Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Assistant Minister for the Public Service
GREG JENNETT, HOST: Well to cover off the government's first day of parliamentary debate on atomic energy, as well as some other news of the day, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister Patrick Gorman joins us now. Patrick, welcome back to the programme. Why don't we kick off on nuclear. You were there in the parliamentary session we broadcast excerpts from. Going to start by asking if Labor sees the Coalition's policy as 'manna from heaven' to really take them on, why then do 41% of respondents in the Resolve Strategic poll have an open mind, or perhaps even a supportive attitude to nuclear power? How do you reconcile that?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER AND ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE: I did see that research and some of what people were saying, what you also saw in that was that the strongest support was for renewables. That quote showed very clearly the strongest support was for renewables like solar and wind. People are happy to argue this on the economics, and I'm happy to argue this on the economics. And that's the reality that people might say, 'look, politicians can have the debate,' but they'd expect that when politicians start a debate like this, as Mr Dutton has done, that they would follow through with facts. Now, what we saw from Mr Dutton, and we saw this referred to in Question Time, was that he started a debate on Wednesday, and by Saturday he was resorting to these weird personal attacks.
JENNETT: Calling the Prime Minister 'a child in a man's body' at a Liberal Federal Council meeting, I assume is your reference there. Let's talk about cost, then, because we do have the absence of figures from the Coalition. But Labor's happy to confirm from the most recent AEMO Integrated Systems Plan that the entire cost of the journey through to 2050 is $121 billion. If the Coalition can come in with a number cheaper than that, then that becomes harder to argue against, doesn't it?
GORMAN: When it comes to the costings, what we've got is we've already got our plans for what we are doing right now. Putting more energy into the grid, a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the grid since we came to office, all of that's in the Budget that's already there. We've been really open, really transparent. And we're not telling people that there is a zero cost option, which is part of what Mr. Dutton is trying to do by refusing to release his costings. And when it comes to costings, when I think about what's happening in my home state, with the $3 billion investment in adding to our energy transmission network, again, in the Budget, all out there for people to see. Now I don't know, we've seen figures up to $600 billion for the nuclear plan that Mr. Dutton has put forward, and I know that that's just one of a range of questions that people have.
JENNETT: It is very difficult to ground this discussion between you and me around a potential figure that I was just sort of trying to draw you out. If they happen to land it below 121, it becomes a little bit harder to argue.
GORMAN: I'll tell you what; I was in Collie on Friday, Collie is the town where Mr. Dutton wants to put a reactor in Western Australia. They're already worried about - not what it's going to cost - I mean, they are concerned about that - they want to know, 'what are we going to lose?' They've got magnesium projects, grade steel projects, graphite projects, all in the works as we go through this big transition to net zero. They're concerned about what's going to happen to house prices, what's going to happen to their tourism industry. So it's not just about what does the taxpayer have to shell out, it's also about what opportunities do these communities miss out on for Mr. Dutton's nuclear future?
JENNETT: Sure. Well, their argument is that industry will grow around the sites like Collie as a magnet to industrial growth. You're not buying that obviously.
GORMAN: That's because of all the secrecy. If I think about it, David Littleproud came over to Western Australia last week, he didn't come to Collie, he just hung out in Perth. Which I thought was odd for someone who often attacks those of us for not going out to the regions. He himself didn't go out to the regions. But he said something really interesting. He said this on the ABC Perth Radio, he said they've done the geological surveys for all of the seven sites. Now, I know that if you've done those surveys, and you've already got them, maybe the costings are still to come, they're still working on that. But if you've got the geological surveys, put them out there. And if they're not releasing them, I mean that tells me a lot.
JENNETT: Yeah, I think we might have put that question to David Littleproud last week. Let's just move on, one around safety. You were witness to a few questions there directed at Richard Marles today. He says you cannot compare nuclear from sea-based AUKUS submarines, Virginia class submarines, with an onshore civil reactor. When it comes to disposing of the waste, can you explain why they are so radically different? I mean, to many of us who aren't scientists it seems to me there's still uranium atoms knocking against each other in a very volatile fashion. Why are they incomparable?
