Mr REPACHOLI (Hunter) (9:02)
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).
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—
Mr REPACHOLI: 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.
