On Tuesday 25 February 2025, the Victorian Women’s Trust proudly presented the first of our Trust Women: Lunch Break Sessions, a six-part policy webinar series designed to break down some of the most important gender equality policy challenges facing Australia today.

Australia has long debated the role of nuclear power in its energy future. In Energy: Is Nuclear an Option for Australia?, our expert panel discussed Australia’s past and present nuclear policy, outlined the nuclear expansion proposals put forward by the Nationals and Liberals; and examined the key players actively opposing these plans.

Speakers: 

• Wendy Farmer is a Friends of the Earth community organiser and President of Voices of the Valley, the community advocacy group that formed during the catastrophic 2014 Hazelwood fire
• Alex Engel-Mallon is the Director of Advocacy and Policy at the Climate Council
• Moderator: Mary Crooks AO, Executive Director of the Victorian Women’s Trust

From February to June 2025, we’ll host expert-led discussions on key issues such as nuclear energy, early childhood education, abortion access, housing, youth mental health, and tech-facilitated abuse. Each session will offer insights from leading thinkers, advocates, and policy experts, helping us better understand the blockers to progress and, more importantly, the pathways forward. Learn more about our upcoming webinars. They’re all free but registration is essential.

Further Resources

After the Smoke – ABC iView

Seize the Decade – Climate Council report

10 Practical Policies to Help the Next Australian Government Cut Climate Pollution – Climate Council

Why Nuclear Energy is not Worth the Risk for Australia – Climate Council

Transcript

Note: Transcript is provided for reference only, and has been edited for clarity. Please confirm accuracy before quoting.

Mary Crooks AO: Hi everyone, and welcome to our first webinar for 2025 on nuclear power. An issue that will loom large in the forthcoming election. Let me begin by acknowledging the Country that we are on here at the Women’s Trust. We’re on Wurundjeri Country. And, I would like to pay respects to the elders, past and present.

And I especially want to emphasise how lucky we are. To have had 2000 generations of First Nations people, stewarding the land and the waters and the air, that we have inherited. As part of the settler, experience. I’d really like to welcome our two panelists today. We’re very fortunate to have, Alex Engel-Mallon, and Wendy Farmer.

Alex, has been with the Climate Council as advocacy director. She has had a couple of decades of experience in the New South Wales public service, especially, working on climate change and investment policy. She had a time as an advisor to Amnesty International. And she has a very, very keen interest in the nuclear policy debate.

Our other guest, I’m delighted to say is Wendy Farmer. And each time I’ve mentioned this to people, Wendy, they’ve said, oh, she’s a great comedian. And I’ve had to say, I’m sorry. I’m not talking Wendy Harmer. I’m talking Wendy Farmer. No. Wendy is a community organiser, with Friends of the Earth. She’s currently president of Voices of the Valley.

But I think one of the really significant parts of her experience and accolades is that she really sprang into action as a community organiser just over a decade ago with the Hazelwood coal mine fire that burned for 45 days. Where local and state governments were really remiss in the way they looked after community and health impacts, especially.

So Wendy comes with great community activist experience that’s relevant to today’s debate. And she’s also a passionate advocate of communities making just transitions. So welcome to both Alex and to Wendy. I’d like to just throw open the questions for you both. But with the with the caveat that we have been exposed, to quite a bit of debate across the media over the last few months about the Coalition policies, nuclear, plan or nuclear proposal.

I’m not sure one can call it a plan yet. But their nuclear proposal. We’ve had a lot of what I would think is fairly soft journalism around this massive proposal potentially for Australia’s energy future. The debate, as I’ve seen it, is pretty much dominated on costs. And whether those costings done by Frontier Economics are reliable and what the gaps are, I don’t see a lot of really critical media happening, around this debate yet.

I think it’s been fairly obsequious and compliant. And there are a lot of missing pieces of the jigsaw in my mind, such as the implications for water and environment and risk and remediation in the event of some catastrophic development. So I think today is a time to okay, let’s look at some of the cost issues. But let’s especially look at what you think might be missing pieces of the jigsaw in the debate so far.

And I think there are not two better people to do this. So, and we will have provisions for questions in about half an hour or so. But Alex, let’s start with you when the proposal by Peter Dutton was put late last year, what was your immediate response at that time? And what is your response now? And I’d like to actually ask Wendy the same question. So when when you first heard of the proposal, what was your immediate response?

Alex Engel-Mallon: Thanks, Mary, and thanks everyone for having me. It’s a great question. And there’s probably an R-rated, and a PG rated version of that answer, in truth. But underlying both, in essence, was a sense of deep disappointment. At the announcement, you know, we thought in Australia that, you know, certainly at the Climate Council, we’d seen an end to the climate wars that had, you know, basically left us with a decade of inaction under various Liberal-National, Coalition governments.

