Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that Senator Duniam has submitted a proposal:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "The need for the Senate to recognise and welcome the growing contribution that nuclear energy is making around the world to the reduction of global carbon emissions, including the Biden administration's "acceleration of civil nuclear deployment" to deliver clean, affordable, reliable electricity for American consumers and manufacturing industry.

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 the informal arrangements made by the whips.

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

At the request of Senator Duniam, I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to recognise and welcome the growing contribution that nuclear energy is making around the world to the reduction of global carbon emissions, including the Biden administration's "acceleration of civil nuclear deployment" to deliver clean, affordable, reliable electricity for American consumers and manufacturing industry.

According to our own Australian Energy Market Operator, last night between seven o'clock and eight o'clock in Queensland, 69 per cent of Queensland's electricity came from coal, 24 per cent of our electricity came from gas, four per cent came from hydro, two per cent came from wind, less than one per cent came from battery and biomass, and—this shouldn't shock anyone, apart from some of those Rhodes scholar runners-up on the other side!—zero per cent came from solar, because it was night-time. This is because last night in Queensland, in addition to the lack of sunlight, we did not have enough wind to generate mass electricity. We didn't have any solar, because the aforementioned sun was on the other side of the world, and we did not have any mass battery power, because that technology does not exist yet. So, 93 per cent of Queensland's power came from coal and gas. But under this Labor government, 90 per cent of that coal and gas, our base-load power source, is leaving the electricity grid over the coming 10 years. Let me say that again. Ninety-three per cent of our electricity in Queensland was generated through coal and gas, and 90 per cent of that is going to be leaving the grid.

So, what does that mean? We've got a state Labor government and a federal Labor government—a smorgasbord of geniuses—that are going to basically turn Australia off. We're not going to have the power that keeps our refrigerators running. We're not going to have the power that keeps the lights on. We're not going to have the power that keeps the hospitals running. For those who are going to be watching the State of Origin tonight, we're not going to have the power for people to watch the television.

Although renewables may be able to keep our electricity pumping when the sun is out and the wind is blowing, what happens at night? What happens when the wind stops blowing? The Albanese Labor government's only plan to deal with this energy cliff is to hope that we miraculously develop battery and hydrogen technology in the next 10 years—a hope that is highly unrealistic, a hope that's actually politically reckless and also highly reckless in terms of keeping Australians safe.

The coalition has another path. The coalition recognises the importance of renewable generation in our energy mix. The coalition recognises that, with 90 per cent of our base-load power source leaving our energy system over the next 10 years, gas plays a pivotal role as a lower-emissions technology in our near future. However, and most importantly, the coalition recognises that we need to develop a base-load power source that keeps the lights on at night while reducing our carbon emissions, and we need to start developing that technology now. For those who are listening at home, the answer to the energy crisis is zero-emissions nuclear technology.

Under a coalition government, zero-emissions nuclear energy will complement renewables and gas to reduce electricity prices and keep the lights on as we decarbonise. Nuclear is about lower energy prices and it is about reliability.

Under a coalition government, Australia would join the rest of the world's 20 largest economies that are using nuclear energy or moving towards it. Don't forget that, last night in Queensland, 93 per cent of our electricity was generated through coal and gas, and 90 per cent of that coal and gas is leaving our electricity grid within the next 10 years. Labor does not have a plan to fix our energy crisis and lower energy bills that does not involve them praying to the Almighty. The coalition does have a plan, and that is through zero emissions nuclear technology.

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

What a joke: an urgency motion from those opposite, who had 10 years to come up with an energy plan, and are now proposing a plan so urgent that this Senate needs to speak about it today. It's so urgent, but it will take 20 years to develop and start. What an absolute joke. Those jokers over there come in here to talk about a plan that doesn't exist, that they didn't develop over 10 years of government, that they didn't take to the Australian people and that they won't have in place for 20-something years, as a way of dealing with the climate crisis and ensuring that Australians have clean and cheap energy.

The Labor Party has that plan. We're developing it. We have started delivering it. We are hitting those targets. We are making sure that we are getting renewable energy in the system because it's the cheapest and cleanest form of energy, and Australia has a lot of it. It's pretty simple. We did the maths, and we worked out, after all the experts said, 'This is the pathway forward,' that we were going to develop that plan. That's what we're doing. Those opposite listened to the experts and said: 'No. We know better. We've had 10 years to figure this out. Now we're going to start working on a plan that we might be able to deliver in maybe 2040.'

