0:02

A listener production. Hi,

0:09

Sasha Barbigat with you for this episode

0:11

of The Briefing. Should Australia

0:13

go nuclear? That is the

0:15

question everyone's asking after Opposition

0:18

Leader Peter Dutton finally revealed

0:20

his plan for a nuclear-powered

0:22

Australia, which in his vision

0:24

will include seven nuclear power

0:26

stations across the country. Today

0:29

we announce seven locations that

0:31

we have looked at in great detail over a

0:34

long period of time that

0:36

can host new nuclear sites

0:38

and it will mean that

0:41

on those end-of-life coal-fired power

0:43

station sites we

0:45

can utilise the existing distribution network.

0:48

Dutton says we need nuclear power to

0:50

secure cheap, reliable, 24-7 energy. That

0:53

doesn't depend on the sun shining or

0:55

the wind blowing. The government has described

0:58

the plan as, quote, the dumbest policy

1:00

ever put forward by a major party.

1:03

So, who is right? Well, we're speaking

1:05

with one of Australia's top energy experts

1:07

to break down what it all means

1:09

and to get his verdict. That is

1:11

in the second half of this episode.

1:13

First, Katrina Blowers is here with the

1:15

day's top stories. It's Thursday, the 20th

1:18

of June. Hey,

1:21

guys, we have some news on

1:23

the gender pay gap to begin.

1:25

Fresh analysis has revealed women working

1:27

in the public sector are

1:29

taking home around $19,000 less than their male

1:31

counterparts. So,

1:34

this is the first lot of data released

1:37

by the government's workplace gender equality agency and

1:39

it covers 116 Commonwealth

1:42

public sector agencies, including the

1:44

ABC, the Electoral Commission, the

1:46

Federal Police, the ATO and

1:48

the NDIS. This report

1:50

has found the gender pay gap is sitting at

1:52

13.5%. The

1:55

average female public servant earning just over 121

1:57

grand a year. the

2:00

average mail is taking home $140,000. It

2:04

is a smaller gap though than the private

2:06

sector, which is currently sitting at 21.7%. So

2:11

Sasha, these revelations follow tough

2:13

new rules introduced by the

2:16

Albanese government last year that

2:18

required mandatory reporting of company

2:20

and public service remuneration data.

2:23

So that's how we've got to find out

2:25

all about what people are really getting paid.

