PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm releasing today the final report of Dr Switkowski's examination of uranium and the nuclear power industry in Australia. I want to thank Dr Switkowski and the other members of the review committee. They've completed their task within the allotted time and this report will make an enormous contribution to an understanding of what Australia needs to do to plan for increasing energy needs and also to deal with the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It's calculated that our energy demands will double by the year 2050 and that over that period of time something like two-thirds of the existing power stations will need to be either renewed or replaced and what Dr Switkowski says in plain, simple language, as plain as you read the report is that nuclear power is part of the solution both to Australia's energy and climate change challenges. We're not saying and he doesn't say that nuclear power is the only solution. We're not saying that nuclear power can come on stream right now because at the moment it would be a lot more expensive than existing fossil fuel usages, but the truth is that if we are to clean up the use of coal and other fossil fuels, in other words reduce the greenhouse gas effect of using them, the use of those fossil fuels would become more expensive and as their use becomes more expensive then the use of nuclear power becomes a lot more feasible and a lot more competitive.
He makes the point that at the moment, 15 per cent of the world's electricity is generated using nuclear power, 32 countries have nuclear power stations, there are 435-odd nuclear power stations around the world. He also makes the point that they are in fact safer than the alternative sources. As well as receiving this report, I've received a letter from the chief scientist Dr Jim Peacock who chaired a peer review committee that examined the report and made a contribution and in his letter Dr Peacock says that there are only two feasible sources of base power load generation available to Australia and one of them is fossil fuels, the other is nuclear and he very strongly urges as the chief scientist and speaking therefore for the scientific community or a great part of it in Australia, he said that the Government should pursue with vigour, and they are his words, not only the removal of impediments to the development and use of nuclear power, but also of course the adoption and adaptation of clean coal technology and as you know that is very much on our agenda. The Government will respond quickly to the recommendations of the report, I'll ask the Industry Minister to bring a submission forward in the new year to deal with a number of the things that can be dealt with immediately. In the long run of course nuclear power decisions will be made on a commercial basis.
I ask the state governments now to remove the existing restrictions around Australia on the export of uranium. Dr Switkowski makes it very plain that the uranium industry in Australia has great potential and he's very keen that the existing restrictions be removed and I ask Labor governments around Australia not to wait until a conference in April of next year, but act now in the interests of the country and the interests of their own states to remove the existing restrictions. If we are interested in the future, if we are looking to the future and not looking back over our shoulders at the past, we have to factor in nuclear power as part of the solution. It's not going to come immediately because it's not economic at the present time, but it will become increasingly economic as we clean up the use of coal and thereby make its use more expensive and that's the very clear message that comes out of Dr Switkowski's report and I commend it to you.
JOURNALIST:
Just how much more expensive is it Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well at the moment you're looking at sort of a gap at the moment of 20 to 50 per cent right at the moment, but bear in mind that as you apply clean coal technologies the use of coal will become more expensive and that's the point at which nuclear comes into the equation. You're not looking at something that's going to happen overnight, but if we are to plan for the future and governments are always being exhorted to think ahead and not think of the immediate future but to think ahead to the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years, you have to take nuclear into account, particularly when an enormous reserve of uranium is held by Australia. We have the largest uranium mine in the world and we have about 38 per cent of the world's recoverable uranium reserves so we would be nationally indolent if we didn't take advantage of that enormous gift that providence has left us.
JOURNALIST:
Is the public ready to accept nuclear power?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the public over time will accept it yes, I think that Australians are very rational, sensible people. They will understand that nuclear power is clean and green. The greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power are minimal. There is some obviously involved in the process, but compared with coal and even gas, it is remarkable and renewables like wind and solar and tidal can make a contribution but only at the margin. As the chief scientist has said there are only really two sources of base power load generation and that's nuclear power and clean coal and nuclear power has to be part of the solution. But we're not saying, and the reality is we won't have nuclear power stations tomorrow, but over time if we are to have a sensible response, we have to include nuclear power and it is foolish and backward looking and old-fashioned of people to say well we will always oppose the use of nuclear power, that makes no sense and it will do great damage to Australia's energy security.