You know, Australians had given a really clear mandate at the 2022 federal election. They wanted this to end. They wanted politicians to just get on with the job of addressing climate change and protecting us all from these worsening extreme weather events like the black Summer fires. Just to get on with the job of transitioning our energy system in line with the rest of the world.

And then enter the Coalition’s nuclear proposal, which, quite literally just kind of blew up all hope that we’d have a sensible, non-political discussion about how to progress Australia’s transition to a clean economy and make the very urgent cuts to climate pollution that are needed and that the science tells us are needed. So that was my initial response.

Just that deep disappointment. Now with the election looming large, frankly, I’ve moved from disappointment to frankly, quite feeling quite fairly terrified, because of what’s at stake here. Just yesterday, many in the audience might have seen that the Climate Change Authority released some new analysis, revealing that the federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme is essentially, would essentially be a carbon emission bomb.

It would see climate pollution blow out for more than 20 years and lead to up to 2 billion tonnes of additional climate pollution by 2050. And this would put us on a global path consistent with 2.6 degrees of warming. That is the prospect here. We’d miss our current targets under law by 2030, which is at 43% at the moment, and we wouldn’t even achieve this by 2035, with a nuclear plan.

So every Australian should be extremely concerned about this proposition, which, if implemented, would fundamentally put all our futures at risk.

Mary Crooks AO: Thanks, Alex. Before I switch to you, Wendy, the reference that Alex just made, around the Climate Change Authority’s analysis yesterday, just a reminder to our viewers and listeners that the chair of that authority is former Liberal New South Wales treasurer and energy minister Matt Kean, so when he talks about the nuclear proposal being a carbon bomb, here’s an argument that we should be listening fairly hard to that kind of position.

Wendy, over to you. When you heard the proposal late last year, what was your initial reaction? And and what’s your take on it right now?

Wendy Farmer: My initial reaction. I probably can’t say some of it, but I was really shocked. I was really disappointed, but I was really angry. But I always believe when you get angry that you’ve got to do something about anger. You don’t use it for bad. You use it for good. As in the Hazelwood fire. So, you know, there were so many holes in the whole conversation when it was announced. We’d had a heads up that it was going to be announced, but I had to quickly, once again learn about nuclear. I didn’t know a lot about nuclear to start with.

I knew some of the impacts of nuclear. I knew, you know, small little bits. I think what really made me mad is the way that it was announced. That it was announced early in the morning. It was announced to say this is what we’re going to do. We’ve chosen seven sites without community consultation, without First Nations consultation, without council consultation, without speaking to the seven site owners or operators.

And I had actually mentioned that to the media that day and they were like, no. And I’m like, yes. I’ve spoken to the Loy Yang people. I know that it’s not an option there. And not looking at the risks. Not looking at any detail. It’s a bit like us going, well, I’m got to build a house there, not looking at anything else around it. You just wouldn’t do it. So I was really angry. But then as the day progressed, it was a dictator type thing. Well, if you know, the energy company don’t want us to build there, we will acquire the land. Well, if the state prohibits, we will override the states. It was like and we will consult with the community for two and a half years.

We will talk to the people, but we’re going to do it anyway, and they will have no right to veto. So by the end of the day, I was furious. And knew that we had to do more.

Mary Crooks AO: We’ll come later to what you’re doing, Wendy. So or, in fact, let’s come to that now. You’re right on the ground. You’re in one of the sites. And we’ve heard your response. What’s the response do you think of people on the ground? Your community.

Wendy Farmer: It’s been really mixed since that announcement. You know, people have gone great. One of the things of a coal community, I’ve worked across many of the coal communities, is they need jobs. They need help. They need hope. So of course, when an announcement like this is made, you’ll have one section of the community going great, high paying jobs. Without thinking of the other side of what happens if you have a proposal like this. The timing, and I know we’ll go into that a bit later. So, you know, it’s a very mixed community in that sense.

But now we’re seeing the political game that is being played. And that really hurts because you get these people that listen to one side of the news and media and go, this is great, this is, you know, the best thing since sliced bread. But the other side going, hang on a minute, you’re going to do this to us.

What about us? What if something happens? So it’s a really mixed community at the moment. And we’re starting to see in all the communities that fight across each other.

Mary Crooks AO: Wendy, while I’ve got you there. I’ve read one of the first polls that I’ve seen, which shows a really significant gender divide at work on this question. It shows that many more men seem untroubled by the possibility of nuclear power, than women. In fact, the gender divide is quite stark. Have you seen that playing out locally?

