Richard Marles tangled in a climate mess of Chris Bowen’s making

Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Richard Marles, as both Acting Prime Minister and Defence Minister, is getting himself tangled in a climate change mess of Chris Bowen’s making with the stubborn arguments over Australia’s rejection of our AUKUS partners’ invitation to join a global nuclear development forum.

In Baku at the COP29 summit the Energy Minister flatly rejected the United Kingdom and United States’ approach to join a growing global movement aimed at reducing carbon emissions and securing energy supply.

UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who officially declared Australia was expected to sign the agreement – the Generation IV International Forum on nuclear – along with more than 30 other nations, said the UK was “reversing a legacy of no nuclear being delivered and moving forward with its advanced nuclear reactor program”.

“Nuclear will play a vital role in our clean energy future. That is why we are working closely with our allies to unleash the potential of cutting-edge nuclear technology,” Mr Miliband said.

Bowen said flatly he would not sign up and suggested nuclear energy was not a viable option because Australia had more sunshine than the UK. Akin to the infantile response of The Simpsons-style cartoon fish with three eyes from Labor to Peter Dutton’s initial proposal to look at nuclear energy, the sunshine argument really doesn’t deserve a response.

But Marles, holding the fort in parliament while Anthony Albanese is overseas, had to have a more considered response which he now delivers when asked about the nuclear rebuff to our AUKUS allies.

Essentially the argument is: “We do not have a civil nuclear industry. This is not an agreement which applies to us, which is why we’re not going to be a part of the agreement”; “for Australia, from not having a civil nuclear industry, to try and establish one, would represent pursuing the most expensive form of electricity on the planet” and; “That is why we are not pursuing a civil nuclear industry. We don’t have one on this day.”

Marles also argues that the Opposition Leader is “conflating” the issues of the AUKUS nuclear-powered and a civilian nuclear power industry.

“This is not an agreement which applies to us and it’s completely separate to AUKUS, which we are pursuing with vigour,” he said on Wednesday.

The problems for Marles are that Labor has not quite got the message that like pregnancy you can’t be a bit nuclear, you can’t claim to have no Australian nuclear industry when you spruik for the thousands of civilian jobs and opportunities from the AUKUS nuclear program and there are signatories to the agreement that don’t have nuclear reactors.

After the budget in May 2023 Marles said the submarine program would contribute to 20,000 direct jobs in “industry, the Australian Defence Force and the public service in Australia.

“Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine program will be the most transformative industrial endeavour in our history – exceeding in scale, complexity, and economic significance the creation of an Australian automotive manufacturing sector and the construction of the Snowy Hydro Scheme,” Marles said.

In March this year in South Australia he talked about the thousands of jobs and skills that would be needed and created by the nuclear-powered submarine project which involves the construction of the boats here.

“A strong defence industry is critical to providing the deterrence our strategic circumstances demand. This is a whole-of-nation undertaking that will see around 20,000 jobs created across Australia, with unprecedented opportunities for Australian industry at home and abroad with our AUKUS partners,” he said.

“It is the opportunity to build a Future Made in Australia, by Australians, with record investments in defence, skills, jobs and infrastructure.”

As for the fact that we won’t sign because we don’t have a civilian nuclear reactor industry, there are 15 European Union members who are signatories to the nuclear agreement through their atomic grouping which don’t have nuclear reactors.

Certainly most of those non-nuclear nations use nuclear energy from their neighbours but the argument that not having a nuclear reactor is an argument for not signing the agreement is not logical.

Marles continued in question time to run his lines. But Labor needs to realise the nuclear argument requires more than cartoon, superficial and dismissive responses.