Subjects: The Coalition’s plan to deliver cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy; nuclear power.
E&OE
PETER DUTTON:
Thank you very much for being here today.
I’m very pleased to be joined by my colleagues, because this is a major announcement. The future of our country is incredibly important, and we need to have a plan for the economy, we need to have a plan for the jobs and we need to have a plan for cheaper electricity.
The Prime Minister has no vision for our country because he can’t manage the Government day-to-day. We’ve done an enormous amount of work – I want to pay tribute to Ted O’Brien. We’ve looked at the international experience, we’ve looked at why Australians are paying the highest electricity prices in the world, we’ve looked at the expert advice from the regulator – who’s now telling us that under Labor’s renewables only policy, there is a greater likelihood of blackouts and brownouts. We know that the Government has a renewables only policy, which is just not fit for purpose. No other country in the world can keep the lights on 24/7 with the renewables only policy.
We need to make sure that hospitals can stay on 24/7, we need to make sure that cold rooms can stay on 24/7, we need to make sure that our economy can function 24/7. We can only do that with a strong baseload power.
Today we announce seven locations that we have looked at, in great detail, over a long period of time, that can host new nuclear sites, and that will be part of an energy mix – obviously with renewables and significant amounts of gas into the system, particularly in the interim period.
It will mean that on those end of life coal fired power station sites, we can utilise the existing distribution network – this is a really important point. Labor has promised 28,000kms of new poles and wires. There’s no transparency about where that will go, and we’ve been very clear about the fact that we don’t believe in that model. We want to utilise the existing assets that we’ve got, and the poles and wires that are used at the moment on coal fired power station sites, can be utilised to distribute the energy generated from the latest generation of nuclear reactors. We have the ability to do that in a way that renewables can’t.
I want to make sure that the Australian public understands today, that we have a vision for our country to deliver cleaner electricity, cheaper electricity and consistent electricity. This is a plan for our country which will underpin a century of economic growth and jobs for these communities.
There’s no sense pretending that our economy can operate without a stable energy system, and our plan today, which will include these seven sites, is integral to the energy roadmap for our country, into the future.
The assets will be owned by the Commonwealth – a very important point – and we’ll work with experts to deliver these programmes. We’ll work with the State Premiers – some debate about that I see – as you know, somebody famously said, ‘I wouldn’t stand between a Premier and a bucket of money’, and we’ve seen the Premiers in different debates before where they’ve been able to negotiate with the Commonwealth, and we’ll be able to address those issues.
So, I’m going to ask David to say a few words, the other colleagues will speak and then I’m happy to take questions from there.
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
Well, thanks Dutto.
It’s a proud day to be the Nationals Leader. This has been a long held view of the National Party. I’m very proud to be standing here with my Coalition friends, led by Peter Dutton, who’s had the courage and the conviction to come forward, to stand forward and show a different way for Australia. That takes leadership and strength in leadership. And a vision, a vision for our country, where Australians will once again own some of their generation of power in this country. A vision for manufacturing in this country, that’ll underpin it with the fundamentals of 24/7 power – that means Australian taxpayers don’t need to keep subsidising it to keep it going. But we’re addressing the fundamentals to give certainty to those manufacturers right across the country.
It’s about a vision for regional Australia, one that isn’t covered in solar panels and wind turbines and transmission lines. It’s one that gives them hope that they can continue to give you the food security you enjoy every day, and continue to try and keep your food prices down. It’s a vision for the men and women who are in our coal fired power stations across our country, in the Latrobe, in Collie, in Port Augusta, in the Hunter, in Lithgow, in Callide and Biloela, and in Tarong, in my own electorate.
This is a vision, and a belief in them that their part in our Australian economy, and what they have made for us, that they’re still part of that. This is a vision for them to know that under a Coalition Government, we’re going to change not only the culture of this country, but we’re going to leave a legacy to this country – the legacy of a change of culture. Why not to do things, rather than how to do it and get on and do it. That’s the leadership that Peter Dutton and David Littleproud intend to bring to the Australian people.
We’re going to give them hope, when all seems lost, it’s now time for strength in leadership. It’s a time for the Coalition to take over and to lead our nation away from this madness of an all renewables approach, and understand the role that regional Australia is proud to play in it, if you give us that chance.
So, Peter and my Coalition friends, I couldn’t be prouder than today to stand here with you in what is a vision finally for this nation over the last two years that has been lost. So thanks Dutto.
SUSSAN LEY:
Thank you, Peter, and thank you for your clear eyed and consistent leadership on an issue that is so vital for the future of our country, for our children and our grandchildren. How can this Prime Minister promise a ‘future made in Australia’, when he can’t keep the lights on today? In order to have that ‘future made in Australia’, we have to have nuclear energy in the mix.
Now, Labor promised to rebuild manufacturing, but instead, we’ve got a train wreck of energy policy right across this country. We have seen the number of manufacturers going to the wall, triple, since Labor came into government. Insolvencies in manufacturing and construction are at record highs, higher than they’ve been since the global financial crisis. This is not good news. But the latest generation, nuclear technology – used by 19 of the 20 biggest economies – will give us long term, lower, power prices.
This nuclear energy is such a good opportunity for Australian jobs. So, our vision is to make sure that we underpin our economic success with jobs for decades to come in industries where Australia has that competitive advantage. Because if we do that, if we build more things here, we can grow our economy. Our nuclear plan will put our country back on track.
To all of the men and women, the families and the communities, that work hard every day in our manufacturing industries, doing long, hard hours on factory floors across regional Australia, across the suburbs in our cities, this is a plan for all of you, for cheaper energy, for an optimistic future and for the future to really, really be made in Australia.
