|
senate vote 2024-06-26#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-07-03 15:04:36
|
Title
Matters of Urgency — Nuclear Energy- Matters of Urgency - Nuclear Energy - Recognise and welcome
Description
<p class="speaker">Helen Polley</p><p>I inform the Senate that Senator Duniam has submitted a proposal:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-06-26.230.2) introduced by Queensland Senator [James McGrath](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/james_mcgrath) (LNP), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *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.*
<p class="italic">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.</p><p>Is consideration of the proposal supported?</p><p class="italic"> <i>More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</i></p><p>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>At the request of Senator Duniam, I move:</p><p class="italic">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</p><p class="italic">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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Nita Green</p><p>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.</p><p>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.'</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Polley</p><p>Senator Hanson-Young, I'll just remind you to use Mr Dutton's correct title.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>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 <i>The </i><i>Simpsons</i>. What could be a more childish response to what is a serious policy issue?</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Scarr</p><p>Canada!</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|