2:28

Yeah, and it's interesting, the

2:30

Workplace Gender Equality Agency was also

2:32

included in this data, so they

2:34

are self-reporting as well. And look,

2:37

the big discussion, I think, the

2:39

talking points that are coming out

2:41

of this data and

2:43

the WGEA Chief Executive Mary Wooldridge

2:45

said it herself is around paid

2:47

parental leave and who is taking

2:50

the leave. Men accounted

2:52

for only 11% of all paid

2:54

primary parental leave taken in the

2:56

public sector. And that's compared to

2:58

14% in private,

3:00

so it is behind. But the

3:03

numbers are fairly comparable, I think,

3:05

when you look at the bigger

3:07

picture. And so that is what

3:09

is contributing to this gender pay

3:11

gap. And the Albanese government has

3:14

been trying to encourage more

3:18

men to take leave as well. And

3:20

so there are changes to the paid

3:22

parental leave scheme that are currently under

3:24

a phased approach. So right now you

3:27

can take, there's 20 weeks paid parental

3:29

leave for either parent, whoever

3:31

is the primary carer. And

3:33

by 2026, that's actually

3:35

gonna increase to six months paid

3:38

leave. And I think the intention

3:40

there is that there's more sharing

3:42

and therefore, if women are wanting

3:44

to get back into the office

3:46

sooner, they can. And

3:49

we also heard from the Public

3:51

Service Minister, Katie Gallagher, who said

3:53

that the public sector should be setting

3:55

the standard for promoting gender equality. But

3:57

right now, at least- when it comes

4:00

to paid parental leave. It's sitting behind

4:02

the public sector, so a lot more

4:04

work to do. Russian

4:07

President Vladimir Putin's first visit to North

4:09

Korea in 24 years has

4:11

resulted in a partnership agreement for

4:14

mutual aid if either nation is

4:16

attacked. So we've got some

4:18

translated audio thanks to the Daily Mail. Here's

4:20

what Vladimir Putin had to say after the

4:22

signing. Russia

4:25

and North Korea have been linked by

4:27

strong friendship and close neighbourly relations for

4:29

many decades. We

4:31

highly appreciate your consistent and unchanging

4:33

support of the Russian policies, including

4:35

in the Ukrainian direction, meaning our

4:37

fight against the imperialist, hegemonic policies

4:39

of the US and its satellites

4:41

against the Russian Federation. Interesting. Here's

4:44

the translation of Kim Jong-un. The

4:46

relationship between our two countries is

4:48

at the highest point, even incomparable

4:50

to relations between the DPRK and

4:52

Soviet Union. And I think the

4:54

Comrade President's visit to Pyongyang will

4:56

provide an opportunity to solidify the

4:58

foundation of the fiery friendship between

5:00

our people. Yeah, fiery friendship. Interesting

5:02

wording, Katrina. Look, there's been speculation

5:04

that these talks are really necessary

5:06

for Russia right now because it's

5:08

in serious need of arms to

5:10

continue its war against Ukraine. And

5:13

in exchange, Moscow could offer economic

5:15

support and tech advances to Pyongyang,

5:18

in particular for North Korea's nuclear

5:20

weapons and missile program. Interestingly, though,

5:23

not too many details have been

5:26

revealed about what's actually in this

5:28

deal, but it's been labelled a

5:30

comprehensive strategic partnership. And

5:32

Kim has said that it's the strongest-ever treaty

5:35

between Russia and North Korea. Yeah, what I

5:37

found very interesting, because you

5:39

know you hardly ever get to see

5:41

anything about what's happening in

5:43

North Korea, is the pomp and

5:46

the pageantry of all the

5:48

ceremonies, which we saw lining

5:50

the streets. It was like something

5:53

out of a Disneyland parade. Also,

5:56

kind of this weird

5:58

bromance involving... luxury cars

6:01

between Putin and Kim

6:03

Jong Un. Putin has now given Kim

6:06

Jong Un two of these AORUS cars,

6:08

which are the Russian presidential vehicles. He

6:11

gave him another one yesterday. They're worth

6:13

about a million bucks. And in this

6:15

really weird kind of moment,

6:18

they took turns in driving it down

6:21

the street. It

6:23

is, of course, illegal to

6:25

have luxury foreign vehicles for

6:27

Kim Jong Un to own

6:29

them. He also had

6:31

a Mercedes on display, which he's not

6:33

supposed to have because the UN Security

6:35

Council resolutions ban the export of luxury

6:38

goods to North Korea. So it's like,

6:40

how did you get that one in

6:42

as well? But yeah,

6:44

seeing them both taking turns like

6:46

teenage boys driving a luxury car

6:48

down the street was a moment

6:51

for me. Yeah, I get

6:53

the comparison to teenage boys. An

6:55

interesting meeting for sure. Shoppers

6:59

are getting their groceries 25 percent

7:02

cheaper at Aldi compared to the

7:04

big supermarkets, according to new research

7:06

by choice. The consumer group has

7:08

compared shopping baskets filled with what

7:10

they think are 14 common items.

7:12

So these are things like apples,

7:14

bread, flour, tinned tomatoes, cheese and

7:16

milk. They're trying to replicate what

7:18

most people buy at the supermarket

7:20

each week. And it found the

7:22

average cost at Aldi was fifty

7:24

one dollars fifty. If you

7:27

buy that at Woolies, it was sixty eight

7:29

dollars fifty eight. The basket at

7:31

Coles cost sixty nine dollars and

7:33

thirty three cents. Well, overall, people

7:35

in Tassie and the Northern Territory

7:37

are paying more overall for their

7:39

groceries than any other state. It

7:41

could be because they're the only

7:43

two that don't have Aldi stores.