TED O’BRIEN:
Thank you very much. Thank you Peter, thank you colleagues.
Labor is turning the lights out. Prices will soar, jobs will be shed and industries will collapse. Australians will be left poorer and our nation weaker. All this, and emissions have flatlined. In fact, our local environment is being severely damaged, but it’s only going to get worse. This is a direct consequence of Labor putting all its eggs in one basket with a renewables only policy.
Renewables have stalled under Labor. Gas is being suffocated with a lack of supply, and we have 90 per cent of Australia’s 24/7 baseload power exiting the grid over the next decade, with no chance of a replacement being ready in time. Labor is turning off one system before having another one ready to go. Australia is running out of energy.
Now, only the Coalition has the ability to get Australia back on track. Our plan is to deliver cheaper, cleaner and consistent 24/7 electricity as part of a balanced energy mix. Today, and historically, we have had a balanced use in Australia. Today, we have renewables, we have gas and we have coal. As we move forward into the future, we see an Australia that will still have a balanced mix of technologies: renewables, gas, and as coal retires from the system, it will be replaced with zero emissions nuclear energy.
This is the natural next step for us as a nuclear nation. Australia already is a nuclear nation. We know that nuclear technology saves lives, we know that because we have a nuclear reactor operating here in Sydney. It’s been operating for decades, saving lives, especially diagnosing and treating cancers. Technology we know that also protects lives through the AUKUS deal with the United States and the United Kingdom, Australia will have nuclear propelled submarines, and we know that nuclear technology also underpins livelihoods. As a country with the largest reserves of uranium powering nuclear plants the world over – despite having none of our own – we know the economic importance of nuclear technology. So today, we go that one step further as a Coalition, under Peter Dutton’s leadership, to spell out what our plan is to introduce a civil nuclear programme into Australia.
Now, this is about far more than just solving the problems Labor has created. This represents a new era of economic prosperity for Australia, a new era underpinned by an abundance of cheap, clean and consistent 24/7 electricity. And at the front of that economic wave, will be those host communities across regional Australia. Those seven communities which have been identified, which will host these zero emissions nuclear power plants, and we’ll be working together with them to define the vision specifically tailored to their area, because they will be uniquely placed as all Australian households and businesses benefit with cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy. Well, these communities in particular, will have the cheapest and cleanest and most consistent energy in the country.
Today, I believe, represents an enormous milestone in what has been a very open and transparent discussion with the Australian people about what a future Australia can look like. We have what it takes, we already are a nuclear nation, and it’s with enormous hope and optimism that I look towards the only credible pathway to decarbonise and reach net zero, while ensuring Australia remains a highly prosperous country, a strong country, and a fiercely independent one.
Thanks very much.
ANGUS TAYLOR:
Thanks Ted. Good to be here with my colleagues.
This truly is an incredibly important day for our energy system, for our economy, and for our nation. What we are laying out today is a pathway to lower emissions, affordable, reliable, baseload 24/7 energy to this country.
We’ve seen, under Labor, an energy train wreck, and my colleagues have laid out many of the implications of that, but it’s also an economic train wreck. An economic train wreck that this weak Treasurer in Australia right now, has not seen fit to challenge. He doesn’t challenge his colleagues who are doing the wrong things to the economy, because he is a weak Treasurer, and he doesn’t understand the economy, and we’re seeing the implications of that.
As Sussan said, we’re seeing industry and manufacturing shutting down in this country. We’ve seen Qenos shutting up shop, Kwinana Alumina Refinery shutting up shop, we’re seeing insolvencies, as Sussan said, across the country right now, and there’s no doubt, there’s more to come – jobs lost. That is not how you make things in Australia. So, we need for our strong economy, we need reliable, affordable, falling emissions energy, and that’s the pathway that we’re laying out today.
Now, we’ve made very clear, as Peter said earlier, the Government will own these nuclear generators. The Treasurer was very confused about all of this, this morning. He doesn’t understand the difference between ownership and return on capital, but this is a Treasurer who’s a doctor of spin, not a doctor of economics. So it’s understandable he doesn’t understand basic economics. But that is the reality of what we’re facing with the pathway he’s taking us down.
What we’re laying out today, is a pathway forward for this nation, that I’m very proud to be part of, and that will serve us well for many decades to come.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, what’s the cost? What’s the cost? Because the CSIRO says it’s $8 billion a reactor. You’re talking about small modular reactors. And are you talking about – let’s just get this clear – seven nuclear power plants? Or the opportunity for seven nuclear power plants?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Andrew, as we know, in the Government’s plan, it’s about $1.2 to $1.5 trillion. That’s an enormous cost. All of that’s going to be passed on to consumers. Our proposal will cost a fraction of that cost. We’ll have more to say in relation to the cost in due course, and as you know, we’ve done this in a step-by-step process. The focus today is on the sites.
To answer the second part of your question, we’ve done an analysis on each of the sites. We’ll continue to work with experts in this field, to identify the best technology for those sites. This is a huge win for these local economies. Let’s be very clear about it.
As we see in the United States, economies are bolstered by clean energy, cheaper energy and reliable energy, because it attracts heavy industry and it attracts, jobs. This is why, when you look at the investment that we’re making, it’s over an 80 year period. So, the amortisation period is much longer than, say a wind turbine project, which is about 19 years. So, that’s what allows you to deliver the cheaper electricity.
So, in terms of the small modular reactor, the AP1000 or whatever it might be that we believe would be the best for each of those sites. We’ll have those discussions in due course, and there are some limitations, obviously, in terms of what you can do from Opposition as opposed to Government, but it will be a fraction of the Government’s cost. But it will be a big bill, there’s no question about that.