Wendy Farmer: Absolutely. And because it’s men that will get the jobs. It’s not an equal opportunity job with nuclear. Females, you know, mums have the nurturing and the protection of their children. And I mean, for this community, we can’t say that something could never happen. It’s a high risk industry. And we’ve seen the Hazelwood mine burn for 45 days and kill people. So, you know, you’ve got a right as mums, you know, protecting their children. But one thing that’s really clear is after the Hazelwood mine fire, the dads were really frustrated that they hadn’t protected their families because they were told they didn’t need to.

So I think when you start getting into the whole well, there’s a risk and dads will actually come around and go, this isn’t something we’re going to put our family through.

Mary Crooks AO: Okay. Thank you. Alex, do you think, given what you said about, you know, the disruption in a way that this announcement has made and caused so far around the debate and the push towards renewables, is the introduction of this proposal a mask for another agenda? Or is it a genuine attempt at introducing nuclear to the mix? Is it masking another agenda, which is a sort of anti-renewable agenda?

Alex Engel-Mallon: Look, I think it’s it’s certainly true that this policy has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. And it’s definitely not credible, or realistic as a policy for Australia. I don’t think it’s necessarily intentional that it has so many holes in it. Although I do think there’s perhaps an unintended benefit of it, there being so many problems with this kind of policy. In that the unintended benefit has been that the Coalition’s messaging has been really simple. It’s been really direct. It’s been lacking a lot of detail. And as you mentioned, there hasn’t been a huge amount of scrutiny in the press, unlike all the unanswered questions that still remain in this policy or scheme. Whereas opponents of the scheme haven’t necessarily been able to get the same cut through because there’s so many things wrong with it. There’s different people talking about the different things that are wrong with it. And that has maybe created some confusion for people in, you know, just everyday people in the public that aren’t thinking about the detail of this stuff in their busy, everyday lives.

So I think what is intentional, though, is, the claim by the Coalition that this plan, is somehow a green credential for them. Nuclear is a zero emissions technology. So therefore we should trust that they believe, you know, in climate change and that they believe it’s a serious issue and they have a plan to address it. I think that that is very much the intention. So it’s a political strategy. And nothing more from the Coalition. You know, and don’t take my word for it.

Last month, Christopher Pyne, who’s a former cabinet minister on the Howard, Abbott and Turnbull governments, I believe, and Morrison, he’s also a well known Liberal Party strategist. He wrote an opinion piece in the in the Sydney Morning Herald, which some in the audience might have seen, and he essentially unveiled Dutton’s nuclear scheme for the political ploy that it is in that opinion piece. He said quite plainly that Dutton you know, Peter Dutton knows a nuclear reactor will never actually be commissioned in Australia.

But that the policy serves a short term political purpose for the Liberal and National parties in that it unites them, unites the party room on an agreed climate strategy. So on the one hand, the Coalition can claim to be doing something about climate change, which he knows a majority of Australians want and support. But on the other hand, he can also slow down the rollout of renewables and ramp up Australia’s use of coal and gas over the next 20 years before a nuclear reactor could ever be built logistically in Australia.

Mary Crooks AO: So the ramping up, the longer use of coal and the ramping up of gas, do you think that’s more of a true pointer to their intention?

Alex Engel-Mallon: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Mary Crooks AO: Just in a nutshell, Alex, from the point of view of cost, what have the critics said is basically wrong with the costing that’s been put forward so far, reflecting Frontier Economics?

Alex Engel-Mallon: Look, I mean, I encourage listeners to to look on the Climate Council website, we’ve got a very clear piece of very digestible analysis on the key things that are wrong and missing from the, Frontier Economics modelling.

But there’s a few hundred million dollars of things that were conveniently, missed out of the costings. And some of those things are around the amount it will cost to build nuclear reactors. Very ambitious costings around that. And, you know, time and time again in like jurisdictions around the world, the UK, the US, you know, we’ve seen project costs and build projects like reactors blow out time and time again.

And these are countries that are very experienced and have long standing nuclear industry. So the idea that Australia could somehow build these things cheaper, in some cases than those jurisdictions is quite laughable. They also have, you know, admitted, the costs of things like, the costs of more climate pollution and what that would mean to the economy. They’ve vastly underestimated how big, Australia’s electricity grid and our electricity use would need to be, by 2050, at which time we will also want to have electrified a lot of our industrial processes and our transportation systems, which, transport is the second highest emitter of climate pollution in Australia.

So we need a bigger grid. We need to electrify so that we can reduce pollution in those other sectors. None of those costings or things are factored in to the nuclear modelling that Frontier Economics did. The economics also didn’t talk about price of, you know, what our power bills would cost.

