Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today I want to make a statement about what is happening in Gaza. Like so many others, I am saddened and horrified by the confronting images of war that I see. I want to reaffirm that, at a human level, every innocent life is equally valuable, regardless of where that person lives. I also affirm that international law matters and that all parties must abide by it. Peace with freedom and justice is the bedrock of my and Labor's attitude to the current conflict. I support a two-state solution, with Palestinians' and Israelis' right to self-government behind secure and recognised borders. Justice for one side cannot come at the expense of the other. That should remain our longer-term goal and must remain the basis upon which negotiations are conducted. Finally, in the short term there must be a ceasefire. With a ceasefire, innocent lives can be protected, and there can be a basis upon which meaningful engagement can occur. I believe that a ceasefire is possible if all hostages are released and if aid is reasonably allowed to enter Gaza.

I also want to clarify my engagement with my community. As with all communities, there is a wide range of views, many of which are held very strongly. I speak with many across my community directly and often, including Muslim leaders, community organisations and individual constituents. In-person conversations and correspondence enable me to strongly convey the views of my community directly to the government at the highest levels. I can assure the House and my community that I know that those views are being considered seriously and compassionately.

I'd also like to talk tonight about the latest opposition policy in relation to energy. This really isn't, though, a costed and well-thought-through policy as such. It's really a thought bubble that is an attempt to avoid the hard work necessary to get us to where we need to be, both in the medium term and by 2050. It's really about kicking the hard work down the road. One person who has summarised it well is Professor Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor at the School of Environment and Science at Griffith University, who says about Dutton's policy:

His proposal for seven nuclear power stations is, at present, legally impossible, technically improbable, economically irrational and environmentally irresponsible.

Tony Wood, a well-respected commentator and program director at the Grattan Institute, says:

Dutton's plan, for seven Commonwealth-owned nuclear plants across Australia, came with no costings or modelling attached. We don't know the price tag to build and operate the reactors. More importantly, we don't what the total system, with nuclear included, will look like or cost.

I want to start with cost. We have a very reputable study from the CSIRO and AEMO, the GenCostreport, which clearly states:

The LCOE cost range for variable renewables (solar PV and wind) with integration costs is the lowest of all new‐build technologies in 2023 and 2030.

The most expensive is nuclear small modular reactors. John Quiggin, one of Australia's most respected economists, has said:

… Dutton will come under pressure to reveal crucial details underpinning the Coalition's nuclear plan—most importantly, how much it will cost.

Nothing announced by Dutton today changes the fact that nuclear energy is, according to reams of expert analysis, economically unfeasible in Australia.

I repeat: John Quiggin is one of the most respected academic and policy economists in Australia. I will quote Tony Wood again, Program Director of Energy at the Grattan Institute, who has said:

CSIRO research recently found that electricity produced by a large-scale nuclear plant in Australia would be at least 50% more expensive than firmed renewable energy.

He went on to say later in the same article, which appeared in the Conversation:

It's the total system costs that matter when it comes to electricity prices, and ten gigawatts of nuclear would be a very small part of the mix.

I also want to touch on the fact that, unfortunately, what this plan represents is a re-emergence of the climate wars—culture wars, one might say. What we're doing is re-creating uncertainty when it comes to what we need to see in this country, which is long-term investment. Here I'll go to somebody who is an expert in the sector itself, the CEO of AGL, Damien Nicks, who says:

Policy certainty is important for companies like AGL and ongoing debate on the matter runs the risk of unnecessarily complicating the long-term investment decisions necessary for the energy transition.

That is coming from an expert, a leader, in the industry itself. Vik Selvaraja, of Rio Tinto's energy and climate division, says nuclear:

… is a very expensive source of energy. And … in Australia … we've got low cost wind and solar, and we were going to run with that.

So here we have leaders in the industry saying that they had thought all of this debate was over. They had thought that we had gotten onto a trajectory, with a medium-term target and a legislated net zero—notwithstanding the attempts of the opposition to thwart the legislation of those. Now we are seeing uncertainty being added to the energy debate in a way that is most unhelpful.

Even worse than all of that, in my opinion, is the fact that what is being proposed not only does not have the necessary costing and modelling underpinning it; it is totally unrealistic, in terms of being able to be delivered any time soon. Let's have a think about the details of what would need to occur in order for a nuclear plant to be operational. Tony Wood again says:

… we do know the first nuclear plant, if it ever gets built, would not be operational for at least a decade—and even that is a very optimistic timeframe.

What I'm going to argue here is that it's likely to be far more than a decade, and, if that's the case, then any nuclear plant that is likely to be built would be entering the grid at a point when we need to be almost at the point of having solved this problem, not just starting. Frank Calabria, the CEO of Origin, says that time, cost and compatibility will all be challenges, and AGL, which owns two of the sites that are included in the opposition's plans, says that nuclear energy is not a part of their plans.

Let's step through some of the steps. Some in the opposition who have commented on the issue of delay in recent days have looked at optimistic construction timelines, added those to the current year and said, 'That's when we think it might be possible.' But so much would have to happen before we could even put a shovel in the ground. Let's think about regulatory arrangements. Let's imagine—and here's hoping this isn't a scenario that occurs, but let's imagine—that the opposition win the next election. It's highly unlikely that there'd be a simple composition in the Senate. Overturning the Commonwealth ban in the Commonwealth parliament is likely to be an extremely difficult and convoluted process, and many commentators have rightfully said that it's unlikely to happen at all.

What about what would happen even if that occurred? Then it would be necessary to overturn state bans in every jurisdiction. Now, it is true that, in many circumstances, Commonwealth laws can overturn state laws. But it is often more nuanced and complicated than that. A number of constitutional experts have pointed to uncertainty in this realm and to the fact that it might be necessary, for example, to rely on the external affairs power—again, another source of uncertainty and delay.

What about local consultation? The opposition claims that it's the party of state's rights and the party of subsidiarity—of pushing decisions down to the local level. Are they going to consult? How long will it take? There's no sign at all that, at just about any of these seven sites, the state or local communities are going to be supportive.

What about technology? We're being told that many of these sites will be small modular nuclear reactors—a completely untested technology.

What about the regulatory framework? This would be one of the most complicated regulatory challenges this parliament has faced. It will involve safety, technology and environmental site management. This will take years to get going. Then there's the project design, there's the funding, there's the financing, and then, of course, there's the actual construction. We see how construction can blow out for the simplest of transport and other infrastructure projects. Imagine the potential for blowouts.

So this is really not an exercise in genuinely coming up with a well-modelled, realistic and costed project. This is about trying to delay the debate, distract from the debate and kick the can down the road, because those opposite don't want to do the hard work. The hard work is already being undertaken. They're trying to distract from that.

See this speech in context