Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this committee inquiry report. As a member of the committee, I saw this as a really important inquiry. An interesting observation is that there is some talent in the coalition, and there are some ideas. Sometimes there are big ideas, but big ideas don't necessarily mean good ideas. This is an example of not just a not-good idea but a terrible idea.

It is great to have the opportunity to reflect on the interim findings and share some insights with the chamber today. As the only engineer in the Labor Party caucus, I was naturally excited to participate in this work. The expertise has served me well through my time in this place and especially in this inquiry. It's not just because I've worked in steel capped boots in the mines but also because I've had the opportunity to work in decarbonisation for over 12 years. Looking at the energy transition, electricity grids and future energy needs have been my bread and butter for over 12 years. That insight has brought some skills and expertise to this inquiry. As an engineer, I believe in evidence based decision-making, and this report provides that evidence.

Over the course of this inquiry, the committee held 19 public hearings right across the country. We heard from a wide range of voices, from global nuclear experts to Australian scientists, engineers and energy and climate change specialists. We listened closely to our federal agencies responsible for Australia's existing nuclear activities. I think it's also important to say that, yes; we do have a current nuclear industry. The nuclear industry plays a really important role in our health sector. The medical isotopes that are produced by Lucas Heights are lifesaving across the country. I'm going to say that I think that the Australian public is smart enough to understand that, but when we're talking about nuclear power generation, this is a very different proposition. We also heard directly from First Nations communities, environmental organisations and everyday Australians. All raised serious concerns about the trust, transparency and social license for nuclear power energy.

The interim report makes one thing abundantly clear. Peter Dutton—whoops, sorry!—the opposition leader's nuclear fantasy is indeed a nuclear nightmare. It doesn't stack up. It won't be on time or on cost, not even on the proportion that it will contribute to the electricity grid, and it's simply not appropriate for Australia. This inquiry asked two questions: can nuclear be rolled out fast enough, and can it compete on cost? The answer, based on the evidence from the real experts, is clear. It's a resounding no. Can it be compatible with the future electricity grid? We should have an idea on what this can do, and, when we asked if it could be rolled out fast enough and compete on cost, the truth is it cannot, and so I think that we should throw it in the trash can.

Even if we lifted the ban and started right now, we wouldn't see a single nuclear power station until the 2040s—that's nearly two decades away. That's too late to hit our climate targets and too late to support coal workers and communities going through the transition. It's not just about timing; it's also about cost. Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity. It is expensive to run. Let's be truthful about this policy. This policy really is about kicking the can down the road on climate change action. Let's be honest, because Australia has no commercial nuclear experience, and we're told to expect a 100 per cent premium on build costs. That's right: double the price. Who's going to pay for that? Is this a commercial idea? No. The proposal is for taxpayers to pay for this—me, my electorate, all of Australia. If we are talking about dollar figures, we're talking about $600 billion—that's a lot of coin. If we consider the budget that we delivered last night, that was $785 billion. So when you look at this one expensive idea, it is, honestly, off the charts.

Also, let's get real about workers. The future is clean, fast and affordable. It's funny: there's a really great book written by a guy called Charles Duhigg called Smarter, Faster, Better, and I can't help but think that this idea is dumber, slower, crapper. Renewables are powering homes already. The biggest form of electricity growth that we have seen in Australia has been rooftop solar. People are enjoying seeing the democratisation of their electricity. What we are seeing is that renewables are delivering jobs and delivering investment, and it's honestly cheaper because—guess what. We don't pay when the sun is shining and when the wind is blowing. What I will say is that we do need to make sure that we have firming opportunities for our electricity grid as well, so gas has a role to play in the meantime. We also have batteries, and there will be solutions like pumped hydro. We have the technology. We have the know-how. We have the workforce. We don't need another distraction; what we need is action. This report makes it clear: nuclear is not the answer. Australia can't afford to waste more time or money chasing a nuclear nightmare. Let's focus on what works and what will actually deliver cleaner, cheaper energy for all Australians.

I also want to thank the entire committee for all of the work that they did and the member for Hunter for his leadership as the chair on this inquiry. It was great to have the opportunity to spend time in Collie, which is in south-west WA. This is a country town that has been a coalmining town and a coal-fired power station town. They have done an important job of providing electricity for the state. But we saw the state government announce that we would be closing down a coal-fired power station. They did that because they knew that that was the right thing to do to ensure that we reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of our grid. What that also did was provide certainty to our workers. So what the WA state government is in the process of doing is investing in amazing industries to have a look at the way that we can create a just transition for those workers. I think that that's what coal workers want. This nuclear fantasy will not deliver jobs by the time this coal-fired power station closes down. It is not practical; it's not going to deliver real solutions.

The other thing that I wanted to talk about is what goods of the future looks like. What we're seeing is people looking at what is the most cost competitive form of energy for electricity grids. First is solar panels, and second is wind. It's cheap, and this is what we are seeing commercial businesses invest in. As we look at the grid changing, this idea of base load is actually, again, a fallacy. When people talk about the switching of coal-fired power stations to nuclear power stations, it's wrong. That's something that we don't need any more. It takes too long to ramp up the coal-fired power station and too long to ramp it down. The truth is that nuclear power stations do not have that ability and they are not compatible with the cheapest form of electricity which exists here in Australia. It's interesting because Australia has such an exciting opportunity to be a part of the clean energy revolution across the world, and that will be through renewable energy. We have an opportunity to see our electricity prices reduced, and we will do that through renewables. Nuclear power is not going to be the solution for Australia or Western Australia. We need to make sure that we invest in what's smart. We need to do things that are evidence-based. Through all of the time I have worked as an engineer in decarbonisation, this has never been an idea that the big companies have talked about, and I worked for the big ASX 200 companies on St Georges Terrace for more than a decade. I see this as the opposite of the book Smarter faster better: dumber, slower, crapper, bad idea, nuclear nightmare. Let's not vote this in.

See this speech in context