This is about modernising our energy system, it’s about making sure that we have cheap electricity, it’s about making sure that we underpin economic growth and jobs growth for generations to come.
QUESTION:
This is the biggest announcement I can remember for a Federal Opposition. Why can’t you come to us with a cost on this? Do you believe the CSIRO’s $8 billion cost?
PETER DUTTON:
We’ll deal with the cost in the next stage of our policy announcements, but today, I want the very clear focus to be on the fact that the sites that we’re proposing are end of use coal fired power station sites.
So, when you hear Labor go out and say, ‘is it going to be in this park?’, ‘will it be on this beach?’, all of that childish behaviour that we’ll expect from the Prime Minister, the cartoon characters, all of that; it’s time for an adult conversation about keeping the lights on and pushing power prices down.
We’re in the middle of a cost of living crisis that Labor’s created in this country, and we have a plan to take our country forward, to reduce electricity prices, to make sure that we get our emissions down. As we know…
QUESTION:
Seven plants, though?
PETER DUTTON:
In the top 20 economies in the world, Australia is the only one, the only one that doesn’t have or hasn’t signed up to nuclear energy. So, in those markets, we know that electricity is much cheaper than what it is here, and I want to make sure that when we talk to pensioners, who this winter, under this Government, will either heat or eat, but not both. That is not acceptable in our country. So, we’ll deal with that.
QUESTION:
Isn’t the issue though, that the states don’t approve nuclear reactors. [inaudible] doesn’t improve it, and you don’t have any costings that show that actually electricity prices will come down, isn’t it fair to say that we have heard about voodoo economics, isn’t this voodoo energy, because it’s never going to happen?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, this sounds like the green hydrogen argument, you see? Where the Government’s saying that with 90 per cent of the baseload power coming out by 2034, that’s going to be replaced by green hydrogen. Which you know is prospective, and it’s not commercial, and it’s not a plan, so that is the voodoo environmental economics.
Of course, there are some investors out there, some green millionaires who have huge investments, their portfolios are heavily invested into green energies and renewable energies. So, they will be concerned because we’re not offering them the chance to invest in this. We want this to be a national asset, and I’m not interested in lining the pockets of rich green millionaires, I want to bring down the prices of electricity for the average mums and dads.
So, if we look at the international experience…
QUESTION:
[inaudible] In New South Wales…
PETER DUTTON:
Well just, let me answer that question, because in the international experience, as we know, electricity is cheaper where there is a presence of nuclear energy. That is a fact. So, we can rely on that international experience.
In relation to the issues around the Senate. We go to the next election seeking a mandate from the Australian people, a very clear mandate that we want support to modernise our energy system. We want support to enact our vision for our country, which is about underpinning economic growth and jobs for decades and generations to come. That’s the mandate that we seek, and that is the mandate that I believe that we will act on in the Parliament, and we’ll work with the Premiers, in a constructive way.
As we know, in New South Wales, it’s already a nuclear state. Since 1958, Lucas Heights has operated successfully. I saw some talk the other day, ‘oh, what will happen to house prices?’, what’s happened to house prices in Lucas Heights? They’ve gone up in a similar way that other suburbs have here in New South Wales. What will happen in Osborne, where Premier Malinauskas signed up to the AUKUS deal? There will be a reactor there where submariners, in Australian uniforms, will be sleeping in the submarine alongside the reactor in a safe way, and Osborne is a matter of kilometres away from local communities. In Henderson, in WA, then Premier McGowan signed up to the AUKUS deal where the nuclear reactors in the submarines will be there alongside residential and industrial areas.
So, those Premiers have shown a level of pragmatism. Before we signed up to AUKUS, nobody believed it could happen. Everyone said that the Premiers wouldn’t agree to it, they did. So, we’ll work with the Premiers, because it’s in our national interest.
Labor has a train wreck of an energy policy, and Australians know it. When the Prime Minister says, ‘oh, it’s free to have wind and solar’, if it’s free, why are your bills going up by $1,000? The Prime Minister promised a reduction of $275 – it hasn’t eventuated, and the power prices under Labor will continue to escalate exponentially. Not only that, we’re going to see a disruption to power, which is an economy where businesses can’t manufacture. You can’t turn these processes on and off, you can’t turn the smelter on and off, and that’s why we’ve seen a closure in manufacturing, three-fold – as Sussan pointed out before – three-fold increase over the last two years.
QUESTION:
How do you plan to get two reactors commissioned in 10 to 12 years? When you compare it to something like Snowy 2.0, which takes 10 years from funding to finish, and then you’ve got the entirely new skill base that you need to get, and you’ve got to have Parliament lift a moratorium on it. How is that remotely feasible?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I mean this is a good question to the Government in terms of AUKUS. The AUKUS submarines will arrive in 2040, and that’s a decision that we’ve taken now, with a lead time. There’s no question about the lead time. We’re not proposing to have a bespoke built arrangement, we want to rely on the international experience. We don’t want to be the purchaser of the first in class, or have an Australian made technology. We want to rely on the Westinghouse AP1000, which Poland has just signed up to. Their project is the equivalent of taking 9 million cars off the road. This is a sensible way in which we can utilise existing technologies, introduce them into Australia – when you speak to Bechtel and other companies who’ve been involved in the construction of these plants in different parts of the world – there is a very clear pathway.
The other point that I’d make is that what we want to do is reduce our environmental impact. So, this is the Bill Gates argument, which I think is a compelling one: a 470 megawatt small modular reactor requires two hectares of land. The similar land size to yield that amount of energy in a solar array is 4,000 hectares, or 10,000 acres. So, the environmental impact is something that we need to consider.
