The Nationals LNP

Photo Gallery
Community Switch
This week's rainfall
Barnaby's Blog
 

This week in politics

19

When he became Prime Minister MrRudd said, ‘I want to live in a nation that produces things.’ That was his statement. But now we are seeing all these moralistic laws, one after another, that do nothing more than remove our capacity to be a nation that produces things. To be a strong, successful nation that produces things in its own right, the best thing that Australia can do is advance the ideal of maintaining industry and not losing jobs. We will prove nothing to the world if we come up with these wonderful schemes the only effect of which is to destroy jobs. That will prove to the world that, if you go down the environmental path, you will render yourself destitute. That is not smart. We have seen what has happened in California. They had this wonderful ideal of a green nirvana, but they are broke. That is not a good recommendation to do business that way. People have spoken about Germany, with its renewable energy component, but the price of electricity there has gone through the roof. These are the issues. We have one extremely strong advantage in our nation: we have cheap power. We have to keep that advantage. The benefit of cheap power is that you can pay people more. If you have expensive power, you end up having to employ fewer people or pay people less. The only other alternative is that the industry closes down and goes somewhere else. I do not think that is the alternative we want.

The Labor Party talk about the green economy and green jobs—it is just terminology. When you ask people in the community, ‘Do you know anybody who’s employed in a green job?’ the answer is generally, ‘No, we don’t.’ Yet we are told that there are going to be tens of thousands of these jobs that will just arrive. We are not quite sure what they will be, but they will just arrive.

This renewable energy target legislation would be an open door to wind power, which is fine. It is easy to construct heaps of wind turbines—all across the landscape, everywhere you look: wind turbines. Of course, after a while, they will start to be an annoyance to people. A debate we are having at the moment is that people do not like wind turbines and find them to be a blight on the landscape. Everything has its time and its tenor and things turn against it, but, if wind turbines are all the renewable energy we have, what happens to the geothermal energy in northern South Australia and western Queensland? We have to ensure the capacity to develop that industry as we move ahead.

Why do we want renewable energy? We want to be carbon efficient. One of the most carbon efficient forms of power is nuclear power. Last night and today, PaulHowes has been out there saying that it is madness that the Labor Party stick to this multiple position. They believe it is morally right to have uranium mines—first they choose an arbitrary number of mines that Australia should have and then all of a sudden they suggest we should have more uranium mines; we can export uranium to countries all around the world, even to countries that produce nuclear weapons—but we are not allowed to use uranium to produce power in our own nuclear power plants. When will this complete discrepancy in philosophical positions be put aside? It looks like a farce. How can you have your feet in both camps? You either believe that uranium mining and everything to do with uranium is abhorrent and therefore ban mining it and everything to do with it—I would not support that; I think that is crazy—or you say, ‘Let’s take our nation to the forefront of nuclear technology.’ I think that move would be generally supported everywhere. The winds are changing—people are changing their position on this. And it looks even more ridiculous now when the head of the Australian Workers Union, PaulHowes, is screaming at his own party to wake up and smell the roses. He says this is where Labor should be if they want to be relevant. He has even laid down the challenge that either the Labor Party change the agenda or the coalition will change it when we get back into government. When we do, we will have the support of the AWU—we will have the support of half your own side.

I welcome Paul Howes’s contribution to this debate and I look forward to the Labor Party having some form of epiphany, dealing with the nutty left, getting with the agenda and, if they are fair dinkum about reducing carbon emissions, developing a form of technology that will actually deliver that in spades rather than clinging to a 1954 Cold War mentality which the rest of the world has moved on from. In France, about 80 per cent of the power comes from nuclear power. Our neighbours—countries like Indonesia, India, China and Japan—are all using it, and Japan would have more reason than most not to. We had to get the technology for our latest reactor from Argentina. The United States, Britain, France and a myriad of European countries are all using it. Israel has it. The technology is developing around the world, yet the Labor Party insists that Australia be a world leader on climate policy. It is a crazy position. They talk about being world leaders, yet when the world is racing away from their archaic position they sit back and have internal party discussions about why we should stay mired in about 1954.

The challenge is there for the Labor Party. If they are really interested in reducing carbon emissions they have the potential to do it. There are people in their own party screaming at them to get with the program. Who is holding Australia back from this technology? As PaulHowes rightly pointed out, we can be the Middle East in our generation of wealth from nuclear energy. It would mean immense wealth coming into our nation. We could also embellish it and show how smart we can be as a nation by developing the technology to assist people around the world—to help those in surrounding countries to raise their standard of living by the development of technology from the product that we will most likely be exporting to them. But we cannot do it if we do not have a nuclear energy industry of our own. It is just lazy.

