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

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Sharma.

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

The Albanese Labor Government's policies are failing to meet emissions reductions targets, driving up electricity bills, making Labor's cost of living crisis even worse and set Australia up for environmental and economic failure; compared with the bold vision and plan of the Coalition to develop next generation, zero emissions nuclear technologies to provide cheaper, cleaner and consistent electricity for the decades ahead.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Albanese government's energy policy failure. What we've seen from this government is a trifecta of failure: they're failing to make significant emissions reductions, they're failing to make electricity cheaper and they're failing to make our energy system more reliable.

In the first quarter after Labor came to office, quarterly emissions as reported in the National greenhouse gas inventory for the June 2022 quarter were 108.2 megatons of CO2 equivalent. For the most recent quarter available, March 2024—almost two years later—quarterly emissions were 109.7 megatons of CO2 equivalent. Emissions have gone up since Labor came to office. Compare this with the coalition. When we came to office in 2013, annual emissions were 557 megatons of CO2 equivalent and, when we left office in 2021, they were 438—a cumulative emissions reduction of 21 per cent. What we have seen from Labor in terms of emissions reduction is a big doughnut—a zero. They promised lower emissions but, in fact, emissions are increasing. Remember how many times the Labor government promised that electricity bills would be $275 cheaper on average by the end of 2025.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ninety-seven!

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it was on at least 92 occasions, wasn't it, by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. I stand to be corrected by those opposite. Instead, what we've seen is double-digit increases in the retail prices of electricity and gas for each of the past two years—in the order of 15 per cent annually for electricity and 25 per cent annually for gas. So they promised lower power bills, but power bills are, in fact, increasing.

Finally, the government's policies have failed to make our energy system more reliable. Just last week the Australian Energy Market Operator—the regulator in this space—warned that the largest supply of gas storage on the east coast could run out of gas before the end of the year: 'The supply of gas in all or part of the east coast gas system may be inadequate to meet demand.' With the continued closure of coal-fired power stations coupled with a greater dependence on intermittent forms of energy, our energy system is ever more dependent on gas to act as the swing producer. So, if gas is running low, the stability of our electricity system in its entirety is in peril. We've seen Labor promise to make our energy system more reliable but, instead, the security of our energy system is hanging by a thread. They promised lower emissions but, in fact, emissions are increasing. They promised lower power bills but, in fact, power bills are increasing.

Acting Deputy President McGrath, you'll be pleased to note that there is an alternative, and it's one that the coalition announced just last week. We did that because we know that Labor's renewables-only approach is not reducing our emissions, is not reducing prices and is not making our electricity system more reliable. The coalition believes in a balanced energy mix—not a renewables-only approach. That's why we've promised to pursue, if elected, zero emissions nuclear power generation. Of the 20 most advanced economies—the G20 countries—Australia is the only country either not using nuclear power or moving towards it. We will change that. With 90 per cent of baseload power—predominantly coal-fired power stations—coming to their end of life over the next decade, we need a non-intermittent form of energy to replace them. Currently, large-scale storage is not up to the task. Australians are currently paying some of the highest electricity prices anywhere in the world—upwards of 40c per kilowatt hour—but, in the province of Ontario, for instance, where nuclear power provides 60 per cent of the energy mix, electricity costs are around 14c per kilowatt hour or four times less.

How often do we hear in this debate that we need to listen to the science and be guided by the experts. Here we have a power source which is validated by science, is zero emissions, is used reliably and commercially around the world, which more nations are embarking on and in which Australia has some natural advantages. More than that, it would set up Australia for a whole new wave of industries and new technologies. What's not to like? But Labor doesn't want to touch this. They don't seem to think Australia is up for a sophisticated debate. They don't seem to think that Australia, which has had a functioning nuclear energy industry for over 60 years, has the capability or ambition to imagine an alternative future.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just would say, Senator Sharma: say it with feeling. Say it like you really mean it.

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

Senator Scarr is on his feet.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's impugning the motive of Senator Sharma. I thought he delivered it with great feeling. I was actually quite moved.

