A responsible leader: Peter Dutton delivers the 2024 Sir Robert Menzies Lecture
Sir Robert Menzies was future-focused, but also practical. There are important lessons we take from that Menzian mind-set.
I’m truly honoured to have been asked to deliver this year’s Sir Robert Menzies Lecture.
Tonight, in the wonderful tradition of this annual lecture, I pay homage to our Party’s founder, our longest serving prime minister, and one of our greatest citizens – Sir Robert Menzies.
In February last year, I had the pleasure to launch The Young Menzies – the first of four dedicated publications from the Robert Menzies Institute.
In Scott Prasser’s ninth chapter, he touches on one of Menzies’ most admirable traits which made him successful.
Menzies was a learner.
He learnt from his mistakes and disappointing first term as prime minister.
He showed an ‘ability to keep on learning throughout his long second term’ as prime minister from both his successes and shortfalls.
Prasser says that Menzies learnt not to over promise – to travel light instead of with a suitcase full of commitments.
Menzies learnt to govern as a responsible leader – not a leader on a crusade.
And Menzies learnt to set a broad-based agenda – one which was future-focused, but practical and achievable.
I believe learning and listening are two hallmarks of leadership.
\\
In my 22 years in Parliament, I’ve listened to, and learnt from, seven different Prime Ministers and nine different Leaders of the Opposition – regardless of their political stripes.
No one more so than John Howard.
His leadership brought about a Golden Age for our nation.
Stable government.
Responsible economic management.
Policies grounded in principle and pragmatism which nurtured productivity and prosperity.
An eagerness to engage in the battle of ideas.
And a desire to put the national interest first.
There are lessons I’ve taken too from when the Coalition went into Opposition in 2007 and tore itself apart through infighting.
Commendably, we are a very different Opposition today compared to back then.
I’m proud to lead a more united team than we’ve seen on either side of politics in recent history.
In addition to a great camaraderie within the Coalition, there is a strong sense of purpose.
We’re working hard to develop policies which we will unveil to the Australian people ahead of the next election.
We will have policies of consequence which offer Australians a clear choice at the polls.
\\
One of those policies concerns Australia’s energy security – the topic I will speak on tonight.
Specifically, why Australia needs to become a latest generation nuclear-powered nation.
In March 1962, Prime Minister Menzies opened two new buildings at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor.
In his speech, Menzies said:
‘There will come a time as the population of this country increases, as new resources are uncovered in remote parts of this country, when nuclear power will become as much the servant of peaceful enterprise as thermal power, or hydro-electric power.’
Menzies added: ‘The day will come when we will have nuclear powered ships sailing into our harbours.’
The prescient Menzies saw nuclear power as ‘an instrument of human development’ and as ‘a new source of advantage for the human race’.
For a Prime Minister looking to Australia’s future as a nuclear-powered nation, Menzies notably said: ‘… there will be many blind walls of ignorance to get through.’
I would contend that the bigger walls we need to break through today are the walls of ideology.
The Albanese Government is doubling down on its ‘renewables only’ energy policy.
\\
Its ‘all-eggs-in-one basket’ approach is proving disastrous for our nation.
The problem with an ideological approach to energy is that it obstructs objectivity, restrains reason, and curtails critical thinking.
‘Renewables only’ proponents see renewables as a panacea.
They dismiss and disparage alternative energy sources, especially nuclear, despite indisputable evidence of the prominence and success of zero-emissions nuclear power.
And most notably, they refuse to recognise the limitations of renewables.
Indeed, this inability to acknowledge the shortcomings of renewables has taken hold in other countries resulting in catastrophic energy policies.
And now, we’re making the same mistake in Australia.
Let me be clear:
The Coalition is not anti-renewables.
On the contrary.
We recognise that renewables – especially rooftop solar – have an important role to play in our future energy grid as part of a mix of complementary technologies.
We see renewables and nuclear as companions – not competitors.
But unlike ‘renewables only’ proponents, we’re willing to acknowledge the constraints of renewables.
We understand the sheer recklessness of a ‘renewables only’ energy policy.
