Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy, I present the committee's interim report, incorporating dissenting reports, for the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia, together with the minutes of the proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I present the committee's report titled Interim report for the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia. The establishment of this committee in October 2024 signalled a critical moment in Australia's ongoing debate on energy policy. As we navigate a rapidly evolving landscape, it is our responsibility to ensure that Australians pursue the most effective, affordable and sustainable energy solutions. Our mandate was clear: to investigate and report on potential deployment of nuclear power generation in Australia, including the feasibility of small modular reactors. This was not an ideological exercise, nor should it ever be. Rather, it was a rigorous, evidence based exploration of whether nuclear power is a viable and practical option to meet Australia's energy needs both now and into the future. Our goal was to examine the facts, assess the costs and determine whether nuclear energy is compatible with Australia's economic and environmental objectives.

Through extensive consultation, expert testimony and in-depth analysis, the committee has arrived at a definitive conclusion: nuclear power is not the right choice for Australia. The evidence is overwhelming. Nuclear energy is too slow to build, too expensive to implement and would drive up power prices for Australians. Simply put, it is not the best option for our future energy needs. Even under the most optimistic projections, the first nuclear power station in Australia would not be operational before the mid-2040s. That's two decades from now, and that's assuming it is an entirely smooth process, free from regulatory hurdles, legal challenges and unexpected cost blowouts. If history is any guide, looking at international nuclear projects suggests that delays and budget overruns are the norm, not the exception.

One of the most critical considerations in this inquiry is timing. Australia's coal-fired power stations are already being phased out, with many scheduled for closure by the operators and owners of those power stations within the next decade. A transition to alternative energy sources must be in place before these closures occur to ensure energy security and affordability for all Australians.

The reality is that nuclear energy will not be ready in time to replace these outgoing power stations. The construction and commissioning of nuclear power plants requires extensive planning, regulatory approvals and infrastructure development. Even in countries with existing nuclear expertise and supply chains, projects take well over a decade to complete. Australia, which currently has no nuclear power industry, would face even greater delays.

By the time a nuclear power plant is operational in Australia, if it ever is, our existing coal fleet will have been decommissioned, leaving a massive energy gap that cannot be ignored. This gap needs to be filled with reliable, cost-effective and rapidly deployable solutions, such as renewables and storage technology, backed up by gas. Betting on nuclear means gambling with our energy future, risking blackouts and higher energy costs due to supply shortfalls.

Throughout the inquiry, it became evident that proponents of nuclear energy, including the member for Fairfax and other LNP members of the committee and members on the other side, have consistently undermined and questioned the scientific evidence presented by reputable institutions such as AEMO, ARPANSA and the CSIRO. Rather than engaging in a genuine debate based on facts and expert analysis, they have sought to cast doubt on well-established research that highlights the financial, technical and environmental challenges of nuclear energy.

The CSIRO's GenCost report, widely regarded as the most comprehensive and independent assessment of energy costs in Australia, makes it clear that nuclear energy is significantly more expensive than renewables. The report outlines that small modular reactors—which the opposition continues to champion—remain unproven at scale, with no commercially operational examples anywhere in the world.

Despite this, the member for Fairfax and his colleagues have dismissed the CSIRO's findings, claiming that the costs are made up and misleading. They have chosen to ignore the overwhelming global evidence that nuclear power is both cost prohibitive and too slow to deploy. Instead, they have relied on cherry-picked data from nuclear industry lobbyists presenting an unrealistic picture of nuclear energy's viability in Australia.

This disregard for independent science is deeply concerning. Australia's energy policy must be driven by evidence, not an ideology. When policymakers attack institutions like the CSIRO simply because the institutions' findings do not align with their political agenda, they undermine public trust in scientific research and jeopardise Australia's transition to a clean energy future.

The findings of this interim report are so unequivocal that I assumed that the member for Fairfax would grasp them. However—

Opposition members interjecting—

Thank you for the laughter from the other side. However, it seems that I overestimated his commitment to facts and science. Rather than confronting the reality, he and his colleagues prefer to take Australians on a fanciful journey, one that leads us to a nuclear power utopia that exists only in their imaginations. Let's be clear: nuclear power in Australia is not a serious policy option. It's a distraction from real energy solutions.

The committee undertook an extensive consultation process, holding hearings across Australia over a period of 19 days and reviewing 857 written submissions. This thorough engagement with experts, stakeholders and communities reinforced what we already knew. Starting a nuclear energy sector from scratch in Australia is not just a daunting challenge; it's an impractical and unnecessary one.

