Subjects: The Coalition’s plan to deliver cheaper, cleaner, and consistent energy; nuclear power.
E&OE.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
Federal Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, joins us now.
Good to see you. Thanks for joining us this morning.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks, Bridget. Thank you. Good morning.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
Well, some of the assessments in on your proposed plan: risky, financially illogical and unlikely to ever get off the ground. You must have been hoping for a better reaction to this plan and that?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, of course, that’s what people said about the AUKUS plan as well. The submarines arrive in 2040, and it’s supported on a bipartisan basis because the technology is safe and the Government, Labor’s obviously signed up to, not only the safety aspects, but also to the disposal of waste off the submarines, including the reactors at end of life.
So, those sceptics will always be out there, and I’m sure they were out there when the dairy farms were turned into a coal-fired power station originally, but I want to regenerate these communities. There will be thousands of jobs attached to each site, and the reason for that is that it’s a stable 24/7 baseload power. It supports renewables in the system. Obviously, there’s a big role for gas still to play, but the heavy industry that’s attracted to these communities is evidenced in other countries around the world, and it’ll be the underpinning of economic success, not only in those regions, but for our country for literally generations to come.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
When you say thousands of jobs attached to each project, when will Australians see the modelling that’s informed this new position from the Coalition and the cost?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Bridget, we’ve gone through this in a staged, stepped way quite deliberately, because I know that, I mean, Andrew Leigh, for example, who’s a Federal Member of Parliament, he’s part of a Government that’s signed up to putting our submariners onto the submarines with a nuclear reactor. He’s putting out photos of three-eyed fish and all of this sort of juvenile conduct, which, frankly, should be condemned, including by the ABC.
So, we have taken a deliberate step not to be held hostage by the Labor Party in the scare campaign. We want the information out there in bite-sized bits, if you like, so that people can consume exactly what it is that we’re proposing and understand what it’s not proposing. We’re only talking about coal-fired power stations that are at end of life. That’s because there’s an existing transmission network, so the poles and wires already there, so we don’t need Labor’s new 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires through national parks and pristine farming land, etc. and it provides the opportunity to talk about that aspect of our proposal and we’ll release the next stage in due course.
There’s been months and months and months of work put into this policy. I believe it’s in our country’s best interests.
I understand the sectional interests and people who are invested into green technologies and the rest of it, but my job is not to make rich people richer. My job is to provide an environment where electricity is cheaper, it’s consistent, it’s cleaner.
We can do that through nuclear power, as 19 of the world’s top 20 economies have done. Australia’s the only outlier in that regard.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
Let’s talk about some examples internationally. Germany, for example, moving away from nuclear because of the risks – that’s part of what’s informed that country’s decision. Are the risks something we need to think about here in Australia if we’re going down this path?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I mean, if you look at the facts in relation to Germany, Germany takes nuclear power from France, as does Italy. So, the economy doesn’t function in Germany without the nuclear power, and they don’t meet their emissions targets without being able to rely on the zero emissions technology of nuclear power. We know in France, in Paris, for example, about 70 per cent of the power there is generated through nuclear. It underpins the renewables, and that’s exactly what we’re proposing here.
We know off the back of the last COP process, that all of the major countries signed up to a tripling of the amount of nuclear in the system – because when you listen to President Macron, if you listen to President Biden, if you listen to Keir Starmer in the United Kingdom at the moment, they are all advocates for increased nuclear in the system. The Labor Party here is about the only outlier. I think people see through what is a pretty shallow attack so far, and a Prime Minister without a vision for our country, and too weak to make the decisions that will underpin our economic success for the next 80 to 100 years.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
Well, you know, as well as I do, that the cost of living is front and centre in people’s mind right now. It’s something that has informed, I think, this position that you’ve had because you say it’s going to be cheaper. So, surely Australians need to know right now how much this is going to cost? Is it going to be as much as $16 billion per site?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Bridget, we’ll release those costings in due course, but I just point to the other comparable nations. In Ontario, where 60 per cent of the energy is provided through nuclear and to firm up the renewables in that system, people are paying as little as a quarter the electricity costs that that people are, say, in Victoria or South Australia. It’s quite remarkable when you go market by market around the world – bearing in mind that there are over 440 reactors around the world that are operating successfully now – in those markets, electricity is cheaper.
Part of the reason for that is that a wind turbine project probably has an amortisation period, or a lifespan, of about two decades. So, in terms of the current debate in the Illawarra, it’s about $10 billion over 20-to-30 years, the proponents say.
If you look at a nuclear project, you’ve got an 80-to-100 year amortisation period. So, the capital cost is spread over a longer period of time. We know that at the end of 20 years, the 600-to-1000 cubic metres of concrete in the ground for each individual wind turbine needs to be blasted out – a huge impact on the environment.