So it’s not just about reducing electricity prices and having consistency, or reliability in energy. It’s about utilising this technology to make sure that we can have the best possible pathway to meeting our net zero by 2050. Labor does not have a credible pathway to achieve net zero by 2050, and President Biden and President Macron have pointed this out. If you don’t have nuclear in the mix, you’re not going to achieve your net zero by 2050. So, the utilisation of that existing technology is going to be integral, and it will be part of the success that we have in delivering our vision for Australia.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, the Commonwealth doesn’t own – well, do they own any of these sites? So are you talking about compulsory acquisition, or negotiating with the owners, I guess, in terms of the sites? Have you consulted the owners of the sites? And once again, can I ask, are you talking about seven nuclear power plants or the opportunity for seven?
PETER DUTTON:
No, we’re talking about seven nuclear power plants. We’ve identified those sites. We want to utilise the end of life coal fired power station sites because the poles and wires already exist.
When Labor talks about their 28,000km of poles and wires, they won’t tell you where they’re going, but they go through national parks, they go through prime farming land, and we don’t propose that as feasible. Frankly, I don’t think Chris Bowen has the capacity to roll it out.
QUESTION:
So how do you get the site?
PETER DUTTON:
So, in terms of that part of your question, we will work with the companies, the owners of the sites, and if we find a situation where we apply a national interest test and we require that site to be part of the national grid, then the legal advice that we have is the Commonwealth has ample power to compulsorily acquire that site with just compensation. But our desire is to work with the companies, and we will. These companies are pragmatic. Some have a position at the moment because they’re heavily invested into renewables.
When you look at some of these millionaires pretending to be billionaire green investors, their job is to take taxpayers’ money and increase prices for electricity and turn that into a bottom line profit for them and for their families. The job that I have and that the Prime Minister, frankly, should be stepping up to, is how do we deliver a reliable system that will underpin economic growth and jobs for decades and generations to come? How do we reduce electricity prices instead of increasing them so that there can be greater profits for these billionaires? I’m not interested in those people. I’m interested in the Australian public and how we can help them with the cost of living crisis that Labor’s created. This is a very significant step toward that outcome.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, can I just ask about the regional deals, can you just explain how much money you see going into things like public services and infrastructure for the communities that host these plants? And given they’re going to be Government owned, won’t that outweigh the benefit taxpayers get through electricity bill relief, by having to actually fund the plants?
PETER DUTTON:
I’ll let Ted add to the answer, but there’s a heavy engagement with local communities about the benefits for those communities. When you go into these communities and understand the approach, there’s a high level of energy IQ, I might say, within many of these communities because people are working in the energy industry now, or they’re associated, they’re a subcontractor to the coal fired power plant, or there are generations of their family who have been involved in the provision of those services. Those people have strong support for these plans because they know that in a solar panel investment that’s made in the local region, there are very few, to be honest, very few jobs that are sustainable over the long run, and they’re short held assets.
In relation to this proposal, they are an asset of between 80 and 100 years, it will provide multi-generational jobs and opportunities for that local economy, and there will be a benefit –particularly because you don’t have the distribution cost to those energies that will be attracted to that local area. That’s where the jobs are created, where they’re not under the renewables only policy. So that will be important, and I’ll ask Ted to add to the rest.
TED O’BRIEN:
Just to add to Peter’s answer, firstly, when it comes to all households and all businesses benefiting from zero emissions in the mix, we will have plenty of time in due course to talk about the costings once we release them here in the Australian context. But I point to Ontario in Canada, there you have up to 60 per cent of their energy mix in the grid, coming from zero emissions, nuclear energy. Their households pay around about 14 cents kilowatt hour. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 cents a kilowatt hour from July 1 this year. Now, when you talk to the Canadians, indeed when you sit down with the Energy Minister from that province, he makes it crystal clear that, in fact, it’s nuclear as part of the mix that drives prices down.
Peter made it very clear to me, when I came to this role, what our priorities are, and we are putting Australians at the centre. When it comes to doing the modelling, we are putting consumers at the centre. There is no reason why, as you scan the rest of the world, nuclear drives prices down, that it wouldn’t be the same here in Australia. Indeed, I believe that is precisely what is going to happen.
Then when it comes to the communities, to point to a different example, only a few days ago, they broke ground on a site in Kemmerer, in Wyoming, and this will be a transition from coal to nuclear. In fact, the technology is the one associated with Bill Gates. In that state of the US, they never had nuclear, they saw no reason for it because they had abundant coal, but as part of the energy transition, they decided to look at zero emissions, nuclear energy, and they ended up having four different communities that hosted coal plants, putting their hand up, bidding for it, because they acknowledged the benefit. For example, the Department of Energy in the United States, estimates that around about 77 per cent of jobs in a coal plant can seamlessly transition over to a zero emissions nuclear plant. So, you can imagine what this means to local communities, to mums and dads and their kids as they look to the future, that their own local communities.
We are talking about underpinning not just the local economies for another 80 up to 100 years, but also underpinning Australia’s energy security and avoiding energy poverty on the part of the Australian consumer.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, how do you cover the energy shortfall in the time it takes to get these plants built?
PETER DUTTON:
Through gas, as a very significant part of the mix. As coal phases out – and as we know, 90 per cent of baseload goes by 2034 – a lot of that coal and whilst the Government didn’t want to acknowledge that 12 months ago, they too, I think now admit that coal will play a very significant part and we’ll have that in our system for a long time to go. We’ve got an abundance of gas in our country, and we’ve got the ability to use that for peaking, and that’ll be an important part of the transition.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, why seven power plants? And when will the seven be complete under your plan?