7:45

Coles and Woolies are currently under

7:47

scrutiny amid allegations of price gouging,

7:50

short changing producers and being anti

7:52

competitive. Interesting to see where this

7:54

will go, Sasha. The

7:56

major supermarkets, of course, Katrina have repeatedly

7:59

defended their business. business practices, they're

8:01

blaming the rising cost of groceries

8:03

on things like price increases that

8:06

have been imposed by major global

8:08

food brands, as well as general

8:10

inflationary pressures that we're seeing across

8:12

the economy. And

8:14

as we mentioned at the top of the

8:16

show, Peter Dutton has revealed the next phase

8:19

of the coalition's nuclear plan and we wanted

8:21

to hear what you, our listeners, think about

8:23

it. We did ask for

8:25

responses in our broadcast channel on Instagram. It's called

8:27

Behind the Briefing. Go check it out if you

8:29

haven't already and join us there. And

8:32

I wanted to go through some of the responses that

8:34

have come through and I've got to say, Katrina,

8:37

overwhelmingly negative from

8:39

the listeners who responded to this

8:41

question. One particular

8:43

point from a listener named Jane, she

8:45

said, it's a no from me, especially

8:47

when it's flagged for Gippsland. And I

8:49

think that might be the issue we're

8:51

going to see here. The coalition did

8:53

do surveys in proposed sites. They didn't

8:55

release the results but said they were

8:58

overwhelmingly positive. But we don't know

9:01

by what percentage people

9:03

in these areas were actually going, yeah, yeah,

9:05

build a nuclear reactor in my backyard. I

9:07

don't mind. So it was great to hear

9:09

from Jane saying that I'm assuming she lives

9:12

in the Gippsland region in Victoria. And

9:14

she said, no way. I don't want it anywhere near

9:16

my house. We heard from Cassandra as well. She said,

9:18

a big fat no. And it's

9:20

taking the conversation away from what our primary target

9:23

is. Jevon Wiggin replied, where

9:25

and how will nuclear waste be

9:27

stored? Another really great question. Saltwater

9:29

Ecology says, no nuclear thanks

9:31

and also brings up the point that the

9:34

waste still has to go somewhere. And

9:36

Joseph Liam says, it's a smokescreen

9:39

for delaying progress on the energy

9:41

transition. Interesting to

9:43

see, too, given that most of

9:46

the state leaders have said, yeah,

9:48

nah, don't really want this either,

9:50

particularly in Queensland, where two reactors

9:53

are proposed to be built, both

9:56

the labor leader up here in

9:58

Queensland and the The LNP opposition

10:00

leader have said no pass.

10:03

Yeah, it's super interesting to see

10:05

that that's another hurdle that Peter

10:08

Dutton, the coalition will have to clear if they do

10:10

get voted in and they do progress with this plan.

10:13

And the premiers, like you said, have just kind of joined

10:15

together and said, no, we don't want it. Look,

10:18

there is a lot of chatter and it's

10:20

hard to wade through it all. So we

10:22

thought we'd go directly to an expert to

10:25

find out what their verdict is on Peter

10:27

Dutton's nuclear plan. So Katrina, thank you so

10:29

much for being here for the headlines. We've

10:31

got that chart next. Nuclear

10:42

power is shaping up as a major

10:45

issue in Australian politics ahead of the

10:47

upcoming federal election. Yesterday,

10:49

coalition leader Peter Dutton went

10:52

nuclear, gambling his political career

10:54

on it, announcing seven

10:56

sites for nuclear power stations

10:58

across New South Wales, Victoria,

11:01

South Australia and Queensland. He

11:04

argues that we need nuclear power

11:06

for cheaper, cleaner, more reliable, publicly

11:08

owned electricity that keeps the lights

11:10

on when the sun doesn't shine

11:13

and the wind doesn't blow. He

11:15

claims the first of these power stations can be

11:18

up and running by 2035, but the finer details,

11:21

including the price tag, remain

11:24

elusive. That up and

11:26

running by 2035 claim and

11:28

his argument that nuclear power is

11:30

cheaper put him at odds

11:33

with the CSIRO. Australia's

11:35

National Science Agency reported last month that

11:37

it would take at least 15 years

11:40

to get just one of these nuclear power

11:42

plants open and be about

11:44

double the cost of renewables like

11:47

solar and wind. But

11:49

lots of countries overseas use nuclear

11:51

power and as Australia moves away

11:53

from fossil fuels, some experts say

11:55

nuclear could be a useful part

11:58

of the reliable energy. energy mix

12:00

into the future. Ian

12:02

Lowe is emeritus professor at

12:04

Griffith University's School of Environment

12:06

and Science. Ian, thanks so

12:09

much for joining us on the briefing.