Now, there are three energy goals we need to achieve as a nation – the ‘Three C’s’.
We need cheaper power.
We need consistent power.
And we need to move towards cleaner power – because we all want a better environment for our children and theirs in turn.
Only by becoming a latest generation nuclear-powered nation can we meet our three energy goals.
Part of my vision for our country is to have energy security which will underpin our economic output.
Manufacturing won’t survive in our country if energy is rationed. And that’s exactly what is happening on some grids today.
The Australian people want a reasonable debate in our national interest when it comes to energy policy.
They understand that our energy security and economic prosperity are interconnected.
In making the case for nuclear power, it’s first necessary to reiterate the various problems of a ‘renewables only’ policy.
First and foremost, the ‘renewables only’ policy is an engineering feat of pure fantasy.
Some 22,000 solar panels need to be installed every day through to 2030 – that’s 58 million solar panels by the end of this decade.
Some 40 wind turbines need to be built every month through to 2030 – that’s almost 3,500 wind turbines by the end of this decade.
Additionally, some 28,000 kilometres of new transmission poles and wires will need to be put up by 2050 – that’s the equivalent of almost the entire coastline of mainland Australia.
There is zero chance of this roll-out being completed.
In fact, it is already behind schedule.
Reaching the Government’s target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030 requires signed and sealed financial commitments for 5 gigawatts of renewables per year.
The Clean Energy Council’s reporting notes that committed projects for 2023 accounted for only 1.3 gigawatts – 3.7 gigawatts short of the target.
The ‘renewables only’ policy is also astronomically expensive.
At a conservative estimate, the transition cost will be $1.3 trillion.
That figure has been cited by experts, including engineer Dr David Hayden Collins.
In a recent Net Zero Australia study, Dr Chris Greig of Princeton University put the figure at $1.5 trillion by 2030.
If you think energy is expensive now, wait until these transition costs are passed onto consumers and start appearing in your power bills.
Last week, the CEO of Alinta Energy – Jeff Dimery – stated candidly that ‘the transition is getting harder, not easier.’
He admitted, ‘Australians will have to pay more for energy in the future… And, I don’t think the average Australian is prepared for that reality’.
The ‘renewables only’ policy is also environmentally damaging.
In the Hunter and Illawarra regions, residents continue to call out the impacts of offshore wind turbines to their fishing and tourism industries and local wildlife.
Last October, hundreds of people from Newcastle and Port Stephens gathered in protest against these 260-metre-tall wind turbines which have blades with a span similar to an A-380 aircraft.
In February, farmers flocked to Canberra to rally against the carpeting of Australia’s prime agricultural land with solar and wind farms.
There is clearly a deep-seated community aversion to many large-scale renewable projects.
A recent report by the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner found that 92 per cent of people were dissatisfied with community engagement for renewables projects.
The ‘renewables only’ policy is also not lowering our emissions – contrary to what many people think.
After years of emissions reduction under the Coalition, Australia’s emissions increased by more than 4 million tonnes in 2022-23.
Former US Climate Envoy, John Kerry, wisely acknowledged:
‘We can’t get to net zero 2050 unless we have a pot, a mixture, of energy approaches in the new energy economy. And one of those elements which is essential in all the modelling I’ve seen, is nuclear.’
The ‘renewables only’ policy is also making our energy grid more unreliable.
The Government is turning off the old reliable system before the new system is built.
Some 90 per cent of baseload power will exit the system by 2034.
Already, Australians are being asked to ramp-down their energy use in the afternoons so there isn’t overloading on the network.
Former AGL Chief Executive, Michael Fraser, has warned that the rush to take coal and gas out of the system without back-up could see a return of 1970s rolling blackouts.
The ‘renewables only’ policy is also making energy more expensive.
During the Albanese Government’s term, regulated electricity prices have increased by up to 38 per cent in some regions.
Household gas costs have gone up by 26 per cent nationally.
The Government promised a $275 reduction to your power bills – but annual bills for homes are set to be up to $752 more than when Labor formed government.
Businesses are paying thousands-of-dollars more each year.
