

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

What we just heard is more bluster. What we just heard is more spin. What we heard is more scare. We only want to hear two things from the other side. One is: what is the total system cost of your plan by 2030? They can't give us that. Why? Because they don't know. They don't know the cost of their own policy that they rolled out two years ago. They have a department with thousands of people dedicated to this, and they don't know the cost of their own plan. What a joke. But they have to know the cost of our plan. They can make up numbers. They can multiply. 'Take away the number you first thought of. Think about this. Think about that.' This is a full Penn and Teller show over here. The magic and diversion is on display for everyone to see. 'Open the envelope. There's the magic number.' Here's what our plan will cost, but what will their plan cost? They cannot tell us, because they do not know.

You look at something like Snowy Hydro, and they say: 'It's gone from $6 billion to $12 billion. It's just a rounding error that it's double.' But they don't tell you about the $10 billion worth of lines that they need to plug it in, the extension cord so it actually connects to something. So suddenly it's $22 billion. And they get up today and say, 'In the budget is $22 billion for this and that and that.' That's for the budget this year. What about the plan to 2030? They talk about the floating offshore wind turbines in Port Stephens and the Illawarra. They talk about how this will be great, how this will do that and how it will be half the cost of any other offshore wind turbine in the world that is already built. Forget inflation. Forget extra costs. Forget doing something that's never been done before, like floating substations. This will be half the cost of that incurred by the people who have done it. This is a magic show with smoke, mirrors and deception.

So No. 1 is: tell us how much it will cost. They can't do that. No. 2 is: What is the government going to put into it? How many taxpayer dollars are at risk when we subsidise, underwrite, loan and put equity into this? They can't tell us that. This is where we've got to. They demand actual numbers from a policy that has been announced over here while hiding and walking away from any commitments they've made. This isn't a policy for the government. This is a pop quiz, something to look good. We have Independent members from the other house who fight against eight wind turbines on their land in their electorates but want to build 300 off the coast of New South Wales in the Illawarra and up the Hunter. There are environmental lands out there in the world where there are koalas and habitat, and we can't farm them or develop them unless it's for a wind tower or a transmission line. Just give us some consistency. Give us those two things: how much of your taxpayers' money it will cost to roll out the 82 per cent target by 2030 and the total system cost. I'll be happy if you can give us those.

The scary thing is that I think we'll get more bluster about 'our costings' and 'what we're doing'. This is the policy of the government. If you can't tell us, then tell the people. I've seen the media talking points all over weekend: 'If they can't tell us how much it costs, we can't vote for it.' You can't tell how much the policy you're actually rolling out costs. Prove me wrong. I'd love it. That's the name of a Penn and Teller show. Prove me wrong. Come up with a number that 2032 costs. Say: 'Is nuclear safe for our sailors on the boats who will be sleeping 10 metres away from it?' Say: 'We will be expanding our nuclear exports to the rest of the world'—because we are scared of facts, because we are scared of black and white, because we are scared that your thing is a trip to nowhere, while we actually have a plan.

If you can't cost it, if you can't explain it and if there are contingencies everywhere, it is a joke of a policy. If you've got one policy—and you keep saying that we had 22—how about you try and get another one that works? A second policy would be good, seeing how bad this one is. That's what we come here to do in this place: we sit here and don't answer. We go to estimates and we don't answer. Transparency is the best for government. It is best for the Australian people when you get out there and say, 'I would love our plan to come out and be costed, and I'm sure we will in the next phase of what we announce,' because it is a popular plan and it's a good plan. I've been to Muswellbrook. I went up there with shadow minister O'Brien, and we spoke to the people on the ground. You have nothing, you won't be honest and the people deserve better.

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

It's always fun to come in here and see how the opposition have once again gone down the road to Damascus. I don't know how many times since we came into government that I've seen that happen. They oppose something when they're in parliament and, when they get into opposition, all of a sudden, they say: 'Yahoo! Let's go for that.' I will quote a couple of people. The shadow Treasurer, Mr Taylor, said in September 2018:

… I have one very, very simple goal, which is, to get prices down in the short to medium term—

he was talking about energy—

Nuclear's not going to help me in that process. As you know, it's a long way off. I know that sector pretty well. I've worked in it in the past and it's a long way off actually solving the real problem we've got to face up to …

Another shadow minister, Mr Joyce, said in June 2017 about nuclear energy, 'It's been ruled out by reason of cost'—short, sweet and to the point. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, said as recently as March 2023: 'I don't support the establishment of big nuclear facilities here at all. I'm opposed to it.' So the coalition understood when they were in government that nuclear power makes no economic sense, yet somehow when they're in opposition, they fail to realise it.