12:11

What was your reaction to Peter Dutton's

12:13

announcement? Well, if he really thinks

12:15

that you could build a nuclear power station and

12:17

have it running in 10 years in Australia, I

12:19

want to know what he's smoking and where I

12:21

can get some. It's

12:23

completely at odds with any

12:26

reality, both politically, legally,

12:28

environmentally and physically. It just

12:30

makes no sense at all.

12:32

You mentioned legally there. What's

12:34

the legal situation? The legal

12:36

situation is that the coalition

12:38

government under John Howard 25

12:40

years ago legislated

12:43

a prohibition of nuclear power.

12:46

So it is currently not

12:48

legal to propose to

12:50

build or operate a nuclear power

12:53

station anywhere in Australia under Commonwealth

12:55

law. Several

12:57

states also have legislation

12:59

which prohibits nuclear power.

13:02

No state government has come forward and

13:04

said that they embraced the idea. In

13:07

fact, Dutton's own LNP colleagues in

13:09

Queensland facing a state election later

13:11

this year have made

13:13

very quick to disown the proposal and say

13:16

that they're not interested in having nuclear

13:18

power in Queensland. So

13:20

the legal problem is that it's

13:22

currently not legal anywhere in Australia

13:24

to build and operate a nuclear

13:26

power station. It's not legal

13:28

in most of the states where Mr

13:30

Dutton proposes to build a nuclear power

13:33

station. And I can't think of any

13:36

feasible way of changing those

13:38

laws on any realistic

13:40

time scale. To change the Commonwealth law you

13:42

would need a majority in both houses of

13:45

Parliament. And I don't think even the

13:47

most optimistic coalition voter thinks they're

13:50

likely to achieve that at

13:52

the next election. And

13:54

you would also have to persuade

13:57

state governments in at least

13:59

one state to be the first

14:02

to change the law and

14:04

allow a nuclear reactor to be built

14:06

in their state. And I can't see

14:08

that happening since every state government has

14:10

rushed to say that they're not interested

14:13

in the idea. But the next federal

14:15

election could be next year. That's a

14:17

long time in politics. Ten years is

14:19

certainly a long time in politics. Let's

14:21

just say for argument's sake that the

14:24

coalition wins in a landslide. They get

14:26

both houses of parliament. And as Peter

14:28

Dutton has said, if you

14:30

face a premier with a bucket of money,

14:32

it's hard to get between them. Let's say

14:35

it can happen. Could nuclear

14:37

power bring down energy prices

14:39

in Australia? There's absolutely

14:41

no prospect of that happening

14:43

because it's not just that

14:46

CSIRO have shown that for

14:48

Australia. The experience around the

14:50

world is that for

14:53

the last full year for which prices

14:55

are available, the average price of electricity

14:57

from solar farms was three point seven

14:59

cents a kilowatt hour from wind turbines

15:02

four point one from nuclear reactors 16.

15:05

So it's not a bit more expensive.