PETER DUTTON:
So, we’ve looked at each of the sites – importantly and I suppose just back to the previous question – we’ve now got Labor Governments negotiating with coal fired power stations to be extended – so the life to be pushed out. So in a couple of cases, we think that the State Government’s are likely to push that out further than what they’re publicly saying now, because the energy system just won’t cope with an absence of that amount of energy in the network. So we’ve made some assumptions around that and we’ve looked at water, we’ve looked at the infrastructure, we’ve looked at capacity of the networks and the poles and wires that exist there at the moment – and that’s the basis on which we’ve made the announcement.
It allows us to put enough nuclear into the system, such that it provides the firming power and, such that it brings downward pressure on prices…
QUESTION:
When complete? When will this be complete?
PETER DUTTON:
Oh sorry. So, in terms of the first two, which we’ve – and Ted can go into some more detail – but so we say between 2035 and 37, depending on which technology you use, and then out into the 2040s. So ahead of 2050, and that is achievable, it’s a sensible rollout, and given capacity constraints within infrastructure providers, etc., that is a reasonable runway for them over the 2040s as well.
QUESTION:
What other countries have done that sort of rollout? Zero to seven in that sort of time? Do you have any?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I mean there are 400, 450? How many reactors around the world at the moment, Ted? So, the fact is that you can look at different factors in each environment. I mean, some will roll out more quickly than others. In some cases they’re going for a bespoke build, which is of no interest to us whatsoever. The technology is available. When you look at products that Westinghouse has or Hitachi or GE, you look at the Canadian experience – there’s the ability to roll out. We’ve spoken with a number of companies in the infrastructure space about the timelines that we’re proposing and people feel comfortable with those.
QUESTION:
Are you not concerned that SMRs don’t exist commercially in the world yet?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, again, green hydrogen doesn’t exist in the world at the moment. Here in our country, the Prime Minister’s proposing that that will be a replacement. At the moment, the AUKUS submarine doesn’t exist. But we know the technology’s there, and we know that the technology that exists in the nuclear propulsion systems on those submarines, proposed to be used by our country, but already used by others, is there and it’s able to be translated…
QUESTION:
And are you concerned that this [inaudible]…
PETER DUTTON:
…Sorry – and that’s why you look at the 2035 and not, you know, 2028, whatever might be. So you give yourself plenty of room and that’s the sensible approach to it. We’ve taken a prudent approach. But it is all about bringing down electricity prices and keeping the lights on, and that’s what we’re doing.
QUESTION:
This would appear to put us in breach of interim Paris targets, because the Paris Agreement necessitates that we hit targets in ’30-’35. Does that concern you?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, my concern is with residents here in Australia. We’ll meet our international obligations. We’re committed to Paris. But I’m not going to sign up to the Prime Minister’s plan to force up electricity prices when Australians can’t afford to pay their bills now. I’m not going to sign up to a plan that sees industry leave our shore, manufacturing in Malaysia or somewhere else and just reimport the product. The Prime Minister’s out there talking about Australia Made – it’s never going to happen. Will never happen on his watch. Because if you don’t have secure, affordable, cleaner energy, you don’t have a modern economy.
Our proposal, again, as I say, is about helping Australians. The Prime Minister’s looking at a 65 to 75 per cent target for 2035. What does that mean? I mean, why is it not 85 per cent? Why not 95 per cent? Why is it not 62 per cent? Where is the model and how much will it drive up electricity prices?
Anthony Albanese will go to the next election guaranteeing you that Labor will force up electricity prices and put unreliability into the system – that means blackouts and brownouts. So if you’re paying a lot for your groceries now, wait to see where Labor has us in two, or three years time because it’s not just your electricity bill that’s going through the roof under Labor, it’s the local IGA, it’s the farmer with the cold rooms, it’s everybody in the supply chain and that cost is passed on to you through higher grocery prices and higher prices across the economy contributes to inflation now. That’s why we have to have a responsible plan and that’s our announcement today.
QUESTION:
The New South Wales Premier has said this morning he’s not going to overturn the state’s ban on nuclear, as I think, are Victoria and Queensland. How are you going to avoid years of fighting with the states on this?
PETER DUTTON:
We’ll negotiate with the states. The AWU is strongly in support of it. If the Labor Party chooses a leader with backbone, somebody like Bob Hawke, as opposed to their current leader, then we’d have a mature debate about this. But the Prime Minister wants to put out photos of fish and pictures of beaches, and pretend in his nirvana that the wind turbines spin around when the winds not blowing and he pretends that the solar panels can work of a night time.
We need a Prime Minister who can stand up for our country and this Prime Minister can’t do that. I believe very strongly, that there is a lot of positive sentiment for nuclear within the Labor Party that you’re not hearing about at the moment. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Labour Party there is arguing during the course of their election campaign, that more nuclear should be put into the system and they’re blaming the Tories for not having enough baseload nuclear. We know in Europe, the Greens and others are strongly supportive of nuclear because they can’t reach their 2050 targets without it – this is a point made by President Macron and President Biden and others.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, many Australian families are nervous about the prospect of living near a nuclear power plant. How do you convince them that this is safe? And do you agree with Chris Bowen that the election is now a referendum on nuclear?
PETER DUTTON:
I’m very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear, on power prices, on lights going out, on who has a sustainable pathway for our country going forward. As I said before, this Prime Minister has no vision for our country because he can’t manage the Government on a day-to-day basis. We have been very honest, open and transparent with the Australian public. This technology operates around the world and is safe, or the Government wouldn’t have signed up to it under AUKUS.