AEMO has consistently said that the lowest cost way to deliver a secure and reliable grid over coming decades is a renewable grid with pumped hydro, batteries, flexible gas and transmission. This is exactly what Labor is delivering, working with the states, territories, industry and the community to deliver Rewiring the Nation, the Expanded Capacity Investment Scheme and the gas code. Under the opposition, when they were in government, we had 22 energy plans—well, it's debatable whether they had 22 or 24, but I will be generous and say 22—not one of which they could make into a policy. They were plans, but they were not policy. As my colleague Senator Sheldon said, this is number 23. Why would we think that this is any different to those other 22 proposals? Speak about being all over the show; that's exactly what the opposition are.

On this side, we're already halfway to meeting our 2023 emissions reductions targets in the national grid. We're cutting power bills now, whereas Mr Dutton and the opposition are promising action in two decades time, yet they really haven't got a plan for how they will deliver it. When we talk about the coalition's nuclear plan, I've got to say that it's very generous to call it a plan. It's a scam. It's meant to be divisive. It's meant to wedge us. It's a tactic. I just don't understand why they're not actually trying to focus on helping people. Really, it's a thought bubble. We can't afford Mr Dutton's nuclear delusion and it cannot be taken seriously.

Mr Dutton's risky reactor plan has no detail, no costings and no modelling. It's expensive, it's slow to build and get underway, and it's just too risky for Australia. As I said, it's not a plan; it's a scam. It's a fantasy, and if the coalition's track record on building big infrastructure projects is anything to go by, this thought bubble will cost billions. Let's just think about, I don't know, car parks at train stations. What a disaster! Truly, that side couldn't organise a chook raffle. But maybe those on the other side are just being divisive because they have some allergy to renewables. As I said, Mr Dutton's plan is risky. There are no costings, no serious timeframe, no detail of the types of reactors—in fact, no detail at all.

But cheap power is why one in three Australian households and small businesses is choosing solar. Under Labor we've seen a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the grid and record investment in batteries and storage. We have green lit more than 50 renewable projects, enough to power three million homes. Last year alone, there were 330,000 rooftop solar installations. That's how you deliver cost-of-living relief—not by pushing up power prices with nuclear reactors.

Those opposite continue to stand on the way of cost-of-living relief. You can't keep coming in here and pretending you care about cheaper energy bills after you've opposed energy price relief, and you can't keep coming in here and pretending you care about the cost of living if you just keep saying no to policies that are about dealing—

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

Thank you, Senator Bilyk. Before I give the call to Senator Reynolds, set the clocks for three minutes, and then I'll be putting the motion and giving the call to Senator Roberts for two minutes and then going to the Greens. Senator Reynolds.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand here as a very proud member of the Liberal Party and the coalition, because we still have the courage to debate and propose things that are in our nation's interest. We don't hide behind and hurl invectives and insults, as those opposite are doing. We are actually putting forward policy for a serious national debate.

I have heard not one thing from those opposite about how they are going to keep the lights on for the next 80 years and actually reduce emissions. We have put forward a policy that simply makes sense. Of the top 20 economies in the world, all either have nuclear power, use it from other nations or are transitioning to it. They're not doing that because it does not make economic and environmental sense. They are transitioning to the latest technologies, both large-scale nuclear reactors and small modular reactors, which are currently being developed, and they are doing that because it makes sense. Over 30 nations currently use nuclear power and another 50 are transitioning to nuclear power. So we have a very sensible policy to debate in this place, and to debate publicly. As I've said, I'm incredibly proud to be a member of a coalition that has the courage to do this.

Let's have a look at the proposal for my own home state of Western Australia. Of the seven sites that we have identified, which will be located close to a power station that is either closed or scheduled to close, we've recommended Muja, which is about 22 kilometres outside Collie in Western Australia, which the state government has scheduled to close by 2030. This is the perfect place. In Collie we have the workforce, we have the industry and we have the cooling water capacity. We also have the transmission infrastructure—no new poles and wires. It makes sense to have it there in Perth.

The community around Collie will benefit from a multibillion-dollar facility. It will guarantee these high-paying jobs for many generations to come. Remember, under Labor's policy of millions of solar panels and thousands of wind turbines, they'll only last, if you are lucky, up to 20 years. They'll have to be replaced four times over the same time that we will have one nuclear power plant, in this case in Western Australia. It is the right thing to do for our community and our nation. I have to say: get the guts, stop insulting those on this side and doing stupid cartoons and stand up and actually debate the— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.