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

I am unsure whether that was a point of order. I'm going to let Senator Ayres continue.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth is that there is only one party in this place that's fighting to lower prices for ordinary consumers and business, and it's the Labor Party and the government. The truth is it can't be wished away. The truth is that there is a war in Europe that is driving up energy prices. The truth is that the last decade of policy inaction under the Morrison—remember him?—Turnbull and Abbott government has meant disinvestment in the Australian energy grid over the course of the last decade, with four gigawatts out and only one gigawatt in. That is the price of policy stasis. That is the price of letting the maddies get in charge of coalition energy policy. That's what Australians experienced, and that's why Mr Taylor, in the lead-up to the last election, hid from the Australian people the electricity price rises that were coming their way because of the failures of the last government. What he did was totally improper. It's totally consistent with Mr Dutton's and Mr O'Brien's approach today—hiding the true costs of their nuclear hoax for ordinary Australians.

What the Labor Party is doing in government is supporting households and business. There will be $300 off bills in just seven days. There were the measures that we took last year to put a cap on gas and coal prices. We put in place an orderly framework and a straightforward platform for investment that is seeing project after project being invested in. Of course, as Senator Sharma says, there is a role for gas as a transition fuel in that process. That is what we as a government are doing.

What is Mr Dutton's answer to that proposition? It's to vote against all of the measures put in place by the Labor Party to put downward pressure on prices. But, secondly, it's to search around the globe for the most expensive, the most costly and the most improbable proposition for Australia in energy policy terms—nuclear. It's the only measure guaranteed to do two things. One is put to upward pressure on prices. While Mr O'Brien can't say if it's two per cent, five per cent, 10 per cent or 40 per cent of the energy mix in 2050 under their dodgy, uncosted, risky, expensive plan, the one thing we know that it will do is push up prices for consumers. The second thing that we know it will do is create disinvestment, capital flight. Investment will find a more rational location not characterised by the policy incoherence of the show opposite. If ever they form government, investors will go somewhere else to build the energy systems of the future. Investors will go somewhere else to build manufacturing facilities. So it would mean upward pressure on prices and sharply increasing costs for households and business, and the manufacturing industry that we are fighting so hard to build would be forced offshore into other locations. That is the real truth about the hoax perpetrated on Australians last week, and it will steadily unravel. It will steadily unravel because it is so dishonest.

What we also saw was the arrogance and the nastiness of Mr Dutton when he said, 'You are going to get nuclear under Peter Dutton whether you like it or not.' If a state government says, 'We're not for nuclear,' Mr Dutton says, 'We don't care'—to Mr Minns, or the government of Queensland or the government of Victoria. And if the people of Lithgow or the Hunter Valley don't want nuclear, well, guess what? Mr Dutton says you're getting it whether you like it or not—big Canberra trying to push people around, and the nastiness of the Liberals on full display. (Time expired)

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, Liberals are for nuclear, coal and gas, and Labor is for coal, gas and nuclear subs—and neither lot are for the planet or the people. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Australian politics are having a present dust-up while secretly holding hands, ignoring the climate crisis and fuelling climate change. Result polling made it clear that the net likeability of rooftop solar is 82 per cent, renewables 66 per cent, nuclear barely eight per cent and coal two per cent. So, why are Labor and Liberal so hell-bent on pushing their deadly mix of coal, gas and nuclear? Maybe—just maybe—their big donors in the fossil fuel industry have something to do with it. Or maybe it's the jobs they're lining up for once they leave politics. Maybe it's both of those things together.

But as much as the Albanese Labor government feigns outrage over Dutton's nuclear plan, there's a big AUKUS shaped elephant in the room, isn't there? The Labor government is rightly pointing out how dangerous and absurd nuclear power is for Australia, but at the same time they're desperately pushing legislation through this place that'll see tonnes and tonnes of high-level nuclear waste dumped here from Australian and even UK and US nuclear reactors. For the Albanese government, nuclear power is bad—unless it's in a nuclear reactor in a floating metal tube with a US flag painted on the side. Perhaps the stars and stripes will keep us safe! It's embarrassing to watch the Albanese government huff and puff and fight nuclear when their opponent is Peter Dutton but then roll over like puppies when it comes to the US docking nuclear reactors around Australia. In Labor land, community outrage is 100 per cent legitimate when it's against having a big fat coalition reactor plonked in their backyard, but it's all just a Greens led conspiracy when it says no to having a floating reactor in their local harbour. (Time expired)