There are three main issues with the coalition's nuclear plan: cost, time and where it will be. Let's deal with cost to begin with. We don't know the cost. They can't tell you the costs. They don't know how much it'll cost the taxpayer. It could be billions. It could be billions of billions of billions of billions. I'm going to guess it's a pretty big number, because that's what Peter Dutton was able to confirm: 'It'll be a really big bill.' Let's talk about bills. This will mean that Australians will pay more for their electricity bills. That's a guarantee through this plan. Not only will it cost the taxpayer—because these nuclear power plants will be paid for by the taxpayer, because they're not commercially viable—but also you will pay more for your electricity bill.

Talking about time, when will these nuclear power plants be built? Maybe in 2040, maybe in 20 years—that's if they started building them today. Forget about the fact that most states in this country have a ban on nuclear power and that they don't want to see nuclear power in their states. Forget about the fact that we don't have the technology here to develop this type of energy. Even if they started today, which they won't, it would take 20 to 40 years. But they actually confirmed that, if they were in government, they'd take 2½ years after being elected before deciding where these nuclear reactors would be. It wouldn't take just one coalition government to develop this nuclear power plan. It would take one government, another government after that and another one after that to develop this. My two-year-old daughter would have graduated high school before any electricity would be generated under this plan. It is outrageous to come in here and talk about an urgency motion about a nuclear power plan that may or may not be delivered in the 2040s, 2050s—some day never. But this is a policy about delay. It's a policy about delaying where we are going to make sure that people can have lower electricity bills and have cleaner energy.

The last question is: where are they going to build them? The coalition have announced some sites. Did they talk to the community about those sites? No. Did they talk to even the local mayors in those places? No, because if they had, they would have found out that a lot of those mayors are opposed to nuclear at those sites. What if a community says, 'No thanks; we don't want to have nuclear power in our community'? The opposition are saying that they would decide and build it anyway and that it would be a decision by the minister. They're going to use your taxpayer money to make you pay more on your electricity bills, and they're going to put a nuclear power plant in your community whether you like it or not, maybe in 2040 or 2050—some day down the track. What an absolute joke. This is all about denying—denying that we need to do something about climate change. They had 10 years to agree on a policy, or to even say they supported taking action, and they couldn't do it, and they're still arguing about it. They don't want to take action on climate change, so they're going to have this plan to, sometime down the track, do something about it, maybe.

We have a plan that is developing renewable energy—clean energy, cheaper energy—and that is seeing investment roll into our regions. It's creating jobs right now and it will save jobs in the future, particularly those on the Great Barrier Reef. It is not urgent, because we're doing it right now— (Time expired)

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

I rise to contribute to this discussion today and to call out what is an absolutely dangerous lie from Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, I'll just remind you to use Mr Dutton's correct title.

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

This is a dangerous lie from Mr Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Liberals. It's a lie designed to wreck climate action, to put a radioactive wrecking ball through the economy, to push up power prices and to run cover for the coal and gas industries so they can keep burning for longer. There is nothing in this dangerous ploy of Mr Dutton's that in any way helps tackle climate change. In fact, it comes off the back of Mr Dutton dumping climate targets for 2030 only a few weeks ago, following the lead of Donald Trump, and now we have Mr Dutton wanting to build radioactive power plants across the country in decades to come, all at huge expense to the Australian taxpayer and all designed to halt and throw into disarray the climate action and renewable energy sector.

For South Australians, this radioactive, toxic, dangerous plan of Mr Dutton's is obscene. Mr Dutton wants to build a radioactive reactor, a nuclear power plant, in South Australia, and then he wants South Australians to take everyone's nuclear waste from around the rest of the country. If you are a resident of the electorates of Sturt, Boothby, Adelaide or—dare I say it—Grey and you don't want Mr Dutton's toxic radioactive ploy, designed to put a wrecking ball through our South Australian economy, you can't vote for the Liberals this election.

The only thing Mr Dutton is offering is radioactive danger—a danger to the economy, a danger to people's power bills, a danger to our climate and a danger to the future of our state of South Australia. He has no plans for how he's going to pay for it, so he's going to make the taxpayer pay. He's got no plans for convincing business, because they don't want a bar of it. He's got no plans for how to deal with the waste, except for dumping it in South Australia for South Australians to cop. We will not have a bar of it.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a matter of urgency, because there's an urgent need to have a mature discussion about a very important policy area, and all we get from those opposite is, quite frankly, childish renting, particularly from the government, and the circulation of memes of characters from The Simpsons. What could be a more childish response to what is a serious policy issue?

I ask those listening and those in the gallery: what country in the world is Australia most often compared to, in terms of the size of our population, the size of our landmass and the make-up of our economy, in terms of mining and agriculture?

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

Canada!