But somehow the Coalition has drawn a bow and made some assumptions around that based on that overall build cost. So they’ve made some very, unrealistic assumptions about costs. Whereas in contrast to that, you know, Australia’s leading independent science agency, the CSIRO, has said clearly time and time again with very detailed modelling that nuclear is the most expensive form of energy for Australia and that, you know, it’s essentially about double the cost of what, the current renewables backed by storage pathway would take us down.

So, you know, let’s trust our leading independent experts. Not a report commissioned explicitly by a political party for a political purpose. And am I right in assuming that the question of who pays? I mean, they’ve talked about government ownership of these reactors. If that’s the case, then the taxpayer’s paying for this, for technology that is not yet commercially proven.

Mary Crooks AO: So who pays for the nuclear plan? Is it the taxpayers? Ultimately?

Alex Engel-Mallon: I mean, the Coalition has been very clear that that is their plan, that taxpayers will completely fund the building of these nuclear reactors. But not just the building of them. Let’s look at the costs that exist before you build a nuclear reactor. They don’t own any of these sites.

They’re all privately owned by energy companies and operators who all have, you know, already stated that they have plans to use those sites for other things. So to acquire that land in the first place will require, you know, individual negotiations with these individual companies. You know, and anything that the government ever buys from a private company, they know they can sell at a premium.

So, you know, there’s so many issues around, you know, cost even before you start building a reactor in Australia, let alone the resources and cost and time required to change all the laws in Australia at a state and federal level that currently ban nuclear. So again, there’s so many holes in it, we could talk about it all day. Let’s not go down that rabbit hole. Because, that serves the political purpose.

Mary Crooks AO: Wendy, from your point of view, local community point of view, what do you think is missing in the debate that we should be alert to?

Wendy Farmer: I think some of the really important things that are missing is right now, we are at about 45% renewable energy. In our electricity system across Australia. The last power station that has been, said they will close in Latrobe Valley, in Victoria. So where every Victorian should be really concerned is Loy Yang. Loy Yang A. If that was to be converted to a renewable energy or sorry, nuclear reactors, it needs to be rehabilitated. So let’s think about that cost again now. Hazelwood it’s already cost them nearly $200 million to rehabilitate and then not rehabilitate it.

It would take, the Land Mine Authority says it would take decades, decades to rehabilitate the land. If it’s 2037 and then we still have to build a nuclear facility, not adding 20 years. Where does the energy come from between the time of Loy Yang B closing? Because Yallourn would have already closed to actually, energy. We know that renewable energy will be built by then. We will be at that 90-100% renewable energy easily by then. I think the other thing is, if we have nuclear, it’s one facility in Victoria. If something goes wrong, where does our energy system energy come from? Because one of the things that is really clear is that they will need to turn off home solar systems’ batteries, and we can’t afford that.

The good thing about energy at the moment is it is distributed. If one wind farm goes or one solar farm goes, we still have energy. And we also have energy in communities that now don’t have reliable energy because they have really long grid lines and most people will understand that. So then that whole missing piece of where would our energy come from in the middle?

This is about stopping renewable energy. It’s about stopping jobs that are happening now.

Mary Crooks AO: And Wendy and Alex, one of the other missing pieces of the jigsaw, I think, in this driest inhabited continent, is around the water use that nuclear uses. It’s absolutely vital to the production of nuclear power. So, Alex, over to you for a minute.

What do you think are the kinds of dimensions around water use that people listening in today need to get their heads around as a component part of this plan.

Alex Engel-Mallon: Look, I mean, Wendy might be a better place. She might have thought about this more from a regional communities perspective, but, at a high level, nuclear reactors require massive amounts of water to operate.

So even up in the Hunter, where one is also proposed, you know, you’re in areas and land that is drought prone in Australia where some of these facilities would apparently be built. So unlike other countries where nuclear may be a very viable, you know, pathway for others to go down, in Australia, we have a strong history of drought and drought is getting worse.

We’re in these worsening extreme weather events and drought is among those, because of climate change. So, you know, when you’re building facilities that require massive amounts of water. I think, I saw a news article just last week that said something like, an equivalent of one Sydney Harbour’s worth, you know, would be required.

Mary Crooks AO: Every year.

Alex Engel-Mallon: Every year. I think there’s also some concerns about, you know, once the water is used, about actually, not remediating is the wrong word, but you have to actually treat the water also once it’s used. So, I think water is certainly a huge concern. We’ve certainly been hearing from regional communities in particular that it’s a huge concern and again, is an unanswered question, that the Coalition has has not been able to clearly answer about what they would plan to do around remediation of water use.