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak to this matter of public importance from Senator Sharma, and I want to address the cost of living and in particular energy prices. There is a very sad story in today's Courier-Mail about a local fish-and-chip shop, one that I go to. It is closing down because of tough times. It is closing down because of the increasing costs of everything that goes into operating a fish-and-chip shop. I'm particularly saddened by it because it was the fish-and-chip shop where I introduced my children to Pasito. This was a fish-and-chip shop that stocked Kirks soft drinks—a great Queensland company. They stocked creaming soda, Pasito and ginger ale—three of my favourite soft drinks. Let me tell you, when I say to the children, 'We're having fish and chips tonight,' the first word out of their mouth is 'Pasito'.

You may wonder what that's got to do with the cost of living. Well, I'll tell you what: going out to have some fish and chips on a Saturday night with a little bit of Queensland made Pasito is priceless. That stuff is priceless. I think when we talk about the cost of energy and the cost of living we need to understand that there is a human element to this. And when we lose our small business we lose a part of what makes this country great—the little battler out there trying to make a living, trying to stand on his own two feet and not have to bend over to the big end of town and be told what to do. There is nothing greater in this country than standing on your own two feet and running a small business. Yes, it causes a lot of stress and heartache, but at least you're standing on your own two feet and having a go. That's what built this country—the battlers who get up every day and put their nose to the grindstone and have a go.

But we're obviously getting very antagonistic about whether we go nuclear or whether we don't go nuclear. I've always been one to look at real-world situations. I know in a previous set of estimates I asked the former head of the CSIRO, Larry Marshall, if he could provide me a model to show me how they calculate net zero. Mr Marshall replied, 'Which one?' He said that there are 40 different models. When we talk about the cost of nuclear, it's very important that we try and look at real-world situations rather than the modelling that's being provided by the CSIRO. If we go and look at something like the International Energy Agency, they—unlike the CSIRO, who thinks nuclear is the most expensive form of energy—don't base their forecasts or whatever on models. They look at real-world data. They think that nuclear energy is the lowest-cost form of energy. If we look at the situation last year in Finland, a country that just built its first nuclear reactor, we see energy prices decline.

The other aspect of nuclear that I am interested in is the technology that it brings. I was recently on a public works committee and we went and visited Lucas Heights. It was a very exciting day, looking at all the technology that nuclear brings in terms of nuclear medicine, for example, and how the different isotopes can identify different forms of cancers and stuff. There is a knowledge base to this. You may find this hard to believe, but I think we need to look at unlocking the energy in those higher-molecular-weight atoms like uranium, plutonium and thorium. Say we could somehow, in the future, find a safe way of unlocking that energy whereby you put that into a battery that, instead of running for, say, 400 kilometres and then taking four to eight hours to recharge, you can use it in a car and it could last for a year or two. Then you wouldn't have to wait to charge your car after every 400 kilometres, or you wouldn't have to fill up your car with fuel at all.

NASA sends probes beyond Mars using the technology used in nuclear energy. If we can take that technology that gets probes out beyond Mars and beyond and somehow convert that into day-to-day use, that is something that I think Australia, with the world's largest reserves of uranium, should be looking at investigating. I'm pleased to support this motion from Senator Sharma, and I'm pleased to have a leader who has the courage of his convictions to fight for something that we believe in.

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

Labor, the Greens, the paid-off media and climate activists are all fighting tooth and nail against nuclear. You can hear them screaming so loudly because reliable baseload power is a massive threat to the billionaire solar and wind cartel. Both sides of politics have, for more than two decades, mismanaged energy so grossly that we've caused an energy crisis that Australia is now facing down. One Nation congratulates the coalition on agreeing with One Nation's longstanding policy to remove the ban on nuclear energy and have a debate about where it sits in our energy needs. We can only hope that One Nation's full policy is adopted one day: remove all the subsidies and let the cheapest form of power win so we can put more money back in Australians' pockets.