I’ll just say this, would a Prime Minister sign up to an AUKUS deal using this nuclear technology to propel submarines, and to have our members of the Australian Navy on those submarines 24/7, if he thought, or she thought that that technology was unsafe? No. And so you don’t even hear the Labor Party talking about the technology being unsafe.
Would the Prime Minister have signed an agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom, which requires Australia to dispose of the waste from the submarines and the reactors at end of life, if he thought, or she thought that it wasn’t safe to do so? No. And so the Government has signed up in that circumstance, and the Premiers have agreed to those submarines being constructed, and worked on in maintenance cycles in South Australia, in Western Australia.
So let’s have a mature debate about each element. Ours includes not just nuclear, but renewables and gas. That’s the modern reality of how our energy system should operate – because without a credible energy policy you have no economy.
QUESTION:
Can we ask a question of Mr Littleproud?
PETER DUTTON:
Sure.
QUESTION:
Mr Littleproud, yesterday you were saying there should be a cap on large renewables. Well, I’m just wondering, given what we’ve heard today, [inaudible] obviously renewables are on the nose as far as the Liberal National Party is concerned. Is there a concern that you’re sending a message for anyone considering a solar plant, a new battery and so on, just step back? And in doing so, you hold back – you make the grid more unstable and actually lift prices. And separately your member, Keith Pitt this morning was talking about cutting Queensland off from the National Electricity Market, keeping electricity in Queensland. Aren’t we talking about dismantling, in other words, the national electricity market?
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
No, and Keith Pitt’s a backbencher and, obviously, his opinion we respect. We respect diversity on our party room – that’s what makes us a stronger Coalition. We can have ideas, but we are a national energy grid and we will contribute right up and down the East Coast. That will be shared through this plan again today.
With respect to the renewables, I think some of what has been reported only reports some of what I said. What we’ve announced today reduces the need for as much industrial scale renewable energy. That’s a good thing for regional Australia, particularly when we’re going to be the ones that host it. We’re the ones that have the jobs. So that’s a good thing. I believe that renewables will play a significant role in our decarbonisation – they already have. But appreciate that industrial scale that’s happened so far has happened where existing transmission lines are.
So the pain that we feel in my part world, and I just say to our metropolitan viewers: please, just understand our lived experience. We want to achieve net zero by 2050, we have to because you know what? Our people will hurt if we don’t, our commodities will be tariffed, our capital markets will [inaudible] somewhere between 1.5 and 3 per cent. I can’t look my people in the eye and say we can’t make that international community…
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton…
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
But hold on. We can’t have regional Australia bear all that brunt. I just say, while the ideology of our Teal members, I don’t disagree. We’re all on the same journey. It’s just how we get there. But what I’m saying is…
QUESTION:
Transmission lines [inaudible].
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
Well, I’ll finish the answer. So what I’m saying is that we are obviously all for renewables in the right place. But also, shouldn’t we explore the opportunities by putting it in an environment we can’t disagree on…
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton…
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
…On people’s rooftops where the concentration of population, the concentration of power is and why wouldn’t we look at all the options? And that was the statement that I made, is that this will actually limit the amount of industrial scale renewables for us. This is a great move for regional Australia. Gives us our jobs, but we’re not turning our back on the opportunities, but we’re just saying: understand our lived experience because you know what? We count too. And your food security depends on us. If we can’t produce it, your food prices go up.
So, we’ve been pragmatic. The National Party made this commitment to net zero by 2050. But this linear pathway is not just hurting Australian families in the metropolitan areas, it’s hurting our wallets, but it’s also hurting our lifestyles and our capacity to make a living. I’m just saying to everybody, please understand that every Australian should be given a go through this, and we can do it together if we back ourselves to do this with the know how and adopt it here in this country. Regional Australia will come with you and continue to deliver coming through and continue to deliver…
QUESTION:
So the transmission lines being built, should they actually be stopped? Like, you know, there’s transmission being built, the 28,000km, etc., get to open up renewable energy zones in New South Wales, etc.. Are you saying that these transmission lines, even if they’re partly built, should be stopped?
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
Well, we’re sending very strong signals about what our energy mix will be and saying that there will be a mix, that we’re not going to just rely on renewables – an all renewables approach. They’ll be gas and a lot more gas, but we should explore other options with renewables as well. Batteries on households – that gives energy independence to households. So why would we put all the burden on regional Australia if we can look to the cities as well? We’re being pragmatic and I think some of the reporting has been selective. The Nationals have been rock solid on all of this from the start, and this is a legacy that Peter and I are prepared to take to the Australian people because we believe in it and it’s going to benefit regional Australia.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton where does the waste go? And do you concede this is the biggest political risk by an Opposition since ‘Fightback!’?
PETER DUTTON:
Andrew, I’ll leave the political commentary to others, but, if you look at a 450 megawatt reactor, it produces waste equivalent to the size of a can of Coke each year. It’s stored on site under our proposal, and then at the end of the life of that asset, it’s moved to a permanent home. Our argument is that should be where the government decides for the waste from the submarines to be stored. Australia’s a very safe country in that regard, as you know, and that would be the most sensible way.
The Government promised, I think, 15 months ago, to answer this question within 12 months, of where the waste would go. I think Richard Marles has spoken about a defence site somewhere. That would be potentially the most obvious, but we’ll see when they – they’re overdue in making that announcement. Would be good if any savvy journalist could follow that up with them, because we haven’t got that information from the Government yet. But that’s, again, the same principle.
