Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question without notice is to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the minister recall claiming in question time on 17 October:

I am the only one in the history of this country who has been responsible for every part of the nuclear fuel cycle, so I do think I have some knowledge of this issue.

Does the minister also recall his expert view of 21 May that nuclear power would not be viable in Australia for 100 years? Given the minister’s knowledge, can he indicate whether he was surprised to hear that the nuclear task force thinks that nuclear power could be viable in 15 years? Hasn’t this added to the confusion caused by the industry minister when he said that Australia could get nuclear power in 10 years? Can the minister now clarify: what exactly is the government’s policy on the viability of nuclear power in Australia?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As usual, there were a lot of questions there, but I will faithfully attempt to answer all those questions. My experience with the nuclear fuel cycle is not one I boast of but simply a function of having been the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources—the only time those portfolios have all been together—which meant that I did have responsibility for the research reactor at Lucas Heights, I had responsibility for uranium mining and I also had responsibility for waste disposal. Despite the trenchant opposition of the Labor Party to acquiring a repository for low-level waste, we are gradually approaching the position that Simon Crean first sought in 1992, in that we will have a national low-level repository for our low-level waste. So I think I can say I have some experience with this matter.

The great difference between our two parties is that we are prepared to debate the question of whether nuclear power should form part of Australia’s energy future. The extraordinary thing about the Labor Party is that they are engaging in the most amazing amount of scaremongering on the question of climate change—‘The end is nigh,’ says Mr Beazley, ‘but don’t worry, elect a Beazley Labor government and we’ll fix it.’ If there is one sentence that has been enunciated this year that has been subjected to parody, that is it—and quite properly. That statement by Mr Beazley has been subjected to quite an appropriate parody throughout the media, because it is utterly nonsensical and idiotic of Mr Beazley to suggest, to the extent that he believes that climate change means ‘the end of the world is nigh,’ that he can fix it.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. We supported the minister’s claims about his expertise in the area. The question went to whether he was now supporting the 100-year scenario, the 15-year scenario or the 10-year scenario.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite Senator Abetz’s making a mockery of question time, I would ask you to draw the minister’s attention to the question.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bloody blame-gaming bullshit!

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Heffernan, will you withdraw that statement. It was unparliamentary.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Minchin, you have two minutes and 20 seconds left and I remind you of the question.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, Senator Evans is rather too impatient. I was getting to an answer. But it does require the prelude that the opposition are making much of the threat posed to this country by climate change. In complete contrast, they are determined to keep their heads in the sand on the question of nuclear power. They will not even engage in a national debate on the question of nuclear power. The Labor Party have absolutely ruled out any future for nuclear power in this country, while saying at the same time that greenhouse gas emissions are the greatest threat that we face.

The most substantial and obvious source of greenhouse gas-free power, provided at baseload capacity that the world has available to it, is nuclear power. That is why much of Europe relies upon nuclear power and that is why greenhouse gas emissions in Europe are far less than they would otherwise be if they relied on conventional power to the extent that they rely on nuclear power. France relies on nuclear power for some 70 per cent of its total baseload power. So nuclear power must be contemplated if you are serious about the issue of greenhouse gas emissions effecting climate change. But the Labor Party cannot even agree yet on uranium mining. Unbelievably, they are still arguing about uranium mining—after 20 years of debating the subject!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Again, it goes to relevance. The minister has had another couple of minutes to have a crack at it. He has traversed the world; he has traversed the Labor Party’s opinions.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order, Senator?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is that he was asked a specific question. He has made no attempt to answer it. I would ask you to protect question time and require ministers to at least have a go at the question.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was regarding nuclear energy, and I believe that is what the minister is answering. If he continues to be interrupted—he still has 53 seconds left to answer his question.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the 53 seconds available to me I will make the point that the question was about nuclear power. The obvious retort to the Labor Party’s questions on this matter is to say that they refuse even to engage in the debate on this matter. The government has made it clear that we think this country should debate the question of nuclear power. In debating nuclear power, there will be a variety of views as to the point at which nuclear power may become economically viable in this country. Of course there will be a range of views on that, because there are so many variables that go to the question of the economic viability of nuclear power. But at least we are prepared to engage in that debate rather than sticking our heads entirely in the sand, like the Labor Party—who cannot even agree among themselves on uranium mining.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My question goes to the original point again. Minister, will you now indicate to the Senate whether or not your expert opinion on the viability of nuclear power has altered from 100 years to 10 or 15 years? Is the minister aware that the Treasurer has said that he does not support paying subsidies to nuclear power plants to make them viable? Will the minister also rule out using subsidies to make power plants viable in Australia? Why should taxpayers have to pay the massive costs of the Prime Minister’s ideological obsession with nuclear power?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ideological obsession is in the Labor Party, which refuses to even countenance nuclear power despite the fact it provides 16 per cent of the world’s power and 70 per cent of France’s power. Nuclear power is a reality and it is saving the world substantial quantities of greenhouse gas emissions, about which the Labor Party seems so concerned. We are prepared to debate nuclear power in this country; the Labor Party refuses to even engage in that debate.