One of the most pressing issues the report addresses is cost. It is clear why private investors remain hesitant to commit to nuclear. Long construction times, excessive capital costs and uncertain returns make nuclear a financial gamble. If the private sector sees nuclear as a bad investment, why should Australian taxpayers be forced to foot the bill?

Testimony from the Smart Energy Council suggests that the costs could reach an eye-watering $600 billion and potentially even more. For context, that is more than Australia's entire annual federal budget that we just handed down yesterday. That is more money that could be spent on upgrading our transmission networks, expanding battery storage and accelerating the rollout of renewables—investments that would deliver results far sooner and at a fraction of the cost.

It is deeply concerning that those advocating nuclear power have failed to provide Australians with any clarity on key details of their proposal. Their policy is riddled with uncertainties and devoid of any practical solutions.

In recent weeks, we've seen that Liberal Party members and candidates have quietly removed references to nuclear power from their websites. They're not talking about it. They're scared to talk about it. It appears that they too have come to terms with reality. Their nuclear dream is in meltdown. They are not happy with the path that their leader and shadow ministers are taking. Now that they've seen the committee's interim report on nuclear energy, they realise nuclear power won't be ready in time to help Australian workers or to keep our power affordable. They know it will drive up electricity prices. But they can't tell us how much it will cost. They can't say how long it will take. They can't say how much water it will use. They can't say where all the reactors will go, besides the seven sites suggested. They can't even tell us what reactors they're actually going to use. There are a lot of 'can'ts' in this policy, but there are not a lot of 'cans', I can tell you that.

The conclusion of this report is as clear as it is compelling. If we want reliable, affordable and sustainable power, nuclear power is not the option. It is definitely not the answer for Australia. The technology is too slow, too costly and too risky. Australia has better, faster and more cost effective alternatives to meet its energy demands. The government must now act decisively to invest in renewable storage and grid infrastructure, the technologies that will deliver the affordable, clean and reliable energy that Australians deserve.

I finish by saying thank you to all the committee members on this inquiry. Thank you to the deputy chair. We did have an enjoyable time going around and doing this inquiry. A massive thankyou to all of our staff members and a huge thankyou to the committee secretariats for all their work—what they did within the very short and demanding schedule that we had. Huge thanks go to Kate, Antonia, Ash, Kimberlee and Cathy for all their work.

I commend this report to the House.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a statement on this inquiry report.

Leave granted.

Australia already is a nuclear nation. Australians know that nuclear technology saves lives. They know that nuclear technology protects lives. They know that nuclear technology underpins livelihoods. On saving lives, Australians know the importance of our nuclear reactor, which sits just outside of Sydney's CBD, creating medical isotopes that help solve, identify and cure cancers. Australians know nuclear technology saves lives. Australians also know that nuclear technology protects lives, because both sides of this parliament have agreed to adopt nuclear propelled submarines, knowing full well that the best way to protect our nation is to invest in nuclear technology. Australians also know that nuclear technology underpins livelihoods by virtue of our world-class uranium and having the largest reserves of uranium in the world, already supplying jobs and incomes for many Australians, with enormous unlocked opportunity. So, as an already nuclear nation, what this inquiry proved was that adopting nuclear energy is the next step in Australia's journey.

What we also saw in this inquiry is that Australia is, in fact, isolated internationally by not adopting nuclear energy. Australia is the only nation of all advanced economies—the only nation in the G20—which is neither using nuclear energy today nor moving towards doing so. We are isolated internationally. In our own region of the world, we know the big players when it comes to nuclear energy. We know China. We know India. We know South Korea. But there are a string of other nations in our own region which are now moving towards adopting nuclear energy. These include Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. All of these nations in our own region are joining other nations across the world in adopting nuclear energy. We also heard evidence, including from the International Atomic Energy Agency, about the importance of nuclear energy internationally. They say that nuclear energy is already one of the largest sources of zero emissions electricity globally and that it supplies about 10 per cent of global electricity and over 25 per cent of all clean electricity.

