Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023. This is undoubtedly the first of many bills that will come before this parliament to enable the introduction of nuclear propelled submarines into the Australian fleet as part of the AUKUS arrangement between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.

AUKUS is a coalition legacy, and I say that with great pride. It is the biggest military program Australia has embarked upon since the Second World War as well as the biggest and most complex manufacturing program we've ever embarked upon as a nation, surpassing even the postwar automotive program and the Snowy scheme. AUKUS must succeed. Indeed, the future of our nation and the stability and security of our region depend on it. I also want to credit the now Labor government for supporting the AUKUS arrangement and for carrying it forward. The coalition stands with them to facilitate the passage of this bill through the parliament.

The bill itself will amend provisions of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act, known as ARPANSA, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, known as the EPBCA. These amendments to ARPANSA and the EPBCA will ensure that the relevant regulators can exercise their power if and when required in relation to Australia's nuclear propelled submarines without the risk of litigation. The coalition wants to see work begin without delay, especially in South Australia and Western Australia, to prepare our nation for the arrival of nuclear submarines. So it should come as no surprise that the coalition is offering bipartisan support for this bill, and I join with my colleagues, including the shadow minister for defence, in calling on all members of this legislature to support this bill and to do so on one simple premise: that it's in our country's best interest.

I also support the shadow minister for defence in his call for a statutory parliamentary joint committee for AUKUS that has similar secrecy provisions to that of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. AUKUS is a multigenerational venture that will span many parliaments, and the formation of such a committee would provide a forum for debate, hearings and discussions behind closed doors, beyond the ears and eyes of our strategic adversaries, while also protecting AUKUS from unnecessary changes at times when the government of Australia changes.

There are additional points I would like to make, and they relate to the prospect of Australia introducing next-generation zero-emissions nuclear energy and how doing so would complement the AUKUS arrangement. Zero-emissions nuclear energy is of course typically discussed in the context of energy, and for good reason. But what the Albanese government has thus far failed to grasp is that a civil nuclear program offers benefits beyond providing cleaner, greener, cheaper and more secure energy—benefits that would assist a nuclear submarine program such as that which is to be delivered under AUKUS. Put more plainly, a civil nuclear program in Australia would benefit AUKUS and our plans to introduce a sovereign fleet of nuclear propelled submarines.

Let me put this in context. Australia will become one of only seven nations to operate nuclear propelled submarines, as a result of the AUKUS deal. This means that we join heavyweights such as the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and India. However, there's one enormous difference between those countries and ours. They all have civil nuclear energy industries. Australia does not. These nations operate 273 nuclear power reactors between them, and they are busily constructing 39 new reactors. The size of their workforces ranges from as few as 64½ thousand in the case of the UK to as many as 200,000 in the case of France. The presence of vibrant civil nuclear industries in these six nations that also operate nuclear propelled submarines isn't some historical footnote; rather, it has proven to be an important ingredient in the formula for maintaining well-functioning nuclear ecosystems in these countries. You see, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, the nuclear reactors that are installed in submarines are basically smaller versions of reactors in power plants, and so it's not hard to appreciate that there is synergy between them. Foundational skills in engineering, physics and mathematics are required, regardless of whether one works in the field of nuclear energy or nuclear submarines.

Earlier this year I visited the US and travelled from east to west discussing next-generation clean energy, and that included nuclear. Having met countless people from the civil nuclear industry in the States, I was blown away by the number of people who were former submariners. For them, having both a civil nuclear industry and a nuclear submarine industry has allowed them to have lifelong careers. The civil nuclear industry allows for post-service job opportunities for submariners and other technicians, all of whom are highly trained and skilled in nuclear technology.

When it comes to Australia and our need to attract and train our own workforce for our own sovereign submarines, there's a need for speed. We will be receiving our first Virginia-class nuclear propelled submarines within the decade. The Royal Australian Navy is already short of submariners for its six Collins-class boats, each of which requires a crew of around 58. Compare that to the Virginia class, which demands a crew of around 132. This is one of the reasons we need this bill passed quickly. We need to get moving. Australia will need to build a committed and capable workforce to operate its own fleet of nuclear propelled submarines. I believe that task will be made all the more difficult in the absence of a civil nuclear industry because it limits the value proposition to entice potential submariners, who need only look to other countries to see that they offer an expanded array of lifelong career paths by virtue of their civil nuclear industries.

But of course it's not all about the submariners. Making AUKUS a success will also require an expansion of Australian industry and skill, especially with the hundreds of thousands of components needed for building and maintaining the nuclear submarines. We will need industrial assistance from our AUKUS partners, of course, but we also need to enhance our own sovereign manufacturing capability, and this will be made easier if such a task is not for the purpose of just the procurement and maintenance of submarines alone but for a broader set of industries that will leverage next-generation nuclear technologies for generations to come.

How the government will maximise the success of AUKUS without a civil nuclear industry will be a matter that the Prime Minister will have to explain. It is unfortunate for Australia, but Prime Minister Albanese has a longstanding ideological opposition to Australia embracing zero-emissions nuclear energy. I suspect the hardheads of the Australian Labor Party know such a position is simply not sustainable. This is for several reasons, and AUKUS is one. But it is looking unlikely for now. As AUKUS moves into its implementation phase, the Prime Minister looks as though he will not be prioritising pragmatism over ideology.

And it's not just the Prime Minister who is refusing to take off the ideological goggles. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, believe it or not, is worse. This minister sits on Australia's peak national security decision-making body. That is cabinet's national security committee, the NSC. And yet, despite him sitting on NSC, on 12 May, nearly two weeks ago, that minister released a video arguing that Australia is decades away from developing expertise and capability to manage energy-generating nuclear reactors. But here's the thing. The reactors in nuclear propelled submarines that we need to start managing within a decade are also energy generating. So here we have a member of the NSC not just diminishing Australia's reputation in respect to nuclear technology but openly publishing a view to the world, which includes to the United States and the United Kingdom, our AUKUS partners no less, that Australia is not up to the task. This is an absolute disgrace.

Another point that the minister argued was that Australia will struggle to store used nuclear fuel and waste from energy generated in reactors. Again, what message does this send to our AUKUS partners when one of our obligations under the AUKUS arrangement is to manage these reactors? We're not sending the waste offshore. Here again we have this minister, one of the most senior ministers in the Australian government, a member of NSC, publishing views that Australia will struggle to manage nuclear waste. How is that acceptable? How is he still a member of NSC? What message does that send to our AUKUS partners? It is a disgrace.

Let me summarise. Does the Coalition support AUKUS? Absolutely we do. We are proud that AUKUS is a coalition legacy and we are genuinely happy that the new Labor government is backing AUKUS and carrying it on. That is why we stand with them on this bill to give bipartisan support to ensure the passage of this bill, and that we get on with the job. However, we cannot have this bill debated in this parliament without calling out the rank hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party, including the Prime Minister and, especially, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, when it comes to their views on next-generation nuclear technology. What the minister has published should be retracted, and I question why the Prime Minister is still having that minister a member of the NSC.

See this speech in context