Mary Crooks AO: And, Wendy, from your vantage point in Gippsland. Because my understanding is that two of the sites, I think Collie in Western Australia and Port Augusta, don’t even have water licenses currently. But in your neck of the woods, what would be some of your fears around the issue of water use that’s required to support a nuclear reactor?

Wendy Farmer: As Alex said, there’s so many questions around this whole topic that have not been answered. Water is one of them. For Latrobe Valley they’re saying that they will, for all the power stations, they will use the water that is already allocated to power stations. As you said, Port Augusta doesn’t have a water allocation. But the rehabilitation of the mines is about water.

So to rehabilitate mines we are looking at, and the companies have already put in proposals and asked for water allocation. So the water allocation they use now to make power they want to use to fill the mines. When Alex says one Sydney Harbour, just to fill Hazelwood is about five Sydney Harbours. And they’re still filling that. Loy Yang’s a much bigger mine, much deeper.

It could be ten Sydney Harbours by the time we get to the year of, you know, closure. So where would the water come from? But more importantly, who would miss out? Our agriculture. Our farming. Our climate where it needs it. It’s just ridiculous. And then of course yes that, how do you clean the water afterwards to make sure that you can put it into the Gippsland Lakes, because right now they put water into the Gippsland Lakes.

So we need to make sure that all those little questions are answered. But water is basically an impossibility. 30% more than we use now for power production is needed for nuclear. And that’s not even if there’s an incident.

Mary Crooks AO: Wendy, you’re talking about risk, and I think that the debate about risk has gone missing, over the last few months as well. I mean, there was a little story last week running that, and Peter Dutton, dodged this question when he was asked, whether or not the plan builds in the cost of insurance to underwrite potential threats and remediation and so on. He dodged that question. But we did a little piece, published a piece the other week, by Nicky Fincham and Ally Oliver-Perham, looking at the cost of remediation so far with just two sites which have had disasters, catastrophic incidents. And that’s Chernobyl about 25 years ago and Fukushima, a decade ago. And the costs of remediation are running into hundreds of billions of dollars. There’s been a massive loss of agricultural land associated with both, and, of course, remediation, doesn’t fix the risk. It holds it. It holds it in abeyance. So the risk never actually goes, in terms of waste and so on.

Don’t you find it a bit bizarre, and I understand that the chances of a catastrophic accident like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, you know, they’re not remote. They’re not rare. But they’re not common. But I find it extraordinary that we could have something passing for debate about nuclear power and nuclear reactors in this country and not have some framework of risk being understood and built and developed. So a quick response from you, Wendy, and then I’d like to switch to Alex on this question.

Wendy Farmer: I think, you know, risk is we can never say never. Risk can be either a human doing something wrong. It could be someone that’s had a really bad day and goes, bugger it. Or it could be an external, you know, attack on a nuclear reactor. Like there’s a huge risk. And insurance companies won’t cover a risk from nuclear. So it’s a really big thing. Fukushima is nearly 14 years. Just a quick plug here, 11th of March is Nuclear Free day that we’re doing some rallies right across the country. 14 years that these people haven’t been able to return home. They were told to leave, they left. And those who are still alive have not been able to return home. 14 years.

Mary Crooks AO: And I think we’re talking about, a couple of hundred thousand people displaced. I did read somewhere that insurance operators in the United States, for example, are insuring against their reactors, but it’s about 500 million US per year as a premium. That’s about three quarters of a billion in Australian dollars. Alex, over to you. Around are we scaremongering to talk about risk or is it a serious consideration that we should be insisting on in the debate?

Alex Engel-Mallon: Look, I think they’re all serious concerns, and they are, there is an element of risk there. And if we posit the element of risk, all the risks that you’ve just mentioned and two that I’ll mention in a second. But even if you talk about all of those, in contrast to the alternative, which is the current pathway, you know, renewables in contrast are zero to low risk. So why would we risk nuclear when we have this alternative that is, you know, zero risk in comparison? So, I posit that for people to ponder. But yes, all very valid questions. And all, you know, based on historical experience, it’s understandable that communities have these concerns. That they have environmental, you know, there are environmental risks and concerns around uranium mining and impact. Those are all very valid things.

But the two things that I think are most important in this scenario in terms of risks. Australia has an energy security problem. All our coal fired power stations are due to close by 2038, before a single watt of nuclear energy from a nuclear reactor could enter Australia’s grid. So we need something to power our economy before that happens. And nuclear cannot provide that solution. So there’s a fundamental energy security risk there. And the answer to that is continuing on the path and rolling out renewables and solar as quickly as possible. As Wendy mentioned, we’re already 40% of the way there in our national energy market. 40% of the way there. We’re well on the way. Why would we stop that now for this technology that has all these unknown risks and unanswered questions? So energy security. And then, as I’ve touched on, and obviously the Climate Council thinks is paramount, we have a climate change problem. And an emissions risk from our energy sector.