I see Minister Carr in the chamber. He is supposed to be the person leading the world down the enlightened path of doing clever things, but this is just ridiculous. Minister Carr knows in his heart that this is the way we have to go. We cannot just bog ourselves down.

 

Posted in: Senate Speeches
Actions: E-mail | Permalink

Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Enter the code shown above:

Comments

# j kermode
Sunday, August 23, 2009 4:00 PM
The Labor party is really pulling of the biggest con this nation has ever seen.
All their arguements against uranium mining do not ring one bit true if they export to the rest of the world.They are the biggest hypocrits.
# robert s
Monday, August 24, 2009 1:54 AM
Mr Rudd and all, from the only conclusion I can draw, is drawing up and quartering Australia for the U.N.
They ( the labour party ) maybe not all, but a quite a few in my opinion
must have a vested interest in the cap and trade or ETS because of the big bucks involved. They are in collusion with certain big businesses to profit from the trading of the CO2 myth, and most certainly in colllusiion with the U.N. who has masterminded this whole scheme.
They know there a lot of people out there who feel the way I do so why dont they dispel this concerns by addressing them openly instead of hiding behind the CO2 myth which no one can prove either way, is or isn't causing global warming.
There can not be any intelligent objection to nuclear power use today specially when considering the newer, safer models that will be coming into play.
# Marco Conti
Monday, August 31, 2009 1:36 PM
"What happens to the geothermal energy in northern South Australia and western Queensland".

It cannot work if we refer to "hot dry rocks".

It cannot work because it is childish to think that 4-5 thousand metres deep, granite is perfectly compact and can be craked as they want to create steam.

In reality, granite has cracks a bit everywhere therefore water is lost or mud floods the extraction wells...

Thus I am not saying that a geothermal is dad but the architecture needed and the approach to extract geothermal energy is radically different from what they are doing...
# Marco Conti
Monday, August 31, 2009 1:51 PM
"We are not allowed to use uranium to produce power in our own nuclear power plant".

Thanks to God Barnaby....

Your observation is very logic but the ramifications of implementing nuclear power plants would be more disastrous than just polluting as they certainly do where they extract for business reasons.

A few TRUE facts:

In US, 140 nuclear reactors out of 220 have been shut down because not financially viable aor because environmental damages. In two states the water became so polluted that 80% of their aquifers could not supply drinking water according to EPA standards.

The cost of creating a reactor doubles along its implenetation (see the Finnish one), is humongous and the decomissioning of the plant after 30 years costs at least as much as building it if there are not environmental disasters. if there are minimal environmental disasters, just cleaning around the plant and its yard can cost 4 billion dollars (US).

An official study commisioned by the Gernam Government confirmed increased cancer rate close to nuclear power plants.

High radioactivity scories takes 500,000 years to halve their emissions....

A coomando of four people could blast the reactors and cause a Chernobyl 2 in one of the major Australian cities where 80% of the population lives....Economy: good-bye for 50 years....

Therefore, it would be better working on hybrid cogeneration models (hydrogen-oil-coal, LG-thermosolar), solar and wind.
# robert s
Wednesday, September 02, 2009 1:27 AM
# Marco Conti
Monday, August 31, 2009 1:36 PM
"What happens to the geothermal energy in northern South Australia and western Queensland".

It cannot work if we refer to "hot dry rocks".

It cannot work because it is childish to think that 4-5 thousand metres deep, granite is perfectly compact and can be craked as they want to create steam.

In reality, granite has cracks a bit everywhere therefore water is lost or mud floods the extraction wells...

reply from robert s: if their assumptions ( the engineer's) are correct then water could not flood the rocks as it would turn to steam.
What you say can only happen if the water going down remains at low temperatures.

Re nuclear plants: the only reason that the nuclear plants have been shutting is because of the environmental movement which has caused the running down of these plants.
The new fast breed reactors work on "pellets". These type of reactors could never become another chernobyl and the waste products last between 250 - 500 years only. The best part is they can burn spent nuclear fuel.
I cant disagree with you on hybrid models but in the case of oil and coal will eventually run out, and wind and solar can't produce baseload electricity.

Home | Issues | Blog | Newsroom | Achievements | Policies | About Barnaby | Out and About | Links | Feedback
Accessibility | Privacy Policy & Disclaimer | Site by Datasearch Web Design | Login

© Senator Barnaby Joyce 2011 | Authorised by Barnaby Joyce - 68 The Terrace, St. George Qld 4487