So, our policy is really about how do we yield the maximum amount of energy from the least impact on our environment, and, as Bill Gates points out, nuclear is the best option in that regard.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
Let’s talk about the social licence and the community support you’d need to get this done. Have you been out in the communities where you’re proposing to have these sites? Have you spoken to people on the ground? Are you sure you’ve got enough support to be able to do this? Because we’re hearing from people in some of the regions, particularly in Gippsland, who are saying ‘we really don’t want this in our backyard’.
PETER DUTTON:
Yeah, look, I think the scare campaign from the Labor Party is obvious, and that’ll continue. There are people, as I say…
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
I wasn’t talking about that. These are people who haven’t been influenced, I don’t think, necessarily by what the Government’s said yet. They’re just talking about the merits of the proposal as they stand, and they don’t want, necessarily, nuclear in their regions. A lot of people saying they’re quite committed to the transition to renewables.
PETER DUTTON:
Yeah, well, as I say, there’ll be different views and there are Labor Mayors and others who will be influencing this for political reasons. But, in the end, we make decisions that are in our country’s best interests, and I believe very strongly that the communities receive a great benefit. We’ve had in-depth conversations with our local Members who know their communities better than anyone about the options available.
I see some of the commentary in relation to Lithgow, for example, where shops are shuttered up, and we have the ability to bring in data centres. AI will play a huge role into the future, but it’s very energy intensive, and all of that industry is attracted to a low-cost environment where you’ve got reliable baseload power.
We know over the last two years, for example, Bridget, that manufacturing firms in our country have closed – those numbers are up threefold. They’re going to Malaysia and to other countries because they’ve got cheaper electricity, they’ve got reliable electricity.
We’ve got an energy regulator at the moment – the independent regulator – who’s saying that under Mr Albanese’s ‘renewables only’ policy, we’re going to have blackouts and brownouts, and business just can’t operate in an environment. You can’t operate hospitals or cold rooms, the local butcher or the local IGA doesn’t operate without a stable energy market, and that’s the reason that we’ve looked at the world experience, and we believe that there’s significant benefit for that community.
But I respect there’ll be a diversity of views.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
But presumably there’s not going to be an impact of this in at least ten years, some people saying, possibly, 20 years?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, on our analysis – and we’ve spoken to a number of experts – we believe that somewhere between 2035 and ’37 we can get the first two projects off the ground, and then there’s a gradual rollout through the 2040s, up to the point where by 2050 – we are the only Party going into this election with a credible pathway to net zero by 2050. That much is obvious.
I believe very strongly in making sure that we can reduce our emissions, but not destroying our economy in the process, and that’s exactly what Labor’s doing at the moment.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
Would you continue to supercharge renewables projects? Like how important do you think that is between now and when a potential nuclear project gets underway? Would there still be regulation and increased investment in renewable projects?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes, I think there must be, and we put a lot of money into prospective technologies when we were in government. We put a lot of money into green hydrogen, for example. We know that about 90 per cent of the 24/7 power comes out of the system by 2034, so gas is going to play a huge role. This is something that Chris Bowen denied 12 months ago, but of course, they’ve now signed up to the reality, and we also know that…
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
Gas is not a renewable, though, is it?
PETER DUTTON:
No, no, but the lights go off without it, and the energy regulator has been very clear about that. So, I think some of the emotion is being replaced with reality, and if you listen to younger Australians, we know that in Newspoll, 18-to-34 year-olds, almost two thirds of them support nuclear power because they’re well-read, they understand what’s happening in Europe and across the world in relation to nuclear, they’re passionate about reducing emissions, and they know that it’s a safe technology.
So, I think there are so many elements to this debate, and, when properly informed, we know that there has to be a transition, but we can’t turn the old system off until the new one is ready.
You’ve now got Labor Governments at a state level, negotiating to extend the life of coal-fired power stations, and my argument is that we also should be treating regional Australians equally to the way that we treat Australians. I live just close to a major city, and there’s no way in the world that my electorate here would tolerate wind turbines on the landscape, 260 metres in the air.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
Would it tolerate a new nuclear power plant?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, there’s no coal-fired power station here, so it’s a silly question, but if you look at other electorates, and some of the Mayors, including in Tarong, the site that we proposed there as well, they have a community which knows that the community’s going to die without the coal-fired power station that comes to an end of life, and they can see the job opportunities that will be created here, and that it can be done in a safe way.
My point is that they have considerable concern about the burden that they’re wearing with the solar panels and the solar arrays. Everyone’s in support of rooftop solar, it’s a great technology and hopefully community batteries form a big part of the picture into the future as well. But those Australians aren’t being listened to at the moment, and the 260 metre out-of-the-ground wind turbines are causing all sorts of community angst in those communities, as is the disruption to marine life, and the environment with the offshore projects as well. That’s causing a lot of debate, and we can’t just ignore that community sentiment because people live away from a capital city.
BRIDGET BRENNAN:
Look, I really appreciate your time this morning, Peter Dutton, for diving into this, and we’ll talk again soon. Thanks.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks, Bridget. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[ends]