So, science tells us we need to deal with that. We need to slash climate pollution from our energy system this decade. So we need an answer and a solution now. In the 2020s, not in the 2040s, which is when nuclear would enter our grid and be a solution. So we need an answer now.

So nuclear cannot meet either of those risks to our energy security or our climate problem. So, we don’t even need to discuss all these other risks because fundamentally it can’t be a solution to those two, very fundamental risks to our energy security, our economy, you know, and our natural environment, our kids future.

Mary Crooks AO: Thinking, before we take some questions, thinking generationally and, okay, this election in 2025, hasn’t been cast as a, you know, an election where we should be thinking about the generations to come. But in terms of taxpayers funds, in terms of risk and remediation, in terms of, a low risk move to renewables. Wendy, starting with you, what kind of future are you working for in the Latrobe Valley for the next generations? Around energy and around health and around protecting the land.

Wendy Farmer: Thank you. I think it’s really important that we actually look at what what we do now to what impacts over the next 78 years to our next generations. Health in coal communities, you know, has really been impacted over the last hundred years from coal. And I’ve lost several members because of, you know, the coal industry in my family. So I really, you know, health has to be at the focus of everything we do. Protecting families and protecting our kids from external exposure like nuclear and radiation.

There’s a reason, you know, pregnant females do not go in to have an X-ray because of the risk to not only mum but to the child. You know why we limit X-rays. Radiation is really dangerous. For everything we do, we must look at a bigger picture. And often I find in politics we’re not looking at a bigger picture. We look at that, we’re coming up to an election, and we have to say something. So, we actually had a pro-nuclear group here that said that they would not address climate change with nuclear for six years. We can’t wait that long. We need to do something now because it’s not just me that is impacted, it’s everybody that is impacted. It’s a people that can’t afford to do anything. I feel that they don’t have a voice, but together we can.

Mary Crooks AO: Thanks, Wendy. Alex, can I come to you on the economic costs? I know, you know, you’ve suggested that the nuclear plan or policy proposal from the Coalition might be a furphy in that once they got, if they won power, and don’t do anything much about it or push the timelines out or, you know, they hit obstacles along the way around legislation and so on. But let’s assume that if elected, they proceeded to try and implement this nuclear proposal. From a generational point of view, and leaving aside the risk to health and wellbeing at the moment, but from an economic cost, what kind of economic cost is being handed to the next generations?

Alex Engel-Mallon: Well, it’s an economic and it’s an environmental cost. You know, it’s literally the protection of our natural environment. The decisions that our leaders make this decade will determine, you know, the future that our next generation, our young people, our kids, what kind of future they experience. Not just how much they’re paying for their power bills or, how much they’re paying for their insurance premiums if they are able to get insurance. Depending on where they live.

But you know, what their experience is of these worsening weather extremes and natural disasters. What kind of environment that they’re living in and, what their quality of life is. So, you can couch that in economic terms. But for me, from our perspective, it’s about how do you put a price on that for the future? How do you put a price on building a safer future for your kids, which is what this is all about.

Let’s not beat about the bush, though. Going nuclear means Aussies would pay more for less. You’ve got our independent science agencies, CSIRO, as I mentioned. They have found that building solar and wind, backed by storage is the lowest cost way to meet our energy needs. And it also meets our climate pollution reduction needs. So, unlike renewables, the cost of building nuclear reactors is prohibitively high in Australia. You know, that’s just the reality. I mean, we’ve certainly found that the cost if you want to actually put a dollar figure on it, the scheme, as it’s currently proposed, would cost up to $490 billion more than what’s been estimated, because it would add that 1 billion plus tons of climate pollution into our system.

You know, we’re burning more coal and gas for longer while we’re waiting for nuclear reactors to be built and come online. Just to again reiterate to the audience. Climate Council has used, CSIRO said it would take a minimum of 15 years to build. But, you know, many in this audience might be familiar with Clare Savage, you know, who’s the Chairwoman of our energy regulator and very experienced, long standing professional, was actually a proponent of nuclear energy for Australia in the 2000. You know, as I said, a very experienced regulator. She has said that even just to change all the laws in the legislative framework, it would take up to 20 plus years, 20 to 25 years. Just to change the laws, let alone the build time that the CSIRO has factored in.