There's no reason that we need to forcibly shut down coal to put nuclear in the mix. The coalition plan is to forcibly acquire coal-fired power stations, shut them down and replace them with nuclear. Let's do nuclear, and let's do coal too. One of those coal-fired power stations the coalition wants to shut down is at Tarong. I visited there on Friday. It sits right on top of a coal mine. Coal is dug out of the ground and put on a conveyor belt straight into the power station with minimal transport costs. What more could you ask for? We've got 40 years of real-world costs on the Tarong stations, and it's as cheap as chips. It uses high-energy-density fuel. Why tear down Tarong and replace it with nuclear based on projections—or worse, solar and wind based on unicorn farts? Instead, just build another coal-fired power station right there at Tarong beside it and use the same power.

The coalition can't do that, because it's fully committed to the United Nations net zero madness, a catastrophic nightmare in the making, and we haven't seen anything yet. We've got these people in the government putting on benefits to energy policy because of the rising cost due to their policy. Only One Nation will say, 'up yours!' to foreign unelected organisations telling us what to do and instead use Australia's coal and uranium resources for the cheapest power possible.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In just a week, all 13.6 million taxpayers in Australia will be getting a tax cut, our $300 energy rebate begins for all Australians, and 2.6 million low-paid workers will get their third consecutive pay rise backed by this government, because Labor wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those opposite have shown once again that they have no positive plan and no vision for Australia's future. We are a week on from their nuclear plan announcement and we are still left with no idea how much it's going to cost. All we know is that it's the Australian people who will be paying for it with their taxpayer money and with higher energy bills. We know that the CSIRO has found that the cost of power from nuclear reactors is up to eight times more expensive than firmed renewables. In reality, this coalition plan—if we can call it that—will cost Australians billions, pushing up taxes and pushing up bills.

Our new chair of the Climate Change Authority, Mr Kean, said today of his decision not to pursue nuclear in New South Wales, 'I didn't want to bankrupt the state … I didn't want to put those huge costs on to families.' If only those opposite took advice from the experts, as Mr Kean did! According to the coalition's timelines, the first nuclear site wouldn't be open until 2035. This is a timeline that absolutely nobody believes. The CSIRO has found that bringing nuclear online in this country would happen no sooner than 2040 if there were no delays—if. Yet coal-fired power stations are retiring within the next 10 years. The coalition want to leave a two-decade energy gap that they just can't explain to Australians. Those opposite worry about the sun not shining or the wind turbines not moving; they need to worry a lot more about how Australians will fix a two-decade black hole of energy in this country.

Meanwhile, our renewables plan is real—it is actually real—and it is working. The latest emissions projections released in December show we are well on track to meet our 2030 target, and that is because our current policies are working. Under Labor we've had a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national grid. We have greenlit more than 50 renewables projects and we've seen record investment in batteries and storage. Australian business and industry say energy policy certainty is good for Australian investment, which means local jobs and growth in regions just like Gippsland—a region that knows energy. Gippsland has powered Victoria for a long time, and we need the expertise of this community to power it into the future. Gippsland is one of the proposed sites for a nuclear reactor—or perhaps two nuclear reactors, if you ask Senator Hume, who was asked whether it was Loy Yang A or Loy Yang B, and answered, 'Why not both?', pushing it to eight nuclear sites in Australia. Gippsland deserves certainty and it deserves answers. It deserves to know what the future looks like for its children, for its homes and for its businesses.

This is a community that knows energy. Offshore wind is a real energy future for Gippsland. It's a future that the people of Gippsland have been working towards. It comes with 7,500 ongoing jobs from the first six licenses that have just been granted, with more to come, and 15,000 jobs in the construction phase—jobs the community can count on. On the other hand, nuclear hasn't been consulted about in this community, it can't be built before coal closes, and it won't deliver the jobs that Gippsland needs and deserves. Renewables are working and they are working for Gippsland.

What will work for every Gippsland taxpayer is also the tax cut that they will see on 1 July and the $300 energy rebate that they will see come off their bills after 1 July. These are real plans that are actually in place. Gippslanders, Victorians and Australians deserve a government that will deliver a secure future, and that is exactly what we are doing—delivering Australians real cost-of-living relief and a real energy future.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the chamber that this is not my first speech. The coalition's plan to invest in nuclear power is pure fantasy. Victorians do not want a nuclear fantasy that will cost billions. Victorians do not want more polluting coal and gas. What Victorians do want is clean, cheap, renewable energy now. Let's be clear: nuclear is a dangerous distraction from the Liberal and Labor push to open up more coal and gas mines. Both major parties benefit from this fake debate about building nuclear power stations that won't be ready for decades. Meanwhile, the climate crisis deepens, extreme weather worsens and our community suffer. I'm hearing from people right across Victoria who are strongly opposed to this nuclear fantasy. As one constituent put it, 'The Latrobe Valley doesn't have time to wait for jobs; we need them now.' Fortunately, the renewable energy sector is currently generating jobs and fostering hope throughout Gippsland. For the Greens and millions of Australians who want this stuff sorted, the answers are crystal clear: keep coal, gas and uranium in the ground. (Time expired)