A recent CSIRO survey of 6,700 Australians found that 82 per cent ranked energy affordability in their top three priorities.
That is why 60 per cent of respondents also said they were against a fast transition to renewables and preferred a moderate or slow-paced move away from fossil fuels.
Australians know that the cost-of-running a home, a business, a farm, or a factory has gone through the roof because of the Government’s ‘renewables only’ approach.
Indeed, the ‘renewables only’ policy is already inflicting national economic self-harm.
More than 14,500 businesses around the country have gone insolvent since the 1st of July 2022.
News headlines have been filled with examples of production facilities closing, being on the verge of collapse, or moving offshore.
Recent examples include alumina production, nickel mining and plastic manufacturing.
These sectors cite excessive energy costs as a primary reason why they have become uncompetitive.
Paul Farrow, the National Secretary of The Australian Workers’ Union, has rightly said, ‘Australia cannot sustain, let alone grow, its heavy industry sector on renewables alone.’
Indeed, there is a direct link between affordable and reliable energy and our national productivity.
Revealingly, our national productivity has fallen by 5.4 per cent during this Government’s tenure.
Naive activists may cheer when industries move offshore.
But the reality is we will have to import commodities and products from overseas at a much higher price.
And there will be far more emissions from producing these commodities and products abroad than would have been the case under our clean industry practices.
In short, there is no net benefit to the environment.
Lastly, the ‘renewables only’ policy is grounded in fantasy instead of fact.
When the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, renewables produce weak and intermittent flows of energy.
The latest battery technologies – like AGL’s Torrens Island Battery that cost $180 million – last for only about 2 hours.
These are not controversial or partisan statements.
They are simply scientific facts.
A ‘renewables only’ policy makes us utterly dependent on the whims of the weather.
Whatever percentage of renewables are in the system – be it 25, 50 or 82 per cent – they need to be firmed-up.
To suggest otherwise is to indulge a childish game of make-believe.
An overreliance on renewables without 24/7 baseload power hasn’t worked anywhere in the world.
We must heed the ruinous experiences of California and Germany.
A ‘renewables only’ approach won’t work in Australia.
\\
Ladies and gentlemen, under a ‘renewables only’ approach, the national outlook is dire.
There is no credible pathway to net zero emissions by 2050.
There is only more expensive power and more unreliable power which bakes in harm to the economy, to sovereign industry, and to manufacturing jobs.
We need to transition to a new energy system in a responsible way which is in the best interest of our nation.
Nuclear is the only proven technology which emits zero emissions, which provides 24/7 affordable baseload power, and which can firm-up renewables.
In other words, nuclear power is the only credible pathway to achieving our national goals of cheaper, consistent and cleaner power.
Let me outline the primary reasons why nuclear power must be part of our energy mix.
First and foremost, nuclear power works – testimony to it being used widely around the world.
More than 30 countries use zero emission nuclear power today.
Some 50 countries are exploring or investing in next-generation nuclear technology for the very first time.
During COP28 last December, more than 20 countries from four continents pledged their intent to triple their nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
President Emmanuel Macron is leading France’s nuclear ‘renaissance’.
He says that nuclear power will guarantee France’s energy independence, guarantee its electricity supply, and help it reach carbon neutrality in 2050.
Macron can’t believe that ‘certain countries have made the extreme choice of turning their back on nuclear energy.’
Even the far from conservative-leaning Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is spruiking nuclear.
He says Canada is ‘very, very, very serious about’ nuclear power and investing in small modular reactors.
Bizarrely, Australia is the only country in the top 20 economies which hasn’t embraced domestic nuclear power or is taking steps to do so.
And yet, our country is blessed with a market advantage for nuclear power.
We hold the largest deposits of uranium on the planet – one third of the world’s reserves.
The World Nuclear Association says that uranium demand for reactors is expected to climb by 28 per cent by 2030, and nearly double by 2040.
At present, Australia only supplies about 10 per cent of the global uranium demand.
So there is an enormous opportunity for us to export more uranium and become energy self-reliant.
We are also not starting a nuclear industry from scratch.
ANSTO – our nuclear research organisation – can be traced back to 1952.