So we’re working on a 15 to 20 year timeline, but we know that that’s actually a vast underestimate as well. So, you know, back to the original point of, is this a real policy? Is there any real intention to ever build new nuclear reactors in Australia? Highly unlikely. This is all about slowing down our renewables transition. It’s about, you know, ramping up climate pollution in Australia over the next decades. And that will fundamentally have a cost for us, for our generations and our, you know, our kids and our future generations in Australia and globally.

Mary Crooks AO: So in that sense, back to one of the earlier questions I put, Alex, about whether this is masking intentionally or unintentionally. I mean maybe this is for all sorts of reasons, Dutton’s plan is to actually prolong the climate wars in this country. The climate war that has been fought reasonably successfully in some quarters, for about 15 years.

Alex Engel-Mallon: Look, it’s already been successful. From Peter Dutton’s perspective, he’s been able to unite his party room. You know, the Liberal and the National parties have had a long standing disagreement. You know, one side, you’ve got people that are still denying climate change is real, that are still wanting to open more coal mines. And then on your other flank, you’ve got people that are strong believers in climate change that see the economic rationale for getting in early, slashing climate pollution now, transitioning our economy.

So he’s dealing with these two polar sides. And this strategy was a way to unite them and it has done so. So, and it also has, you know, us here today, talking about nuclear energy when we could, in fact, be talking about some of the very real challenges with the current rollout of renewables backed by storage.

And let’s not pretend there aren’t any challenges. Of course there are challenges. We were ten years delayed starting a process. We should have started, you know, 15, 20 years ago with this. But we didn’t because of the Liberal National parties’, political factional war that prevented action, real action and progress from taking place. We’ve seen some action in the last parliamentary term of government because Australians voted for it.

You know, we now have legislated targets, we have policies in place and investment money on the table that have started that transition. And we’ve made progress. We’re 40% of the way there in our national energy market, we’re back on track. We’re still nowhere near where the science tells us we need to be in terms of reducing climate pollution.

Climate Council released a plan last year, Seize the Decade, that said that we could get to 75% reduction by 2030 or a net zero by 2035. We had an informed plan to get there. Now we’re not near that yet, but we’re on track and we need to stay on track. And this policy is just, you know, potentially preventing that, and reversing and undermining that progress that is being made today.

Wendy Farmer: Can I just add to that because I think a couple of things that, you know, what we’re missing is, with all this cost Australia can’t afford nuclear as in cost wise. And who misses out? Does our education system miss out? Does our hospitals miss out? If we were to pursue nuclear, the money has to come from somewhere. Do our roads miss out? But more importantly, you know, those education and hospitals. So I think we really need to start considering that bigger picture. The other thing is who is behind the politicians wanting nuclear? And I did listen to something which was very good about who is behind that and where the money is coming from because we’re seeing a lot of anti-renewable petition as well. And there’s a whole web of who is behind the nuclear anti-renewable story.

Mary Crooks AO: And Wendy, I rather suspect if you’d taken a straw poll at the gathering of international conservatives in London last week, and the one in the USA where Elon Musk paraded with a chainsaw. I suspect in that straw poll that there would be a large contingent of supporters for the nuclear industry and extending the life of fossil fuels.

I’d like us to focus, with the few minutes that we’ve got left, on what we can be doing between now and I think election day. This is a big issue. It goes to the heart of what we’re going to do as a country around energy policy and continuing on with renewables and or disrupting that or holding that back in some way. There’s a lot at stake. Even if we’re being played for suckers, there’s a lot at stake.

Wendy, I’d like to start with you, and I guess I’d be really urging listeners today and we’ll put the link up. It’s absolutely crucial that I think people take nine minutes of their time and have a look on ABC iview at the little documentary film that was made about you and your role in starting up, Voices of the Valley and the success that your communities had. For example, even in having the review come out about the health impacts after the Hazelwood fire, when there was denial at first and you pushed and pushed and pushed and you achieved that significant victory. So, After the Smoke, it’s called. And I just think that it’s a clarion call for how ordinary folk all around the country, in regional communities and in the suburbs, can actually start to look at what they’re going to do over the next 6 to 8 weeks around this issue of nuclear energy.

So let’s start with you, Wendy. What are you going to do in the run up to the federal election on this issue of nuclear power?

Wendy Farmer: To start with, we will be loud and clear that nuclear is not an option for Australia. We are asking people to think about how they vote. Dutton has said that this, you know, will be a referendum on whether we want nuclear. What’s really interesting is our local campaigns are not talking about nuclear, although I know on the other side of Victoria, their leaflets are talking about nuclear, which is really interesting. Don’t talk about nuclear in the region that is actually, where we’re doing this to.