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Canada, Senator Scarr! You're absolutely right. I have an article here from Canada. In fact, this article is only a couple of weeks old, Senator Scarr. The newly appointed minister for energy and electrification, Stephen Lecce, was actually on site where the first stage of the planned four small modular reactors was completed on time and on budget. The first stage of four small modular reactors was on time and on budget in the nation of the world that is most comparable to Australia in terms of our wealth, our technology, our can-do attitude and our ability to get things done when they need to get done. What those opposite are doing by spreading these silly, childish memes about nuclear energy is effectively saying: 'We are not as smart as the Canadians. We cannot do what the Canadians have done.'

Let's hear from Minister Lecce. Let's hear what he had to say at the announcement of the movement from the first to the second stage of building those four small modular reactors. He said:

I'm pleased to officially announce today that the first phase of site preparations work for the small modular reactor has been completed again on time and on budget.

He said:

To maintain this forward momentum, I am officially announcing the start of the next phase, phase two, as we work to build small modular reactors to energize our province, our country and literally the world.

He went on to say:

It was just a few a days ago after my appointment that I flew to Romania with one mission in mind: to secure a deal that will advance our economy, create jobs for our workers and further solidify Ontario as a global leader in clean energy and this work is critical.

What the minister is showing here is that Canada is not just doing something that is good for their own country and good for their own energy supply and energy resources. They are actually building an export industry that is in demand around the world.

Why is Canada doing this? Why are they embarking on this journey? The minister said:

The reality is we need more energy and the mission of government is to build upon Ontario's already ambitious plan to scale up our energy using all forms, be it nuclear and natural gas and renewables, where you need to take an all-of-the-above approach to build for the future.

I say again to those listening at home and those in the gallery: isn't that a sensible position that the Australian government should take rather than circulating pictures of three-headed fish—an all-of-the-above approach?

Those opposite say that we are living in fantasyland. This is a project that is underway in a comparable country to ours. This is a project where ground is not even being broken; stage 1 is finished. Stage 2 is getting underway. They expect to deliver power from these small modular reactors in 2028. This is not a pie-in-the-sky fantasy; this is a discussion the Australian community needs to have.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The words of this urgency motion are emblematic of the coalition's nuclear power policy. It's more a mud map than a policy in the sense that they are misconceived. But it is illustrative that they actually constantly try to avoid the detail. This motion asks for the Senate to recognise and welcome the growing contribution of nuclear energy in other countries around the world to reducing carbon emissions, and that includes America. But the observation that nuclear power programs form part of the energy mix in other countries does nothing to answer the fundamental question about whether investment in nuclear power in Australia is good public policy in Australia either in 2024 or in the future. Motions like this and attacks on the government in relation to its supposed childishness is a convenient way for the coalition to avoid talking about the details of their policy—that is to say the specifics of how they propose to implement it in Australia.

To propose such a significant change to Australian energy policy and to do it in such a nebulous and ill-defined way is irresponsible. All accusations of childishness aside, this kind of thought-bubble policy experiment is irresponsible for a coalition that is the alternative government in this country. Fundamental details of this policy have been omitted. They remain hidden. What type and what size of nuclear reactors are to be used? That's quite fundamental. How many reactors will there be, both around Australia and per site? How much radioactive waste will be produced? That is also fundamental. Where is that waste proposed to be stored? Will local communities have a say about whether a Dutton led federal government can put a nuclear reactor in their neighbourhood? How much will it cost? And how long will it take.

As much as the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, might want the country to do his homework for him, under the guise of a great national debate or a mature conversation, the debate that's been started is a reflection not of Australia's maturity but of the willingness of this opposition to, unfortunately, engage in a form of misdirection and to avoid questions about how precisely they propose to develop nuclear power in Australia. David Crowe, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, summed it up with a felicitous turn of phrase:

Peter Dutton has invited Australians into a nuclear maze that has dozens of dead ends and no clear pathway because his plan is so free of facts.

I'm going to talk about three issues today: time, cost and feasibility. First to cost: the development of nuclear power in Australia is unviable because of the cost and economics of such a proposal.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, why can Canada do it?

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, because they're a different country at a different stage, and in different circumstances—to respond to my colleague's interjection.

In its Levelized Cost of Energy analysis, financial services firm Lazard found that nuclear energy was the most expensive. I mean, they're not a bunch of radicals, but they did confirm the conclusion that was also contained in the CSIRO report. On the Lazard analysis, onshore wind was the cheapest option, at between US$25 and US$73 per megawatt hour; large-scale solar was slightly more expensive per megawatt hour, and nuclear power was between US$145 and US$222 per megawatt hour. That analysis corresponds with the analysis undertaken by the CSIRO recently. Other than sledging that organisation, there's been no substantive response to the cost arguments put. The CSIRO found that renewables would supply electricity from renewable sources at a cost of $89 to $128 per megawatt hour by 2030 and that nuclear power would supply electricity for $136 to $226 per megawatt hour by 2040.