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm old enough to remember when the Labor Party promised a $275 reduction in your electricity bill, and that has not happened. That promise that was run during the lead-up to the previous federal election was unfulfilled, and Australians' energy bills, not to mention their grocery and fuel prices, continue to increase under the oversight of this Labor government. In fact, power bills have now increased by up to $1,000 for many Australians, and there's still no sign of relief in sight.

Furthermore, Labor and the Greens continue to lament this so-called climate crisis, espousing the narrative that, unless we drastically reduce our carbon emissions by 2030, we'll be contributing to the imminent climate apocalypse. That, by the way, for those watching at home, is the climate apocalypse that experts have been telling us for about the last 50 years will occur in the next 15 years. Let's not forget that Australia emits something like 1.16 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. China emits 29.18 per cent and the US emits 14.02 per cent. So, even if we are to accept the narrative that reducing our carbon emissions to zero would be a virtuous thing, I'm not actually sure that we're going to be able to prevent this so-called catastrophe.

But there is an obvious solution to this and to the energy cost issue, and that is the exploration of cheap nuclear energy as a low-emissions answer to Australia's energy crisis. Others have done this in other countries, and, had we done it earlier, we'd be a long way down the track to solving these problems. Australia, as we heard this afternoon, contains 28 per cent of the world's natural uranium resources, which is one of the largest amounts in the world. We export it to other nations all over the world to lower their electricity and energy bills, but we don't do it for ourselves. It makes no sense whatsoever.

This is something that will make life cheaper for Australians. It will make Australia more prosperous for future generations, as was outlaid in the 2016 Scarce royal commission in South Australia, which outlined a plan for the total nuclear fuel cycle, all while alleviating the so-called climate crisis. For Labor to try and shut this down and shut the discussion down is really tantamount to admitting that they know that it's going to work and that it's a good solution.

We've seen all the memes. We've seen the Blinky Bills with three eyes. We've seen the three-eyed fish make its comeback. Even today, I went to my desk to find a letter to coalition members from the member for Perth, Patrick Gorman, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, who wrote to people in this building today with this masterpiece, which has two paragraphs and encloses a sticker. This is the sort of stuff we're reduced to. The sticker looks like it's been cut out by someone, not very well, and printed on a bubble-jet printer. The letter invites us to visit his office and select a location on a map. This is the sort of childish stunt that we're reduced to on a serious issue, an issue which requires a slightly better narrative and discussion than simply childish tertiary politics, frankly.

Not even that. I'll take that interjection, Senator Scarr.

Of course, Labor and the Greens don't want to admit that this long-term investment is going to pay dividends, because it undermines the agenda they've been working towards for so long. What it shows is that, at best, they're ignorant of the facts, and, at worst, they don't want to admit them, because it calls out the ideological nature of this debate.

If you want to reduce the costs of living and reduce the carbon emissions, nuclear energy is a sensible path forward. France is one example of a country that has demonstrated perfectly that this works. They've been doing it since the 1980s. They've enjoyed some of the lowest energy prices in Europe over those decades because of their early reliance on this technology, as have Canada. Canada have a $15 billion industry in nuclear power generation and mining, and Australia has no reason to not be involved in that. As we've said before many times—many of us have spoken about it since day one, and I'm no exception; I spoke about it in my maiden speech—of the world's 20 largest economies, Australia is the only one not using nuclear energy. Thirty-two countries across the world operate zero-emission nuclear power plants, and another 50 countries, as we speak, are looking into it. This is an absolutely—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you going to do with the waste?

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're going to send it to Kimba, where it should have been. (Time expired)

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

The time for the discussion has expired.