15:07

It's four times as expensive. And

15:10

what CSIRO showed is that even

15:12

when you add in the storage that

15:14

you need to provide what the industry

15:16

calls firm capacity, either

15:18

as large batteries or pump cargo

15:20

storage, and you add in

15:22

the cost of connecting the solar farms

15:24

and wind turbines to the grid, the

15:27

price of the electricity from them is

15:29

still between a third and a half

15:31

of the optimistic industry view

15:33

of what electricity from

15:35

a nuclear power station would cost. The

15:38

industry figures that CSIRO use

15:41

shows nuclear as being about

15:43

three times the price of

15:45

solar or wind. And the

15:48

realistic observation from recent construction is

15:50

that it's basically taken about twice

15:52

the budget actually to build a

15:54

nuclear power station. The final point

15:56

is one of time. It's not

15:59

just CSIRO. but the report

16:01

commissioned by the Howard government, chaired by

16:03

the head of the Australian Nuclear Science

16:05

and Technology Organisation, said it would probably

16:08

take 15 years to build

16:10

one nuclear power station. And

16:12

one nuclear power station would only

16:14

provide about 10% of our electricity

16:16

needs. It's really a recipe for

16:18

inaction at a time when

16:20

climate change really demands urgent action. We

16:23

are obviously in this transition

16:25

into a more

16:28

renewables, heavy energy sector

16:30

in Australia. If not

16:32

nuclear, what do you do about

16:34

the fact that sometimes the sun

16:36

doesn't shine, sometimes the wind doesn't

16:38

blow? What is the reliable power

16:41

that we rely on then? Well,

16:43

there are two options for storage,

16:45

either large batteries or

16:47

pumped hydro storage. The

16:49

Weather or Labor government in South

16:51

Australia was criticised for building a

16:54

big battery, but when they

16:56

were replaced by the Marshall Liberal government,

16:58

they read the takeaway sums and joined

17:00

up writing, and they commissioned an even

17:03

bigger battery, because the big battery in

17:05

South Australia paid for itself in a

17:07

few months. Storage makes sense

17:09

because it allows you to use solar

17:11

energy after the sun goes down, or

17:14

wind energy when the wind isn't blowing.

17:16

It's clear that renewables plus

17:19

storage can provide firm capacity

17:22

and do so at a much

17:24

lower price and much

17:26

fewer environmental risks than building

17:29

nuclear power stations. Isn't

17:31

it true now though that nuclear

17:33

power is much more safe

17:36

than it was 30 years ago, that

17:40

a Chernobyl type situation is much

17:42

more unlikely than it ever was?

17:45

Well, Chernobyl was a bad

17:47

Russian design, and the operations

17:49

that led to the explosion were

17:51

so bad that they could almost

17:53

be described as sabotage. But

17:56

Fukushima, the Japanese accident,

17:58

was using mods. technology

18:01

and the safety systems were simply

18:03

overwhelmed by a tsunami. The

18:06

problem is that while

18:08

nuclear power stations are comparatively

18:10

safe and when operating

18:12

well have fewer environmental impacts

18:14

than certainly than burning coal

18:16

or burning gas, when

18:19

there are accidents they're potentially very

18:21

bad. But the safety record I

18:23

think is a minor one compared

18:25

with the fact that it would

18:27

just take too long to

18:29

build enough nuclear power to play

18:31

a responsible part. Remember the

18:33

coalition government signed up to

18:35

the Paris Agreement and

18:38

we are committed not just to

18:40

achieve 43% reduction

18:42

in emissions by 2030 but

18:46

we're committed to ratchet up our

18:48

reductions after that and

18:51

going down the route of replacing coal

18:53

with nuclear power would take decades so

18:55

we would be in no position to

18:58

meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement

19:00

to reduce our emissions in the

19:02

2030s. Our emissions

19:04

would actually increase in the 2040s

19:06

because we would still be burning coal but

19:09

we would also be using fossil

19:11

fuel energy to build the nuclear

19:13

power stations. What about

19:15

the communities in

19:17

coal fire power station

19:20

areas? Wouldn't nuclear

19:22

power mean a lot of jobs

19:24

for those communities and also for

19:26

the building and manufacturing sectors? Well

19:29

building a nuclear power station would

19:32

create jobs but so would building solar

19:34

farms and building wind turbines. I think

19:36

it is important if we're phasing out

19:38

coal to do what they did in

19:40

Germany which is to have policies

19:43

that amount to a just transition.