As you look internationally, there's also a difference when it comes to nuclear energy. In Australia, thanks to the Labor Party and the Greens, this issue has become politicised because the left of politics in Australia want to make this an ideological battle. Yet, as you look around the world, what you see in other like democracies is an enormous amount of bipartisanship when it comes to nuclear energy. Much has been seen and heard of US politics of late, on the back of last year's presidential election and indeed the new Trump administration's decisions. Yet, in the United States, of all the partisanship, indeed some might say hyperpartisanship, both sides of Congress unite on one key thing: the importance of nuclear energy. It is why you see other like nations all around the world, unlike Australia, having bipartisanship on this technology. Why do the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States come together on nuclear energy? They know that, when used as part of a balanced energy mix, nuclear energy gets prices down. It solves energy security and it is the best means, the fastest means, of decarbonising electricity grids. Indeed, we've seen this again in the evidence before the committee. If you look at the world's top 5 fastest decarbonisations of electricity grids, four of the five are due to nuclear energy.

Let me go to some of the detail. In particular, the chair of this committee raised the issue of cost. I was just speaking about the United States. The United States Department of Energy released a report last year which compared the total system cost of a renewables-only plan for the US with that of a plan for a balanced energy mix of renewable storage and nuclear energy, and what the Department of Energy in the United States found is that, once you have nuclear in the mix, the total system cost reduces by 37 per cent. That data, that evidence, was not challenged by anybody through the course of this inquiry. Then you look at Australia. Independent modelling done by Frontier Economics showed something similar, and that is that, when you compare the Labor government's all-eggs-in-one-basket, renewables-only approach all the way through to 2050—the total system cost of Labor's plan—to the coalition's balanced energy mix of renewables and gas, with coal retiring from the system and zero-emissions nuclear energy, the coalition's plan is 44 per cent cheaper than Labor's plan.

Government members interjecting—

I'll take some of the interjections from those opposite. One of the big differences between Labor's plan—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Minister for Veterans' Affairs—

Government members interjecting—

This is a report. There are far too many interjections. This is not a general debate. I want to hear what the member for Fairfax has to say. Everyone is interjecting not from their seats, so that's also not helpful. We're going to listen to what the member for Fairfax says.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The total system cost of the coalition's plan to transform the national electricity market, the grid, through to 2050, including nuclear energy, is $331 billion. Again, I say that that includes the total system cost. That includes transmission, that includes renewables, and that includes gas. Labor's plan, by comparison, is 44 per cent more expensive. This independent modelling came up throughout the inquiry, yet there was not one piece of evidence that challenged the veracity of those conclusions. No evidence was put forward that could challenge the assumptions made.

When it comes to the nuclear plan of the coalition, it comes to up to $120 billion. Much has been said, including by the chair of this inquiry in his words just now, about the CSIRO and the importance of listening to the CSIRO, yet the coalition's own modelling and the independent modelling done by Frontier Economics accept a comparable capital cost of nuclear power plants, as put forward by the CSIRO, with respect to the large modern plants. The chair has just mentioned the number $600 billion. In fact, the coalition's plan is $120 billion. The chair is again exaggerating the cost by a multiple of five. What he is doing, therefore, is multiplying CSIRO's own advice by a multiple of five, undermining Labor's very argument about the importance of listening to the CSIRO. This is where Labor is exposed. In fact, they were exposed throughout the inquiry. Yet again, they are trying to multiply a figure by five, which is disingenuous—it is not honest.

There's somebody else in this chamber who has multiplied something by five. Guess who that is; he is sitting over there. It's actually the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. It's on this very same topic, and it's relevant to this inquiry, because he claims Labor's cost to get to net zero is five times cheaper than what it really is.

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House has the call. I'll just get the member for Fairfax to resume his seat for a moment.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, we've now had the deputy chair go for longer than the chair, with respect to this inquiry. So, if he wants to go for another minute and wind up his remarks, that's fine, otherwise leave will be withdrawn.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is normal practice with reports for about the same time to be given when the deputy chair and chair are speaking in the House. I'm just trying to assist the member for Fairfax and all members. If you are able to begin to conclude your remarks, that will assist the House.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On costs, again we see that what has been put forward by the Labor Party is based on deliberate untruths, and every single MP in this House knows it. Every time you use the amount '$600 million' you are exaggerating the CSIRO's costings—by a multiple of five—the coalition's costings and the independent modelling. That's independent modelling, by the way, that this government has failed to land a glove on because they know it's accurate. In fact, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, when asked about the independent modelling's first report about his own costings, which were $640 billion, stood at this dispatch box and actually said what a good report it was. Be very careful about the lack of honesty when it comes to the Labor Party on this topic.

That leads me to the second issue raised by the chair, and that is the issue of timing. Again, we had evidence after evidence come before the committee demonstrating that the coalition's plan on timing is accurate—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respect this is the biggest audience he's had, but leave is withdrawn.