GORMAN: First, there's obviously a question of scale as Richard Marles outlined in Question Time today. You're talking about reactors that only need to power one nuclear submarine. The second is that the nature of those reactors is that they are sealed reactors, and it's only the end of the life of that reactor and the submarine that you then dispose of the waste. And again, I think people know very simply, there is a difference between a submarine and a civil nuclear reactor. We know that and again, at least when it comes to the nuclear technology there, that's technology that is already being used. That's really clear, out in the open. When it comes to these small modular reactors that Mr. Dutton is talking about - they are still a prototype technology, not actually something you can go and get off the shelf.
JENNETT: Yep, fair point. All right. Now, let's move on to Matt Kean and his appointment as Chair of the Climate Change Authority; was he vetted for the quality and consistency of his advice before his selection?
GORMAN: Of course, for all appointments we go through a thorough process. You'd expect that and that's really clearly outlined and how we do appointments and Government processes -
JENNETT: - Did anyone ask what his previous attitudes were? And maybe his current ones, to nuclear power? Because there are some quotes on the record? I'm sure you'd be aware of them?
GORMAN: Firstly of course, when it comes to Cabinet appointment processes, I'm not at liberty to discuss those. I think the question the Australian people have to ask themselves is, 'do we want to never have someone who's had previous experience in a parliamentary or executive setting to make a further contribution?' Because, of course, there are things that Matt Kean has said that I disagree with, but I'm pretty relaxed about that. But, do I think he's got something still to contribute to the nation? Do I think he can help us on this big nation-building journey of getting to net zero by 2050? Yeah, I think he can. I think he's got something great to contribute. And on these questions of energy and climate, he is incredibly knowledgeable. I want him chairing that group of experts and professionals at the Climate Change Authority. So we get the best advice, because ultimately, that's how you get the best decisions.
JENNETT: You're obviously fully satisfied he's not going to turn around and advise nuclear is the way to go. Correct?
GORMAN: The role is to provide advice on some of the industry and sectoral plans as we get to net zero. I think he will do that job as is outlined in the legislation. And also, he's had a range of things to say about this in the past and more recently, recognising that actually, having looked at it closely as a treasurer, he recognises the economics don't stack up.
JENNETT: Alright, well, that's that appointment. Let's go to something that you were involved with in the House today. Patrick Gorman, you tabled the bill that will set the pay for the Governor-General for the next five years that's Sam Mostyn, of course. Now I suppose most of us would say we'd happily do the job for half the pay, but the sum payable to the next Governor General goes from just under $500,000 to just over $700,000. Why the 40% increase?
GORMAN: Yeah, so the amount that was legislated for David Hurley was reduced as a result of the fact that he was in receipt of a Commonwealth military pension. So it was not appropriate, and, indeed, if you look at the second reading speech when the bill was last amended in 2019, it outlines why his salary was not set at the full comparator. The comparator your viewers should know we use is the Chief Justice of the High Court. I think people would accept that, yeah, the Governor-General and the Chief Justice of the High Court; two incredibly important roles in our constitutional democracy. Of course, that's a reasonable comparison.
JENNETT: There's still a bit of estimation here, though, we're really you're trying to take a shot on inflation and other unknowns out through five years? Why is it not possible to be conservative now and adjust later?
GORMAN: The reason that we do that is because of the requirements of section three of the Constitution. Section three of the Constitution requires that the Parliament set the salary for the Governor General. So I take that responsibility seriously, and I hope every parliamentarian in the House and the Senate takes it seriously this week, as well.
JENNETT: You're pretty confident it will sail through the Parliament?
GORMAN: Well, I don't talk about things 'sailing through.' But I talk about people taking their constitutional obligations seriously. And I hope that all members and senators take their constitutional obligations seriously. And the second thing is the Constitution says that we can't amend it once it's been set. So, we can't amend it during the term of office, which is traditionally five years. So the legislation that I've introduced is to amend the bill to go back to that normal comparator which is to the Chief Justice of the High Court. It is a large amount, I recognise that when we're talking about the senior roles, people will have their views but I've just thought to follow tradition to follow convention and to follow the Constitution.
JENNETT: Thanks for laying that out clearly for us, Patrick Gorman. We will have you back with us again before too long.