19:45

In Germany they had generous retirement

19:47

packages for older workers in the

19:49

coal industry. They had proper retraining

19:51

packages for younger workers to equip

19:53

them for the jobs in renewable

19:55

energy and they strategically

19:58

located the renewable energy. generators,

20:00

the solar and wind, in the regions

20:02

that were losing jobs by the closing

20:04

down of coal mines and coal-fired power

20:07

stations. And that's not rocket science,

20:09

it's just good policy to recognise

20:11

that if you're closing out jobs

20:13

in the coal industry, you have

20:15

to replace them with jobs in

20:17

the renewable energy industry, and it

20:19

makes sense to preferentially locate those

20:21

jobs in the regions where coal

20:23

is being phased out. If

20:25

we do go nuclear, what

20:28

do we have to do with

20:30

the waste? Is it feasible for

20:32

us to have nuclear power stations

20:34

in those seven locations? What

20:36

we would have to do is develop

20:38

a strategy for managing radioactive waste, and

20:40

so far we've been comprehensively hopeless at

20:43

that. The Commonwealth Government has

20:45

made three attempts to find a

20:47

site to store permanently

20:49

the so-called low-level radioactive

20:51

waste, which is the

20:53

lightly contaminated lab

20:55

coats and medical

20:58

equipment that's been used

21:00

for radioactive diagnoses and

21:02

treatment. And that's

21:04

comparatively benign. If it's under three

21:06

metres of Earth, the radiation levels

21:08

at the surface are not significantly

21:10

worse than background. But so far,

21:12

I haven't found any community

21:15

willing to host the low-level

21:17

radioactive waste. So it

21:19

would be a huge political problem

21:21

to find somewhere to store the

21:24

so-called high-level waste from nuclear reactors,

21:26

because that needs to be

21:28

isolated from the biosphere for tens

21:31

of thousands of years. And

21:33

that's a serious technical problem. It's

21:36

also a serious social problem, because

21:38

you're talking about waste that's dangerous

21:40

for much longer than any human

21:42

civilisation has ever endured. So

21:44

we would have to find a way of storing the

21:47

waste that ensures that

21:49

no future generation thinks of the something

21:51

precious here that we need to find

21:53

in the same way as Europeans went

21:56

into the pyramids, thinking if

21:58

there were structures that big, there must be

22:00

something precious in there. That is a huge

22:02

challenge and it's a challenge that nobody has

22:04

yet successfully solved anywhere around

22:07

the world 60 years

22:09

after we started generating nuclear

22:11

electricity. Mason Do you think

22:13

that an average Australian's perception

22:15

of nuclear power has changed

22:17

quite a bit? Obviously, Peter

22:20

Dutton has thrown his political

22:23

career on this subject. They must

22:25

have some kind of indication that

22:27

there's a constituency for nuclear power

22:29

in Australia. Peter I don't know

22:31

if they think that. I think

22:33

they realise that it's no longer

22:35

politic to deny climate change and

22:38

say out loud that we want to keep burning

22:40

coal. If you don't say that

22:42

but say we want to replace coal with

22:44

nuclear, that is actually saying we want to

22:46

keep burning coal for another 25 years

22:49

because that's how long it would take

22:51

to build enough nuclear power stations. So

22:53

I think it's partly pandering to the

22:55

group that are still in denial about

22:57

climate change and it's also reassuring people

22:59

in the coal industry that we're not

23:01

going to phase their industry out. We're

23:03

going to keep burning coal for decades.

23:06

But given the cost that we

23:08

are already paying for climate

23:11

change in terms of disasters

23:13

like floods and extreme bushfire

23:15

events, really the

23:18

responsible way to go is to

23:20

be part of the global move

23:22

away from burning fossil fuels. And

23:25

really that demands investing in renewables with

23:27

storage and doing that as a matter

23:29

of urgency. Well, Ian Lowe, thanks so

23:31

much for joining us on the briefing.

23:33

Been a pleasure talking to you. Ian

23:36

Lowe there. That's it for the briefing this

23:38

morning. We'll be back in your feed

23:40

from 3pm. If you found this

23:42

episode useful, please share it with 100 of

23:44

your closest friends. And

23:47

did you know that you can watch

23:50

many of our interviews on YouTube? Just

23:52

search Listener Newsroom. That's L-I-S-T-N-R Newsroom and

23:54

hit that subscribe button. You can also

23:56

follow us on our Instagram. We'll be

23:59

back next week. Bye. Instagram page, search

24:01

the briefing podcast. I'm Ben

24:03

Sion Seibert. Catch you soon.