Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Hansard source

One must only look at the Prime Minister’s move towards nuclear energy and away from the coal industry to see the reasons why. The Howard government sees clean coal technology as a stopgap measure, something to tide the public over until the Prime Minister gets his 25 nuclear power stations built around Australia. Far from supporting the coal industry, the Howard government and its nuclear plans are the biggest threat to the coal industry. Despite that, the member for Dawson has kindly raised her hand saying that she wants a nuclear reactor in her electorate, much to the outrage of her constituents, many of whom are coalminers or work in associated industries.

I believe helping coal stay competitive is a far better alternative than throwing up your hand for a nuclear power station. The Howard government’s Switkowski report also found that nuclear power may only become economically viable in Australia if a carbon tax of up to $40 per tonne is levied on CO emissions. This would cripple at least one mining company in my electorate which employs over 350 people. The bottom line of the energy debate is that we start from a position of natural advantage. My state’s coal resources make us the envy of many nations. The policy distinctions between Labor and the government in relation to the coal industry remain stark, particularly on issues of leadership and what we see as a long-term future for the industry. I welcome the opportunity to take— (Time expired)

See this speech in context