JOURNALIST:
Will your government consideration of nuclear power in the new year include consideration of how to make nuclear more cost effective against particularly coal?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are great believers in allowing as much as possible the market forces to operate. The first thing to do is to get an acceptance of nuclear power as part of the solution. We need to push ahead as rapidly as possible with developing clean coal technology and that makes a lot of sense and I think over time as the public as I'm sure it will understand what's at stake, the way in which investments are made will factor in the growing competitiveness of nuclear power.
JOURNALIST:
Any idea where nuclear power sites might go?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have no idea because we won't be establishing nuclear power stations. Nuclear power stations will be established by companies and companies will invest in the establishment of a nuclear power plant when it becomes economically feasible.
JOURNALIST:
How long do you expect the gap between the costs of coal and nuclear to close?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you're probably looking at something that will happen over a period of 10 to 20 years, it's not going to happen immediately. It might be even longer, but you clearly need to recognise that we can't go on using coal with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions and also make a contribution to fighting climate change. Now all of these things have got to be dealt with in a calm and measured fashion, but we have to realistic and accept that nuclear power is part of the mix, it's part of the long term solution. It's not the silver bullet, there's no silver bullet, but a nation like Australia with all our uranium reserves and given our power needs and the fact that they'll double between now and 2050, we would be crazy in the extreme if we didn't allow for the development of nuclear power.
JOURNALIST:
PM, it's pretty obvious that Labor's going to run the mother of all scare campaigns on this issue between now and the next election. Are you confident that you're able to take the public with you or are you concerned that Labor's scare campaign about the sighting, the potential sighting of nuclear reactors might run against your Government's interests in the lead up to the election?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will be saying the Australian public that I'm about the future and not the past, that I'm talking about securing Australia's energy future. The Labor Party can run a fear campaign if it wishes, it's not going to change my view. I've thought about this issue a great deal and I believe that I'd be failing Australia if I didn't stand up for a sensible, rational consideration of the nuclear option and if the Labor Party wants to run an old-fashioned, negative fear campaign, if it wants to embrace the old politics, well let it do so, but it's not going to alter my view because I know what I'm saying is right for Australia's future and the best contribution that I can make to Australia at the present time is to talk about securing and owning our future, not betraying it to an old-fashioned view of a nuclear fear that has been disproved by what's happened over the last 20 years. One of the most interesting things out of this report is the demonstration that nuclear power plants are in fact safer than other sources of power generation. If you think back over the last few years of some of the accidents that have occurred even in very safe countries such as Australia and you'll understand that other forms of power generation can be dangerous.
JOURNALIST:
On another issue, the HECS scheme, is there a need to overhaul it if people are just getting into further debt?
PRIME MINISTER:
The HECS scheme which was introduced by the Labor Party, let me remind you, with our support in opposition, because we believed there had to be a way that people could make a contribution, I think strikes a very good balance. About 75 per cent of a HECS funded place is paid for by the taxpayer and 25 per cent by the student, now that's the average, there are some variations at the margin, but that's the average. I think that's a fair balance and you've got to remember that when people go to university they don't start repaying their debt until they get an income of $36,000 a year. That means that many people who only work part time after they get their university degree go years and years and years without paying any of that debt back and you've got to consider the hundreds of thousands of young people who don't go to university and if you're going to reduce the HECS liability, well you're putting a burden onto taxpayers who don't have the advantage of a university education. It's a question of striking a balance. I think HECS strikes a good balance.
JOURNALIST:
So you think debts of $50,000 and above Prime Minister are acceptable, you don't think it would be a fairly major deterrent for many students wanting to go to university?
PRIME MINISTER:
It doesn't seem to be a major deterrent, it appears that university enrolments are greater than ever. I think I read an article in a broadsheet yesterday that suggested that.
JOURNALIST:
PM, just back quickly on the nuclear issue. The sensitivity of the location of these potential power plants, the discussion is 25 of them across the country. Have you got a preference either way, should they be in the middle of deserts, should they be...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think they should be where it makes commercial sense, where environmentally it's reasonable and all the other factors that will be taken into account. But we won't be building nuclear power stations and none are going to be built in the immediate future and of course the Labor Party will run a fear campaign, I mean the new politics of the Labor Party...