The Lucas Heights nuclear reactor started operating in 1958.
And we’ve been engaged in radiation safety since the early 20th century with ARPANSA being our nuclear safety regulator since 1999.
Nuclear safety and stewardship are cornerstones of Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS – for which there is bipartisan support.
Oddly, while the Government is willing to have floating nuclear reactors moored at naval bases, it’s against having reactors on our soil.
I simply pose the question: why is the technology which is safe for our submariners unsafe for our citizens?
If a government is willing to support nuclear-powered submarines, then objections to a civil nuclear industry on the grounds of safety are illogical.
In a submission to a nuclear power Inquiry in 2019, ANSTO wrote:
‘Nuclear power is a safe technology, outperforming other established electricity generation technologies in human health outcomes.’
Professor Stephen Wilson of the University of Queensland has pointed out that ‘major accidents have been extremely rare.’
Many Australians would be surprised to learn that there are more than 400 reactors operating worldwide today.
The cars people drive off the showroom floor today are superior and safer to those they drove off the showroom floor in the 1980s.
It’s the same for the latest nuclear technologies today which are superior and safer compared to those produced decades ago.
Under AUKUS, the Government has also committed to disposing of the nuclear-powered submarines’ waste and their end-of-life reactors in Australia.
Again, any argument made to suggest Australia couldn’t dispose of waste from a civil nuclear industry defies logic.
It’s also important to appreciate that we’re talking about miniscule amounts of waste.
The waste from a large nuclear power plant per year is about three cubic metres – the equivalent of a full skip bin.
Compare that to vast volumes of landfill which will come from the unrecyclable parts of millions of solar panels and thousands of wind turbines.
Most importantly, nuclear power will provide Australians with cheaper electricity.
Ontario province in Canada has about 60 per cent nuclear power in its energy mix.
South Korea has about 30 per cent nuclear power in its energy mix.
Canadians in Ontario pay 16 cents Australian a kilowatt hour.
South Koreans pay 18 cents Australian a kilowatt hour.
Averaging the electricity costs for all Australian states and territories, we pay about 31 cents a kilowatt hour.
In other words, Australians pay almost double what residents in Ontario and South Korea pay.
And soon, some Australians could be paying triple the cost with our regulated electricity prices soaring for many households and businesses up to 56 cents a kilowatt hour.
Consider this too:
The United Kingdom’s energy mix is fast approaching 50 per cent renewables.
The Brits are paying about 52 cents Australian a kilowatt hour – close to double what Australians currently pay.
On our own soil, South Australians pay a whopping 45 cents a kilowatt hour.
Former ACTU President, Jennie George, wisely asked:
‘Why is it that South Australia, with the largest penetration of renewables, has the highest costs of power?’
What is clear is that where renewables are overbuilt, prices soar.
Whereas with 24/7 baseload power in the mix – like non-weather dependent nuclear – prices are cheaper.
UK based company, Rolls-Royce, will build all of Australia’s reactors for our nuclear-powered submarines.
In March, I met with executives from its nuclear power plant division to discuss their development of a small modular reactor.
The Rolls-Royce SMR is one option the Coalition is looking at.
Unlike solar panels and wind turbines which have a lifespan of 20 to 30 years, the Rolls-Royce SMR has a lifespan of 60 years.
One 470 megawatt Rolls-Royce SMR delivers the same output as 4,000 hectares of solar panels.
Herein lies a core principle of our nuclear power approach:
We want to maximise the highest yield of energy per square metre and minimise our environmental footprint.
As Bill Gates has noted, ‘the amount of energy coming out of a very small plant is gigantic.’
With nuclear power, we don’t need to ‘re-wire’ the nation as Labor would have us do under its ‘renewables only’ approach.
We can avoid the exorbitant cost and environmental damage which comes from building a vast archipelago of industrial-scale solar and wind farms connected by thousands of kilometres of transmission lines.
Take another example – the larger Westinghouse AP1000 reactor.
This latest-generation nuclear power plant is in full commercial operation.
It provides a 1-gigawatt output – more than double the Rolls-Royce SMR.