So think about who we vote for. But support someone good. You know, I’m really into the independent side of let’s change our political system. We’ve seen those donations to politics. But get involved. Don’t ignore what is happening because together we make the change. Okay. And I really believe that people together, community people make the change. As we work across Australia, we make the change that’s needed. We can’t be quiet. Often we think that we can’t do anything, but we can all do something.

Mary Crooks AO: Thanks, Wendy. Strength to your arm. Alex, as Director of Advocacy for the Climate Council, we can expect you to be doing a lot of work in the next 6 to 8 weeks on this front. But apart from with your professional hat on, what are you going to be doing as an individual away from the Climate Council?

Alex Engel-Mallon: It’s a good question. Unfortunately, my job takes up most of my time, as well as my two young kids. So, look, I think I’ll be following my own advice that we give to our supporters. You know, I think one of the most powerful things that we can do, is talk about our passion and how we’re going to use our vote, to vote for parties and candidates that, you know, are supporting policy on climate action that we want to see, and supporting the future that we want to see for our kids, our nieces, our nephews, our grandkids.

I think some of the powerful things that local people can do, and myself included, is a lot of people have turned away from traditional media nowadays. And the people that they do listen to and trust are in closed Facebook groups and closed WhatsApp chat groups with your families and friends. And families and friends trust your opinions, as you know, more than they trust media and certainly more than they trust our political leaders. So I encourage you to share good information in those places that may influence the way people are thinking about, you know, what policies they want to support coming up to the election.

Sharing good information is is definitely a number one. The other thing is, I am not talking too much about nuclear to my networks. Particularly if people haven’t heard about it before. Sometimes raising, we’ve found certainly in our own research, that raising and discussing nuclear can sometimes just entrench people’s thoughts or views that were pro-nuclear in the first place.

So something that I’m encouraging, we’re certainly encouraging our supporters to do, is to talk about the positive story. Most Australians don’t know that we’re already 40% of the way there with renewables backed by storage. Most Australians might be aware but might not be aware of the scale that 4 million Australian households already have solar panels on their roofs. That’s a huge amount of progress. They’re saving $3 billion a year on electricity bills already from those solar panels. Our energy market operator, an independent, trusted, source of information is telling us that this pathway of large scale renewables backed by solar and wind, and backed by storage, can provide power 24/7 to our economy, with peaking gas, in the short term.

So, we can keep accelerating this progress. Telling that story of momentum and progress will encourage people, to to understand that we’re already on track. We’re already on the way there and we just need to keep going.

Mary Crooks AO: Alex, I have a quick question that’s just come into my mind. To your mind, has Peter Dutton committed the Coalition to staying with the Paris Accord? I mean, Donald Trump, one of the first executive orders he issued was to withdraw from the Paris accord. I do recall Peter Dutton describing Albanese as wanting to be a Parisian, which would suggest a contemptuous take on our membership of the Paris Accord. Has the opposition leader made a commitment to stay with the Paris Accord or not?

Alex Engel-Mallon: Look, he’s been very opaque on his discussion of targets and commitments. But again, referring to the Climate Change Authority’s advice yesterday on emissions modeling, we know that under their current nuclear scheme or plan, the climate pollution emissions that would, you know, the trajectory under that plan would not hit our 2030 or our 2035 targets under Paris. So if you don’t hit those, your you’re out of Paris automatically. So, whilst he might be making positive noises about reaching 2050 targets and staying in Paris because that serves a political purpose for some of his audiences.

For example, in the, you know, a lot of the independent seats that they lost to teals where there’s a very pro-climate constituency. Trying to appease them on one hand, but on the other hand, the facts and evidence point to the fact that they can’t possibly meet the targets under the Paris Accord. So therefore it would be a huge question about whether we could stay in Paris. Unless the Coalition changed their policy platform from its current position.

Mary Crooks AO: Thanks for that. Look, we are out of time. Ally and Rachael have been posting links for people on the site. Let me just close by saying in terms of the, you know, there are a series of defining issues before us in this next election. Energy (renewables and nuclear power) is one of those defining issues. And, I think, you know, having watched that little documentary I mentioned, After the Smoke, I want to quote, Wendy in that little film. She talks about wanting to work for a better future for our kids. And the way we do that is because people stood up.

So that’s our message. This issue of energy policy is something we need to make a stand on, as people concerned for the current generations and the ones to come. Wendy and Alex, thank you heaps for agreeing to join today’s webinar, the first for the year.

And, strength to your bows in terms of the work you’re doing, Alex, with you with the Climate Council. And Wendy with your work in your local community. Two incredibly inspiring panelists, and I thank you a lot. And thanks to Ally and Rachael for doing the technical side of hosting the webinar. Stay tuned to the next ones from the Women’s Trust. And travel safely and we’ll.

Ends