Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien kicked out of question time after interjection
Josh Butler
In a question time where the opposition seemed set to put more focus on to nuclear energy, shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien has gotten himself kicked out quite quickly, after a strange interjection.
Asking acting PM Richard Marles about “global momentum for nuclear energy”, and his claim that the government “remain stubbornly in opposition of this proven energy resource”, O’Brien took his seat.
“The answer is – it’s all about cost and it’s all about economics. We don’t have a civil nuclear industry in Australia today. It is a significant fact, an inconvenient truth,” Marles started to respond – before O’Brien made a noisy shouted interjection.
Marles called it a “ridiculous display”. O’Brien was ejected by speaker Milton Dick under standing order 94a.
Key events
Coalition persists with questions on nuclear
The deputy opposition leader, Sussan Ley, has asked the acting PM about a report from the US claiming a renewables-plus-nuclear electricity grid is cheaper than a renewables-only grid – because clearly, we were due for another question on nuclear.
Responding to this, Richard Marles said the report would be “assessing an economy which already has a civil nuclear industry in place [and] where costs have already been put in place literally decades ago.”
This seems to be the fact that has completely escaped those opposite, that in order for us to get to a point of having a civil nuclear industry, we would need to go through the process of establishing it – which is deeply costly …
[It won’t be] the same as the calculation which exists in the United States or the United Kingdom or France, where they … have a civil nuclear industry already established, and those costs have already been sunk and are not priced into the future.
But the reality of what we face is you can’t go out there and just magic the reactors, you’ve actually got to go and build them [and] that costs money, and the people who will pay for it are the Australian public.
Infrastructure minister answers question on Middle Arm industrial project in Darwin
Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown has asked whether the government would redirect costs for the Middle Arm hub to support clean energy projects instead?
The infrastructure minister, Catherine King, said the government remains committed to Middle Arm and said:
Let me just remind the House that this is an equity injection. It is not money that then can be transferred to other projects …
The Australian government remains committed to Middle Arm, there are a number of processes that have to be gone through, through the environmental processes, through planning processes, as well, through Infrastructure Australia, and all of those are under way at the moment …
But again, I say to the Greens, stop using politics constantly in these sorts of debates, stop using politics, because we know that Middle Arm actually does support renewable energy … and it also makes sure that we have a strong economic future for the Northern Territory.
Nationals MP asks where is the housing for new immigrants
Nationals MP Anne Webster has asked about housing and immigration. She claims that a new person is arriving to live in Australia every 44 seconds – where are these people meant to live?
The housing minister, Clare O’Neil, responded that migration is “coming down because of changes that have been made by our government” and “if there is a single person in this parliament who is responsible for [the] broken [housing] system, he sits over there in the opposition leader’s chair”.
She said the government arrived to office and found housing “in an absolute mess”, and said when the opposition was in government “they didn’t even have a commonwealth housing minister.”
O’Neil took aim at the Liberals and Greens for not support its housing policies, and said:
Now if only, Speaker, we had a parliament that actually wanted to work with us on this issue that affects millions of people … What we have is an opposition that knows only one word – no, no, no – to every single proposition that’s put forward.
[The] Greens … talk a big game about housing, but when it comes time to make real change for real people, they say no too.
So who would have thought the far left and the far right had so much in common in this country. Despite that opposition, we will work hard to make sure that we meet the housing needs of people in this country
Marles says supporting a civil nuclear industry ‘makes no financial sense whatsoever’
The shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, has asked another question about – surprise, surprise – nuclear energy.
He asked whether the government’s opposition to nuclear “has nothing to do with cost or time, but because of their political battle with the Greens in inner-city seats”?
Richard Marles replied that “we do have a battle with the Greens political party, and we join that battle with relish”.
Which really does stand in stark contrast to what we see from those opposite who, when it comes to housing, the environment or now immigration, are in the greatest love affair of all time with the Greens political party. I mean, I think Romeo and Juliet teaches us that love conquers all. But I definitely do not think that Shakespeare [could] imagine what was going on here. What we are seeing here is the most unholy alliance between the Greens and the Liberals.
Marles echoed earlier comments, and said “the simple reason why we are not supporting a civil nuclear industry, it’s because it makes no financial sense whatsoever”.