In terms of footprints, the Rolls-Royce SMR takes up about 2 hectares of land and would fit on the site of the MCG.
The Westinghouse AP1000 takes up about 9 hectares – a little larger than the Parliament House building in Canberra.
Australian coal fired plants can take up about 30 hectares – about the size of Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens.
Having entered the field of nuclear-powered nations, Poland has signed contracts to commence developing three Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.
And not just for energy security and decarbonisation purposes.
According to a PwC report published in March, the economic benefits are considerable.
During a plant’s 60 years of operating, it would support thousands of full-time-equivalent jobs and contribute billions-of-dollars annually to Poland’s economy.
Our aim is to put new nuclear technologies on- or near- the brownfield sites of decommissioned or retiring coal-fired power plants.
And we will have more to say on this shortly.
In a coal-to-nuclear transition, we use the existing distribution network in a ‘plug-and-play’ manner.
In the current renewables roll-out, the public’s concerns have been too often dismissed.
We want to engage with the community for hosting new nuclear technologies.
There are many incentives we can offer communities:
Cheaper electricity.
Higher paid jobs for coal workers moving into the nuclear sector.
And more jobs and infrastructure given that nuclear-hosting communities will attract heavy industry.
Reassuringly, support for new nuclear technologies is growing.
Newspoll has found that 55 per cent of all Australians support them, as well as 65 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds.
A recent RedBridge poll showed 52 per cent of Australians support nuclear power compared to 22 per cent who oppose it.
An increasing number of Australians also recognise that there is zero chance of reaching net zero without zero-emission nuclear power.
They realise that the only pathway to cheaper, consistent and cleaner power is by including nuclear power as part of the energy mix.
Australians also appreciate that we’re living in precarious times.
Conflicts continue in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Tensions are high in our own region.
Energy security has never been more interconnected with national security.
Right now, we need to be promoting greater ‘friend-shoring’ and energy self-reliance.
But the Albanese Government is doing the exact opposite in its ‘renewables only’ approach.
We are becoming more energy insecure and dependent on high-risk markets to source renewables.
Energy security is a primary reason why Australia must adopt new nuclear technologies as part of the energy mix.
If there was ever a time to consider nuclear energy, the time is now.
The work taking place in Defence on AUKUS can complement the development of a civil nuclear power industry.
A growing chorus of respected experts is calling for a sensible debate on new nuclear technologies, including:
Former Productivity Commission Chair, Gary Banks;
Former CEO of ANSTO, Adi Paterson;
Former Snowy Hydro chief executive, Paul Broad;
President of the Australian Nuclear Association, Dr Joanne Lackenby;
And University of Queensland’s Professors, Geoff Bongers and Stephen Wilson.
Peter Malinauskas – a principled Premier – has said that the ideological opposition to nuclear power is ‘ill-founded’.
I commend his calls for a pragmatic debate on the viability of nuclear power.
\\
Ladies and gentlemen, as I said at the outset, Sir Robert Menzies was future-focused, but also practical.
And there are important lessons we take from that Menzian mind-set.
Australia can’t switch on nuclear power tomorrow – even if the ban was lifted.
Most countries are increasing their gas supplies to ensure affordable and reliable energy and to help transition their economies to new energy systems.
A returned Coalition Government will do the same.
We will ramp-up domestic gas production and support ventures across the nation.
But I believe we can- and must- become a latest generation nuclear-powered nation.
A nation with cheaper and consistent energy for all.
A nation which can reduce emissions in a responsible way which doesn’t destroy our economy.
A nation where industries and business not only remain on our soil, but thrive.
And a nation where we shore up our energy security in a more precarious world.
This evening, I hope to have illuminated two energy paths ahead:
The path that we’re on – which is leading us to national ruin.
And the Coalition’s path that we must take – which is a visionary nation-building endeavour, providing energy security for our nation.
The Coalition I lead will continue to illuminate these paths for the Australian people because so much is at stake for our nation at the next election.
This is an edited extract of the 2024 Sir Roberts Menzies Lecture Trust delivered by Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton in Melbourne.