Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to stand to speak on the Interim report for the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia. I want to start out by acknowledging our chair, the fantastic member for Hunter. He did an exceptional job on this, and all credit is to him. I also wanted to acknowledge the member for Fairfax as our deputy chair, along with a few of my other colleagues. I want to acknowledge the member for Gippsland, the member for Swan, the member for Fraser, the member for Moreton, the member for Kooyong and the member for Cook. The contributions by everybody on the committee was exceptional. It's been a subject matter that's provoked a lot of different feelings across the spectrum within the chamber, so I think the level of respect that was afforded to every single member on that committee should be commended. That doesn't happen without good leadership, which came from both the chair, the member for Hunter, and the deputy chair, the member for Fairfax.

There are a couple of other people I do need to thank. The secretariat, Kate Portus, and her fantastic team, including Kimberlee, Ash, Cathy and Antonia. Without those people from the secretariat team, we can't do the work that we do. They make sure that we get to the locations we need to, make sure that we have people turn up to do the inquiry itself and to answer the questions of the committee. Thank you to all of you. We also were aptly supported by companies from Callide and Tarong power stations, who gave us very in-depth tours of both of their facilities. Thank you very much for your hospitality. Thank you very much for the explanation. For me personally, I've never had the opportunity to tour through a coal-fired power station. It was a big eye-opener for me and gave me a much better insight into the topic of power generation that we were looking at.

To my very good friend over here, the member for Flynn, we were able to go up to Mount Murchison and spend the afternoon with the wonderful Hazel Jensen, and his office helped put on a very country orientated afternoon tea, which was very much appreciated. It took me back to my childhood growing up on the farm. The hospitality that was afforded to us was the best we had on our entire trip around the country, doing this inquiry. To the member for Flynn, thank you very much for your warm hospitality up in your neck of the woods.

This inquiry is probably some of the most important work that I've been afforded the opportunity to do in my short time in this place. When you're jumping headfirst into a subject matter that's as big as nuclear power generation, there's a lot to take in. At the end of the day, there's a couple of pinch points that really started to show through—consistent themes that raised considerable questions for myself.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:24 to 16:34

Ultimately, what this inquiry has found is this is nothing more than nuclear nonsense. Pursuing a nuclear power future is going to be a costlier process that takes more time than we can afford. This is about building an alternative power generation industry that is estimated to cost around $600 billion. This is not an investment being made by private industry; this is an investment that the Australian taxpayer is being asked to foot to deliver on—it's nuclear nonsense. It is a very big worry. I want to step through a few different parts of what the inquiry uncovered along the way. I'm going to start off with social license, and I think this is probably one of the most important places for us to start. The reason I say that is that this has the possibility of blowing out the delivery of any future nuclear power generation in this country by significantly large timeframes. Clare Savage from the Australian Energy Regulator said that, with social licence where it currently stands, she would estimate eight to 10 years or thereabout to deliver the legislative requirements to enable the pursuit of nuclear power generation in this country. That's been refuted by the other side, but the problem you have with that is that, when you've got organisations like Liberals Against Nuclear, you know you have a problem with social licence, the very linchpin that is probably going to see your policy either sink or swim. That's not something that you can dismiss. It's not something that you can dismiss from my personal experience, having seen what happened around nuclear-waste storage facilities in South Australia. Social licence wasn't obtained, and it sank the pursuit of a nuclear waste storage facility out in the mid-north. It gets much harder when you have your own party faithful, your rank and file, starting up a group called Liberals Against Nuclear, because that's not, as some people would put it, just the 'crazy left'. That's your side of the equation adding their voice to what is a real concern for people in this country.

The inquiry also talked about cost, and there are a couple of components to cost: the upfront cost but also the potential cost blowouts. When we look at examples across the world, there are instances where the cost blowout is absolutely astronomical. You have the Hinkley Point C project, which has blown out now to around $92 billion for a single nuclear reactor, which is just mind-blowing. It really is mind-blowing. That is just one example of a cost blowout. The Vogtle nuclear power station is seven years late and $17 billion over budget. The list goes on and on and on. The other problem with that is the fact that there is this pursuit of small modular reactors in South Australia; actually, it's the only type of reactor that's been slated for South Australia. The problem with small modular reactors, as my good friend from Western Australia will attest, is that they don't exist commercially off the shelf anywhere in the Western World, which makes it really difficult to comprehend how we are going to establish a nuclear power generation industry in South Australia if we're pursuing a technology that doesn't exist. This is the type of fantasy-land place that we are currently sitting in. It's just not comprehensible. I just can't get my head around where we currently are at.

On top of this, not only are we pursuing technology that's not currently commercially available around the world, but there's this fake promise that it's going to deliver hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. This does not mean that it's a straightforward transition for coal workers coming out of their existing coal-fired power stations straight into what has not yet been built: a nuclear power station. This will require retraining, and it does run with the problem that there is a huge time delay between an announcement to pursue nuclear power generation in this country and delivery of a nuclear reactor in this country. The first nuclear reactor will take around 15 to 20 years to deliver—we're talking the 2040s. Most of our coal-fired power stations are due to close in the early 2030s. That is a huge time lag between closure and a new station coming online. This enquiry has found that it is not feasible to pursue nuclear power generation in Australia.

See this speech in context