I guess the other point, too, is that Lucas Heights has operated successfully and safely since 1958. There is – I think the number is about one in two Australians – I was surprised it was so low – would benefit from nuclear medicine in their lifetimes because X-rays or CT scans, etc., medicines and people that are undergoing different treatments rely on that capability. So we’ve been able to do that successfully in our country for many decades. It’s why, frankly, many of the most learned scientists in our country are strongly supportive of nuclear as a very safe and credible pathway for us in this country as well.
QUESTION:
What’s you plan to build the skills workforce in order to do this?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, exactly the same approach that we had in relation to AUKUS. We have, already, some skilled here through ANSTO and through the work that’s been done in the defence space. We took a decision very early on in AUKUS that we should improve and build up a very low base, the amount of skill that we’ve got here and that’s already underway. To the Government’s credit, they continue that work today. There is a lot of international skill that we can draw on very quickly. I think it also demonstrates the prudent approach that we’ve taken of talking about the lead time into the mid-2030’s. So, we can identify, and acquire that talent. There are many players who have delivered safe product for a long period of time that we can engage with as well.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, will you be able to do serious public consultation? You’ve already chosen the sites, so will the community have a chance to reject them? And if not, will you give compensation to the communities that you’ve chosen?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I think it’s sort of a very citycentric view, if I might say, of the issue. The fact is that in these communities, people in some cases for generations, have worked in these coal mines or within the coal fired power stations, or they’re a boilermaker or they’re an electrician, and they’ve worked in and around these sites for their whole life.
When you speak to a lot of those people, they are instantly supportive of this proposal, because it gives eight decades worth of economic investment into that community, and as we know from the international experience, and as common sense would tell you, for data centres, for example – I was reading something the other day, I hope I get this figure right – but for AI, it requires nine times the power of a normal search now. When you look at what the companies are doing in the United States, data centres etc., they’re huge, huge energy users. If we want to have onshore data storage, so that we can protect the information of Australians, we’re a reliable country obviously, for other partners to be able to do that as well, we have to have secure baseload power for that.
At the moment, they’re spending millions of dollars on diesel generators, which obviously is not contributing to our net zero targets, and the underpinning of that security, energy security, is important in an uncertain world as well. Energy security is incredibly important. In my judgement, over the coming decades, frankly, better to be in relationships with GE and Hitachi and Westinghouse and other companies of that ilk, who I think will remain loyal and good partners with Australia for many decades to come.
QUESTION:
So, you’re confident that those communities will 100 per cent back you?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes. And of course, look the Labor Party and those green millionaires we were talking about before, who’ve made their money off the backs of electricity prices going up and people paying more, they’ll come out with a scare campaign.
I want a mature conversation in our country, because this is the best way to deliver our vision to have cheaper electricity, cleaner electricity, and consistent and reliable electricity. We need cheaper power prices in our country.
It’s unacceptable that under the Prime Minister and his energy policy, which is a train wreck – we’re paying the highest power prices in the world. Now, we know that there’s is the risk of the lights going out. Business won’t stay here and the jobs won’t remain in that sort of an environment.
QUESTION:
This will be an eye watering price tag, whatever it is. Where does that money come from or where’s it taken from? Why not get private investment to help?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, again, it comes from the same place that the Snowy Hydro funds come from, or the subsidies around solar and wind now. It comes from the Australian tax player. The Australian Government doesn’t have any money without the Australian taxpayers. So, that’s a decision for the Government of the day as to whether it’s a wise investment. We believe it is because it’s going to bring down power prices, it’s going to keep the lights on, it’s going to keep the industry going literally for decades.
One of the big concerns at the moment in relation to, say, wind turbine – it’s 600 to 1000m³ of concrete that goes into the ground for a wind turbine with an amortisation period of 19 years. That’s where taxpayers money is being spent at the moment. Again, you need to ask yourself the question is that the maximum yield of energy with that environmental impact? Is there a better way of doing it? We believe there is.
So, there’s environmental benefit, there’s a cost benefit to consumers and businesses, and there’s an overall economic benefit that will be, I think, necessary for our economy to cope. You can’t have an economy where the power’s not reliable or its unaffordable.
QUESTION:
Is it your view that the Coalition would have to be in at least two terms in order to stand up the first power plants in 2035-37? Can I ask for your reaction to Jim Chalmers, who says this is, ‘might be the dumbest policy ever announced by a major political party’?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I only have plans for three to four terms, and then after that, I’ll reassess my position but…
QUESTION:
But realistically, if Labor came in after one term of a Coalition government, could the nuclear plan [inaudible]?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, I mean, look at what they’ve done after one term now. Is any Australian better off today than they were two years ago? No. They’ve created a housing crisis, they’ve created an energy crisis, we’ve got anaemic growth in the economy, we’re going through the fifth quarter now of negative growth in per capita GDP, businesses are closing. As you move around the country, and we were down in Nowra yesterday, businesses there are closing. People are coming into restaurants or cafes spending less. Economists are now talking about two additional interest rate increases on top of 12 already under this Prime Minister. People are hurting. They really are. So can Labor do a lot of damage just in one term? Yes, of course they can.
QUESTION:
So the Coalition would have to be in term for a long time in order to get these stood up?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, but that’s true of any Government, of any project. AUKUS you could say, which is not to be [inaudible] until 2040…
QUESTION:
That’s got bipartisan support.
PETER DUTTON:
Well, at this stage it has. But if the Greens are in an alliance with the Prime Minister after the election, would he still be committed to AUKUS? Would Adam Bandt agree to that? I don’t know. You wouldn’t know what would happen to the Albanese-Bandt Government. Look at what happened last time they were in Coalition with the Greens. It was reckless enough then, it’s dangerous now to watch the Greens in operation, but the Prime Minister’s happy to take preferences and form alliances and form a minority Government with them.