JOURNALIST:
People have that fear as well, people have concerns about where it's going to be built and whether it's going to be built near them. I mean, would you want one next door to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I wouldn't have any objection. None whatsoever.
JOURNALIST:
Seriously?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I'm serious, quite serious.
JOURNALIST:
How will you regulate the building of these plants, obviously you say it will be a commercial decision but will the Government have in place some sort of...
PRIME MINISTER:
There will be stringent safety requirements and there will be environmental considerations, it will be all the sort of things that are involved. Once again we are talking about something is some years into the future. But, look, let's be honest, let's be quite frank about what is involved here. Everybody wants to do something about greenhouse gas emissions. Everybody knows that our electricity demand is going to increase. Commonsense tells you that there are only two sources and that's fossil fuels and nuclear power. Solar and wind is not going to produce base load power, that's impossible, all the experts tell you that. We have close to 40 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, we would be crazy to say no to nuclear power, and yet that is what the Labor Party and that is what the Greens are saying. They don't even want to consider it. It's not a question of looking at it or having an open mind, they are totally opposed to embracing the future when it comes to our energy needs and our energy security and tackling greenhouse gas emissions. Now I know there'll be a fear campaign, but I will not be deterred in the view I hold. I believe very strongly that I'd be failing Australia if I didn't factor in nuclear power as part of the solution.
JOURNALIST:
Victoria's considering cutting off water supply to serial offenders of misuse, do you think it's time the Federal Government got involved?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think it's appropriate that every time people have a reservation with the action of a state government they think the Federal Government should step in and take something over. The states have roles, the Commonwealth has a role and if we're to make a federation work then each level of government should be accountable for its own actions and what happens inside Victoria in relation to something which is exclusively Victoria's responsibility is something which Victoria will resolve and I don't think it helps for me to give a running commentary on every alleged indiscretion of the state government, I'd be going at it all day.
JOURNALIST:
On AM this morning Peter McGauran seemed to advocate the constitutional change for the Federal Government to take over control, isn't that a bit radical?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think he was advocating a constitutional change, he was talking consultation. I think Peter was expressing a certain amount of frustration which I understand, but my preference in all of these things is for collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states and we've done quite a lot in collaboration and I hope that we'll do more. But it is necessary for the states to think nationally. I'm disappointed for example that the reaction of the New South Wales Government is so negative towards a bare examination of the possibility of piping water from northern New South Wales into southern Queensland. All we're doing through the National Water Commission is investigating the possibility of doing that, yet what is the reaction of the Iemma Government? 'Oh no, no, you can't touch it, it's New South Wales water.' It's not New South Wales water, it's Australian water and if we are to solve this problem we have to think as Australians and not as Victorians or Queenslanders or New South Welshmen or whatever. Now having said that the best way we can get results is to co-operate because there are very strong constitutional roles for the states in relation to water as there are for the Commonwealth and we should work together but we've got to think as Australians and not as parochial New South Welshmen or Queenslanders or Victorians.
JOURNALIST:
In the United States the FDA has just approved cloned meat under the FTA of course is there a chance that we could be eating American cloned meat soon?
PRIME MINISTER:
Anything is possible.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, just back on nuclear, given, do you accept that consumers will have to face higher energy bills in the future if nuclear is to become a reality in Australia given the economics of it at present and Dr Switkowski...
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it's one step closer than that. If there are to be reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, power bills will over time go up. There's not much doubt about that, that's been said before and it ought to be acknowledged.
JOURNALIST:
Irrespective of whether nuclear comes on stream or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well exactly. In fact, there's an argument that if you don't put nuclear on stream and you rely more heavily on mandatory targets in relation to renewables you could have even dearer bills, higher bills. But unfortunately if we are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions there will be a cost. Now that cost can be manageable and spread over a period of time but it's more likely to be manageable and spread over a period of time if you include all of the options including nuclear power. My view would be if you asked me that shutting your mind against nuclear power is more likely to increase even further the cost of power in the future.
[Ends]