Marles on ‘crystal-clear articulation’ of Coalition philosophy
While taking a dixer, Richard Marles pointed to some comments from the deputy opposition leader Sussan Ley yesterday in parliament, that “if you don’t pay for something, you don’t value it” – in reference to fee-free Tafe.
You can read more on this in yesterday’s blog here.
He said it gave “a crystal clear articulation of the philosophies of those opposite”, and said:
This was exactly demonstrated when the leader of the opposition was the minister for health, when he tried to introduce a GP tax, when he tried to put a cost on the attendance at emergency departments right around the country, when he sought to increase the prices of basic medicines.
And what he did as the minister for health, if given the chance, he would do as the prime minister across the board. Well, Mr Speaker, on this side of the house, we have a very different philosophy …
Marles is asked again about civil nuclear industry
Nationals MP Kevin Hogan has asked the acting prime minister whether the government signed an agreement under the Indo-Pacific economic framework that includes a cooperative work program to support the uptake of small modular nuclear reactors?
Richard Marles said the opposition “crawl[s] to this topic through every different alleyway”, and repeated:
But let me be really clear, what I can absolutely confirm is that this government is not going to be pursuing a civil nuclear industry …
Kylea Tink asks about use of public money to pay interest on political party loans
Independent MP Kylea Tink has asked the treasurer how the government can justify allowing public money to be used to pay the interest on political party loans, while ordinary Australians are struggling?
The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said minister Don Farrell “has been working for some time in a consultative way to do what we can to make sure that our donations regime is as transparent as possible, and that we take responsible and necessary steps to lessen the impact of big money on politics.”
He urged the parliament to support the government’s measures – meaning the electoral reform legislation.
Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien kicked out of question time after interjection
Josh Butler
In a question time where the opposition seemed set to put more focus on to nuclear energy, shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien has gotten himself kicked out quite quickly, after a strange interjection.
Asking acting PM Richard Marles about “global momentum for nuclear energy”, and his claim that the government “remain stubbornly in opposition of this proven energy resource”, O’Brien took his seat.
“The answer is – it’s all about cost and it’s all about economics. We don’t have a civil nuclear industry in Australia today. It is a significant fact, an inconvenient truth,” Marles started to respond – before O’Brien made a noisy shouted interjection.
Marles called it a “ridiculous display”. O’Brien was ejected by speaker Milton Dick under standing order 94a.
Richard Marles criticises ‘ridiculous’ Coalition nuclear policy
After Labor’s Catherine King took a dixer on policies to address the gender pay gap, shadow climate and energy minister Ted O’Brien asked why the government remains opposed to exploring nuclear as an option.
The acting prime minister, Richard Marles, said it comes down to cost. He began giving an answer but had to stop twice due to interjections, and O’Brien was sent out under 94a.
Marles got up for a third time, and answered:
It is a ridiculous policy that has been put forward by those opposite, and it simply fails to ignore the convenient truth for those opposite – that we don’t have a civil nuclear industry in Australia today and to establish one from scratch, costs money, and takes time.
It’s not that simple, although the leader of the opposition may think it’s that simple, because he thinks that the way it works is that you go up and burn uranium, that we go out the back, set up a bonfire, throw some uranium on it, and bingo, there’s renewable energy. But unfortunately, that’s not how it actually works.
He said the government’s renewables policy “stands in stark contrast to the ridiculous antics that we see from those opposite.”
Question time begins on US-UK civil nuclear deal
The opposition leader Peter Dutton has opened question time with a question to Richard Marles, again asking why Australia didn’t sign up to a civil nuclear deal signed by the US and UK.
Marles answered questions about this yesterday, and the UK government admitted Australia was mistakenly included on a list of countries expected to sign up to the deal:
Marles responded that “there’s a very similar simple answer to that question – because we don’t have a civil nuclear energy country, and nor do we seek to establish one.”
We don’t seek to go down that path, so we are not a part of that agreement. And if we did go down that path, as the leader of the opposition is suggesting, there would be no prospect of any piece of electricity entering into the grid for two decades.
Just minutes into Question Time, before Marles even gave his answer, Spence MP Matt Burnell was sent out under 94a for interjecting.