Nuclear power is going to be more expensive. I note that I've probably taken too long on the issue of cost, and my time is about to expire, so I will leave time and feasibility— (Time expired)

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

Well, well, well: how much can a koala bear? Talking facts and figures with these people is like taking candy from a baby. Let's quote the CSIRO, will we? Let's do that, shall we? They assume there's going to be no more transmission lines or storage needed until renewables get to 60 per cent of the grid. Well, guess what? We're at 30 per cent of the grid. Do you really think we're going to go from 30 per cent to 60 per cent and there'll be no more transmission lines and no more storage? And they don't count the cost of recycling. Well, 'recycling' is a funny term, because I thought they were renewables. I thought these things renewed by themselves—but of course they don't. I just did a post at lunchtime about the amount of concrete steel that goes into the base of a wind turbine. That post is already up to 5,000 'Like's. People are onto it. People are onto the con of renewables. To have that side of the chamber suddenly concerned about the cost of nuclear energy just smacks of hypocrisy.

Seven years ago, in 2017, the CSIRO said it was going to cost $1 trillion to get to net zero using renewables. Then, a couple of years later, they flip-flopped and modelled it down to $500 billion. Of course, this is the problem with models; they are like rubber dolls. They're not as good as the real thing. Because at the end of the day you don't want to look at the CSIRO. You want to look at the International Energy Agency, because they think nuclear is the lowest-cost energy, and they base that off existing nuclear power plants that today are competing against renewables. They leave renewables stone cold dead.

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

Thanks, Senator Rennick. I'll take your word on that; I wouldn't have a clue.

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

I'll also associate myself with your remark there, Acting Deputy President Sterle. Can I tell you where our power is coming from as we are having this debate today in 2024? This is where our power is coming from—this is from AEMO: 50 per cent is coming from black coal, 16 per cent is coming from brown coal, and eight per cent is coming from gas. That gets you up to 74 per cent. Five per cent is from hydro, four per cent is from solar, and 17 per cent is from wind. As we've been having this debate, the percentage coming from wind has dropped from 18 per cent to 17 per cent. What that should tell all of us is that baseload power is incredibly important, and the proposition which the opposition is putting forward, and which the Australian public needs to carefully consider, is that we are not convinced that renewables are going to be able to provide the energy future and secure the energy future for Australia without baseload power. What we're proposing is gas and nuclear to supplement renewables.

I'd like to turn on its head Senator Ghosh's comment with respect to responsibility of government decision-making. I actually think it would be irresponsible for me to stand here today in the Senate and not to carefully consider and prepare Australia for a nuclear energy future. Why? Because, of the top-20 industrialised economies in the world—we're talking about the UK, China, South Korea, Japan, France and Canada—Australia is the only country that either (a) doesn't have nuclear power or (b) is not on the path to nuclear power. That deeply concerns me. The fact that the Australian government had to make a recent decision to move away—the previous government, with the support of the government now—to move away from diesel-fired submarines to nuclear-powered submarines because that's what we needed to do to keep up with the rest of the world, is really a warning signal that we can't be left behind. That's my deep concern. It won't impact me personally, but it will be the future generations that it will impact. That's why I think we have a moral responsibility to consider all options, including nuclear power. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his leadership on this debate.

Let me just quote to you something put out by the Biden government in the United States—not Trump, the Biden government in the United States—on 17 June 2024. As part of President Biden's investing in America's agenda, the US Department of Energy issued a notice of intent to fund up to $900 million to support the initial US deployments of generation III+ small modular reactor technology. This is what President Biden says:

President Biden is determined—

and this isn't Trump, this is Biden—

to ensure nuclear power—the nation's single largest source of carbon free electricity—continues to serve as a key pillar of our nation's transition to a safe and secure clean energy future.

That's where the United States is heading. Can we actually afford not to go down this path? That's the question I'm putting to people. I'm not convinced that we can. I'm not convinced that it's responsible to do so, because I'm looking at the power that's being used in our grid today, and about 20 per cent is renewable.

I think we need to carefully and soberly consider this debate because, as Senator Brockman said, Canada has 19 nuclear reactors at the moment. Can we afford to be left behind in relation to our industrial capacity? If 19 out of the top 20 industrialised economies are moving down this path or are already there, can we afford not to go down this path? I turn it on its head: I actually think we would be irresponsible not to carefully consider nuclear power as part of the energy mix.

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

The time for the debate has expired.

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

The question is that the urgency motion, as moved by Senator Duniam, be agreed to.