It would be a disaster for the economy, and if you think your power prices are high now, wait for a second term of the Albanese Government.
QUESTION:
You’ve talked a lot about the international experience. Why has it taken us so long to have this conversation now?
PETER DUTTON:
To be honest, I don’t think we would have been able to have this conversation without the AUKUS deal, because the Labor Party essentially is saying that they don’t have any concerns about safety, they don’t have concerns about the disposal of waste, and I think the technology is so different now in 2024, than it was in 1964.
When you look at some of the polling results in Lowy, or in Newspoll – probably two of the most authoritative – almost two thirds of people aged between 18 and 34 support nuclear because they’re well read, they’re passionate about reducing emissions. As I say, when you look at the Greens and the Democrats in the United States, they’re all strongly in favour of nuclear because they know of the impact and the way it can help drive down emissions and drive down cost.
So, we’re late comers as a country, there’s no question about that, but the time for this discussion is now. If we want to grasp the opportunity, if we want to set our country up for the future, if we want to bring those electricity prices down, if we want to make a stable economy, and if we want to grow that economy, and if we want to grow jobs for generations to come, our country must seize this opportunity now.
QUESTION:
You’ve got Queensland’s LNP Leader also saying he won’t lift the ban in their state, is your Party divided on this issue?
PETER DUTTON:
No, I think we’ve talked about the State issue before.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, if your concern is cost with energy for households, why opt for an energy source which the IEA says is the most expensive form of new energy?
PETER DUTTON:
But, again, if you looked at the lived experience – look, at what’s happening in France. I mean, France provides nuclear energy – it’s got about 70 per cent nuclear in it’s system. It’s the cheapest electricity in Western Europe. It’s the most stable electricity. The Prime Minister aspires to be a Parisian. Have a look at what’s happening with nuclear in Paris. Paris doesn’t run without nuclear power. They’re exporting that power to other countries so that they can keep their lights on, and they’re investing more. As we know, out of COP26, the agreement between world leaders was to increase the amount of nuclear investment.
Again, there are so many people conflicted in this space because they’re investors in clean energy or a particular technology. I’m agnostic to all of that. I want to deliver a system which is going to bring power prices down and help those pensioners keep their heating on. I want to keep small business alive. I can’t stand the thought that in a country where we’ve got an abundance of natural resources, we’re paying the highest electricity prices in the world. If we want to be competitive with nations that are competing against us in different commodities, we’ve got to have cheaper energy and we must have cleaner energy and consistent energy. That’s what this proposal provides. That’s why when you look at it intellectually, it’s why 19 of the 20 countries have signed up to it, or are utilising it. Do you think that the collective intellectual might of Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese outweighs that of 19 of the top 20 economies in the world – their leaders. I mean, is that a serious proposition? I don’t think so.
QUESTION:
Mr Littleproud, farmers tend to like water. Nuclear plants use a lot of water. Where – have you looked at what water rights might need to be secured? Would you compulsorily acquire them to ensure that these nuclear power plants could run, including these rural electorates?
DAVID LITTLEPROUD:
So, there’s already water allocations at these coal fired power sites, and obviously when we shut down, they transfer to nuclear power. So it’s all within the existing water entitlements. That’s the design that Ted is undertaking to make sure that we protect agricultural production and continue to preserve those jobs in regional Australia in a sensible, methodical way in delivering this as an outcome for not just cheaper energy, but jobs.
This will be one of the biggest investments of any federal government in a regional Australian town, ever. Make no mistake, the last time in Kingaroy and Tarong was when Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen built Tarong in 1980. It’s taken 44 years for us to come back and say, ‘you still have a future’. But this will be one of the biggest investments they will see, and if we work within the constraints that we have and we are being responsible about making sure we can keep that food security safe. That’s the common sense solution that Ted’s taken, and that’s the design in which we’ve been able to come forward in picking these sites – and that’s the sensible approach.
QUESTION:
Have you done the modelling on what the impact would be on house prices in these communities?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, have a look at what’s happened in Lucas Heights. Since 1958 there’s been a nuclear reactor there and are house prices any different in Lucas Heights to what they are in comparable suburbs in Sydney? No. So again, it’s part of a silly scare campaign.
What’s happened in regions elsewhere around the world where over 400 reactors are present? You’ve got actually an attraction of industry. Some of the land prices will go up because people will want to be connected. These data centres will want to be connected to the zero emissions technology, because it provides them with the commercial opportunity and the distribution costs are obviously cheaper because they’re right on the doorstep. When you look at the modern technology and the outlay, the footprints of some of these projects, that’s exactly what happens. It attracts industry and the jobs and the economic productivity into that area. That’s a key element of the plan.
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, will you release the costings for your plan before the election? Or do you need Treasury behind you in order to get those costings accurate?
PETER DUTTON:
We’ll make other announcements in due course…
QUESTION:
Are you promising to do it before the election?
PETER DUTTON:
We’ll make other announcements in due course.
QUESTION:
[inaudible] issues though, obviously nuclear power plants need extra defences compared with solar and wind etc.. Will there be an additional cost military to protect security there? To transfer of uranium? And processing? And the whole operation?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, in AUKUS there was additional money provided to the agencies to provide support around keeping the technologies secure, etc., as operates in other comparable countries, there will be the appropriate security settings put in place. In the United States, obviously, in France, in the United Kingdom, in Canada, all of these countries were able to deal with those issues, and that’ll be part of the plan.
Thank you very much.
[ends]